question to be decided at the bar of reason, viz: Is this meaning true or false?

We commend this subject to the consideration of Christians of all denominations who love the Bible, and call upon them to unite with us, in defending the full inspiration and the divine authority of the word of God. The authority of this sacred word is now assailed; and what renders the assault more fearful, it is made (as it has been before) under a profession of regard, and a cover of friendship. Of the spread of open, scoffing infidelity our apprehensions are comparatively feeble. But when we see infidelity in the high places of the church, and hear it from lips which ought to be among the first to defend the unerring standard of the word of life, we cannot but lift a note of warning, and call upon all who love the Bible to unite in its defence.

We commend this subject to the consideration of sober, reflecting Unitarians-fathers, mothers, and heads of families. Are such persons aware of what is doing under their patronage, and with a reliance on their countenance and favor? Are they prepared to give up the Bible, as a standard of appeal, and a rule of duty? Are they willing that their children should be educated under the influence of principles in regard to the Bible, like those on which we have here remarked? Are they sure that they shall not themselves need the Bible, the whole Bible, for their instruction and comfort, as they travel through this vale of tears? And are they willing to turn away from that sure word of prophecy,' that 'light shining in a dark place,' by the beams of which the holy of other ages have walked to heaven?

We call

We would commend a further consideration of this solemn subject even to those Unitarians on whose writings we have felt it our duty to remark. It may be they are not fully aware of the nature and influence of those results to which they have come. upon them, therefore, to pause, and consider, and retrace their steps. Our consciences bear us witness that we have not pursued this discussion with feelings of bitterness or hatred. Had we written a line under the influence of such feelings, most gladly would we blot it out with tears. But we do feel the importance of the subject, and under a sense of its great importance, we feel impelled to expose impending dangers, and warn our fellow travellers to the judgement to beware. For whether received or rejected, the Bible will stand. Having "God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter," it has sustained and outlived a thousand assaults, and it cannot now be overthrown. But those can be overthrown who dare to trifle with it, and who refuse to receive it, and walk by it, as the standard of truth and duty, the word of the living God. Let impetuous mortals, then, beware; and instead of exalting their own powers, and proudly leaning to their own understandings, let them in meekness receive the engrafted word, which is able to save their souls.

MISCELLANEOUS.

EDUCATION REPORTER AND BOSTON RECORDER.

THE subject of Education is one of paramount interest and importance, in relation to individuals and communities, to this life and the future. Of its advantages, when wisely directed, no one entertains a doubt, and the power which it is capable of exerting is immense. If it cannot literally create new faculties, it can transform, expand, and invigorate those with which the Creator has endowed us. If it cannot infuse the living soul, it can enlarge and elevate the soul, and bear it onward in its eternal course beyond any assignable limits. It is one of those subjects which commend themselves to all classes and descriptions of persons-to the aged and the young, to parent and child, to the friend of his country, of the church, and of the souls of men.

It should be regarded as among the favorable omens of the present age, that the subject of education, so great and interesting always, is now exciting unwonted attention. Not only is the old established system of school education continued, we hope with increased facilities and power, but the Infant school, the Sabbath school, the Bible class, the Lyceum-names and institutions formerly unknown-have come into notice, and multitudes of every age, from lisping childhood to those in the busy scenes of active and professional life, are drawn frequently together, to enjoy their benefits. A system of general, popuJar education has been adopted, the results of which, if wisely and perseveringly pursued, can be hardly estimated.

But here, we apprehend, is the danger: These frequent meetings for general instruction may be so conducted as to excite little interest, and then they will soon grow stale and be neglected; or they may fall under a corrupting influence, and then they will prove a curse, rather than a blessing. They need, therefore, to be fostered and encouraged, and to be furnished with a continual supply of new, interesting, and profitable topics for investigation and discussion. They need also to be looked after and watched over, not with the stern eye of a censor, but with that of an intelligent and faithful friend.

But how shall this important service be rendered?—It may be rendered in a variety of ways;-by the stately periodical, like the Journal of Science, or the Journal of Education;-or by means of Scientific Tracts ;*-or perhaps more efficiently by a weekly paper, devoted to this specific object, and designed to circulate among the School committees, and teachers, and lecturers, and lyceums, and institutions for popular instruction, with which our busy land is coming to be filled. Such a paper is the EDUCATION REPORTER, a few numbers of which are before the public, and to which we feel a pleasure in directing the attention of our readers. In the principles and talents of the editor, (Rev. Mr. Rand,) his long experience in a kindred employment, his industry and perseverance, in the attention which he is known to have paid to the general subject of education, and in the character of the numbers already issued, the public have every assuranee which the nature of such an experiment admits, that the paper will not disappoint its patrons, but will meet and answer the important

* A series of “Scientific Tracts," to be "conducted by Josiah Holbrook and others," has been commenced, which, if properly prepared, may be very useful.

object of its institution. We trust it will commend itself to the friends and promoters of education in this community generally, and that its circulation and consequent usefulness will be equal to its deserts.

By the removal of Mr. Rand to his new sphere of labor, our good old friend and ally, the Boston Recorder, has fallen into other editorial hands. Of this change we need only say at present, that it has been effected with the entire concurrence and approbation of such of the tried supporters of the Recorder as could be conveniently consulted, and that the results of it, thus far, are highly satisfactory. We trust they will not be less so in future, and that this-we had almost said venerable paper—(for it is the eldest of the kind, we believe, in existence) which has carried light and comfort into so many families, may continue and extend its weekly visits, to instruct and edify the friends of truth, and convince and reclaim the gainsayer and wanderer.

As a specimen of what may be expected from the new editor (Mr. Stowe), and to furnish those of our readers who do not see the Recorder with the means of deciding a very importaut question, we present an extract from the number for July 14. The occasion of the article was as follows. Dr. Channing, and other Unitarians, have been urging into notice and circulation a new English Testament, conformed to the corrected copy of Griesbach. In our number for March last, we replied to their statements and appeals by saying, that "Dr. Knapp's Testament is now admitted by German scholars, Liberal as well as Orthodox, to be superior to Griesbach's." (p. 134.) This assertion was contradicted in the last number of the North American Review, and a further attempt made to urge the English Griesbach into notice. The article which follows is in reply to the North American; and is a complete vindication of the position we had taken.

GRIESBACH'S GREEK TESTAMENT.

Agreeably to our promise last week, we proceed to offer a few remarks on this celebrated work.

We cheerfully grant, in the outset, that the arduous and judicious labors of Griesbach deserve all praise; and that, with the exception perhaps of Wetstein, he is unquestionably superior, in point of talent and faithful diligence, to any who preceded him in the critical examination of the text of the New Testament. We further say, that no biblical scholar can ever mention the name of Griesbach without feelings of veneration for his character and attainments.

Having said this, we hope we shall not be accused of being under the influence of prejudice against him, if we prefer Knapp's Testament to his, provided we can give good reasons for our preference. That Griesbach, though a great critic, was far enough from perfection, may be seen by consulting Dr. Lawrence's Essay on the subject, published in England some years since, and republished in the Princeton Biblical Repertory. The first edition of his Greek Testament was published in two volumes in 1775-77, and the second in 1796-1806.

Something is attempted to be made of the circumstance that Griesbach was a Trinitarian, and that his emendations of the text are not always favorable to the doctrine of the Trinity. It is true that Griesbach was professedly a Trinitarian; and so all the theologians in Germany of any repute, Liberal as well as Orthodox, so far

as they profess to be Christians, profess to be Trinitarians. The doctrine of the Trinity is not the dividing line in that land of learning, for it is a conceded point that the Bible teaches this doctrine, and that it is a constituent part of Christianity; and the only question on which they are at issue is, Was the Bible given by supernatural revelation? Accordingly, the most common names of the two parties are, Naturalists and Supernaturalists. All the principal treatises on theology from both these parties, recognise, illustrate, and defend the doctrine of the Trinity, as a fundamental doctrine of the Bible and of the Lutheran church. If any one doubt the fact, let him examine the theological system of Schleiermacher, who is of the liberal party, and a Naturalist in his views of inspiration; and of Hahn, who is reckoned among the Orthodox, or Supernaturalists. The only difference between them is, that the latter considers himself bound to believe what the Bible teaches; and the former does not consider himself thus bound.

Griesbach, therefore, though professedly a Trinitarian, might have been as liberal as any of his contemporaries; and surely he was never very rigidly Orthodox. Some of the rules which he prescribed to himself in the examination of various readings, show that in his anxiety to walk straight, he almost leaned over backwards. We will mention two.

6. "The reading that gives a sense especially calculated to nourish piety, (particularly monastic) is to be suspected."

8. " Among many readings of one passage, that which more than the others, manifestly favors the doctrines of the Orthodox, is justly regarded as suspicious." (Pref. p. 61.)

We make no objection to these rules, considering circumstances; we merely say, that twelve and thirteen are equi-distant from twelve and a half.

In 1782-88, Prof. Matthaei, formerly of Moscow, after a most laborious examination of more than a hundred MSS. (the greater part of which were unknown to Griesbach,) and a careful comparison of the text with the scriptural quotations in the writings of the Fathers, published a splendid edition of the Greek Testament in twelve volumes, with Latin translations, critical remarks, fac similes of MSS., &c. He strenuously opposes the principles of Griesbach throughout, and comes very near the received text. Eichhorn, who for more than 30 years stood at the head of the liberal party in Germany, speaks in the highest terms of the merits of Matthaei, and observes in reference to his opposition to Griesbach, that he had himself always preferred a middle path between the two. (Bibliothek, B. II. S. 311.) Hug expresses an equally favorable opinion of Matthaei, though he gives a more decided preference to Griesbach. (Einleit. in N. T. B. I. S. 842.) It ought to be mentioned to the honor of Griesbach, that in his second edition, he very carefully availed himself of all the remarks that had been made upon the first.

In 1827, Dr. David Schulz, a decided Naturalist, published at Berlin the first volume of a new edition of Griesbach's Testament, with numerous corrections and additions. In his Preface, among VOL. III.-NO. VIII.

56

many other reasons for revising the text of Griesbach, he gives the following:

1. Griesbach, and those who preceded him, in settling the text, relied too exclusively on external evidence, such as the authority of codices, versions, the Fathers, &c., without sufficient regard to the internal evidence, that is, the genius of each writer, the custom of language, the course of thought, the scope of the argument, &c.

2. Griesbach did not investigate with sufficient accuracy the origin and sources of various readings, nor form on this ground a just estimate of these variations.

3. The most ancient and best codices, the versions, and Fathers, had not been described, collated, and estimated with due correctness, by Griesbach and his predecessors.

4. The doctrine of Griesbach concerning the recensions of the New Testament, though not to be rejected entirely, yet ought to be restricted within narrower limits, and applied more cautiously and sparingly, than has been done by Griesbach and his disciples.

Dr. Schulz gives several other reasons of the same nature; but these, which are the first that occur, may suffice as a specimen. (Pref. p. 30.)

In 1797, Dr. Knapp of Halle published his Testament, which approaches much nearer the common reading than Griesbach. The merits of this work are very cheerfully acknowledged by Griesbach himself, in the Preface to the second volume of the second edition of his Testament; and he candidly avows that its excellencies enabled him to make several improvements in his own work. Eichhorn also gives a hearty recommendation of Knapp. (Bibliothek, B. IX. S. 574.) Dr. Schulz, in the Preface already referred to, gives the same testimony, and affirms that Griesbach owes it to Knapp, that the second edition of his Testament is so much more correct than the first. He then adds: "Knapp alone certainly has deserved the best of all in modern times in this department of New Testament criticism; and among theologians you will scarcely find his equal for acuteness and perspicacity, or cautious skill and learning, or a subtle knowledge of the classic languages." (Pref. p. 9.) This from Dr. Schulz, respecting so Orthodox a character as Dr. Knapp, is surely very high praise. This Testament has gone through four very large editions, each with improvements, the last by Dr. Thilo

in 1829.

Such being the facts, we are surprised to find in the North American Review, in addition to the most unqualified eulogy of Griesbach, such language as the following, in reference to the labors of Knapp. "What state it was of opinion, or of the book market in Germany, which called for such a work, we cannot presume to say." "It was bought at first because there was nothing to compete with it, and copies were subsequently multiplied, because, from use, they would sell.”

We readily allow that the merit of original and laborious collation belongs to Griesbach, and that had it not been for the materials which he collected and labored upon, the work of Knapp would not