« السابقةمتابعة »
* edition of the Scriptures dispersed and thus altered by him, no “ peculiarly accommodated to the opinions of the Arians.” “To * first edition of the Scriptures published with the royal authorn * The peculiar alterations which the text has undergone fro“ the hand of Eusebius.’ “ Eusebius expunged these verse * (i. e.) Acts xx. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 16, 1 John v. 7.) from his tex. * and every manuscript from which they have disappeared is 5. * neally descended from his edition.” This is hypothesis with witness'
“10 But “now the charge is to be brought home to Eusebius,” p.3: The latter part of St. Mark’s Gospel “ was wanting in most copies of “ the Evangelists extant, in the time of St Jerome, the beginning & “ the fifth century " Eusebius composed a work called the Cance, a kind of harmonical tables, in which this part of St. Mark's Gospo, is omitted. Mr. Nolan s conclusion is, that “it must have been ex“ punged from the original text,” and that “there seems to be co“sequently no other reasonable inference,” but that “his edition agree: “ with them, and with the copies extant in the times of St Jeror, “ in omitting this passage,” p 36. What Eusebius omitted in his a nons is evident; what he erased in the fifty copies sent to Constant. nople, and whether he erased any thing, is far from evident. The somer was an innocent act, the latter would have been a gross fraz But if these passages were erased from the fifty copies, it is clero the hypothesis that the MSS. at Caesraea contained them, and subse. quent copies would have defeated the intentions of the episcopal zostor. It is the argument of Mr. Nolan, that what Eusebius omize: in his canons, he expunged in the fifty copies of the Scriptures destre for the Constantinopolitan new churches. Will it exculpate the Bshop to call these fifty copies “ his edition” of the New Testamero We must remember that the original MSS. at Caesarea were untoucho according to the hypothesis of Mr. N. and not afterwards removal from the library, by the Emperor or the Bishop.’ p. 10. Eusebius's canons do not include the latter part of Mark'. Gospel:—and what does that prove Nothing less, accord. ing to Mr. Nolan, than that Eusebius “erpunged’ the Passage, in his ‘ edition' of the New Testament' A most unwar. rantable inference, truly. Does this omission admit of no other explanation than one which impeaches the honesty of the mus'
Would it not be sufficiently accounted for by the hesitation a
Eusebius respecting the passage, which might be wanting in the MSS. that he used ? We thank Mr. Falconer for this interesting tract, which is written in a sober and scholar-like manner. Of its efficiency as the subject to which it relates, there can be but one opinion auct: those who, in such questions, form their judgement on the appropr: ate evidence by which alone they can be determined. We are glas to perceive in this tract, a particular examination of a subject to which, in our review of Dr. Laurence's pamphlet, we adverted,” and a confirmation of the sentinents which on that occasion we felt it to be our duty to express. Mr. Falconer is perfectly correct in the conclusion with which he terminates his criticisms.
* It must not be concealed, that I have condemned a part of a work which that able reasoner and theologian, Dr. Magee, the Dean of Cork, has commended. What is commended or censured has not al. ways been examined. But I venture to affirm, “ that the broad and “ deep foundation” of Mr. N.'s work, consists of materials which no architect, who was building for the honour of true religion, would have employed.’ p. 15.
Art. VI. A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of London, at the Visitation in July and August, 1818: By William, Lord Bishop of London. 8vo. pp. 32.1818. THR#. years have elapsed since we had occasion to notice his Lordship's Primary Charge, a charge distinguished, as we regretted to remark, by its purely secular character, and its tone of feeble-minded jealousy and alarm with respect to the Sectaries. The present production is but a reiteration of the same sentiments. The Primary Charge opened with a panegyrie somewhat fulsome upon Bishop Randolph ; the present, in place of that, commences with a panegyric upon his Lordship's clergy. “It is a pleasing reflection, that in reviewing the various transactions of so many years, I discover no personal ground of complaint against any of my clergy: it is a subject of higher congratulation, that I am enabled to regard with so much satisfaction the general complexion of their professional conduct and attention to their sacred duties.”— * I may assert, with a justifiable confidence, that a body more truly respectable, for learning or piety than the clergy of this diocese, and less in need of allowance for human infirmity and error, will not easily be found.” We can well imagine the secret amusement which this goodhumoured compliment afforded to some blushing subjects of his Lordship's commendation; but the Bishop must be better acquainted with the individual characters of his clergy than we are, who know them only by common report. , No wonder that feeling this perfect satisfaction with the ministers of the diocese over which he has the singular felicity to preside, his Lordship should, in the succeeding paragraph, proceed to declare his conviction “that every measure which tends , “to improve the condition, or increase the influence of the clergy,
the spiritual rulers to whom were then confised the ol. religion within this realin. “The current.” says as Loo;
* with slight fluctuations, had continued to flow in the same='' nel and on a level nearly the s-tie. The controver-o occasionally arose, were settled by the learned in ther to The growth of new opinions, the progress of rising “..." regarded with jealousy, as pregnant with future ***
“But row all is changed: it is our lot to have fallen at inf innovation and trouble: the political character of the are a "
duced an alteration in the circumstances of the country. **
agitation in the public mind, affecting the Church as well as to * which, under the guidance of wisdom and probity, on to the increase of true religion and virtue, but, if left to the to of chance or folly, will terminate in ruin and confusion.’
without exciting apprehension for the stability of our --
The ‘agents of evil, the “dark and turbulent spirits'" .
in league with the Prince of Darkness, overthrew ‘the to
‘establishments of Europe, religious, civil, and political-" is to say, Popery and Legitimacy, and whose further Pro were defeated by the Duke of Wellington at the battled " terloo, could not be expected tamely to acquiesce in amo ments which consigned them to inaction, or ‘to cease to * * new scenes of confusion for the promotion of their selfish to Accordingly, the legion crossed the channel, and entered."
one Willian Hone, the organ of those to whom his Lo! .
we suppose, alludes, as having ‘presumed to address the * * nations of blasphemy in audible accents to the multitude.
“Dismayed by the indignation of the public, the sero"
shrunk into his den, where in darkness he ruminates his First improves his capacities of mischief.”
This, however, cannot be fairly or appropriately said of Mr. one, who has opened a handsome shop on Ludgate Hill, where understand he ruminates no other plans than those which y repair his fortunes and improve his business, for the mainance of his numerous family. And to these he will do well in ure to confine himself. He has learned that political pasquides of an irreligious and profane description, will not now be erated, as they were when Canning wrote in the Anti-jacol, and Gilray designed for the Ministerial print-shops. The nument of the public, though it partook of disgust at the hyerisy of the attempt to give a religious character to a politiI prosecution, was unequivocally that of deprecation in refeice to all productions of the kind; whether it be treason and sphemy, or anti-jacobinism and blasphemy, the thing will not w be endured ; and with all due deference to his Lordship, . think the improved moral tone of the public feeling in this 'pect, rather goes against his argument as to the peculiar danrs of the tunes, of the existence of which he persuades himt that the most incredulous suust, in spite of every prejudice, convinced. Dangers, however, and for midable dangers, we 2 assured, do exist, and, of course, the Church is in danger. °ublications of the most pernicious tendency are still in circuation, adapted to the taste and capacities of all descriptions of men,” the obvious purpose of which is “the extinction of moality and the extirpation of religiou in the country.” * But since it has always been found that plans of enormous iniquity, en distinctly avowed, are regarded with horror, and defeated by > zeal of their advocates, the agents of evil, while they carry on e main work of corruption in secret, direct their efforts with someat less reserve to another point, through which they must necesrily pass to their ulterior object—the demolition of the National urch. In this enterprize, they are actively aided or feebly rested by men with whom they have lit.le in common, in principles, nper, or design; by soone among the Dissenters, whom the predices of education, or their own speculations have taught that stablishments are subversive of Christian liberty, and hostile to the Ivancement of truth; and by a few perhaps even among the memors of our own Church, dissatisfied with our ecclesiastical system, !cause in its present administration it is unfavourable to their parcular notions and favourite views. If these observations are just, ir dangers will appear to originate in impiety, rancorous and in2terate, in hostility to the religion of the State, and in a morbid ir'gularity of pious affection, which is distinguished from genuine iety, by tendency to faction, contempt of authority, or devi Lion . on sobriety and reason.”
“If these observations are just, the plain state of the case aust be this, that Mr. Hone and others, the authors and abet-.
tors of the recent parodies upon the Liturgy, have embarke
my Lord Castlereagh would say) in an “enterprize, the of .
of ject of which is the overthrow of the Established Co
in which highly seasible undertaking they are actively are of .
party among the Dissenters, a party pretty large, indo it comprises all those who have been taught that ‘ess
“ments are subversive of Christian liberty, and hostile to ,
• advancement of truth.” This class of persons, although said they have little in common with the men they are ‘tro
‘aiding, in respect of their design, are yet clearly to be wr:
as conspirators; their ‘hostility to the religion of the Sto in direct alliance with the “impiety, rancorous and invetent.
the other supposed party, who are for extirpating relor .
morality altogether, and to whose efforts the ‘fer' who mu
up the third company of the enemy's forces, oppose a ‘fool .
“sistance.” Our readers will perceive with what strict propriety to ri
duction of his Lordship's is styled a charge ' It consists, no
of little more than charge upon charge against different do.
tions of the community. Were it not for these wicked seri
we really fear that his Lordship would have been at a loool topic on which to discourse to his clergy. As to the factsuo the charges are sounded, we have not access to the gree.* dence by which alone they could be substantiated. His Lors. as a privy-counsellor, has, it should seem, secret informitos the projected achievement, which has not yet transpired. Wes indeed seen Jeremy Bentham's book; and if the Bishop wool warm from the perusal of some of his ‘under-gradual” to “ims,’ when he sat down to pen his Charge, that might to account for the temper in which it is written; but stio formidable, and we frankly add, highly exceptionable volca.” scarcely be admitted as proof sufficient of an extensive coo racy ; nor would it be fair, on the ground of the eccepth. Fo duction of a recluse, to indict the whole body of Disso demolitionists. But we must take the liberty of commenting upon his
ship's phraseology, as in itself somewhat injurious. Hesio the religion of the State, is not chargeable upon those wo bostile (if so warlike a term must be employed) only State-establishment of religion. “An establishment, * * Paley remarks, is no part of Christianity, no part, tho' of religion; “it is only the means of inculcating it.’ To to ligion of the State, as imbodied in the Articles and Hono the Church, the greater part of those who disapprove ** means of inculcating it, are decidedly attached; and ther tility to the means, as both illegitimate and injurious, profrom their attachuleut to the end. But till this hostily