Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

COMBINATION PAPER, 1828.

PRIOR COMB.

Jan. 6. Coll. Trin. 13. Coll. Joh.

20. Mr. Woolnough, Chr. 27. Mr. Marshall, Regin.

Feb. 3. Mr. Heath, Clar. 10. Mr. Cobbold, Cai. 17. Coll. Regal.

24. Coll. Trin.

Mar. 2. Coll. Joh.

9. Mr. Blackburne, Chr. 16. Mr. Norman, Cath. 23. Mr. Browne, Corp. 30. Mr. Bulwer, Jes. Apr. 6. FEST. PASCH. 13. Coll. Trin.

20. Coll. Joh.

27. Mr. Pooley, Chr.

Mai. 4. Mr. Furnival, Regin. 11. Mr. Charlton, Sid. 18. Mr. Lockwood, Jes. 25. FEST. PENTEC.

Jun. 1. Coll. Trin. 8. Coll. Joh. 15. Mr. May, Chr. 22. Mr. Jackson, Regin. 29. COMMEM. Benef. Jul. 6. Mr. Stone, Sid.

13. Mr. Lafont, Emm.

20. Coll. Regal.

27. Coll. Trin.

POSTER COMB.

Jan. 1. FEST. CIRC. Mr.T. Belgrave, Joh. 6. FEST. EPIPH. Mr. Mathew, Joh. 13. Mr. G. Belgrave, Joh.

20. Mr. Edge, Joh.

25. CONV. ST. PAUL. Mr.Jenkyn,Joh.

27. Mr. Cecil, Magd.

3. Mr. Vane, Magd.

Apr. 20. Mr. Poynder, Chr.

25. FEST. S. MARC. Mr. C. S. Luxmoore, Joh.

27. Mr. Calvert, Jes.

Mai. 1. FEST.SS.PHIL.et J.Mr. Keene,Sid.

4. Mr. Geo. Waddington, Trin.

11. Mr. J. C. Franks, Trin.

15.FEST.ASCENS. Mr.Ridsdale, Clar.
Mr.Wynch, Sid.

18. Mr. E. T. Bidwell, Clar.
25. FEST. PENTEC. Coll. Regal.
26. Fer. 1ma. Mr. White, Joh.
27. Fer. 2da. Mr. Ainslie, Pemb.

Jun. 1. Mr. Abbott, Cath.

8. Mr. Goddard, Sid.

11. FEST.S. BARNAB. Mr.Douglas, Joh. 15. Mr. Barrow, Joh.

22. Mr. Green, Trin.

24. FEST. NAT. JOH. BAPT. Mr. Worthington, Clar.

29. FEST. S. PET. COM. BENEFACT.

Jul. 6. Mr. Clapham, Trin.

13. Mr. Miller, Clar.

20. Mr. Dobson, Pet.

25. FEST. S. JAC. Mr. Sparke, Jes.
27. Mr. Cheap, Trin.

RESP. IN THEOLOG.

Mr. R. Smith, Trin.

Mr. Pettiward, Trin.

[ocr errors]

Mr. Whishaw, Trin.

Mr. Borton, Cai.

Feb. 2. FEST. PURIF. Mr.Crawley, Mag.

10. Mr. T. M. Sutton, Trin.

Mr. Mathew, Trin.

[blocks in formation]

OPPON.

Coll. Joh.

Mr. Hallewell, Chr.
Mr. Venn, Regin.
Mr. E. R. William-
son, Clar.
Mr. Dawson, Cai.
Coll. Regal.
Coll. Trin.
Coll. Joh.
Mr. Ash, Chr.

Mr. Coldwell, Cath.

Mr. Cape, Clar.
Mr. Warren, Jes.
Coll. Regal.
Coll. Trin.
Coll. Joh.

Mr. C. Smith, Pet.

Mr. Tyson, Cath.

Mr. Wilkinson, C.C.

Mr. Pope, Emm.
Coll. Regal.
Coll. Trin.

OPPON.
Mr. Caldwell, Jes.
Mr. Bennett, Emm.
5 Mr. North, Cai.
Mr. Abdy, Jes.

OPPON.
Mr. Shaw, Cai.
Mr. Maclean, Cai.
SMr.Babington, Pem.

Mr. Roots, Jes.... Mr. Beck, Jes.

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.

We think "C." will, upon a second perusal, perceive he has misunderstoood the argument of the reviewer.-A Correspondent requests Halsallensis to favour the public with his own interpretation of 1 John v. 16.- We are obliged to postpone some articles.

CHRISTIAN

REMEMBRANCER.

MARCH, 1828.

REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.

ART. I.—A Vindication of the Literary Character of the late Professor Porson, from the Animadversions of the Right Rev. Thomas Burgess, D. D. F. R. S. F. A. S. P. R. S. L. Lord Bishop of Salisbury, in various Publications on 1 John v. 7. By CRITO CANTABRIGIENSIS, Deightons, Cambridge, and Rivingtons, London, 1827. pp. 404.. THE zeal with which the present Bishop of Salisbury has long prosecuted his inquiries concerning the disputed passage, 1 John v. 7, and the strong persuasion which he has repeatedly expressed of the genuineness of that verse, must be well known to all the theological readers of the day. That the Right Reverend Prelate has brought to this question great learning, and unimpeachable integrity of purpose, will be denied by no person who is qualified to speak upon the subject: but whether a deep conviction of the importance of the doctrine which that verse so decisively affirms, and a laudable disinclination to give unnecessary advantage to those who impugn this article of the Christian faith, may not occasionally have led him to lay undue stress upon certain arguments in vindication of the passage, and to attach too little force to opposing evidence, is more than we would venture to assert. On this point every reader must determine for himself: and if peradventure it should appear that such is the fact, we are only furnished with an additional proof how unduly the best minds may be influenced by opinions previously formed, and a conscientious anxiety for the truth itself may sometimes lead us astray.

The name of Professor Porson is too much identified with this controversy not to claim the special notice of every writer, who has entered upon the question for the last thirty years and upwards; and to weaken the force of that great man's authority must be a leading object with all the defenders of the verse. If it can be shewn that the learned Professor was, from the peculiar character of his mind, or the nature of his studies, but indifferently qualified for the work of sacred criticism; if it can be proved that he has indulged in unwarranted statements, or by garbled extracts has perverted the sense of

[blocks in formation]

the authors whom he avowedly cites, relying rather upon the indolence of his readers and upon the ordinary effect of bold and contemptuous assertions, than upon the just merits of the case; much will doubtless have been done towards disarming a very troublesome and most provoking opponent, and something will have been gained in support of the contested passage. It was perfectly natural, therefore, perhaps we might say necessary, that the Right Reverend Prelate should endeavour to detract so far as he justly might from the credit of the Professor in relation to this controversy. A question of this

nature ought to be settled by the force of evidence only; and if the name of Porson had given to his side of the argument any improper advantage; or if, towering in the pride of literary strength, he had suffered his contempt for Archdeacon Travis to betray him into unfairness of quotation, we think that the Bishop was abundantly justified in endeavouring to bring him down to his proper level. In the motto, which is prefixed to this volume, we heartily concur:

ἄνδρα δ', οὐ δίκαιον, εἰ θάνοι

Βλάπτειν τὸν ἐσθλὸν, οὐδ ̓ ἐὰν μισῶν κυρῇς.

The doubt in this case would be only about the application of it. The adage, de mortuis nil nisi bonum, Porson himself was accustomed to represent as a proverb invented by rogues; nobody dared, according to him, to meddle with the rascals while living, and they hoped under this shelter to escape when they were dead!

But that the charges even of so amiable a man, and so profound a scholar, as is the Bishop of Salisbury, should be allowed to pass without a close examination into the justice of them, was neither to be expected nor desired. The point at issue is one of too great magnitude to be complimented away either to the divine or the critic; and it would have been strange indeed, if that University to which Porson was so illustrious an ornament while living had contained no scholar willing to vindicate his reputation when now no more. The present apologist comes forward, for reasons stated in the Preface, under an assumed title, and we have no right in strictness to demand his name'; but if, as he informs us," he has the satisfaction of thinking, that the mistakes into which he may have fallen will be attributed to the right person," we scruple not to add, that the individual to whom this volume is by common rumour assigned has all the claims to be heard which talent and learning and personal character can give.

The nature of the task which the author has proposed to himself is

Not to engage on the present occasion in the controversy respecting 1 Joh. v. 7: his only concern is to examine the grounds of those statements of Mr. Porson, which have been objected to by Bishop Burgess: and to ascertain whether they are such as might have been honestly taken by a man of sense, who was well acquainted with the subject under discussion.-P. 4.

It is impossible, however, that Crito could do justice to his subject without entering in some degree into the arguments which the general controversy involves; and he has introduced, incidentally, much valuable matter in that respect. Of his own opinion upon the verse in dispute, he neither makes, nor affects to make, any secret: he maintains the passage to be spurious; but in the doctrine of the Trinity he is not less a firm believer than is the Bishop of Salisbury.

It is, indeed, high time to discard the notion,-a notion unworthy of any generous and candid mind, that a man's orthodoxy is to be decided by his admission or rejection of this particular text. The Socinian will, of course, be opposed to it, or he must cease to be a Socinian: but the rejection of it is no proof of erroneous sentiments on the doctrine of the Trinity. The simple question is, whether the passage be really genuine, or not. If it be, then by all means defend and maintain it; if not, let it not be imagined for a moment that any mischief can arise from discarding it: the doctrine, which it involves, needs not the aid even of a suspected testimony; it is a truth interwoven with the whole system of the Christian religion.

I maintain, says Porson, that my book is virtually a defence of orthodoxy. He, I apprehend, does the best service to truth, who hinders it from being supported by falsehood. To use a weak argument in behalf of a good cause, can only tend to infuse a suspicion of the cause itself into the minds of all who see the weakness of the argument. Such a procedure is scarcely a remove short of pious fraud. Pro pietate nostra tam multa sunt vera, ut falsa tanquam ignavi milites atque inutiles oneri sint magis quam auxilio.' What good can we expect to work upon heretics or infidels by producing the heavenly witnesses? Will they submit to dispute with us, if we receive such stale and exploded reasons? Will they not believe, or affect to believe, that this text is the only, or at least the chief pillar of our faith?"-(Preface, p. xxv; cited by Crito, p. 325.)

We own, however, that we have no particular gratification in hearing of any circumstance which tends to the renewal of this controversy. Every competent scholar has already ample means for forming his own judgment. We do not look for additional information of much importance on either side:* and considering especially the light and offensive way in which these high matters have been sometimes treated, and the unhappy effect which is thus apt to be produced upon many minds, we should rather deprecate than court the revival of the question. We do not intend, by these observations, to throw the slightest blame upon Crito Cantabrigiensis.

Bishop Burgess's great object, he says, in this proceeding unquestionably is, to destroy the credit of Mr. Porson's critical labours on the Greek Testament. To examine the validity of charges advanced by an eminent prelate of our church against an illustrious scholar who can no longer answer for himselfcharges which are designed to raise doubts of his integrity, as well as to call in question his accuracy and knowledge is to do nothing more than truth and justice imperiously demand.-(P. 3.)

To those who lay stress upon the multitude of manuscripts said to be yet uncollated, we recommend the perusal of Crito's Postscript, p. 359–376.

The reader is also

Entreated to bear in mind that the subject involves considerations of much deeper moment than the character of an individual. To vindicate Mr. Porson is, in many instances, to maintain those sound principles of criticism which appear to afford us the best assurance of the integrity of Scripture.—(Pref. p. iii.)

We shall endeavour to confine ourselves to the main object of the volume-the vindication of Porson.

The Bishop's animadversions are scattered through different publications enumerated in the Preface to this work: and they are here classed under several heads, and examined in five distinct sections. We have, in conclusion, some remarks upon Porson's treatment of Mr. Travis, and upon his own qualifications as a Scripture critic; and, finally, a Postscript, containing several observations, partly suggested to the author during the perusal of the portion of his work then printed off, and partly referring to a treatise-a somewhat singular treatise on R. Stephens' MSS. by the Rev. Mr. Huyshe. In page 147, Crito mentions his intention to subjoin, as an appendix, an inquiry into the rise and progress of the text of the heavenly witnesses in the Latin Church. This appendix, however, for reasons assigned in the Preface, does not appear: "In the course of time the inquiry may perhaps be published." P. iii.

In the first section the author meets the Bishop's charges against Porson on the subject of the Codex Montfortii, the celebrated Dublin MS., now proved, we think, beyond all question, to be the Codex Britannicus of Erasmus; a manuscript which the late Dr. Barrett took great pleasure in shewing, and in which, more than twenty years ago, we had ourselves, through the kindness of that very learned person, an opportunity of reading the disputed verse. It is charged upon Professor Porson, that he has mistaken the age of the manuscript that he has unjustly censured the passage in question as bad Greek and that he has supported his opinion by disingenuous quotations. Crito takes these several allegations in order.

It was believed by Porson, that the manuscript was written about the year 1520, and interpolated in this place in order to deceive Erasmus. As to the last point, Crito concurs with Dr. Adam Clarke in thinking that the passage was not written with intent to deceive; and we presume that they are right, although the very opportune appearance of the manuscript is certainly a remarkable circumstance: still it might be a manuscript of the 16th century. On what ground then does the Bishop affirm that, as to the conjecture about the date, "Mr. Porson was undoubtedly mistaken?" Apparently on this-that Mr. Martin of Utrecht supposed it to be of the 11th; and Dr.

See Porson's Fifth Letter.

« ZurückWeiter »