man's claim to be a follower of Christ. De Wette, a famous professor of neology in the university of Berlin, maintains that the Pentateuch was composed about the time of the captivity; that the Jewish Ritual was of gradual formation, accessions being made to it by superstition; and that the Book of Chronicles, (which, says he, "Is filled with scraps and inconsistencies,") was foisted into the canon by some of the priesthood who wished to exalt their own order. His Beiträge containing these sentiments, was published a while before the death of Griesbach, and actually came out RECOMMENDED BY HIM. He says, "If you object to the young literary adventurer (De Wette) that he has endeavored to bring Judaism into disrepute, my answer is, that this is no more than Paul himself has labored to do."* This, then, is the man whom Mr. Campbell has professed to follow in his version. Could Paine, or Voltaire, have said more, in so few words, against the Bible?

That he should not be followed implicitly, will appear, if we consider that many of his statements are false; many of his conclusions not supported by their premises. In frequent instances his premises lead to conclusions quite the reverse of his own, while other critics, of as high repute as Griesbach, have published critical editions of the Greek Testament, in which they approximate much nearer the Received Text than he.

1. The celebrated Nolan, in his Greek Vulgate, has fully shown that the criteria by which Griesbach has made his decisions are fundamentally erroneous.

2. The learned Wakefield pronounces Griesbach's testimony respecting a matter of fact, to be "infamously false." Griesbach asserted that the reading of Acts 20: 28, in the Ethiopic version was, the "church of the Lord ;" and it is this to which Wakefield refers. Yet, on the credit of Griesbach, Mr. Campbell (though professing to give the version of Doddridge) reads it in the same manner.

3. Dr. Lawrence, who examined this subject very profoundly, in a tract entitled, "Remarks on the Systematical Classification of Manuscripts adopted by Griesbach in his edition of the Greek Testament," has shown that the general principles of that particular classification employed by Griesbach as the groundwork of all his critical emendations of the Textus Receptus, are most incorrect. He illustrates the difference between

* See Stuart's Letters to Channing, sub fine.

Griesbach's principle of classification, and his own, by an application of both to the disputed text in 1 Tim. 3: 16, where his own produces a conclusion precisely the reverse of that which had been yielded by Griesbach. Yet Mr. Campbell without any hesitation omits the word "God" in that passage, on the authority of Griesbach. In the same Essay Dr. Lawrence has likewise shown that Prof. Griesbach's account of facts is frequently very erroneous.

4. But Griesbach is far from being the only recent editor of a critical Testament to which the great body of critics attach importance. The celebrated Matthaei, styled by Dr. Middleton" the best Greek scholar that ever edited a Greek Testament," published a Critical Testament in twelve volumes, which approaches much nearer the received text than Griesbach, with whom he is at variance. The famous Eichhorn, after giving a high character of this edition of Matthaei, says: "For a long time I have followed the middle path between the two parties." The whole system of classifying Mss. which lies at the very foundation of Griesbach's decision, is rejected by Matthaei as entirely worthless. Thus agreeing with Mr. Nolan and Dr. Lawrence.

These animadversions, and numerous others of similar import which might be adduced, show how little reason there is for attributing so much weight to the decisions of Griesbach, as is done by many. If Mr. Campbell's statements respecting his own acquirements in literature, and his qualifications as a translator, are to be relied on, he certainly knew better.

It may be said that many of the passages omitted by Mr. Campbell do not affect the great leading doctrines of Christianity. Be it so; yet the omission of passages which do not affect the vitals of Christianity, (when no sufficient reason is offered for their omission,) affords an excuse, and thus prepares the way for leaving out others that do. One of the finest geniuses and most accomplished scholars that America has yet seen, has well observed: "Only unsettle the popular mind as to any one object which it has been accustomed to venerate, and the perversion of it with regard to many others is much facilitated."*

But many of Mr. Campbell's omissions do affect the leading doctrines of Christianity. For besides the foregoing long list of passages, he has omitted a great number of others, (not one

* Works of Dr. Mason.

of which is omitted by Drs. Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge,) which go to support the doctrine of the Trinity, the proper deity of Christ, and the personality and deity of the Holy Ghost. The following are some of them.

1. The Trinity. This doctrine is supported by Colos. 2: 2, "To the acknowledgement of God, (i. e. the Spirit,) and of the Father, and of Christ." Mr. Campbell invalidates this proof by omitting the words "and of the Father, and of Christ." He omits also 1 John 5: 7, a passage, of which, with the highest deference to the gentlemen who have abandoned it, I am bold to say, not only never has been proved spurious, but never can be, at least on the ground now taken against it. It is granted freely, that in the very few ancient Greek Mss. that now exist, this text has not been found; and this is granting all that is demanded, so far as regards the premises. But what then? Why-therefore the text is spurious! This conclusion may be legitimate; but the connection between it and the premises is not obvious to my mind. In Diocletian's time, how many thousands of Mss. were sought out and burned; and in the great fire at Constantinople alone, A. D. 476, no less than 120, 000 perished in the flames; and yet from the poor remains that now exist, this sweeping conclusion must be drawn! It is unnecessary here to dwell upon the point, but to us the argument does appear to be utterly irrelevant.

II. Mr. Campbell omits also the following proofs of the eternal power and Godhead of Christ.

It is well known that when the New Testament writers apply to Christ, from the Hebrew Scriptures, the name Jehovah, they always translate it by Kúgios, Lord, thereby evincing that Jesus is Jehovah, as in Matt. 3: 3. Proofs of this kind Mr. Campbell has expunged in abundance: e. g. Mark 9: 24. 2 Cor. 4: 10. 2 Tim. 4: 1. In Matt. 23: 8, in the phrase, "One is your Master, even Christ," he omits the words "even Christ." From Phil. 4: 13, I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me," he omits "Christ," and has it, "I can do all things through him who strengthens me." From Colos. 1: 2, he omits the phrase "the Lord Jesus Christ," and thereby strives to invalidate the evidence that "grace and peace" come from the Lord Jesus Christ, equally as from God the Father. In Jude 4, "Denying the only Lord God even our Lord Jesus Christ." Knowing that the connective xaí, and, must here be rendered by "even," he omits the word "God" from the text,

and thus renders it: "Denying the only sovereign Lord, even our Lord Jesus Christ."

He leaves out also the word "God" from Acts 20: 28, (without giving the least notice in his Appendix,) though Griesbach himself declares that he is not by any means satisfied with fully rejecting it. The passage reads: "Feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood." From Rev. 1: 11, he omits that whole clause where Christ says of himself: "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last."

From 1 Tim. 3: 16, he omits the word "God." The text reads: "Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh." Mr. Campbell makes it read, "who was manifest in the flesh."* In our common version of the Bible, 1 John 3: 16 is thus rendered: "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us." Mr. Campbell has it "the love of Christ." The reader can judge for himself of the object of Mr. Campbell in this alteration.

Again, though Mr. Campbell is very willing to follow Griesbach in rejecting proofs of the Deity of Christ; he has not had the honesty to follow Griesbach where he has inserted new proofs of his Deity. As, for example, in the following instances: Acts 16: 7, "They assayed to go into Bithynia, but the spirit of Jesus suffered them not." Eph. 5: 21,"Submitting yourselves one to another, in the fear of Christ." Colos. 3: 15, "Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts," etc. These texts being parallel to others in which God is spoken of in precisely the same manner as they speak of Christ, furnish an unanswerable argument in favor of his Deity; which those Unitarians who follow Griesbach are called upon to meet. Mr. Campbell concluded that it was much the easiest way to omit these emendations altogether; though he has followed Griesbach in others, where he thought the Deity of Christ was not so clearly expressed. As e. g. Rom. 15: 29. 2 Thess. 2: 8, etc.

But

III. The Holy Spirit. Being sick at heart from witnessing the continued exhibitions of depravity, brought to view by the investigation of this subject, we have omitted many passages which should be dwelt upon in considering the preceding topic;

I beg leave here to refer the reader to an admirable article on this passage in Biblical Repos. Vol. II. p. 57—80, by Prof. Stuart, of Andover.

and for the same reason, shall give but a few specimens under the present. Jude 20, Dr. Doddridge renders, "Praying with THE Holy Spirit," Dr. Macknight, "Praying by THE Holy Spirit;" but Mr. Campbell gives the Unitarian rendering, Praying by a holy spirit." And this Mr. Campbell styles, the translation of Drs. Doddridge, and Macknight! 2 Thes. 2: 13, "Through sanctification of the Spirit;" Dr. Doddridge renders it," By sanctification of the Spirit;" Mr. Campbell, for obvious reasons, prefers to render it, "Through sanctification of spirit." 1 Pet. 1: 2, Dr. Doddridge renders, "By sanctification of the Spirit ;" Dr. Macknight, "Through sanctification of the Spirit ;" but Mr. Campbell has it, "Through a sanctification of the spirit." Thus does he endeavor to do away with the personality of the christian Comforter. Acts 6: 3, "Look ye out seven men-full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom:" Mr. Campbell has it, "Full of spirit and wisdom;" not only departing from Doddridge's version; but even going further than the Unitarian editors of the "Improved Version." For they not feeling at liberty to expunge the word "holy," enclosed it in brackets. But omitting other instances similar to the above; we will name but one more, as a specimen of what Mr. Campbell has done in numerous instances where he feared that it might appear too glaring to omit the words altogether. Gal. 4: 6, "The Spirit of his Son:" Drs. Doddridge and Macknight both give it the same rendering; and understand the Holy Spirit to be here referred to. But Mr. Campbell disposes of the Holy Spirit, by giving the passage the following expression; "The spirit of his Son." The alteration consists only in the change of a capital letter for a small one; but every one knows that whenever in the New Testament the word Spirit is employed to designate the christian Comforter, the first letter is a capital; though when used in any other sense it is not so.

We add but one word in closing this review. There can be no doubt that some few errors have crept into the Greek text of the New Testament. But then neither Professor Griesbach, nor any other person, is yet able, from the data which we have, to point them out with sufficient certainty to justify our rejection of any portion of Scripture. And what benefits can possibly accrue from attempting it; especially, when it is admitted on all hands that no doctrine is essentially affected either by the rejection or retaining of all the readings of Mill, Griesbach etc., put together. We object not to the collation and classification