have spoken of, may, I think, be regarded as spurious, or as lying under suspicion. I shall reserve a more particular examination of them for another place, where I shall treat at length of the various readings of the text of the Gospels.* "There are strong reasons for thinking that the first two chapters of our present copies of the Greek Gospel of Matthew made no part of the original Hebrew. We may suppose them to have been an ancient document, which, from the connection of the subject with his history, was transcribed into the same volume with it, and which, though first written as a distinct work, with some mark of separation, yet in process of time became blended with it, so as apparently to form its commencement. Being thus found incorporated with the Gospel in the manuscript, or in manuscripts, used by the translator, it was rendered by him as part of the original. "There are two other passages in our Greek Gospel of Matthew, which I have remarked upon in the Additional Note just referred to in the margin, and which, as it seems to me, there is much reason for regarding as interpolated. These passages are the narrative concerning Judas in the twentyseventh chapter, beginning with the third and ending with the tenth verse, and the account of the raising of the bodies of many saints at the time of our Saviour's crucifixion, in the latter part of the fifty-second verse, and the fifty-third, of the same chapter. "In respect to Mark's Gospel, there is ground for believing that the last twelve verses were not written by the Evangelist, but were added by some other writer to supply a short * See Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I. Additional Note A, Section V. conclusion to the work, which some cause had prevented the author from completing. "In Luke's Gospel, the only passage of any considerable length or importance, the genuineness of which appears to me liable to suspicion, consists of the forty-third and fortyfourth verses of the twenty-second chapter, containing an account of the descent of an angel to Jesus, and of his agony and bloody sweat. "In John's Gospel, what now stands as the conclusion, the latter part of the twenty-fourth verse, and the twenty-fifth, of the last chapter, has the air of an editorial note. As such, it was, I think, probably distinguished when first written, though this distinction was afterwards neglected by transcribers. "In the Received Text of this Gospel there are likewise two other passages to be considered. The genuineness of the last clause of the third and the whole of the fourth verse of the fifth chapter, which contain an account of the descent of an angel into the pool of Bethesda, is very questionable; and the story of the woman taken in adultery is, in my opinion, justly regarded by a majority of modern critics as not having been a part of the original Gospel. "The two passages last mentioned, and the other interpolations that have been suggested, that is, the two insertions into the body of the text of the original Hebrew of Matthew's Gospel, and one into that of Luke's Gospel, were, we may suppose, first written as notes or additional matter in the margin of some copies of the Gospel in which they are found. But passages belonging to the text of a work, which had been accidentally omitted by a transcriber, were, likewise, often preserved in the margin. From this circumstance, notes and additional matter, thus written, were not unfrequently mistaken for parts of the text, and introduced by a subsequent copier into what he thought their proper place. This is a fruitful source of various readings in ancient writings; and may explain how the passages in question, if not genuine, have become incorporated with the text of the Gospels. "The facts that have been mentioned, respecting doubtful or spurious passages in the text of the Gospels, imply nothing opposite to the general proposition maintained. On the contrary, in reasoning concerning those passages, we go upon the supposition of its truth. It is assumed, that the Gospels, generally speaking, have been faithfully preserved; but it is contended, that there are particular reasons for doubting whether one or another of the passages in question, though found in many or in all the extant manuscripts of a Gospel, proceeded from the pen of the Evangelist. These reasons are specific, applying in every case to the particular passage under consideration, and not admitting of a general application. They suppose no new theory respecting the corruption of the Gospels, and no habit in transcribers of making unlicensed alterations. They imply nothing more than the operation of particular accidents, producing error in particular cases; the possibility of which none will deny. All that we can say respecting any ancient work is, that it remains essentially the same as it was originally composed. For specific reasons, applying to some particular passage, we may doubt whether it proceeded from the pen of the Evangelist. But, unless the Gospels were exposed to some peculiar causes of corruption, there can be no question that, generally speaking, we have satisfactory means of determining the original text of the last three Gospels, and that of the Greek translation of Matthew; the number of authorities for settling it, manuscripts, ancient versions, and quotations by ancient writers, being far more numerous and important than those for settling the text of any other ancient writing."- Genuineness of the Gospels, I. 23-30. "WHEN attention was first strongly directed to the number of various readings upon the Received Text of the New Testament, and the critical edition of Mill was published, which was said to contain thirty thousand,* two classes of individuals were very differently affected. Some sincerely religious men, among whom was Whitby, who wrote expressly against the labors of Mill, were apprehensive that the whole text of the New Testament, the foundation of our faith, would be unsettled; while the infidels of the age, among whom Collins was prominent, were ready, with other feelings, to adopt the same opinion. The whole number of various readings of the text of the New Testament that have hitherto been noted exceeds a hundred thousand, and may, perhaps, amount to a hundred and fifty thousand. "But this number is, I presume, less in proportion than that of the various readings extant upon most classic authors, when compared with the quantity of text examined, and the number of manuscripts and other authorities collated in each particular case. How such an amount of various readings exists upon the "That is to say, thirty thousand variations from the Received Text. But when the Received Text varies from other authorities, its readings should also be considered as various readings of the text of the New Testament. Including these, therefore, Mill's edition presents about sixty thousand various readings." "Bentley, in his 'Remarks on Free-thinking,' in answer to Collins, says: text of ancient works, we may understand, when we consider, what every one who has had experience on the subject is aware of, that no written copy of an exemplar of any considerable length, if made only with ordinary care, is without variations and errors. Notwithstanding the extreme care which has in some cases been taken, it is doubtful whether even a printed "Terence is now in one of the best conditions of any of the classic writers; the oldest and best copy of him is now in the Vatican library, which comes nearest to the poet's own hand; but even that has hundreds of errors, most of which may be mended out of other exemplars, that are otherwise more recent and of inferior value. I myself have collated several, and do affirm that I have seen twenty thousand various lections in that little author, not near so big as the whole New Testament; and am morally sure, that, if half the number of manuscripts were collated for Terence with that niceness and minuteness which has been used in twice as many for the New Testament, the number of the variations would amount to above fifty thousand. "In the manuscripts of the New Testament, the variations have been noted with a religious, not to say superstitious, exactness. Every difference in spelling, in the smallest particle or article of speech, in the very order or collocation of words, without real change, has been studiously registered. Nor has the text only been ransacked, but all the ancient versions, the Latin Vulgate, Italic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Saxon; nor these only, but all the dispersed citations of the Greek and Latin Fathers in a course of five hundred years. What wonder, then, if, with all this scrupulous search in every hole and corner, the varieties rise to thirty thousand? when, in all ancient books of the same bulk, whereof the manuscripts are numerous, the variations are as many or more, and yet no versions to swell the reckoning. "The editors of profane authors do not use to trouble their readers, |