chaftilement in eradicating his foibles. They ufed a more gentle and effectual method, which might perhaps in fome measure be introduced into every family, and into moft feminaries of private or public education. Whenever any thing deferving of reprehenfion appeared in the prince's conduct, a fevere filence prevailed throughout the householdeven the lowest domeflic was taught to fignify his difapprobation by a melancholy referve. The royal tranfgreffor, fenfible and ingenuous, abandoned thus to folitary reflection amid ft the general gloom, foon burst into tears, and implored forgiveness, which was never fternly refufed. The vices of habit thus gradually corrected, thofe of temper were occafionally reproved with delicate raillery, or their deformity reflected from the moral mirror of fome tale or fable. Sullennefs and obitinacy were noticed with more direct reprehenfion, and fometimes punished by the privation of an amufement or a favourite ftudy; for by their converfation, which was not lefs entertaining than inftructive, they had infpired him with fuch a relish for mental improvement, that the temporary fufpenfion of it became fomething more than a negative punishment. His ftudies were directed neither by constraint nor by rule. He was generally left to the guidance of his own taste; but if they wished to direct his application to any particular branch of fcience, it was enough to introduce the fubject in a favourable light; he immediately became impatient to acquire it. The dry morality of the fchools was exploded by thofe judicious inftructors, and the charms of virtue were engraved on the tender mind of the pupil by the finger of tafte. The moft exalted virtues of humanity were agreeably exemplified to him from hiftory or fable. Even new works were produced, in order to inculcate thefe leffons with more facility and fuccefs; for this were compofed, the Dialogues of the Dead, and the Adventures of Telemachus. Our readers will doubtlefs agree with us in thinking that this plan of education can never be praised more than it deferves. Fenelon was rewarded for his fervices in forming the mind of the young prince, first with the Abbey of St. Vallery, and afterward with the Archbishopric of Cambray. In the course of this biographic hiftory, we are brought acquainted with Madame Guyon, a woman of weak understand. ing and wild imagination. After the death of her husband, fhe gave herself up to exercifes of devotion, and indulged ftrange vifions of myftic and divine lave. From the fafcination of youthand beauty, the pronenefs of the human mind to embrace error, and the unaccountable attachment which mankind generally difcover for mad people and for enthufiafts, Madame Guyon made many converts; and, among the reft, ftrange to relate, the new Archbishop of Cambray. Fenelon's biographer takes great pains to vindicate the partiality which he manifefted for this lady and her opinions: but, without altering the nature of things, it could hardly, one would imagine, be thought See anecdotes of this Prince, Rev. vol. lxxx. p. 155, &c. decent decent in the Archbishop to encourage the maintainer of doctrines at once abfurd and fanatical; and which have a tendency to inflame those appetites and paffions which it is the object of religion and morality to regulate and restrain:-for that there was a portion of fenfuality in the devotion of Madame Guyon was never difputed by the rational part of the public; and, as the openly afferted her nuptials with Jefus Chrift, it would be difficult to defend her from the charge of impiety. Let us turn our eyes from this unfavourable part of the Archbishop's conduct, and follow him to his diocefe, where he fhone forth a bright example of piety and virtue. In the words of our author: • His vifitorial and inftructive labours throughout fo large a diocese were inceffant. In his diftribution of appointments and preferments, it is remarked that he never patronized a fingle perfon from the influence of the court, or of any great man whatever, but made learning and merit the fole recommendation to his favour; and in the courfe of his miniftry, he introduced to public notice and diflinction, a greater number of eminent literary characters, than the whole epifcopacy of France. Impartial and affable, yet ftrict in all the concerns of his diocefe, he infpired his vicars and inferior clergy with the fame benign and confcientious fentiments. The poor revered in him the active piety of the ecclefiaftic, and bleffed the difcerning liberality of the prince. They always had free access to him. He heard, pitied, and relieved their distress.— But his cares were not merely epifcopal. Temporal as well as religious beneficence was included in the wide fphere of his philanthropy. The fevere winter of 1709, having blafted the hopes of the hufbandman, the French army in Flanders were greatly diftreffed in the fucceeding fummer, for the want of forage and magazines. The Archbishop of Cambray fet an example of patriotism and humanity to the provinces around, in gratuitoufly fupplying the wants of thofe troops; thousands of whom muft otherwife have fallen the famished victims of their fovereign's criminal ambition. Though Fenelon fincerely lamented that deftructive and unchriftian fpirit in Lewis XIV. he did every thing in his power to relieve the unhappy inftruments of it. After the hard fought battle at Malplaquet, he converted his palace and diocesan seminary into hospitals for the wounded officers and foldiers: but these not being fufficient for all that flood in need of his humane affiftance, he hired houfes, in which he lodged and vifited the reft with paternal tenderness and care. In the course of that ruinous war, his military guests were generally fucceeded by crowds of diftreft fugitives from the country, who, on the approach of an hoftile army, fought fecurity within the walls of Cambray. Neither the fqualid appearance of poverty, nor the contagious breath of dif eafe, deterred him from perfonal attendance on the most loathfome objects among them. Furnished with cloathing, food, and medicine, at his expence, they alfo received daily confolation and inftruction from their noble benefactor.' This excellent prelate died on the eighth of January 1715, in the 64th year of his age, amid the unfeigned forrow of his friends and connexions, and the bleffings and regrets of the poor. He died as he lived, without debt, and without accumulation, having difpofed of his revenue, as the faithful fteward of Providence. In no fenfe, (fays our ingenious biographer,) did he abufe the talents intrufted to him by heaven; an imputation on whofe goodness it would be to doubt his prefent enjoyment of the most gracious rewards that the divine justice and bounty can beftow.' These volumes are handfomely printed, and are adorned with engravings, of which we are forry we cannot fpeak with equal praife: fome of them are fkilfully defigned and delicately executed, while others are unnatural, difproportionate, and coarse. An explanatory index of the perfons and places which occur in the archbishop's charming performance (fo juftly styled A POEM,) is added; and fuch an addition will prove highly acceptable to many readers of a work fo greatly abounding in claffical allufions, and efpecially to the ladies. ART. IV. Profefor Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament, tranflated by Mr. Marsh. [Article concluded from the Review for July.] THE importance of the antient verfions, in afcertaining the genuine text of the New Teftament, is acknowleged by all Biblical fcholars. Prof. Michaelis deems them of more authority than any MS. of the New Teftament now extant, and has therefore devoted the whole of chapter vii. containing 38 fections, to a critical review of them. We are inclined to think with him, that there is no MS. copy of the Greek originals older than the fixth century, and that unlimited reliance ought not to be placed on the teftimony of the most antient, in favour of any particular reading. On the other hand, the authority of verfions or tranflations fhould not be carried too far. By carefully comparing the one with the other, the judicious critic may be able to determine, with fome degree of certainty, the true reading in doubtful places, and to reitore the purity of the' text. The old Syriac verfion is highly eftcemed by the Profeilor, who warmly recommends it to the attentive examina- . tion of learned chriftians. It was certainly very antient, though not fo antient as M. Michaelis fuppofes, and made from a Greek copy effentially differing from our prefent exemplars. He offers his reasons for concluding that the epiftle to the Hebrews was not originally in the old Syriac translation, and informs his readers that neither the ftory of the adulterefs, John viii., nor the celebrated paffage 1 John v. 7., nor the laft two two epiftles of St. John, nor the 2d epistle of Peter, nor the epiftle of Jude, nor the book of Revelation, made any part of the Syriac canon. He mentions the omiffion of John v. 7. to have been with the approbation of the cenfors of the church of Rome, and accuses the Proteftants of having obtruded this fpurious paffage on the Syriac text. The Syriac and the Latin are the two oldest versions: but the former having de. fcended to the prefent age with fewer alterations than the latter, the Profeffor urges a compilation of all the Syriac MSS. of the New Teftament, as more likely to contribute than any other undertaking of the kind to a perfect edition of the Chriftian fcriptures On the critical ufe of this verfion he makes the following remarks: The difference between the Syriac verfion, and the greateft part of the Greek manufcripts, is no ground for condemning the former. It is natural to fuppofe, from its great antiquity, that it must deviate in many cafes from the Greek manufcripts, the oldeft of which was written above four hundred years later, and are mostly the produce of countries remote from Syria. They were probably taken neither from the fame copy, nor from the fame edition, and length of time must have rendered the difference ftill greater. But on the other Hand, we must not fuppofe that every reading is genuine, where the Syriac verfion differs from the later manufcripts, because the antient Greek copy, that was ufed by the Syriac tranflator, had undoubtedly its faults, the verfion itself has not defcended unaltered to the prefent age*, and our printed editions are extremely faulty. It is almoft impoffible therefore to give general rules on this fubject, as it is often difficult to determine whether this difference must be afcribed to an error in the antient Greek manufcript, from which the Syrian tranflated, to a corruption of the Syriac text, or a corruption of the Greek manufcripts that are now extant. This point being once determined, we should make a greater progrefs in the criticism of the New Tefta ment +.' From the old Syriac, called the Pefits, or pure edition, our author proceeds to an examination and account of the more modern Syriac verfions, and of the Philoxenian or new Syriac verfion; which latter, in point of ftyle, purity, and critical ufe, is not to be compared with that of the Pelhito. To the fections appropriated to the examination of the Coptic and Sahidic verfions, valuable additions are made by the tranflator in his notes; in one of which we are encouraged to expect from him a tranflation of the learned Woide's historical and critical German effay on thefe vertions. We hope that he will carry his purpofe into execution :-he does not, however, content himself, even for the prefent, with promifes, but felects a few remarks by way of fupplement to the obfervations of Profeffor Michaelis. * Curæ, fe&t, 6. † Curæ, fect. 12.' The • The Sahidic verfion, (adds Mr. Marsh in a note,) according to Woide, was made in the fecond century. His principal argument is drawn out at full length, p. 80-94 of the effay quoted Note 1, to the preceding fection. It is grounded on two Sahidic manufcripts, one formerly in the poffeffion of Dr. Afkew, the other brought from Egypt by the celebrated Bruce: both of which are, I believe, at prefent in the British Mufeum. The former contains a work intitled Sophia, and written by Valentinus in the beginning of the fecond century. That Valentinus wrote a book with this title, appears from the teftimony of Tertullian, in the fecond chapter of his treatile adv. Valentinum; and that this manufcript contains that very work, Woidé endeavours to fhew by feveral arguments: the principal of which is, that pfalms are found in it, which belong not to the facred collection, agreeably to the account of Tertullian, who fays (c. 2. adv. Valent.) docet ipfa Sophia, non quidem Valentini, fed Salomonis; and again, (cap. 20. de carne Chrifti) nobis Pfalmi patrocinantur non quidem Apoftatæ, et Hæretici, et Platonici Valentini, fed fanctiflimi David. He relates alfo that Origen, in his Catena in Jobum, fpeaks of the Pfalms of Valentinus. Now this manufcript contains various paffages both from the Old and New Teftament, which coincide with the fragments of the Sahidic verfion now extant; whence he concludes that a Sahidic verfion of the whole bible not only exifted fo carly as the beginning of the fecond century, but that it was the fame as that, of which we have various fragments, and which, if put together, would form perhaps a complete Sahidic verfion of the Bible. The other manufcript to which he appeals contains two books, the one entitled Βιβλος της γνωσεως, the other Βίβλος λόγε κατα μυτηρίον. Now that this was written by a Gnoftic, as well as the other manufcript, appears both from the title and the contents, and Woide concludes therefore that the author lived in the fecond century. And as various paffages are quoted in it both from the Old and New Teftament, Woide deduces the fame inference as from the foregoing. It appears then, if no objections can be made to thefe arguments, that proofs may be alleged of a higher antiquity in favour of the Sahidic verfion, than can be produced in favour of any other verfion of the New Teftament; and it must of course be of the highest importance in the criticifm of the Greek Teftament. At the fame time it must be acknowledged, that the oldeft hiftorical evidence for the high antiquity of an Egyptian verfion is that of Epiphanius and Theodoret, the former quoted by Semler, in his Apparatus ad N. T. interpretationem, p. 64. the latter by Wilkins in the Prolegomena to his Coptic N. T. p. 6.' With the office of tranflator, Mr. Marsh intimately connects that of Reviewer; and his remarks throughout evince the most minute and laborious attention to the original work. Whoever follows the author and his tranflator through the fections on Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Perfian, Latin, and other verfions, difcuffed in this chapter, muft fubfcribe to the juftice of this commendation. We fhall content ourselves with adducing the following inftance. Among the Latin verfions, the Profeffor tells us that there was one in particular ftyled Itala, which he deduces |