and was justified in the spirit,' etc." These statements and arguments are fully adopted by Professor Porter.

Now, respecting what may properly be called facts relating both to the Coptic and other languages specified, we have reason to believe that Archbishop Laurence is correct, since it has required little knowledge of these languages to verify his statements by the appropriate grammars and lexicons; but we think that his conclusions are much broader than his premises will warrant. With respect to the Coptic and Sahidic, the relative is undoubtedly in the masculine, but as the antecedents denoting the word "mystery" in those versions, and in the Philoxenian Syriac, are also masculine, it is obvious, that it cannot be decided whether the translators read ős or %. The masculine Coptic, Sahidic, or Syriac relative may have been used merely to agree with its antecedent, whatever was the reading of the Greek. But when Archbishop Laurence says that the Coptic and Sahidic most probably read %, he makes an inference or assertion for which he has assigned no reason, and for which we can perceive none. We think, therefore, that the correct statement is, that the Coptic, Sahidic, and Philoxenian Syriac may have read either ös or ő. We suppose that Griesbach was led to his partial error by following the authority of Wilkins, an Episcopal clergyman, who translated the whole Coptic New Testament in 1716, and whose translation of the verse is as follows: "Et manifeste magnum est mysterium pietatis; qui apparuerat in carne, justificatus est in spiritu," etc.

For

Archbishop Laurence also misleads his readers, (without doubt unintentionally,) when he says, in connection with his preceding remarks and without explanation, that "Professor White correctly translates the passage 'mysterium pietatis, quod manifestatum est in carne.'" Professor White expressly states, in his note, that the Syriac relative, both in the text and the margin, answers as well to the Greek relative os as to o, and might equally be rendered "qui manifestatus est," or "quod manifestatum est," and that he uses "quod" in the text of his translation, merely that it might agree in gender with its Latin antecedent, "mysterium."

With respect to the Archbishop's assertion, that the Peshito, the Erpenian Arabic, and the Ethiopic do not

1850.] Archbishop Laurence's opinions controverted. 37

indifferently read ős, but indisputably %, it appears to us that all which his argument proves is, that os cannot have been understood by the translators in the sense of "he who," etc., referring to what follows, and not to tò μvotýpiov as its antecedent. But he has not attempted to show that they may not have regarded ős, if they so read it, as a relative referring to rò μvoτýptov, as a personal designation of Christ. If they had so understood the word rò puoτýpiov, and had also read as in their manuscripts, what reason can be given why they should not have translated it as they have done. All admit that the Syriac relative which is used in this verse is, like the Hebrew or, and the Chaldee" or, of all genders, and that, in its simple as well as in its compound state, it refers to a preceding noun even of an oblique case.*

Now, that the translators may have understood rò μvoτýpov as a personal designation of Christ, is evident from the fact, that all the Latin, and some of the Greek fathers so understood it. And to those who so understood it, the reading is would be regarded as good Greek,† referring to To μvorηpiov as its antecedent. "Cum personam circumlocutione significant Græci, quam citissime ad ipsam personam revertuntur." A similar idiom had occurred in Gal. iv. 19, τεκνία μου, οὓς πάλιν ὠδίνω, and according to the most probable reading in John vi. 9, waιdápiov . . . . ὃς ἔχει, and in Rev. xiii. 14, τῷ θηρίῳ, ὃς ἔχει. In Bruder's excellent Concordance of the New Testament may be seen more than a dozen instances of the same idiom, exclusive of those in which the gender of the relative conforms to that of the following noun by attraction. Professor Porter, also, when undertaking to show how the reading ős may have arisen from ő, observes, "The Greek transcribers, understanding Tò μvoτýpiov as a personal designation of Christ, and being accustomed to find neuter nouns, when used as designations of persons, followed by masculine relatives, easily adopted the same idiom here."

Whether the Latins, Greeks, or Syrians were right or wrong in regarding Tò μvorηpov as a personal designation of Christ, is a question which has no effect on the argument, and need not be discussed here. It is sufficient that

* See Hoffmann's Grammar, p. 325, or the Syriac version of Gen. i. 21, ii. 8. + See Winer's Grammar, § 21. 1; Matthiae, § 434. 1. 6. VOL. XLVIII. 4TH S. VOL. XIII. NO. I. 4

they may have held this opinion. For if they did, they may have translated ős, if they found it in their manuscripts, as they have done, by a relative which stands for all genders. It appears, then, that Dr. Laurence is wrong in saying that they indisputably read in their manuscripts; and that Griesbach is right in his assertion that they may have read ős or ő. The arguments from extrinsic considerations, such as the class of Greek manuscripts to which the Oriental versions are akin, and from which they were probably translated, etc., do not belong to the question of the correctness of Griesbach's statement, and are not alluded to by Archbishop Laurence or by Griesbach.

Another instance in which we think Professor Porter to be incorrect, partly in matter of opinion and partly in matter of fact, occurs in relation to the reading of the valuable manuscript G, i. e. the Codex Boernerianus, in the verse under consideration. Griesbach states, that this manuscript reads ős. Upon which Professor Porter, after remarking that os is a reading a secunda manu, the original reading having been %, observes, "-" In this codex the alteration is betrayed, not merely by the fresh color of the ink, and by the word 'quod' placed immediately above the altered word, but by the difference in the size of the letters, for the corrector, not having room for a full-sized C,† has stuck a small one up in the corner between the O and the letter Є which follows, thus, O°. Dr. Griesbach could hardly fail to be aware of this, yet he quotes G without any remark, as supporting the reading ős, not 8. The Codex F [which reads os] was copied from G, after it had thus been altered."

Now if the fac-simile of this celebrated text given by Matthæi in his New Testament, Vol. I. p. 487, be correct, of which we cannot entertain much doubt, there are several important errors in the preceding statement. 1. The C is no smaller than the other letters in the line, which do not begin a word. 2. There is nothing peculiar in the position of the C; it is not stuck up more than other letters in the specimen. In fact the preceding O does not extend so far below the C as the other letters which begin a line. 3. Instead of a lack of space, there is room enough between ős and épavepάon for two more C's of the

* Page 483.

†The ancient form of Σ.

1850.]

The Codex Boernerianus.

39

same size. 4. If the C be taken away, there would be a wider space between ős and pavepwon than that between any other two words in the fac-simile of Matthæi. As to the position of "quod," above the word, there is nothing peculiar in it when compared with other words in the fac-simile which are placed over the Greek words of which they are a translation. In regard to its being "quod," in the neuter, Professor Porter is aware that the same word is used in the manuscript F, which reads ős, and which no one pretends to have been altered by a later hand. As to his assertion, that the manuscript F was copied from G, after it was altered, it seems to us to have been made highly probable by Hug, and almost demonstrated by Tischendorf,† that G could not have been copied from F, but rather that both were copied from a more ancient manuscript.

The only person whom we know to have formed the opinion that as was altered from % in the Codex Boernerianus from personal examination, is Le Clerc, a passage from whose letter Professor Porter quotes. But Le Clerc has not assigned any reason for his opinion. Bengel, as quoted by Matthæi in his note on the text, expresses the same opinion with Le Clerc, but gives no reason for it. It was probably borrowed from Le Clerc. Now, as Kuster, who was acquainted with the letter of Le Clerc in which he speaks of the manuscript, it being found in Kuster's edition of Mill's New Testament, gives os as the reading of manuscript G without comment, as Wetstein does the same, and also Matthæi, in his printed edition of the manuscript four years after his edition of the New Testament, it is probable that Griesbach believed Le Clerc to have been in error, and that the reading ős was a prima manu. And if Matthæi has given a correct fac-simile of the manuscript, and if F and G were probably copied from a previous manuscript, there can be little doubt that Griesbach was correct. Tischendorf, who thoroughly collated manuscript F, makes the same statement with Griesbach. We know not where Professor Porter received his information respecting the color of the ink, the position and smallness of the letter C, etc., in the verse. But it is certain that his informant, and the fac-simile of Matthæi, cannot both be right.

*See Hug's Introduction to N. T., p. 172. Nov. Testam., p. lxx., 2d. edit.

As we have intimated before, however, we believe the inadvertences of Professor Porter's work to be comparatively few, when we consider the infinity of particulars of which it is composed. We have been reluctant to mention those which have occurred to us, lest they should produce an unfavorable impression in respect to the value and trustworthiness of the work. Such is far from being our impression on the whole. On the contrary, we think that the book deserves to be used in our theological schools, and to have a place in the library of every clergyman.

G. R. N.

ART. III. RECENT ENGLISH LYRICS.*

We do not claim for either of the authors, whose names appear in the titles quoted below, what microscopical criticism is pleased to denominate "the great gifts of poesy." They are not known in select circles as wise seers, whose time has been studiously occupied in shedding elaborate immortality either on violets or virtue. Occasionally they may have "hung a jewel in a cowslip's ear," but they are not particularly known as excelling in that department of decorative industry. They recognize the silent sunshine of the Sabbath day, and are familiar with the music of the ever-going stars, but they have been content to sing of the human heart, its joys and its sorrows. Some of them have not always chosen their motto in unison with that engraved upon the Venetian sun-dial, "Horas non numero nisi serenas," - but they have oftener recorded the darker side of life's experience, and habitually with great beauty and power.

*1. The Poetical Sketch Book. BY THOMAS K. HERVEY. New Edition. London: Edward Bull. 16mo. pp. 286. 2. Poems and Songs. By ALLAN CUNNINGHAM. With an Introduction, Glossary, and Notes, by PETER CUNNINGHAM. London: John Murray. 16mo. pp. 151.

Author of "The Mind,"

3. English Melodies. By CHARLES SWAIN. "Dramatic Chapters," and other Poems. London: Longman & Co. 16mo. pp. 304.

4. The Poetical Works of HENRY ALFORD. London: F. & J. Rivington. 2 vols. 16mo.

5. Poems. By WILLIAM C. BENNETT. (Unpublished.)