considered that about this time there were great animosities between the Presbyterians and Independents, such a circumstance is still less likely; though, in conformity with the more liberal sentiments of some of the wiser Presbyterians, she might desire to unite the dissenters and the establishment. And this view is confirmed by her further requiring that the alms-people should learn the Apostles' Creed: which never was, nor ever is used by the class of dissenters who call themselves Independents. The declarations of Owen and the chief writers among them against all written form of prayer must have been known to Lady Hewley, as they are known to every one at this day; and it can hardly be thought that she should have fixed upon the Apostles' Creed to be learned by her alms-people had she intended to have confined her charity to the dissenters. But her fixing upon neutral forms, (if I may so term them,) or rather upon those always held by the church of England, is to my mind a sufficient proof that she intended her charity for them equally with the Presbyterians, who are to be distinguished from their brethren, the Independents, in the admission and use of these four.

If, indeed, any thing was further requisite to shew that Lady Hewley intended her charity for all sects and denominations of Christians who use these four forms, it might be found in the fact, that Richard Baxter would have made the Creed, Lord's Prayer, and Decalogue the tests for toleration and Christian union. See Wordsworth, E. b. vi. p. 581.

And, lastly, whatever may be the value of these presumptive proofs, drawn from external circumstances, let it be asked, would a person who intended to found a charity exclusively for dissenters, fix upon such tests and forms of prayers which, though admitted, were not used among other dissenters, especially when those dissenters had a catechism of their own, where a passage in that creed which they generally reject is explained their own way, and which was in use, as a test, among the partakers of a charity founded in the same place and at the same time with this of Lady Hewley ?+

I remain, sir, yours, &c., J. B.

DUTIES OF THE RICH.

SIR, The principles on which society is to be tied together are not abstruse nor remote for those who believe in a God, and that his Pro

The same which are singled out to be learned by heart by her members previous to confirmation.

+ SIR,-In my letter to you, I forgot to notice a circumstance, to which, perhaps, you may find opportunity to allude; which is that Sir John Hewley must have been a member of the church of England, since he served as a burgess in parliament in the latter part of the reign of Charles II. It is not, therefore, probable that his widow, when instituting a charity for general benefit, would have intended to exclude those of the same religion with her husband. Both Sir John and his widow have inscriptions erected to their memory in St. Saviour's church, at York. Perhaps some of your correspondents can inform me whether they are buried there, and what is the tenor of the inscriptions. J. B.

vidence governs the world; for they know where to look for these principles. There will always be rich and poor in the land; and if society is to exist in peace, the rich must give aid, support, advice, kindness, and protection to the poor-must give this THEMSELVES-must be known to feel the interest which would induce them to give it, and to have a knowledge of the wants and circumstances under which it is required. The poor, in return, must give reverence, gratitude, obedience, and love. On these terms they must meet, and they must live in the sight of one another. God has so ordered it, because thus, and thus only, the evils, physical and spiritual, of each condition can be remedied. The rich cannot then become simply luxurious, and selfish, and hard-hearted, for love does its blessed work on the patron and the giver, even more than on the client and the receiver. The poor cannot become sullen and envious, because their heart is melted by the constant sense of protection and kindness. But that this system may be well compact, there must be in the higher class the qualities which fit them for command. It is not the question, whether they know to what class such a butterfly, or plant, or stone belongs, or what are the strata of this or that section of a county, but whether they remember that the virtues of the rich and the great are faith, truth, probity, honour, loyalty, unshaken firmness, and unshaken courage in defending what they believe to be true and precious; and whether they are educated in the noble and lofty school which alone can instil such qualities. They mistake fearfully who think that it does not want a very peculiar training to secure these qualities, and that they can exist in equal perfection in all the ranks of life. Each has its own peculiar virtues and excellences, but they are of very different kinds. It is by each existing in its own proper sphere, according to the wise ordination of Providence, by the head discharging the office of the head as it ought, the arm of the arm, and the foot of the foot, that the whole body, social as well as physical, exhibits all its full excellence, and exerts all its full powers. Where this disposition of things is subverted, as it is now; where the qualities which ought to distinguish each class are scoffed at, nothing but evil and confusion will arise. If the higher orders, instead of fitting themselves to command, to guide, and to protect, instead of exhibiting the self-denial and self-devotion which are necessary to enable them to do so, profess, in the sickening cant of liberalism, that there ought to be no distinction of higher and lower, that even the terms are offensive, and that it is the duty of all to endeavour that all should be brought to the same level, and educated so as to attain the same powers, and act on the same views, and that the peer and the peasant should descend into the common arena of promoting general utility, by the direction of their endeavours to the promotion of science and useful knowledge, the folly and the wickedness of such declarations are about on a par. The folly, indeed, is enormous. These thoughtless people would reverse the decrees of Providence, and when He has ordered that, for happiness, there shall be a powerful head to think, and a vigorous arm to execute, they say that all the parts of the body shall be mixed and mashed up together-and that in every atom of "the puddle of their compound" there shall be head and

hand, and arm and foot alike. But their wickedness is as great as their folly. For the real history of all this is, that they cannot and will not make the sacrifices which are necessary, if they could see the truth, to keep themselves in their places. When they should give all their thoughts and many, very many, of their thousands to promote the spiritual and moral life, and the physical comforts of these people, it is far easier to give half an hour's idle prating, and five guineas to a mechanics' institute, and five guineas more to a clothing club, and so on.

But let them be assured that God is not so mocked-that rank and fortune, and riches are not given, except as solemn trusts-and that if in idleness, and luxury, and sloth they desert their station, if they neglect to give their dependents all that moral and religious training which they expect and demand at their hands, all that training of their affections which kindness, and direction, and guidance give, and then hope to patch up these deficiencies by a mean and mischievous flattery of those to whom flattery is ruin, by a pandering to the worst passions of man, by telling those who were born to obey and to be happy in obedience, that they are worthy and able to command, that they are wise and good, and becoming every day models of wisdom by means of Mechanics' Institutes and Penny Magazines, verily they will have their reward! Let them look to it, and soon; and let them be assured that He who made night follow day, and day follow night, and has appointed certain other consequents to certain other antecedents, has also made it an invariable rule of His world, that "Whatsoever a man soweth, that he shall reap." They who think that riches were given them to enjoy-dependents to be shaken off without trouble-defrauded of real light and guidance and love, because those things are troublesome to give, and misled by the false light of increased knowledge, and increased political power, and increased consequence-fatal gifts to the giver and receiver alike-they will reap what they are sowing. They are sowing the wind. Do they think that the whirlwind is a harvest which will give them a joyous harvest-home?

In another letter I wish to shew how these principles bear on the awful state of Religious Destitution of our great cities, and of the indispensable duty of the noble and the rich to remedy this fearful evil. I am, &c. &c. J.

VINDICATION OF THE EARLY PARISIAN GREEK PRESS FROM THE SECOND ATTACK OF MR. OXLEE.*

MY DEAR SIR,-MR. OXLEE very properly entitles his paper "Stephens's Text;" for although he was to have made it a discussion "on the manner in which the argument had been conducted," it really is a more violent and viru

The Editor thinks it right to state, that the ensuing sheet is printed at Mr. Huyshe's expense; that the readers of the Magazine are therefore indebted to him for this addition to the number; and that the Editor himself in no way interferes between Mr. Huyshe and Mr. Oxlee.

VOL. VII.-May, 1835.

4 c

lent repetition of his slanders on Stephanus. To sweep away the vindication of him and his text, Mr. O. begins with what he states as its hypothesis,-" two sets of Greek MSS."-This was what Crito thought fit to ascribe to the Specimen, p. 391, 393; and Mr. Oxlée adopted from him (to the Bishop of Salisbury, p. 118)" the hypothesis of this Specimen is to assign to Robert Stephens two sets of MSS., sixteen from which he published his first and second edition of the Greek Testament, and then other fifteen afterwards procured for his third, or folio edition, the various readings of which only were given in the margin." As the vindication more than once protests, in strong terms, against this "monstrous fiction;" as Mr. O. himself gave the real theory, as far as the O mirificam was concerned, p. 61, from vol. iii. p. 285, and he had argued there against the real theory-viz., that the MSS. taken, first and last, for furnishing various readings, were a selection out of the whole stock that was acquired after Henry's three years' exertions in Italy, there are persons who might have imagined that such a scheme, for getting rid of Stephanus's text, would have been abandoned. As Mr. O., however, has judged that it could not be dispensed with, I accept with thankfulness his declaration, that the "British Magazine" does not contain "any arguments that Mr. Huyshe has collected in support of such an hypothesis ;" nor can any one say "what they are,-where each is to be found fully stated and corroborated." I can rest under this charge, as well as that of the Specimen appearing "the production of the most addled brain" (Letters p. 117) to a critic who reads it under such an impression. Mr. O. "cannot but consider the whole scheme as a futile attempt to draw the reader into a belief that there still exists some forthcoming evidence for the disputed passage." I am curious to know what the reader thinks of it, as concocted by Crito, and eagerly adopted by Mr. Oxlee, by the "Monthly Repository," and by Mr. Orme.

"

In p. 298, Mr. O. says, that the Docti et Prudentes were actuated by envy, rivalry, or selfish motives of any kind, is a surmise which has nothing to support it." This part of the charge was given in their own words. Their object was "omnino emergere ex ista nebula typographica, in qua fere versari solent, qui hujus disciplinæ sunt aut plane expertes aut non satis gnari." (Semler, Pref. Wets. viii.) But there was another cause assigned for the conspiracy against Stephanus, which Mr. O. thinks proper to leave unnoticed-namely, their determination to explode a certain hated text. This has effected, perhaps, more than the other. It was avowed by a great critic, more than a century ago, 'J'assure qu'il n'est dans aucun des MSS. dont Ro. Estienne s'est servi;" and the beginning of the present attack, at p. 60, shews us pretty plainly, that to it alone we must attribute all its virulence. We are immediately assured, that "the unanimity of their censure" is expressly bottomed on grave and solid arguments, which cannot be confuted." This alone might serve to satisfy the reader of the disposition with which one of the Docti et Prudentes comes to the inquiry. I have everywhere asserted, in the most decided manner, that they have never attempted to produce the shadow of an argument to shew that Stephanus did not follow his MSS. to a letter; and if any could have been found or invented, I think that after the Specimen had been published, the Brit. Crit. Theol. Quart. No. vii. p. 7, would not have thought their "reader's patience and their own" so ill bestowed in producing them. The Docti et Prudentes have followed the plan of Griesbach. As Mr. O. had been distinctly told,—Mr. Porson himself, speaking of his first edition, says, p. 58, Mr. Griesbach took this point for granted. Yes, I have always admired the singular tact with which they assume their "Quindecim tantum"-"fifteen or sixteen MSS.," taking it "for granted," that if the man added in his margin opposing readings to his text of 1550, he must take those very documents, and those only, from which not merely the text of that edition had been collected, but the widely different text that he had published four years before. But Mr. O., as we have seen, undertook, p. 61, to demonstrate, that the cited MSS. in any place could not

"

be a selection, but must be the whole of what the man had for his text there; and thereby, in fact, admitted, that the deduction from this critical axiom of theirs was not to be depended upon; so that their censure, up to that time, was not "bottomed on grave and solid arguments, which could not be confuted." This had been previously admitted in effect by Griesbach, in his second edition, and by his followers, when they resorted to Morin's scheme of making insertions in Stephanus's words, and thus producing their "glaring evidence." But I do not see that Mr. O. undertakes to shew that they had a right thus to add the word "my" where he says all, and to add the word "all" where he says my; so as to make him confess ingenuously" all my MSS.” are against my text. I take the liberty, therefore, to say, Bring forth your strong reasons. I know the effect of these magic words, as Mr. Porson would call them,-"grave and solid arguments, which cannot be refuted;" but I want to know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power." Let Mr. O. state by what arguments he has been convinced that the Stephanic text, in many places, is not founded on the faith of MSS.; whether those arguments come from the old or the later critics, who have agreed together to malign it.

Mr. O. brings Scholtz, Prol. xxv., as aiding his cause; but his words "inter eruditos constat," appear to me to be simply a reference to the exertions of the D. et P. to get rid of the testimony of the early Greek press, whether at Alcala, at Basil, or at Paris. In what he gives from xxxix, I am sorry to say he has Scholtz with him. Mr. O. says, most justly, that "speaking of the codex Bezæ, and of its identity with the codex ẞ of Stephanus, he thus taxes him, as usual, with a general negligence in the collation of that and all his other MSS.: Codex hic certo intelligendus est quoties Stephanus ẞ nominat; sed et codice hoc et reliquis, quorum lectionis varietatem enotatam adhibuit, satis negligenter usus est." But Scholtz ought to have known, that the diversity of the two MSS. is established by the collation which Grisbach gives in his second edition; and still more decidedly by the history of the two MSS.; (See Semler's notes on Wetsten, 43-46); but beyond all possibility of honest doubt by Wetsten's own criterion: the readings of ẞ are given where D is deficient. (See Michaelis ii. 694. 3, note 114.) Yet Scholtz can say, "Codex hic certe intelligendus est, quoties Stephanus ẞ nominat," evidently going on the same principle with the author of the nonillion theorem,-viz., that Stephanus's margin is right in every one of the instances where the quotations from 3 accord with D; and also that it is wrong in every instance where they do not agree. (See "British Magazine," v. p. 291.) "Sed codice hoc," says Scholtz, "satis negligenter usus est." Yes; in truth, satis negligenter, if D was the identical MS., and I think “satis diligenter" too, blowing hot and cold in the same breath, if his collation never once erred, in all the instances where the quotations accord with D. And this in fact is the tacit assumption; for if it be admitted that D actually differs in one single letter from ß, it is as decisive against their identity as ten thousand words. By this accuracy of quotation then, that never failed in the one case, and this inaccuracy, that never admits of being once right, in the other, D is substituted for ẞ. The character of Stephanus is gone for ß; and if for ẞ, why not for y, &c.? (a more conclusive argument than that of his predecessors from a, -a common printed copy;) so, hoc codice et reliquis quorum lectionis varietatem enotatam adhibuit, satis negligenter usus est," ergo "quam parum præstiterit Stephanus, inter eruditos constat." Q. E. D.

In p. 299, Mr. O. says of me, "he assumes the statements of the Docti et Prudentes as he finds them; and then, drawing his requisite materials from such passages of their works as may seem to involve a contradiction, he spins a cabinet of sophistry,Here at last Mr. O. has performed what he engaged to do, p. 61, and has "explored the foundations" of the "critical hypothesis." He finds it based on facts actually admitted, and brought