the courfe of his reading, to affift his own memory; but a pri vate edition having been prefented about two years ago to his friends, who were of opinion, that it contained much valuable information, he has thought proper to deliver it to the public, with various corrections, and confiderable additions. As the work lays claim to no other title, than that of a compilation. from the most approved authors on the refpective fubjects which are difcuffed in it, we must examine it folely in this point of view; and we can have no reafon to complain, if it contains not original difquifitions, fuch as might be expected in the writings of a Michaelis, or an Eichorn. The manifold fubje&s of critical theology lie fcattered in fuch a multiplicity of volumes, to which few have accefs, and not many know even by name, that it is undoubtedly a meritorious undertaking, merely to collect and arrange thofe fubjects, fo as to render them familiar to common readers. Manuals of this defcription are of real utility; for, on the one hand, they furnish, at an easy rate, much useful knowledge to thofe, who have neither leifure nor inclination to study the originals; and, on the other, they fupply thofe, whofe profeffion leads then to a deeper investigation, with a clue, which may direct them in their future inquiries. We must acknowledge, therefore, our obligations to Mr. Butler, for the comprehenfive mifcellany now before us, in which the fubjects have, upon the whole, been selected with judgment and fidelity, and which, when we confider that it was written, as he himself fays," in the bits and fcraps of time, which a very laborious difcharge of the uncealing duties of a very laborious profession left at his command," must certainly excite our admiration.

The book is divided into eighteen chapters, which are again fubdivided into fections. In the first chapter, which relates to the history of the Hebrew language, Mr. B. obferves, that its claim to high antiquity cannot be denied; and adds, though without acceding to the opinion, " that many respectable authors have fuppofed it to have been the original language of mankind." We alfo have inclined to the fame opinion. But the question, what language was firft Spoken upon earth, it is at present perhaps impoffible to determine; all that we can affert is, that the Hebrew is probably the oldest language, in which any work now extant was written. But whether it was the elder branch of the Oriental languages (Hebrew, Chaldre, Syriac, Arabic, Samaritan) or not, it ceafed to be a living language much fooner than even Chaldee and Syriac; for after the captivity of the ten tribes, the latter was introduced into the northern part of Palestine, and the colony of Jews, who returned from the Babylonith captivity, brought with them the

latter

latter into the fouthern part of Palestine. The Chaldee and Syriac, or, as they are called, East and West Aramaan, which were, in fact, only different dialects of one and the fame language, were fpoken by the Jews of Paleftine, in the time of Chrift and his Apoftles. Accordingly, Mr. B. very properly fays, p. 8, that Aramæan was fpoken by Chrift in his familiar inftructions and converfations. Ifaac Voffius indeed contended, that Greek was spoken at Jerufalem in the time of Chrift; and Diodati, in a little tract publifhed at Naples, in 1767, afferted the fame. But the arguments of Ifaac Voffius have been fully confuted by Simon and Michaelis; and Ernefti has fatisfactorily replied to Diodati.

Chap. II, contains fome juft obfervations on the formation of what is called the Helleniftic language, or the language used by the Jews, who lived in Greek countries. Mr. B. then proceeds to give fome account of the Septuagint, and obferves, p. 21, "that it is the verfion generally cited by Chrift, and by the Apofties." Now it is true, that in many of the speeches of Chrift, as recorded in the Greek Teftament, quotations from the Old Teftament are given in the words of the Septuagint, even when the Hebrew text differs from it. But we must not therefore conclude, that Chrift himself quoted from the Septuagint. He converfed with the Jews of Paleftine in the language of their country, that is, in the Aramæan; his quotations therefore were in that language, and, if he did not use the words of an established Targum, which however is not improbable, he must be fuppofed to have given his own Aramaan tranflation, not of a Greek verfion, but of the Hebrew original. On the other hand, in Greek Gofpels, written for the use of Greek Chriftians, quotations from the Old Teftament, even fuch as had been made by Chrift himfelf, were frequently delivered in the words of the established Greek verfion, in the fame manner as an English translator, in rendering a German the logical work, would use the words of the established English verfion of the Bible, where his author had quoted that of Luther. Mr. B. further obferves, p. 22, "that the Greek verfion was fometimes ufed in the fynagogues of Judea." That it was fometimes aufed is certainly true, and Buxtorf in his Lexicon Chald. Talmudicum, p. 104, has quoted from the Talmud of Jerufalem, a paffage to that purpose, namely, Rabbi Levi ivit Cæfaream, audienfque eos legentes lectionem, Audi Ifrael, Deut. VI, Hellenistice, voluit impedire ipfos." But from this paffage, it appears only that the Greek Bible was read at Cafarea, a fea-port town, the refort of strangers from Greek countries; and the very surprise and displeasure expreffed by Rabbi Levi, proves that he had not been accustomed to hear the Greek

44

Bible read in other fynagogues of Judæa. In fact the Targum, or Chaldee verfion, was to the Jews of Jerufalem, what the Septuagint was to the Jews of Alexandria.

Chap. III, contains many useful remarks on the language of the New Teftament. In Chap. IV, is given an account of the biblical literature of the middle ages; of the industry of the Monks; and of the industry of the Jews in copying Hebrew manufcripts. Chap. V, relates to the Maforah, or Jewish fyftem of criticifm, a difficult and confufed fubject, on which it cannot be expected, that full light fhould be thro n in a fhort manual. No one has examined the Maforah with fo much perfpicuity and critical fagacity as Eichhorn, in his Introduction to the Old Teftament, vol. i, p. 255-309. Walton likewife (Prol. VI) has difplayed great learning on this fubject. In Chap. VI, is given fome account of the controverfy on the antiquity of the Hebrew vowel points, which, as is well-known, was defended by Buxtorf, and attacked by Cappellus. As far as we can judge, neither party appears to have viewed the fubject in its proper light. It may be admitted, that the figns, &c. were the invention of the Maforites; and yet the Jounds, which thofe figns were intended to denote, may have exifted a thoufand years before the age of the Maforites. It cannot be fuppofed, that these critics gave totally new founds to the Hebrew language; but that they endeavoured, by the introduction of certain figns, to fix the pronunciation of it as then already fpoken, and to prevent (fince it was then become the language only of the learned) any confiderable deviation in the pronunciation of it at a future period. As long as the Hebrew was a living language, every Jew knew what vowel found belonged either to the confonants, or the matres lectionis, merely from the form of each word; in the fame manner as every Frenchman, though the vowel e, in the French language, has not lefs than five different founds, knows, even without any particular directions, which of thofe five founds is to be applied, merely from looking at the word itfelf: and even at this day, when a learned Rabbi reads a Hebrew Bible without points, he pronounces the words in the very fame manner, as he would if the Maforetic points were annexed to them. With refpect to Mafclef's fyftem of punctuation, it certainly facilitates the study of the Hebrew language; but it is not to be recommended to any man, who would acquire a profound knowledge of Hebrew, as it deftroys the analogy of this language to the other Oriental languages, and, as Arabic is ftill a living language, it cannot be compreffed into the Mafclefian mould.

Ch. VII, contains fome general remarks; 1ft, on the His tory of the Jews, after their return from the Babylonish capti

vity to the birth of Chrift; 2dly, on the Perfecutions fuffered by the Jews; 3dly, on their prefent State; 4thly, on their religious Tenets; 5thly, on the Appellation of their Doctors and Teachers; 6thly, on the Cabbala; 7thly, on their Writers against the Christian Religion; and, 8thly, on their Principles refpecting religious Toleration. In Chap. VIII, we find fome obfervations on the nature of the Hebrew manufcripts, and the principal editions of the Hebrew Bible. The remarks on the Hebrew manufcripts are, of courfe, only general and popular: they, who would examine the fubject more minutely, muft have recourfe to Kennicott and De Roffi. The account of the principal editions of the Hebrew Bible is very correct: it may be obferved only of the edition of Van der Hoogt, that it is not a bare reimpreffion of that of Athias. In the edition of the Hebrew Bible, which was begun by Doederlein, continued by Meifner, and publifhed at Leipzig, in 1793, one grand defect must be noticed; namely, though the Hebrew manufcripts are quoted in it, according to the numbers affixed to them in Kennicott's edition, the editor has omitted to give a catalogue of the manufcripts, fo that they, who are not in poffeffion of Kennicott's edition, cannot poffibly know what manufcript is meant by each figure, and therefore cannot form a proper eftimate of the value of the various readings.

In Chap. IX, the account given of Greek MSS. of the New Teftament, is very fhort. Indeed this fubject is fo extenfive, that it was impoffible in a compendium to do more than mention fome of the most celebrated: further information therefore must be fought in the writings of Simon, Mill, Wetstein, Griefbach, and Michaelis. In the fecond fection of this chapter, Mr. B. very properly fays,

"The curious and extenfive collections, which have been made of manufcripts within this century, have fhewn that certain manufcripts have an affinity to each other, and that their text is diftinguished from others by charaćteriftic marks. This has enabled the writers on the fubject to arrange them under certain general claffes. They have obferved that, as different countries had different verfions, according to their refpective languages, their manufcripts naturally refembled their refpective verfions, as the verfions, generally speaking, were made from the manufcripts in common ufe."

In the first edition of the Hora Biblicæ, Mr. B. then added, "Pursuing this idea, they have fuppofed four principal editions; aft, the western edition, or that ufed in the countries where the Latin language was fpoken; with this the Latin verfions coincide: zdly, the Alexandrine edition; with this the quotations of Origen coincide: 3dly, the Edeffene edition, from which the Syriac verfion was made: and, 4thly, the Byzantine, or Conftantinopolitan edition; the greateft

number

number of the MSS. written by the monks of Mount Athos, the Mofcow MSS. the Slavonian or Ruffian verfion, and the quotations of Chryfoftom, and Theophylact, bishop of Bulgaria, are referrible to this edition."

:

But Mr. B. has now fubftituted, throughout this whole fen tence, the word exemplar in the place of edition. Now the term, which Mr. B. had at first adopted, was certainly preferable for, when we intend to denote a whole class of manufcripts, it is neceffary to use a collective term, whereas the word "exemplar" is neceffarily confined to a fingle copy. The term "edition," as applied to a particular clafs of Greek manuscripts, has received the fanction of Michaelis, and of other eminent critics nor can any confufion arife from the use of it, as every one muft inftantly perceive, that the question does not relate to a printed edition, and that a class of Greek manufcripts, which are faid to belong to the fame edition, cannot be fuppofed to agree every where, word for word, like copies of the fame work, which are delivered from a printing-office. When we speak of written editions, characteristic readings form our criterion. In Latin, Griefbach ufes the term "recenfio," which is ftill preferable to that of "editio:" if, therefore, we reject the term "edition," we muft adopt the term "recenfion." On the critical use to be made of the feveral recenfions of the Greek text of the New Testament, fee Griefbach's admirable obfervations, in the Prolegomena to his fecond edition of the Greek Teftament, p. lxxiii-lxxxi.

Chap. X, contains a description of the Polyglots and in Chap. XI, is given an account of the principal editions of the Greek Teftament. This account is drawn up with great correctness. In Chap. XII, we find fome ufeful information on the present state of the Greek Church, and the modern Greek verfions. Chap. XIII, relates to the Oriental verfions, and the principal editions of them. In this chapter, if we underftand Mr. B. rightly (pp. 162, 163) he reprefents the Maronites as Greek Chriftians inhabiting Syria. If fo, it must be an overfight, because the Maronites are Syrian Christians, and their fervice is performed in Syriac, as Mr. B. himself rightly obferves, p. 164. Speaking of the old Syriac verfion, or the Pefhito, Mr. B. fays, p. 165. "It was printed at Vienna, in 1555. It has been fince reprinted: the best edition is that of Leyden, 1709, reprinted in 1717." Now it is perfectly true, that the firit edition of the old Syriac verfion was printed at Vienna in 1555, and that the Leyden edition is the best. But critical accuracy requires that the term "reprinted" Thould not be applied to the Vienna edition: for, though the

Leyden