ments of those "early years" should amount to one single MS. : and again, with respect to Beza, that he should calculate the book of collations to have contained the readings of about xxv. MSS., and could afterwards, of his own mere motion, reduce them to seventeen, and, in one and the same edition, give both numbers for the same identical MSS. I have shewn, too, sufficient contempt for our vaunted" march of intellect," that so readily acquiesces in the whole of this, with the admission that the most learned and most acute men, in earlier days, did attach the utmost credit to Stephanus's pretensions. But I cease to wonder, when " I contemplate the gigantic exertions of intellect which have established this acquiescence," and the total absence of any such exertions in the Clotens who have presumed to defend the hated printer. I only say, if they do these things in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry? If the speculative men can affect a superiority to such a cloud of witnesses for Stephanus's integrity, every one of which is sufficient to convince an ordinary mind, what will not the propensity to tamper with the understanding of others effect upon Erasmus, upon the Complutensian, upon the West African recension? No wonder at the result, when the same assailants have to cope only with the same defender in those cases also. But with respect to Stephanus, how gigantic soever the intellect has been that the conspiring critics have brought against him, I must again and again contend, that one single acknowledged reading of an "Alius" might have led any but the most abject Cloten to a suspicion that there might have been an Alius to give it; but if there was an Alius besides the xv. marked MSS., then I think it might have been seen that those xv. opposing MSS. were not all that Stephanus had for forming his text; so that, if a reading could be supposed to have been in all the marked authorities, and a Doctus et Prudens could for a moment actually have thought that Stephanus could have said so, it would not follow that this reading was in "all his MSS." Stephanus's slanderers furnish irresistible confutation of their own position, that "qui et codices et textum promiscue defendunt secum ipsi pugnant" (Bengel, Introd. xxxvi. p. 71, ed. 1763)—when they themselves produce the readings of other MSS. of Stephanus; viz., of those that had been collated for the text, but did not come into either of the selections to furnish opposing readings. With one such quotation, who does not see that the conspiring critics could be only availing themselves of their Clotens to enforce their accusations? Who does not see that there must be some deceptions in their arguments, though they are veiled with all the ingenuity and all the wit of a Porson; and that it could only require labour to detect and expose them? Mr. Porson took for granted that where " the MSS. cited by Robert Stephens did not contain" a reading of his text," he must have inserted it without manuscript authority." Though he veiled the sophism with such exquisite skill, it is now openly avowed by his vindicator (Crito, 391). Going upon this pretty little tacit assumption, he is pleased to call Stephanus's "a sophisticated text❞—p. 81. Now, if we beard his followers with one single reading from one single unmarked MS. admitted by Wetsten, Bengel, Griesbach, which of them will dare to repeat it? Valckenar, altering the text, Ex μepovs, at 1 Cor. xii. 27, on the authority of a single MS., garbles Whitby's words in his Examen Millii, and says, "in libello quodam, quem septuagenarius senex Millio opposuit, hoc splendidum posuit mendacium, textum vulgatum in omnibus defendi posse." Mr. Porson, at p. 165, follows him, both in the correction of Whitby's words, and in the polite criticism. Whitby, as he is pleased to say, put in the front of his book that splendid falsehood, that the vulgar reading may be always defended." But take the whole of what the man says -"lectiones variantes, quæ sunt momenti alicujus aut sensum textús mutent, paucissimas esse, atque in iis omnibus lectionem textûs defendi posse ;" and also take "defendi posse" to mean may be defended, as having good authority, and not to mean the coming indubitably from the pen of the sacred writer; and then, if any one ventures again to repeat Valckenar's "splendidum mendacium,” there stands Du Pin, with the " plus grand nombre d'exemplaires," to retort

the compliment; and it will be for the reader to decide where it ultimately rests. But prune Whitby's words as you like, and make "defendi posse” tó mean that the received text is as certain as if an apostle were its compositor: falsehood-thundering falsehood-as you will make for him, still it has no glory, by reason of the glory that excelleth its splendor is extinguished by the superior splendor of the “quindecim tantum" of former days, from those who quote the " Alii" of Stephanus four times in a page; and their “extra omnem dubitationem—,” with respect to the seven cited MSS. in the Acts and Cath. Ep., with their own quotation of another even of the marked MSS. in the same note: and again," among the living," of their asserting the "quindecim tantum," with undiminished effrontery, in reply to a pamphlet that produced the acknowledged quotation of the “Alii” in the margin of the folio, and also of their still holding that the seven cited MSS. of the Acts and Cath. Ep. were not a selection out of what Stephanus had in that division, and their asserting that" if he had collated more, he would of course have quoted more," when they had themselves ascertained another of his MSS. which has it, by the production of proofs beyond those for the identity of all the others put together. With the acknowledgment, then, from the Docti et Prudentes, of one single reading of an unmarked, I am very easy about their charges of my uttering splendid lies respecting “the MSS. of R. Stephens and Beza." With one such instance, I think a man may venture to avow, that he" has formerly entertained"—aye, and that he still does entertain—“ subblime notions of the morality" of the old editors; and I certainly think that their bitterest enemies must " abate of their confidence" in that of a certain other set of gentlemen (Porson, 175). The Professor himself (p. 170) speaks of an advantage in telling " enormous rather than moderate falsehoods ;" and observes, most justly, that " mankind are in general so lazy and credulous, that when once they are prejudiced in favour of any person's veracity, they will regard another as a calumniator, who endeavours to convince them that they have bestowed their approbation upon an unworthy object." If ever there was a man who had a right to cast this censure, from having himself escaped all taint of this general laziness and credulity, it was Mr. Porson; and we are assured that the Professor's "table was seldom without a copy of Wetstein" (Kidd, p. lii.) Was Mr. Porson's eye, then, never struck with "codex Stephani," when such a notice is to be found in all the divisions of the sacred text, (the Revelations, as we have seen, not excepted,) and this twice, thrice, and even four times in a page? And look at Mr. Porson's citing " ea quæ de xxv. plus minus MSS. codicibus,* tantum non duplicato numero ... dixerat" from Beza, as his closing, decisive, incontrovertible evidence, at p. 56, when he saw that Wetsten, who undertook to persuade his readers that they were "hyperbolica verba," so judiciously avoided the evidence, strong as it was to their purpose; and then, I again say that no one who knows any thing of Mr. Porson's Letters will doubt of my being warranted in saying that the Professor saw how Beza's testimony was supported by his actually giving the readings

I here take for granted that Mr. Porson would not adopt Sir Isaac Newton's rendering of Beza's words at §. xxv. p. 516, viz. "the exemplar which Stephens had collated, with about twenty-five manuscripts, almost all of which were printed," where Beza says, "cum viginti quinque plus minus MSS. codicibus et omnibus pœne impressis;" though I certainly think that his vindicator has paved the way for the introduction of these manuscripts, almost all of which were printed, by his assurance that the various readings in Stephanus's folio were "derived from sixteen manuscripts, with the understanding that the first, a, in fact represented the Complutensian edition" (Crito, 389). And as Crito is precluded from writing Henry's collations in the margin of the printed book for which they were made, Sir Isaac's "twenty-five MSS., almost all of which were printed," will be found to be as useful as his own understanding that the "editio quæ fuit excusa" was a "vetustissimum scriptum exemplar."

of the "plus grand nombre d'exemplaires" that he claims. Yes; I say, this statement of the effect of Henry's diligence-this testimony to "the achievements of his early years" in Italicis-would no more have been admitted by Mr. Porson, than it was by Wetsten, if he had not seen the impossibility of maintaining the hyperboles of Wetsten's Prolegomena against his own actual quotations, in his work, of the MSS. which he had so courageously asserted to have never existed. Now, if Mr. Porson ever did see the reading of such a codex Stephani, apud Bezam,-if, seeing so many of these codices Stephani perpetually quoted by Wetsten himself, he did not hesitate to set to his seal that Beza's testimony was true,-I again ask, is my veneration of Mr. Porson excessive, (provided it be only on this side of idolatry,") either for his judgment in keeping himself distinct from the "communi eruditorum consensu,' or for that consummate skill which prevents every common reader from observing that he had left Beza's testimony untouched. And I now boldly ask, which, in Mr. Porson's private judgment, was the scoundrel? or, as the Professor could never call any thing but by its true name,-(Pref. xxiii.)—which made the "slight mistake"? Was it Stephanus, in giving a text so wonderfully different from his former, after he had kept his son searching three years "in Italicis," or his accuser, who, after his own perpetual quotation of the "Alii," could reprint what he had given, first ed. p. 143, without the slightest compunction, unaltered at Prol. 146, 5, Seml. 376, "Levitatis ejus hoc est indicium, quod, nullo novo testimonio accedente, intra quadrennium tantopere a se ipso dissensit Stephanus ut... nunquam vero MSS., quos habebat, et quos sequi unice debebat, Codicum lectionem sequeretur." As there was "" a small inaccuracy" in the " nullo novo testimonio accedente," I cannot help thinking, that if Mr. Porson had fortunately undertaken the defendant's cause, he would have assigned some other reason for the stupendous alteration, "intra quadrennium," than Wetsten's "Levitas," and his "nunquam vero MSS" or his own "vicious complaisance" and the following "printed guides." I think, too, that he would have so completely exposed those who can talk of "a sophisticated text," that the Rev. Robert Taylor himself, with his present triumphant half-a-bushel of wilful interpolations, (sect. 5, p. 43) would not have had the courage to talk of " the infinitely suspicious origination" of the text from whence our Protestant Testaments are translated.

Mr. Travis's other illustrious correspondent is no less an admirer of Wetsten. Do you think that the self-confutations escaped him? Do you think that he ever in reality doubted of Stephanus having had fifteen MSS. from the royal library, and having at least doubled their number at last, for the text of the folio, when the readings of the unmarked MSS. are so constantly placed before him? If you can imagine it, pray remember the instruction which you received, Michaelis ii. p. 856, note 37, that "we must except at least the codex 8"* in the happy identifying the printed and written documents selected to oppose the folio, with the "vetustissima scripta" used for the formation of the O mirificam. Look again at Michaelis ii. 860, note 41—“” We know that though only fifteen MSS. are quoted in Stephens's margin, a much greater number were examined by Henry Stephens, if not collated." Look at ii. 698, note 114, "From all these circumstances, therefore, it seems reasonable to

The learned translator does not stand alone in this opinion. The reader will remember that Crito Cantabrigiensis determined, at p. 403, that none of the provoking sarcasms-none of the studied insults which the "vapouring pamphlet" threw on Mr. Porson's account of ß-should move him to say a word in vindication of the Professor. It was enough for him to have declared, p. 389, that the documents taken to oppose the folio were "sixteen manuscripts, with the understanding that the first, a, in fact," was the Complutensian print; he would not go on to say that they were all collated before 1546, "with the understanding that" the second, ß,"could not have been collated till after the year 1547." (Michaelis ii. 856, note 37.)

infer, that the codex Bezæ, and the codex ẞ, though very similar, are not the same; and that the MS. which Stephens collated in Italy is at present either buried in obscurity in the same manner as the codex Boreeli, the codex Camerarii, the codex Rhodiensis, Erasmus's MS. of the Revelation, and several other MSS. of the Greek Testament, used by Stephens himself, and other editors, with many, if not most, of the MSS. from which the Editiones principes of the Classics were printed, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries." Oh, that I could have laid before Mr. Greswell these sentences from the pen of the learned and acute discoverer of the long-sought, though marked codex Steph. y, and the numberless quotations from the unmarked, on which the last of the instances of lost MSS. of the Greek Testament is founded. We should not then, I think, have had the sad distinction between the classical and the sacred productions of the Early Parisian Greek Press: we should not then, I conceive, have heard, with respect to its glory-the folio Greek Testament of 1550—that its editor adopted readings, "whether from MSS. or from printed copies to which he attributed the authority of MSS. ;" whilst the other are so justly stated to "commend themselves to the learned of our times as the representatives of MSS. now no longer found." No; Mr. Greswell's History would then have restored the credit that was "attached to the pretensions of the editor on the formation of the text," without, as far as I know, the whisper of a doubt, till good Father Morin invented the “glaring evidence," to support the decrees of Holy Mother Catholic and Apostolic, against Heretic Greek and the Heretic Versions that were formed from that Greek text,—an invention which has done such service to the Docti et Prudentes in the 18th and the 19th century, at their utmost need.

Let it be well noted, that "the pretensions of the editor" never went to "the formation of" a perfect text, but merely of such as followed punctually the MSS. that he had obtained: let it also be observed, that there are no "pretensions of the editor" whatsoever respecting the margin. Mr. Porson has, on many occasions, enforced the distinction between text and margin; but here, where it is most required-the margin being wholly employed in opposing the text-I entirely desiderate it, in his work, and likewise in those of the rest of the Docti et Prudentes. The regular addition of various readings to the Greek text was then a perfect novelty; and it probably was never thought of for the folio, till the text was nearly ready for the press. At all events, no attempt could be made to carry it into execution till the text had been actually settled, the readings of the margin being such only as opposed that particular text. Bishop Marsh has a most judicious observation—Letters, p. 137. To apply it generally, we may say that Stephens nowhere stated that a passage, as he gives it in his text, existed in any one of his MSS.; his whole statement is confined to those of the MSS. cited in the division where it occurs, that give a different reading. We need not then be surprised to find that the work of the margin, which was to give these different readings, should be hurried; and we may easily believe what Griesbach tells us of it (xxx., Lond. xl.), that, viri docti-" Robertum negotio quod sibi imposuerat, negligenter penfunctum esse commonstrarunt." The mode, however, by which the" viri docti" render the charge so heavy, is not quite fair. They unanimously make their appeal to the Complutensian. Now Stephanus, if we abide by his expression, esteemed the Complutensian to be "editio," and thought that he had then got before him a copy quæ fuit excusa." And if he was right in this, he might easily commit it to a very inferior hand, as any inaccuracies and omissions, in collating it with the folio text, would be easily detected, and therefore comparatively of small moment. Such was the opinion of Canter, in his Preface to his Variarum in Græcis Bibliis lectionum libellus, 21 years afterwards; where, speaking of the variations between two editions, and acknowledging that he had not given the whole of them, he says, " si quis tamen illas quoque desiderat, sibi eas per se, quoniam editiones in manibus versantur, comparet licet, Nobis quidem ea quæ de scriptis probata sunt libris,

in medium sufficit hoc loco contulisse." Our " modern literati” judge differently; and draw their inference from the print to the written copies, as if the Complutensian was one of the " vetustissima scripta." We are told, Lecture vi. p. 108," the same objection applies to the quotations from his other documents, as far as they have been compared." Here I beg to remind the reader that this comes from the critic who depended so much on the quotations from the other documents as to go to work on the Cambridge codex Vatabli; and who succeeded so triumphantly in establishing its identity with ty. This, however, is not the whole quarrel that the learned have with Stephanus on this point. Wetsten, 146, 3, Seml. 375, says, "Jure conqueruntur viri docti quod Stephanus vagam admodum MSS. quibus usus est Codicum descriptionem dederit." But what is the fact? Does Stephanus give vagam admondum descriptionem, or does he give no description at all? as Mill says, 1156, adε you. It will be easy for the reader to decide: and if Stephanus really gives none-if he actually gives no more description of the marked MSS. than he does of the unmarked-then why are such representations constantly made, as Michaelis ii. 319, even after quoting the Preface to the folio, "Now this is a very inaccurate and imperfect description"? Mr. Porson, at p. 88, lets us have the truth, and says, "he leaves us to gather information where we can find it." Yes, so completely, that the Preface of neither of his editions gives the most distant hint even of the number of the MSS. used for the formation of that edition. It is only from the mention of the second and the third collation in the folio that we learn that the MSS. used "superioribus diebus" had amounted to sixteen; and it is only from the statements of the man who had the use of the collations for the folio, and of him who made those collations, that we learn that the sixteen had been about doubled to give the widely different text which then appeared. You may join with me in deeply deploring this, or you may blame it as much as you like. But why is a nullity to have all these epithets? If Stephanus leaves us absolutely" to gather information where we can find it," why are we to be told that his information is very vague that his information is very inaccurate and imperfect? Take the reason from the great man, who professes himself" always unwilling to attribute to

After all the regret and all the censures that we can express respecting Stephanus's silence, I will beg the unprejudiced reader to say, what the most decided and most full declarations would have done, more than exciting the "risus doctorum et prudentium ? What other effect have those of Beza produced? Stephanus did tell us, and that not vaguely, that he printed his O mirificam religiously according to the royal MSS. Did this prevent his amiable critics from collating it with a set that contained seven private MSS., and upon finding-as of course they must find—that it did not accord with that set, deciding that what he said was " utterly false"? He did tell us that he had sixteen very old written copies in all for his O mirificam. Did this prevent their identifying them with a set of documents that contained only fifteen ? He did tell us that he had selected "editio quæ fuit excusa" to furnish opposing readings to the text of his folio. Do they not admit that they cannot abide by his expressions? do they not fairly avow that they make "the number of manuscripts quoted by Stephens" to be fifteen or sixteen, just as they like, by either admitting the Complutensian to be what Stephanus called it, when he was enumerating the documents that he quoted-" editio quæ fuit excusa❞—or making it to be one of his very old written copies? It was not merely in a Preface that he declared that his stock from the royal library amounted to fifteen, but it was in his public examination before the Paris divines, who watched him with so much jealousy; and he printed this boast of the amount of the royal MSS. that he had received, both in Latin and in French. What influence has this? Such bonds are, as I have said, burst through, as if they were flax that is burnt with fire. Fifteen is "a small inac curacy." He had no business to be boasting to them of the amount of what he had obtained. This cannot " be allowed to weigh against his own distinct declaration" that he had taken only eight to oppose his folio, and the learned critics make this selection to be a profession that he had received only eight from the royal library.