the text; a matter of which we may speak more fully at an. other time. Errors of this sort are found in all the Bibles in the land. Even in the single Epistle to the Romans, from the Andover Press; and after the most patient supervision of Professor Stuart himself, and that of the most accomplished proof-reader, an entire verse is left out; and, if I mistake not, it has not yet been noticed by any one of that school.* From whatever motive typographical omissions and errors are corrected, I am always glad. It is fortunate in this case that the omissions noticed by Mr. Landis are all in favor of the common version.† On the subject of spurious readings, Mr. L. is manifestly not the most competent authority in the world. He has yet to learn that while we have a standard royal translation, there is no standard royal original. The common version is not according to any one ancient manuscript is not according to any standard or received original in the world. It is a translation of a patch-work original. "It is," says one deeply learned in biblical criticism-a truly enlightened man on such questions-"it is a very singular anomaly, that, although we have, by public authority, a standard English version, yet there exists no standard Greek text for the original of that version. No principal printed editions of the Greek correspond exactly throughout, and none of them have been printed verbatim from any ancient manuscript, but each has been varied by critical alterations of its learned editor, on his own responsibility; on which account all the great collators of manuscripts have judged it necessary to apprize their readers, in the first instance, by what particular printed edition they have made their respec *As Mr. C. does not inform us what verse is here referred to, the reader will of course wait for proof of the correctness of his assertion.-EDITOR. The reader will find on recurring to Mr. Landis' article, that, in respect to the translation referred to, Mr. C. has failed to meet the most important points on which his work has been exposed to censure. The statements of Mr. L., then, appear to us to remain not materially affected by the reply of Mr. Campbell, and the translation must continue to be regarded as it has been since it was exposed on our pages,-EDITOR. tive collations. Thus Birch states, in limine, that he collated by Stephen's 3d edition, 1550; Bentley's collations were made by the text of Erasmus, 3d edition, 1522, as reprinted at Strasburgh in 1724, by W. Cephalaus. Other collators have also specified the editions by which they compared. One of the most ardent defenders of the common version, and much more learned than Mr. Landis, has been con-, strained to admit this fact in "The British Critic and Quarterly Theological Review, and Ecclesiastical Record."* I am, indeed, of opinion, to use with approbation the words of Mr. Landis, that "all the alterations contended for do not affect, either pro or con, one single article of the Christian system." I have gone farther: I have said that I never saw any version or translation of the Christian Scriptures, Latin, German, French, or English,-Romanist or Protestant ancient or modern, from which any honest man of plain common sense might not learn the way to heaven, to holiness and happiness, with unerring certainty; if he applied his mind to it. They all name the same persons, plåces, and events-record the same facts-narrate the same parables, comparisons, conversations, and deliver the same precepts and promises. They may, indeed, differ much in their plainness, perspicuity, and easy intelligence; but the same story is told in all its characteristics, attributes, and circumstances. Like different witnesses, whose testimony' exactly agrees in all the facts, even to the most minute, A, B, C, and D, has each his own way of telling it to the court and jury; but there is one of them whose perspicuity and precision make his testimony more intelligible and comprehensible than that of all the others. So in translations : one may greatly excel another in all the attributes of clearness, simplicity, and general intelligibility. But as I have been permitted thus briefly to disabuse the readers of the Repository of the false impressions, touching both my views and my character, through which they must always have contemplated them and me, had they no other source of information than that furnished them by Mr. Landis, I do not wish further to trespass on your time by a more formal and elaborate exposition of all that Mr. Landis * London, July 1837, No. 43. has spread over seventy of your pages concerning me. The four corners of his superstructure have been now tested, and every one can judge of what materials they were constructed. * * Mr. C. adds a few sentences commending his “Millenial Harbinger" to our readers as containing "a more full, pointed, and spirited review," also, administering some personal advice to Mr. Landis, and then closes his communication "with sentiments of benevolence for all mankind," and friendly salutations to ourselves. These passages we omit, for reasons before stated. They have no bearing upon Mr. Campbell's defence; and our sole object in having admitted this article, is that he may no longer have any occasion to complain of injustice from us. We trust that both he and our readers will be satisfied with the manner in which we have presented his communication, and that we shall be excused, under the circumstances of the case, for having occupied so large a space with a defence so generally personal. We trust we shall not often have occasion thus to tax the patience of our readers.-EDITOR. ARTICLE XII. CRITICAL NOTICES. 1.-Notes: Critical, Explanatory, and Practical, on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah; with a New Translation, by Albert Barnes. In three volumes. 8vo. Boston, Crocker & Brewster; New-York, Jonathan Leavitt. 1840, pp. 517, 438, 770. "Probably no book of the Bible has occupied so much the attention of critics, commentators, and private Christians, as Isaiah." Numerous authors have contributed to its illustration. Among these, the acute Calvin, the learned Vitringa, the elaborate Lowth, the glossarial Rosenmueller, the linguistic Gesenius, have each in their turn set forth the evangelical prophet with a copious furniture of translation and commentary. In later times a host of oriental travellers have shed their illustrative light, upon the obscurities of this book; and now Mr. Barnes comes forward with the fruits of his untiring industry, gleaned from over the whole harvest field of his predecessors. This is, doubtless, the greatest work of Mr. Barnes' pen. It has been wrought amid the labors of a large parochial charge, and with a diligence rarely equalled, during a period of more than four years. It now comes to us in three stately octavos, constituting, we believe, the largest mass of commentary on the Fifth Evangelist,' to be found in our language. The author's excellencies, if not his defects, are strongly marked through the work. The style is plain, simple, and direct, and though his pages teem with the materiel of deep scholarship, yet he is, for the most part, eminently happy in making himself intelligible and interesting to every class; while the rich practical remarks, every now and then grafted upon the critical details, transfuse the devotional spirit of the writer into the bosom of his reader. The chief abatement from Mr. Barnes' general merit, in this work, as perhaps also in his others, is the frequent recurrence of what may be termed gratuitous annotation. Hundreds of single phrases, of perfectly obvious import, which barely admit of equipollent terms, and do not need even them; are paragraphed, and paraded, in the style of formal exegesis, though the effect upon the mind is often little else than that of diluted paraphrase. One consequence, of serious import, of this feature of the work, is, that it has unnecessarily swollen its bulk. We admit that in many cases a bright gleam of light is thrown upon a word or passage by a slight variation of the phrase, but quite as often the reader is forced to ask himself, whether he really does need to be remanded back to his rudiments quite so frequently as Mr. Barnes' notes would imply. The general principles of interpretation, adopted by Mr. Barnes, are in accordance with the most generally approved results of Biblical study in modern times. He balances with commendable fairness between the Cocceianism of Vitringa, and the Grotianism of Gesenius. He gives full scope to the principle of the Messianic interpretation, at the same time that he sets his face as a flint against being led away by any merely fanciful analogies or forced adaptations. In spite, however, of this large and willing concession, we have been conscious of a certain unsatisfied feeling-an impression of meagerness and jejuneness-in following his annotations on some of the sublimest Messianic predictions. He does not give us, as fully as we could wish, the particular applications. Apparently adopting Hengstenberg's very questionable position, that the prophets beheld the glories of the Messiah's kingdom in space and not in time, that is, without a definite distinction of eras, he affords us comparatively little aid in weaving together into one harmonious tissue, the golden threads of the Old and New Testament oracles. On this score it may still be questioned, whether Vitringa does not bear away the palm from all later commentators. The light which to the eyes of German expositors merely floats in a brilliant halo around the summit of the 'delectable mountains' of the vision, Vitringa concentrates through the Apocalyptic lens, and makes it glow in a luminous focus upon distinct points of the great prophetic vista that Isaiah opens before us. In this respect Mr. Barnes' work does not fully meet our wishes. As a philological and exegetical digest, however, on the prince of the ancient prophets, it is a work of great value. It is a storehouse of rich illustrations of the letter of his author, and one from which the theological student may largely replenish his critical adversaria. We do not especially admire the taste with which the text of the Old and New version has been arranged. But as this is a matter of mere mechanical moment, and as the work will receive its character from the Notes, we are not disposed to dwell upon it. We think, indeed, as every necessary emen |