Wetstein, of proposing (not making) alterations in the text for the mere purpose of obtaining support 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 discovers that a reading of the text is supported by less authority than a various reading, are questions, with which the reader is only so 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, suffer his religious opinions to influence his judgment, in weighing the evidence for and against any particular word or passage. Now men of every religious profession are exposed to the temptation of adopting what they wish to adopt, and of rejecting what they wish to reject, without sufficient regard to the evidence against the one, and in favour of the other.. Hence greater caution is certainly requisite in our admission of emendations, which favour the editor's religious creed, than in the admission of readings unconnected with that creed. That is, we must be more careful to scrutinize, whether such emendations are really supported by greater authority, than the readings, which it is proposed to reject. But then we must endeavour in this investigation to abstain, on our parts, from the fault, which we suspect in the editor. We must not suffer a bias in an opposite direction to mislead our own judgment, to magnify or diminish authorities, as they are favourable or unfavourable to the readings, which we ourselves would adopt. Now I have been

long in the habit of using Wetstein's Greek Testament; I have at least endeavoured to weigh carefully the evidence for the readings, which I have had occasion to examine; yet I have always found that the alterations proposed by Wetstein were supported by respectable authority, and in general by much better authority, than the correspondent readings of the text. The merits therefore of Wetstein, as a critic, ought not to be impeached by ascribing to him undue influence in the choice of his readings. His merits, as a critic, undoubtedly surpass the merits of his predecessors: he alone contributed more to advance the criticism of the Greek Testament, than all who had gone before him: and this task he performed, not only without support, either public or private, but during a series of severe trials, under which a mind of less energy than Wetstein's would infallibly have sunk. In short, he gave a new turn to the criticism of the Greek Testament, and laid the foundation, on which later editors have built. That mistakes and oversights are discoverable in the work detracts not from its general merits. No work is without them: and least of all can consummate accuracy be expected, where so many causes of error never ceased to operate. Such are Wetstein's merits as a critic. As an interpreter of the New Testament, in his explanatory Notes, he shews himself in a different and less favourable light but this subject must be deferred till we come to the second Branch of Theology.

The emendations, which Wetstein had proposed, were adopted by Mr. Bowyer, a learned printer in

London, who inserted them in the text of his edition published eleven years afterwards. And as these emendations were founded on the authority of Greek manuscripts, Mr. Bowyer gave to his edition the following title, Novum Testamentum Græcum, ad fidem Græcorum solum Codicum Manuscriptorum nunc primum expressum, adstipulante Johanne Jacobo Wetstenio, &c.

The history of our second period has now been conducted to the year 1763. The remaining and most important part of it will be given in the next Lecture.

LECTURE VIII.

THE preceding Lecture having concluded with the account of Wetstein's emendations adopted in Bowyer's edition, our attention must now be directed to the literary labours of Dr. Griesbach, Professor of Divinity at Jena in Saxony. The first display of his critical ability was made in a short treatise on the manuscripts of the four Gospels, which were used by Origen, entitled, De Codicibus quatuor Evangeliorum Origenianis, published in 1771 at Halle in Saxony, where Griesbach had studied, and where he afterwards published his editions of the Greek Testament.

In 1774 he published a Synopsis, or Harmony of the three first Gospels, with an amended text, and a selection of various readings; to which were added, likewise with an amended text and a selection of readings, the Gospel of St. John, and the Acts of the Apostles. In the year following he published in the same manner, the Epistles and the Apocalypse. And, as the Synopsis, though in itself a very useful work, and deservedly re-published, yet formed a contrast with the other books of the New Testament, he printed in

1777 the three first Gospels entire. Such were the component parts of what is called Griesbach's, first edition of the Greek Testament, of which it was necessary to give a short account, though our examination of Griesbach's merits as a critical editor, must be reserved for the description of his second and more important edition.

It may be useful however to observe that Griesbach's object was not to supersede the edition of Wetstein, which in many respects retains its original value. But as the purchase of two folio volumes, which were daily growing scarcer and dearer, was impracticable for students in general, who yet ought to be provided with some means of information on the existing state of the Greek text, he determined for that purpose to prepare a portable edition, which might suit the convenience of every reader. In the critical apparatus of such an edition could be expected only a selection of the most important readings, and a particular citation only of the chief authorities. It was sufficient that the choice was made with judgment. Both the readings and the authorities were selected from Wetstein's edition: but they were revised and augmented by subsequent collations, of which the principal were supplied by Griesbach himself. And as the notion, that the Elzevir text required no amendment, had gradually subsided since the editions of Bengelius, Wetstein, and Bowyer, the selection of various readings, and the authorities, on which they were founded, were applied by Griesbach to the emendation of the text, With what success the application