different sects and parties. This is an extreme which, if it should prevail, would be of much more pernicious consequence than the other extreme of adhering implicitly and inflexibly, with or without reason, to whatever we find in the common edition. We know the worst of this error already, and we can say with assurance, that, though the common editions are not perfect, there is no mistake in them of such a nature as materially to affect either the doctrines to be believed or the duties to be practised by a Christian. The worst consequences which the blunders of transcribers have occasioned, are their hurting sometimes the perspicuity, sometimes the credibility of holy writ, affording a handle to the objections of infidels, and thereby weakening the evidences of religion. But as to the extreme of correcting on mere conjecture, its tendency is manifestly to throw every thing loose, and to leave all at the mercy of system-builders and framers of hypotheses: for who shall give law to the licentiousness of guessing.

It is not enough to answer, that the classics have sometimes been corrected on conjecture. The cases are not parallel. A freedom may be taken with the latter with approbation, which cannot with propriety be taken with the former.* Houbigant

Part i. sect. 21. Since these Dissertations were written, I have seen Dr. Geddes' PROSPECTUS, wherein, among many things which I entirely approve, I observed the following words, (p. 55,) which appear to stand in direct contradiction to the opinion given above: "When the corruptions of the text cannot be removed, either by the collation of manuscripts or the aid of versions, internal analogy, or external testimony, the last resource is conjectural criticism." In opposition to this doctrine, he produces a popular objection, which he examines and answers. And in this answer he goes still further, affirming that there are cases in which the text may be restored by mere critical conjecture. I have attentively considered his answer, and am led by it to regret, that, through the imperfection of all languages, ancient and modern, it often happens that writers agree in sentiments who differ in words, and agree in words who differ in sentiments. Though that author and I have on this head expressed ourselves very differently, I am apt to conclude, from the explanation he has given, the instances he has produced, and the canons he has laid down, that the difference between us is mostly, if not entirely, verbal. It lies chiefly in the sense affixed to the word conjecture. He has applied it to cases to which I should not think it applicable. When any passage contains in itself such indications as are always accounted sufficient evidence of a particular alteration it has undergone, I never call the discovery of that alteration conjecture.

Now this is precisely the case in some of the instances given by Dr. Geddes. When, in one edition of the English Bible, we read, to ad daffliction to my bonds, how do we reason from it? We perceive at once that ad is not English, neither is daffliction. Hence we conclude, with perfect assurance, that this is not the true reading, or the reading intended by the translators. A very little attention shows us, that if, without altering the order of the letters, we take the d from the beginning of daffliction, and annex it to ad immediately preceding, (which is the smallest alteration possible, as not a single letter intervenes,) the expression is just in itself, and the meaning is suited to the context: as it stands, it is nonsense. No evidence can be more convincing. We may venture to say, that if there were fifty other editions of the English Bible at hand, no reasonable person would think of consulting any of them for further satisfaction. Now I submit it to this critic himself, whether to say of any thing, "It is a matter of the utmost certainty," and to say, "It is a mere conjecture," be not considered as rather opposite in signification than coincident. There are some other of the learned gentleman's examples

though a critic of eminence in oriental literature, and a good translator, has, in my judgment, taken most unjustifiable liberties in his conjectural emendations, and has been but too much followed by critics, commentators, or paraphrasts, among ourselves. I am far from thinking that in some of his guesses he may not be right; it is however much more probable, that in the greater part of them he is wrong.

A mere conjecture may be mentioned in a note; but if, without the authority of copies, translations, or ancient ecclesiastical writers, it may be admitted into the text, there is an end of all reliance on the Scriptures as the dictates of the divine Spirit. Manuscripts, ancient translations, the readings of the most early commentators, are, like the witnesses in a judicial process, direct evidence in this matter: The reasonings of conjecturers are but like the speeches of the pleaders. To receive, on the credit of a sagacious conjecture, a reading not absolutely necessary to the construction, and quite unsupported by positive evidence, appears not less incongruous than it would be, in a trial, to return a verdict founded on the pleading of a plausible speaker, not only without

in which there is hardly more scope for conjecture than in that now examined; such as that wherein terited, (which is no word) is used for retired, (a word remarkably similar,) and that wherein well (which in that place has no meaning) is used for dwell. In all such cases we are determined by the internal evidence resulting from the similarity of the letters, from the scope of the place, and from the construction of the words. In a few of the cases put, there is, I own, something of conjecture; but the correction is not merely conjectural. Of this kind is that, versed in the politer of learning, where parts or branches, or some word of like signification, must be supplied. If it be asked, What then ought to be denominated a matter of mere conjecture? I answer, The reader will find an example of this in sect. 14, to which I refer him. We have but too many examples in some late critical productions of great name, wherein the authors, without any warrant from manuscripts or versions, and without any reason from the scope of the place, or the import of the passage, are perpetually proposing emendations on the text, and that by transposing, changing, adding, or dismissing, not only words but clauses, when the passage does not, as it stands, perfectly suit their notions.

That the text has sometimes been interpolated, and otherwise corrupted by transcribers and interpreters, cannot be questioned. Of this it is doubtless the critic's business to clear it as much as possible. But we ought ever to remember, that the greater part of those corruptions were originally no other than conjectural corrections. And if we go to work in the same way, with such freedom of guessing as has sometimes been employed, it is ten to one that we ourselves corrupt the text instead of mending it, and that we serve only to furnish more work for future critics. I observe in the Monthly Review (August, 1786) of Reed's late edition of Shakespeare, in a note on the expression knowledge illinhabited, which has given great plague to the critics, the following remark, "At all events we beg leave to enter our protest against putting inhibit into the text. How many plausible conjectures, which their ill-advised predecessors," former publishers, “had advanced into the body of the page, have the late editors, in consequence of their more extensive researches, been obliged to degrade to their proper place, the margin? Can they then be too scrupulous in admitting their own corrections?" Upon the whole, from the way wherein Dr. Geddes qualifies his sentiments, I am convinced, that the difference between him and me on this article is more in the words than in the thought. His verdict, in regard to every one of the particular cases supposed by him, is unexceptionable; but his manner of expressing the general position is, in my opinion, unguarded, and consequently may mislead.

proof but in direct opposition to it. For let it be observed, that the copies, ancient versions, and quotations, which are conformable to the common reading, are positive evidence in its favour, and therefore against the conjecture; and even if the readings of the passage be various, there is, though less, still some weight in their evidence against a reading merely conjectural, and consequently destitute of external support, and different from them all. It must however be acknowledged, that the variety itself, if it affect some of the oldest manuscripts and translations, is a presumption that the place has been early corrupted in transcribing.

14. I cannot avoid here taking notice of a correction, merely conjectural, proposed by the late Dr. Kennicott; a man to whose pious and useful labours the learned in general, and the students of the divine oracles in particular, are under the greatest obligation. The correction he proposes* is on these words, É. T. And he made his grave

.ויתן את רשעים קברו ואת עשיר במתיו

with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, Isa. liii. 9. This ingenious critic supposes that the words and p and n have, by some means or other, changed places. He would have them therefore transposed, or rather restored, each to its proper place, in consequence of which the import will be, (I give it in his own words,) And he was taken up with wicked men in his death; and with a rich man was his sepulchre. He adds: Since the preceding parts of the prophecy speak so indisputably of the sufferings and death of the Messiah, these words seem evidently meant as descriptive of the Messiah's being put to death in company with wicked men, and making his grave or sepulchre (not with rich men but) with one rich man.'

Now let it be observed, that of all the vast number of manuscripts which that gentleman had collated, not one was found to favour this arrangement; that neither the Septuagint nor any other old translation is conformable to it; that no ancient author known to us, in any language, quotes the words, so arranged, either from the original or from any version; and, consequently, that we cannot consider the conjecture otherwise than as opposed by such a cloud of witnesses, as, in inquiries of this kind, must be accounted strong positive evidence. Had the words, as they are read in Scripture, been ungrammatical, so as to yield no meaning that we could discover, and had the transposition of the two words added both sense and grammar to the sentence, and that in perfect consistency with the scope of the context, I should have readily admitted, that the criticism stood on a firmer foundation than mere conjecture, and that the external proofs, from testimony, might be counterbalanced by the intrinsic evidence arising from the subject. But this is not pretended here. To be associated with the rich in death, is equally grammatical, and equally intelligible, as to be associated with the wicked: the

Diss. ii. chap. iv. 2d period.

like may be said in regard to burial. Where, then, is the occasion for a change? The only answer that can be given is certainly a very bad one: The occasion is, that the words may be adjusted to an event which, in our opinion, is the fulfilment of the prophecy.

But if such liberties may be taken with the Prophets, there will be no difficulty in obtaining from them proofs in support of any interpretation. The learned Doctor takes notice, that the preceding part of this chapter speaks indisputably of the sufferings and death of the Messiah. I am as much convinced as any man, that the subject of the prophecy is as he represents it; but to say that it is indisputably so, seems to insinuate that it is universally admitted. Now this is far from being the fact. It is disputed by the whole Jewish nation, and is allowed by some Christian expositors to be only in a secondary sense prophetical of Christ. Suppose a Christian, after the passage shall have been in the Christian Bibles new-modelled in the way proposed, to urge it on a Jew, as an argument from prophecy, that Jesus the son of Mary is the person in whom the prediction was fulfilled, and therefore the Messiah; inasmuch as the words exactly represent what, in so signal a manner, happened to him-he suffered with malefactors, and was buried in a rich man's sepulchre; would not the other have reason to retort, "Ye Christians have a wonderful dexterity in managing the argument from prophecy: ye, first by changing and transposing the prophet's words, accommodating them to your purpose, make him say, what we have direct evidence that he never said; and then ye have the confidence to argue, this must infallibly be the event intended by the prophet, it so exactly answers the description. Ye yourselves make the prophecy resemble the event which ye would have to be predicted by it, and then ye reason, from the resemblance, that this is the completion of the prophecy!"

Let us judge equitably of men of all denominations. Should we discover that the Masorets had made so free with the declaration of any prophet, in order to adapt it to what they take to be the accomplishment, would we hesitate a moment to call the words so metamorphosed, a corruption of the sacred text? In an enlightened age, to recur to such expedients will be always found to hurt true religion, instead of promoting it. The detection of them, in a few instances, brings a suspicion on the cause they were intended to serve, and would go far to discredit the argument from prophecy altogether. I cannot conclude this remark without adding, that this is almost the only instance wherein I differ in critical sentiments from that excellent author; from whose labours, I acknowledge with gratitude, I have reaped much pleasure and instruction.

15. To conclude what relates to various readings; Those variations which do not affect either the sense or the connexion, I

take no notice of, because the much greater part of them would occasion no difference in translating; and even of the few of these which might admit some difference, the difference is more in words than in meaning. Again, such variations as even alter the sense, but are not tolerably supported by either external or internal evidence, especially when the common reading has nothing in it apparently irrational or unsuitable to the context, I have not judged necessary to mention. Those, on the contrary, which not only in some degree affect the sense, but from their own intrinsic evidence, or from the respectable support of manuscripts and versions, have divided the critics about their authenticity, I have taken care to specify. When the evidence in their favour appeared to me clearly to preponderate, I have admitted them into the text, and assigned my reason in the notes. Whereever the matter seemed dubious, I have preferred the common reading, and suggested in the notes what may be advanced in favour of the other. When the difference lay in the rejection of a clause commonly received, though the probability were against its admission, yet, if the sentence or clause were remarkable, and if it neither conveyed a sentiment unsuitable to the general scope, nor brought obscurity on the context, I have judged it better to retain it than to shock many readers by the dismission of what they have been accustomed to read in their Bible. At the same time, to distinguish such clauses, as of doubtful authority, I inclose them in crotchets. Of this the doxology, as it is called, in the Lord's prayer, is an example. In other cases, I have not scrupled to omit what did not appear sufficiently supported.

PART III.

THE DIALECT EMPLOYED.

As to what concerns the language of this version, I have not much to add to the explanations I have given of my sentiments on this article in the latter part of the preceding Dissertation, and the first part of the present, when the common translation was made and (which is still earlier) when the English liturgy was composed, the reigning dialect was not entirely the same with that which prevails at present. Now, as the dialect which then obtained does very rarely, even to the readers of this age, either injure the sense or effect the perspicuity, I have judged it proper in a great measure to retain it. The differences are neither great nor numerous. The third person singular of the present of the verb terminates in the syllable eth in the old dialect, not the letter s, as in that now current. The participles are very rarely contracted; nor is there ever any elision of the vowels. Indeed,