mouth, even apparently and not in dark speeches, and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold."* It is said in the account of his death, "There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face."t Moses was the only person who could have explained these words, but as he has left no commentary upon them, we are ignorant of their meaning. This, however, they obviously import, that he enjoyed a familiar intercourse with God, to which other inspired men were not admitted; and that the revelations made to him surpassed those with which they were favoured in clearness, and resembled the communications which one friend makes to another, when they meet and converse together.

LECTURE XII.

STATE OF THE SACRED TEXT.

Existing MSS. of the Scriptures-Various Readings-Causes assigned for them-Sources whence they are collected; From different MSS., the Writings of the Fathers, ancient Versions and conjectural Criticism-Account of the principal Editions of the New Testament-Utility of this Inquiry.

In some preceding lectures, we have considered the evidences of our religion, and the authority of the records in which it is contained. There is a question intimately connected with it, to which I mean to direct your attention in this lecture. It relates to the state in which these records have come down to us, and is confessedly of great importance, as every person must wish to be satisfied, whether they are a faithful representation of the original documents, or have been altered and corrupted through carelessness or design.

We do not possess the original copies of the sacred writings. The autographs of the apostles and prophets have long since disappeared. The copy of the law, which was written by the hand of Moses himself, seems to have been preserved for many ages, and it was probably that copy which was found by Hilkiah the high-priest, and read in the ears of Josiah ; but it perished, we may presume, in the destruction of the temple. We have no information respecting the original copies of any other parts of the Jewish Scriptures. From a passage in Tertullian, who flourished towards the close of the second century, it has been inferred, that the autographs of the apostles were then in existence, but no mention is made of them by any later author, and they have been lost with all the other writings of that age. Modern times can boast only of transcripts, removed from the originals by more or fewer steps, according to the age in which they were written. The most ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, are the Codex Alexandrinus, so called because it was brought from Alexandria in Egypt; the Codex Vaticanus, in the Vatican library at Rome; the Codex Bezæ, or Codex Cantabrigiensis, which was presented by Beza to the University of Cambridge; the Codex Cottonianus, in the Cottonian library, containing, however, only fragments of the four Gospels; the Codex Ephremi; and the Codex Claramontanus of the epistles of Paul. The dates of these manuscripts cannot be certainly fixed; but the oldest of them cannot be referred farther back than the fifth, or perhaps the fourth century, and is posterior to the last book of the New Testament by at least three hundred years. There are no manuscripts of the Old Testament of equal antiquity.

Num, xii. 6-8.

+ Deut. xxxiv. 10.

#2 Kings xxii. 8.

It may be presumed, that the persons employed in transcribing the sacred writings would be at great pains to make the copies accurate, both from reverence for books which they believed to be inspired and from a regard to their own interest, as errors, when discovered, would have prevented the sale of the copies, or have greatly lowered the price. Yet, without a miracle, every transcript could not have been a faultless representation of the original; and that no supernatural influence was exerted upon their minds, may be very confi*dently inferred from the different readings which appear upon a collation of manuscripts. It is certain that they cannot all be right, and it is probable that not one of them is perfectly correct.

The existence of various readings in the Old Testament was remarked, if not, as some suppose, in the days of Ezra, yet as far back as the fifth century, when the Jewish work called the Masora was composed, or at least was begun by the Jewish critics, who are known by the name of Masorites. The design of it was to ascertain the true reading, and much scrupulous care has been employed in numbering the verses, the words, the letters, the vowel points, and the accents. As they did not venture to alter the text, for which they entertained a superstitious reverence, but contented themselves with recording what they judged to be the true reading, we have a specimen of their criticisms on the margins of some of our printed Bibles, and are referred to them by a small circle over the word, for which that on the margin is to be substituted. Hence the origin of the words Keri and Chetib, which frequently occur. The Chetib denotes what is written, and the Keri what ought to be read; that is, you are not to read the text as it stands, but to correct it by the note. I shall give only one instance, in which there can be no doubt that the Masorites have done right in correcting the text, because they have the sanction of apostolical authority. In the tenth verse of the sixteenth Psalm, we read in Hebrew, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer chasidicha, thy holy ones, to see corruption." But on the day of Pentecost, Peter quoted it thus, and applied it to Christ, " Neither wilt thou suffer en chasidcha, thy holy One, to see corruption;" and it is in this way that the Masoretic note requires us to read it, by marking the jod, the sign of the plural, as redundant. Had they wished to favour their own cause against Christians, they would have left the reading in the text unnoticed, and might have done so without incurring the charge of corrupting it, since it seems to have been vitiated before their time. But they acted with perfect fairness, and restored the word which, we are sure, was used by the Psalmist. In modern times, the industry of learned men has greatly augmented the number of various readings. More than six hundred manuscripts were more or less fully consulted for Dr. Kennicott's edition of the Hebrew Bible; and four hundred and seventy-nine manuscripts, besides two hundred and eighty-eight printed editions, for De Rossi's Varia Lectiones Veteris Testamenti.

As I shall have occasion afterwards to speak more particularly of the various editions of the New Testament, I only observe at present, that to obtain an accurate text has been deemed an object of great importance almost since the revival of learning; and that, in this work, many have laboured with great diligence and ability, among whom Mill, Wetstein, and Griesbach, are eminently entitled to notice.

The following causes of various readings have been assigned. First, when a copy was written from the dictation of another, he who dictated might read or pronounce wrong, or the transcriber might hear wrong, and in either case a mistake would be produced. Secondly, as some Hebrew and Greek letters are similar, and according to the modes of writing in former times, had a greater resemblance to each other than at present, negligent copyists might substitute one letter or word for another. Thirdly, a transcriber having read a

text.

whole clause at once, and retaining the sense, but forgetting some of the precise words, substituted a synonymous word, and thus altered the text. Fourthly, a transcriber, casting his eye on a preceding line or word, would write over again what he had written already, and thus make an addition to the Fifthly, a transcriber, directing his eye to a word or line following the place which he was transcribing, might write from the subsequent place, and omit all that intervened. Sixthly, a person, having written one or more words from a wrong place, and not observing his mistake, or not choosing to correct it, lest he should spoil the appearance of the manuscript, might return to the proper place, and thus insert something into the text which did not belong to it. Lastly, when a transcriber had made an omission, and afterwards observed it, he then subjoined what he had omitted, and thus produced a transposition.

These are all instances of mistake. But some various readings may be traced to design. Critical transcribers sometimes transferred what they deemed a clearer or fuller expression, or added a circumstance to the narrative before them, from a parallel passage: and this liberty has been frequently taken in the gospels. They sometimes corrected the New Testament from the Greek version of the Old, with a view to make the quotations in the former agree with the passages in the latter. They are charged, also, with having sometimes altered it in conformity to the Vulgate. They made alterations in their copies, in order to correct some word which appeared to them faulty, or which they did not understand; they omitted words which they reckoned superfluous, or added words to illustrate what they judged defective or improper. Various readings have also been produced, by transferring to the text glosses or notes which had been written on the margin. Some have been attributed to wilful corruption, with a view to serve the purposes of a party. This crime has been charged upon the Jews, upon heretics, and even upon those who were called orthodox. The accusation may be true in some instances; but it has been justly remarked, that "mistaken zeal is forward to impute false readings to design in those whom it opposes; but we ought not to ascribe them to this principle rashly, when they might have naturally arisen from chance, or where there is no positive presumption or evidence of design."

No single manuscript can be supposed to exhibit the original text, without the slightest variation; it is to be presumed, that in all manuscripts, errors more or fewer in number are to be found. It is therefore by a collation of manuscripts, that we may hope to obtain a faithful representation of the sacred books, as they were delivered to the church by the inspired writers. In estimating the value of manuscripts, the preference is given to the most ancient, because they approach nearest to the time of the sacred writers, and in proportion to the less frequency of transcription, there is the less danger of error. The antiquity of a manuscript is ascertained by testimony, or by internal marks, and particularly by the form of the letters. Those which are written in uncial letters, as they are called, or capital letters, are supposed to be the oldest. Some, however, have considered this proof as not quite satisfactory, because copyists might, from choice or design, imitate more ancient writing, or give a fac simile of the manuscript before them, to display their dexterity, or to enhance the worth of their copy. Again, those manuscripts are most esteemed which appear to have been written with great care, not only because we may conclude that they are faithful copies of the older manuscripts, from which they are transcribed, but because, when a various reading occurs, we have reason to believe, that it was not introduced by the copyists, but was found in the manuscript before them.

Critics have divided the manuscripts of the New Testament, of which above five hundred have been consulted, into classes, assigning to each different

degrees of authority. Griesbach has established three classes, the Alexandrine, the Occidental or Western, and the Oriental or Byzantine, and has given the highest rank to the first. He has distinguished them by the name of recensions, which signifies the same thing with a word more common and generally intelligible, editions. Scholz has found out five recensions, the Alexandrine, the Occidental, the Asiatic, the Byzantine, and the Cyprian. Matthæi has rejected all these divisions, and maintained that there is only one class of manuscripts containing, what others have called, the Byzantine text. The classification of Griesbach has been disputed by two learned men in this country, who have endeavoured to show that it is destitute of any solid foundation, and that some important alterations which he has made in the received text upon its authority, ought not to be admitted. I refer to Dr. Laurence, who has published remarks on the classification of manuscripts adopted by Griesbach in his edition of the New Testament; and to Mr. Nolan, the author of a work entitled, an Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or received text of the New Testament, in which he introduces a new classification, into the Egyptian, the Palestine, and the Byzantine, and gives the preference to the latter, on which the textus receptus is founded. From this short review of the different opinions entertained by learned men, it appears that some degree of uncertainty still rests upon the subject, and that after all that has been done, the field is still open to new inquirers.

There are other sources of various readings besides manuscripts. Some are collected from the writings of the Fathers, in the faith that they have accurately quoted from their copies. Here critics have shown how sensible. they are of the necessity of caution, by laying down a variety of rules for judging in what cases the quotations may be considered as faithful. But after all, we tread upon slippery ground. We know how careless moderns often are in citing passages; that they trust to their memories to save themselves the trouble of looking at the text, and that sometimes they are not solicitous to be exact, but intend only to give the sense, and throw in occasionally a word for the purpose of illustration. We have no reason to believe that the Fathers were at greater pains; and I should think it probable that they referred less frequently to the text than we do, from the form of their manuscripts, which required to be unrolled, and from the difficulty of finding a particular sentence, as they wanted those minute marks of reference which we possess in the division of the Scriptures into chapters and verses. not deny all authority to their quotations, but I should not be disposed to lay much stress upon them, except when they are brought forward on some occasion where accuracy was indispensable, or occur in commentaries which were professedly written to explain them.

I do

Ancient versions of the Scriptures are also another source of various readings. But here, I think, greater caution, if possible, is necessary. For in the first place, we are not certain that those versions have come down to us in an uncorrupted state, or rather we are certain that they have suffered as much as the manuscripts of the Scriptures by transcription, so that we cannot be sure, in many cases, that where they differ now from the originals, they differed at first. In the second place, we never can know, that where they differ from the received text, there was a different reading in their copies, because it is possible that they misapprehended the sense. They may have mistranslated; they may have substituted a term or phrase for another, supposing it to be equivalent, while it was not; they may have changed the meaning, in adapting to it the idiom of their own language; they may have been guilty of oversight, just as modern translators are. If a person were to read a variety of modern translations, and not to know that they were all made from the same text, I have no doubt that he would in some cases conclude

that they had been formed upon different texts. It is, therefore, with extreme hesitation that ancient versions should be admitted as authorities for various readings. There is one case where their testimony may be received, namely, "when the original is absurd, or yields no sense, a single version may give probability to another reading, especially when from it the present reading might have naturally arisen."

Conjectural criticism, which has supplied some readings, is a dangerous expedient, which should never be resorted to, except when emendation is manifestly required, and no assistance can be derived from any other quarter; and even then the proposed correction can rise no higher than probability. It is astonishing that some men have not been deterred by reverence for the word of God, from making too liberal a use of it.

Rules have been proposed for judging concerning various readings. The greater part of them are of no value, and possess no authority which entitles them to attention; but others are so evidently right, that they ought to be received into the text, although they should be found in no printed edition. The limits of this lecture will not permit me, as I intended, to give an account of the principles laid down by writers on sacred criticism, for estimating the value of readings with a view to the emendation of the received text; and I shall therefore content myself with referring you to some of the books in which they will be found; Horne's Introduction, Gerard's Institutes of Biblical Criticism, Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti by Ernesti, the Prolegomena of Mill, Wetstein, and Griesbach, the preface to the work of Bengelius entitled Gnomon Novi Testamenti, &c.

It remains to give a short account of the principal editions of the New Testament.

The first is the Complutensian, which was printed at Complutum or Alcala, in Spain, in A. D. 1514, but was not published till some years after, so that the edition of Erasmus, which was in fact posterior, appeared before it. It was prepared and published under the patronage of Cardinal Ximenes. The manuscripts used by the editors are lost, but although they are said to have been ancient, it is now generally understood that they were of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, and consequently possessed little intrinsic value. They have also been charged with introducing some changes in conformity to the Vulgate.

The first edition of the New Testament by Erasmus, appeared in A. D. 1516, and was followed by several other editions. The first was drawn up in great haste, in the short space of five months, and on this account could not be of much value as a critical work. The manuscripts which he consulted were not many, nor of great antiquity. The editions which appeared after the publication of the Complutensian were corrected by it.

The next edition which demands attention is that of Robert Stephens, in A. D. 1546. He adhered closely to the Complutensian and Erasmian editions, but not servilely, for he has adopted various readings on the authority of manuscripts, which were consulted to the number of fifteen. But some of those manuscripts contained only a part of the New Testament; they were examined, not by Robert himself, but by his son Henry, who, although he proved one of the most learned men of his age, was then a youth of eighteen; and it is affirmed that not much critical skill was exercised in the formation of the text.

Beza gave his first edition to the world in A. D. 1565. But although he had access to a collection of various readings by Stephens, possessed an ancient manuscript of the Gospels and Acts, and another of the Epistles of Paul, and besides had an opportunity to consult the Syriac version, which had been recently published, he is said not to have made a full use of these advantages.