CHARLES HENRY DE LUSANCI, born in 1623, became, in 1641, a solitary of Port-Royal, and died in 1684.

ANGELIQUE DE ST JEAN, the second Angelique, born in 1624, was a nun of Port-Royal, and abbess of the same, from 1678 to 1684. She was a person of distinguished genius, and by some preferred to all the rest in this respect. She was almost born a nun, having been reared for the very purpose. Her taste for composition and the fine arts was such as to require restraint. It is odd to read the titles of her published works, which show how prominent females may become under the flexible system of Popery.*

MARIE CHARLOTTE DE STE. CLAIRE, MARIE ANGELIQUE DE STE. THERESE, and ANNE MARIE, the three youngest daughters of Andilly were all nuns of Port-Royal; of these the youngest died in 1700.

The only remaining family is that of Isaac Le Maistre, who intermarried with Catharine, the second child of the advocate Antony. Of this marriage there were four children, whom we cannot entirely omit, for reasons which will appear. ANTONY LE MAISTRE was born in 1608, and was brought up in the house of his uncle d'Andilly. His genius and ardour early led his friends to compare him with his eloquent grandfather the conqueror of the Jesuits. As soon as he was of age, he burst upon the public as an accomplished forensic orator. Preachers left their churches to hear Le Maistre at the bar, just as it is said that advocates now-a-days forsake the halls of justice when Lacordaire preaches. After entering on a most brilliant career, he threw himself into solitude at Port-Royal, where, as he was one of the first, so he was one of the most useful of the recluses, especially by his well-known translation of the Scriptures. Though he allowed himself free study of Hebrew and Greek, he maintained so rigid a separation from the world, that he attended neither his father's funeral, nor the subsequent entrance of his mother as a novice. Such are the unnatural results of monasticism, even in the most sincere.

JEAN DE ST ELME, Le Maistre's second son, was the father of two daughters, who died in Port-Royal. SIMON SERICOURT died as a recluse in Port-Royal, October 4, 1650.

ISAAC DE SACY, the youngest child, born 1613, is always mentioned in connection with Antony Le Maistre. Their works are well known even among Protestants. The translation of the Bible was begun 1655, to supersede the popular Reformed version; not to say that the Jansenists were bold in defence of Bible-reading in the vernacular. When Le Maistre died, he left the work to be completed by his brother.

*For example, "Discours de la Reverende Mère Marie Angelique de St Jean, Abbesse de P.-R. des Champs," &c. Paris, 1736.

Agreeably to that community of labour, which was peculiar to Port-Royal, the New Testament was the joint work of the brothers, together with Fontaine, Arnauld, Nicole, Pontchateau, St Marthe, de la Lane, and the Count Troisville. De Sacy and Fontaine were special objects of persecution, and were even thrown into the Bastile. The version of the New Testament was printed at Amsterdam, by the Elzevirs, in 1667, in two volumes 8vo. It led, while yet in manuscript, to the antagonistic version of Father Amelotte, in 1666, 1667.

Here we close our notices of a remarkable family. But we cannot do so without acknowledging our obligation to the work of Dr Reuchlin, mentioned in the margin. During his skilful and patient labours, this learned writer had peculiar advantages for research, so that his delightful volumes may he regarded as the first complete history of Port-Royal. He spent many months in Paris, and enjoyed free access to the unparalleled collections of that city. He speaks with enthusiasm of the sacrifices which the Parisian librarians make for the convenience of authors. "When men, whose hours are precious to science, often spend more time in searching for a fugitive sheet than the seeker does in perusing it, one is almost tempted to forego so costly a privilege." Many of the manuscripts which Dr Reuchlin consulted had never been unfolded before. From some of the autograph orders of Louis XIV., for the destruction of Port-Royal, the fine sawdust, used to dry the ink, fell off under the hands of our author. In Switzerland, especially in Geneva, and in Germany, he picked up some treasures. He even went as far as Rome. Though the doors of the Vatican were not quite so open as we hope soon to see them, Dr Reuchlin was invited by some high ecclesiastics to enter. Ranke speaks of similar courtesies. After certain delays, he was even admitted to consult the manuscripts. The objection to this, in ordinary cases, that as they are generally bound up in volumes, an inquisitive antiquary might sometimes find the most sacred or portentous documents side by side with the object of his search; which was verified in Dr Reuchlin's experience, in a particular case. We will add, that he is the author of a life of Pascal, and of a work on Christianity.*

is

Das Christenthum in Frankreich innerhalb u. ausserhalb der Kirche. Hamburg, 1837. 464. His great work is, however, the one just alluded to:-"Geschichte jesuitischen Katholicismus unter Louis XIII. and XIV. Von Dr Hermann Reuchlin. Hamburg und Gotha." 8vo, 2 vols. Five years elapsed between the publication of the two volumes, the second appearing in 1844. The first volume gave occasion to a celebrated article in the Edinburgh Review for 1841, which, however, contains some surprising inaccuracies. We have had before us, in addition, the following works:Bayle, Dictionnaire Historique et Critique," Amst. 1740.-Racine, "Abrégé de l'Histoire de Port-Royal," Paris, 1835.-Cornelii Jansenii, " Augustinus, &c." Fol. 1743. This copy contains the treatise of Conroy on Unbaptized Infants, which was missing in Reuchlin's.

ART. III.-An Apology for the Septuagint, in which its Claims to Biblical and Canonical Authority are briefly Stated and Vindicated. By E. W. GRINFIELD, M.A., Editor of the Hellenistic Greek Testament. London: Pickering. 1850. 8vo. Pp. xii. and 192.

WE are more and more struck with the characteristic difference between the theological and biblical writers of Germany and England. We do not now refer to the great minds of either country, but to the literary multitude in both. The difference of which we speak, is that between the rigorous and formal method of the German, and the desultory or colloquial freedom of the English school. Accustomed as we are to hear and speak of German speculation as the wildest that the world has known, we must not forget that even the abstrusest transcendentalism is propounded under formulas of systematic nomenclature and arrangement, which with us are only known in works of the severest scientific character. This fashion, in the hands of original and able writers, never loses its respectability. But when we get down to the third and fourth-rate men, it often becomes quite bewildering, so that we gladly turn away from the formal treatise on some trivial subject, with its axioms, definitions, and endless sub-divisions, to the desultory and colloquial style, in which the same theme is apt to be treated by a contemporary English writer of precisely the same calibre.

Any attempt to account for this diversity by tracing it to a constitutional difference in the national mind, is forbidden by the fact that it has not always been so, and that even the most ordinary English theologians and interpreters of Scripture in the seventeenth century were as formal and methodical as those of Germany are now. The true solution, we believe, is furnished by the different modes of education and of authorship which now prevail in the two countries. While the English candidate for orders, until very lately, might be said to have no systematic training for his work, nor any training at all beyond the course of his own desultory reading, the German student of theology is marched, with military rigour and precision, through a whole encyclopedia of "sciences" and "disciplines," primary, subordinate, and auxiliary. With the merits of the two modes of professional study we have nothing here to do, but only with their several effects on the externals of professional authorship; and these effects are obvious enough. They are rendered still more marked, however, by the concurrent action of another cause, closely connected with the one

just mentioned, but still less remote. This is the difference in what a German would call the genesis of books in the two cases. As a general rule, all German works, on learned or professional subjects, are the work of teachers, and grow directly out of their instructions. The university professor prints his lectures, the gymnasial rector or conrector his synopses and collections, originally made for the use of his own pupils. So fixed and settled is this practice, that a work of any learning, or of much pretension to it, by a parish minister, is always viewed with. some disfavour, and the cases of such men as Bretschneider, Bähr, and Kliefoth, who have risen to high places in the church by literary no less than by clerical accomplishments, are, perhaps, mere exceptions to a general rule. This academic or scholastic origin of most learned German works affords a further explanation of the elementary preciseness and formality by which they are externally distinguished. Even where the name and outer garment of the lecture or the text-book is discarded, the simplicity with which the learned man begins at the beginning of his subject, and assumes the mind of his reader to be a tabula rasa with respect to it, and proceeds with measured step from small to great, from known to unknown, often betrays the work-shop or the factory to which the magnum opus owes its existence. Take up a contemporary English book of corresponding character and equal merit, as to all substantial qualities, and the chances are that you will find it, even though composed in academical retirement, savouring less of the school or auditorium than of the parlour or the combination room, and exhibiting, instead of the elaborate and complicated methods which can scarcely be acquired without experience in teaching, the easy and meandering flow as well of thought as of expression which belongs to the spontaneous meditations of the scholar in his hours of leisure.

Of both these peculiarities there are numberless gradations, arising from personal or local causes, and it is only in extreme cases that either of them is absolutely ludicrous, a condemnation into which the German often falls when the Englishman escapes by his greater freedom from pretension. As to the comparative advantages and evils of the two modes, a reader's estimate is apt to differ at first view and after more mature consideration, and also according to the standard of comparison. At first sight, and ever after as a matter of mere taste, the German extreme strikes the cultivated reader as the error of a pedant or a pedagogue, the English one as that of an amateur or gentleman-scholar. After longer acquaintance, and when measured by a utilitarian rather than an aesthetical standard, the relative demerit of the two may assume a very different aspect. When the object is to while away an hour without

wasting it, in a kind of scholarlike or learned indolence, an English book of the most desultory kind above described may be a truly welcome and agreeable companion. But when the object is to find out what the book contains, or what the author means, and why he thinks and teaches as he does, commend us to the most precise and priggish Lehrbuch with its infinitesimal divisibility of matter, but with every atom of the system in its right place, and a place where you can find it, rather than to the most genteel and flowing allocution on the same theme, in which the whole appears to have no parts, or the parts, if any such there be, are, at the same time, every where

and no where.

All this is by no means an ideal speculation, suggested by the name of transcendental Germany, but an experimental truth which, in the highest degree, savours of the reality. In other words, it is associated, in the closest manner, with the beautiful octavo now before us, which, in point of paper, ink, and press-work, is among the choicest products of the Chiswick press and of Pickering's Aldine book manufactory. If the merits of publishers and printers could expiate the sins of authors, Mr Grinfield might well claim to be acquitted without trial. But according to the common law of criticism, he must answer for himself, and of himself we know nothing beyond what we have gathered from this volume and the advertisements appended to it. From these we learn that he is a member of the Church of England; a Master of Arts, no doubt of Oxford or Cambridge; a classical scholar of no mean attainments; a devout believer in the inspiration and divine authority of Holy Scripture; a moderate and soberminded thinker upon all subjects which he touches except one; unusually free from all appearance of vanity or ambition; which is the more remarkable in one who has spent thirty years in a laborious and (to most men) uninviting study, the fruits of which he has given to the world in two works hitherto unknown to us, but of which we may hereafter give a more particular account. The first is a Hellenistic edition of the New Testament, in which it is explained by illustrations from the Septuagint; the other, Hellenistic Scholia on the New Testament, derived from Philo and Josephus, the Apocrypha and Fathers. The almost exclusive study of Hellenistic Greek, for so long a period, while it must have placed him at the head of this his favourite department, has not failed to contract and distort his views of other subjects, and if not to originate at least to strengthen habits of weak and inconclusive reasoning, the more surprising because found connected both with learning and with moral qualities, which entitle their possessor to the most unfeigned respect. Of this logical deficiency, or intellectual dispropor