in the recollection of such departed worth I feel a satisfaction in paying this feeble tribute to the recollection of a friendship which has lasted to the close of life, and which I trust will be renewed in that eternal world where friends meet never to part.

SIR,

I WROTE my short rez, as, "pot John xxi. 15, (pp. 287, 288,) not as a biblical scholar, which I am not, but from a simple consideration of the Greek in itself considered; and I do not know that I have any thing farther to say which would deserve the attention of your correspondent, except it be to remark, that if the Evangelist intended the emphasis to fall upon the pronoun, he ought to have written Eus, in order to prevent ambiguity. If the writers of the New Testament were not very nice as to the distinction between the enclitic and the emphatic form of the pronoun, yet they did not, I apprehend, neglect this distinction so as to render their meaning obscure and uncertain. In our Evau gelist we read, si o nooμos ipas pure, γινώσκετε ότι εμε πρωτον ύμων μεμισηκε. This is as it ought to be; though here the sense could not have been mistaken, even had the enclitic been employed. The Greek, however, would have been at variance with the writer's meaning, as the proper interpretation of his words would have been, "know that it hated me before you hated me." And I cannot help concluding, that when he wrote αγαπᾷς με πλειον TETOV; his meaning was, "Lovest thou me more than these love me?" E. COGAN.

OBSERVE that Sir James Mack

first assertor of Liberty of Conscience in England, without restriction and on its true grounds, yet remains to be settled. For years I have been making inquiries and collections in order to its solution, but at present I confess myself unable to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. The claims of individuals to the high distinction,

Above all Greek, above all Roman fame, can be determined only by a comparison of dates. There are several names for whom the honour is as serted, viz. Milton, Owen, Roger Williams, and John Goodwin; to whom perhaps may be added John Hales and Jeremiah White. But there is a sect of whom little is known who professed the principle of Liberty of Conscience in its purity, I refer to the Levellers, the admirable exposition of whose system is contained in your VIth Vol. pp. 23-28 and 88-92. Even before these and before the time of the eminent writers just specified, there were publications feeling their way to the glorious object, some of them written by men derided as mystics and fanatics. The speech in Parliament in the time of Henry VIII., recorded in your XIth Vol. pp. 698-700, would seem to shew that the true notion of freedom of conscience and the Reformation were nearly coeval. Some of your correspondents, learned in theology, and especially in pamphlet-history, may perhaps assist the inquiries of

CANTABRIGIENSIS.

Quarterly Review on Bishop of St. David's Vindication of \ John v. 7. ̧ IN our first number for the present (pp. inserted

IN

night in the House of Commons, introductory to his happily successful motion, pledging the House to take the criminal law into consideration, with a view to its mitigation and amendment, termed our great Milton, on occasion of a quotation from him, the first Defender of a Free Press and an unfettered conscience. Admiring and revering as I do the immortal bard, the matchless champion of true liberty, I am anxious to learn how far the above appellation is historically correct. The question, who was the

correspondent, a review of Bishop Burgess's new publication on behalf of the Three Witnesses' text. We rejoice to see that the bishop's tract has been examined and discussed in periodical works that circulate amongst Trinitarians, and especially in The Christian Remembrancer and the Quarterly Review. The critique in this latter journal is by the hand of a master. It agrees generally with the argument of our own reviewer, and it clears up in a decisive manner the difficulty as to Walafrid Strabo. This part of

ment.

It is now time to consider the positive evidence brought forward by the Bishop of St. David's, in favour of the verse, during his second period.

"There can hardly be à doubt," observes the Bishop, "that the seventh verse was extant in Greek in the copies of Walafrid Strabo; and none at all of its existence in the time of the wri ter of the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles. Walafrid Strabo, who lived in the ninth century, wrote a comment on the verse and on the Prologue to the Epistles. He could not, there fore, be ignorant either of the defects, which the author of the Prologue im putes to the Latin copies of his day, or of the integrity of the Greek, as asserted by him; and he directs his readers to correct the errors of the Latin by the Greek."

These observations on the testimony of Walafrid Strabo are founded, we believe, on a statement of Arch deacon Travis, in his letters to Mr. Gibbon; to which statement we must request our readers' attention. The subject is curious, and we have hopes of throwing some light upon it.

"The Glossa Ordinaria," says the Archdeacon," the work of Walafrid Strabo, was composed in the ninth century. This performance has been distinguished by the highest approba tion of the learned, in every age since its appearance in the world. Even M. Simon confesses that no comment on the Scriptures is of equal authority with this exposition. In this work the text in question is not only found in the Epistle of St. John, but is commented upon, in the notes, with admirable force and perspicuity.

"In his preface to this valuable Commentary, Walafrid Strabo lays down the following rules, as means whereby to discover and correct any errors that might subsist in the transcripts of his times, either of the Old or of the New Testament. • Nota, quod ubicunque in libris Veteris Testamenti mendositas reperitur, recurrendum est ad volumina Hebræorum; quia Vetus Testamentum primo in lingua Hebraica scriptum est. Si vero in libris Novi Testamenti, revertendum (1. recurrendum) est ad volumina

Græcorum; quia Novum Testamentum primo in lingua Græca scriptum est, præter Evangelium Matthæi, et Epistolam Pauli ad Hebræos.

"If, Sir, it shall be allowed that this celebrated Commentator followed, in his own practice, the rules which he has thus prescribed to others, (which will hardly be doubted,) the Greek MSS. which directed him to insert this verse in his text and commentary must, in all probability, have been more ancient than any now known to exist. He flourished about A. D. 840. Some, at least, of the Greek MSS. which were used by him, cannot well be supposed to have been less than 300 or 400 years old; the latter of which dates carries them up to A.D. 440. But the MOST ANCIENT Greek MS. which is now known to exist, is the Alexandrian; for which, however, Wetstein, who seems to have considered the question with great attention, claims no higher an antiquity than the close of the fifth century, or about A.D. 490. If this mode of reasoning, then, be not (and it seems that it is not) fallacious, the text and the commentary of Walafrid Strabo stand upon the foundation of Greek MSS. which are more ancient, in point of time, and therefore which ought to be more respected in point of testimony, than any possessed by the present age."-Letters to Gibbon, pp. 21-24, Ed. 2d.

Thus far the Archdeacon: secure, as usual, in his premises, and intrepid in his conclusions. Mr. Porson has shewn, by a pretty copious induction of particulars, that the positions of this zealous advocate are not always to be trusted without examination; and we have now before us an instance which the Professor might have added to his list. It is well known to the learned in these matters, and may easily be ascertained by those who will take the trouble to inquire, that the title of Walafrid Strabo to be considered as the author of the Glossa Ordinaria is, to use Mr. Porson's phrase, "exceedingly questionable;" and that still more questionable" is his right to the Commentary on the Prologue to the "Canonical Epistles." Our present intention, however, is to prove that Walafrid Strabo CERTAINLY WAS NOT the author of the sentence quoted in the preceding state

ment,-a sentence from which so many consequences are deduced.-That sentence forms the conclusion of a short tract which is prefixed to the Glossa Ordinaria, and entitled "Translatores Biblia." Had Mr. Travis taken the precaution of reading the entire tract, he would have found that the writer, in his account of the Septuagint translation, quotes, as his authority, a person whom he calls "Magister in Historiis." This appellation had been given to PETRUS COMESTOR, who flourished in the latter part of the twelfth century, and wrote a history of the Bible under the title of Historia Scholastica. The tract in question, therefore, could not have been written by Walafrid Strabo, who lived in the ninth century. What now becomes of Mr. Travis's argument founded on the ancient Greek MSS. which had been examined, with the most critical exactness, by Walafrid Strabo? *

As much importance has, by several writers, been attached to the supposed testimony of Walafrid Strabo, we have taken some pains to ascertain the real author of the tract from which Mr. Travis drew his quotation. We have now before us an edition of the Vulgate Bible, with the Glossæ and the Exposition of Nicholas de Lyra, printed at Venice by Pagninus, in the year 1495. Prefixed to the work is a letter addressed to Cardinal Francis Picolhomini, by Bernardinus Gadolus, Brixianus. In this letter Gadolus describes the great care and diligence which he had employed, at the request of Pagninus, in preparing the edition; and concludes with the following sentence: Conscripsi præ terea, sive ex multis auctoribus et præcipue ex Hieronymo excerpsi, tractatulum de Libris Biblia Canonicis et non Canonicis; qui si tuæ

To leave no room for uncertainty on this subject, we compared the Tract entitled "Translatores Bibliæ," with the "Historia Scholastica ;" and found the most complete agreement between them. We may here remark, that the appellation "Magister in Historiis" for a long tract of time as clearly designated Peter Comestor, as the appellation "Magister Sententiarum," or "Magister in Sententiis," designated his contemporary Peter Lombard.

reverendissimæ dominationis judicio, cui omnia subjicio, comprobatus fuerit, eum ad utilitatem legentium imprimi permittam; sin nimis (1. minus) cellula continebitur." Then follows the Tract, alluded to in the letter, entitled De Libris Canonicis et non Canonicis; to which is subjoined the Tract entitled Translatores Biblia, which furnished Mr. Travis with his quotation. If any of our readers will take the trouble of examining these two tracts, we are convinced that not one of them will hesitate in attributing them to the same pen. In both, the style of composition is precisely the same, and the same authorities are alluded to, viz. Origen, Jerome, Magister in Historiis. We must, therefore, conclude that, instead of affording a proof of the critical attention of Walafrid Strabo in the ninth century, Mr. Travis's quotation will be found to attest the editorial diligence of Bernardinus Gadolus at the close of the fifteenth.*

Of his own care and diligence, indeed, this learned Editor has written in high terms of commendation; but in terms which, we have no doubt, were well deserved. "Conquisivi," he writes, "haud parvo certe labore, omnes jam antea impressos Sacræ Scripturæ libros, et manu scriptos ad quinque numero; et percurrens codicem quo erant pro archetypo usuri, ubicunque aliquid vel errati vel dubii apparebat, diligentissime singulos codices inspectavi; et quæ ex his in meo codice errata inveni (inveni autem quam plurima) accuratissime sustuli: in quibus illud Deo teste profiteor, me nilil penitus addidisse aut immutasse quod non ex aliquo

antiquo codice aut addendum, aut mutandum, obliterandumve manifeste visum fuerit.". In this account we find a strong confirmation of the truth of Mr. Porson's description of the method of collation adopted by the critics of those early times. That exact ness of quotation," says he, (Letters to Travis, p. 30,) "which is now justly thought necessary, was unhappily never attempted by the critics of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The method in which Valla performed his task was probably to choose the MS. that he judged to be the best, to read it diligently, and whenever he was stopped by a difficulty, or was desirous to know how the same passage__was read in other Latin, or in the Greek MSS., to have recourse to them." It will hardly be imagined that these observations are thrown out for the purpose of disparaging the labours of those learned persons. Beyond controversy, they performed all that in their circumstances was deemed requisite.

To engage in regular combat with the Pseudo-Jerome, the author of the Prologue to the "Canonical Epistles," would be a great waste of time. Perhaps, however, it may be argued,— if the adversaries of the verse urge, as they do, the statement of the author of the Prologue as a proof that the text was wanting in some Latin manuscripts-ought they not to admit, on the same evidence, that it was extant in some Greek manuscripts at

that day? We think not. Little would in general be known of Greek manuscripts compared with what was known of Latin manuscripts. With regard to subjects of which little is known, there are always considerable numbers ready to believe any thing that may be boldly affirmed. In such cases a confident assertion will often prove a successful experiment. The Bishop of St. David's seems to admit, with most learned men, that the Prologue is not Jerome's, although professing to be his. As, therefore, the main object of the writer of the Prologue is obviously to give currency to the seventh verse in question, we cannot suppose that, after he had gone so far as to assume a name which did not belong to him, he would scruple to support his cause by another assump

VOL. XVII.

2x

tion, and talk of manuscripts which did not exist.

YOUR

SIR, Bridport, May, 1822. YOUR respected correspondent Mr. Rutt, with his usual zeal for the interests of the Repository, although not perhaps with his usual judgment, furnished to the number for January, (pp. 28, 29,) a private letter, written in 1801, by the late Rev. T. Howe, to the Rev. Gilbert Wakefield. On some of the statements in this letter, a person who subscribes himself “ An Old Dissenter," has thought proper to animadvert, (pp. 158, 159,) and he has accompanied his criticism with some remarks on the character of the late Dr. Toulmin and the conduct of Mr. Howe, which cannot be perused by the friends of either without pain. Mr. Rutt has noticed, in your last number, (p. 215,) the "Old Dissenter's" letter, but, since he has omitted any comment on that part of it which relates to Mr. Howe's conduct, it will not, I trust, be unseasonable to follow up his remarks by a few additional observations.

Mr. Howe introduces the following statement: "It seems as if there was a scheme in agitation among our great men, to emancipate the Catholics, without granting any relief to the Protestant Dissenters. This I conclude from a letter I received last week from our good friend Dr. Toulmin. The following is an extract: A letter from London this week informs me, that endeavours are using by those in power, to prevail with British Dissenters to let the Catholic emancipation take place without putting in their claims to equal freedom, &c. Some classes who have been applied to are said to be as quiet as government wishes them to be.""

There is truly nothing very obscure or "hard to be understood" in this statement. Let us see, however, what the " Old Dissenter" makes of it. "Dr. Toulmin," he says, speaking of Mr. Howe's letter, "is reported to have received a letter from London, informing him that, in order to obstruct and defeat a proposed application of the Catholics for a repeal of the Test Laws, the Dissenters of several classes wished to wave their petition for redress of this grievance, lest the Catholics should succeed in their endeavours