marks, "the parables of the Psalmist are very different from those made use of by our Saviour. Those of the one were nothing but short sententious narrations of past facts; the other were obscure speeches involved in similitudes."* In citing, therefore, the words of the Psalmist in so very different a sense, the evangelist in effect declared that he only accommodated those words to his present design, although he introduced them as if he had cited a real prophecy, and were relating its accomplishment. From what has been said, we trust it will appear perfectly natural, considering their knowledge of the Scriptures, and their veneration for them, that the writers of the New Testament should use this mode of introducing quotations pertinent to the subject upon which they were treating. This presumption, how ever, amounts almost to a positive certainty when we find, that, far from being singular in this,it was a common practice of the writers of the apostles' days, and particularly of the next century, He must be a stranger to the Hebrew writers (says Bishop Kidder) that does not know that nothing is more common among them, than such accommodations of the text upon all occasions. They abound in such applications. Grotius urges the same idea in his comment upon St. Matthew. Ubi factum aliquod veteri simile occurrit, dicunt Hebræi impletus est, hic vel ille Scripturæ locus. But no writer has more satisfactorily substantiated the fact than Surenhusius, in his Bos xalanλays, who has, with infinite labour, made numerous extracts from the Talmud and Rabbinical writings, and almost set it beyond a doubt.†

Again-Upon a comparison of the cited texts with the original Hebrew, or with the Septuagint version, we are astonished to find that they do not agree verbatim, in many instances, with either. What must we infer from this? Either that the evangelists apply the words of the Old Testament without regarding the original view and inten

* Dr. Sykes on the Truth of the Christian Religion, ch. xiii.

As the writer had not access to the book of Surenhusius, all that is said of him is taken from Horne's Introd. vol. ii. note.

tion-or that they attended to the sense of prophecies without tying themselves down to the expressions used by the prophet. Now, supposing many of these citations to be accommodated, how naturally does it account for the changes of words, and reconcile this difficulty apparently insurmountable! For no one will deny, that, if quoted in this manner, and with this intention, the passages may be altered, and, as it were, new-modelled, to suit the ideas of the person applying them. Nothing considerable is built on these quotations, no inference of importance is drawn from them-had they been all omitted, Christianity would stand on as firm a foundation as with them."

The greatest objection which has been stated against this doctrine, arises from the manner in which these quotations are introduced by the evangelists. They are generally prefaced by some formulæ like these as it is writtenthat it might be fulfilled-it hath been said," &c. which, by many eminent critics, have been supposed to imply that the sacred writers understood such passages in the prophets to have been designations or predictions of events in the Messiah's time, and as such quoted them in their writings. But, as time will not permit me to examine all of these formulæ, I will briefly consider the one which appears most strongly to oppose our hypothesis.

We find, then, before several of these quotations the phrase in ngwen, "that it might be fulfilled," as rendered in our translation.

And, first-Nothing can be inferred from the use of the word in "that." For this particle does not always signify the end or design, but often merely the accidental event. Thus, "for judgment am I come into the world, (iv) that they which see not might see, and they which see might be made blind." Just in the same manner does the same evangelist apply a passage of Isaiah: But though he had done many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: (iva) that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, Lord, who hath believed our report ? Not that Jesus came into † John xii. 38.

* John ix. 39.

works have been mutilated and corrupted by omission and interpolation.

The importance and necessity of the inquiry must be obvious to every person who is persuaded that Christianity is founded in reason, and with whom inward sensation supersedes not outward argument. On the decision of the question depends our faith in the oracles of God; for if it could be proved, that at any period since the formation of the canon, the sacred writings have been corrupted to such a degree, that the genuine text is now irrecoverably lost; if it could be shown that not one of the various authorities we possess will countenance certain doctrines, which for ages have enlivened the faith, and animated the hopes of the true disciples of Jesus -the evidence for the Christian religion would be not a little weakened. Let us suppose a man of liberal education, of sound understanding, and of serious dispositions, who has remained unsettled in his religious opinions for want of proper instruction, but who would readily consent to the truth of Christi anity, provided certain propositions necessary to establish that truth were clearly explained to him. Such a man would require of us, in the first place, that we should produce our arguments for the divine inspiration of the writings containing the principles of Chris tianity: he would then require satisfactory evidence that the several parts of these writings were really composed by the authors to whom they are ascribed. But this would not be all: admitting that certain books, with the titles of those we possess, were written by the apostles and evangelists, still he would demand proof, by which the very words of these books might be identified with the words written or dictated by them. Should we fail to produce this evidence, which must be altogether of an historical nature, the inquirer might reasonably doubt whether our faith was built on a safe foundation, and might, with reason, assert, that the Scriptures on which we rest it, are as likely to be modern inventions as the productions of inspired men eighteen hundred years ago. The principle is the same when applied to profane authors. "When we attempt to expound a work of high

antiquity, which has passed through a variety of copies, both ancient and modern, both written and printed-copies which differ from each other in very numerous instances-we should have some reason to believe that the copy or edition which we undertake to interpret approaches as nearly to the original as it can be brought by human industry, or human judgment;"* and, accordingly, we find that talents of the first order have been put in requisition to investigate the remains of Roman and Grecian literature. It has been thought desirable to obtain an accurate text for the plays of Terence, and the odes of Horace: and the prosecution of this purpose has been deemed an object for the talents of a Bentley. In later days a Wolfe and a Heyne have instituted critical inquiries into the poems of Homer. And if these, which are merely works of taste-works which, compared with the inspired volume, are of no estimation-if these have been deemed worthy of so much labour, the student surely will not suffer the Bible to lie before him without making himself acquainted with the authority on which it rests for its integrity.

In addition to the importance of the study of criticism, as containing the ele ments of that analysis by which we gradually discover the truth of our religion, its advantages are obvious in another respect. "It produces a habit of accurate investigation, which will be highly beneficial to us in our future theological inquiries. Its influence also is such, that it pervades every other part of theology; and as our notions in this part are clear or obscure, our conclusions in other parts will be distinct or confused. In short, it is a branch which affords nutriment and life to all the other branches, which must become more or less vigorous, in proportion as this branch either flourishes or decays."+

Deeply impressed, then, with a sense of the necessity of an accurate knowledge of the Greek text, we intend to offer a few remarks, to show that various readings have been unavoidable in the numerous manuscripts of the NewTestament; to point out some of the † Ibid. leet. ii.

Marsh, lect, ii.

causes by which they have been produced; and to examine the validity of an objection raised by the infidel, that their existence entirely destroys the authority of the sacred writings.

The autographs of the New Testament have been lost. We know of none who deny this position, except a few Romanists, who pretend that the original of St. Mark's gospel is in the library at Venice: but, independently of other considerations, the fact which the most eminent critics have establish ed, that it is a copy of a Latin version, is sufficient to silence every cavil. It was next to impossible that the originals should have been preserved, especially during the afflicting persecutions to which the primitive Christians were exposed. The lapse of time has destroyed almost every vestige of manuscripts written prior to the sixth century. A continued miracle would have been necessary to preserve them entire, and, had they been preserved, it would have been to no purpose with the unbeliever; for he would immediately have inquired by what standard we are to judge of the handwriting of an apostle. There was no necessity for their preservation. Must we doubt whether the Eneid is the production of Virgil, because the original has been lost? And if this be the case with respect to profane, why should any doubt remain in regard to the sacred writings? When the epistles were circulated throughout the countries to which they were addressed, copies were taken, which answered all the purposes of the original. If the churches were careful that the copies should be made by faithful scribes, (and every consideration is in favour of the supposition,) they needed not the autographs, which it was impossible for all to possess. At the present day, numerous editions of works are published in countries far distant from each other, but no person is anxious to see the original manuscript: "The edition supplies the place of the author's copy, which a printer thinks is useless to preserve when the publication is finished."

After the death of all, or of the greatest part of the apostles, was framed the canon. History does not afford

VOL. VII.

sufficient information to enable us to determine accurately by whom the sacred writings were collected into a volume, nor does it inform us whether the autographs were used in the collation. That the originals had perished, is highly probable; for although some have appealed to the authority of Tertullian,* in the second century, to show that they were then in existence, we cannot suppose that the several churches to which they were addressed, could have contributed to so important an undertaking as the framing of a canon, without having the slightest mention of the circumstance in the page of history. The compilers, then, used copies, which, however, could have had but few er rors. But, as the church increased, the copies must necessarily have increased also, and with them the errors of scribes. They were transcribed at different times, in different places, and by differ ent persons, and frequently the transcribers were grossly ignorant, and wrote merely for hire. But supposing all the scribes to have been the most approved members of the churchessupposing all to have made a correct impression a matter of faith, still, unless they had been inspired, mistakes would have been unavoidable. "Who ever doubts the truth of this, may make the trial by transcribing a few pages of the Greek Testament, and comparing his copy with the original. Or he may examine a printed sheet as it comes from the press, in which he will often find mistakes after the second and third correction. In an edition of the Bible, the press is sometimes corrected five times before the work is printed off: yet, in the very editions which are call

*

Many eminent writers are of opinion, that Tertullian, by "authentica litere," has no reference to the autographs, but that he means well attested Scriptures. See the subject discussed by Dr. Lardner, Works, vol. i. p. 425,Lond. 1815. In less than a century after Tertullian, it appears that many variations existed in the copies. Origen, at the beginning of the third century, complained of these diversities, which he ascribed to several causes, as the negligence, Jerome tells us, that when he made his version rashness, and kuavery of transcribers

66

"St.

of the New Testament, he collated the manuscripts that were then extant, and found a great difference among them." Beausobre and L'Enfant's Introduction, in Bishop Watson's Tracts, vol. iii. p. 283.

15

ed mirabiles, as if absolutely perfect, we discover typographical errors." Michaelis' Introd. vol. I. chap. vi. sect. 3. It is said by some, we are aware, that as divine Providence has merci fully granted a revelation to man, he will not allow the admission of errors into that revelation. The belief of every sincere Christian is, that the Scriptures have not been materially corrupted that their doctrines are explicit, and that, where faith or practice is concerned, no various readings exist which can shake his confidence in them. Every believer who has examined the subject will say, with Bishop Marsh, that "for the common purposes of religious instruction, the text in daily use is amply sufficient." But this belief is not inconsistent with the supposition, that various readings have been próduced. The keeping of the sacred volume was committed to secondary instruments, and, notwithstanding the care and diligence which have been exercised in the preservation, the fact is undeniable, that various readings do exist. To say that Providence would interpose in the prevention of errors, is to argue in the same manner as if one should assert that infidels have never opposed Christianity, because their attacks have a tendency to thwart the designs of Providence.

It is, by no means, an easy task to enumerate all of the causes which have contributed to multiply various readings. In this country, the difficulty is increased, from our not possessing the manuscripts which it is necessary to compare with each other. We know little of the ancient method of writing. We are ignorant whether in particular copies the scribes wrote from dictation, or transcribed from manuscripts before them, or whether they ever had the presumption to write from memory. We can form no deductions a-priori: we must depend altogether upon experience. Every compositor in a printer's office would be able to afford us more information on such a subject than could be derived from years of study.*

* For this reason Erasmus stands so high in the list of editors of the Bible. Being a corrector in a printer's office himself, he was able to detect mistakes where the mere student would have been entirely at a loss.

The best method, undoubtedly, to discover the different causes of variation, is to compare negligent copies with the original manuscript of an author, and to devote a large portion of time to the correction of both written and printed copies. But as opportunity is not afforded to every student to make this trial, and as the labours of the most distinguished critics in Europe have contributed much to simplify the subject, we cannot do better than apply ourselves diligently to the study of their writings. Michaelis, after a laborious investigation, determines, that the most important causes of various readings may be reduced to five heads:-1. The omission, addition, or exchange of letters, syllables, or words, from the mere carelessness of transcribers. 2. Mistakes of the transcribers in regard to the true text of the original. 3. Errors or imperfections in the ancient manuscripts from which they copied. 4. Critical conjecture or intended improvements of the original text. 5. Wilful corruptions to serve the purposes of a party, whether orthodox, or heterodox.*

The question now arises, whether the various readings amount to so large a number, that the integrity of the text is thereby weakened or destroyed. The question is not new, but one which has been agitated between infidels and believers, and even between believers themselves, for nearly two centuries.. When Bryan Walton, in the middle of the seventeenth century, published his great Polyglot Bible, with extracts from manuscripts, versions, and fathers, never before printed, "a work which confers immortal honour, as well on the English nation at large, as on the learned men who were engaged in it," he met with immediate opposition from the puritanical writers, who fancied (for the temper of the times was ill adapted to calm investigation) an attempt was made to weaken the authority of the text.† Even the great divine, Dr. John

Bishop Marsh has enlarged upon these in his Fifth Divinity Lecture.

"Several persons think it would have been much better to let those various readings remain in libraries, than communicate them to the public: but the making of this diversity known to the world has been of great service to the Christian cause. 1. As the diversity could