be surprised at the rashness of any one, especially a clergyman of so high a character as Mr. Gipps, who should, in a garbled form, impugn their sentiments. Thus, No. 4, Isaiah xxxviii. 8, B, is the production of Bishop Stock; No. 6, Ps. cxviii. 12, y, that of Dr. Delaney; and No 10, that of Bishop Lowth and Dr. Blayney. No. 11 is quoted from Dr. Mead, 12, from Bishops Lowth and Horsley, and 13, from Archbishop Newcome and Bishop Lowth. To Archbishop Newcome the editor is indebted for No. 14, and for No. 16, to Dr. Doddridge. Neological, or infidel sentiments, no one, with success, can ever attempt to attach to these writers; and the reader will be convinced, by reading the extracts in their proper connection, of the groundless nature of the accusation made by Mr. Gipps. But, notwithstanding what has already been exhibited under No. 1, the reader will scarcely give credence to the fact, that the quotation from Michaelis, under No. 13, as being in the estimation of Mr. Gipps, "an infidel passage," is thus satisfactorily controverted by the editor in the language of Archbishop Newcome :-- "But, as Archbishop Newcome judiciously observes, the Prophet is not to be considered merely as a poet, or as a framer of those august and astonishing visions, and of those admirable and poetical representations, which he committed to writing; but as an instrument in the hand of God, who vouchsafed to reveal himself, through a long succession of ages, not only in divers parts constituting a magnificent and uniform whole, but also in different manners,-as by voice, by dreams, by inspiration, and by plain or enigmatical visions," &c. It is not, however, my intention to enter upon further explanation, as that is the province of those more immediately interested; but as I am apprehensive some of your readers may be led to consider the neological sentiments of Germany to be advocated in the notes and other parts of the Comprehensive Bible, I owe it to the editor and publisher to bear my public testimony, that I consider that work as the concentration of the clearest and most powerful arguments hitherto adduced in such a form in defence of those sentiments which are the basis of sound and scriptural theology. I have happily had opportunity and inclination afforded me of reading many theological critics and commentators; but to no one of them do I owe so deep an obligation as to the editor of that work. Indeed I may venture the opinion, that if to establish the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, to exhibit the deity of Jesus Christ, and to confirm the miracles as direct displays of God's power, be, as they are, all-important in such a work, in these respects. it will be found to furnish evidence the most bright, and arguments the most irrefragable, clothed in language both pure and energetic.' The next attack appeared in the Jewish Expositor for November, 1830, (the second small periodical' which has sunk under the weight of Mr. Boys,) and came from his own chaste pen. In reference to the proofs adduced by Mr. Benham, of the orthodox character of the authorities followed by Mr. Greenfield, this gentleman thought it sufficient to say: 'While we 'maintain no infallible authority on our side, we are bound not 'to defer, when what some consider high authorities are cited VOL. VI.-N.S. L L his Vice, there is the Rev. A. S. Thelwall, late of Amsterdam, his coadjutor and double,' who is acquainted with all particulars'. And as Associates, we may name the Editor of the Record, his correspondent, T. P. P., Henry Drummond, Esq., the Rev. Washington Philips, and, if they can but be brought over to Episcopacy, Robert and Alexander Haldane. But why do we speak of the plan as merely in petto? The machinery 'is at work, and the mischief begun'; and the first victim selected is Mr. Greenfield, the Editor of the Comprehensive Bible, and the recently appointed superintendant of the Translating department of the British and Foreign Bible Society. The Comprehensive Bible was first published in the year 1826. For three or four years, the publication was universally regarded as one which did the highest credit to both the Editor and the Publisher. Not an objection was heard against any part of its contents. With scarcely a single exception, not a whisper was breathed against the value and unexceptionable tendency of the notes, or the unimpeachable competency and orthodoxy of its Editor. But mark the fact. No sooner is the Editor of the Comprehensive Bible appointed by the Earl Street Committee to an official situation in connexion with the Bible Society, than, at once, the full cry of neologism is raised against him; and the Comprehensive Bible, which orthodox clergymen had been unsuspectingly using in their studies and pulpits, and recommending to their flocks, is discovered to be a mass of insidious error. The Rev. Mr. Boys, the jure divino censor-general of modern theology, commenced the attack in the Christian Review,a' small periodical' which has since sunk beneath his mortiferous pen. He was followed by a reverend correspondent of the Record Newspaper,-of whom it is but justice, however, to say, that he appears to be a man of very different spirit: he had the candour to speak of the supposed neological tendency of the passages objected to, as 'undesigned', and to term the publication that in many respects valuable work'. To Mr. Gipps's Letter, there appeared in the same Newspaper, a full reply from a third party, entirely unconnected with either the publisher of the Bible, or with the Bible Society. From this letter, we must transcribe a paragraph or two, which will sufficiently illustrate the nature of the criticisms which called it forth. It is much to be regretted that Mr. Gipps should have given his extracts so partially; and it is, therefore, due to your readers to state, that from an examination I have made, a complete refutation of the accusations has been elicited ; and since the notes in the Comprehensive Bible are, in general, accompanied by reference to authorities, and are often in the very words of the most celebrated divines, I cannot but be surprised at the rashness of any one, especially a clergyman of so high a character as Mr. Gipps, who should, in a garbled form, impugn their sentiments. Thus, No. 4, Isaiah xxxviii. 8, B, is the production of Bishop Stock; No. 6, Ps. cxviii. 12, y, that of Dr. Delaney; and No 10, that of Bishop Lowth and Dr. Blayney. No. 11 is quoted from Dr. Mead, 12, from Bishops Lowth and Horsley, and 13, from Archbishop Newcome and Bishop Lowth. To Archbishop Newcome the editor is indebted for No. 14, and for No. 16, to Dr. Doddridge. Neological, or infidel sentiments, no one, with success, can attempt to attach to these writers; and the reader will be convinced, by reading the extracts in their proper connection, of the groundless nature of the accusation made by Mr. Gipps. But, notwithstanding what has already been exhibited under No. 1, the reader will scarcely give credence to the fact, that the quotation from Michaelis, under No. 13, as being in the estimation of Mr. Gipps, "an infidel passage," is thus satisfactorily controverted by the editor in the language of Archbishop Newcome: ever "But, as Archbishop Newcome judiciously observes, the Prophet is not to be considered merely as a poet, or as a framer of those august and astonishing visions, and of those admirable and poetical representations, which he committed to writing; but as an instrument in the hand of God, who vouchsafed to reveal himself, through a long succession of ages, not only in divers parts constituting a magnificent and uniform whole, but also in different manners,-as by voice, by dreams, by inspiration, and by plain or enigmatical visions," &c. It is not, however, my intention to enter upon further explanation, as that is the province of those more immediately interested; but as I am apprehensive some of your readers may be led to consider the neological sentiments of Germany to be advocated in the notes and other parts of the Comprehensive Bible, I owe it to the editor and publisher to bear my public testimony, that I consider that work as the concentration of the clearest and most powerful arguments hitherto adduced in such a form in defence of those sentiments which are the basis of sound and scriptural theology. I have happily had opportunity and inclination afforded me of reading many theological critics and commentators; but to no one of them do I owe so deep an obligation as to the editor of that work. Indeed I may venture the opinion, that if to establish the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, to exhibit the deity of Jesus Christ, and to confirm the miracles as direct displays of God's power, be, as they are, all-important in such a work, in these respects it will be found to furnish evidence the most bright, and arguments the most irrefragable, clothed in language both pure and energetic.' The next attack appeared in the Jewish Expositor for November, 1830, (the second small periodical' which has sunk under the weight of Mr. Boys,) and came from his own chaste pen. In reference to the proofs adduced by Mr. Benham, of the orthodox character of the authorities followed by Mr. Greenfield, this gentleman thought it sufficient to say: 'While we 'maintain no infallible authority on our side, we are bound not to defer, when what some consider high authorities are cited VOL. VI.-N.S. LL ' against vs. It is surprising for what bad interpretations of "Scripture a man may find vaunted authorities. Therefore, be it observed, authority is a thing with which the present question has nothing to do.' No authority, of course, can sanction a bad interpretation; but a good authority may be a very sufficient evidence that an interpretation is not bad, when there is no stronger proof of its badness, than the assertion of a prejudiced or dishonest critic. But with the present question authority has every thing to do, since the question relates, not to the badness of particular interpretations, but to the sentiments and design of the author of those interpretations. Mr. Boys, however, having thus satisfied his own conscience, that the real authorship of the interpretations and glosses comprised in the Comprehensive Bible was a point of no consequence, proceeds with his garbled citations on the principle of suppressing the names of the writers cited by Mr. Greenfield, and, in some instances, suppressing the comments by which Mr. Greenfield has qualified his citation. A very flagrant instance of this occurs in the note on Mark xv. 34, where the Editor of the Comprehensive Bible has cited from Dr. Adam Clarke, a varied rendering of the words Eis Ti, in the sense of Ad quid, with a view to obviate a Socinian quibble. This citation, Mr. Greenfield follows with the remark, that, whatever may be 'thought of the above interpretation', (clearly implying that he felt by no means warranted in adopting it,) the words could not bespeak any doubt in the mind of Our Lord, and that this rendering was not necessary. This part of the note, as well as the name of Dr. Clarke, Mr. Boys is careful to suppress. Towards the close of his critique, the real design of this proceeding comes out. Mr. Greenfield's appointment to the office of Superintendant of Translations, and his identity with the Editor of the Comprehensive Bible, are pathetically notified. And now', says Mr. Boys: I ask the question,-with every wish to cherish a sentiment of personal respect, and with the greatest unwillingness to hurt any man's feelings needlessly,-Is it possible for any man living, to feel confidence in the author of those notes as a check upon translations in tongues of which we are ignorant? Can we possibly feel confidence in such a guard, in the last resort? Can we possibly feel confidence in such a last appeal, finally responsible, beyond our power of examination or detection? Look at that attack upon the sacred text, in Ex. xxx. 6. where an important clause, essential to the understanding of the subject, is, upon the strength of its omission in a few copies, called in plain terms "a corruption;" and the words treated as a repetition, because, as it is said, "the verse reads much better without them" whereas it is an established rule of biblical criticism, that a various reading which makes a verse" read better," must always be suspicious from that very circumstance. Look, again, at the gloss upon St. Luke, where the words, thou shalt not be able to speak, establishing the fact of the miracle which the commentator impugns, are treated by him as " merely expletive"! Shew me any thing worse than that, if you can, in the commentaries of Neologists: or, if you cannot, then tell me how it is POSSIBLE to place confidence in a superintendence of translations, on which we may have no other check, and which is conducted upon such principles as these?' pp. 24, 25. 6 Mr. Boys is at least a bold man. He tells us that, for one, he has no wish to keep terms with any body,' if the religious world will not mind him; and he seems to have as little concern to keep terms with truth and honesty. The alleged attack upon the sacred text,' which he represents as sufficiently fatal to Mr. Greenfield's character, is thus turned upon himself by Mr. Benham, the gentleman already referred to. On Mr. Boys's criticism on Exod. xxx. 6, respecting the omission of the words, "before the mercy-seat that is over the testimony," which the Editor, after the learned Dr. Kennicott, and on the authority of twenty-six MSS. and the Samaritan Text, thinks a corruption, because it places the altar of incense WITHIN the Holy of Holies, it will be necessary to observe-First, that Mr. Boys's statement, that "though the altar was to stand before or opposite to the mercy-seat, it by no means follows from this, that it was to be within the Holy of Holies, where the mercy-seat stood," is wholly incorrect: the original term only denotes "before the face, in presence or sight of"-which the altar of incense consequently could not have been, if separated by the vail from the mercy-seat. The illustration drawn by Mr. Boys from the case of suppliant Esther before the king, when she "stood in the inner court of the king's house over against the king's house," &c. is wholly irrelevant, because there the word is not but 33, which properly denotes directly opposite to, over against, &c.!!! Secondly, Mr. Boys states, "the similarity of letters in two terms or clauses, in the Hebrew, is no reason whatever for omitting either of them," and then refers to some examples.--Now here, as Mr. Boys admits, that a clause being somewhat similar to the preceding one, is often "omitted by copyists through inadvertence," the same reasoning will apply to a clause being inadvertently inserted by a copyist, as is frequently found (though of course not uniformly) to be the case. Mr. Boys's second objection, therefore, cannot stand. Thirdly, Mr. Boys thinks the statement of the Editor, that "the verse reads much better without the clause in question, a most extraordinary argument ;" and then refers to the gingle of Hebrew points and accents, instead of the sense, as the Editor intended, as being "more consistent with the rest of the description ;" in which point of view Mr. Boys himself regards it, when he did not see it convenient to view it otherwise.--(See p. 263 of the Jewish Expositor.) The fourth and last objection of Mr. Boys arises from what he considers to be a small number of MSS. compared with the gross number collated; but here, according to Mr. Boys's usual consistency, he keeps back the |