tamentum Græcum editionis receptæ. Though Wetstein very con. fiderably augmented the ftock of critical materials, though he drew from various fources, which had hitherto been unopened, though he collected, not by other hands, but by his own, and though few men have poffeffed a greater fhare, either of learning or of fagacity, yet no alteration was made in the Greek text. He propofed indeed alterations, which he inferted in the space between the text and the body of various readings, with reference to the words which he thought fhould be exchanged for them; and where a reading fhould, in his opinion, be omitted without the fubftitution of another, he prefixed to it a mark of minus in the text. But thefe propofed alterations and omiffions are in general fupported by powerful authority, and are fuch as will commonly recommend themfelves to an impartial critic. Though among the various readings he has occafionally noted the conjecture of others, he has never ventured a conjecture of his own; nor has he made conjecture in any one inftance the basis of a propofed alteration.

"The charge therefore, which has been laid to Wetstein, of propofing (not making) alterations in the text for the mere purpofe of obtaining fupport to a particular creed, is without foundation. Whether an editor is attached or not to the creed of his country, whether he receives pain or pleasure, when he difcovers that a reading of the text is fupported by less authority, than a various reading, are queftions, with which the reader is only fo far concerned, as they may affect the conduct of the editor in his office of Critic. The question of real importance is, Does the editor, whether orthodox or heterodox, fuffer his religious opinions to influence his judgment, in weighing the evidence for and against any particular word or paffage? Now men of every religious profeffion are expofed to the temptation of adopting what they wish to adopt, and of rejecting what they wish to reject, without fufficient regard to the evidence against the one, and in favour of the other. Hence greater caution is certainly requifite in our admiffion of emendations, which favour the editor's religious creed, than in the admiffion of readings unconnected with that creed. That is, we must be more careful to fcrutinize, whether fuch emendations are really fupported by greater authority, than the readings, which it is propofed to reject. But then we muft endeavour in this investigation to abftain, on our parts, from the fault, which we fufpect in the editor. We must not fuffer a bias in an oppofite direction to mislead our own judgment, to magnify or diminish authorities, as they are favourable or unfavourable to the readings, which we ourfelves would adopt. Now I have long been in the habit of ufing Wetstein's Greek Teftament; I have at least endeavoured , to weigh carefully the evidence for the readings, which I have had occafion to examine; yet I have always found that the alterations propofed by Wetftein were fupported by refpectable autho

thority,

rity, and in general by much better authority, than the corref pending readings of the text. The merits therefore of Wetstein, as a critic, ought not to be impeached by afcribing to him undue influence in the choice of his readings. His merits, as a critic, undoubtedly furpafs the merits of his predeceffors: he alone contributed more to advance the criticifm of the Greek Teftament, than all who had gone before him: and this task he performed, not only without fupport, either public or private, but during a feries of fevere trials, under which a mind of lefs energy than Wetstein's would infallibly have funk. In short, he gave a new turn to the criticifm of the Greek Teftament, and laid the foundation, on which later editors have built. That mistakes and overfights are difcoverable in the work detracts not from its general merits. No work is without them: and leaft of all can confummate accuracy be expected, where fo many caufes of error never ceafed to operate. Such are Wetstein's merits as a critic. As an interpreter of the New Teftament, in his explanatory notes, he fhews himself in a different and lefs favourable light." P. 20.

Should this extract be deemed long, we beg leave to obferve that it is made not merely for the fake of vindicating the character of Wetftein as a biblical critic, though that is furely a matter of fome importance, but because it contains obfervations and reflections, which, however applicable to a variety of the molt interefting fubjects, are, in this age of univerfal controverfy and party fpirit, too little attended to, as well by the friends as by the enemies of our national eftablishments, who feem, in general, to think that he who errs in one point, cannot be a fincere lover of the truth.

In the eighth lecture Dr. Marsh gives a perfpicuous detail of what has been done, in this important department of literature, by Griefbach, Matthæi, Alter, Birch and others; and it is almost needlefs to obferve that of thofe learned critics of the New Teftament, Griefbach is placed by him at the head. No ufeful abridgment of this very valuable lecture, could be made within the limits allotted to a review; but the following extract must notbe paffed over without notice.

"Wetstein, in his Animadverfiones et Cautiones, annexed to his Greek Teftament, went a great way towards the reducing of facred criticism to a regular fyftem. But much ftill remained to be performed, for which we are indebted to Semler, who laid the foundation, and to Griefbach, who raised the fuperftructure.

"From a comparison and combination of the readings exhibited by Wetstein, it was difcovered, that certain characteristic readings diftinguished certain manufcripts, fathers and verfions; that other characteristic readings pointed out a fecond class; others again a third clafs of manufcripts, fathers, and verfions. It was

Y 3

further

further difcovered, that this three-fold claffification had an additional foundation in refpect to the places where the manufcripts were written, the fathers lived, and the verfions were made. Hence the three claffes received the names of Recenfio Alexandrina, Recantio Conftantinopolitina, or Byzantina, and Recentio Occidentalis : not that any formal revifion of the Greek text is known, either from hiftory or from tradition, to have taken place at Alexan dria, at Conftantinople, or in Western Europe. But whatever causes, unknown to us, may have operated in producing the effect, there is no doubt of its existence: there is no doubt that thofe cha racteristic readings are really contained in the manufcripts, fathers, and verfions, and that the claffification, which is founded on them, is founded therefore on truth. Hence arifes a new criterion of authenticity. A majority of individual manufcripts can no longer be confidered, either as decifive, or even as very important on this fubject. A majority of the Recenfions, or, as we fhould fay of printed books, a majority of the editions, is alone to be regarded, as far as number is concerned. The tef timony of the individual manufcripts is applied to afcertain what is the reading of this or that edition: but the question of fact being once determined, it ceafes to be of confequence what number of manufcripts may be produced, either of the first, or of the fecond, or of the third of thofe editions. For instance, when we have once afcertained that any particular reading be, longs both to the Alexandrine and to the Weffern, but not to the Byzantine edition, the authority of that reading will not be weakened, even though it fhould appear on counting manu fcripts, that the number of thofe, which range themselves under the Byzantine edition, is ten times greater, than that of the other two united. We muft argue in this cafe, as we argue in the comparison of printed editions, where we fimply enquire, what are the readings of this or that edition, and never think of asking for the purpofe of criticism, how many copies were ftruck off at the office, where it was printed. The relative value of those three editions muft likewife be confidered. For if any one of them, the Byzantine for inftance, to which moft of the modern manufcripts belong, carries with it lefs weight than either of the other two, a proportional abduction must be made, whether it be thrown into the fcale by itself or in con- · junction with another. Such are the outlines of that fyftem, which Griefbach has applied to the criticifm of the Greek Teftament. The fubject is fo new, and at the fame time fo intricate, that it is hardly poffible to give more than a general notion of it in a public lecture. It requires long and laborious investi. gation but it is an investigation, which, every biblical fcholar will readily undertake, when he confiders, that it involves the question, What is the genuine text of the New Teftament.” P. 40. That this is an invefligation of the greateft importance, is indeed most obvious; but we cannot conceive how the

refult

refult of any investigation of the readings of manuscripts, can be fuch, as to authorize us to reafon from the recenfions as we should from fo many editions of printed books. Whatever be the errors or the excellencies of one copy of a printed book, thofe errors or excellencies must all be found in every copy of that impreffion, unlefs the men working the preffes have been fingularly inattentive to their duty; but fuch uniformity is not to be expected in all the copies of the fame manufcripts which have been tranfcribed by different copiers living at the fame place and in the fame age. We are perfectly aware that the accuracy of copiers, before the invention of printing, was fuch as it is now vain to look for, at least in Europe; but we doubt, if even one of those copiers could have made two tranfcripts of a work fo long as the New Teftament fo exactly alike, as that there fhould not have been a letter or an accent in the one, that was not in the other; and that two or three copiers fhould have preferved fuch exactnefs, feems, we confefs, to border on impoffibility. We are not therefore convinced, that it is of little importance to collect as many manufcripts as can be found of the fame recenfion, because we fee not how the genuine text of that recenfion can otherwife be ascertained. Its general character may perhaps be difcovered by a partial collection; but whether a particular reading belongs to it as a recenfion, can be afcertained, we apprehend, only by a collation as general as poffible. On what principles (we doubt not that they are folid) Dr. Marth fuppofes the Byzantine recenfion to be of lefs value than the Alexandrian and the Western we know not; but were any reading to be found in all the manufcripts of that recenfion, and only in a few of the Alexandrian and Western manufcripts, we fhould certainly be inclined to confider that as the true reading, unless it were oppofed by very ftrong internal evidence; and even to confider fuch agreement among its manuscripts as a ftrong teftimony in behalf of the Byzantine recenfion. The following obfervations are admirable.

"As the claffification of manufcripts, fathers and verfions, with all its concomitant circumftances, fupplies us with the rules of external evidence, an examination of the causes which produced the variations of the text, fuggefts the laws or canons of internal evidence. Thus a knowledge of the fact, that transcribers have in general been more inclined to add than to omit, fuggefts the canon, that, where different readings are of unequal lengths, the fhorter is probably the genuine. Again, a knowledge of the fact, that tranfcribers were difpofed to exchange the Hebrew

Y 4

Hebraifms of the New Teftament for purer Greek, fuggefts the canon, that when of two readings the one is oriental, the other claffical, the former is the genuine reading, the latter a correction. Further, as it is more probable that an easy reading should be fubftituted for a hard one, than the contrary, the latter, as far as internal evidence goes, deferves the preference. And whether alterations be afcribed to defign or to accident, we must confider, when we meet with feveral readings of the fame paffage, which of them might moft eafily have given rife to the others. For, if by fuppofing that one in particular is the ancient reading, we can account for the origin of the reft, and the fame fuppofition, when applied to any other, affords not a fimilar folution, the reading, to which it does apply, acquires from this circumftance an argument in its favour." P. 42.

In the ninth lecture, the learned profeffor gives a very full, and therefore useful account of the writers who have contributed to carry towards perfection the criticism of the Greek Teftament. But before he enters on that detail, he deems it neceffary to vindicate his own arrangement of the feveral branches of chriftian theology-an arrangement, to which we are not aware that any objection has hitherto been made, and of which we have ourfelves expreffed our fulleft approbation. We do not indeed think, nor are we at all convinced by the reafoning of this lecture, that it is the only order in which theology can be fuccefsfully ftudied; for as we faid before, we fay again, that the sciences purely mathematical, are the only fciences known to us, of which the different parts admit but of one arrangement. Systems of mechanical philofophy, of chemistry, and of the philosophy of the human mind, have each been differently arranged by different authors, all eminently fkilled in the fcience of which they publifhed fo many fyftems; and it would be furely extraordinary, if a fcience, compofed of parts fo perfectly diftinct as are thofe of the chriftian fyftem, were capable of only one arrangement. One arrangement may be better than any other; and a better arrangement than Dr. Marfh's, we have never feen, and cannot indeed conceive. This we fay moft willingly; but we cannot fay with truth that it is the only scientific arrangement of which the feveral branches of the study are fufceptible; for the textus receptus being fo near to perfection as Dr. Marfh confeffes it to be, the ftudent of theology might certainly enter on the interpretation of that text, before he compared it with Griefbach's, or any other critical text. We are far from faying that, to a man who has the command of his own time, this would be the beft arrangement. It would not, however, be