iv. of III. Library 
 57 
 
) 'A 
 
 COURSE OP LECTURES, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 A DESCRIPTION AND SYSTEMATIC ARRANGEMENT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SEVERAL BRANCHES OF DIVINITY : 
 
 ACCOMPANIED WITH 
 
 AN ACCOUNT, BOTH OF THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORS, 
 AND OF THE PROGRESS, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AT 
 DIFFERENT PERIODS, 
 
 IN 
 
 Cbeologtcal ftearmngv 
 
 BY 
 
 HERBERT MARSH, D.D. F.R.S. 
 
 MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVJNITY. 
 
 PART l. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: 
 
 Printed at the University Press t 
 
 AND SOLD BY J. DEtGHTON, CAMBRIDGE; AND 
 F. & C. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
 
 1809. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 When these Lectures were written, 
 they were not designed for publication, at 
 least not for present publication. I proposed 
 to follow the example of other Lecturers, 
 and, when I had completed the Course, to 
 make the same Lectures serve again and 
 again for every successive audience. For so 
 doing I had this additional inducement, that 
 three years at least must elapse before the 
 whole series of Lectures can be completed, 
 during which time the Young Men of the 
 University, for whom they were principally 
 intended, will have been succeeded by a new 
 generation. And as soon as I had performed 
 the task of writing the Lectures, I could have 
 divided them into a triennial course, com- 
 mensurate with the usual period of academical 
 study. After all, if I thought it expedient, 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 I had the publication of them in reserve, 
 whenever sickness, or the infirmities of age 
 might prevent me from continuing to deliver 
 them. 
 
 » 
 
 Such was my original plan, which I have 
 been induced to abandon by the solicitation 
 of my friends ; and it is now my intention 
 to publish every year the Lectures, which 
 have been delivered in that year. I shall 
 thus lose the advantage, when the present 
 Course is finished, of being provided with 
 a fund for future uses, since Lectures once 
 published can never be delivered again. But 
 this private inconvenience will be amply 
 compensated, if the printing of them affords 
 any benefit to the public. One advantage at 
 least will arise from the present publication 
 of them, namely, that the Young Men who 
 are now entering on their academical studies, 
 will be thus enabled, before the Lectures are 
 resumed, to make themselves acquainted 
 with the subjects already explained. And 
 even they who had an opportunity of hearing 
 the Lectures now printed, may find it con- 
 venient to have their memories assisted in 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 the recollection of many points, which it is 
 necessary to know, in order to understand 
 the subjects of inquiry in future Lectures. 
 For as the whole Course is intended to form 
 a systematic arrangement, the connexion of 
 the several parts must be constantly kept in 
 view, or the purport of that arrangement 
 will be defeated. These considerations have 
 had the chief influence on my present deter- 
 mination. Nor must I neglect either to 
 mention, or to acknowledge with gratitude, 
 the additional inducement in the liberal offer 
 of the Syndics of the Press to defray the 
 expence of publication. 
 
 As these Lectures were delivered in the 
 University Church, it was necessary to adapt 
 the mode of composition to the place and 
 the audience, for which they were intended. 
 In writing a book, which is designed for 
 private meditation, an author cannot easily 
 be too minute, either in his own researches, 
 or in references to the works of other authors. 
 In a private Lecture-room, where a Lecturer 
 can occasionally wait while his pupils are 
 taking notes, and where other circumstances 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 compensate for the dryness of his manner, he 
 may likewise be minute in his references, or 
 even produce the authors, as he quotes them. 
 But when a Professor is speaking from the 
 University Pulpit, and is addressing a nume- 
 rous audience, it would be difficult to obtain 
 unremitted attention, if the fluency of his 
 discourse were interrupted by particular re- 
 ferences to chapter and section, to volume 
 and page. This inconvenience however is 
 in a great measure remedied by the circum- 
 stance, that it is an essential part of my plan 
 to give an account of the principal books in 
 Theology; and these are at the same time 
 the sources, from which I myself have 
 derived the information contained in the 
 Lectures. Thus, the authors enumerated at 
 the end of the fourth Lecture are the 
 vouchers for that history of Sacred Criticism, 
 during the early and the middle ages, which 
 is given in the third and fourth Lectures. In 
 like manner, when the Criticism of the 
 Greek Testament is finished, an account will 
 be given of the principal authors on that 
 subject, and the same will be done in every 
 other branch. It is true, that many of the 
 
PREFACE. Vii 
 
 quoted works are of considerable size: but 
 since for the most part they are methodically 
 arranged, since many of them are provided 
 with indexes, and others with tables of con- 
 tents, the particular subjects, for which it 
 may be necessary to consult them, will 
 generally be found without difficulty. Little 
 or no benefit therefore would have been 
 derived from printing the Lectures in any 
 other form, than that, in which they were 
 delivered. And even without this considera- 
 tion, it would probably be less agreeable to 
 those who so lately heard them, if on reading 
 them there should appear any material dif- 
 ference. Trivial alterations, in regard to 
 single expressions, such as occur to every 
 author, while he is correcting the proof 
 sheets of his work, were of course admitted, 
 as it would be blameable to reject them. 
 But in substance nothing has been altered. 
 I had even printed, at the beginning of the 
 third Lecture, that enumeration of the 
 branches of Divinity, with which I closed 
 the second Lecture, and which were repeated 
 at the beginning of the third, because it was 
 necessary to impress them on the minds of 
 
Vili PREFACE. 
 
 every hearer. But in correcting the proof 
 sheet at p. 39, and on perceiving that the same 
 enumeration which appears in p. 38. was 
 repeated on the opposite page, I erased the 
 repetition as unnecessary for the reader, 
 though it was necessary for the hearer. 
 
 For the reasons already assigned I have 
 retained the exordium of the first Lecture, 
 though it relates to two deviations from the 
 custom of my predecessors, for which only 
 my immediate hearers could require an 
 apology. I have retained also the English 
 translation of French title-pages, which 
 could not with propriety have been given 
 in the original from an English pulpit. 
 French proper names are likewise written, as 
 they are commonly used in England, which 
 is the more necessary, as a departure from 
 this rule would frequently create confusion. 
 For instance, the French name of the cele- 
 brated editor of the Greek Testament was 
 Robert Estienne ; but as he is always called 
 in English Robert Stephens, it would have 
 led the Reader into error, if I had called him 
 bv any other name. A similar motive has 
 
PREFACE. ix 
 
 induced me to call the well-known Oxford 
 editor of the Greek Testament by the name 
 of Dr. Mill : for, though Mills was his real 
 name, yet as he is generally known by the 
 former title, which was formed from the 
 omission of the termination in his Latin 
 name Millius, it might have perplexed the 
 Reader if I had adopted the latter appellation. 
 
 As the Lectures for the present year were 
 finished, before the description of the first 
 branch of Divinity was completed, I thought 
 it necessary at the end of the last Lecture to 
 make some general observations in respect, 
 both to that, and to some other branches of 
 Divinity not yet described. The reasons for 
 so doing are assigned in their proper place, 
 and therefore it is unnecessary to mention 
 them at present. There is only one point, 
 on which I must say a few words, in order 
 to prevent misconstructions, or false infer- 
 ences from what I have asserted. On 
 taking leave of my audience, I noticed, 
 among other subjects, which will be matter 
 of future discussion, the conformity of the 
 doctrines of tti£ Church of England with the 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 doctrines of Scripture. And hence was de- 
 duced the inference (which necessarily fol- 
 lows, if those premises are true) that to 
 dissent from those doctrines, was to dissent 
 without a real cause. From this declaration 
 no candid Dissenter will conclude, that the 
 speaker was animated by a spirit of perse- 
 cution, or wished that religion should be 
 combated by force. Though I am myself 
 convinced, that the doctrines of the Church 
 of England are agreeable to Scripture ; though 
 I am likewise convinced (what I did not 
 express in the Lecture, as the subject did 
 not require it) that there is nothing in the 
 discipline of our Church, which is incon- 
 sistent with Scripture, I should be very sorry 
 that any man, who quietly and conscientiously 
 dissented from either, should be interrupted 
 in the exercise of his own worship, or his 
 own opinions. But if a Professor of Divinity 
 in an English University, standing in the 
 University pulpit, and addressing himself 
 immediately to the members of that Univer- 
 sity, all of whom are educated in the Church, 
 and most of them as ministers of the Church, 
 cannot declare, that tbe doctrines of the 
 
PREFACE. XI 
 
 Church are agreeable to Scripture, and con- 
 sequently that there is no real cause to 
 dissent from them, if under such circum- 
 stances, and before such an audience, he 
 cannot make this declaration, without giving 
 offence to those, who are of a different per- 
 suasion, the persons so offended must expect 
 something more than the free exercise of 
 their own opinions ; they must be unwilling 
 to grant to the Establishment the same tole- 
 ration of religious sentiment, which they t 
 claim and enjoy themselves. These remarks 
 are so obvious, that I should have thought 
 it unnecessary to introduce them, if I had 
 not received a letter containing reproaches 
 for making the declaration in question*. 
 
 * This letter, as appears from the post-mark, was put into 
 the post-office at Cambridge. It was sent on Sept. 15, more 
 than three months after the Lectures were finished, but only 
 three days after the manuscript had been sent to the printing, 
 office for publication. There are various indications of its be- 
 ing written in a disguised hand. No name is affixed to it : but 
 it appears to have been composed by a person not unacquainted 
 with the subject, though upon the whole it is an incoherent 
 rhapsody. The writer begins with expressing his surprise at 
 the " false assertion/' as he calls it, contained in the above- 
 mentioned declaration. He then immediately proceeds to 
 correct an error, which in his opinion I had committed on 
 a former occasion, in maintaining that the Articles of our 
 
 Church 
 
 i 
 
Xll PREFACE. 
 
 When, according to the plan proposed 
 in the second Lecture, the time shall arrive 
 for the description of that branch of Divinity, 
 which relates to the Doctrines of the Bible, 
 it will be examined with all the attention, 
 which the importance of the subject requires. 
 But to enter upon this branch, before those, 
 which precede it, have been fully described, 
 would defeat the very object of that theolo- 
 gical order, without which it is impossible to 
 form such a system of Theology, as shall 
 exempt us from the danger of arguing in 
 a circle. 
 
 Church are not Calvinistic, though " every person, who has 
 read, knows (as he asserts) that the authors of them were 
 Calvinists." Put the letter is chiefly distinguished by the 
 spirit of intolerance, which it uniformly breathes, and by the 
 views of the writer, which it too manifestly discovers. In 
 these respects it is so remarkable, that I at first intended to 
 publish it : but, as it is too long for insertion in this Preface, 
 I will quote only one sentence. Having previously extolled the 
 present state of religious toleration in France, which I am sure 
 no English dissenter, who had read the Articles organiques des 
 Cultes Protestans in the late French Concordat, would wish 
 to see adopted in this country, he proceeds, with manifest 
 reference to the Church of England, in the following manner, 
 ** Antichrist must fall : the late events on the Continent prove, 
 
 that the blood of the Saints must be avenged" From this 
 
 single sentence a tolerable judgement may be formed, both of 
 the temper , and of the wishes of the writer. It is to be hoped, 
 that there are not many, who Avith the same sentiments unite 
 equal zeal. 
 
PREFACE. XIU 
 
 The Lectures now published were deli- 
 vered in the University Church on six 
 successive Saturdays, in the Easter Term. 
 And it is my intention to give the same 
 number in every Easter Term, till the Course 
 is finished. 
 
 Cambridge, 
 Oct. 14. 1809. 
 
CORRECTIONS and ADDITIONS. 
 
 Page 7. line 23. for ' added* read ' united/ 
 
 9. last line, after ' Atheism ' add a comma. 
 49. at the end of the paragraph add, u The last edition 
 was published in 1803." 
 
 .53. line 2. add, "As the first edition of MichaehVs 
 Introduction still appears in catalogues of books, it is 
 necessary to warn the Reader of the material difference 
 between that edition, and the fourth edition of that 
 work, which was translated by the author of these 
 Lectures. The one (namely in the original) consisted 
 of a single octavo, the other consists of two quartos." 
 
 76. line 18. for f born in" read ' born at.* 
 
 83. line 24. for * sume* read ' same.' 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 » 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 Page 
 
 Introductory Remarks on the Study of Theology - 1 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 On Theological Arrangement. The Author's Ana- 
 lysis, and Division of Theology into Seven 
 Branches - _ jg 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 An account of Introductions to the Old and New 
 Testament. History of Sacred Criticism in the 
 early and middle Ages 39 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 This History continued and concluded 64 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 The Criticism of the Greek Testament ----- 8£ 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 This Subject continued to the formation of the 
 Textus Receptus - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- gg 
 
LECTURE I. 
 
 Before I commence my intended Course of 
 Lectures, it may be proper to apologize to the 
 University for giving them in English, since 
 former Margaret Professors gave Lectures, namely 
 the few which they did give, in Latin. When 
 this Professorship was founded, all Lectures were 
 given in Latin. But this custom, in regard to 
 other Lectures, has been long abolished : and even 
 in the foreign Universities, at least in the Pro- 
 testant Universities with which I am acquainted, 
 it is now usual for Professors of Divinity to lecture, 
 not in Latin, but in the language of the country. 
 No reason therefore can be assigned, why an 
 exception should be made in the solitary instance 
 of Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity, especially 
 as the Foundress herself, in the deed of foundation, 
 has prescribed no rules in respect to the language 
 of the Lecture. It is not with the view of saving 
 myself trouble, that I propose to depart from this 
 
 B 
 
2 LECTURE I. 
 
 custom of my predecessors: for, if we may judge 
 from their experience, two or three lectures, if 
 written in Latin, would suffice for the whole 
 time of holding the Professorship. A Latin 
 Lecture in Divinity is a sort of Concio ad Clerum : 
 and we all know that, whoever be the preacher, 
 a Concio ad Clerum is delivered to an empty pit, 
 and to empty galleries. The mere garb of learn- 
 ing has long ceased to be imposing : it is informa- 
 tion, and not parade, which men now require, 
 and they require it through that medium, which 
 conveys it to them with the greatest ease, and 
 perspicuity. It is no wonder therefore that 
 Latin lectures are deserted, or that former Mar- 
 garet Professors have read without an audience. 
 Now, if no one attends the lectures of the Mar- 
 garet Professor, it cannot be his duty, indeed 
 it would be absurd, to continue to deliver them. 
 In this manner the most valuable Professorship 
 in the gift of the University has been gradually 
 converted into a sinecure. But as I do not 
 desire that it should remain so, as I would rather 
 perform the duties of my office, than seek for 
 a pretext to evade them, I hope the University 
 will excuse my addressing them in a language, 
 which alone can enable me to obtain an audience, 
 alone therefore enable me to do my duty. 
 
 Another deviation from the custom of my 
 
I 
 
 LECTURE I. 3 
 
 predecessors I should have left unnoticed, were 
 it not that every deviation from former practice 
 is liable to give offence. It is well known, that 
 my predecessors, when they gave lectures, read 
 them from the professorial chair; and without 
 doubt it was originally intended, that divinity 
 lectures should be given in the divinity schools. 
 It was also intended that lectures in law and 
 physic should be given in the schools, which are 
 appropriated to those faculties. But who would 
 ever censure a Professor of law or physic for 
 giving lectures elsewhere ? And with respect even 
 to divinity, who has ever censured either the 
 late or the present Norrissian Professor for choosing 
 some other place for the delivery of theological 
 lectures? Why then should the Margaret Pro- 
 fessor be censured, who, in leaving the schools, 
 only follows their example ? In fact, the divinity 
 schools, whatever may have been their original 
 destination, are calculated, according to their pre- 
 sent construction, for the mere purpose of public 
 disputations. They have not the requisites of a 
 public lecture room. The doctors and professors, 
 indeed, are well provided with seats, and some 
 few seats are provided for the masters of arts ; but 
 in the space, which is allotted to the under- 
 graduates, not a single seat is provided. If any 
 one complains then, that I have deserted the 
 schools, let him say why the younger part of the 
 
 b 2 
 
4 LECTURE I. 
 
 University should be exposed to the inconvenience 
 of standing during a whole lecture, of standing on 
 a cold pavement, when convenient benches are pro- 
 vided for them in another place ? It is true, that 
 I have not exchanged the schools for that place, 
 where one of my learned colleagues gives divinity 
 lectures ; but I have exchanged them for a place, 
 to which the subjects of discussion are certainly 
 appropriate. Nor is the selection of this place 
 a matter of choice only ; it is a^matter of necessity. 
 For where is the lecture room, where are the 
 schools in this University, which, however incon- 
 venient, or however crowded, could contain the 
 audience, which is now before me? I shall 
 proceed therefore, without further apology, to the 
 business, for which we are here assembled. 
 
 The Lectures, which I propose to deliver, will 
 relate to every branch of Theology. Such is 
 their connexion, that without some knowledge 
 of the whole, it is hardly possible to form a due 
 estimate of any part. Indeed, whatever be the 
 business of our study, we should previously ask 
 what are the objects of inquiry; for till this 
 question has been answered, we know not its 
 real meaning. In the first place therefore the 
 several parts of Theology must be described. 
 
 Iu the next place, they must be properly 
 
LECTURE I. 5 
 
 arranged. A course of Lectures may contain all 
 the divisions and sub-divisions, into which Theology 
 is capable of being resolved ; but unless it contains 
 them in a luminous order, it never can produce 
 conviction ; it can never lead to that, which is 
 the ultimate object of all theological study, the 
 establishment of the great truths of Christianity. 
 To effect this purpose, the several parts must be 
 so arranged, that the one may be deduced from 
 the other in regular succession. The evil con- 
 sequences which follow the violation of this rule, 
 may be best explained by an example. Suppose, 
 that a Professor of Divinity begins his course of 
 lectures with the doctrine of Divine Inspiration ; 
 this doctrine, however true in itself, or however 
 certain the arguments, by which it may be esta- 
 blished, cannot possibly, in that stage of his inquiry, 
 be proved to the satisfaction of his audience, 
 because he has not yet established other truths, 
 from which this must be deduced. For whether 
 he appeals to the promises of Christ to his Apostles, 
 or the declarations of the Apostles themselves, he 
 must take for granted, that those promises and 
 declarations were really made; that is, he must 
 take for granted the authenticity of the writings, 
 in which those promises and declarations are 
 recorded. But how is it possible, that conviction 
 should be the consequence of postulating, instead 
 of proving, a fact of such importance ? This 
 
6 LECTURE I. 
 
 example alone is sufficient to shew the necessity 
 of method in the study of Theology, the necessity 
 of arranging the several parts in such a manner, 
 that no argument be founded on a proposition, 
 which is not already proved. For if (as is too 
 often the case in theological works) we undertake 
 to prove a proposition by the aid of another, 
 which is hereafter to be proved, the inevitable 
 consequence is, that the proposition in question 
 becomes a link in the chain, by which we establish 
 that very proposition, which at first was taken 
 for granted. Thus we prove premises from 
 inferences, as well as inferences from premises; 
 or, in other words, we prove — nothing. 
 
 Nor is it sufficient merely to describe and to 
 arrange the several parts of Theology. The 
 grounds of arrangement, the modes of connexion, 
 must also be distinctly stated. For hence only 
 can be deduced ^those general principles, without 
 which the student in Divinity will never be able 
 to judge of the proofs, which are laid before him, 
 
 When we have proceeded thus far, our next 
 object must be to learn where we may obtain 
 information on the manifold subjects, which will 
 gradually come under discussion ; that is/ we must 
 obtain a knowledge of the best authors, who have 
 written on those subjects. But for this purpose 
 
LECTURE I. 7 
 
 it is not sufficient to have a mere catalogue of 
 theological books, arranged alphabetically, or even 
 arranged under heads, unless the heads themselves 
 are reduced to a proper system. Nor is it sufficient 
 to inform the hearer of the titles only of those 
 books which it may be proper for him to read : 
 he should be informed, at least to a certain degree, 
 of their contents : he should be informed also of 
 the different modes, in which the same subject has 
 been treated by different authors, and of the par- 
 ticular objects, which each of them had in view. 
 Further, since many excellent treatises have been 
 produced by controversy, and many by other 
 occasions, which it is always useful, and sometimes 
 necessary to know, in order to view the writings 
 themselves in their proper light, a knowledge 
 of theological works should be accompanied with 
 some knowledge of the persons who wrote them, 
 a knowledge of their general characters, of the 
 times in which they lived, and of the situations 
 in which they were placed. 
 
 Lastly with this knowledge of authors, if 
 it be properly disposed, may be added a knowledge 
 equally instructive and entertaining, a knowledge 
 of the advancement or decline of theological 
 learning, a knowledge of how much or how 
 little has been performed in the different ages of 
 Christianity. 
 
8 LECTURE I. 
 
 A Course of Lectures so comprehensive in its 
 plan, as to embrace the manifold objects, which 
 have been just enumerated, may appear too much 
 for one lecturer to undertake, especially for the 
 lecturer, who is now addressing you. And, even 
 if he had ability for the undertaking, it might 
 still be apprehended, that, before he had done, 
 the patience of the most indulgent auditory would 
 be exhausted. But it would be foreign to the 
 very plan of these Lectures to deliver copious 
 dissertations on single points of Divinity, in which 
 case they might never be brought to a conclusion. 
 They relate indeed to ail the branches of Divinity, 
 however minute ; they describe, as well the 
 fruits which have been gathered, as the store- 
 houses in which the fruits are preserved; but 
 they do not contain the fruits themselves. Or 
 they may be compared with a map and a book 
 of directions, from which the traveller may learn 
 the road which he must take, the stages which 
 he must go, and the places where he must stop, 
 in order to arrive with the greatest ease and 
 safety at his journey's end. Descriptions of this 
 kind are no less useful in travelling through the 
 paths of knowledge, than in travelling over distant 
 lands. And it is a description of this kind, which 
 will be attempted in these Lectures. 
 
 Here it may be asked, What is the end of 
 
LECTURE I. 9 
 
 the journey, to which these Lectures are intended 
 to lead ? Is it the object of elements, thus general 
 and comprehensive, to generalize Christianity itself, 
 to represent it in the form of a general theorem, 
 from which individual creeds are to be deduced as 
 so many corollaries ? Or is it their object to main- 
 tain one particular creed to the exclusion of all 
 others ? The latter may appear to be less liberal 
 than the former, but it is only so in appearance; 
 while the advantages ascribed to the former, are 
 as imaginary, as those possessed by the latter are 
 substantial. It is difficult to conceive any thing 
 more painful or more injurious to the student in 
 divinity, than to be left in a state of uncertainty, 
 what he is at last to believe or disbelieve. Where 
 no particular system of faith is inculcated, where 
 a variety of objects is represented without dis- 
 crimination, the minds of the hearers must become 
 so unsettled, they must become so bewildered in 
 regard to the choice of their creed, as to be in 
 danger of choosing none at all. The attempt to 
 generalize Christianity, in order to embrace 
 a variety of creeds, will ultimately lead to the 
 exclusion of all creeds; it will have a similar 
 effect with Spinosa's doctrine of Pantheism; it 
 will produce the very opposite to that, which 
 the name itself imports. And, as Pantheism, 
 though nominally the reverse, is in reality but 
 another term for Atheism so Christianity, when 
 
lu LECTURE I. 
 
 generalized, is no Christianity at all. The very 
 essentials of Christianity must be omitted, before 
 we can obtain a form so general, as not to militate 
 against any of the numerous systems, which in 
 various ages have been denominated Christian. 
 Some particular system therefore must be adopted, 
 as the object and end of our theological study. 
 What particular system must be the object and 
 end of our theological study, cannot be a question ■ 
 in this place : it cannot be a question with men 
 who are studying with the very view of filling 
 conspicuous stations in the Church of England. 
 That system then, which was established at the 
 Reformation, and is contained in our liturgy, our 
 articles, and our homilies, is that system, to 
 which all our labours must be ultimately directed. 
 
 If it be objected, that the student will thus 
 be prejudiced in favour of a particular system 
 before he has had ah opportunity of comparing 
 it with others, one answer to the objection has 
 been already given, namely, that, however specious 
 the plan of teaching Christianity on a broad 
 basis, it is incapable of being reduced to practice ; 
 that, if various systems be taught, they must be 
 taught, not in union, but in succession ; and 
 consequently, that at least in point of time some 
 one system must have the precedence. Further, 
 as a comparison of the doctrines of the Church 
 
LECTURE I. II 
 
 of England with the doctrines of other churches, 
 will form a part of these very lectures ; as a review 
 will be taken of other systems, when our own 
 has been examined, and no advice will be given 
 to shrink from inquiry, I hope I shall not be 
 accused of attempting to fetter the judgement 
 of my hearers in a matter of such importance 
 as religious faith. 
 
 After all, should the selection of a particular 
 system as the object of our primary consideration 
 be attended with the unavoidable consequence, 
 that a predilection be formed in regard to that 
 system, which may render us less disposed to 
 listen to the claims of any other, than perhaps 
 strict impartiality might require, it may be asked, 
 whether such consequence is really a matter of 
 regret ? Is it a thing to be lamented, that 
 members of the Church of England are educated 
 with prepossessions in favour of the national 
 church ? Or is it want of candour in a Professor, 
 who, after an examination of other systems, can 
 discover none, which he thinks so good as his 
 own, to shew more regard to this system than 
 to any other I Can it be blameable at a season, 
 when every exertion is making by the very means 
 of education, by education conducted both openly 
 and privately, to alienate the rising generation 
 from the established church, can it be blameable, 
 
12 LECTURE R 
 
 or rather is it not our bounden duty, at such 
 a season, to call forth all our energies, in making 
 education on our part subservient to the established 
 church ? 
 
 That theological learning is necessary to make 
 a good divine of the Church of England, is 
 £ position, which a learned audience will certainly 
 be disposed to admit. And this position will 
 appear still more evident, when we consider, what 
 it is, which constitutes the chief difference between 
 the learned and the unlearned in Theology. It is 
 not the ability to read the New Testament in 
 Greek, which makes a man a learned divine, 
 though it is one of the ingredients, without which 
 he cannot become so. The main difference 
 consists in this, that while the unlearned in divinity 
 obtain only a knowledge of what the truths of 
 Christianity are, the learned in divinity know 
 also the grounds, on which they rest. And that 
 this knowledge ought to be obtained by every 
 man who assumes the sacred office of a Christian 
 teacher, nothing but the blindest enthusiasm 
 can deny. If St. Peter, in addressing himself 
 to the numerous converts of Pontus, Galatia, 
 Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia, required that they 
 should be always ready to give a reason of the 
 hope that was in them, how much more necessary 
 must he have thought this ability in those, who - 
 
LECTURE I. 13 
 
 were set apart to be teachers of the Gospel ? But 
 ask any one of those illiterate teachers, with which 
 this country unfortunately abounds, ask him 
 why he is a Christian and not a Mahometan ; 
 ask him why he believes that Christianity is a 
 real revelation, and Mahometanism only a pre- 
 tended one? He would answer, either with a vacant 
 stare, or with a reproach at the impiety of the 
 question, as if it had been proposed with any 
 other view than to try his knowledge. Not so 
 the learned divine : he would enter into those 
 historical and critical arguments, of which the 
 unlettered enthusiast Jias no conception, but by 
 which alone the authenticity of the Gospel history 
 can be established, by which alone the miracles 
 recorded in it can be confirmed, by which alone 
 the claims of Christianity to a divine origin can 
 be proved legitimate. 
 
 There is no ground then for that distinction 
 between science and religion, that the one is an 
 object of reason, the other an object of faith. 
 Religion is an object of both ; it is this very cir- 
 cumstance, which distinguishes the unlearned from 
 the learned in divinity ; while the former has 
 faith only, the latter has the .same faith accom- 
 panied with reason. The former believes the 
 miracles and doctrines of Christianity, as being 
 recorded in the New Testament; the latter also 
 
14 LECTURE I. 
 
 believes the miracles and doctrines recorded in 
 the New Testament, and he believes them, because 
 by the .help of his reason he knows, what the 
 other does not, that the record is true. 
 
 But is not. religion, it maybe said, a matter 
 of general import ? Does it not concern all men, 
 the unlearned, as well as the learned ? Can it be 
 true then, that such a literary apparatus is necessary 
 for the purpose of religion ? And would not 
 at least nine-tenths of mankind be, in that case, 
 excluded from its benefits? Certainly not from 
 its practical benefits, which alone are wanted, 
 as they alone are attainable by the generality 
 of mankind. Men, whose education and habits 
 have not prepared them for profound inquiry, 
 whose attention is wholly directed to the procuring 
 of the necessaries of life, depend, and must 
 depend, for the truth of the doctrines which 
 are taught them, on the authority of their teachers 
 and preachers, of whom it is taken for granted, 
 that they have investigated, and really know the 
 truth. But is this any reason why men, who 
 are set apart for the ministry, should likewise 
 be satisfied with taking things upon trust ? Does 
 it follow, because a task is neglected by those, 
 who have neither leisure nor ability to under- 
 take it, that it must likewise be neglected by 
 those, who possess them both? Ought we not 
 
LECTURE I. 15 
 
 rather to conclude, that in proportion to the 
 inability of the hearers to investigate for them- 
 selves, in proportion therefore to the confidence 
 which they must place in their instructor, their 
 instructor should endeavour to convince himself 
 of the truth of his doctrines? And how is this 
 conviction, this real knowledge of the truth to be 
 attained without learning? 
 
 But investigation, it is said, frequently leads 
 to doubts, where there were none before. So 
 much the better. If a thing is false, it ought 
 not to be received. If a thing is true, it can 
 never lose in the end, by inquiry. On the con- 
 trary, the conviction of that man, who has per- 
 ceived difficulties and overcome them, is always 
 stronger, than the persuasion of him who never 
 heard of their existence. The danger, which 
 is apprehended, arises from superficial knowledge, 
 which carries a man just far enough, to enable 
 him to perceive difficulties, and there leaves him. 
 In fact, it is not learning, but want of learning, 
 which leads to error in religion. It was the want 
 of learning which occasioned the abuses of religion 
 in the middle ages; it was the learning of our 
 early reformers, by which those abuses were cor- 
 rected. Nor is that variety of religious sentiment, 
 by which this nation is distracted, to be ascribed 
 to learning. On the contrary, the leaders of 
 
*6 . LECTURE L 
 
 that sect, which is now the most numerous, rather 
 reprobate, than encourage learning; and that, 
 in this respect, their practice agrees with their 
 principles, is known to every man, who has once 
 listened to their harangues. Let no one therefore 
 apprehend, that theological learning will create 
 divisions in the Church of England ; let no one 
 apprehend, that it will now undo what it did at 
 the Reformation. It is in fact the only method 
 of ensuring to us the advantages of the Reformation, 
 by guarding against enthusiasm on the one hand, 
 and infidelity on the other. 
 
 That knowledge puffeth up, may be true of 
 some kinds of knowledge ; and it might certainly 
 be affirmed of that kind, to which St. Paul alludes 
 in the passage so often misapplied by unlettered 
 teachers, in vindication of their own defects. 
 St. Peter commands us to add to our virtue 
 knowledge ; and St. Paul himself complains else- 
 where of those, who, in religious matters, have 
 zeal which is not according to knowledge. The 
 more we advance in the study of Divinity, the 
 more likely are we to learn humility ; the most 
 profound Divines are generally men of modest 
 manners ; and spiritual pride and vanity is chiefly 
 to be found among those, who are the least dis- 
 tinguished for theological learning. 
 
 We have every reason therefore to persevere 
 
LECTURE I. 17 
 
 in the study of Divinity ; there is none whatever 
 to dissuade us from it. We haVe every reason 
 to applaud the wisdom of our illustrious founders, 
 who were not of opinion, that it is easier to become 
 a good divine, than a good mechanic; who were 
 not of opinion, that the head requires less exercise 
 than the hands ; or that, if a seven years' apprentice- 
 ship is necessary, to learn the manual operations 
 of a common trade, a less time is requisite 
 for the intellectual attainments of a Christian 
 teacher. No. They required a two-fold appren- 
 ticeship to Divinity ; a seven years' study of the 
 liberal arts, as preparatory to the study of Divinity, 
 and another seven years' study of Divinity itself, 
 before the student was admitted to a degree in 
 that profession. 
 
 In conformity with the principles which 
 directed our ancestors, in obedience to the com- 
 mands of the Foundress of this Professorship, 
 and, I hope, with the approbation of my audience, 
 I shall proceed therefore next Saturday, at the 
 same hour, to develop the plan, already announced 
 in this Lecture. 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 ■ ■ i 
 
 In the preceding Lecture it was observed, 
 that on our entrance to the study of Divinity, 
 we should endeavour in the first place to obtain 
 a knowledge of the parts or branches of which it 
 consists; and in the second place, a knowledge 
 of the manner, in which those parts or branches 
 should be arranged. 
 
 Theological writers are far from being unani- 
 mous, either in regard to the number, or in 
 regard to the kind of divisions, into which Theology 
 should be resolved. In England especially, so 
 little has been determined on this point, that 
 few writers agree in their divisions ; and in some 
 of them the difference is such, that one should 
 hardly suppose they were analysing the same 
 1 subject. 
 
 A learned Prelate in our sister University, who 
 has published a list of books recommended to the 
 younger clergy, has made not less than fourteen 
 
LECTURE II. ig 
 
 divisions in Theology, which he has arranged 
 in the following order : t i. The first division 
 relates to Practical and Pastoral Duties, if. Devo- 
 tion, in. Religion in general. iv. Revealed 
 Religion, v. The Scriptures, vi. Comments on 
 
 the Scriptures, vn. Concordances, &c. vm. Doc- 
 
 . _ i, 
 
 trmes. ix. Creeds, Articles, Catechism, and 
 Liturgy, x. Sacraments and Rites, (subdivided 
 into Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Confir- 
 mation), xi. Constitution and Establishment of 
 the Church of England. xn. Ecclesiastical His- 
 tory, xiii. Ecclesiastical Law. xiv. Miscella- 
 neous subjects.— Then comes a second list, in 
 which these fourteen divisions are repeated ; and 
 lastly a third, in which they are exchanged 
 for another set, amounting to seventeen, which 
 it would be really tedious to enumerate. Indeed 
 throughout the whole of this theological arrange- 
 ment there is nothing like system to be discovered: 
 no reason is assignable for the peculiar position 
 of any one head : nor does their disposition in 
 any way contribute to that, which should be the 
 primary object of every writer perspicuity. 
 
 A more judicious Prelate of our own Univer- 
 sity, in the preface to his Elements of Christian 
 Theology, divides the subject into four parts. The 
 first relates to the Exposition of the Scriptures ; 
 
 C 2 
 
20 LECTURE II. 
 
 the second to the Divine Authority of the Scrip- 
 tures ; the third to the Doctrines and Discipline 
 of the Church of England; the fourth to Mis- 
 cellaneous subjects, including Sermons and Eccle- 
 siastical History. — In this arrangement there is 
 method. For the Bible must be understood, before 
 we can prove its divine authority ; and both of 
 these tasks must be performed, before we can 
 proceed to deduce articles of faith. Sermons, 
 , it is true, should not be placed in the same class 
 with ecclesiastical history; and in all systematic 
 arrangements, the term " miscellaneous " should 
 be wholly avoided. Where a classification is 
 complete, the classes must be such, that every 
 individual article may, in some one of them, find 
 its proper place. 
 
 A four-fold division of Theology is a division, 
 which has been long in use among the German 
 divines. Withthem likewise the first division relates 
 to the exposition of the Scriptures, and is termed 
 Expository ^Theology . The second is called, by way 
 of eminence, Systematic Theology: it includes both 
 evidences and doctrines. The third division is 
 called Historical Theology: it comprises the internal, 
 as well as external history of the Church. The 
 fourth and last division is called Pastoral Theology, 
 comprehending such subjects, as relate especially 
 
 to the duties of a parish priest. 
 
 • \ 
 
LECTURE II. 21 
 
 This division, though not universal among 
 foreign divines, is at least the prevailing one, 
 and the best, which has been hitherto introduced. 
 
 9 
 
 To attempt therefore the introduction of any 
 other may appear to savour of presumption. But 
 as the inconveniences, which I have felt from 
 all former arrangements, during a twenty years' 
 study of this particular subject, have suggested 
 such modifications, as seem at least to answer the 
 purpose of theological order, the sole object of which 
 either is, or should be, to represent the several 
 parts of Theology according to their connexions and 
 dependences, a theological arrangement, formed 
 on this principle, will be attempted in the present 
 Lecture. , 
 
 That we should commence our theological 
 studies with the study of that Book, from which 
 all Christian Theology is derived, is a proposition, 
 which can hardly require demonstration. That 
 book, by which every Christian professes to 
 regulate his religious creed, that book, of which 
 our own church declares, that " whatsoever is 
 not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is 
 not to be required of any man, that it should 
 be believed as an article of the faith," is of course 
 the primary object of religious inquiry. It is 
 a fountain, at which every man must draw in 
 
22 LECTURE II. 
 
 preference even to the clearest of the streams, 
 which flow from it. Indeed, if we neglect to 
 draw there, we shall never know, whether the 
 streams, which flow from it, are pure or turbid. 
 
 But the Bible may be studied in such a variety 
 of ways, there are so many points of view, from 
 which it requires to be examined, and the accuracy 
 of our conclusions depends so much on the order 
 in which these several surveys are taken, that it 
 is of the utmost importance to determine where 
 we should begin, We must establish the Authen- 
 ticity of the Bible, the Credibility of the Bible, 
 the Divine Authority of the Bible, the Inspiration 
 of the Bible, the* Doctrines of the Bible. Now 
 that we cannot begin with the Inspiration of the 
 Bible appears from what was said in the preceding 
 Lecture. Nor can we begin with the Doctrines 
 of the Bible ; for till we have proved its divine autho- 
 rity, its doctrines have not the force of obligation. 
 Nor can we begin with its Divine Authority, or, in 
 other words, with the Evidences for the divine 
 origin of our religion. For these evidences are 
 arguments deduced from the Bible itself, and of 
 course presuppose that the Bible is true. The 
 authenticity of the Bible therefore must be pre- 
 viously established, or the evidences, as they are 
 called, have no foundation, whereon to rest But 
 no man can undertake to 'prove the authenticity 
 
LECTURE II. 23 
 
 of the Bible, till he thoroughly understands it. 
 The Interpretation of the Bible therefore is 
 manifestly one of the first parts or branches of 
 Theology. 
 
 It deserves however to be considered, whether 
 a branch of Theology, hitherto unnoticed in these 
 Lectures, is not entitled to a still higher rank. 
 I mean the Criticism of the Bible. In that four- 
 fold division, which I have already stated, both 
 the criticism and the interpretation of the Bible 
 are included in the first division. But the opera- 
 tions of criticism, and the operations of interpre- 
 tation are so distinct, that they ought not, however 
 subdivided, to be placed in the same class. But 
 if we refer them to separate classes, parts, or 
 branches, we must be careful to refer them in 
 such a manner, as not to violate the principle 
 which we apply to the other branches. Now 
 the criticism of the Bible is a branch of such 
 extent, it so encircles the interpretation of the 
 Bible, that, however different their operations, it 
 is difficult to determine where the separation 
 shall begin. There is one department of sacred 
 criticism, in which at least its application would 
 be very inefficient, if the B>ible .were not already 
 understood. But there is another department, 
 which we may apply, as well as learn, even before 
 
24 LECTURE II. 
 
 we begin to interpret the Bible. And we shall 
 find that it is necessary so to do. 
 
 When we attempt to expound a work of high 
 antiquity, which has passed through a variety of 
 copies, both ancient and modern, both written and 
 printed, copies which differ from each other in 
 very numerous instances, we should have some 
 reason to believe, that the copy or edition, which 
 we undertake to interpret, approaches as nearly to 
 the original, as it can be brought by human industry, 
 or human judgement. Or, to speak in the tech- 
 nical language of criticism, before we expound 
 an author, we should procure the most correct text 
 of that author. But in a work of such importance 
 as the Bible, we should confide in the bare 
 assertion of no man, with respect to Jhe question, 
 in what copy or edition either the Greek or the 
 Hebrew text is contained most correctly. We 
 should endeavour to obtain sufficient information 
 on this subject, to enable us to judge for ourselves : 
 and the information, which is necessary for this 
 purpose, may be obtained, even before we are 
 acquainted with any other branch of Theology. 
 For when a passage is differently worded in dif- 
 ferent copies, or, to speak in technical terms, 
 when it has various readings, the question, which 
 of those readings is probably the original or genuine 
 
LECTURE II. 25 
 
 reading, must be determined by authorities, and by 
 rules, similar to those, which are applied to classic 
 authors. The study of sacred criticism therefore, 
 as far as it relates to the obtaining of a correct 
 text, may precede the study of every other branch : 
 but, if it may, there are obvious reasons, why it 
 should. And, if that department of it, which 
 relates to the genuineness of whole books, belongs 
 on one account to a later period of theological 
 study, it may still on another account be referred 
 even to the first. Though the application or the 
 practice of it requires the assistance of another 
 branch, yet a knowledge of its principles may be 
 previously obtained. Now the study of sacred 
 criticism produces an habit of accurate investigation, 
 which will be highly beneficial to us in our future 
 theological inquiries. Its influence also is such, 
 that it pervades every other part of Theology : and, 
 as our notions in this part are clear or obscure, our 
 conclusions in other parts will be distinct or con- 
 fused. In short, it is a branch, which affords 
 nutriment and life to all the other branches, which 
 must become more or less vigorous, in proportion 
 as this branch either flourishes or decays. To 
 sacred criticism then the foremost rank is due. 
 
 The reproaches, which have been made, and 
 the dangers, which have been ascribed to it, pro- 
 ceed only from the want of knowing its real value. 
 
26 LECTURE II. 
 
 It is not the object of sacred criticism to expose 
 the Word of God to the uncertainties of human 
 conjecture : its object is not to weaken, and much 
 less to destroy the edifice, which for ages has been 
 the subject of just veneration. Its primary object 
 is to shew the firmness of that foundation, on 
 which the sacred edifice is built, to prove the 
 genuineness of the materials, of which the edifice 
 is constructed. It is employed in the confutation 
 of objections, which, if made by ignorance, can 
 be removed only by knowledge. On the other 
 hand, if in the progress of inquiry excrescences 
 should be discovered, which violate the symmetry 
 of the original fabric, which betray a mixture of 
 the human with the divine, of interpolations, 
 which the authority or artifice of man has en- 
 grafted on the oracles of God, it is the duty of 
 sacred criticism to detect the spurious,, and remove 
 it from the genuine. For it is not less blameable 
 to accept what is false, than to reject what is true : 
 it is not less inconsistent with the principles of 
 religion to ascribe the authority of Scripture to 
 that which is not Scripture, than to refuse our 
 acknowledgement, where such authority exists. 
 Nor should we forget, that, if we resolve at all 
 events to retain what has no authority to support 
 it, we remove at once the criterion, which dis- 
 tinguishes truth from falsehood, we involve the 
 spurious and the genuine in the same fate, and 
 
LECTURE II. 27 
 
 thus deprive ourselves of the power of ever ascer- 
 taining what is the real text of the sacred writings. 
 
 But so far is sacred criticism from exposing the 
 Word of God to the uncertainties of conjecture, 
 that there is no principle more firmly resisted in 
 sacred criticism than the admission of conjectural 
 emendation, of emendation not founded on docu- 
 ments. In the application of criticism to classic 
 authors, conjectural emendations are allowable. 
 There such liberties can do no harm either to the 
 critic, or to his readers : they affect no truth, either 
 religious or moral. But the case is widely different, 
 when conjectural emendation is applied to the 
 sacred writings. It then ceases to be merely an 
 exercise of ingenuity : it becomes a vehicle for the 
 propagation of religious opinion : and passages have 
 been altered, in defiance of all authority, for the 
 sole purpose of procuring support to a particular 
 creed. It is true, that we have many at least in- 
 genious conjectures on the Greek Testament, which 
 come not within this description. But even such 
 conjectures should never be received in the text. 
 If one kind were admitted, it might be difficult to 
 exclude another, since the line of discrimination is 
 not always apparent. Thus the Bible would cease 
 to be a common standard ; it would assume as 
 many forms, as there are Christian parties. Now 
 that edition of the Greek Testament, which above 
 
28 LECTURE II. 
 
 all others deserves the name of a critical edition, is 
 founded on this avowed principle, Nil mutetur e 
 conjectura. 
 
 I have been more diffuse on this subject, than 
 the present Lecture would otherwise require, lest 
 any one should have imbibed a prejudice against 
 that branch of Theology, to which I have assigned 
 the foremost rank. 
 
 Having thus properly prepared ourselves for 
 the study of the Bible, and having procured the 
 best critical editions of it, we may then proceed to 
 its exposition, or interpretation. For this purpose 
 we must obtain a knowledge of various subjects, 
 which have reference either to the Old or to the 
 New Testament. We must study what may be 
 comprised under the general name of Jewish An- 
 tiquities : nor must we neglect to obtain similar 
 information in regard to other nations, who are 
 recorded in the Bible, whether it relate to their 
 civil, or to their religious establishments. The state 
 of literature, the peculiar modes of thinking, the 
 influence of false philosophy, either on the Jews, or 
 on their neighbours, are likewise subjects, which 
 demand our attention. A knowledge of history, 
 as far as it regards the Bible, is also necessary, not 
 merely to elucidate the historical, but to explain 
 the prophetical parts. And, in aid of history, it 
 
LECTURE II. 29 
 
 is further necessary that we should understand bib- 
 lical chronology, and biblical geography. On all 
 these subjects we are so well provided with infor- 
 mation, through the industry of our predecessors, 
 in works hereafter to be mentioned, that a know- 
 ledge of these subjects is more easily attainable, 
 than the apparent extent of them might induce us 
 to suppose. 
 
 But the qualification, next to be mentioned, 
 as necessary for a good interpreter of the Bible is 
 not of so easy attainment, namely, the knowledge 
 of some fixed rule or principle, by which we may 
 direct our judgements, amid the discordant inter- 
 pretations of biblical commentators. That all men 
 should agree in adopting one rule of interpretation, 
 is no more to be expected, than that all men should 
 agree in one religious creed. The very first prin- 
 ciple of interpretation, namely that the real meaning 
 of a passage is its literal or grammatical meaning, 
 that, as the writer himself intended to apply it, so 
 and no otherwise the reader must take it, this 
 principle, from which no expounder of any other 
 work would knowingly depart, is expressly rejected 
 by many commentators on the Bible, not only 
 among the Jews, who set the example in their 
 Targums, but also among Christians, who have 
 followed that example in their comments and 
 paraphrases. It would be foreign to the present 
 
30 LECTURE II. ' 
 
 Lecture to discuss the question, whether it is allow- 
 able in our interpretation of the Bible, to depart 
 in some cases from the principle, just mentioned. 
 But if it be allowable, this departure must be made 
 at least with consistency : it must not be made, till 
 the divine authority of the Bible is already esta- 
 blished, for on that ground only can we defend 
 the adoption of other rules. 
 
 Now we must learn to understand the Bible, 
 / before we can judge of its pretensions to divine 
 authority. But if, while we are ascertaining the 
 justice of these pretensions, we apply rules of 
 interpretation, which, if ■ applicable at all, can be 
 applicable only, when those pretensions are con- 
 firmed, we are continually moving in a circle, and 
 never find an end. It is not sufficient, that a pro- 
 position be true, to warrant our arguing from the 
 truth of it: we must not only know it to be true, 
 but we must be able to prove it independently 
 ; of the proposition, to which we apply it. If in 
 geometry the proposition, that the square of the 
 hypothenuse equals the squares of the sides, would^ 
 though indisputably true, be thought absurdly 
 applied to demonstrate the properties of parallel 
 lines, because these properties must be established 
 before that proposition can be proved, shall we 
 argue less logically in our religious inquiries, shall 
 we think it allowable, where our eternal welfare is 
 
LECTURE II. 31 
 
 concerned, to proceed less rigidly in our researches, 
 than in cases of temporal moment, or in matters 
 of mere speculation ? If it be true then (what 
 no one will deny), that internal evidence is 
 necessary to establish the divine authority of the 
 Bible, if that internal evidence is nothing more, 
 than the application of its contents to a particular 
 object, and this application requires, that those 
 contents should be understood, it is manifest, that 
 we must learn to interpret them, at least in the 
 first instance, by the rules, which are applied to 
 the interpretation of other works. Even if we 
 admit that every word, as well as every thought, 
 was inspired, yet, as the object of revelation is not 
 to perplex but to enlighten, we must still conclude, 
 that the words, which are used in Scripture, are 
 there used in the acceptation, which was common 
 in the intercourse between man and man. 
 
 When by the means above-mentioned we 
 have acquired due information in respect to any 
 portion of Scripture, for instance, the Five books 
 of Moses, or the Four Gospels, we are then qua- 
 lified, if not to investigate for ourselves, at least 
 to study the investigations, which have been 
 made by others, in respect to the authenticity 
 of those books, that is, whether they were written 
 by the authors, to whom they are ascribed. This 
 is the plain question, which we must ask before 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 we go further, Did such a person write such 
 a book, or did he not ? It is a mere historical 
 question, which must be determined, partly by 
 external, and partly by internal evidence. But 
 great confusion has taken place on this subject, 
 by intermixing matter, with which it has no 
 necessary connexion. When the fact, that the 
 first of our four Gospels, for instance, was written 
 by St. Matthew, has been once established by 
 historical and critical arguments, (which historical 
 and critical arguments must be applied precisely 
 as we would apply them to a profane author) it 
 will follow of itself, that the Gospel was inspired, 
 when we come to the subject of inspiration, and 
 shew, that the author, whose work we have 
 already proved it to be, had received the promise 
 of the Holy Spirit. But if we investigate the 
 two subjects at the same time, if we intermix 
 the question of inspiration with the question of 
 authenticity^ we shall probably establish neither. 
 In fact, the two questions are so distinct, that 
 we cannot even begin with the one, till we have 
 ended with the other. Before the point has, been 
 ascertained, whether this Gospel was written by 
 St. Matthew, or by an impostor in his name, 
 there is no ground even for asking, whether it 
 was written by inspiration ; for in the latter case 
 it would not be Scripture. It is obvious therefore, 
 that in our inquiries into the authenticity of the 
 
LECTURE II. 33 
 
 sacred writings, the subject of inspiration must 
 be left for future discussion. 
 
 When we have established the authenticity 
 of the sacred writings, that is, when we have 
 established the historical fact,, that they were 
 written by the authors, to whom they are ascribed, 
 the next point to be ascertained is, the credit due 
 to their accounts* And here we must be careful to 
 guard against a petit ioprincipiu to which very many 
 writers on this subject have exposed themselves. 
 If we assert, that the nafratives for instance in 
 the New Testament are therefore entitled to 
 credit, because the writers were prevented by divine 
 assistance from falling into material error, we 
 assert indeed what is true ; but it is a truth, which 
 we can no more apply in the present stage of our 
 inquiry, than we can apply the last proposition 
 of a book of Euclid to the demonstration of the 
 first. For what other arguments can we produce, 
 to shew that those writers had such assistance, 
 than arguments deduced from the writings them- 
 selves ? And does not this argumentation imply, 
 that the truth of those writings is already esta- 
 blished ? It must be established therefore without 
 an appeal to inspiration, or it cannot be established 
 at all. For as long as this truth remains unesta- 
 blished, so long must inspiration remain unproved. 
 The credibility therefore of the sacred writers 
 
 D 
 
34 LECTURE If. 
 
 must be estimated, in the first instance, as we 
 would estimate the credibility of other writers. 
 We must build on their testimony as human 
 evidence, before we can obtain the privilege of 
 appealing to them as divine. 
 
 The branches of Theology, which have been 
 hitherto described, are those r which require the 
 same kind of treatment, as we apply to the in- 
 vestigation of ancient writings in general. We 
 now come to a more important part of our duty, 
 on which we shall bfc qualified to enter, (and 
 then only,) when we have obtained a competent 
 knowledge of the preceding branches. When 
 the authenticity and credibility of the Bible have 
 been established in the manner, and by the steps 
 above-mentioned, we are then enabled to collect 
 evidence for the divine origin of our religion. 
 When a prophecy, so descriptive of a particular 
 event as to warrant the belief, that this event was 
 meant to be described, when such a prophecy 
 is recorded in a book, which we have proved to 
 have been written some centuries before the 
 event, we have the strongest evidence, that the 
 person, who delivered the prophecy, was endowed 
 with more than human wisdom. Or, if a miracle, 
 ascribed to a particular person, is recorded in 
 a book, which we have already proved to be worthy 
 of credit, we have again the strongest evidence, 
 
LECTURE til 35 
 that the person, to whom the miracle is ascribed, 
 was endowed with more than human power. If 
 then such persons deliver doctrines, which from 
 their internal excellence are worthy of being 
 communicated from God to man, we may argue 
 to the reality of such communications, and regard 
 the prophecies and miracles, as credentials of 
 a divine commission. Thenceforward we may view 
 the Bible, as a work containing the commands 
 of God: thenceforward we may treat it as the 
 fountain of religious faith. 
 
 Such are the steps, by which we must gra- 
 dually advance toward the evidence for the divine 
 origin of our religion. 
 
 From evidences we might proceed immediately 
 to doctrines. But as this interval is the proper 
 place for examining the subject of inspiration, we 
 must assign this place to it in our plan of study. 
 The arguments, which are used for divine inspi- 
 ration are all founded on the previous supposition 
 that the Bible is true: for we appeal to the con- 
 tents of the Bible in proof of inspiration. Con- 
 sequently those arguments can have no force till 
 the authenticity and credibility of the Bible have 
 been already established. Nor is the establish- 
 ment even of these points sufficient for our 
 purpose. We must likewise have established 
 
 E> 2 
 
86 LECTURE lh 
 
 the divine origin of our religion, before we can 
 prove inspiration. For nothing but either divine 
 testimony, or prophecy, can confirm it. These 
 general observations are sufficient to shew how far 
 we must have advanced in our study of Theology, 
 before we are qualified to enter upon this branch 7 
 of it. 
 
 The next branch of Theology relates to Doc- 
 trines. When we have learnt to interpret the 
 Bible, and have gone through the evidences for 
 our religion, we are qualified to study its doctrines. 
 Our knowledge of the former will enable us to 
 judge, whether doctrines are warranted or not 
 warranted by Scripture: and if they are, our 
 knowledge of the latter will enable us to perceive 
 the force of their obligation, and convince us, that 
 it is our interest, as well as our duty, to adopt 
 them. '■ 
 
 * 
 
 As the creeds, which have been professed in 
 different ages, and by Christians of different deno- 
 minations, are not only various, but sometimes 
 contradictory, yet all agree in claiming the Bible 
 for their support, their respective claims must be 
 examined with all the attention, which is due to 
 so important a subject. But as v those claims re- 
 quire, each of them, a^separate examination, and 
 therefore some one religious creed must be the first 
 
LECTURE II. 37 
 
 object of consideration, there cannot be a doubt in 
 regard to the question, where it is our duty to 
 begin. When we have obtained a knowledge, and 
 have learnt the value, of our own system, we may 
 undertake to compare it with others, and again 
 examine those points, in which one or more of 
 them shall be found to differ from it. 
 
 Lastly, when we have thus acquired a know- 
 ledge both of the doctrines themselves, and of the 
 foundations, on which they are built, we shall find 
 it as useful, as it is entertaining, to trace the pro- 
 gress of religious opinion through the different 
 ages of the Christian world. And, as this progress 
 of religious opinion cannot easily be traced, nor 
 satisfactorily explained, without knowing likewise 
 the external causes, which operated in promoting 
 the adoption of them, we must sum up our theo- 
 logical studies with the study of ecclesiastical 
 history. 
 
 Let us now recapitulate the branches of Theo- 
 logy, thus formed and arranged according to the 
 principle laid down at the beginning of the Lecture. 
 
 1. The first branch relates to the Criticism of the 
 
 Bible. 
 
 2. The second to the Interpretation of the Bible. 
 
 3. The third to the Authenticity and Credibility ,©f 
 the Bible. 
 
38 LECTURE II. 
 
 4. The fourth to the Divine Authority of the 
 Bible, or the Evidences for the Divine Origin 
 of the religions recorded in it. 
 
 5. The fifth branch relates to the Inspiration of 
 the Bible. 
 
 6. The sixth to the Doctrines of the Bible, which 
 branch is sub-divided into 
 
 (a) Doctrines deduced by the Church of 
 England. 
 
 (b) Doctrines deduced by other Churches. 
 7- The seventh and last branch relates to Ecclesi- 
 astical History. 
 
 Having thus given a general description of the 
 several branches of Theology/ and having arranged 
 them in such a manner, that a knowledge of the 
 one may lead to a knowledge of the other, 1 shall 
 proceed in the next and following Lectures to give 
 a more minute description of them, as they suc- 
 cessively come under particular review. 
 
LECTURE JET. 
 
 The principle on which the proposed arrange- 
 ment was made, and the reasons for the position 
 of each branch, were so fully detailed in the pre- 
 ceding Lecture, that it cannot be necessary to 
 give any further explanation. I will only therefore 
 observe in general terms, that they are placed in 
 such a manner as gradually to lead toward the esta- 
 blishment, the firm establishment, of Christianity. 
 
 But in order to obtain both a firm conviction, 
 and a clear perception of the Christian doctrines, we' 
 must be content to travel through the paths of 
 Theology, without departing from the road, which 
 lies before us. We must not imagine, that any 
 particular branch may be selected at pleasure, as it 
 may happen to excite in us a greater degree either 
 of interest or of curiosity ; for if this were allowable, 
 where would be the utility of theological order ? 
 We must study the Criticism of the Bible, before 
 we can be qualified, at least before we can be well 
 qualified, to study the Interpretation of the Bible. 
 
4U LECTURE III. 
 
 And we must obtain a knowledge of the Bible, 
 before we can even judge of the arguments, which 
 are alledged for its Authenticity and Credibility. 
 But till these points have been established, we 
 have established nothing in a religious view : and 
 consequently if we undertake the latter branches of 
 Theology, before we have gone through the former, 
 we shall not only build the doctrines of Christianity, 
 but Christianity itself on a foundation of sand. , In 
 short, whoever undertakes to study Theology with- 
 out preparing himself for the latter branches by 
 a knowledge of the former, undertakes as desperate 
 a task, as a student in mathematics, who should 
 venture upon Newton's Principia, before he had 
 learnt, either the properties of Conic Sections, or 
 even the Elements of Plain Geometry. 
 
 I am well aware, that a numerous sect of 
 Christians in this country have a much more easy 
 and expeditious mode of studying Divinity. No 
 literary apparatus is there necessary, either for the 
 interpretation of the Bible, the establishment of 
 its truth, or the elucidation of its doctrines. 
 Inward sensation supplies the place of outward 
 argument; divine communication supersedes theo- 
 logical learning. But as I am not able to teach 
 Divinity in any other way than I have been able 
 to learn it, as my own conviction of the truth of 
 Christianity is the result, not of sudden impulse, but 
 
LECTURE III. 41 
 
 of long and laborious investigation, as I have no 
 other knowledge of its doctrines, than that which 
 is founded on the Bible, interpreted by human 
 learning, my hearers must be satisfied, if they con- 
 tinue their attendance, to follow with patience and 
 perseverance in all the portions of Theology, 
 through which it is proposed to lead them. 
 
 As a reason for recommending so laborious 
 a pursuit, which perhaps to many persons will appear 
 unnecessary, it may be observed, that the object 
 of these Lectures is to form a theologian, who shall 
 be thoroughly acquainted with his ground from 
 the commencement to the close of his theological 
 career, who, in the interpretation of the Bible, shall 
 never refer to a fact in the criticism of the Bible, 
 with which he is not previously acquainted, nor be 
 compelled, when he is searching the doctrines of 
 the Bible, to adopt a rule of interpretation, without 
 perceiving the foundation, on which it rests. 
 
 To those especially, who seek for conviction in 
 certain inward feelings, which the warmth of their 
 imaginations represents to them as divine, I would 
 recommend the serious consideration of this im- 
 portant fact, that the foundation, which they lay 
 for the Bible, is no other, than what the Maho- 
 metan is accustomed to lay for the Koran. If you 
 ask a Mahometan, why he ascribes divine authority 
 
42 LECTURE III. 
 
 to the Koran, his answer is, Because, when I read it, 
 sensations are excited, which could not have been 
 produced by any work, that came not from God. 
 But do we therefore give credit to the Mahometan 
 for this appeal ? Do we not immediately perceive, 
 when the Mahometan thus argues from inward 
 sensation, that he is merely raising a phantom of 
 his own imagination ? And ought not this exam- 
 ple, when we hear a similar appeal from a Christian 
 teacher, to make us at least distrustful, not indeed 
 . with respect to Christianity itself, but with respect 
 to his mode of proving it ? He may answer indeed, 
 and answer with truth, that his sensations are pro- 
 duced by a work, which is really divine, while the 
 sensations excited in the Mahometan, are produced 
 by a work, which is only thought so. But this 
 very truth will involve the person, who thus uses 
 it, in a glaring absurdity. In the first place he 
 appeals to a criterion, which puts the Bible on 
 a level with the Koran : and then to obviate this 
 objection, he endeavours to shew the superiority 
 of his own appeal, by presupposing the fact, which 
 he had undertaken to prove. Let us leave then to 
 the enthusiast these imaginary demonstrations, 
 while we are seeking for proofs, which will bear the 
 test of inquiry, and satisfy the demands of reason. 
 Such proofs there are. But they are attainable only 
 by him, who will resolve to enter on those paths of 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 43 
 
 knowledge, which alone can conduct him to the 
 place where Christianity is confirmed. 
 
 As the Criticism of the Bible is the first object 
 of our study, and as without it no man can become 
 a sound divine, it must not only be described before 
 all other branches, but must be described at consi- 
 derable length. Nor can it be necessary to apologize 
 to this audience for being diffuse on such a subject. 
 If the critical inquiries into the poems of Homer, 
 which have been lately instituted by Wolf and 
 Heyne, are justly read with avidity by every real 
 scholar, surely the same scholar, when he transfers 
 his attention to the Bible, cannot listen with indif- 
 ference to a recital of whatever has been attempted 
 to place its criticism on, a firm foundation. 
 
 But before we proceed to this recital, it is 
 necessary, according to the plan prescribed in the 
 first Lecture, to give some account of those very 
 useful works, which are known by the name of 
 Introductions to the Bible. These Introductions 
 will furnish the theological student with such 
 general information on the subjects of criticism and 
 interpretation, as will be highly useful to him, before 
 he undertakes these branches in detail. The works, 
 which relate to special objects of criticism, will be 
 mentioned hereafter, in their proper places. 
 
44 LECTURE III. 
 
 Among the introductory works, which we 
 are now to consider, there are some, which have 
 particular reference to the languages of the Sacred 
 Writings. Of this description is Hottinger's 
 Thesaurus Philologicus. In this work Hottin- 
 ger, who Was Professor at Zurich in Switzerland, 
 about the middle of the seventeenth century, 
 treats of the Targums or Jewish Paraphrases, of 
 the Masora or Jewish Criticism, and other 
 branches of Jewish literature, with the view of 
 illustrating the Hebrew Bible. Works of similar 
 tendency are the Philologus Hebrasus, and the 
 Philologus Hebrceo-mixtus of Leusden, who was 
 Professor at Utrecht in the latter half of the 
 seventeenth century. Leusden wrote likewise 
 a similar introduction to the Greek Testament, 
 entitled Philologus Hebrceo-grcecus, 
 
 Other introductions to the Sacred Writings 
 contain information explanatory of their contents, 
 without entering so particularly into the lan- 
 guage, in which they were written. Of this 
 description is the Opus Analyticum of Van Til, 
 who was Professor at Leyden, at the beginning 
 of the last century. This work, which is the 
 substance of Van Til's lectures, and to which 
 Heidegger's Enchiridion Biblicum served as a 
 syllabus, contains an introduction to the several 
 books, both of the Old and New Testament, 
 
LECTURE III. 45 
 
 relative to the authors of them, to the times when, 
 and the places where they were written, and to 
 their general contents. 
 
 Of greater value are the Introductions of 
 Carpzovius and Pritius, the one to the Old, the 
 other to the New Testament* Carpzovius, or, 
 as he was called in his own country, Carpzov, 
 was Professor at Leipzig in the former part of 
 the last century, and published, in the year 1721, 
 the first edition of his Introductio ad Libros 
 Canonicos Bibliorum Ceteris Testamenti, which 
 was reprinted in 1731, and again in 1/41. 
 Carpzov was a man of profound erudition, and 
 indefatigable industry. His work contains the 
 principal materials, which had been afforded 
 by his predecessors, perspicuously arranged, and 
 augmented by his own valuable observations. It 
 is also partly employed in the confutation^ of 
 Hobbes, Spinoza, Toland, and other antiscrip- 
 
 turistsl The service, which Carpzov rendered 
 
 to the Old Testament, was rendered by Pritius 
 to the New Testament, who in 1/04 published 
 at Leipzig, his Introductio ad Lectionem Novi 
 Testamenti, which went through several editions 
 with notes and additions by Kapp and Hofmann. 
 Hofmann's edition was printed at Leipzig in 
 1737, and reprinted in 1764. Its improvements 
 on the original edition are so considerable, that 
 
 ' » - • , \St (JHSl v' My/ 
 
46 lecture nr. 
 
 whoever purchases the Introduction of Pritius 
 (and it deserves to be purchased by every student 
 in Divinity) must be careful in regard to the 
 date of the title-page. 
 
 With respect to French writers of Introductions 
 to the Bible, we may mention in the first place 
 Du Pin's Preliminary Dissertations, or Prole- 
 gomena to the Bible, which was prefixed to his 
 work called, The Library of Ecclesiastical Authors, 
 and was reprinted at Paris in 1701, with consi- 
 derable additions, in two quarto volumes. It 
 explains various subjects relative both to the Old 
 and to the New Testament ; and is a very useful 
 work, notwithstanding the severity, with which 
 it was treated by Richard Simon. 
 
 The Apparatus Biblicus written by Lamy, 
 a priest of the Oratory, published first in Latin,' 
 then in French, and translated into English in 
 1723, contains likewise much useful introductory 
 information, particularly in respect to Jewish 
 Antiquities. 
 
 More extensive and more profound are Calmet's 
 Dissertations, in the form of Prolegomena to the 
 Sacred Writings. Calmet, a very learned Bene- 
 dictine at the beginning of the last century, first 
 published these dissertations in his Commentary 
 
LECTURE III. 47 
 
 on the Bible, where they were severally prefixed 
 to the books, to which they were intended 
 as introductions. They were afterwards collected 
 into one work by Calmet himself, and published 
 with considerable additions, in three quarto 
 volumes, at Paris in 1720. This work, I believe, 
 has likewise been translated into English : but 
 as I have never seen the translation, I can give 
 no account of it. 
 
 L'Enfant, a French Clergyman of the Re- 
 formed Church, who, in conjunction with Beau- 
 sobre, translated the New Testament into French, 
 which was first published at Amsterdam in 1718, 
 wrote a Preface to the translation, which makes 
 a good historical introduction to the New Testa- 
 ment. Of this Preface there has been published 
 an English translation, which some years ago 
 was reprinted at Cambridge. 
 
 Nor have our own countrymen, especially 
 within the last sixty years, been deficient in writing 
 Introductions to the / Bible. One of our earliest 
 publications of this kind is Collier's Sacred Inter- 
 preter. The author of this work, who must be 
 distinguished from the author of the Ecclesiastical 
 History, lived in the former part of the last 
 century. It not only went through several 
 editions in England, but in 1750 was translated 
 
48 LECTURE lit. 
 
 into German. It is printed in two octavo volumes, 
 and relates both to the Old and to the New Testa- 
 ment. It is calculated for readers in general, and 
 is a good popular preparation for the study of 
 the Holy Scriptures. The last edition was printed 
 in 1790. 
 
 Lardner's History of the Apostles and Evan- 
 gelists, which was first printed in three volumes 
 in 1756 and 1/57, but makes the sixth volume of 
 Kippis's edition of Lardner's works, is an admirable 
 Introduction to the New Testament. It is a store- 
 house of literary information collected with equal 
 industry and fidelity. 
 
 In 1761 the first edition of Michaeiis's Intro- 
 duction, which had been published in Germany 
 in 1750, was translated into English : and three- 
 years afterwards Dr. Owen published his Obser- 
 vations on the Four Gospels.— From the three 
 last mentioned works, Dr. Percy, the present 
 Bishop of Dromore, compiled that very useful 
 manual called A Key to the New Testament, 
 which has gone through many editions, and is 
 very properly purchased by most candidates for 
 Holy Orders. 
 
 In imitation of this Key to the New Testament, 
 as the author himself says'in his Preface, Mr. Gray, 
 
LECTURE III. 4Q 
 
 formerly of St. Mary Hall in Oxford, published 
 in 179°> A Key to the Old Testament and Apocry- 
 pha. But it is a much more elaborate perform- 
 ance, than the Key to the New Testament. It 
 is a compilation from a great variety of authors, 
 whose writings are generally quoted : and, as the 
 materials are methodically arranged, it furnishes 
 at one view what must otherwise be collected from 
 many writers. But the author seems to have 
 been unacquainted with some of the most valuable 
 foreign writers. Not even Carpzoy is noticed, 
 whose Introduction to thejQld Testament contains 
 a treasure of biblical learnmg, though it had been 
 then published above half a century, and being 
 written in Latin was accessible to every scholar. 
 Nor does the author appear to have been very 
 conversant with that department of sacred cri- 
 ticism, which relates to the manuscripts of the 
 Bible, or he would not have supposed, in a note 
 toward the end of his work, that the celebrated 
 Codex Alexandrinus was at present in any other 
 place, than the British Museum. But, notwith- 
 standing these defects it is on the whole a valuable 
 publication. 
 
 Dr. Harwood's Introduction to the Study and 
 Knowledge of the New Testament, of which the 
 first volume was published in 1767, the second 
 
 E 
 
50 LECTURE III. 
 
 in 1771, I mention at present more on account 
 of its title, than on account of its contents. Though 
 entitled an Introduction to the New Testament, it 
 is not so in the sense, in which the above- 
 mentioned works are introductions. It does not 
 describe the several books of the New Testament, 
 but contains a collection of dissertations, relative 
 partly to the characters of the Sacred Writers, 
 partly to the Jewish history and customs, and to 
 such parts of heathen antiquities, as have reference 
 to the New Testament. But, as these disser- 
 tations display great ^lition, and contain much 
 information illustrative of the New Testament, 
 Dr. Harwood's Introduction is certainly to be 
 recommended to the theological student. 
 
 The last English publication, containing an 
 Introduction to the Sacred Writings, is the present 
 Bishop of Lincoln's Elements of Christian Theo- 
 logy, the first volume of which contains an 
 Introduction both to the Old and to the New 
 Testament, and has been since published for that 
 purpose in a separate volume. Having already 
 in another place delivered my opinion on this 
 work, I will here repeat it in the same words, 
 " It is the result of extensive reading ; the mate- 
 rials of it are judiciously arranged ; the reasonings 
 Jn it are clear and solid; it is well adapted to 
 the purpose, for which it was intended, as a 
 
LECTURE III. 51 
 
 manual for students in Divinity, and it may be read 
 with advantage by the most experienced divine." 
 
 I now come to a class of introductory writers, 
 who have particularly distinguished themselves 
 by their profound critical researches. The author, ' 
 who took the lead in this branch of learning, 
 was Richard Simon, a priest of the congregation 
 of the Oratory at Paris. In 1 6/8 he published 
 his Critical History of the Old Testament, 
 which was reprinted in 1685 with considerable 
 additions. It consists of three parts, the first 
 containing a Critical History of the Hebrew Text, 
 the second a Critical History of the Translations, 
 the third a Critical History of the Interpretation 
 of the Old Testament. In 1684 he published 
 his Critical History of the Text of the New 
 Testament, which corresponds to the first part 
 of the former work : and in correspondence with 
 the second and third parts of that work, he 
 published, in 1690, his Critical History of the 
 Versions of the New Testament, and in 1693 
 his Critical History of the principal Commentators 
 on the New Testament. Lastly, in 16*95 he 
 published his New Observations on the Text 
 and Versions of the New Testament. The 
 criticism of the Bible being at that. time less 
 understood, than at present, the researches, which 
 were instituted by Simon, soon involved him 
 
 U, bp ILL LIB. 
 
52 LECTURE III. 
 
 in controversy, as well with Protestant as with 
 Catholic writers, particularly with the latter, to 
 whom he gave great offence by the preference 
 which he shewed to the Hebrew and Greek 
 texts of the Bible above that which is regarded 
 as the oracle of the Church of Rome, the Latin 
 Vulgate. Though I would not be answerable 
 for every opinion advanced by Simon, I may 
 venture to assert, that it contains very valuable 
 information in regard to the criticism, both of 
 the Hebrew Bible, and of the Greek Testament. 
 
 The same critical acumen, which Simon 
 displayed in France, has been since displayed 
 by Michaelis and Eichhorn in Germany ; by the 
 former in his Introduction to the New, by the 
 latter in his Introduction to the Old Testament. 
 Both of these introductions are formed on the 
 same plan: they are each divided into two parts, 
 the one containing a critical apparatus necessary 
 for the understanding of the original, the other 
 an introduction to every single book. It is that 
 critical apparatus, which distinguishes these Intro- 
 ductions from all other Introductions either to 
 the Old or to the New Testariient. But the 
 Introduction of Michaelis is too well known in 
 this place, to require a particular description : 
 and were it otherwise, the translator, whose notes 
 are closely connected with the text of the author, 
 
LECTURE III. 53 
 
 is not qualified to make a due estimate of the pub- 
 lication. Nor can it be necessary to say any thing 
 more at present of Eichhorn's Introduction, which 
 has never been translated, and from the difficulties 
 both of the language and of the subjects, cannot 
 be understood by many English readers. 
 
 After this account of the principal Introduc- 
 tions, we may undertake a particular examination 
 of Sacred Criticism, and proceed, agreeably to the 
 plan prescribed in the first Lecture, to a review 
 of what has been done in different ages, with 
 respect to this primary branch of Theology. 
 
 It will appear perhaps to those, who are less 
 conversant with the subject, that a recital of 
 this kind should rather be a sequel, than a preface, 
 to the study of criticism. Now this observation 
 would certainly apply to science properly so 
 called : and no one who was not a mathematician, 
 for instance, should undertake to read such 
 a work, as Montucla's History of Mathematics. 
 But the principles and the history of sacred 
 criticism bear to each other a very different 
 relation, from that of the principles and the history 
 of mathematics. In the latter, a knowledge of 
 principles is necessary to understand the history : 
 in . the former, the history is necessary to under- 
 stand the principles. Sacred criticism has for 
 
 i 
 
54 , LECTURE ttl. 
 
 its object an aggregate of literary labours, under- 
 taken at different periods, and for different pur- 
 poses : and its principles are general conclusions 
 deduced from those literary labours. Conse- 
 quently, though we may comprehend the laws 
 of criticism without a previous knowledge of what 
 has been done in this branch of Theology, yet 
 without this previous knowledge we shall never 
 comprehend the reason or foundation of those 
 laws. On the other hand, a knowledge of those 
 laws is not necessary for the understanding of 
 the plain facts, which a history of criticism has 
 to record. A review therefore of the progress, 
 which has been made in this branch of Theology, 
 even from the earliest to the present age, may 
 be given in such a manner, as to be intelligible 
 to every man of liberal education. And the 
 advantages arising from such a review are obvious, 
 not only because it will enable us to judge of 
 the rules, which modern critics have adopted, 
 but because we shall thus become acquainted 
 with the several stages, through which the 
 criticism of the Bible has passed, and with the 
 means, by which it has acquired its present 
 form. We shall perceive how the general stock 
 of knowledge has gradually increased, to whom 
 we are indebted for each augmentation, with what 
 rapidity or slowness these augmentations accumu- 
 lated, what causes accelerated or retarded, what 
 
LECTURE III. 55 
 
 influence gave to each of them its peculiar 
 direction. That these things are worthy of 
 notice, will surely be allowed by all men, to 
 whom literature is an object of regard. Let 
 
 i 
 
 us proceed then to the intended review. 
 
 The first writer, who appears to have paid 
 attention to the Criticism of the Bible, is the 
 celebrated Origen, who was born in Egypt toward 
 the end of the second century, and died at Tyre 
 soon after the middle of the third century. His 
 criticism was directed to the emendation of the Sep- 
 tuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, 
 made at Alexandria in the time of the Ptolemies, 
 for the benefit of the Greek Jews, who were 
 established there, and which derived its name 
 from the now-explored story of seventy or seventy- 
 two translators being employed for that purpose. 
 Origen himself relates in his Commentary on 
 St. Matthew, that in the manuscripts of the 
 Septuagint, which was become the Bible of 
 the Greek Christians, such alterations had been 
 made, either by design, or through the care- 
 lessness of transcribers, as to make the manu- 
 scripts materially differ from each other, and 
 of course, even if no other cause prevailed, from 
 the Hebrew Bible. Of this difference the 
 Jews availed themselves in their controversies 
 with the Christians, who, with a very few excep- 
 
56 LECTURE III. 
 
 tions, were ignorant of Hebrew, while the Jews, 
 especially since the establishment of the school 
 at Tiberias in Galilee, had begun again to cul- 
 tivate the original language of the Old Testa- 
 ment. This knowledge enabled them, in their 
 controversies with the Christians, to detect the 
 differences between the Hebrew and the Greek 
 Bible: and, as it frequently happened, that 
 the passages quoted by the Christians against 
 the Jews, were either not contained at all in 
 the Hebrew, or contained there in a different 
 shape, the arguments, which were founded on 
 such quotations, fell immediately to the ground. 
 It was sufficient to reply, " the words, which 
 you quote, are not in the original." It is true, 
 that an original may be corrupted as well as 
 a translation : , and that the Jews were guilty of 
 such corruptions, has been asserted both in 
 ancient and in modern times. But when we 
 consider the rules, which were observed by the 
 Jews in transcribing the sacred writings, rules 
 which were carried to an accuracy that bordered 
 on superstition, there is reason to believe, that 
 no work of antiquity has descended to the present 
 age so free from alteration, as the Hebrew Bible. 
 Nor does Origen appear to have suspected, that 
 the differences between the Hebrew and the 
 .Greek arose from any other cause, than alterations 
 in the latter. 
 
LECTURE HI. 57 
 
 He made therefore the Hebrew text the 
 basis of those corrections, which he proposed to 
 introduce in the Septuagint. For this purpose 
 he formed a kind of Polyglot : and, as this was 
 not only a work of immense labour, but has 
 served as a model, even to the signs or marks of 
 criticism, for later editors, it may not be improper 
 to give a detailed account of It. 
 
 It contained the whole of the Old Testament, 
 divided into columns, like, our modern Polyglot 
 Bibles. The first column was occupied by the 
 Hebrew. But, as very few of those persons, to 
 whose immediate benefit his labours were directed, 
 were acquainted even with w the letters of that lan- 
 guage, he added, in a second column, the Hebrew 
 words in Greek letters, that his readers might 
 have at least some notion of the form and sound 
 of the Hebrew words. To express their meaning, 
 he added, in a third column, a Greek translation 
 from the Hebrew, which had been lately made 
 by a Jew, of the name of Aquila, and which 
 adheres so closely to the original, as frequently 
 to violate the common rules of Greek construction. 
 The fourth column was occupied by another 
 Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, likewise 
 lately made, but probably after the translation 
 of Aquila. The author of this second Greek 
 translation was Symmachus, whose object was 
 
58 LECTURE III. 
 
 to givfc, not so much a literal translation of the 
 Hebrew, as a translation expressive of the sense, 
 and free as possible from Hebraisms. 
 
 Having thus prepared the way for his proposed 
 emendation of the Septuagint, Origen placed in the 
 fifth column the amended text of the Septuagint ; 
 and in the sixth column another Greek translation, 
 which had been lately made by Theodotion. 
 
 In this revision of the Septuagint, the first part 
 of Origen's labour was to collate it throughout 
 with the Hebrew; and wherever he found any 
 word or words in the former, to which there was 
 nothing correspondent in the latter, such word or 
 words he did not expunge from the Septuagint, 
 but he inclosed them within certain marks expres- 
 sive of their absence from the Hebrew, namely with 
 an obelus, or mark of minus prefixed, and a crotchet 
 at the end to express how far the obelus or mark 
 of minus was meant to extend. On the other 
 hand, where the Hebrew had any word or words, 
 to which there was nothing correspondent in the 
 Septuagint, there he inserted such word or words, 
 as were necessary to supply the deficiency. And, 
 that the reader might always know where such 
 insertions were made, he prefixed to them an 
 - asterisk, or mark of plus, again denoting by a 
 crotchet at the end, what words the asterisk was 
 
LECTURE III. 59 
 
 meant to include. And, as the version of Theodo- 
 tion held a middle rank between the closeness 
 of Aquiia and the freedom of Symmachus, the 
 additions in question were chiefly made in the 
 words which were used by Theodotion. For this 
 preference there was also another reason, namely, 
 that the style of Theodotion more nearly resembled 
 the style of the Septuagint, than either of the 
 other translations, and therefore was better adapted 
 to the purpose, to which Origen applied it. Hence 
 also the translation of Theodotion very properly 
 occupied the column adjacent to the corrected 
 version of the Septuagint. In some instances, either 
 where Theodotion's translation was .defective, or for 
 other reasons at present unknown, Origen used the 
 words of Aquiia or Symmachus. But in all cases 
 he expressed by the initials A, @, 2, the translations 
 from which he copied. These were the sources, 
 from which Origen drew in every part of the Old 
 Testament. But in some books he used two other 
 Greek translations, of which the authors are un- 
 known: and in certain passages even a seventh 
 Greek version, of which the author is likewise 
 unknown. 
 
 The name, which is commonly given to this 
 work of Origen, is Biblia Hexapla, or Bible in 
 six columns, which it contained throughout, namely 
 
60 LECTURE III. 
 
 the Hebrew, the Hebrew in Greek characters, the 
 version of Aquila, the version of Symmachus, the 
 Septuagint version, and that of Theodotion. In 
 those books, which contained likewise two anony- 
 mous versions, and filled therefore eight columns, 
 it was called Biblia Octapla ; and in the passages, 
 where the third anonymous version occupied 
 a ninth column, it received the name of Enneapla. 
 On the other hand, as out of the six columns, 
 which went through the whole work, only four 
 were occupied with Greek translations, the same 
 work, which most writers call Hexapla, has by 
 others been denominated Tetrapla. They are only 
 different names of the same work viewed in dif- 
 ferent lights, though some authors have fallen into 
 the mistake of supposing, from the difference in 
 the names, that they denoted different works. 
 
 The labour, which was necessary for, a work of 
 such magnitude, can be estimated only by those, 
 who have been engaged in similar undertakings. 
 Eight and twenty years are said to have been em- 
 ployed in making preparations for it, independently 
 of the time, which was employed in the writing 
 of it. It was begun at Csesarea, and probably 
 finished at Tyre. The text of the Septuagint, as 
 settled by Origen, is called the Hexaplarian text, 
 
LECTURE III. 61 
 
 to distinguish it from the text of the Septuagint, 
 as it existed before the time of Origen, which 
 is therefore called the Ante-hexaplarian. 
 
 On the value of the Hexapla modern critics 
 are divided; and it has been considered by some 
 very recent writers, rather as a mechanical, than as 
 a critical undertaking. It is true, that great as the 
 labour was, much was still wanting to make it 
 a perfect work. It does not appear, that Origen 
 at all collated manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible: 
 and, though he compared different manuscripts of 
 the Septuagint, without which he could not have 
 known the variations, of which he speaks, it does 
 not appear, that he applied those collations to the 
 purpose of correcting the text. A comparison 
 between his own copy of the Hebrew Bible and 
 his own copy of the Septuagint seems alone to 
 have determined the places, in which he deemed it 
 necessary to introduce corrections. It was his 
 design, to render the Bible of the Christians in all 
 respects the same with the Bible of the Jews, that 
 in future controversies there might be a common 
 standard, to which both parties might appeal. And 
 if in the execution of this work, the rules, which 
 modern critics have learnt from longer experience 
 are not discernible, it must be remembered that 
 this was the first effort, which was ever made to 
 
62 LECTURE III. 
 
 amend a corrupted text, either of the Old or of 
 the New Testament. 
 
 The work, in its entire state, has long ceased 
 to exist ; and we are indebted, for our knowledge 
 . of it, to Eusebius and Jerom, both of whom had 
 seen it in the library of Caesarea, whither the 
 original itself was removed from Tyre, where Origen 
 died, by Pamphilus the founder of the Caesarean 
 library. But as the magnitude of the work was 
 such, that it could not be transcribed without an 
 heavy expence, no copy, as far as we know, was 
 ever taken of the whole : and the original perished 
 in the flames, which consumed the library of 
 Cassarea on the irruption of the Saracens. 
 
 But that column of the Hexapla, which con- 
 tained the corrected text of the Septuagint, with 
 its critical marks, was transcribed by Eusebius and 
 Pamphilus with occasional extracts from the other 
 versions. If we had this column entire, it might 
 make some reparation for the loss of the rest : but 
 even this column has descended to us only in frag- 
 ments, which have been collected by the industry 
 of the learned, particularly of Montfaucon, the 
 author of the Palaeographia Graeca, who published 
 them at Paris, in 1714, in twa folio volumes, by 
 the title Hexaploram Origenis qua supersunt: 
 
LECTURE III. 63 
 
 Such is the history of one of the most celebrated 
 among the literary undertakings of antiquity. In 
 the next Lecture, this review of sacred criticism, 
 as far as it relates to the early and the middle ages, 
 will be continued and concluded. 
 
V 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 In the^ preceding Lecture was given some 
 account of the labours of Origen to amend the cor- 
 rupted text of the Septuagint version. At the end 
 of the third, and at the beginning of the fourth 
 century, similar, though less laborious tasks, being 
 founded probably on the prior labours of Origen, 
 were undertaken by Lucian a Presbyter of Antioch, 
 and by Hesychius an Egyptian Bishop. Their re- 
 visions, or, as we should say of printed books, their 
 editions of the Septuagint, were held in such high 
 estimation, that the edition of Hesychius was gene- 
 rally adopted by the churches of Egypt, and that 
 of Lucian was commanded by Constantine the 
 Great to be read in all the churches from Antioch 
 to Constantinople. 
 
 Nor was the criticism of the Hebrew Original 
 neglected in those ages. Tiberias in Galilee was 
 then the seat of Jewish learning : it was the resi- 
 dence of the best Hebrew scholars, the repository 
 
 i , 
 
LECTURE IV. 65 
 
 of the best Hebrew manuscripts. The two great 
 works of Jewish literature are the Talmud, and the 
 n Masora. The commencement of the Talmud may 
 be dated from the third century : but, as it chiefly 
 relates to doctrines, a description of it would be 
 foreign to the present Lecture. The materials of 
 Jewish criticism are contained in the Masora, 
 which received its title from the mode of forming 
 it, , the primary parts of it being a collection of 
 literary notices, which had been preserved by tra- 
 dition, not indeed from the time of Moses, as some 
 of the Jews pretend, nor even from the time of 
 Ezra, as others assert, but probably during several 
 centuries before they were committed to writing, 
 or rather before they were collected into one general 
 mass. This collection was formed at Tiberias. In 
 what century it was begun is not positively 
 known, but certainly not sooner than the fourth, 
 and probably not sooner than the fifth century. It 
 was considered in the light of a common-place 
 book, to which new materials were continually 
 added, till at length it became as large as the Bible 
 itself. The subjects, of which it treated, were, the 
 great and small divisions of the Hebrew text, the 
 words with various readings, the letters, the vowel 
 points, and accents. It is true, that the Masora, 
 in addition to the materials, which it afforded for 
 Hebrew criticism, contained such fanciful and 
 absurd remarks, as might excite a prejudice against 
 
GO LECTURE IV. 
 
 the whole. But we must not therefore reject the 
 good with the bad : for we are indebted to those 
 learned Jews, who began and continued the Ma- 
 sora, for the accuracy, with which the manuscripts 
 of the Hebrew Bible have descended to the present 
 day ; an obligation, which should never be for- 
 gotten, however great in other respects might have 
 been the prejudices of those, to whom the obligation 
 is due. 
 
 The history of sacred criticism now conducts us 
 into Italy, and directs 6u$ attention to the labours, 
 which Jerom bestowed on the Latin version, at the 
 end of the fourth,, and the beginning of the fifth 
 century. 
 
 The old Latin version was a translation from 
 the Greek, in the Old Testament, as well as in the 
 New, the Hebrew not being understood, except in 
 rare instances, by the members of the Latin 
 Church. It was probably made in the early part 
 of the second century : at least it was quoted by 
 Tertullian before the close of that century. But 
 before the end of the fourth century, the alterations, 
 either designed or accidental, which had been made 
 by transcribers of the Latin Bible, were become as 
 numerous, as the alterations in the Greek Bible, 
 before it was corrected by Origen. Indeed, if we 
 may judge from the strong expressions, which were 
 
LECTURE IV. 67 
 
 used on this subject by Augustine, as well as by 
 Jerom, they were even more numerous. For 
 Augustine, in one of his epistles to Jerom, calls 
 the Latin version ee tarn varia in diversis codicibus, 
 ut vix tolerari possit ; " and Jerom himself says, 
 " cum apud Latinos tot sint exemplaria, quot 
 codices, et unusquisque, pro arbitrio suo, vel 
 addiderit vel subtraxerit quod ei visum est" 
 
 It has been doubted, whether these numerous 
 varieties arose from alterations in one Latin trans- 
 lation, or whether from the beginning there were 
 not several Latin translations. A discussion of this 
 question would employ more time, than the present 
 Lecture can admit. But the probable result of 
 such a discussion is, that before the time of Jerom 
 there was only one Latin translation of the Old 
 Testament but more than one of the New, whence 
 the variations in the Latin manuscripts of the New 
 Testament, were augmented by the additional 
 cause, that different translations were sometimes 
 blended in the same copy. But whatever causes 
 might have operated in producing the evil, both 
 Augustine and Jerom were of opinion, that it was 
 such, as required an immediate remedy. And as 
 no one was so well qualified for a critical revision 
 of the Latin version as Jerom himself, he was 
 commissioned to undertake the task by Damasus, 
 who then presided over the See of Rome. 
 
68 LECTURE IV. 
 
 In correcting the Latin version of the New 
 Testament, he every where compared the trans- 
 lation with the original. In the Old Testament, 
 as the Latin version was there only the trans- 
 lation of a translation, he compared it with that 
 translation ; for he was not commissioned to make * 
 a new translation from the Hebrew, but to correct 
 an existing translation, which had been made 
 from the Greek. But he determined to select, 
 for the basis of his emendations, the most accurate 
 text of the Septuagint, which he could procure 5 
 and a journey to Palestine afforded him an oppor- 
 tunity of consulting the Hexapla preserved in 
 the Library of Caesarea. Though his, revision 
 therefore of the Latin version, was only in the 
 New Testament a revision according to the 
 original, yet the emendations, which he made 
 in the Old Testament were founded on a copy 
 of the Septuagint, which Origen himself had 
 corrected from the Hebrew. 
 
 "' 
 
 But whatever defects, or whatever excellencies 
 might have existed in Jerom's revision of the Old 
 Testament, only two books of it, the Psalms and 
 the book of Job, have descended to the present 
 as:e. In fact, these two books, with the Chro- 
 nicies, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon s 
 Song, were the only parts of it, which were ever 
 published. The manuscripts, which contained 
 
LECTURE IV. 69 
 
 his revision of the other books of the Old Testa- 
 ment, were entrusted by him to some person, 
 who either secreted or destroyed them. Of this 
 enemy to sacred criticism, who like certain modern 
 writers, appears to have preferred a corrupted 
 to a genuine text, we know nothing more than 
 what Jerom has incidently said of him in a letter 
 to Augustine, Pleraque prioris laboris fraude 
 cujusdum amisimus. 
 
 The loss sustained by this treachery served 
 only to stimulate Jerom to fresh exertions. He 
 determined no longer to revise an old translation 
 from the Greek, but to make a new translation 
 from the Hebrew. And this translation from 
 the Hebrew he finished in the year 405. 
 
 But nearly two hundred years elapsed before 
 this translation received the sanction of the church. 
 The contemporaries of Jerom regarded a trans- 
 lation from the Hebrew, as a dangerous innovation : 
 for, strange as it may appear, the Septuagint 
 version was more respected in the Latin church, 
 than the Hebrew original. At that time, the 
 now-exploded story of seventy-two interpreters, 
 all translating by divine inspiration, all translating 
 independently, yet each of them producing the 
 same translation, was firmly believed, in the 
 Latin as well as in the Greek church. And this 
 
70 LECTURE IV. 
 
 belief, united with a hatred of the Jews, and 
 an ignorance of Hebrew, gave to the Septuagint 
 version an higher rank, than to the original itself. 
 Hence Augustine, in other respects a friend and 
 ad mirer of Jerom, who concurred with him in 
 opinion, as to the state of the old version, and 
 promoted his revisal of it from the Greek, yet, 
 when Jerom undertook his translation from the 
 Hebrew, inveighed bitterly against it, as if Christ- 
 ianity itself were affected by the undertaking. 
 At length, however, Pope Gregory the Great, at 
 the end of the sixth century, gave to Jerom's 
 translation the sanction of Papal authority. From 
 that period the old translation from the Greek 
 was gradually abandoned for Jerom's translation 
 from the Hebrew, except in the Psalms, where 
 the daily repetition of them in the church service, 
 and their being adapted to church music, made 
 it difficult to introduce alterations. 
 
 Such is the history of the Latin Vulgate in the 
 Old Testament. In the New Testament the Latin 
 Vulgate is the old translation, corrected by Jerom, 
 as already related. With respect to the Apocrypha, 
 as contained in the Vulgate, those books are partly 
 in the old translation, and partly in a translation 
 made by Jerom himself. But it must not be 
 inferred that modern manuscripts or printed edi- 
 tions of the Vulgate contain either Jerom's 
 
LECTURE IV. 71 
 
 translations, or Jerom's corrections in the same 
 state, in which he delivered them. Latin manu- 
 scripts were no less exposed to alteration in the 
 middle ages, than they were in the early ages 
 of Christianity. Even the two editions of the 
 Vulgate, which were printed at Rome in 1590 
 and 159i2, both of them under Papal authority, 
 and both of them pronounced authentic, differ 
 materially from each other, in sense, as well as 
 in words. But the modern state of the Latin 
 Vulgate is a subject, which is foreign to the present 
 Lecture ; though the fact, which has been just 
 stated, may teach us this useful lesson, that nothing 
 but sacred criticism can preserve the Bible in its 
 pristine purity. 
 
 We must now again direct our attention to 
 the East, and proceed from the Latin to the 
 Syrian church. For this church, at an early 
 age of Christianity, a translation had been made, 
 of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and 
 of the New Testament from the Greek. And 
 this translation, which is called the Old Syriac 
 version, soon became, and still remains, the 
 established version of the Syrian church. 
 
 But there was another Syriac version of the 
 New Testament, which has likewise descended 
 
72 LECTURE IV. 
 
 to the present age: and it is this Syriac version 
 which properly belongs to an history of criticism, 
 because it was afterwards collated with Greek 
 manuscripts. It is called the Philoxenian version, 
 from Philoxenus bishop of Hierapolis, under 
 ythose auspices it was made by Polycarp, his 
 rural bishop. It was undertaken at the begin- 
 ning of the sixth century, from motives at present 
 unknown, though not improbably from a desire 
 of having a translation of the New Testament, 
 which should approach to the original even more 
 closely, than the old or common version. For 
 the Philoxenian version adheres to it, even with 
 servility. And this quality, instead of forming 
 an objection to it, constitutes its chief value. 
 In the translation of works, which are designed 
 for amusement, something more must be at- 
 tempted, than mere fidelity. But in works 
 intended for divine instruction, a translation 
 cannot be too close. And, whenever ancient 
 versions are applied to the purposes of criticism, 
 even a servile adherence to their original augments 
 the value of them. An ancient version, except 
 in places, where that version has been altered, 
 is regarded as the representative of the Hebrew 
 or Greek manuscript, from which that version 
 was taken ; consequently, the more closely 
 such manuscript is represented, the more accu- 
 
LECTURE IV. 73 
 
 rately shall we know its readings, and hence the 
 more precisely shall we be enabled to judge, when 
 the authenticity of readings is disputed. 
 
 To render this close translation still more con- 
 formable with the original, it was collated with 
 Greek manuscripts in Egypt, at the beginning 
 of the seventh century. The person who under- 
 took this collation was Thomas, bishop of Ger- 
 manicia : and he not only corrected the Syriac 
 text from those manuscripts, where he thought 
 that correction was necessary, but at other times 
 he noted their various readings in the margin. 
 As these various readings were taken from manu- 
 scripts of the Greek Testament, which were 
 probably much older, than the oldest now extant, 
 they are of course ; important to sacred criticism. 
 A copy of this revision or edition of the Philo- 
 xenian version, with the Greek readings in the 
 margin, is now in the Bodleian Library ; and it 
 has been printed by Dr. White, the Hebrew 
 Professor at Oxford, with short, but very useful 
 notes. 
 
 1 
 
 The collation of the Philoxenian version is 
 the last effort in sacred criticism, which was 
 attempted in Egypt : nor does any part of Asia, 
 since that period, present us with a similar under- 
 taking. In six years from the date of this col- 
 
74 LECTURE IV. 
 
 lation, commenced the Era, and soon afterwards 
 the devastation of the Arabs. The Jewish school 
 at Tiberias, with another, which had been esta- 
 blished at Babylon, continued, it is true; to 
 preserve a precarious existence. It is true also, 
 that learning revived under the Caliphs of Bagdad ; 
 but it was not the learning of the Bible. The 
 Christians of the East remained in subjection 
 and ignorance; and even the Jews were com- 
 pelled at last, to abandon the schools, to which 
 they were so long attached. 
 
 If we turn our attention from the East to 
 the Greek empire at this period, we shall find it 
 equally devoid of materials for our present inquiry. 
 Indeed the criticism of the Bible does not appear 
 to have ever taken root in Greece : and the metro- 
 polis of the Greek empire, as far as religion was 
 concerned, seems to have been wholly engaged 
 with the controverted points of dogmatic Theo- 
 ry- 
 
 If we go onward to the West of Europe, the 
 prospect is still gloomy : for after the death 
 of Jerom, we find no one among the Latin 
 fathers, who could lay claim to the title of critic. 
 Some dawnings of this science occasionally indeed 
 broke through the general darkness: and the 
 corruptions, which then were creeping into the 
 
LECTURE IV. 75 
 
 Latin Vulgate, from the removal especially of 
 marginal glosses into the text, were noticed by 
 some men of superior sagacity, who at the same 
 time endeavoured to apply a remedy for the 
 evil. Alcuin, secretary to Charlemagne, at the 
 beginning of the ninth century, and one of the 
 most learned men of that age, undertook to revise 
 the Vulgate, from the Hebrew in the Old Testa- 
 ment, and from the Greek in the New. Another 
 revision of the Vulgate was undertaken at the end 
 of the eleventh century, by Lanfranc, archbishop 
 of Canterbury. And about fifty years afterwards 
 a third revision was attempted in Italy by Car- 
 dinal Nicolaus, who made the same complaint 
 of the Vulgate, which Jerom had made of the 
 old version, " quot codices tot eocamplaria" At 
 length these complaints became so general as to 
 give rise to the Correctoria Biblica, in which 
 the false readings of the Vulgate were corrected 
 by a comparison, partly with the originals, and 
 partly with more ancient manuscripts. But our 
 countryman, Roger Bacon, who acknowledges 
 the evil, and describes some of its causes, appears 
 to have been dissatisfied with many of those 
 corrections. 
 
 While the criticism of the middle ages, in 
 England, France, and Italy, was confined to 
 the Latin Vulgate, the south of Spain produced 
 
7® LECTURE IV. 
 
 a race of critics in the Hebrew Bible, who might 
 contend with those of any age or nation. When 
 the learned Jews of Tiberias and Babylon were 
 compelled to take refuge in Europe, they chiefly 
 settled in that part of Spain, which was inhabited 
 by the Moors, who spake the language then become 
 vernacular in the countries, from which the Jews 
 were driven. Hence the south of Spain became, 
 during the middle ages, the center of Hebrew 
 learning. It is sufficient to mention the names 
 of Abn Ezra, Moses Maimonides, and David 
 Kimchi, who were all born in Spain in the twelfth 
 century, and laid the foundation of that Hebrew 
 learning, which afterwards extended to Germany, 
 and was thence propagated by the invention of 
 printing throughout the rest of Europe. 
 
 Reuchlin, or Capnio, the father of Hebrew 
 learning among Christians, was born in Pfortsheim 
 in Suabia in 1454. Being a man of rank, as 
 well as of learning, he operated not only by 
 precept, but by example : and at the end of the 
 fifteenth century, it became the fashion in Ger- 
 many to study the Old Testament in Hebrew. 
 For this study an opportunity was afforded by 
 the circumstance, that the Hebrew Bible was one 
 of the earliest printed books, the first edition 
 having been printed in 1488, and parts of it, as 
 the Psalms, and the Pentateuch, still earlier. The 
 
LECTURE IV. 77 
 
 Catholic clergy at Cologne opposed indeed, to the 
 utmost of their power, the cultivation of the 
 Hebrew language, which they considered as replete 
 with danger, not only to the Latin Vulgate, but to 
 the church, of which they were members. Nor 
 were their fears ungrounded. The revival of 
 Grecian literature about the same period, of which 
 Capnio was likewise one of the chief promoters, 
 increased the dangers of the church of Rome : and 
 Luther began his reformation before Capnio died. 
 
 The preceding review of the progress, which 
 was made by sacred criticism, during the early and 
 the middle ages, is sufficient to supply the student 
 in Divinity with general notions on this subject, 
 and to furnish him with a clue to future inquiries. 
 More than this it is hardly possible to perform in 
 a public lecture, in which a limit must be assigned 
 to minuteness of investigation, or the attention of 
 the audience would soon be exhausted. In fact, 
 minuteness of investigation must be reserved for 
 the closet ; and all that now remains for the lec- 
 turer to perform, in respect to the critical labours of 
 the early and the middle ages, is to mention the 
 works, from which a more ample knowledge of 
 those critical labours may be derived. 
 
 Of the labours of Origen in amending the text 
 of the Septuagint, Montfaucon, the editor of the 
 
78 LECTURE IV. 
 
 Hexaploruth Origenis quae supersunt, has given a 
 full account in the preface, entitled, Prceliminaria 
 in Hexapla Origenis, which is divided into eleven 
 chapters, according to the subjects, of which it 
 treats. Another work, which ought to be con- 
 sulted, though it was published before Montfaucon's 
 edition, is that of Humphrey Hody, who was 
 Greek Professor at Oxford in the beginning of the 
 last century. This work is entitled, Be Bibliorum 
 Textibus originalibus, versionibus Grceciset Latind 
 Vulgatd, libri quatuor, and was printed at Oxford 
 m 1705. Among the writers on the Septuagint 
 version, no one has displayed either more know- 
 ledge of the subject, or more critical sagacity, than 
 Hody. The fourth and last part of this work, is 
 that which relates to the Hexapla. 
 
 Of the similar labours of Lucian and Hesychius, 
 in amending the text of the Septuagint, there is 
 no writer either ancient or modern, from whom 
 any particular account can be derived. Their 
 editions are no longer in existence : nor have even 
 fragments remained of them. Readings, derived 
 from those editions, are undoubtedly contained in 
 manuscripts of the Septuagint : but we have no 
 means of distinguishing them from other readings. 
 We only know, that those editions did exist, and 
 were in high repute: and for this information, 
 little as it is, we are chiefly indebted to Jerom, 
 
LECTURE IV. jg 
 
 who has occasionally mentioned them, especially 
 in his Preface to the Chronicles, and in his Preface 
 to the four Gospels. 
 
 Of the industry bestowed by the learned Jews 
 of Tiberias on the criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 
 the most complete information is afforded by 
 John Buxtorf, who was born in Westphalia about 
 forty years after the death of Capnio, and after 
 having studied at several German universities, was 
 at last Professor of the Oriental languages, at Bale 
 or Basel in Switzerland. To his work on this 
 subject he gave the title of Tiberias: it was first 
 printed at Basel in 1620, and reprinted in 1665 
 with additions by his son, John James Buxtorf. 
 No Christian has ever possessed so great a share of 
 Jewish literature, as John Buxtorf: his Tiberias 
 is indispensably necessary for the understanding 
 of the Masora, and indeed all the other writers 
 on this subject have derived their materials from 
 Buxtorf, among whom we may particularly men- 
 tion Bishop Brian Walton, who has given an 
 account of the Masora in the eighth chapter of the 
 Prolegomena prefixed to the London Polyglot. 
 
 Of the industry employed by Jerom on the 
 Latin version, the first source of intelligence is 
 Jerom's own works, of which the Benedictine 
 edition by Martianay was printed at Paris in five 
 
80 LECTURE IV. 
 
 volumes folio between the years 1696 and 1706: 
 but the last, the most complete, and the best 
 arranged edition, was published by Vallarsi at 
 Verona, between 1734 and 1742 in eleven volumes 
 folio. The, information, which relates to our .pre- 
 sent subject, must be chiefly sought in the first 
 volume of Martianay's edition, and in the ninth 
 and tenth of Vallarsi's : for these are the volumes, 
 which contain the Bibliotheca divina Hieronymi, 
 with the dissertations of the editors on Jerom's 
 translation and correction of the Scriptures. But 
 to form a due estimate of the excellencies or the 
 defects in those translations and corrections, it is 
 further necessary to consult the Prolego'mena of 
 Walton, Mill, and Wetstein, with Simon's Critical 
 History, and the Introduction of Michaelis. 
 
 On the criticism of the New Syriac or Philo- 
 xenian version, which was displayed at the begin- 
 ning of the seventh century by Thomas, bishop 
 of Germanicia, the first, though very imperfect, 
 account was given in the second volume of the 
 Bibliotheca Orientalis by Assemani, who derived 
 his intelligence from Syrian writers. More par- 
 ticular information may be derived from a treatise 
 entitled Dissertatio de Syriacarum novi foederis 
 versionum indole at que usu, published in 176% by 
 Dr. Glocester Ridley, who possessed the manu- 
 scripts of the Philoxenian version, which are now 
 
LECTURE IV. 61 
 
 at Oxford, and from which Dr. White printed his 
 edition. But I know of no work, in which the 
 subject is so fully discussed as in the Introduction 
 of Michaelis. 
 
 For the efforts, which were made in the ninth 
 and following centuries to correct the Latin Vulgate, 
 the above-mentioned work of Hody must be again 
 consulted. And for the merit of those learned 
 Jews, who distinguished themselves in the twelfth 
 and thirteenth centuries, must be consulted Wolfii 
 Bihliotheca Hebrcea, which was published at Ham- 
 burg between 1715 and 1733 in four quarto 
 volumes. N 
 
 The description, which has been given in this 
 Lecture,, has been given, as the subjects occurred, 
 without regard to any other, than chronological 
 order. But from the sixteenth century to the 
 present period, the labours of the learned are so 
 connected in the subjects of their inquiry, that it 
 is necessary to keep that connexion in view: and 
 that connexion would be lost, if the subjects were 
 intermixed. Though chronological order there- 
 fore will still be preserved in each single description, 
 the subjects themselves must be described separately. 
 
 The subject of the next Lecture will be the 
 Criticism of the Greek Testament. 
 
 G 
 
I 
 
 LECTURE -V- 
 
 The Criticism of the Greek Testament is 
 a subject of the very first importance to every 
 Christian : and though a knowledge of the lan- 
 guage, in which it was written, is necessary for the 
 exercise of that criticism, yet even without such 
 knowledge some notion may be formed of the 
 efforts of the learned, to place the documents of 
 Christianity on a firm foundation. The importance 
 of this subject must be manifest to every one ; who 
 considers, that the criticism of the Greek Testa- 
 ment contains the elements of that analysis, by 
 which we gradually discover the truth of our 
 religion. 
 
 To determine the mode of analysis, which is 
 necessary for this purpose, of analysis, which shall 
 bring with it conviction, let us suppose a man of 
 liberal education, of sound understanding, and of 
 serious disposition, who in his religious opinions, 
 for want of proper instruction on that subject, has 
 remained unsettled, but' would willingly assent to 
 the truth of Christianity, provided certain propo- 
 
LECTURE V. 83 
 
 sitions, necessary to establish that truth, were 
 clearly explained to him. A man of this descrip- 
 tion, if a person endeavoured to convince him from 
 the New Testament, would argue in the following 
 manner, ff The book, which you lay before me, v 
 professes indeed to contain a faithful account of 
 what was done and taught, both by the founder of 
 Christianity, and by others, who assisted in the 
 propagation of it. But you cannot expect, that 
 I should allow its pretensions to be valid, till you 
 hav£ assigned sufficient reasons that they are so ; 
 and these reasons involve several propositions, which 
 must be distinctly stated, and distinctly proved. 
 That our attention may not be distracted by dis- 
 cussing different subjects at the same time, let us, 
 in the first instance, confine ourselves to the 
 Epistles, which you ascribe to St. Paul, who, as 
 you assure me, not only became a zealous pro- 
 moter, from a zealous enemy of Christianity, but 
 was vested even with divine authority for that 
 purpose. On this divine authority you found 
 a set of doctrines, which you require me to receive 
 through the medium of your interpretation, and 
 declare at the same time, that if I do not receive 
 them, the consequences will be the most dreadful, 
 that imagination can conceive. Now I am per- 
 fectly willing (the supposed person might continue 
 to say) I am perfectly willing to assent to truths 
 of such importance ; but I must previously know 
 
84 
 
 XECTURE V. 
 
 that tbey are truths, or 1 have no foundation 
 for my assent. For the present, I will wave the 
 question, whether your interpretations be right 
 or wrong ; though I am well assured, that some- 
 thing more is requisite to a right understanding 
 of those Epistles, than is possessed by many, who 
 venture to explain them. But whatever be their 
 meaning, you must first convince me, that St. Paul 
 was the author of them, or you leave them devoid 
 of all religious obligation. And L expect, that 
 your proof be conducted, not with lofty decla- 
 mation, or deep denunciation against unbelief; 
 but by sober sense, and plain reason. For though 
 I am ready to place implicit confidence in St. Paul, 
 as soon as you have proved, that he was a teacher 
 sent from God ; though I am ready to have un- 
 bounded faith in divine doctrines, as soon as 
 I know, that they are divine ; yet I cannot transfer 
 this unbounded faith to any modern preacher 
 of the Gospel, however great his pretensions, 
 whether from learning, or from sanctity. When 
 you therefore assure me, that St. Paul had a divine 
 commission, and that he wrote the Epistles in 
 question, 1 expect these assertions, on your part, 
 to be supported by argument : for your authority 
 goes as far as your arguments go, and no further." 
 
 If the theologian, ,to whom this supposed 
 person addressed himself, were a man accustomed 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 '85 
 
 to biblical investigation, and had sought a basis 
 for his faith, such theologian would reply, " I will 
 undertake to' produce arguments, which shall 
 convince any reasonable man, that Paul, the 
 apostle of Jesus Christ, was really the author 
 of the Epistles ascribed to him: and when this 
 point has been established, we have then a foun- 
 dation, on which our superstructure may rest 
 without danger." But before you undertake this 
 task, the objector may still reply, there are cer- 
 tain preliminaries, which must be settled between 
 us, or we shall never come to any definite con- 
 clusion. You must not take the English trans- 
 lation, as the work, which is to be proved 
 authentic ; for the term authentic translation is 
 a term without meaning. You may say a correct 
 translation, or a faithful translation ; but the 
 term authentic applies only to the original, it 
 applies only to the Greek Epistles, as written, or 
 alleged to be written, by St. Paul himself. Now 
 that the Greek manuscripts of those Epistles 
 very frequently differ, as well from each other, 
 as from the printed editions, is a fact, which it 
 would be useless to deny, and absurd to overlook. 
 Which therefore of the Greek manuscripts, will 
 you take into your hand, when you assert, " these 
 are the Epistles, which proceeded from the pen 
 of St. Paul." This is no easy matter to deter- 
 mine; and yet it must be determined, if the 
 
86 LECTURE V. 
 
 question of authenticity be examined with that 
 precision, which the importance of the subject 
 demands. This supposed conversation will render 
 our present subject familiar to every hearer : it will 
 shew him, where, and what is the key-stone of the 
 arch, which supports the fabric of Christianity. 
 
 The first operation, therefore, in respect to 
 the Greek Testament, which must be performed 
 by a theologian, who intends to build his faith 
 on a firm foundation, is to ascertain what copy of 
 the Epistles ascribed to St. Paul, what copy of an 
 Epistle ascribed to any other Apostle, what copy 
 of a Gospel ascribed to this or that Evangelist, 
 has the strongest claim to be received by us, as 
 a true copy of the author's own manuscript ; who- 
 ever the author, or authors, may really have been, 
 which must be left to future inquiry, or we shall 
 again take for granted the thing to be proved. 
 Now the investigation of this previous question 
 is a work of immense labour. The Greek manu- 
 scripts of St. Paul's Epistles (or, as we should 
 rather say in the present stage of our inquiry, of 
 the Epistles ascribed to St. Paul,) amount, as far as 
 we know them, to more than an hundred and fifty: 
 and the Greek manuscripts of the Gospels, with 
 which we are acquainted, amount to more than three 
 hundred and fifty. But among all these manuscripts 
 there is none, which is so far entitled to precedence, 
 
LECTURE V. 87 
 
 as to be received for the true copy, of which we 
 are in search. In fact the truth lies scattered 
 among them all : and in order to obtain the truth, 
 we must gather from them all. Nor is an exami- 
 nation of these manuscripts, numerous as they 
 are, alone sufficient for the object, which we have 
 in view. The quotations from the Greek Testa- 
 ment in the voluminous writings of the Greek 
 fathers, must likewise be examined, that we may 
 know what they found in their Greek manuscripts. 
 The ancient versions must also be consulted, in 
 order to learn what the writers of those versions 
 found in their copies of the Greek Testament. 
 When all these collections from manuscripts, 
 fathers, and Versions, have been formed, and 
 reduced into proper order, we have then to 
 determine in every single instance, which among 
 the various readings is probably the genuine reading. 
 And that we may know how to determine, we 
 must establish laws of criticism, calculated to 
 counteract the causes, which produced the variations, 
 and, by these means, to restore the true copy, 
 of which we are in search. 
 
 Now it cannot be supposed that labours, for 
 which, when taken collectively, no single life is 
 sufficient, would be recommended even by a zea- 
 lot in his profession, as forming a regular part of 
 theological study. Those labours are unnecessary 
 
88 LECTURE Y. 
 
 for us t they have been already undertaken, and 
 executed with success. But if the industry of our 
 predecessors has removed the burden from our 
 shoulders, we must not therefore become indifferent 
 spectators, unconcerned whether the burden be well 
 or ill supported. We must at least inform our- 
 selves of the nature, and extent of those labours ; 
 or we shall never know, whether the object has 
 been obtained, for which they were undertaken. 
 We must make ourselves acquainted with the 
 causes, which produced the variations in question, 
 or we shall never know, whether the laws of cri- 
 ticism, which profess to remedy that evil, are 
 founded in truth or falsehood. 
 
 We must inquire therefore, — first into the 
 causes of the evil, and then— into the remedies, 
 which have been applied to it ; remedies, which ' 
 we shall find hereafter to have been applied with 
 great success. 
 
 The manuscripts of the Greek Testament, 
 during the fourteen hundred years, which elapsed 
 from the apostolic age to the invention of printing, 
 were exposed, like all other manuscripts, to 
 mistakes in transcribing : and as every copy had 
 unavoidably some errors, those errors multiplied 
 with the multiplication of the copies. Letters, 
 syllables, words, were added, omitted, or trans- 
 
 i 
 
LECTURE V, 89 
 
 posed, from mere carelessness in writing, whether 
 the writer transcribed from a manuscript before 
 him, or wrote, as was frequently the case, from 
 the dictation of another. In the latter case, his 
 ear might be deceived by a similarity in the sound 
 of different words ; in the former case, his eye 
 might be deceived by a similarity in their form, 
 by different words having the same final syllable, 
 or by different sentences having the same final 
 word. At other times, a transcriber misunderstood 
 the manuscript, from which he copied, either 
 falsely interpreting its abbreviations, or falsely 
 dividing the words, where they were written (as 
 in the most ancient manuscripts) without intervals. 
 Or the fault might be partly attributable to the 
 manuscript itself, in cases, where its letters were 
 wholly or partially effaced or faded. 
 
 But the greatest variations arose from altera- 
 tions made by design. The transcribers of the 
 Greek Testament were not bound, like the trans- 
 cribers of the Hebrew Bible, by rules prescribed 
 to them in a Masora, or critical law book. Hence 
 they often took the liberty of improving, as they 
 supposed, on that manuscript, of which it was 
 their business to have given only a copy ; a liberty 
 similar to that, which is now taken in a printing- 
 office, where a compositor often improves on the 
 manuscript of an author. Hence, a native of 
 
90 LECTURE V. 
 
 Greece, accustomed to hear his own language 
 without an admixture of Oriental idioms, and 
 regarding therefore a Hehraism or a Syriasm, 
 in the light of a solecism, would accordingly correct 
 it, not considering or not knowing, that these 
 Hebraisms and Syriasms are the very idioms, which 
 we should expect from Greek writers, who were 
 born or educated in Judea, idioms therefore which 
 form a strong argument for the authenticity of 
 their writings. At other times, these same im- 
 provers, when they remarked that one Evangelist 
 recorded the same thing more fully than another, 
 (a circumstance again of great importance, as it 
 shews there was no combination among the Evan- 
 gelists,) regarded this want of perfect coincidence 
 as an imperfection, which they deemed it necessary 
 to remove, -by supplying the shorter account from 
 the longer. Nor did they spare even the quo- 
 tations from the Old Testament, whether those 
 quotations were transcripts from the Septuagint, 
 or translations from the Hebrew by the author 
 himself. If they only differed from the transcriber's 
 Septuagint, he concluded, that they were wrong, 
 and required amendment. 
 
 But the most fruitful source of designed altera- 
 tions was the removal of marginal annotations 
 into the text. Indeed to this cause may be 
 ascribed the alterations from parallel passages, when- 
 
LECTURE V. 91 
 
 ever those parallel passages had be£n written in 
 the margin. Other marginal notes consisted of 
 explanations, or applications of the adjacent text : 
 and, when a manuscript with such notes, fell into 
 the hands of a transcriber, he either supposed, that 
 they were parts of the text, accidentally omitted, 
 and supplied in the margin, or considered them 
 as useful additions, which there would be no harm 
 in adopting. In either case he took them into 
 the text of that manuscript, which he himself 
 was writing. 
 
 The latter case may indeed be referred to that 
 class of various readings, which derive their origin 
 from wilful corruption, being introduced for the 
 sole purpose of obtaining support to some par- 
 ticular doctrine. That such things have been 
 done, and done by all parties, is not to be denied : 
 for we have examples on record. But as we have 
 received our manuscripts of the Greek Testament, 
 not out of the hands of the ancient heretics, but 
 from the orthodox members of the Greek church, 
 we have less reason to apprehend, that they have 
 suffered, in points of doctrine, from heretical 
 influence. 
 
 Having thus taken a general review of the 
 causes, which operated, till the invention of printing, 
 in producing the variations of the Greek text, 
 
g2 LECTURE V. 
 
 I have now to undertake the more agreeable office 
 of recording the attempts, which have been made 
 in later ages, to restore it to its original purity. 
 
 For this purpose it is necessary to give a de- 
 scription, or history of the critical editions of the 
 Greek Testament ; that is, a description of all 
 those editions, which were printed either wholly 
 from Greek manuscripts, or with emendations from 
 Greek manuscripts, or with a critical apparatus, 
 for the purpose of emendation. In this description, 
 an account of the materials employed by each 
 editor, and of the use which he made of them, 
 must form an essential part : for hence only can we 
 determine the value of his edition. We must 
 observe also the influence of preceding on subse- 
 quent editions, and trace the progress of the Greek 
 text throughout its several stages. 
 
 The description must be divided into two 
 periods. The one commences with the first 
 edition of the Greek Testament, and ends with 
 the Elzevir edition of 1624: the other includes 
 the critical editions, which have appeared from that 
 time to the present. The first period is limited by 
 the Elzevir edition of 1624, because this edition 
 forms an epocha in the history of the Greek text. 
 After having fluctuated, during more than a cen- 
 tury in the preceding editions, the Greek text 
 
LECTURE V. Q3 
 
 acquired in this edition a consistency, which it has 
 retained to the present day. In this edition was 
 established the Greek text, which is now in daily 
 use, and is known by the name of the Textus 
 receptus. The description therefore of the first 
 period will record the gradual formation of this 
 text, and will furnish an estimate of its excellencies 
 or defects. Nor will the description of the second 
 period be less important: for it will contain the 
 rise and progress of that critical apparatus, which 
 now enables us to form a more accurate text, than 
 it was possible to form at an earlier period. 
 
 The first printed edition of any part of the 
 Greek Testament, is one by Aldus Manutius, who 
 printed the six first chapters of St. John's Gospel 
 at Venice in 1504; and in 1512 the whole of 
 St. John's Gospel was printed at Tubingen in 
 Suabia. But these impressions* though it is pro- 
 per to mention them, as the first of their kind, 
 can now be regarded only as literary curiosities. 
 They had no influence on subsequent editions, and 
 therefore are of no importance in' a critical history 
 of the Greek text. 
 
 v The first printed edition of the whole Greek 
 Testament is that, which is contained in the 
 Complutensian Polyglot, so called from Com- 
 
04 . LECTURE V. 
 
 piutum, now Alcala, in Spain, where it was printed. 
 The volume containing the Greek Testament, 
 which is accompanied with the Latin Vulgate in 
 a parallel column, is dated the 10th of January 
 1514. The whole was conducted under the 
 auspices of Cardinal Ximenes, archbishop of 
 Toledo, who employed for that purpose some of 
 the most distinguished Hebrew and Greek scholars 
 of that age, and who spared neither pains nor 
 expence, in procuring Hebrew and Greek manu- 
 scripts. 
 
 The Greek manuscripts, which were used for 
 this work, are not particularly described by the 
 editors, but are all included under one general 
 
 character, namely, " exemplaria vetustissima 
 
 simul et eniendatissima" But as the term " ancient" 
 is only a relative expression ; as the accuracy of 
 a manuscript, in its critical sense, depends not on 
 the precision of its orthographical execution, but 
 on the genuineness of its readings ; and as all 
 editors are disposed to enhance the value of their 
 materials, the assertion of the Complutensian 
 editors, in respect to their manuscripts, requires 
 the confirmation of internal evidence. But the 
 manuscripts themselves, which were deposited in 
 the university library at Alcala, are no longer in 
 existence. And if manuscripts were sent to them 
 
 i 
 
LECTURE V. 95 
 
 by Pope Leo the Tenth, as the editors assert, from 
 the Vatican Library, no one knows, at present, 
 what they are, or even where they must be 
 sought. 
 
 The only means therefore of ascertaining the 
 quality of the Greek manuscript or manuscripts, 
 from which the Complutensian Greek Testament 
 was printed, are those, which are afforded by the 
 evidence of the Complutensian text itself. And 
 this internal evidence directlv contradicts the 
 assertion of the editors in respect to the antiquity 
 of their manuscripts. For wherever modern Greek 
 manuscripts, manuscripts written in the thirteenth, 
 fourteenth, or fifteenth centuries, differ from the 
 most ancient Greek manuscripts, and from the 
 quotations of the early Greek fathers, in such 
 characteristic readings the Complutensian Greek 
 Testament almost invariably agrees with the 
 modern, in opposition to the ancient manuscripts. 
 There cannot be a doubt therefore, that the Com- 
 plutensian text was formed from modern manu- 
 scripts alone. 
 
 The only cause of hesitation on this subject was 
 removed about twenty years ago. As the editors 
 had boasted of valuable manuscripts, sent to them 
 from the Vatican Library, it was formerly thought 
 
9® LECTURE V. 
 
 not improbable, that the very ancient manuscript 
 marked in the Vatican Library 1209, and distin- 
 guished by the name of The Vatican Manuscript, 
 was one of the number. And as only imperfect 
 extracts from this manuscript had been printed till 
 very lately, we had not sufficient data to ascertain 
 the question. But in 1788 Professor Birch of 
 Copenhagen published, in his edition of the four 
 Gospels, complete extracts from this manuscript. 
 Now since the Complutensian is the first printed 
 edition of the Greek Testament, since the text of 
 this edition has had great influence on subsequent 
 editions, and it is therefore important to determine 
 the value of its readings, I have taken the pains 
 to collate the Complutensian edition with those 
 extracts from the Vatican manuscript; but have 
 never found in it a reading peculiar to that manu- 
 script. That manuscript therefore could not have 
 been used for the Cqmplutensian edition: for, if 
 it had, the influence of such a manuscript must - 
 have been sometimes apparent. And even were this 
 conclusion erroneous, the result would be still the 
 same : for, if it were true, that the Complutensian 
 editors had the use of the Vatican manuscript, 
 yet, if they, never followed it, except where it 
 harmonized with modern manuscripts, the effect 
 is the same, as if they had never used it at ail. 
 Whatever zeal thqn may have been displayed 
 
* LECTURE V. Q7 
 
 both by Cardinal Ximenes, and by the learned 
 men, who assisted him, their edition contributed 
 little or nothing toward the restoring of the purity 
 of the Greek text. 
 
 The other principal editors of the sixteenth 
 century were Erasmus, Robert Stephens, and 
 Beza. But a description of their editions, and of 
 the gradual formation of that text, which is now 
 in common use, must be deferred to the following 
 Lecture. 
 
 if 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 In the preceding Lecture was given an 
 account of the Complutensian edition of the Greek 
 Testament, as far as it could be collected from 
 the imperfect data which now remain. The next 
 edition, which demands our attention, is the first 
 edition by Erasmus, of which we are enabled 
 to give a much more minute description, because 
 we are much better acquainted, both with the ma- 
 terials, of which it was composed, and with the 
 manner, in which those materials were applied. 
 A minute description of this edition is likewise 
 of much greater consequence, as its influence on 
 subsequent editions was much greater, than that 
 of the Complutensian. It was printed at Basel, 
 or Bale, in Switzerland in 151 6, and was the 
 first-published, though not the first-printed edition 
 of the Greek Testament. 
 
 The Greek manuscripts, which were used by 
 Erasmus for this edition, amounted to four, beside 
 
lecture vi. gg 
 
 a manuscript of Theophylact, containing his 
 commentary on the Gospels, the Acts, and the 
 Epistles, accompanied with the Greek text. Three 
 of those four manuscripts are still preserved in 
 the Public Library at Bale; but the fourth is 
 at present unknown. It must not however be 
 supposed, that those four manuscripts were four 
 copies of the whole Greek Testament : for Greek 
 manuscripts contain usually only parts of it. 
 Indeed three of Erasmus's manuscripts, when put 
 together made only one copy of the New Testa- 
 ment, the first containing only the Gospels, the 
 second only the Acts and the Epistles, and the 
 third only the book of Revelation. From these 
 three manuscripts, constituting one copy of the 
 whole, he printed his Greek Testament ; but not 
 from these manuscripts unaltered. Before he 
 sent them to the press, he made many corrections ; 
 and these corrections were founded, partly on 
 his fourth manuscript, partly on his manuscript 
 of Theophylact, partly on the authority of the 
 Vulgate, and partly on his own conjecture. 
 
 The value of this edition must depend, first 
 on the value of its materials, and secondly on 
 the mode of employing those materials. Now 
 his manuscript of the Gospels, which is one of 
 the three now preserved at Bale, is so modern 
 a manuscript, that according to Wetstein, it was 
 
 H 2 
 
100 LECTURE VI. 
 
 written in the fifteenth century, and therefore not 
 long before it was used by Erasmus. The manu- 
 script from which he printed the Acts and the 
 Epistles, (another of the three now preserved at 
 Bale) is likewise a modern manuscript, though 
 according to Wetstein, who examined them both, 
 it is older, than the former. 
 
 The Greek manuscript of the Revelation, 
 which was used by Erasmus, belonged at that time, 
 to Capnio : but all the efforts of the learned to 
 discover where it is now preserved, have been 
 hitherto fruitless. The character, which Erasmus 
 himself has given of this manuscript is so high 
 in respect to its antiquity, as to make it almost 
 coeval with the Apostles themselves. " Tantce 
 vetustatis, " says Erasmus to Stunica, " ut aposto- 
 lorum cetate scriptum videri possit" But this 
 declaration must be construed with the same 
 latitude, as the similar declaration of the Com- 
 plutensian editors. For in this very manuscript 
 the Greek text was accompanied with the com- 
 mentary of Arethas: and Arethas, according to 
 Fabricius, a name of great authority in the literary 
 history of Greek writers, was subsequent to the 
 apostolic age by no less a period, than nine hun- 
 dred years. 
 
 The Greek documents, which Erasmus applied 
 
LECTURE VI. 10} 
 
 to the correction of the manuscripts, from which 
 he printed his edition, were, his fourth manuscript, 
 and his manuscript of Theophylact. His fourth 
 manuscript, which is the third of the three pre- 
 served at Bale, is at least of respectable antiquity, 
 for it was written in the tenth century, and, as 
 it contains the whole New Testament, except 
 the Revelation, it might have afforded him con- 
 siderable service. But Erasmus made very little 
 use of it, as he himself relates in his answer to 
 Stunica, because he suspected, though it appears 
 unjustly, that it contained readings derived from 
 the Latin Vulgate. The chief source of his 
 corrections therefore was the text and commentary 
 of Theophylact. But Theophylact was the last 
 of the Greek fathers : he lived at the end of the 
 eleventh century: and his quotations from the 
 Greek Testament are not to be compared, in 
 deciding the authenticity of a reading, with the 
 quotations of the early fathers. In the book of 
 Revelation, he had no other Greek document, 
 than the manuscript, from which he printed. He 
 corrected therefore from conjecture where that 
 manuscript was inaccurate: and where it was de- 
 fective, as especially at the end, where the six last 
 verses were wanting, he supplied the defect by Greek 
 of his own making from the Latin Vulgate. 
 
 If we may judge from the title-page, Erasmus 
 
102 LECTURE VI. 
 
 had likewise at least occasional recourse to the 
 writings of Origen, Chrysostom, and Cyril. But 
 it is hardly possible that Erasmus should have 
 derived* many readings from their works, in which 
 the quotations from the Bible are indiscriminately 
 scattered, and of which there was no edition at 
 that time provided with those convenient indexes, 
 which now enable a collector of various readings 
 to turn in an instant to any passage of Scripture. 
 In fact no edition of those fathers had then been 
 printed in Greek : for the editions of Origen, 
 Chrysostom, and Cyril, which were then in print, 
 were only in a Latin translation. 
 
 But there is another source of sacred criticism, 
 of which Erasmus made considerable use, though 
 it is the last source, from which we should suppose, 
 that an editor would have drawn, who had objected 
 to the use of a Greek manuscript on the ground 
 of its readings being formed from the Latin 
 Vulgate. One should hardly suppose, that the 
 same editor would have had recourse to the Latin 
 Vulgate, for assistance in the formation of his 
 own text. Perhaps however he acted more from 
 necessity than choice. When he published his 
 Greek Testament, the Latin Vulgate had for ages 
 been the oracle of the Church of Rome : and to have 
 published a New Testament, without shewing some 
 regard for this oracle, might have exposed him to 
 
LECTURE VI. 103 
 
 more embarrassment, than all his learning could 
 have removed. 
 
 Lastly, the time which was employed in the 
 execution of this work, bore no proportion to the 
 magnitude of the undertaking. The first appli- 
 cation to Erasmus on this subject was made in 
 a letter from Rhenanus bearing date the 17th of 
 April 1515: and this application was repeated on 
 the 30th of April. Now the edition itself, as 
 appears from the subscription, was finished in the 
 following February. Even therefore were it 
 begun immediately on the second application, 
 which from other circumstances there is reason 
 to doubt, it could not have employed more than 
 nine months, both in the preparation for it, and 
 in the printing of it! And Erasmus had not 
 merely Greek materials to arrange ; he had to 
 correct a Latin version, which he published in 
 a parallel column with the Greek; he had also 
 to furnish a considerable body of annotations. Nor 
 must it be forgotten, that he was engaged at the 
 same time, in the publication of Jerom's works, 
 which alone would have been sufficient to have 
 occupied his whole attention. If it be asked, why 
 Erasmus, under such circumstances, was so pre- 
 cipitate in the publication of the Greek Testament, 
 the answer is, that in this respect Erasmus was 
 not his own master. He had been engaged by 
 
104 LECTURE VI. 
 
 Frobenius, a printer and bookseller at Bale, to 
 publish a Greek Testament for a certain sum, and 
 under certain conditions. And the profits of 
 Frobenius, as a bookseller, depended at that time 
 on expedition ; they depended on his edition being 
 finished, before the Complutensian, already printed, 
 was delivered to the public 
 
 Such is the history of the first edition by 
 ; Erasmus, of which it was necessary to give a 
 minute description, as it is the basis of all the 
 subsequent editions. 
 
 In three years from the publication of the 
 first edition, Erasmus published a second : and as 
 in the mean time he had an opportunity of con- 
 sulting other Greek manuscripts, or of receiving 
 extracts from his friends, he made numerous 
 alterations in his second edition, which according 
 to the account of Dr. Mill, amount at least to 
 four hundred. And in 1522 he published a third 
 edition, in which was added the seventh verse 
 in the fifth chapter of St. John's first Epistle, which 
 he had not printed in his two former editions, 
 because it was not contained in his Greek manu- 
 scripts. 
 
 These three editions were published by Eras- 
 mus before he had seen the Complutensian Greek 
 
LECTURE VI. 105 
 
 Testament, which though printed in 1514, re- 
 mained, through the death of Cardinal Ximenes, 
 more than eight years unpublished at Alcala. 
 But when Erasmus published his fourth edition 
 in 1527 he availed himself of the Complutensian, 
 especially in the book of Revelation, where he had 
 only one manuscript, and that a defective one. 
 According to Dr. Mill's account, in the Pro- 
 legomena to his Greek Testament, Erasmus cor- 
 rected his text of the Revelation in ninety places 
 from the Complutensian edition, but in only 
 twenty-six places in all the other books. The 
 fifth and last edition by Erasmus was printed in 
 1535: but, according to the same authority, it 
 differs in only four places from the preceding. 
 
 In the interval, which elapsed between the first 
 and the last edition of Erasmus, nine or ten other 
 editions of the Greek Testament were printed, 
 which were all taken with a few alterations from 
 some one of the editions of Erasmus, with the 
 exception of the edition by Colinaeus, which was 
 printed at Paris in 1534. The text of this edition 
 was formed partly from the Complutensian edi- 
 tion, partly from the editions of Erasmus, and 
 partly from Greek manuscripts, which were col- 
 lated for that purpose. But as the editor, (which 
 was often the case in the early editions of the 
 Greek Testament) gave no account of the sources, 
 
106 LECTURE Vic 
 
 from which he derived his materials, it was sus- 
 pected, that all those readings, which were 
 contained neither in the Complutensian, nor in 
 the Erasmian editions, readings which according 
 to Dr. Mill, amount to more than seven hundred 
 and fifty, had no other foundation than critical con- 
 jecture. It has been since discovered, that those 
 readings were taken from Greek manuscripts : 
 three of them are still preserved at Paris> and 
 have been collated by Wetstein and Griesbach. 
 The edition of Colinseus therefore is entitled to 
 great respect. But partly in consequence of 
 the suspicion just mentioned, partly in consequence 
 of the superior though undeserved reputation of 
 the editions published at Paris, a few years after- 
 wards, by his son-in-law Robert Stephens, the 
 edition of Colinaeus was neglected, it was never 
 re-printed, and has had no influence on the modern 
 editions of the Greek Testament. 
 
 No editions have been attended with greater 
 celebrity, than the editions of Robert Stephens, 
 a learned bookseller and printer at Paris, and 
 father of the still more learned Henry Stephens. 
 His two first editions are as distinguished by the 
 elegant neatness, as the third and chief edition 
 by the splendor of its typographical execution. 
 These qualities greatly contributed toward bringing 
 them into general circulation : and the critical 
 
LECTURE VI. 107 
 
 pretensions, which were assumed by the editor, 
 seemed to stamp on them an indelible value. In 
 the preface to the first edition, which was printed 
 at Paris in 1546, says Robert Stephens, i( Having 
 obtained from the royal library several manuscripts, 
 which from their 7 appearance of antiquity are 
 almost entitled to adoration (codices vetustatis 
 specie pene adorandos ) I have formed from them 
 this edition in such a manner, as not to print even 
 a single letter, which is not confirmed by the 
 greater, and better part of them." But with all 
 this ostentation, Robert Stephens's first edition 
 is little more, than a compilation from the Com- 
 plutensian and the fifth edition of Erasmus. His 
 second edition, which was printed in 1549, 
 is in respect to its exterior a close resemblance 
 of the first ; nor even in respect to its text is it 
 materially different. Rut these editions had very 
 little influence on the subsequent editions of the 
 Greek Testament, an influence reserved for the 
 folio edition, which appeared in the following 
 year. 
 
 The text of this folio edition, printed in 1550, 
 was once supposed to have been formed entirely 
 on the authority of Greek manuscripts, which 
 Robert Stephens, in the Preface to it, professes 
 to have collated for that purpose a second and 
 even a third time. But it is so far from having 
 
108 LECTURE Vic 
 
 been formed on their authority, that, except in 
 the book of Revelation, it is hardly any thing 
 more than Erasmus's fifth edition reprinted. And 
 even in the book of Revelation, where he often 
 departs from Erasmus, he departs only for the 
 sake of Complutensian readings. In fact Stephens 
 himself has openly contradicted his own declara- 
 tions : for in the margin of this edition there 
 are more than an hundred places, in which he 
 has quoted all his authorities for readings different 
 from his own. With this glaring evidence, 
 evidence which requires no collation of manu- 
 scripts, but only a superficial view of the edition 
 itself, in order to be perceived, it is extraordinary 
 that credit was ever attached to the pretensions 
 of the editor on the formation of the text. 
 
 There is another point of view, from which 
 this edition must be examined, and in which it 
 distinguishes itself from all preceding editions, 
 namely the critical apparatus displayed in the 
 margin. This critical apparatus consists of quo- 
 tations from the Complutensian edition, and from 
 fifteen Greek manuscripts. Now the Compluten- 
 sian edition differs from that of Stephens in more 
 than thirteen hundred places, of which Stephens 
 has totally neglected at least seven hundred; and 
 those, which he has noticed, are often quoted 
 falsely. The same objection applies to the quo- 
 
LECTURE VI. log 
 
 tations from his other documents as far as 
 they have been compared : and Dr. Mill says 
 with great propriety of the collection of readings 
 exhibited in Stephens's margin, " iJi pompam 
 magis quam in usum congesta videtur" 
 
 But the inward defects of this edition were 
 overlooked for its outward beauties. There was 
 also a religious motive, which operated in its 
 favour. In England, in Holland, and in Switzer- 
 land, the edition was esteemed for the sake of 
 the editor, who became a convert to the Protestant 
 cause, and fled on that account from Paris to 
 settle at Geneva, in the neighbourhood of Calvin 
 and Beza. 
 
 The next revision of the Greek text was under- 
 taken by Beza, who like Robert Stephens was 
 a native of France, and fled to Switzerland on 
 account of his religion. The critical materials, 
 which he employed, were for the most part the 
 same, as those which had been used by Robert 
 Stephens. But he had likewise the advantage 
 of that very ancient manuscript of the Gospels 
 and the Acts, which he .afterwards sent to this 
 University, and which is known by the name of 
 the Codex Bezae. He had likewise a very ancient 
 manuscript of St. Paul's Epistles, which he pro- 
 cured from Clermont in France, and which is 
 
110 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 known by the name of the Codex Claromontanus. 
 Lastly, he had the advantage of the Syriac version, 
 which had been lately published by Tremellius 
 with a clow Latin translation. 
 
 But the use, which he made of his materials, 
 were not such, as might have been expected from 
 a man of Beza's learning. Instead of applying his 
 various readings to the emendation of the text, he 
 used them chiefly for polemical purposes in his 
 notes. In short he amended Stephens's text in not 
 more than fifty places : and even these emenda- 
 tions were not always founded on proper authority. 
 
 We now come to the Elzevir edition of 1624, 
 in which was established the text, that is now in 
 daily use. The person who conducted this edition 
 (for Elzevir was only the printer) is at present un- 
 known : but whoever he was, his critical exertions 
 were confined within a narrow compass. The 
 text of this edition was copied from Beza's text, 
 except in about fifty places ; and in these places, 
 the readings were borrowed partly from the various 
 readings in Stephens's margin, partly from other 
 editions, but certamly not from Greek ma- 
 nuscripts. 
 
 The textus receptus therefore, or the text in 
 common use, was copied, with a few exceptions 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 Ill 
 
 from the text of Beza. Beza himself closely fol- 
 lowed Stephens: and Stephens (namely in his 
 third and chief edition) copied solely from the 
 fifth edition of Erasmus, except in the Revelation, 
 where he followed sometimes Erasmus, sometimes 
 the Complutensian edition. The text therefore in 
 daily use resolves itself at last into the Complu- 
 tensian and the Erasmian editions. But neither 
 Erasmus nor the Complutensian editors printed 
 from ancient Greek manuscripts : and the re- 
 mainder of their critical apparatus included little 
 more than the latest of the Greek fathers, and the 
 Latin Vulgate. 
 
 I have thus finished the first period in the 
 critical history of the Greek text. The time does 
 not permit us to enter on the second. But as 
 almost a year will elapse before these Lectures will 
 be renewed, as in this audience there may be 
 many, who will lose the opportunity of further 
 attendance, and as the Lecturer himself from the 
 daily accidents of human life may not live to 
 renew them, it is proper, before we separate, to 
 make some general observations, not only on the 
 Criticism of the Greek Testament, which has been 
 left unfinished, but also on some other branches 
 of Divinity on which, though the description of 
 
112 LECTURE VI. 
 
 them is still to come, the theological student 
 should have some decided opinion before he 
 departs. 
 
 With respect to the labours of the learned, 
 which belong to the second period in the critical 
 history of the Greek text, it has been their object to 
 obtain a copy of the Greek Testament, which shall 
 come as nearly, as possible, to the priginal records. 
 Now, if it is thought desirable -to obtain an accurate 
 text for the Plays of Terence or the Odes of 
 Horace, and the prosecution of this purpose be 
 deemed an object for the talents of a Bentley, 
 surely the smallest emendation must be deemed 
 important in that work, which is the source of 
 religious faith. And be it observed, that no emen- 
 dation from conjecture, no emendation unfounded 
 on documents, or not warranted by preponderating 
 authority are admissible in the Greek Testament. 
 It is true, that the various readings, which affect 
 the sense, bear but a small proportion to the whole 
 number: but who would not choose to read a 
 Gospel or an Epistle rather in original, than in 
 synonymous expressions. 
 
 On the other hand, care must be taken not to 
 magnify this subject beyond the limits of its real 
 importance. To the Theologian, who undertakes 
 
LECTURE VI. 113 
 
 to establish the authority of the Greek Testament, 
 it is of consequence to ascertain its very words, its 
 very syllables. But, for the common purposes of 
 religious instruction, the text in daily use is amply 
 sufficient. For, whatever difference in other 
 respects may exist between this text and the 
 Greek manuscripts, or whatever difference may 
 exist among the .manuscripts themselves, they all 
 agree in the important articles of Christian faith ; 
 they all declare, with one accord, the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, and the doctrine of the atonement by 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 On three other branches of Divinity, the 
 Authenticity of the Bible, the Divine Origin of 
 our Religion, and the Doctrines of the Church of 
 England, I must likewise make some general 
 observations. 
 
 As it is the object of these Lectures, to exhibit 
 a system of Divinity, which beginning with first 
 principles shall establish propositions in regular 
 progression, it would be a violation of their plan 
 to anticipate subjects of future demonstration, 
 because such anticipation would involve our argu- 
 ments in a circle. Nor is it my intention to 
 anticipate any truth, for the purpose of employing 
 it in proof of another. But the plan will not 
 be violated, if to those, who will lose the oppor^ 
 
 r 
 
114 LECTURE VI. 
 
 tunity, either of hearing the arguments themselves, 
 or of learning what authors have best conducted 
 them, I should briefly state the result. 
 
 I may venture therefore to assert, that the 
 evidence, by which we establish the fact, that the 
 books of the New Testament were written by the 
 authors to whom they are ascribed, is, to say the 
 least of it, as strong, as the evidence for the facts, 
 that the Orations against Catiline were written by 
 Cicero, or that the Life of Agricola was written by 
 Tacitus. That Moses was the author of the 
 Pentateuch, I have already shewn in a separate 
 publication : nor is it less certain, that the pro- 
 phetical books of the Old Testament were written 
 by the persons, whose names they bear. Some 
 books indeed there are, such as the Kings and the 
 Chronicles, of which we know not the authors. 
 But, if they had not been entitled to credit, they 
 would not have ben received in the Hebrew Canon: 
 nor would that Canon have been confirmed by the 
 authority of Christ. 
 
 That the writers of the New Testament, con- 
 sidered merely as human evidence, as they must 
 be considered in the first instance, are entitled to 
 full credit for all that they have recorded of Christ 
 and his Apostles, appears 'from the records them- 
 selves. The simplicity of the writers, their 
 
LECTURE VI. 115 
 
 manifest honesty, their own conviction where they 
 could not be deceived, and their sufferings, even 
 unto death, in support of that conviction, guarantee 
 the veracity of their accounts. And if the miracles 
 and doctrines recorded in the New Testament be 
 true, the divine origin of Christianity requires no 
 further confirmation. 
 
 With respect to that system of doctrines, which 
 is adopted by the Church of England, I must here 
 again appeal to the proofs hereafter to be given, 
 and again state the result. On the strength of 
 this appeal then I can venture to assert, that when 
 the doctrines of the Church of England, as taught 
 in the Liturgy, the Articles, and the Homilies, 
 are duly examined, they will be found in all 
 respects conformable with the Sacred Writings. To 
 dissent therefore, in this country, from the doc- 
 trines of the Established Church, is to dissent 
 without a real cause. Indeed there are many, who 
 dissent without knowing the difference between 
 our doctrines and their own, nay without knowing 
 whether the doctrines be different, or the same. 
 But this dissent is dangerous in every view. It is 
 dangerous to the person, who adopts false notions 
 in religion, it is dangerous to his neighbour, it is 
 dangerous to the State. The religious dissensions 
 in the Greek Empire, by diminishing its strength, 
 prepared its downfall by the Turks : and God 
 
1 16 LECTURE VI. 
 
 grant, that the religious dissensions among our- 
 selves, which unavoidably produce dissensions in 
 the State, may not ultimately effect the downfall 
 of Britain. 
 
 Lastly, as knowledge is of no value unless it 
 be applied to some useful purpose, let us apply our 
 knowledge of religion to the amendment of our 
 thoughts and actions. May those, who are placed 
 in authority, be careful to set a good example; 
 and may the younger members be as careful to 
 follow it. In this place especially, two of our 
 principal duties are, attention to study, and regu- 
 larity of deportment. Let us all then resolve, both 
 young and old, to observe particularly the duties, 
 which immediately belong to us, that our faith, and 
 our preaching may not be vain. So shall we all 
 become one fold under one shepherd, Jesus Christ 
 the righteous, to whom with the Father and the 
 Holy Ghost be ascribed all power, might, majesty^ 
 and dominion, now and for evermore. 
 
 END OF PART I. 
 
A 
 
 COURSE OF LECTURES, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 A DESCRIPTION AND SYSTEMATIC ARRANGEMENT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SEVERAL BRANCHES OF DIVINITY : 
 
 ACCOMPANIED WITH 
 
 AN ACCOUNT, BOTH OF THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORS, 
 AND OF THE PROGRESS, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AT 
 DIFFERENT PERIODS, 
 
 IN 
 
 Cfreologtcal JUaraing;* 
 
 BY 
 
 HERBERT MARSH, D.D. F.R.S. 
 
 MAKGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: 
 
 Printed by J. Smith, Printer to the University; 
 AND SOLD BY J. DEIGHTON, CAMBRIDGE; AND MESS It S, 
 F. & C. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
 
 181 1. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 In the six following Lectures, which 
 were given in the Easter Term of 1810*, the 
 first branch of Theology, or the Criticism of 
 the Bible, is continued and concluded. It is 
 hardly necessary to say any thing further of 
 the plan, on which these Lectures are con- 
 ducted, as it was fully explained in the first 
 and second Lectures. It may be useful how- 
 ever to remind the Reader, that their object 
 is not to supersede the study of other works, 
 but to direct the theological student in the 
 use of other works. Their object is to teach 
 him how to study Divinity, and then, as he 
 gradually proceeds, to inform him of the most 
 
 * I must except however Lecture XII ., which, though here 
 printed, was not spoken with the other five. Indeed the title- 
 pages of books, with which it is replete, make it rather a 
 subject of examination, in the closet, than of delivery to 4 
 public audience. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 distinguished writers on the several subjects. 
 In the arrangement of those writers no attention 
 is paid either to the alphabetical order of their 
 names, or to the size of their works. Their 
 position is regulated solely by a regard to the 
 departments, and divisions of departments, 
 to which the writers respectively belong. 
 The arrangement therefore is purely syste- 
 matic. Whether the system itself is founded 
 on just principles, is a question which must 
 be left to the decision of the learned. 
 
 Cambridge^ 
 Dec. 15, 28 JO. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 Page 
 
 Criticism of the Greek Testament from the formation 
 of the Textus Receptus to the Edition of Wetstein * 1 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 The same Subject continued to the Edition of 
 Griesbach - - - . .... 25 
 
 LECTURE IX. 
 
 Description of the Authors, who have illustrated the 
 Criticism of the Greek Testament according to its 
 several Departments 4^ 
 
 LECTURE X. 
 
 Criticism of the Hebrezv Bible - - - .... 7$ 
 
 LECTURE XI. 
 
 The same Subject continued to Kennicotfs Edition - - 92 
 
 LECTURE XII. 
 
 Description of the Authors, who have illustrated the 
 Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, according to its 
 several Departments 113 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 The Lectures, which were given in the 
 preceding Easter-term, contained a plan of theo- 
 logical study, in which the several branches were 
 so arranged, that a knowledge of the one should 
 gradually lead to a knowledge of the other. To 
 recapitulate those branches would be unnecessary 
 at present, as the Lectures themselves are now in 
 print, and were indeed published especially for the 
 purpose of enabling those, who have lately entered 
 on their academical studies, to make themselves 
 acquainted with the subjects already explained. 
 Taking therefore for granted, that every one, who 
 is desirous of following the whole chain of argu- 
 ment, and of comprehending the whole series of 
 propositions, has duly informed himself of what 
 
 has gone before, I shall resume, without further 
 
 b 
 
2 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 preface, the thread of the discourse in the pltfcev 
 where it was broken off in the last Lecture. 
 
 The History of the Criticism employed on the 
 Greek Testament, which was divided into two 
 periods, the one ending with the year l624, the^ 
 other continuing from that time to the present 
 day, was conducted only to the end of the former 
 period, when the text of the Greek Testament 
 acquired, in the first Elzevir edition, a consistency, 
 which it has in general preserved. That is, the 
 editions of the Greek Testament printed since the 
 year l624 have, with a few exceptions hereafter 
 to be mentioned, been copied word for word from 
 the Elzevir edition of that year : whence the text 
 of that edition has acquired the title of textus 
 receptus. 
 
 The gradual formation of this text out of the 
 primary editions by Erasmus and the Complu- 
 tensian editors, with the stages, through which it 
 passed before its final settlement, was sufficiently 
 described in the fifth and sixth Lectures to enable 
 the hearer to form a competent judgement, in 
 regard to its critical correctness, or, in other words, 
 in regard to the question, whether it approaches 
 as nearly to the autographs of the sacred writers, 
 as we are able, and therefore in duty bound to 
 advance it. Now the further we proceed, the 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 3 
 
 more clearly shall we perceive the necessity of 
 greater improvement; and the history of the 
 latter period, on which we now enter, will fully 
 confirm the inference deduced from the history of 
 the former. 
 
 The subject, which demands our first attention 
 in , the history of the latter period, is the celebrated 
 London Polyglot, a work, which confers immortal 
 honour, as well on the nation at large, as on the 
 learned men who were engaged in it ; whose merit 
 indeed is the more conspicuous, as it was under- 
 taken and completed at a time, when the study of 
 theology in this country was immersed in the 
 metaphysical depths of puritanical disquisition. 
 It was projected, and with the assistance of several 
 other distinguished scholars, was executed by 
 Brian Walton, formerly of Peter-House in this 
 University. It consists of six folio volumes : and 
 the printing of them was finished in the year 
 before Cromwell died. 
 
 As an appendage, was added in two more 
 folio volumes that inestimable work, the Lexicon 
 Hepaglotton, by Edmund Castle of Emmanuel 
 College, Arabic Professor in this University, and 
 Walton's chief assistant in the Polyglot itself. 
 As a general description of this splendid per- 
 formance would be foreign to the present Lecture, 
 
 b2 
 
4 LECTURE VII. 
 
 I must refer my hearers, who wish for further 
 information, as well on the London Polyglot, 
 as on the Antwerp and Paris Polyglots which 
 preceded it, to the Bibliotheca sacra of Le Long. 
 We are at present concerned only with the text, 
 of the Greek Testament, and with the critical 
 apparatus, which accompanied that text. Now 
 the text itself, (which is contained in the fifth 
 volume) is a re-impression of the folio edition by 
 Robert Stephens, which Walton adopted in pre- 
 ference to the Elzevir text, because he embodied 
 in his own work the various readings in Stephens's 
 margin, which being adapted to Stephens's text 
 might often be no various readings to any other. 
 The importance therefore of the London Polyglot, 
 as far as it relates to our present history, is confined 
 to the materials, which it afforded for the purpose 
 of future emendation. 
 
 The materials derived from Greek authorities 
 comprise a collection of extracts from sixteen 
 Greek manuscripts, in addition to the readings 
 which had been quoted by Stephens. For the 
 collation of these manuscripts, as also on many 
 other accounts, Walton was greatly indebted to 
 Archbishop Usher. They are described at the 
 head of the collation in the sixth volume by 
 Walton himself: and a further account of them 
 is given in the Prolegomena to Mill's Greek 
 Testament. 
 
LECTURE VTI- 5 
 
 But the extracts from Greek Manuscripts were 
 neither the sole nor the chief materials, which 
 the Polyglot afforded for the emendation of the 
 Greek text. We have already seen, that the 
 ancient versions of the New Testament are another 
 source of various readings : and this source was 
 opened more amply and more usefully in the 
 London Polyglot, than in any of those, which had 
 preceded. In addition to the Latin Vulgate, it 
 contains the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Ethiopic 
 versions of the New Testament, with the Persian 
 in the Gospels. And these oriental versions are 
 not only arranged in the most .convenient manner, 
 for the purpose of comparing them w ith the Greek a 
 but they are accom panied with literal Latin trans- 
 lations, £hat even they, who are unacquainted 
 with the oriental languages, might still have 
 recourse to them for various readings, though 
 indeed with less security, as every translator is 
 liable to make mistakes. For a more particular 
 account of those oriental versions, and for the 
 mode of applying them to the criticism of the 
 Greek Testament, I must refer my hearers to the 
 Introduction of Michaelis, where the subject is 
 treated with equal fulness and perspicuity. 
 
 As the temper of the times, in which the 
 Polyglot appeared, was ill-adapted to calm inves- 
 tigation, we need not be surprised that it met with 
 
6 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 a partial opposition. Dr. John Owen, one of the 
 most distinguished among the puritanical Divines 
 under the government of Cromwell, soon attacked 
 it in his " Considerations on the Prolegomena and 
 Appendix of the late Biblia Polyglotta," which he 
 gave as an addition to two other tracts printed at 
 Oxford in 1659. In the same year it was answered 
 by Walton in a pamphlet entitled 44 The Consi- 
 derator considered 5 or a brief View of certain 
 Considerations upon the Biblia Polyglotta, the 
 Prolegomena and the Appendix thereof, wherein 
 amongst other things the certainty, integrity, and 
 divine authority of the original texts is defended 
 against the consequences of Atheists, Papists, 
 Antiscripturists, &c. inferred, from the various 
 readings, and novelty of the Hebrew points, by 
 the author of the said Considerations." The 
 Restoration, which soon followed, put an end to 
 the controversy ; and within a few months after 
 Charles the Second's return, Dr. Walton was 
 promoted to the see of Chester. The prejudices, 
 excited by Owen s pamphlet, and the false con- 
 clusions, which he drew from that variety of 
 readings unavoidably resulting from a multipli- 
 cation of copies, did not indeed immediately 
 subside: but those prejudices and apprehensions 
 were at least mitigated by the endeavours of 
 Dr. Fell, who published, as he relates in his 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 7 
 
 Preface, an edition of the Greek Testament for 
 that purpose. 
 
 But before we proceed to Dr. Fell's edition, 
 the order of time requires that we should notice 
 a critical edition, which was published at Amster- 
 dam ip the year after the London Polyglot. It is 
 known by the name of the edition of Curcellaeus, 
 and is one of the most beautiful, as well as one 
 of the most correctly printed, among the small 
 editions of the Greek Testament. The editor 
 does not appear, when the work was printed, to 
 have seen the London Polyglot. Indeed it is 
 hardly possible that he should: for though this 
 edition bears the date of 1658, and the Polyglot 
 that of l65 7> yet, as the Preface, which is always 
 the last thing printed, is dated the eighth of 
 January, the work itself must have been printed 
 in the year preceding. It contains however a 
 selection of readings sufficiently copious for the 
 time and circumstances of the publication, a se- 
 lection derived partly from former collections, 
 partly from printed editions, and partly from 
 manuscripts collated on purpose for the edition 
 in question. These manuscripts are described by 
 the editor in his Preface, which on other accounts 
 deserves our attention, especially for its excellent 
 remarks in vindication of such literary labours. 
 It is one of the Elzevir editions, and contains 
 
° LECTURE VIL 
 
 precisely the same text, as the other editions, 
 which issued from that press. 
 
 The edition of the Greek Testament, which 
 was published by Dr. Fell, then Dean of Christ 
 Church, and shortly afterwards also Bishop of 
 Oxford, was printed in l6>?5 in one volume octavo. 
 Dr. Fell of course availed himself of the collections 
 already formed, in the London Polyglot, and the 
 edition of Curcellaeus ; which he augmented by 
 the addition of readings from twelve Bodleian, 
 four Dublin, and two Paris manuscripts. He 
 further added the extracts from twenty-two Greek 
 manuscripts, which Caryophilus had collated at 
 Rome, by order of Pope Urban VIII. for an 
 edition of the Greek Testament, which was in- 
 tended to be, but never was published. The 
 extracts however were printed by themselves, and 
 in sufficient time to enable Dr. Fell to apply them 
 to the purpose of his own edition. He likewise 
 added various readings from manuscripts of the 
 Coptic and Gothic versions of the New Testament, 
 which were supplied by Dr. Thomas Marshall, 
 Rector of Lincoln College. Dr. Fell's edition 
 therefore contained a more ample apparatus, than 
 any preceding edition : and it was reprinted, twice 
 at Leipzig, and once at Oxford, the last of which 
 is known by the name of Gregory's edition. But 
 Gregory's edition, though of greater magnitude 
 
LECTURE VII. 9 
 
 than its prototype, contains no accession* of critical 
 materials. 
 
 We now come to a period in the history of 
 sacred criticism, which may be considered as the 
 commencement of its manhood. Bishop Fell, 
 notwithstanding the superiority of his own edition, 
 was so sensible, that much more remained to be 
 performed, in order to obtain a genuine text, that 
 he determined to promote a new edition. He was 
 likewise so well aware of the labour, which it 
 would cost, and the many years, which it would 
 employ, to collect, arrange, and apply the materials, 
 which he perceived were wanting, that he deemed 
 his own life insufficient for the purpose, and re- 
 solved therefore to delegate the task to some 
 biblical scholar, whose age might afford an ex- 
 pectation of living to complete it. He selected 
 for that purpose Dr. John Mill, then Fellow of 
 Queen's College in Oxford, and afterwards Prin- 
 cipal of Edmund Hall. The history of this edition 
 is related at large by Dr. Mill himself in his Pro- 
 legomena. The preparation of the materials, and 
 the printing of the work, employed not less than 
 thirty years. It was published at Oxford in 1707 : 
 but Dr. Mill survived the publication of it only 
 a few weeks. 
 
 This noble edition contained, not only a much 
 
10 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 larger collection of readings from Greek manu- 
 scripts, than any former edition, but also what was 
 totally wanting in former editions, a copious 
 collection of quotations from the New Testament 
 in the writings of the Greek Fathers, which are 
 of great importance, especially the quotations made 
 by the early Fathers, in ascertaining the authen- 
 ticity of the Greek text. The extracts from the 
 Coptic and the Gothic versions, which appeared 
 in Bishop Fell's edition, were revised and aug- 
 mented; and the various readings, both of the 
 Vulgate, and of the oriental versions, were selected 
 from the London Polyglot. The variations ob- 
 servable in the early printed editions were likewise 
 noted. But, with all this critical apparatus, the 
 learned editor made no alterations in the text, 
 which he printed, as it was given in the London 
 Polyglot, from the folio edition of Robert Stephens. 
 He left to future critics the application of the 
 materials which he provided, though he frequently 
 delivered his own opinion, in the Prolegomena, 
 and in the Notes. 
 
 We are greatly indebted to Dr. Mill for having 
 supplied us with such ample means of obtaining 
 a more correct edition of the Greek Testament. 
 But his labours wer,e misunderstood and mis- 
 represented by his contemporaries. The appear- 
 ance of so many thousand various readings (they 
 
LECTURE VII 
 
 11 
 
 are said to amount to thirty thousand) excited an 
 alarm for the safety of the New Testament : and 
 those very materials, which had been collected for 
 the purpose of producing a correct, an unadul- 
 terated text, were regarded as the means of 
 undermining its authority. The text in daily 
 use, originally derived from modern manuscripts, 
 and transmitted through Stephens and Beza into 
 the Elzevir editions, was at that time supposed to 
 have already attained its highest perfection ; and 
 was regarded in the same light, as if Erasmus 
 had printed from the autographs of the sacred 
 writers. The possibility of mistakes in tran- 
 scribing the Greek Testament, the consequent 
 necessity of making the copies of it subservient 
 to mutual correction, and hence the inference, 
 that the probability of obtaining an accurate copy 
 is increased by the frequency of comparison, did 
 not occur to those, who were offended at Dr. Mill's 
 publication. They were not aware, that the 
 genuine text of the sacred writers could not 
 exclusively be found in any modern manuscript, 
 from which the first editor of a Greek Testament 
 might accidentally print : they were not aware 
 that the truth lies scattered among them all, and 
 must be collected from them all. Still less were 
 they aware, that those very readings, which ex- 
 cited their apprehensions, were the means^ not 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 only of ascertaining the genuineness of words and 
 phrases, but also, as will be shewn hereafter, of 
 proving the authenticity of whole books. 
 
 Three years had not elapsed, when Dr. Whitby, 
 the well-known and justly esteemed commentator 
 on the New Testament, published in opposition 
 to it, an elaborate work, entitled Examen vari- 
 antium Leetionum Johannis Millii, which was 
 first printed in London in 1710, and was after- 
 wards annexed to Whitby's Commentary on the 
 New Testament. In this Examen the author 
 argues, as if every printed word were precisely the 
 same, as it was originally written ; he asserts that 
 in all places the reading of the common text may 
 be defended, in Us omnibus lectionem textus 
 defendi posse. And this palpably-false position, 
 set forth in the title-page itself, he made the basis 
 of a severe and bitter criticism on a work, which 
 he was unable to appreciate. 
 
 The well-meaning but ill-judged remarks of 
 Whitby were soon applied by Anthony Collins in 
 his Discourse of Free Thinking, to a very different 
 purpose: for he quoted the Preface to Whitby's 
 Examen, in order to shew, that the very text of 
 the Greek Testament was uncertain and precarious. 
 But the arguments of Collins against Divine 
 
LECTURE VII 
 
 13 
 
 Revelation, and the mistaken notions of Whitby, 
 on which those arguments were founded, were 
 soon confuted by the most acute critic, not only 
 of this nation, but of all Europe. I mean Dr. 
 Richard Bentley, who replied to Collins under the 
 assumed title of Phileleutherus Lipsiensis. This 
 reply of Bentley was first printed in 1^13, the 
 same year with Collins's Discourse : it has fre- 
 quently been reprinted ; it has been translated 
 into several of the foreign languages, and should 
 be studied by every man, who is desirous of 
 forming just notions of biblical criticism. Indeed 
 Dr. Francis Hare, afterwards Bishop of Chichester, 
 made his public acknowledgements in a pamphlet 
 printed in the same year, entitled " The Clergy- 
 man's Thanks to Phileleutherus." 
 
 That Dr. Mill's edition however had its defects, 
 is certainly not to be denied : but they were chiefly 
 defects, which were inseparable from the nature of 
 the undertaking, and from the circumstances, in 
 which the editor was placed. Among the manu- 
 scripts collated for Mill's edition were many, which 
 could not be collated by Mill himself : and if the 
 extracts from such manuscripts are any where 
 defective or erroneous, the fault is not the editor's, 
 but the collator s. And if the opinions, which he 
 has frequently expressed on the genuineness of 
 
\ 
 
 14 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 readings, are sometimes inaccurate, we must 
 recollect, that he was the first editor, who under- 
 took a critical edition of the Greek Testament on 
 so large a scale. And if those opinions had been 
 more frequently inaccurate than they are, we 
 should further remember, first that he produced 
 the evidence on which those opinions were founded, 
 thus enabling the reader to judge for himself, and 
 secondly that he never suffered his opinions to 
 influence the text. The greatest defect in Mill's 
 Greek Testament consists in the quotations from 
 the oriental versions, which Mill did not under- 
 stand, at least not sufficiently to collate them. He 
 had recourse therefore to the Latin translations of 
 them in the London Polyglot, and consequently 
 erred, whenever those translations were not suf- 
 ficiently exact. But these defects, with the similar 
 defects in the edition of Bengelius, hereafter to 
 be noticed, have been all corrected by Professor 
 Bode of Helmstadt, in his work rather harshly 
 entitled, Pseudo-critica Millio-Bengeliana. 
 
 Three years after the publication of Mill's 
 Greek Testament at Oxford, it was reprinted at 
 Amsterdam under the direction of Ludolph Kiister. 
 Whatever readings were given in the Appendix 
 to the Oxford edition, as coming too late for in- 
 sertion under the text, were in this second edition 
 
/ 
 
 LECTURE VII. 15 
 
 transferred to their proper places : and the critical 
 apparatus was augmented by the readings of twelve 
 Greek manuscripts, some of which indeed had 
 been previously, but imperfectly collated. 
 
 In the year following, namely in 1711, Gerard 
 of Mastricht published (likewise at Amsterdam) 
 an octavo edition of the Greek Testament, with 
 readings selected, not from Mill's, but from Fell's 
 edition, and a small accession of new matter, 
 consisting of readings from a manuscript in the 
 Imperial Library at Vienna. As the editor gave 
 only the initials of his name and title, and the 
 edition was published by Henry Wetstein, a 
 printer and bookseller at Amsterdam, it improperly 
 acquired in this country the name of Wetstein's 
 edition : and hence the octavo edition by Gerard 
 of Mastricht is sometimes confounded with the 
 edition of Professor John James Wetstein, which 
 was published forty years afterwards in two volumes 
 folio. 
 
 The editions hitherto described in the present 
 Lecture have all contributed to augment the stock 
 of materials; but they left the text itself unaltered. 
 The first editor, who applied Mill's critical ap- 
 paratus to the emendation of the Greek text, was 
 Dr. Edward Wells, RecJ :>r of Cotesbach in Leicester- 
 shire, who published an edition of the Greek 
 
LECTURE VII 
 
 Testament at Oxford, in separate portions, and at 
 different times between 1709 and 1 7 19. It is 
 accompanied with the common English version, 
 corrected according to the Greek readings preferred 
 by the editor. It is further accompanied with 
 a paraphrase and annotations, on which account 
 it is generally classed, not among the editions of 
 the Greek Testament, but among the commen- 
 taries on it : and in this view I shall have occasion 
 to speak of it, in the second branch of Theology, 
 as a very useful work. But as it exhibits a cor- 
 rected text of the Greek Testament, it claims also 
 a place in the present description, though sub- 
 sequent improvements in sacred criticism have in 
 a great measure superseded the emendations of 
 Dr. Wells. 
 
 In 1729 was printed in London another edition 
 of the Greek Testament, with a new text, and an 
 English translation, in which the editor professed 
 to have founded his alterations on the authority of 
 Greek manuscripts. It was soon discovered that 
 those professions were false ; and the edition has 
 been long consigned to merited oblivion. 
 
 But in 1734 a very respectable attempt to 
 improve the sacred text was made by Bengel, or, 
 as he is commonly called in England, Bengelius, 
 Professor at the University of Tubingen in Suabia, 
 
LECTURE VII. \j 
 
 In that year he published a quarto edition of the 
 Greek Testament, to which he prefixed an Intro- 
 duetto in Crisin Novi Testamenti, and subjoined 
 an Apparatus criticus. But the prejudices of that 
 age in respect to sacred criticism, of which we 
 have seen an instance in Whitby's Examen, re- 
 stricted Bengelius in the exercise of his judgement, 
 arid imposed on him a law, which defeated in 
 numerous instances the very object of his revision. 
 If the best Greek manuscripts, with the most 
 ancient Fathers and Versions, agree in supporting 
 any particular reading, we must conclude that it 
 is the genuine reading, whether that reading were 
 contained, or not, in the manuscripts of Erasmus or 
 the Complutensian editors, whether that reading 
 were contained, or not, either in their editions, or 
 in any which succeeded them. But such was the 
 importance, which a reading was then supposed 
 to derive from having been once in print, and so 
 necessary did this stamp of authority appear, in 
 order to legalise its claim to admission, that no 
 reading was adopted by Bengelius, however great 
 its critical authority, unless it had already received 
 the sanction of the press. He himself says, " Ne 
 syllabam quidem, etiamsi mille manuscripti, mille 
 critici juberent, antehac non receptam, adducar 
 ut recipiam" But when he came to the Apo- 
 calypse, he departed from this rule : and in the 
 other books of the New Testament he endeavoured 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 to make compensation by placing under the text 
 the readings, which he thought the most worthy 
 of notice, and classing them according to their 
 value by the means of Greek numerals. With 
 respect to his critical apparatus, it was chiefly 
 taken from Mill's Greek Testament, to which 
 however he made some important additions, con- 
 sisting of extracts from above twenty Greek 
 manuscripts, and from several of the ancient Latin 
 versions, to which were added, for the first time 
 in this edition, some extracts from the Armenian 
 version. 
 
 But the edition of Bengelius was shortly 
 superseded by the more important edition of John 
 James Wetstein, who was born and educated in 
 the place, where Erasmus had published his editions 
 of the Greek Testament. In his twentieth year, 
 while a student at Basle, he published a treatise, 
 Be varlis Lectionibus Novi Testamenti : and 
 when he had finished his studies, he visited the 
 principal libraries of France and England, in 
 search of Greek manuscripts, which he every where 
 collated with great assiduity. The fruits of his 
 researches, containing observations, not only on 
 Greek manuscripts, but on the quotations of the 
 Greek Fathers, and on the ancient versions, were 
 published four years before the edition of Bengelius, 
 being printed at Amsterdam in 1730, by the title, 
 
LECTURE VII. 19 
 
 Prolegomena ad Testamenti Greed editionem 
 accuratissimam, e vetussimis codicibus manuscriptis 
 denuo procurandam ; in quibus agitur de codicibus 
 manuscriptis Novi Testamenti, scriptoribus qui 
 Novo Testamento usi sunt, versionibus veteribus, 
 editionibus prioribus, et claris interpretibus ; et 
 proponuntur Animadversiones et Cautiones, ad 
 Examen variarum lectionum Novi Testamenti 
 necessarice. The bare recital of the title-page is 
 sufficient to shew the importance of the subjects 
 discussed, and to indicate the expectations, which 
 were excited from an edition of the Greek Testa- 
 ment thus announced by an author so distin- 
 guished, as Wetstein, by his learning and talents. 
 
 But the edition itself, from various causes, 
 which it is here unnecessary to relate, was retarded 
 more than twenty years. It was at length published 
 in 1751 and 1?5 2, in two folio volumes, at Am- 
 sterdam, where Wetstein was then Professor in the 
 College of the Remonstrants. It is divided into 
 four Parts, the first containing the Gospels, the 
 second containing the Epistles of St. Paul, the 
 third containing the Acts of the Apostles with the 
 Catholic Epistles, and the fourth containing the 
 Apocalypse. Each of these four Parts is accom- 
 panied with Prolegomena, in which the Greek 
 manuscripts are described, that are quoted in eacfc 
 Part: and Wetstein's motive to this four-fold 
 
 c 2 
 
20 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 division was, that it corresponds with the usual 
 contents of the Greek manuscripts, which seldom 
 comprise the whole New Testament, but contain, 
 some of them the four Gospels only, others only 
 St. Paul's Epistles, others again the Acts of the 
 Apostles with the Catholic Epistles, and lastly 
 others the Apocalypse alone, though two or more 
 of these portions are sometimes found united in 
 the same manuscript, while on the other hand 
 there are manuscripts, in which the portions are 
 still smaller. The Prolegomena to the first Part, 
 in addition to the description of Greek manuscripts, 
 contain an account of the ecclesiastical writers, 
 and of the ancient versions, which are quoted in 
 this edition. These Prolegomena, with the Ani- 
 madversiones et Cautiones at the end of the second 
 volume, must be studied by every man, who would 
 fully appreciate the work in question, of which it 
 is impossible to give an adequate notion in the 
 compass of the present Lecture. 
 
 The text of this edition is precisely the same 
 with the Elzevir text, and hence it is called on 
 the title-page Novum Testamentum Grcecum 
 editionis receptee. Though Wetstein very con- 
 siderably augmented the stock of critical materials, 
 though he drew from various sources, which had 
 hitherto remained unopened, though he collated, 
 not by other hands, but by his own, and though 
 
LECTURE VII 
 
 21 
 
 few men have possessed a greater share either of 
 learning or of sagacity, yet no alteration was made 
 in the Greek text. He proposed indeed alterations, 
 which he inserted in the space between the text 
 and the body of various readings, with reference 
 to the words which he thought should be exchanged 
 for them : and where a reading should, in his 
 opinion, be omitted without the substitution of 
 another, he prefixed to it a mark of minus in the 
 text. But these proposed alterations and omis- 
 sions are in general supported by powerful autho- 
 rity, and are such, as will commonly recommend 
 themselves to an impartial critic. Though among 
 the various readings he has occasionally noted the 
 conjectures of others, he has never ventured a 
 conjecture of his own : nor has he made conjecture 
 in any one instance the basis of a proposed alte- 
 ration. 
 
 The charge therefore, which has been laid to 
 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 plea- 
 sure, 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 
 
22 LECTURE VII. 
 
 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 judgement, in weighing 
 the evidence for and against any particular word 
 or passage. Now men of every religious pro- 
 fession 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 judgement, 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 ex- 
 amine ; yet I have always found that the alterations 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 23 
 
 proposed by Wetstein were supported by respec- 
 table 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 Tes- 
 tament, 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 Testa- 
 ment, 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 pro- 
 posed, were adopted by Mr. Bowyer, a learned 
 
24 
 
 LECTURE VII, 
 
 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 Grtecum, ad jidem Gr<ecorum solum 
 Codicum Manuscriptorum nunc primum expres- 
 suni; adstipulante Johanne Jacobo IVetstenio, 8$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 m 
 
 The preceding Lecture having concluded 
 with the account of Wetstein's emendations adopted 
 in Bowyer's edition, our attention must now \>e 
 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 
 
26 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 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 con- 
 venience 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 
 
LECTURE VIII. 27 
 
 citation only of the chief authorities. It was 
 sufficient that the choice was made with judge- 
 ment. 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 has been 
 made, we shall consider hereafter, when we come 
 to the second edition, of which the first volume 
 was printed after an interval of twenty, and the 
 second after an interval of thirty years. 
 
 In the mean time the stock of critical materials 
 was very considerably augmented by the editions 
 of Matthsei, Alter, and Birch, of which it is the 
 more necessary to give some account, as the 
 materials, which they provided, were all transferred 
 into Griesbach's second edition. 
 
 But before we proceed to the description of 
 their editions, the order of time requires us at 
 least to notice an edition of the Greek Testament, 
 which, though it did not furnish any new ma- 
 
28 
 
 LECTURE VIII* 
 
 terials, contained a new revision of the text, and 
 is therefore entitled to a place in the present 
 history. I mean the edition of Dr. Harwood, of 
 which the first volume was published in 177°\ tne 
 second in 1784. Now this learned editor, instead 
 of applying, like Wetstein, Bowyer, and Griesbach, 
 the whole of the critical apparatus already provided, 
 selected the Codex Bezae as his chief authority in 
 the Gospels and the Acts, and the Codex Claro- 
 montanus in St. Paul's Epistles. But no single 
 manuscript, however ancient or respectable, can 
 determine the question, whether a reading be 
 genuine : for this determination must be made by 
 the comparative evidence of all our authorities. 
 Dr. Harwood' s revision therefore is of little or no 
 value. 
 
 The edition of the Greek Testament, published 
 by Matthsei, who was Professor, first at Moscow, 
 and afterwards at Wittenberg, was printed at 
 Riga, in twelve octavo volumes, at different times 
 between 1782 and 1788. This very learned editor, 
 who was educated at Leipzig under the celebrated 
 John Augustus Ernesti, commenced his work 
 under various disadvantages, which had material 
 influence on his formation of the Greek text. 
 When invited from Leipzig to Moscow by the 
 Empress Catharine, he had not directed his at- 
 tention to the peculiar department of sacred 
 
LECTURE VIII. 2Q 
 
 criticism, and was therefore unacquainted with 
 the progress, which had been made in this branch 
 of learning. And when the numerous manuscripts 
 of the Greek Testament, which he found at 
 Moscow, especially in the library of the Synod, 
 suggested the thought of publishing a new edition, 
 he had no longer access to the works, which might 
 have furnished the necessary knowledge. Neither 
 the edition of Wetstein, nor even that of Mill 
 could be procured in his new situation : and the 
 only collection of various readings supplied there 
 by any former editor, was that of Bishop Fell, as 
 reprinted in Gregory's edition. When he at- 
 tempted therefore emendations in the received 
 text, his emendations were chiefly founded on the 
 authority of the manuscripts, which he himself 
 collated at Moscow. 
 
 Now the Russian Church being a daughter of 
 the Greek Church, the Moscow manuscripts were 
 of course collected from Constantinople, and other 
 parts of the Greek empire. They belong therefore 
 to that particular class, which modern critics have 
 called the Byzantine edition, and which eannot 
 be entitled to the exclusive privilege of ascertaining 
 what is genuine or spurious. The Greek Fathers 
 who lived at Alexandria, the Greek manuscripts 
 which accord with their quotations, and those 
 ancient versions which harmonize with both, have 
 
30 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 at least an equal claim to our attention. Nor 
 ought we to decide before we have heard the 
 evidence of a third class of manuscripts, containing 
 the Greek text accompanied with the ancient 
 Latin version. The application therefore of the 
 Moscow manuscripts alone, after Mill and Wet- 
 stein had supplied such a fund of materials derived 
 from other sources, was an undertaking both 
 injudicious and useless. It is true, that when 
 Matthaei collected his own materials, he had not 
 access to those of Mill or Wetstein : yet he knew 
 at least of their existence, and ought not to have 
 amended without them. But having done so, 
 and having thus incurred the censure of men 
 more experienced in sacred criticism, especially of 
 Michaelis and Griesbach, he resolved to defend 
 himself, by vilifying the sources, from which, 
 when he began to publish, it was not in his power 
 to draw. To the class of manuscripts, to which 
 the Codex Bezae, the Codex Claromontanus, and 
 others of high antiquity belong, he gave in his 
 Preface to St. John's Gospel the appellation of 
 editio scurrilis : nor are softer epithets applied by 
 him to the critics, who ventured to defend such 
 manuscripts. The antipathy, which he thus ac- 
 quired, deterred him, even after his return to 
 Germany, which was before the publication of the 
 four last-printed volumes, from making that use 
 of Wetstein's edition, which it was then in his 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 31 
 
 power to do, and which he probably would have 
 done, if he had possessed it at the commencement 
 of his labours. It is much to be lamented, that 
 so distinguished a scholar should have been led, 
 either by necessity, or by choice, to make so 
 partial an application of critical materials. What- 
 ever opinion be formed of the relative value 
 attached to the different classes of Greek manu- 
 scripts, whether tbe opinion of Michaelis and 
 Griesbach on the one hand, or of Matthsei on the 
 other hand be the true one, the fact, that Matthsei 
 undertook a revision of the Greek text on the 
 authority of one set of manuscripts, must remain 
 undisputed. And since no impartial judge can 
 admit, that the genuine text of the Greek Testa- 
 ment may be established, as well by applying only 
 apart of our materials, as by a judicious employ- 
 ment of the whole, the edition of Matthsei is only 
 so far of importance, as it furnishes new materials 
 for future uses ; materials indeed, which are ac- 
 companied with much useful information,, and 
 many learned remarks. 
 
 About the same period, namely in 1/86 and 
 1787, Professor Alter at Vienna published an 
 edition of the Greek Testament in two thick 
 octavos. The text of this edition is neither the 
 common text, nor a revision of it, but a mere copy 
 from a single manuscript, and that not a very 
 
32 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 ancient one, in the Imperial Library at Vienna. 
 The various readings, which are not arranged as 
 in other editions, but are printed in separate 
 parcels as first made by the collator, are likewise 
 derived from Greek manuscripts in the Imperial 
 Library. And the whole collection was augmented 
 by extracts from the Coptic, the Slavonian, and 
 the Latin versions, which are also printed in the 
 same indigested manner, as the Greek readings. 
 Alter's edition therefore contains mere materials 
 for future uses. 
 
 While Matthsei was employed at Moscow and 
 Alter at Vienna, Professors Birch and Adler were 
 engaged by the late King of Denmark to travel 
 into Italy, and Professors Moldenhawer and 
 Tychsen to travel into Spain, in search of further 
 materials for the criticism of the Greek Testament. 
 For this purpose they examined the principal 
 libraries in Venice, Florence, Bologna, and Rome, 
 with the library of the Escurial in Spain. The 
 produce of their researches, as far as relates to the 
 four Gospels, was published by Professor Birch at 
 Copenhagen in 1788, in a quarto volume, designed 
 for the first volume of an edition of the Greek 
 Testament: and in the Prolegomena to this volume 
 was given a detailed account of the collated manu- 
 scripts. In the text of this edition no alterations 
 were made. It contains therefore only materials 
 
LECTURE Till* 33 
 
 for emendation : and if these materials had been 
 printed by themselves, the same benefit would 
 have accrued to the public at a smaller expence. 
 Indeed the various readings to the other books of 
 the New Testament were printed by themselves, 
 though not before 1798, the publication of the 
 second volume of the Greek Testament, to which 
 the editor proposed to annex them, having been 
 prevented by the fire at Copenhagen, which 
 destroyed the royal printing office. Now these 
 extracts, with those printed in the former volume, 
 contain some very important additions to our stock 
 of critical materials. A complete collation is given 
 of that distinguished manuscript, which is known 
 by the name of the Codex Vaticanus, and which 
 till that time, namely in the New Testament, had 
 been only partially examined. Another very 
 important addition consisted in the extracts from 
 a Syriac version, written in a peculiar dialect, 
 which Adler, who collated it at Rome, calls the 
 dialect of Jerusalem. This ancient version, which 
 Adler has minutely described in his Versiones 
 Syriacce, published at Copenhagen in 1789, is 
 chiefly remarkable for its agreement with our 
 Codex Bezae. Indeed there are eleven readings, 
 hitherto thought peculiar to this manuscript, which 
 are all found in that ancient version. And as the 
 manuscript, to which it has the nearest affinity 
 
 d 
 
 * > - 
 
34 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 after the Codex Bezee, is the Codex Vaticanus, 
 its critical value is decided. 
 
 In addition to the new sources, which were 
 opened in the interval between Griesbach's first 
 and second edition, must be noticed some publi- 
 cations, which contributed to augment or improve 
 the knowledge already acquired. Thus the Phi- 
 loxenian version, which Wetstein had imperfectly 
 collated in manuscript, being printed by Dr. White 
 at Oxford in 1778 (namely the four Gospels, for 
 the other books were deferred more than twenty 
 years), enabled Griesbach to correct various mis- 
 takes in the former collation, and make to it 
 considerable additions. Similar advantages were 
 derived from the publication of some ancient Greek 
 manuscripts, of the Codex Alexandrinus by Woide 
 in London in 1786, of the Codex Boernerianus by 
 Matthsei at Meissen in 1791, and of the Codex 
 Bezse by Dr. Kipling at Cambridge in 1793. 
 
 But after all the materials collected for the 
 purpose of obtaining a correct edition of the Greek 
 Testament, materials for which all the known 
 libraries in Europe had been searched, and which 
 it had employed nearly three centuries to obtain, 
 there was still wanted an editor of sufficient 
 learning, acuteness, industry, and impartiality in 
 
I 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 35 
 
 the weighing of evidence, to apply those materials 
 to their proper object. Dr. Griesbach, by his 
 first edition of the Greek Testament had already 
 afforded convincing proofs of his critical ability : 
 and hence the learned in general, especially in his 
 own country, regarded him as the person, who was 
 best qualified to undertake this new revision of the 
 Greek text. Indeed the subject had formed the 
 business of his life. Like Wetstein, when he had 
 finished his academical studies, he travelled into 
 France and England, for the purpose of collating 
 manuscripts of the New Testament. But as the 
 stock of materials was then very considerably 
 larger, than when Wetstein commenced his literary 
 labours, it was not so much his object to increase, 
 as to revise, the apparatus already provided. For 
 this purpose he re-examined the most ancient 
 manuscripts, wherever doubts might be entertained, 
 and it was important to ascertain the truth. The 
 peculiar readings, which distinguish one class of 
 manuscripts from another, and are the basis on 
 which that classification is formed, were likewise 
 objects of particular attention. But he in general 
 disregarded the mass of readings, which are 
 common to most manuscripts, as serving rather to 
 encumber, than to improve our critical apparatus. 
 At the same time, whenever uncollated manuscripts 
 presented themselves to his notice, he neglected 
 
 d 2 
 
3t> LECTURE VIII* 
 
 not to extract what was worthy of attention. The 
 fruits of his researches, with his remarks on the 
 examined manuscripts, he published in two octavo 
 volumes printed at Halle in 1785 and 1?93 under 
 the following title, Symbols critics, ad supplendas 
 et corrigendas variarum Novi Testaments lectio- 
 mini collectiones : accedit multorum Novi Testa- 
 menti codicum Grcecorum descriptio et examen. 
 This work contains the principles, on which 
 Griesbach has founded his critical system; and 
 consequently should be studied by every man, 
 who attempts to form an estimate of his critical 
 merits * 
 
 * « 
 
 As the quotations from the Greek Testament, 
 which are scattered in the writings of the most 
 ancient Greek Fathers, are of great importance in 
 ascertaining the genuineness of disputed passages, 
 he undertook a new and complete collation of the 
 works of Origen, which he also published in his 
 Symbolae crkicse, accompanied with the quotations 
 of Clement of Alexandria, which differed from the 
 common text. 
 
 Further, as the testimony of the most ancient 
 Latin versions, such as those, which have been 
 published by Blanchini and Sabatier, are, in many 
 cases, important to the Greek text, he undertook 
 a new collation of those ancient versions. Of the 
 
LECTURE VIII. 37 
 
 l 
 
 Sahidic version, or the version in the dialect of 
 the Upper Egypt, he quoted the readings, which 
 had been furnished by Woide, Georgi, and Munter. 
 Of the Armenian version a new collation was 
 made for him by Bredenkamp of Bremen : and 
 the Slavonian version was collated for him, both 
 in manuscript, and in print, by Dobrowsky at 
 Prague. — Nor must we neglect to mention the 
 fragments of two very ancient Greek manuscripts* 
 preserved at Wolfenbiittel, which Knittel had 
 published with his Fragment of the Gothic version. 
 
 Such were the materials, which Griesbach 
 applied to his second and last edition of the Greek 
 Testament, in addition to the apparatus, which 
 was already contained in Wetstein's edition, and 
 which was subsequently augmented by the editions 
 described in this Lecture. The first volume of 
 Griesbach's second edition, containing the four 
 Gospels, was published in 1 79°* ; the second 
 volume, containing the other books of the New 
 Testament, was published in 1 806. The place of 
 publication was Halle, the same bookseller, whp 
 had purchased the copy-right of the first edition, 
 having purchased also the copy-right of the second. 
 And as a part of the impression, (which was taken 
 off on a better paper sent by his Grace the Duke 
 of Grafton) was destined for sale in England, the 
 name of London as well as of Halle was put on the 
 
38 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 title-page. But, what is more important than 
 either the paper or the place of publication, it was 
 printed at Jena under Griesbach's immediate in- 
 spection. 
 
 There is a question however in reserve, of still 
 greater consequence than the extent or the value even 
 of the critical materials : and that is, Have those 
 materials been properly applied to the emendation 
 of the Greek text ? That they were conscientiously 
 applied, is admitted by every man, to whom 
 Griesbach's character is known. His scrupulous 
 integrity, as a man and as a scholar, is sufficient 
 guarantee for the honest application of them. Nor 
 have his contemporaries ever questioned either 
 his learning, or his judgement, if we except Mat- 
 thaei, who wrote under the influence of personal 
 animosity. Of the emendations, which he has 
 introduced, there are many, which had received 
 the approbation even of the early editors, Erasmus 
 and Beza; others had been approved by Mill; 
 others again by Bengelius ; and most of them by 
 Wetstein and Bowyer. That on the other hand, 
 there are many, on which the opinion of Gries- 
 bach differs even from that of Wetstein, may be 
 explained from the operation of three causes, which 
 it is here necessary to assign. 
 
 In the first place, the augmentation of the 
 
LECTURE VIII. 39 
 
 critical apparatus since the death of Wetstein, and 
 the consequent alteration in the relative evidence 
 for different readings to the same passage, must 
 in some cases have made an alteration in their 
 respective claims to authenticity. Another diffe- 
 rence was occasioned by the circumstance of 
 Wetstein' s entertaining a suspicion, that the Codex 
 Alexandrinus, the Codex Bezae, and some other 
 very ancient manuscripts contained a Greek text, 
 which had been altered from the Latin version. 
 That this suspicion is ungrounded, has been clearly 
 shewn, both by Griesbach in his Symbolse criticae, 
 and by Woide in his Preface to the Codex Alex- 
 andrinus. And it is manifest, that, when we are 
 weighing our authorities, our decisions will be 
 greatly affected by the rejection on the one hand, 
 or by the admission on the other, of such manu- 
 scripts, as those, which I have just mentioned. 
 But the third cause was more powerful in its ope- 
 ration, than either of the preceding : and as this 
 third cause forms the basis of Griesbach's critical 
 system, it must be more fully explained. 
 
 In determining the quantum of evidence for 
 or against a particular reading, the authorities used 
 to be rather numbered than weighed ; so that, if 
 a reading were contained in thirty manuscripts 
 out of fifty, the scale was supposed to turn in its 
 favour. It is true, that under similar circumstances, 
 
40 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 more importance was attached to ancient, than to 
 modern manuscripts : but the modes of estimating 
 that importance were so various, that the same 
 premises not unfrequently led to different con- 
 clusions. Nor was due attention paid to that 
 necessary distinction between the antiquity of a 
 manuscript, and the antiquity of its text, Wetstein, 
 in his Animadversiones et Cautiones, annexed to 
 his Greek Testament, went a great way toward the 
 reducing of sacred criticism to a regular system. 
 But much still remained to be performed, for which 
 we are indebted to Semler, who laid the foundation^ 
 and to Griesbach, who raised the superstructure. 
 
 From a comparison and combination of the 
 readings exhibited by Wetstein it was discovered, 
 that certain characteristic readings distinguished 
 certain manuscripts, fathers, and versions ; that 
 other characteristic readings pointed out a second 
 class ; others again a third class of manuscripts, 
 fathers, and versions. It was further discovered, 
 that this three-fold classification had an additional 
 foundation jn respect to the places, where the 
 manuscripts were written, the fathers lived, and the 
 versions were made. Hence the three classes re- 
 ceived the names of Recensio Alexandrina, Recensio 
 Const ant inopolit ana or Byzantina, and Recensio 
 OccidentaUs : not that any formal revision of the 
 Greek text is known, either from history or from 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 41 
 
 tradition, to have taken place, at Alexandria, at 
 Constantinople, or in Western Europe. But 
 whatever causes, unknown to us, may have ope- 
 rated in producing the effect, there is no doubt of 
 its existence: there is no doubt that those cha- 
 racteristic readings are really contained in the 
 manuscripts, fathers, and versions, and that the 
 classification, which is founded on them, is founded 
 therefore on truth. Hence arises a new criterion 
 of authenticity. A majority of individual manu- 
 scripts can no longer be considered, either as 
 decisive, or even as very important on this subject. 
 A majority of the Recensions, or as we should say 
 of printed books, a majority of the Editions, is 
 alone to be regarded, as far as number is concerned. 
 The testimony of the individual manuscripts is 
 applied to ascertain what is the reading of this or 
 that Edition : but the question of fact being once 
 determined, it ceases to be of consequence what 
 number of manuscripts may be produced, either 
 of the first, or of the second, or of the third of 
 those Editions. For instance, when we have once 
 ascertained that any particular reading belongs 
 both to the Alexandrine and to the Western, but 
 not to the Byzantine Edition, the authority of that 
 reading will not be weakened, even though it should 
 appear on counting the manuscripts, that the 
 number of those, which range themselves under 
 the Byzantine Edition, is ten times greater, than 
 
42 
 
 LECTURE VIII 
 
 that of the other two united. We must argue in 
 this case, as we argue in the comparison of printed 
 editions, where we simply inquire, what are the 
 readings of this or that edition, and never think of 
 asking for the purpose of criticism, how many 
 copies were struck off at the office, where it 
 was printed. The relative value of those three 
 editions must likewise be considered. For if 
 any one of them, the Byzantine for instance, 
 to which most of the modern manuscripts be- 
 long, carries with it less weight than either of 
 the other two, a proportional deduction must 
 be made, whether it be thrown into the scale by 
 
 itself, or in conjunction with another. Such are 
 
 the outlines of that system, which Griesbach has 
 applied to the criticism of the Greek Testament. 
 The subject is so new, and at the same time so 
 intricate, that it is hardly possible to give more 
 than a general notion of it in a public Lecture. 
 It requires long and laborious investigation : but it 
 is an investigation, which every biblical scholar 
 will readily undertake, when he considers, that it 
 involves the question, What is the genuine text of 
 the New Testament ? 
 
 As the classification of manuscripts, fathers, 
 and versions, with all its concomitant circumstances, 
 supplies us with the rules of external evidence, an 
 examination of the causes which produced the 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 43 
 
 variations of the text, suggests 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, suggests the canon, 
 that, where different readings are of unequal lengths, 
 the shorter is probably the genuine. Again a 
 knowledge of the fact, that transcribers were dis- 
 posed to exchange the Hebraisms of the New 
 Testament for purer Greek, suggests the canon, 
 that, when of two readings the one is oriental, 
 the other classical, the former is the genuine 
 reading, the latter a correction. Further, as it is 
 more probable that an easy reading should be sub- 
 stituted for a hard one, than the contrary, the 
 latter, as far as internal evidence goes, deserves the 
 preference. And whether alterations be ascribed 
 to design or to accident, we must consider, when 
 we meet with several readings to the same passage, 
 which of them might most easily have given rise 
 to the others. For, if by supposing that one in 
 particular is the ancient reading, we can account 
 for the origin of the rest, and the same supposition, 
 when applied to any other, affords not a similar 
 solution, the reading, to which it does apply, 
 acquires from this circumstance an argument in 
 its favour. 
 
 But neither external nor internal evidence can 
 be estimated alone. They must be weighed to- 
 
LECTURE VJII. 
 
 gether : and we must be careful to ascertain the 
 momentum, which belongs to each. Sometimes 
 the external evidence is at variance with the 
 internal t at other times the sources of external 
 evidence are at variance among themselves : and 
 in all these cases very extensive knowledge, and 
 the most strict impartiality are necessary for the 
 adjustment of their respective claims. 
 
 That Griesbach has fulfilled the duties, which 
 in these respects he owed to the public, that his 
 diligence was unremitted, that his caution was 
 extreme, that his erudition was profound, and that 
 his judgement was directed by a sole regard to the 
 evidence before him, will in general be allowed by 
 those, who have studied his edition, and are 
 able to appreciate its merits. That his decisions 
 are always correct, that in all cases the evidence 
 is &o nicely weighed as to produce unerring results, 
 that weariness of mind under painful investigation 
 has in no instance occasioned an important over- 
 sight, that prejudice or partiality has no where 
 influenced his general regard for critical justice, 
 would be affirmations, which can hardly apply to 
 any editor, however good or great. But, if at any 
 time he has erred, he has at the same time enabled 
 those, who are competent judges, to decide for 
 themselves, by stating the contending evidence 
 with clearness and precision. Emendations founded 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 45 
 
 on conjecture, however ingenious, he has introduced 
 not in a single instance : they are all founded on 
 quoted authority. Our attention is even solicited 
 and directed to that authority, the adopted readings 
 being always printed in smaller characters than 
 the rest of the text, and with reference to the 
 rejected readings, which are printed in the inner 
 margin in the same letters with the text, while 
 both of them refer to the respective evidence, 
 which is produced below. If readings are added, 
 where none existed before, or are withdrawn 
 without substitution, the changes are marked with 
 equal clearness, and are equally supported by 
 critical authority. When the evidence is not suf- 
 ficiently decisive to warrant an alteration in the 
 text, the readings worthy of notice are placed in 
 the inner margin, with different marks expressive 
 of their different claims. 
 
 Whoever proposes to use this edition (and it 
 should be used by every biblical scholar) will find 
 in the Prolegomena a more complete description, 
 both of the critical apparatus, and of the mode of 
 applying it. I have been already so diffuse on 
 this subject, that it is time to close it. But let 
 not the attention, which has been given to it, be 
 given in vain. The edition thus minutely described 
 is the most important, which has been hitherto 
 published : nor is it probable, that during the lives 
 
46 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 even of the youngest of my hearers any other 
 critical edition should supersede it. From the 
 exertions, which have been already made, it is not 
 likely that new materials of much importance 
 should be brought to light : and even if there 
 should, it is still less likely, that another such 
 editor should be found to arrange and digest 
 them. 
 
 Having thus finished the history of the Greek 
 text, I shall describe in the next Lecture the 
 Criticism of the Greek Testament, according to its 
 several departments ; and at the same time shall 
 enumerate the authors, which respectively belong 
 to them. 
 
LECTURE IX. 
 
 In the account of the plan, which I proposed 
 to observe throughout the course of these Lectures, 
 they were represented as a Book of directions, 
 from which in the first place might be learned the 
 order and connexion, in which Theology should be 
 studied, and in the next place might be derived 
 a knowledge of the authors, who have best ex- 
 plained, the several subjects. With this knowledge 
 of authors it was further proposed to unite 66 a 
 knowledge of the advancement or decline of theo- 
 logical learning, a knowledge of how much or how 
 little has been performed in the different ages of 
 Christianity." ! 
 
 Agreeably to this plan I have hitherto treated 
 the Criticism of the Bible, which was shewn in 
 the second Lecture to be the primary branch of 
 Theology. During the early and the middle ages. 
 
48 LECTURE IX. 
 
 it was described in the order of time, as critics 
 and criticism successively presented themselves to 
 our view. But as authors have multiplied since 
 the invention of printing beyond all comparison 
 with former periods, perspicuity required a sepa- 
 ration of the subjects in the description of the three 
 last centuries, though the order of time has still 
 been preserved. The Criticism of the Greek Tes- 
 tament, which demands our peculiar attention, 
 was selected as the jirst object : and the history 
 of the Greek text from the Complutensian edition 
 in 1514 to that of Griesbach which was finished in 
 1806, has employed more than three Lectures. 
 But though the labour and the researches necessary 
 for this description have been no less extensive, 
 than for a dissertation adorned with all the pomp 
 of learning, it has been my chief endeavour to 
 give as plain and as popular an account, as the 
 subject would admit. I have rather studied to 
 excite a taste for biblical criticism, by presenting 
 it in an easy and acceptable form, than to assume 
 the garb of erudition, which, by magnifying the 
 difficulties of the task, might have deterred my 
 hearers from engaging in it. Nor did the plan, 
 which I proposed to adopt generally in these 
 Lectures, require more than an introductory nar- 
 rative, though perhaps in the present instance the 
 execution of the plan has in some measure exceeded 
 the original design. Whether more or less has 
 
LECTURE IX. 4Q 
 
 been performed, than was expected, it is necessary 
 in the present Lecture to fulfil another part of the 
 general plan, and to give some account of the 
 authors, who have illustrated the Criticism of the 
 Greek Testament, according to its several depart- 
 ments. 
 
 But before we enter on the proposed enume- 
 ration, we must guard against the difficulties and 
 contradictions, arising from the different lights, in 
 which biblical criticism has been viewed by dif- 
 ferent writers. It was observed in the second 
 Lecture, that the operations of Criticism and the 
 operations of Interpretation are so distinct, that 
 they ought not, however sub-divided, to be placed 
 in the same class. But this distinction is so far 
 from being generally observed, that many if not 
 most English writers, use the term ce biblical 
 criticism " in so extensive a sense as to include also 
 biblical interpretation, especially when the inter- 
 pretation relates to the original languages of the 
 Bible. It is true, that no inconvenience will arise 
 from this application of the term, if care be taken 
 to keep separate the subjects, which it is thus 
 made to comprehend. But though some writers, 
 who use the term in this extensive sense, (for 
 instance Dr. Gerard) have made the proper dis- 
 tinctions, there are other writers, who in con- 
 sequence of their using one name for different 
 
 e 
 
§0 
 
 LECTURE IX. 
 
 things, have treated them indiscriminately, and 
 thence have perplexed both themselves and their 
 readers. To prevent such confusion I have in these 
 Lectures invariably used the term * biblical or 
 sacred criticism " in its proper and confined sense, 
 namely as the sum and substance of that knowledge, 
 which enables us to ascertain the genuineness of 
 a disputed text. That this is the sense in which 
 the term is here used, appears not only from the 
 explanation of it in the second Lecture, but from 
 the constant application of it in all the subsequent 
 Lectures. 
 
 The operations of Criticism having been thus 
 distinguished from those of Interpretation, we 
 may now deduce an additional argument in favour 
 of that priority, which has been given to the study 
 of the former. Throughout the description of this 
 branch of Theology, no position has been taken 
 for granted out of any other branch. But when 
 we enter on the second branch, or the Interpre- 
 tation of the Bible, we shall be frequently obliged, 
 unless our inquiries are superficial, to refer to the 
 Criticism of the Bible. We shall frequently be 
 obliged to determine the true reading of a passage, 
 before we can determine its true meaning. (e Inter- 
 pretationem veram frus'tra quaerimus, ubi de vera 
 lectione dubitamus." This very just observation 
 is made by Dr. Kennicott in his Dissertatio 
 
LECTURE IX. 51 
 
 generalise who immediately adds, " Statuatur vera 
 lectio, et hanc presse sequatur vera interpretatior 
 Since then an interpreter of the Greek Testament 
 should be previously acquainted with the Criticism 
 of the Greek Testament, and so much knowledge 
 in respect to the Criticism of the Greek Testament, 
 as is necessary to form a tolerable judgement of 
 the text, may be acquired even before we enter on 
 the business of interpretation, we can no longer 
 hesitate on the question, where our theological 
 studies should begin. 
 
 Let it not be objected, that the laws of criticism 
 can hardly be understood, and much less applied 
 to a passage of the Greek Testament, by those, 
 who are not already able to construe it. These 
 Lectures are addressed in particular to an audience, 
 where it may be safely pre-supposed, that every 
 one is already able to construe the Greek Testa- 
 ment, able therefore, both to comprehend the 
 nature of the various readings, and to understand 
 what is meant, when he is informed, that such and 
 such readings are supported by such and such 
 authorities. But to construe and to interpret a 
 passage are two distinct things. To the latter 
 something more is wanted, than a readiness at the 
 former: otherwise the English translation, which 
 is Greek construed into English, would be sufficient 
 without other assistance. It is true, that the 
 
52 LECTURE IX. 
 
 further we advance in the interpretation of the 
 Bible, the better we shall be qualified to criticise 
 on the Bible. But does it follow, that, because 
 the highest excellence in Criticism is not to be 
 obtained till we are conversant with another branch 
 of Theology, we must therefore defer the study 
 of its principles, till that other branch is com- 
 pleted i Has it not been shewn, that without 
 criticism this other branch never can be completed ? 
 We must distinguish between the acquirement of 
 knowledge, and that readiness, that certainty in 
 the application of it, which can only be obtained 
 by long experience. 
 
 It is surely desirable even at the commencement 
 our theological studies to be provided with the 
 best critical edition of the Greek Testament, as 
 being the edition most likely to contain the genuine 
 text. And as this edition not unfrequently differs 
 from the common text, which we ought in no 
 case to reject without reason, it is our primary 
 duty to obtain as much information, as may enable 
 us to form some judgement on the question, 
 whether there is reason or not for the proposed 
 alterations. For this purpose it is not required, 
 that we should undertake the drudgery of collating 
 either manuscripts, fathers, or versions. This 
 labour of criticism is performed to our hands : we 
 have only to learn what others have already done. 
 
LECTURE IX. 
 
 53 
 
 and to understand what has been done, that we 
 may know whether it is well or ill done. The 
 more convenient and expeditious mode of studying 
 theology is certainly to take for granted on the 
 bare assertion of those, who are supposed acquainted 
 with the subject, that such and such readings are 
 genuine^ and that such and such readings are 
 spurious. It is likewise a more convenient and 
 expeditious mode of studying mathematics, when 
 a pupil confiding in the assertion of his tutor, that 
 the properties ascribed to the conic sections are 
 founded in truth, proceeds to Newton's Principia, 
 without learning to demonstrate those properties. 
 And this confidence, this deference to the judge- 
 ment of others is not uncommon, in Mathematics 
 as well as in Divinity. But neither in the one 
 case, nor in the other, will this confidence be 
 attended with conviction. Now the avowed object 
 of these Lectures is to produce conviction. If it 
 only be desired, in the shortest possible time to 
 learn enough of Divinity to pass an examination, 
 the well-known publication of Dr. Arthur St. George 
 is much better fitted for the purpose. 
 
 Even that portion of sacred criticism, which in 
 its application belongs to the third Branch of 
 Divinity, or the Authenticity of the Bible, is in 
 its principles so connected with verbal criticism, 
 that the basis, on which they rest, is nearly one 
 
-> 4 LECTURE IX* 
 
 and the same. From the criticism of words we 
 ascend to the criticism of sentences, from the 
 criticism of sentences to the criticism of chapters, 
 and from the criticism of chapters to the criticism 
 of whole hooks. To illustrate this ascent, an 
 example of each will he sufficient. If we turn to 
 Griesbach's Greek Testament at Matth. xxviii. 19. 
 we shall find the passage thus worded. Ylopev- 
 devres fxadnrevGrare iravTa ra edvn, fiawri- 
 %ovre$ avroiis eh to ovojia tov UaTpos, kcli 
 tov Ylov kcli tov dylov IlvevfiaTOs, where the 
 whole difference from the common text consists 
 in the omission of the particle ovv. This omission 
 is founded on the authority, not only of many 
 ancient Greek manuscripts, but of the ancient 
 Greek Fathers, Origen, Athanasius, Basil, Chry- 
 sostom, and Cyril, who are expressly quoted for 
 this purpose. From the criticism of the particle 
 ovv, which is probably spurious, we ascend to the 
 criticism of the whole passage, which is undoubt- 
 edly genuine. For, if Origen, who was born in 
 the century after that, in which St. Matthew wrote, 
 found the passage in his manuscript of the Gospels, 
 with the exception only of a particle, and the 
 Greek Fathers of the fourth century found it 
 worded in the same manner in their manuscripts, 
 we have as strong a proof of its authenticity, as 
 can be given or required in works of antiquity. 
 This passage therefore, which includes the three 
 
LECTURE IX. 55 
 
 persons of the Trinity, rests on a very different 
 foundation from that of the similar passage in the 
 fifth chapter of St. John's first Epistle, a passage, 
 which no ancient Greek manuscript contains, and 
 which no ancient Greek Father ever saw. 
 
 From the criticism of sentences we ascend to 
 the criticism of chapters, It is well known, that 
 attempts have been made to invalidate the testi- 
 mony which the two first chapters of St. Matthew's 
 Gospel bear to the doctrine of the incarnation, by 
 contending, that those chapters were not original 
 parts of St. Matthew's Gospel, but were prefixed 
 to it by some other person, at some later period. 
 Now, if we turn to the second volume of Gries- 
 bach's Symbol© criticae, where he quotes the 
 readings of the Greek Testament from Clement of 
 Alexandria and Origen, we shall find a quotation 
 from the Jirst chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, 
 and a reference to the second, made by Celsus the 
 Epicurean philosopher, which quotation and refe- 
 rence are noted by Origen, who wrote in answer 
 to Celsus. " Hinc patet (says Griesbach very 
 justly) duo priora Matthaei capita Celso nota fuisse." 
 Now if Celsus, who wrote his celebrated work 
 against the Christians in the time of Marcus 
 Aurelius, and consequently little more than an 
 hundred years after St. Matthew himself wrote, 
 yet found the two first chapters in his manuscript 
 
LECTURE IX. 
 
 of St. Matthew's Gospel, those chapters must 
 either have been original parts of St. Matthew's 
 Gospel, or they must have been added at a time 
 so little antecedent to the age of Celsus, that a 
 writer so inquisitive, so sagacious, and at the same 
 time so inimical to Christianity, could not have 
 failed to detect the imposture. But in this case 
 he would not have quoted those chapters as parts 
 of St. Matthew's Gospel, Consequently the truth 
 must lie in the other part of the dilemma, namely 
 that those chapters are authentic. 
 
 From the criticism of chapters we may further 
 ascend to the criticism of whole boohs. ~ If we again 
 consult Griesbach's collection of readings from 
 Clement of Alexandria and Origen, we shall find 
 that these very ancient Fathers had not only 
 manuscripts of the Greek Testament, but manu- 
 scripts of the same Greek Testament, which we 
 possess at present, not indeed the same throughout 
 in words, but the same in their general contents, 
 the same in the leading doctrines of the Christian 
 Faith. In this manner does the study of sacred 
 criticism contribute to the discovery of those means, 
 by which we gradually establish the truth of 
 Christianity, 
 
 After these preliminary observations, we may 
 enter on the enumeration of the authors, who have 
 
LECTURE IX. 5 7 
 
 illustrated the Criticism of the Greek Testament, 
 according to its several departments. 
 
 Of general and elementary treatises, there is 
 none, which is more to be recommended, either 
 for perspicuity or correctness, than the Institutes 
 of Biblical Criticism, published at Edinburgh in 
 1808, in one volume octavo, by Dr. Gerard, Pro- 
 fessor of Divinity at Aberdeen. 
 
 A knowledge of the editions of the Greek 
 Testament may be taken from Le Long's Biblio- 
 Iheca sacra. Le Long, who was one of the Fathers 
 of the Oratory at Paris, published his first edition - 
 of this work at the beginning of 1709 in two 
 octavo volumes : and before the end of that year 
 a new edition of it appeared at Leipzig with ad- 
 ditions by Dr. Boerner. In twelve years from the 
 publication of the first edition, Le Long had 
 further augmented his work by such an accession 
 of materials, as to increase it to two folio volumes, 
 which were published at Paris in 1/23, two years 
 after the death of the author. The first volume of 
 this folio edition contains an account of the then- 
 known manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, with the 
 editions of it to the beginning of the eighteenth 
 century ; an account of the then-known manu- 
 scripts of the Greek Testament, with the editions 
 of it to the same period 5 an account of the oriental 
 
58 LECTURE IX. 
 
 and other ancient versions, both of the Old and 
 New Testament ; and lastly an account of the 
 translations of the Bible into the modern languages. 
 Works of this description are of great utility to 
 the biblical scholar : but new editions of them, or 
 at least supplements to them are frequently wanted, 
 to register the accessions, which are continually 
 made to the stock of biblical literature. After an 
 interval of more than fifty years, Dr. Andrew 
 Masch, Superintendent of the diocese of Stargard 
 at New Strelitz, selected for publication those 
 parts of the Bibliotheca sacra, which relate to the 
 printed editions; namely the editions of the 
 Hebrew Bible, of the Greek Testament, of the 
 ancient versions, and of the modern Latin versions. 
 In fact those parts were made only the basis of a 
 publication, which may be considered rather as 
 a new work, than as a new edition. It was pub- 
 lished at Halle in six quarto volumes, the first in 
 1778, the last, which contains the chronological 
 index, in 1790. All the editions of the Greek 
 Testament, to the time of its publication, are 
 enumerated in the first volume, and the principal 
 editions are described. This volume is the stan- 
 dard book, whence subsequent writers have chiefly 
 derived the accounts which they have given of the 
 editions of the Greek Testament : and it is com- 
 posed with so much care and accuracy, that we 
 may in general depend on it. But little or no 
 
/ 
 
 ' 5r - " . . • 
 
 LECTURE IX. 59 
 
 information can be derived from it in respect to 
 the critical history of the Greek text, though 
 it is of great value in respect to the external 
 history of the editions. — In this respect, the 
 principal editions of the Greek Testament are 
 very well described in Dibdin's Introduction 
 to the Greek and Latin Classics. A neat and 
 correct account of some of the principal editions 
 is likewise given in Butler's Horae Biblicas. A 
 short account of the editions of the Greek Testa- 
 ment to the year 1790 is given also in the last 
 edition of Fabricii Bibliotheca Graeca, at the end 
 of the fourth volume. A view, though an im- 
 perfect one, of the principal editions of the Greek 
 Testament is annexed by Dr. Harwood to his own 
 edition. In the sixth volume of that very useful 
 publication, the Bibliographical Dictionary, is a 
 very copious catalogue of the editions of the Greek 
 Testament accompanied with instructive remarks. 
 Many other catalogues might be added : but it will 
 be sufficient, if we close the account with the 
 Bibliotheca biblica serenissimi Wuertenbergensium 
 Ducis, olim Lorkiana, published by Adler at 
 Altona in lf$f . It is a catalogue, of great merit, 
 and great utility. 
 
 Of the manuscripts of the Greek Testament, 
 as far as they were known an hundred years ago, 
 a description is given in the folio edition of the 
 
<50 LECTURE IX. 
 
 Bibliotheca sacra. But the number of manuscripts^ 
 which have been collected since that period, is so 
 great, and our knowledge of manuscripts in general 
 has so increased, that only a small part of the 
 necessary information can now be derived from 
 that work : for the last edition of the Bibliotheca 
 sacra, as was before observed, contains no account 
 of manuscripts. To obtain a complete knowledge 
 of all the collated manuscripts of the Greek Tes- 
 tament, we must consult the Prolegomena or 
 Prefaces to the editions of Mill, Wetstein, Matthaei, 
 Birch, and Griesbach, with Griesbach's Symbolae 
 criticge. Wetstein's Prolegomena have been pub- 
 lished separately in an octavo volume in 1764, at 
 Halle, by Dr. Sender, Professor of Divinity in 
 that University, who accompanied the edition with 
 many valuable notes. But there is no work, from 
 which a general knowledge of the manuscripts of 
 the Greek Testament can be derived in so easy 
 a manner, as from the Introduction of Michaelis, 
 of which the second volume contains a descriptive 
 catalogue alphabetically arranged. It would be 
 tedious to enumerate the accounts, which have 
 been published of single manuscripts : nor can it 
 be necessary at present, as references to such pub- 
 lications may be seen under their respective heads, 
 in the descriptive catalogue just mentioned, either 
 in the author's text or in the translator's notes. 
 But the description of the Codex Alexandrinus 3 
 
LECTURE IX. 
 
 61 
 
 which is given by Woide in the Preface to his 
 edition of it, so surpasses all other descriptions, 
 which have been given of single manuscripts, that 
 it merits particular notice. On this account it was 
 printed separately at Leipzig two years afterwards, 
 with notes by Spohn, under the title, Woidii 
 Notitia Codicis Alexandrini. 
 
 Of the ancient versions of the Greek Testament,, 
 as far as relates to the printed editions of themy 
 a very full account is given in the second Part of 
 Masch's edition of the Bibliotheca sacra. But for 
 a critical knowledge of those ancient versions, we 
 must have recourse to the Introduction of Michaelis,. 
 where the table of contents prefixed to the second 
 volume will immediately shew where each of them 
 may be found. Indeed the description, which Mi- 
 chaelis has given of the ancient versions and of the 
 manuscripts of the Greek Testament, is that which 
 constitutes the most distinguished merit of his 
 Introduction. I of course mean the fourth and 
 last edition; for the Jirst edition, though still 
 produced in catalogues and lists of theological 
 books, is in these respects of no value whatever. 
 
 The quotations from the Greek Testament in 
 the works of ecclesiastical writers have been the 
 subject of long and serious controversy. While 
 the Elzevir text was considered as perfect, every 
 
62 
 
 LECTURE IX 
 
 deviation from that text was consequently regarded 
 as a deviation from the truth. Whenever it was 
 observed therefore, that a Greek Father quoted the 
 Greek Testament in words, which were not pre- 
 cisely the same as the Elzevir text, it was inferred 
 that in those quotations there was something 
 wrong. And since it is not probable, that the 
 manuscripts used by the Greek Fathers in the 
 second, third, and fourth centuries, should be less 
 conformable than modern manuscripts with the 
 autographs of the sacred writers, the differences 
 between those quotations and the Elzevir text were 
 ascribed to the carelessness of the Fathers, in 
 quoting from their manuscripts. But as it is no 
 longer believed, that the common reading may 
 always be defended, the supposition, adopted to 
 account for the deviations in question, has lost its 
 chief support. Examples of inaccuracy may in- 
 deed be discovered in every writer, whether ancient 
 or modern. But we are only concerned with the 
 general practice of the Fathers : we only want to 
 know, whether we may in general, or upon the 
 whole, conclude from their quotations to what was 
 contained in the manuscripts, from which they 
 quoted. When we meet with quotations from our 
 English Bible in the writings of English Divines, 
 we in general consider their quotations as fair 
 representations of our English text, though ex- 
 amples of inaccuracy might be easily produced, 
 
LECTURE TX. 
 
 63 
 
 arising either from their being incorrectly remem- 
 bered, or incorrectly transcribed. In like manner, 
 when we meet with quotations from the Greek 
 Bible, whether of the Old or New Testament, in 
 the writings of the Greek Fathers, there appears 
 to be no reason for our refusing to consider those 
 quotations as fair representations of their respective 
 copies of the Greek text, unless particular circum- 
 stances in particular examples interfere to warrant 
 our making an exception. We must likewise 
 recollect, that the Greek Fathers were frequently 
 engaged in controversy, which rendered accuracy 
 in quotation peculiarly necessary : for neglect on 
 this point, which could not fail to be detected, 
 would immediately have put arms into the hands 
 of their adversaries. If Justin Martyr in his 
 Dialogue with Trypho, a work written to convince 
 the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, had been 
 careless in his quotations from the Greek Bible, 
 the detection of their inaccuracy would have de- 
 feated the very object he had in view. Again if 
 Origen, in his Answer to Celsus, or Cyril of 
 Alexandria, in his Reply to Julian the Apostate, 
 had been incorrect in their quotations from the 
 Greek Testament, what greater triumph could the 
 enemies of Christianity in those ages have desired, 
 than the exposure of such mistakes. With respect 
 to Justin Martyr, I once had occasion to collate 
 his quotations from the Septuagint with the text 
 
64 
 
 LECTURE IX. 
 
 of the Codex Vaticanus. The result of this 
 collation, with observations on the subject, is con- 
 tained in a publication, which was printed seven 
 years ago at Cambridge. At present therefore 
 I shall only observe that Justin's quotations from 
 the Septuagint were found to agree much more 
 closely with the Codex Vaticanus, than the Codex 
 Vaticanus itself agrees with another manuscript of 
 the Septuagint, which is next in importance tc* 
 it, the Codex Alexandrinus. 
 
 No man has placed the subject of quotations 
 from the Greek Testament in so clear a light as* 
 Griesbach, first in the treatise mentioned in the 
 preceding Lecture, De Codicibus quatuor Evan- 
 geliorum Origenianis ; and secondly in his work 
 entitled, Cur a in historiam textus Gr<eci episto- 
 larum Paulinarum, published at Halle in 1 777- 
 The Introduction of Miehaelis may likewise be 
 consulted in the chapter appropriated to this 
 subject, though it is less excellent than the chapters 
 which relate to the Greek manuscripts, and the 
 ancient versions. With respect to the Fathers 
 in general, the most information comprised in 
 a small compass is afforded in the Bibliotheca 
 patristica, by Dr, John George Walch, Professor 
 of Divinity at Jena, who published it there in 
 1770 in one volume octavo. It relates to the 
 lives, the writings, the editions, and the various 
 
LECTURE IX. 
 
 65 
 
 uses of the Fathers, and likewise enumerates the 
 authors, who have explained the particular subjects 
 of inquiry. A more detailed and copious account 
 of their writings is contained in Cave's Historia 
 Liter aria, of which the best edition was printed 
 at Oxford in 1740 and 1743 in two volumes folio. 
 Of the Greek Fathers the most ample account is 
 given in the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth 
 volumes of the new edition of Fabricii Bibliotheca 
 Grceca. The editor of this work, Professor Harles 
 of Erlangen, has given a short but useful account 
 of the Greek Fathers in the last volume of his 
 Introductio in Historiam Lingua Grcecce, which 
 was published at Altenburg in Saxony in 1795. 
 Of the writings of the Latin Fathers, and of the 
 different editions of them, the most ample and 
 the most accurate account is given in a work 
 printed at Leipzig in 1792 and 179 4 m two large 
 octavos, entitled Bibliotheca historico- liter aria 
 Patrum Latinorum, by Mr. Schoenemann, one 
 ' of the librarians at the University of Goettingen. 
 Whoever is desirous of entering into the con- 
 troversy on the quotations of the Fathers will find 
 every thing that can be said against them in 
 a work written by Daille, a French Protestant 
 Clergyman, which was published at Geneva, first 
 in French in \632, and afterwards in Latin, at 
 several times, by the title Dallaeus de usu Patrum. 
 And every thing, which can be said in favour of 
 
66 LECTURE IX. 
 
 the Fathers is contained in the following work, 
 Casti Innocentis Ansaldi, Ordinis Pradicatorum, 
 de authenticis sacrarum scripturarum apud sanctos 
 P aires lectionibus, libri duo ; which was published 
 at Verona in 1747 in one volume quarto. 
 
 Before I dismiss the subject of quotations, 
 I must notice the difference in the degrees of 
 evidence afforded by the Fathers, according to the 
 language in which they wrote : and it is the more 
 necessary, as there are several writers, especially 
 in England, who have not perceived the difference. 
 Direct testimony to the authenticity of readings 
 in the Greek Testament, is afforded only by the 
 Greek Fathers, who alone quoted the words of 
 the original. The quotations of the Latin Fathers 
 were taken from the Latin version, and conse- 
 quently bear immediate evidence to this version, 
 or to its readings as contained in their copies of it. 
 If therefore we have reason, in any particular 
 place, to believe that this version has been altered 
 or interpolated, the circumstance that Latin writers 
 may be found who agree with it in that place in 
 opposition to the Greek manuscripts, is evidence 
 of no value whatsoever. For it is manifest, that 
 wherever a version is corrupt, the reading produced 
 from it cannot be genuine. 
 
 The three grand sources of various readings to 
 
LECTURE IX. 67 
 
 the Greek Testament having been thus explained, 
 with reference to the principal authors, it is 
 necessary to take some notice of another source, 
 namely emendation from conjecture. Where a 
 passage is manifestly faulty, and we have only one 
 copy of the work, or where, if we have more, they 
 agi*ee in the erratum, we have no other means, by 
 which we can even attempt to restore the genuine 
 reading, than conjecture. But in the Greek Tes- 
 tament our means of correction from authority 
 are so ample, that conjecture is unnecessary : and, 
 if unnecessary, it is injurious, especially in a 
 work, where, if the words might be altered from 
 conjecture, a door would be opened to every species 
 of corruption. For this reason, neither Wetstein 
 proposed, nor Griesbach received, an alteration of 
 words from conjecture. But though it is not 
 allowable in the Greek Testament to alter words 
 from conjecture, we are at full liberty to apply it, 
 in regard to the stops. For the most ancient 
 manuscripts afford no evidence on this head : and 
 where stops are added, as in modern manuscripts 
 and printed editions, they are founded only on the 
 judgement of the writers or editors, which we are 
 at liberty to exercise, as well as they. In this 
 respect the critical conjectures, annexed by Mr. 
 JBowyer to his edition of the Greek Testament, 
 and afterwards published with considerable ad- 
 ditions in a quarto volume in 1782, are of real 
 
 /a 
 
6& . LECTURE IX. 
 
 value. The remarks above-made in respect to the* 
 stops, apply also for the most part, to accents and 
 marks of aspiration. 
 
 It now only remains to mention the principal 
 authors, who have written on the utility, and the 
 application of various readings. The first author, 
 who wrote systematically on this subject, was 
 Professor Pfaff. of the University of Tubingen in 
 Suabia, whose Dissertatio critica de genuinis 
 Novi Testarnenti lectionibus was printed at Am- 
 sterdam in an octavo volume in 1709. It was 
 published at the commencement of the controversy 
 about the various readings to Mill's Greek Testa- 
 ment : and its principal object was to confute two 
 opposite andr equally false positions, the one 
 maintained by the adversaries of our religion, that 
 the various readings undermined the authority of 
 the text, the other maintained by its well-meaning 
 but injudicious friends, who argued for the per- 
 fection of the Elzevir text. The admirable work 
 of Bentley, which was published four years after- 
 wards on this subject, has been noticed in a former 
 Lecture. Another systematic treatise on the sub- 
 ject of various readings is the Tractatio critica de 
 variis Lectionibus Novi Testarnenti caute colli- 
 gendis et dijudieandi®, published at Halle in a 
 quarto volume in 1749, by Dr. Christian Benedict 
 Michaelis, Father to the Author of the Introduction 
 
LECTURE IX. 
 
 69 
 
 to the New Testament. This work goes more 
 into the detail of the subject; it gives rules for 
 the application of the readings, according to their 
 several sources ; and is of particular value in respect 
 to the readings of the oriental versions. To the 
 second volume of Wetstems Greek Testament, 
 which was printed three years afterwards, were 
 annexed the Animadversiones et Cautiones, which 
 were mentioned in a former Lecture, and were 
 re-published by Dr. Semler at Halle in 1766, 
 under the title, Wetstenii libelli ad crisin atqm 
 interpret ationem Novi Testamenti. The Appa- 
 ratus Criticus, which accompanied the edition of 
 the Greek Testament by Bengelius, has likewise 
 been separately published in a quarto volume in 
 1763 with considerable additions.— Much valuable 
 information may be derived from each of these 
 writers, though it cannot be expected, that they 
 should be unanimous on every point. The cri- 
 ticism of the Greek Testament has made such 
 rapid advances within the last sixty years, that 
 •several positions have been found untenable, which 
 had been adopted without reserve, while others 
 have been adopted, of which the earlier writers 
 were uninformed. To obtain a perfect knowledge 
 of it in its present and most correct state, we must 
 study, again and again, the Prolegomena to Gries- 
 bach's Greek Testament. Nor should we neglect, 
 if we are able to procure it, Griesbach's Comment 
 
70 LECTURE IX. 
 
 tarius criticus in textum Gracum Novi Testament'^ 
 of which the first Part was published at Jena in 
 179 8 » Whether this work has been continued, 
 I am unable from the present interrupted commu- 
 nication with Germany to declare. But, as far 
 as it goes, it admirably elucidates the criticism of 
 the Greek Testament in every passage, and clearly 
 explains the mode, in which Griesbach's system 
 must be applied. 
 
 Lastly, let it be observed of verbal criticism, 
 that the value of the labour, which has been 
 employed in collecting various readings, depends 
 neither on the greatness of their number, nor on 
 the diversity of their meaning. If the readings 
 are numerous, which alter the sense, they afford 
 the means of correction, in proportion as it is 
 wanted. On the other hand, if such readings are 
 few in number, the discovery, that they are so, 
 is sufficient to pay the cost of that discovery. 
 
 Having thus exhausted the Criticism of the 
 New Testament # , I shall proceed in the next 
 
 * As I did not mention in the preceding Lecture Dr. 
 Knapp's edition of the Greek Testament, which was published 
 at Halle in 1797, in one volume octavo, and this edition, as well 
 as Griesbach's, contains a revision of the Elzevir text, it may- 
 appear to be a neglect, if it is left wholly unnoticed, though 
 
 it 
 
 > 
 
LECTURE IX. 71 
 
 Lecture to the Criticism of the Old Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 it is very little known in this country. The date of the title- 
 page shews, that it was published a year after the first volume 
 of Griesbach's last edition, and nine years before the second ; 
 consequently that the learned editor could avail himself of 
 Griesbach's researches as far as the end of St. John's Gospel 
 and no further. Nor are any authorities quoted in this edition, 
 either for the readings introduced in the text (which are not 
 distinguished, as in Griesbach's edition, by a difference of 
 character), or for that selection of readings, which the editor 
 thought worthy of notice in the margin. This statement is 
 not intended as a censure, brevity being necessary for the 
 editor's object, which was to furnish the German students with 
 a cheap pocket edition. But for the purposes of criticism 
 Griesbach's edition must remain the standard edition. 
 
 An account of re-impressions, or of publications copied from 
 Griesbach's last edition, though it enters into the province of 
 the bibliographer, has no place in a history of the Greek text. 
 
 Dr. White's edition of the common text (Oxford 1808, 
 in two volumes octavo), accompanied, as well with the readings, 
 which Griesbach thought only equal to the common text, 
 as with those, which Griesbach thought decidedly preferable t 
 and therefore adopted in his own, will more properly come 
 under consideration in the third branch of Divinity, when We 
 inquire into the integrity of the Greek text. 
 
LECTURE X. 
 
 To ascertain the accuracy of the Hebrew 
 text in the Old Testament, we must proceed by 
 a method similar to that, which was applied to 
 the Greek text in the New Testament. We must 
 consider the causes, which have produced the 
 variations in the Hebrew manuscripts, and then 
 the remedies, which have been employed to correct 
 them. 
 
 As in the Greek Testament so in the Hebrew 
 Bible the various readings have arisen, partly from 
 accidental, partly from designed alteration. Under 
 the former head may be reckoned, in the first 
 place, the casual omission, addition, exchange, 
 or transposition, of letters, syllables, and words, 
 which no transcriber, however careful, can wholly 
 avoid. The eye is frequently deceived by a simi- 
 
LECTURE X. 73 
 
 larity in the form of different letters. This cause 
 has operated more in the Hebrew Bible, than in 
 the Greek Testament: for the Hebrew letters 
 resemble each other more than the Greek letters. 
 At one time the whole difference consists in the 
 acuteness or obtuseness of an angle ; at other 
 times, either on the length, or the straitness of 
 a line, distinctions so minute, that even when the 
 letters are perfect, mistakes will sometimes happen, 
 and still more frequently when they are inac- 
 curately formed, or are partially effaced. In fact 
 this is one of the most fruitful sources of error in 
 the Hebrew manuscripts, as will appear to every 
 one, who takes only a cursory view of Dr. Ken- 
 nicott's Bible. 
 
 Again, as likeness of form occasions mistakes 
 in reading, so likeness of sound occasions mistakes 
 in hearing, when a copyist writes as another 
 dictates. And this cause is likewise more powerful 
 in Hebrew than in Greek, oa account of the gut- 
 turals, which are less distinguishable, than the 
 sounds of any other class. Another kind of ex- 
 change from dictation, which is peculiar to the 
 Hebrew, was the custom of reading, in certain 
 cases, differently from what was written. For 
 instance, the word Jehovah, which expresses the 
 Being, the Essence, and the Eternity of the Deity, 
 was considered by the Jews as a word too sacred 
 
74 LECTURE X. 
 
 for human utterance : and therefore, whenever 
 they met with this word in the Bible, they read 
 for it another word, expressive not of God, but of 
 Lord. Hence the latter is frequently found in 
 one Hebrew manuscript, when the former is found 
 in another. Hence also in the Septuagint the 
 word Jehovah is never expressed by Geo?, but 
 uniformly by Kvpios* 
 
 Other accidental variations arose from what is 
 called the homceoteleuton, or the recurrence of 
 the same word after a short interval, which may 
 occasion the omission of the words which lie 
 between. Sometimes abbreviations, sometimes 
 numerical marks were falsely decyphered : at other 
 times, if the words of the copied manuscripts were 
 written without intervals, they were improperly 
 divided. Lastly, as it was not uncommon to add 
 letters at the end of a line in the Hebrew manu- 
 scripts, in order to fill up the space where it was 
 too small for the following word, (it not being 
 usual to write Hebrew words partly in one line 
 partly in another) those supplement ary letters were 
 sometimes mistaken for letters of the text, especially 
 if they were such, as were capable of representing 
 some Hebrew word. 
 
 It appears then, that the causes of accidental 
 variation must have operated more powerfully in 
 
LECTURE X. 75 
 
 the transcribing of Hebrew, than in the transcribing 
 of Greek manuscripts. On the other hand there 
 is reason to believe, that the designed alterations, 
 which have been made in the Hebrew text of the 
 Old Testament, are less numerous, than the similar 
 alterations, which have been made in the Greek 
 text of the New Testament. Indeed it is obvious 
 from Dr. Kennicotfs collation, that such alterations 
 have been inconsiderable since the introduction of 
 the Masora. But as no circumspection could 
 u)holly prevent the liberties, which for various 
 reasons transcribers were inclined to take, those 
 reasons, or causes of alteration, must be distinctly 
 examined. And this examination is the more 
 necessary, as before the introduction of the Masora, 
 which cannot be dated higher than the fourth or 
 fifth century, those causes had nothing to counter- 
 act them. It is true, that the oldest of the 
 Hebrew manuscripts, now extant, are younger by 
 some centuries, than the Masora. But as these 
 must have been copied from more ancient manu- 
 scripts, and those again from manuscripts, which 
 were written before the learned Jews of Tiberias, 
 or the Masorets, as they are called from the work 
 which they established, had erected a guard against 
 future innovation, the effects of previous alteration 
 must have still continued to be partially felt, and 
 consequently must have been transmitted to the 
 present age. 
 
 1 
 
76 LECTURE X. 
 
 Let it not however be imagined, that the 
 alterations, of which we are now speaking, were 
 intentional corruptions of the sacred text, or, in 
 other words, alterations introduced with the con- 
 sciousness, that they were corruptions. Such 
 conduct were incompatible with that profound 
 veneration, which the Jews in every age have 
 entertained for the Hebrew scriptures. It is true 
 that such conduct has been ascribed to them. 
 The charge originated with some of the early 
 Fathers in their controversies with the Jews, who 
 sometimes reproached their Christian adversaries 
 with producing passages from the Greek Bible, 
 which differed from the Hebrew. In such cases 
 the Fathers should have critically examined the 
 words, both of the Hebrew and of the Greek: 
 for an ancient translation may, and sometimes 
 does retain the genuine reading of a passage, where 
 modern copies of the original have lost it. But 
 no such examination appears to have taken place 
 by those, who were the most strenuous in accusing 
 the Jews. Indeed few of them were capable of 
 the examination : and they charged their adver- 
 saries with wilful corruption, because they had 
 nothing else to reply. Now accusations made 
 without proof, are entitled to no credit. Jerom, 
 who of all the Fathers was perhaps the best judge 
 of this subject, was certainly of opinion, that the 
 Jews had not corrupted the Hebrew scriptures : 
 
LECTURE X. 
 
 77 
 
 for in contradistinction to the Septuagint he calls 
 the Hebrew Bible Veritas Hebraica: and when 
 he made a new translation, he translated, not from 
 the Greek, but from the Hebrew. Nor was 
 Origen, notwithstanding some expressions, which 
 seem to indicate the contrary, of a different opinion 
 from Jerom. 
 
 The alterations therefore, of which we are now 
 speaking, are such as have taken place from 
 erroneous judgement, from a false opinion in the 
 transcribers, that they were supplying defects, or 
 correcting mistakes. They chiefly arose from the 
 custom of writing notes in the margin of Hebrew 
 manuscripts, which notes were in subsequent copies 
 transferred into the text. These notes were of 
 various kinds. Sometimes, if a city mentioned in 
 the Bible had in the course of ages changed its 
 name, the new name was added in the margin of 
 the passage. At another time if an ancient name 
 was still preserved, a note was added to express, 
 that the place was so called to that day. At other 
 times observations were made, which related to 
 history or chronology. Annotations of all these 
 kinds may be still traced in the Pentateuch. They 
 have been quoted indeed by the adversaries of our 
 religion for a different purpose : and, as such 
 readings manifestly betray a later hand, than that 
 of Moses, it has been inferred, that the books P 
 
78 
 
 LECTURE X. 
 
 which contain them, are spurious. But such 
 readings may be explained, as marginal notes 
 removed into the text : and if the arguments for 
 the authenticity of the Pentateuch are conclusive, 
 ; they must be explained in that manner. 
 
 Other marginal annotations were drawn from 
 parallel passages, being added, either to supply the 
 shorter description from the longer, or to explain 
 a difficult by an easy passage. Indeed explanatory 
 notes appear to have been added from various 
 sources, taken sometimes from Chaldee paraphrases, 
 at other times from commentaries, at other times 
 again from those allegorical interpretations, to 
 which the Jews gave the title of Medrash. Now 
 such annotations being sometimes mistaken, espe- 
 cially by ignorant transcribers, for parts of the text^ 
 which had been accidentally omitted, and after- 
 wards supplied in the margin, were in the next 
 copy transferred, as was supposed, to their proper 
 places. — Or readings of this description might 
 sometimes find their way into the text, even 
 
 without the intervention of a marginal note. 
 
 > 
 
 Lastly, there is a source of various readings 
 in the Hebrew manuscripts, which appears to have 
 been equally productive with all the other sources 
 put together, namely the difference in the mode 
 of writing certain Hebrew words. It is to be 
 
LECTURE X. 79 
 
 observed, that the letters Aleph, Vau, and Jod are 
 denominated matres lectionis, from their utility 
 in instructing the reader of an unpointed manu- 
 script how to pronounce the words, in which those 
 letters are contained. But after the introduction 
 of the vowel points, the letters Vau and Jod became 
 less necessary, and they were considered chiefly 
 as props, or fulcra (as they are called) to those 
 points, with which they are usually accompanied. 
 When manuscripts therefore were written with 
 points, those letters were sometimes inserted, 
 sometimes omitted, and apparently at the discretion 
 of the copyist. Where they are inserted, the 
 words are said to be plene scripta : where they are 
 omitted, the words are said to be def ective scripta. 
 Now variations of this kind are only various modes 
 of writing the same word, and seem to be no more 
 entitled to a place among various readings, than 
 the orthographical differences in the Greek manu- 
 scripts, which neither Walton, nor Mill, nor 
 Wetstein, nor Griesbach have thought worthy of 
 notice. But as the cases of the Hebrew and the 
 Greek manuscripts are not exactly parallel, as 
 examples may occur in which the above-mentioned 
 fullness or defectiveness has resulted from some 
 other cause, than the discretion of a transcriber in 
 regard to a mater lectionis, the variations in 
 question must not be wholly disregarded, though 
 
80 
 
 LECTURE X. 
 
 more attention has certainly been shewn to them, 
 than they deserve. 
 
 The principal causes, which produced the 
 variations in the Hebrew manuscripts having been 
 thus explained, we must now examine the means, 
 which have been adopted to obtain a correct 
 edition of the Hebrew Bible. In our researches 
 on this subject we must be contented with much- 
 less information, than we were able to obtain in 
 our similar researches on the Greek Testament. 
 The manuscripts, which were used by the early 
 editors of the Hebrew Bible, and the modes, in 
 which those editors employed their materials, are 
 equally unknown to us: nor have we sufficient 
 data to ascertain the influence of preceding ori 
 subsequent editions. We are indeed amply pro- 
 vided with catalogues of Hebrew Bibles, which 
 determine their chronological order : but how far 
 the editors were governed by their manuscripts, 
 how far they copied from their predecessors, what 
 rules they adopted in the choice of their readings, 
 why some of them preferred a marginal, where 
 others chose a textual reading, the editors them- 
 selves have not informed us, and it is not in our 
 power to learn. To trace therefore the progress of 
 the Hebrew text 3 as we traced the progress of the 
 Greek text^ throughout its several stages, from 
 
LECTURE X. 81 
 
 edition to edition, is wholly impracticable. All, 
 that can be attempted, is to mention in the first 
 place such of the early editions, as in a critical 
 history are most entitled to attention, and then to 
 consider the steps, which have been taken toward 
 the formation of a critical apparatus. 
 
 The first edition of the whole Hebrew Bible 
 was printed in 1488 at Soncino, a small town in 
 the neighbourhood of Cremona. It is at present 
 so scarce, that only nine copies of it are known, 
 one of which is preserved in the library of Exeter 
 College, at Oxford. The next edition of the 
 whole Hebrew Bible was published in 1494 at 
 Brescia, and is remarkable for being the edition, 
 from which Luther made his German translation. 
 The edition, which in the next place deserves our 
 attention is the Complutensian Polyglot, of which 
 the parts containing the Hebrew Bible were 
 finished in 15 17. In 1518 Daniel Bomberg 
 published at Venice two editions of the Hebrew 
 Bible, the one in quarto, the other in large folio. 
 The latter was conducted by Felix Pratensis : and 
 as it contains the Hebrew text accompanied with 
 the Masora, it is called Bom bergs first Rabbinical 
 Bible. The second edition of it, which is more 
 correct, was printed in 1525 under the direction 
 of Jacob Ben Hajim, who had the reputation of 
 
 g 
 
82 LECTURE X. 
 
 being profoundly learned in the Masora, and other 
 branches of Jewish erudition. 
 
 The Brescia edition of 1494, the Complutensiar* 
 edition of 151 7, and the last-mentioned Romberg's 
 edition of 1525, are the three editions, which were 
 principally used in the printing of the subsequent 
 editions. 
 
 1 
 
 The editions hitherto mentioned Were all 
 printed under the inspection of Jews, or of Jewish 
 Converts. But in 1534 Sebastian Munster, a 
 learned German, who was Professor, first at Hei- 
 delberg, and afterwards at Basel, commenced an 
 edition of the Hebrew Bible, which was finished 
 in the following year, at the office of Frobenius r 
 where Erasmus about the same period was engaged 
 in printing his editions of the Greek Testament. 
 In 1536 Sebastian Munster published a second 
 edition, accompanied, not, as the first edition was, 
 with a Latin translation, but with parts of the 
 Masora, and various critical annotations. Three 
 years afterwards Robert Stephens began his quarto 
 edition of the Hebrew Bible, which was finished 
 in 1543 : and in the two following years he printed 
 his duodecimo edition. In 15 69 the Antwerp 
 Polyglot began to be printed, of which the four 
 first volumes contain the Hebrew Bible, accom- 
 
LECTURE X. 83 
 
 parried with all the ancient versions, which were 
 then known. In 1587 was printed at Hamburg 
 the edition of Elias Hutter. In l6l 1 the cele- 
 brated John Buxtorf printed at Basel his octavo 
 edition of the Hebrew Bible: in l6l$ he published 
 his great Rabbinical Bible: and in 1620 he 
 published his Tiberias, which was intended to 
 illustrate the Masora, and other additions to his 
 great Bible. 
 
 We are now arrived at a period, which forms 
 an epocha in the history of the Hebrew text. 
 Hitherto it was commonly supposed, that all the 
 copies of the Hebrew Bible, as well manuscript as 
 printed, contained the same text with little or no 
 variation. It is true that the Rabbinical Bibles 
 had the marginal words of the Masora, with refe- 
 rences to the correspondent words of the text. 
 But of these marginal words such fanciful notions 
 were then entertained, as prevented their appli- 
 cation to any critical purpose. We know at 
 present that they are various readings to the 
 Hebrew Bible : and Dr. Kennicott relates in his 
 Dissertatio generalis, that among a thousand of 
 them (as printed by Van der Hooght) there were 
 only fourteen, which were not found in the text 
 of some one of the Hebrew manuscripts collated 
 for his edition. They are various readings there- 
 fore in the true sense of the term : they resulted 
 
 8 2 
 
84 LECTURE X. 
 
 from ancient collations of Hebrew manuscripts, 
 begun probably before the age of the Masora, 
 though first recorded, as well as continued and 
 augmented, in that work. Indeed the text itself, 
 aS regulated by the learned Jews of Tiberias, was 
 probably the result of a collation of manuscripts. 
 But as those Hebrew critics were cautious of intro- 
 ducing too many corrections in the text, they 
 noted in the margins of their manuscripts, or in 
 their critical collections, such various readings, 
 derived from other manuscripts either by themselves 
 or by their predecessors, as appeared to be worthy 
 of attention. This is the real origin of those 
 marginal or masoretic readings, which we find in 
 many editions of the Hebrew -Bible. But the 
 propensity of the later Jews to seek mystical 
 meanings in the plainest facts, induced gradually 
 the belief, that both textual and marginal readings 
 proceeded from the sacred writers themselves, and 
 that the latter were transmitted to posterity by 
 oral tradition, as conveying some mysterious ap- 
 plication of the written words. They were regarded 
 therefore as materials, not of criticism, but of 
 interpretation. 
 
 Under these circumstances it is not extra- 
 ordinary, that the Masoretic readings suggested 
 not the notion of a diversity in the Hebrew 
 manuscripts: it is not extraordinary, that Ehas 
 
LECTURE X. 
 
 85 
 
 Levita, a learned Jew at the beginning of the 
 sixteenth century, should say, (as Buxtorf has 
 translated the Rabbinic original,) u Post labor em 
 ilium, quern prcestiterunt Masoretce, impossibile 
 est ut ceciderit, vel cadere possit mutatio out 
 depravatio qucedam ullo modo in ullos libros 
 biblicos : " Nor is it extraordinary that Buxtorf, 
 who quotes this passage in the second chapter of 
 his Tiberias, should confirm it by saying of the 
 Hebrew manuscripts, Omnium librorum, qui vel 
 in Asia, vel in Africa, vel in Europd sunt, sine 
 ulla discrepantia, consonans harmonia cernitur. 
 Eiias Hutter, in the Preface to his edition, which 
 was published more than thirty years before 
 Buxtorf s Tiberias, had indeed declared, that the 
 editions of the Hebrew Bible, as printed by Bom- 
 berg, by Stephens, and in the Antwerp Polyglot, 
 differed from each other in several thousand places, 
 and moreover that the differences in the Hebrew 
 manuscripts were still greater. But either Buxtorf 
 never read this Preface, or his attachment to the 
 Masora prevented him from attending to its evi- 
 dence. He believed therefore in a perfect uni- 
 formity of the Hebrew manuscripts: and this 
 perfect uniformity was supposed to have uninter- 
 ruptedly existed from the times, when the books 
 of the Old Testament were severally written. It 
 was likewise the common opinion in the age of 
 Buxtorf, to which his great authority materially 
 
86 
 
 LECTURE X. 
 
 contributed, not only that the Hebrew letters had 
 descended unaltered from the time of Moses, but 
 that the vowel points, with all their gradations 
 and refinements, were coeval with the letters 
 themselves. 
 
 But soon after the publication of Buxtorfs 
 Tiberias a discovery was made, which gave a new 
 turn to the sentiments of the learned, not only in 
 respect to the Hebrew letters and points, but in 
 regard to the text itself. It had been long known, 
 that the Samaritans, originally descended from the 
 ten tribes who revolted in the reign of Rehoboam, 
 and still existing as a separate sect in Samaria and 
 its neighbourhood, possessed the five books of 
 Moses in a form peculiar to themselves. But from 
 the time of Eusebius and of Jerom, who have 
 noticed this Samaritan Pentateuch, no European 
 appears to have seen it till the beginning of the 
 seventeenth century, when Pietro della Valle, 
 during his travels in the East, obtained not only 
 a copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch itself, but 
 also a translation of it into the Samaritan language. 
 The latter he took with him to Rome : the former 
 he sent to Harlseus de Sancy, one of the Fathers 
 of the Oratory at Paris, who presented it in 1620 
 to the library of that religious house. 
 
 No event in the history of literature has excited 
 
LECTURE X. 
 
 87 
 
 more sensation, than the discovery of this Samaritan 
 Pentateuch. It was observed that, though its 
 letters are very different from the Hebrew, it 
 contained the same Hebrew words as the common 
 manuscripts ; and that, though its text was in 
 many places different, it manifestly contained the 
 same work. It was further observed, that its 
 letters were no where accompanied with vowel 
 points. It was then considered, that, as the 
 Pentateuch is the only part of the Bible, which is 
 received by the Samaritans, their copies of it must 
 have been derived, if not from those of their 
 ancestors, who seceded from the tribe of Judah, 
 at least from some copy, antecedent to the Baby- 
 lonish Captivity. For if their sacred books had 
 been received from the Jews after the Babylonish 
 -Captivity, they would not have been confined to 
 the five books of Moses. This argument was 
 strengthened by the reflexion, that the animosity 
 between the Jews and the Samaritans commenced 
 immediately on the return of the former from 
 Babylonia. It was therefore as improbable, that 
 the Samaritans should then borrow from the Jews, 
 as it was improbable, that their forefathers should 
 have seceded without some copies of the Law^ 
 which was the rule both of their civil and of their 
 religious institutions. Finally, as the Jews, who 
 returned to Palestine at the expiration of the 
 captivity, returned with the language of their 
 
88 
 
 LECTURE X 
 
 Chaldean masters, and the letters of this language 
 were the letters, in which the Jews have written 
 since that period, the supposition, that, with their 
 language, they exchanged also their letters, while 
 the Samaritans retained them, appeared more 
 probable, than that the letters of the Jews were 
 originally the same with those of the Chaldees, 
 and that the exchange took place tin tfc« fart of 
 the Samaritans. It was inferred therefore, that 
 the original alphabet of the sacred writings was 
 not the Chaldee, but the Samaritan : and as the 
 Samaritan letters are not accompanied with points, 
 it was further concluded, that the points now used 
 with the Hebrew or Chaldee letters were the 
 invention of a later age. 
 
 Such were the reflexions suggested by the 
 examination of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Four 
 years had not elapsed from the arrival of the copy 
 of it in the Oratory at Paris, when Ludovicus 
 Cappellus, Hebrew Professor at the French Pro- 
 testant University of Saumur, composed his cele- 
 brated work, Arcanum punctationis revelatum. 
 This work contains almost all the arguments, which 
 have been since used against the antiquity of the 
 Hebrew points ; and they are stated so fully and 
 clearly, that the subject appeared to be exhausted 
 III the first essay on it. But as the opinion, that 
 the Hebrew points were of modern origin, was 
 
LECTURE X. 8Q 
 
 likely, when first advanced, to be regarded as an 
 infringement on the integrity even of the text, 
 Cappellus had the precaution to send his work in 
 manuscript to be examined by Buxtorf, who re- 
 turned it with the request, that it might not be 
 printed. Cappellus then sent it to Erpenius, Pro- 
 fessor of the Oriental languages at Leyden, who 
 so approved of it, that with the permission of the 
 author he printed it at Leyden in 1 624. Buxtorf 
 made no reply to it : and as he died about five 
 years afterwards, he left it to be answered by his 
 son, who was likewise Professor in the University 
 of Basel. But many years elapsed before the 
 younger Buxtorf had prepared an answer to Cap- 
 pellus. In the mean time Johannes Morinus, one 
 of the Fathers of the Oratory at Paris, attacked 
 the antiquity of the Hebrew letters in his Exer- 
 citatlemes ecclesiastics, printed at Paris in 1631. 
 And as the antiquity of the letters appeared more 
 important, perhaps also more defensible, than the 
 antiquity of the points, the younger Buxtorf made 
 his first essay in a defence of the Hebrew letters, 
 entitled Dissertatio de literarum Hebraicarum 
 genuind antiquitate. The precise year when this 
 treatise was first published is not known : but in 
 1645 it received an answer from Cappellus in his 
 Diatriba de veris et antiquis Hebrceorum Uteris, 
 in which Cappellus contended, as Morinus had 
 already done, that the true and the ancient letters 
 
QO LECTURE X. 
 
 of the Hebrews were no other than the Samaritan. 
 In l648 the younger Buxtorf made his reply to 
 Cappellus on the subject of the points, in a work 
 entitled, Tractatus de punctorum vocalium et 
 accentuum in libris Ceteris Testamenti Hebraicis 
 origine, antiquitate, et authoritate, oppositus 
 Arcano punctationis revelato Ludovici Cappelli. 
 To this work Cappellus prepared an answer entitled 
 Arcani punctationis Vindicitf. But he died 
 before the publication of it : and his son, to whom 
 it was left in manuscript, did not publish it, till 
 many years after the death also of his opponent 
 Buxtorf. 
 
 This controversy about the antiquity of the 
 Hebrew letters and points must be carefully dis- 
 tinguished from another controversy hereafter to 
 be mentioned, in which Cappellus and the younger 
 Buxtorf were likewise engaged, on the integrity 
 of the Hebrew text : for the two controversies, 
 though in some measure connected, and frequently 
 confounded, rest on totally distinct grounds. In 
 the opinion, that the Hebrew or Chaldee character 
 was not used by the Jews till after the Babylonish 
 Captivity, and that the present system of vowel 
 points was introduced in a still later age, the most 
 distinguished Hebrew scholars, with a very few 
 exceptions, have sided with Cappellus. 
 
LECTURE X. . gi 
 
 From the controversy on the letters and points 
 we must proceed to the more important contro- 
 versy, which relates to the words. Of this 
 controversy, and of the subsequent labours of 
 the learned to provide a critical apparatus for 
 the purpose of amending the Hebrew text, an 
 account will be given in the following Lecture. 
 
LECTURE XI. 
 
 We are now entering on a question of much 
 greater moment, than the antiquity, either of the 
 Hebrew points, or of the Hebrew letters, namely 
 the integrity of the Hebrew text. The letters 
 may have been changed, the points may be new, 
 yet the words may have remained the same. 
 
 To prevent confusion in this inquiry, we should 
 previously determine the meaning of the expression 
 <c integrity of the Hebrew text? The text of an 
 ancient author may be said to have preserved its 
 integrity, if it has descended to the present age 
 in such a state, as upon the whole the author gave 
 it. If we go further, and require a perfect uni- 
 formity in all the copies of an ancient work, before 
 we will grant, that its 'integrity is preserved, we 
 require more, than it is possible to obtain : for 
 it is impossible to multiply written copies of a 
 
LECTURE XI. 93 
 
 work, without some deviation from the author's 
 own manuscript. We have seen however that 
 Buxtorf, in the second chapter of his Tiberias, 
 carried his notions on this subject so high, as to 
 deny the existence of variations in the Hebrew 
 text ; and thus, by placing its integrity on a false x 
 basis, exposed it to the danger of being questioned 
 upon grounds, which constitute no real cause of 
 impeachment. 
 
 The first person who combated the opinion of 
 Buxtorf on this subject, was not Cappellus, but 
 Johannes Morinus, who, as mentioned in the pre- 
 ceding Lecture, was a priest of the Oratory at 
 Paris, the religious house, which possessed the 
 first-known copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch. 
 Of this Pentateuch Morinus gave a short account 
 in the Preface to his edition of the Septuagint, 
 which was printed at Paris in 1628. He gave 
 a more copious account of it, as also of its trans- 
 lation into the Samaritan language in his Exer- 
 citationes ecclesiastics in utrumque Samaritanorum 
 Pentateuchum, published at Paris in 1631, in 
 which he not only maintained (as related in the 
 preceding Lecture) that the Samaritan letters were 
 the ancient letters of the Jews, but also, that the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch, or the Pentateuch as written 
 with Samaritan letters, contains a more ancient 
 and accurate text of the five books of Moses, than 
 
94 LECTURE XI* 
 
 the Hebrew Pentateuch, or the Pentateuch a* 
 written with the common Hebrew letters. In 
 1632 the Samaritan Pentateuch, with its translation 
 into the Samaritan language, was under the in- 
 spection of Morinus printed in the sixth volume of 
 the Paris Polyglot: and in l633 Morinus published 
 the first volume of his Exercitationes bihlicce de 
 Hebrcei Gracique textus sinceritate, which was 
 reprinted many years afterwards (in 1669) with 
 the addition of a second volume. 
 
 The object of these Exercitationes biblicce i& 
 to shew that the Hebrew Bible has descended to 
 posterity in a very imperfect state ; not that the 
 Jews had wilfully corrupted the sacred writings, 
 but that they had transcribed them so negligently \ 
 as to have lost in very numerous instances the 
 original and genuine text. To establish this po- 
 sition, Morinus appealed not to any diversity, 
 which might be found in the Hebrew manuscripts ; 
 for a collation of Hebrew manuscripts seemed at 
 that time to form no part of the business of a 
 Hebrew critic ? whether this omission was owing 
 to the circumstance, that the Hebrew manuscripts 
 were chiefly in the hands of the Jews, or that the 
 prevalent opinion in regard to their general coin- 
 cidence deterred men from undertaking a task 
 supposed to be useless. Morinus appealed to the 
 differences between the Hebrew and the Samaritan 
 
LECTURE XI. Q5 
 
 texts in the Pentateuch, and to the differences 
 between the Hebrew and the Septuagint in other 
 parts of the Bible. As he believed that the Sama- 
 ritan Pentateuch contained a more ancient and 
 correct text, than the Hebrew Pentateuch, he 
 concluded, that the latter was incorrect, where it 
 differed from the former. And, as the Septuagint 
 version was made from manuscripts, which must 
 have been older by a thousand years, than the 
 oldest of the Hebrew manuscripts extant in the 
 fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, or from which 
 any edition of the Hebrew Bible could have been 
 printed, he inferred that the Septuagint version 
 had greater critical authority, than either Hebrew 
 manuscripts or Hebrew editions. But Morinus, 
 in preferring the Greek version to the Hebrew 
 original, did not consider, that this version has 
 itself undergone material alterations. Morinus 
 argued, as if his copy of the Septuagint contained 
 the Greek text in its original and unadulterated 
 state. It is only on this supposition, that his 
 reasoning from the antiquity of that version com- 
 pared with the age of the present Hebrew manu- 
 scripts, and the inference, which he thence deduced 
 in favour of the former, to the disparagement of 
 the latter, can have the least foundation. But the 
 supposition is evidently false, as appears both from 
 the testimony of Origen, which was given in a 
 former Lecture, and from a collation of the manu- 
 
96 LECTURE XI. 
 
 scripts now extant. In fact, before we can safely 
 apply the Septuagint to the emendation of the 
 Hebrew Bible, we must be furnished with a critical 
 
 edition of the Septuagint itself. From what 
 
 has been already stated, it appears that Morinus 
 went as far into one extreme, as Buxtorf had gone 
 into the other. But Morinus was not satisfied 
 with going thus far: he went still further, and 
 opposed to the Hebrew the authority likewise of 
 the Latin version, for which he could have no 
 other reason, than that the Latin is the established 
 version of his own church, the church of Rome. 
 Here then he mixed religious with critical in- 
 quiries, which must always be kept distinct, or 
 every Christian party will at length have a Bible 
 of its own. 
 
 In the year following Simeon de Muis, who 
 had written already against the Eocercitationes 
 ecclesiastics respecting the Samaritan Pentateuch, 
 published his Assertio altera Veritatis Hebraic^ 
 against the Exercitationes biblica, and the ob- 
 jections of Morinus to the integrity of the Hebrew 
 text. But the controversy on this subject was 
 soon afterwards transferred to Cappellus and the 
 younger Buxtorf. 
 
 In 1650 was published at Paris the first edition 
 of Cappelli Critica sacra. In this work, though 
 
LECTURE XI. 07 
 
 the author so far trod in the footsteps of Morinus, 
 that he combated the strict notions of the elder 
 Buxtorf in regard to the integrity of the Hebrew 
 text, he avoided that extreme on the opposite side, 
 into which Morinus had fallen. He maintained, 
 and rightly maintained, that the Hebrew Bible, 
 like all other works of antiquity, had been exposed 
 to the variations, which unavoidably arise from 
 a multiplication of copies : but he contended not, 
 that the sacred text was thereby rendered uncertain, 
 as a rule of faith and manners. He contended, 
 that the printed editions were not every where so 
 correct, as to warrant the opinion, that emendation 
 is superfluous; but at the same time he admitted 
 that we possessed the means of emendation. He 
 considered the ancient versions, when applied under 
 proper restrictions, as one source of critical authority 
 in ascertaining the genuineness of disputed passages: 
 but he regarded not, with Morinus, a deviation of 
 the Hebrew from the Septuagint or the Vulgate 
 as a reason for supposing, that in such places the 
 Hebrew was incorrect. In short his principles of 
 criticism were such, as the best judges have applied 
 to ancient authors in general. Where Cappellu.s 
 failed, he failed in the application of his principles. 
 He was right in asserting, that the Hebrew manu- 
 scripts, from which the Septuagint and other 
 ancient versions were/ made, had not precisely the 
 
 k 
 
98 
 
 LECTURE XI. 
 
 same text, as modern manuscripts, or printed 
 editions. But he sometimes ascribed to a diversity 
 of reading, what might rather be ascribed to a 
 diversity of translation. He was right in asserting, 
 that the authors of the Masora had not established 
 a Hebrew text, which was free from fault : but he 
 was unjust in not acknowledging the services, which 
 they really performed. He was right in asserting, 
 that even the Masoretic text had not descended to 
 posterity without variations: but he was unjust 
 to the authors of the Masora in not acknowledging 
 the care, which they took to preserve it. For if 
 their success has not been complete, either in 
 establishing or in preserving the Hebrew text, 
 they have been guilty only of the fault, which is 
 common to every human effort. Nor was Cap- 
 pellus enabled by the actual production of Hebrew 
 manuscripts (a defect indeed rather of the times 
 than his own) to confirm several positions, which 
 in themselves were true. 
 
 In these various respects was Cappellus open 
 to attack : and his work had not been published 
 a year, when it was assailed by Arnoldus Bootius, 
 a name now buried in oblivion, and which deserves 
 to be mentioned on no other account, than that 
 his attack was published in the form of a Letter to 
 Archbishop Usher, to whom Cappellus immediately 
 
LECTURE XI. 99 
 
 addressed his Epistola apologetica, in qua Arnoldi 
 Bootii temeraria Critics censura refellitur, which 
 was published at Saumur in 1651. 
 
 But all other assailants were forgotten in the 
 younger Buxtorf, who in 1653 published at Basel 
 his Anticritica, seu vindicia veritatis Hebraic*, 
 adversus Ludovici Cappelli Criticam qiiam vocant 
 sacram, ejusque defensionem. If Buxtorf had been 
 contented with pointing out the defects, which 
 really existed in the work of Cappellus, if he had 
 been satisfied with shewing, that Cappellus was 
 sometimes mistaken in the application of his prin- 
 ciples, if he had only claimed for the Masora, what 
 is really its due, the victory would have been 
 decidedly in his favour. But he failed of success 
 by attempting too much. Educated, like his father, 
 no less in the prejudices, than in the learning of 
 the Jewish Rabbins, he adhered to those strict 
 notions on the integrity of the Hebrew text, 
 which can never apply to a work of antiquity. 
 And by refusing to admit, what was indisputably 
 true, he contributed to establish at least the prin- 
 ciples of Cappellus, by the very efforts, which he 
 made to confute them. 
 
 Four years after the publication of Buxtorf s 
 Anticritica, Bishop Walton, in his Prolegomena 
 to the London Polyglot, declared in favour of the 
 
100 LECTURE XI. 
 
 principles asserted by Cappellus, acknowledged the 
 necessity of forming a critical apparatus for the 
 purpose of obtaining a more correct text of the 
 Hebrew Bible, and materially contributed thereto 
 bv his own exertions. 
 
 A collation of Hebrew manuscripts, like those 
 which have been made of the Greek manuscripts, 
 was still wanted : but as the necessity of such a 
 collation began now to be acknowledged, attempts 
 to that purpose were gradually made by the sub- 
 sequent editors of the Hebrew Bible. In l66l 
 Joseph Athias, a learned Rabbi and printer at 
 Amsterdam, published a Hebrew Bible (reprinted 
 in 1667) the text of which was founded on manu- 
 scripts, as well as on printed editions. And in the 
 Preface, which was written by John Leusden, 
 Hebrew Professor at Utrecht, it is related that one 
 of the manuscripts was nine hundred years old. 
 In 1690 Jablonski, a Lutheran Clergyman at 
 Berlin* published a Hebrew Bible, for which he 
 likewise collated manuscripts, and gave some 
 account of them in his Preface. In 1705 was 
 printed at Amsterdam the edition of Van der 
 Hooght, well known for its typographical beauty, 
 and its convenience for common use. The text 
 was chiefly formed on that' of Athias. It has the 
 Masoretic readings in the margin, and a collection 
 of various readings from printed editions at the 
 
LECTURE XI. 
 
 101 
 
 end. In 1709 Professor Opitz at Kiel published 
 a Hebrew Bible, for which he collated both editions 
 and manuscripts: and in 1720 John Henry Mi- 
 chaelis, Professor at Halle, and uncle to the author 
 of the Introduction to the New Testament, pub- 
 lished a Hebrew Bible, for which he collated, 
 beside many printed editions, five Hebrew manu- 
 scripts preserved at Erfurt, of which the various 
 
 readings are quoted at the bottom of the page. ° 
 
 These are the chief among the critical editions of 
 the Hebrew Bible, which appeared before the 
 middle of the last century : for though the edition 
 of Reincecius, which was several times reprinted, 
 professes on the title-page to have been formed at 
 least partly on the authority of manuscripts, those 
 manuscripts are no where mentioned in it. 
 
 Toward the middle of the last century the 
 expectations of the public were considerably raised 
 by the preparations for an edition of the Hebrew 
 Bible by Houbigant, a priest of the Oratory at 
 Paris. Like Wetstein he published his Prole- 
 gomena before he published the edition itself 
 They were first printed in 1746, and were followed 
 in 1753 by a splendid edition of the Hebrew Bible 
 in four volumes folio. The text of this edition 
 was copied from the text of Van der Hooght, 
 divested indeed of points, and of every thing which 
 appeared Masoretic. Its value therefore as a 
 
102 LECTURE XI. 
 
 critical edition must depend, first on the apparatus, 
 which the editor provided for the purpose of 
 amending the Hebrew text, and secondly on the 
 mode, in which he applied his apparatus. Now 
 this apparatus bore no proportion to the magnitude 
 of the undertaking. If we except the Samaritan 
 readings, which are printed in the margin of the 
 Pentateuch, it consisted altogether of extracts 
 from only twelve Hebrew manuscripts, three of 
 which were preserved in the Royal Library, and 
 nine in the library belonging to the Oratory, of 
 which Houbigant was member. They are described 
 partly in his general Prolegomena, partly in the 
 Dissertation prefixed to the Prophets. He says 
 indeed (Prol. p. evii.) that he saw and had in his 
 possession some other manuscripts belonging to the 
 Royal Library : but it does not appear that he ever 
 used them. Nor did he make much use even of 
 the manuscripts, which he did collate. Their 
 various readings are not regularly quoted at the 
 bottom of the page as is usual in critical editions 
 of the Greek Testament : they are introduced 
 occasionally in the Notes, which are subjoined to 
 each chapter : and when they are introduced, 
 which is not very often, they are introduced chiefly 
 for the purpose of supporting such readings, as 
 the editor himself preferred. The general evidence 
 therefore, which a collation of manuscripts affords, 
 is here withholden. In fact the learned editor 
 
LECTURE XI 
 
 103 
 
 himself, as appears from what he says in his Pro- 
 legomena, attached little or no value to any of the 
 Hebrew manuscripts now extant: and, though 
 he allows them a place among the sources of 
 emendation, that place appears, both from his 
 principles, and from his practice, to have been 
 rather nominal than real. Like his predecessor 
 Morinus, he attached much greater importance to 
 the readings of the Septuagint, and other ancient 
 versions. Like Morinus too, he uniformly pre- 
 ferred the text of the Samaritan to the text of the 
 Hebrew Pentateuch. Now though it cannot be 
 denied, that the Samaritan Pentateuch is of great 
 importance to a biblical critic, though it is probable 
 that many of its readings are preferable to the 
 correspondent readings of the Hebrew, yet to 
 assume, as a general principle, that the Hebrew 
 is faulty, or even to be suspected, because it differs 
 from the Samaritan, is to regulate our judgement 
 by a single evidence, where other witnesses are at 
 least entitled to be heard. But there was a fourth 
 source: of emendation, to which Houbigant had 
 more frequent recourse than to any other, namely^ 
 emendation from his own conjecture. And here 
 he indulged himself to such a' degree, as no sober 
 critic can approve. It is true, that he did not 
 obtrude his conjectures on the Hebrew text. But 
 he introduced them in his Latin translation, which 
 not only accompanied the Hebrew, but was after- 
 
IU4 LECTURE XI. 
 
 wards printed separately, and is necessarily more 
 *ead than the original. Though he professed 
 therefore to adopt the principles of Cappellus, he 
 had not the caution, nor had he the sagacity of 
 that eminent critic : and in his opposition to the 
 two Buxtorfs he was most defective where they 
 were most distinguished. We must not indeed 
 deny the ingenuity, which he sometimes displays 
 in his critical conjectures: but if he had known 
 more, he would have conjectured less. He knew 
 too little of the Masora, to form a judgement of 
 it : and he rejected, as is frequently the case, what 
 he did not fully understand. In short, if we must 
 go into extremes, the extreme of the two Buxtorfs 
 is infinitely wiser and safer, than the extreme of 
 Houbigant : and we had better declare at once, 
 that the Hebrew text requires no emendation, 
 than submit the Bible to the critical licentiousness 
 of an editor, who corrects without controul. 
 
 In the same year, in which Houbigant's 
 edition was delivered to the public, Dr. Kennicott, 
 then Fellow of Exeter College in Oxford, published 
 his first Dissertation on the state of the printed 
 Hebrew text, in which he endeavoured to shew 
 the necessity of the same extensive collation of 
 Hebrew manuscripts, as had been already under- 
 taken of the Greek manuscripts : and in support 
 of his opinion he exhibited a specimen of various 
 
LECTURE XI. 
 
 105 
 
 readings from seventy Hebrew manuscripts pre- 
 served in the Bodleian Library. In 1759 he 
 published his second Dissertation, on the state 
 of the printed Hebrew text, wherein he also replied 
 to the objections which had been made to his first 
 Dissertation. And the utility of the proposed 
 collation being then very generally admitted, a very 
 liberal subscription was made to defray the expence 
 of the collation. The subscription amounted on 
 the whole to nearly ten thousand pounds, and the 
 name of his present Majesty headed the list of 
 subscribers. Various persons were employed, both 
 at home and abroad : but of the foreign literati 
 the principal was Professor Bruns, of the Uni- 
 versity of Helmstadt, who not only collated Hebrew 
 manuscripts in Germany, but went for that purpose 
 into Italy and Switzerland. The business of col- 
 lation continued from 1760 to 1769 inclusive, 
 during which period Dr. Kennicott published 
 annually an account of the progress, which was 
 made. More than six hundred Hebrew manu- 
 scripts, and sixteen manuscripts of the Samaritan 
 Pentateuch were discovered in different libraries 
 in England and on the Continent : many of which 
 were wholly collated, and others consulted in im- 
 portant passages. Several years of course elapsed, 
 after the collations were finished, before the ma- 
 terials could be arranged and digested for publi- 
 cation. In 1776 the first volume of Dr. Kennicott* 
 
106 LECTURE XI. 
 
 Hebrew Bible was delivered to the public, and in 
 1780 the second volume. It was printed at the 
 Clarendon Press : and the University of Oxford 
 has the honour of having produced the first critical 
 edition upon a large scale, both of the Greek 
 Testament, and of the Hebrew Bible, an honour, 
 which it is still maintaining by a similar 
 edition, hitherto indeed unfinished, of the Greek 
 Version, , 
 
 The text of Kennicott's edition was printed 
 from that of Van der Hooght, with which the 
 Hebrew manuscripts, by Kennicott's direction, 
 were all collated. But, as variations in the points 
 were disregarded in the collation, the points were 
 not added in the text. The various readings, as 
 in the critical editions of the Greek Testament, 
 were printed at the bottom of the page with refe- 
 rences to the correspondent readings of the text. 
 In the Pentateuch the deviations of the Samaritan 
 text were printed in a column parallel to the 
 Hebrew ; and the variations observable in the 
 Samaritan manuscripts, which differ from each 
 other as well as the Hebrew, are likewise noted 
 with references to the Samaritan printed text. 
 To this collation of manuscripts was added a col- 
 lation of the most distinguished editions of the 
 Hebrew Bible, in the same manner as Wetstein 
 has noted the variations observable in the principal 
 
 r 
 
LECTURE XI. 107 
 
 editions of the Greek Testament. Nor did Ken- 
 nicott confine his collation to manuscripts and 
 editions. He further considered, that, as the quo- 
 tations from the Greek Testament in the works 
 of ecclesiastical writers afford another source of 
 various readings, so the quotations from the 
 Hebrew Bible in the works of Jewish writers are 
 likewise subjects of critical inquiry. For this 
 purpose he had recourse to the most distinguished 
 among the Rabbinical writings, but particularly 
 to the Talmud, the text of which is as ancient as 
 the third century. In the quotation of his autho- 
 rities he designates them by numbers from 1 to 
 692, including Manuscripts, Editions, and Rab- 
 binical writings, which numbers are explained in 
 the Dissertatio generalis annexed to the second 
 volume. 
 
 This Dissertatio generalis, which corresponds 
 to what are called Prolegomena in other critical 
 editions, contains, not only an account of the 
 manuscripts and other authorities collated for this 
 edition, but also a review of the Hebrew text 
 divided into periods, and beginning with the for- 
 mation of the Hebrew canon after the return of 
 the Jews from the Babylonish Captivity. Though 
 inquiries of this description unavoidably contain 
 matters of doubtful disputation, though the opi- 
 nions of Kennicott have been frequently questioned, 
 
108 LECTURE XI. 
 
 and sometimes justly questioned, his Dissertatio 
 generalis is a work of great interest to every 
 biblical scholar. Kennicott was a disciple of 
 Cappellus, both in respect to the integrity of the 
 Hebrew text, and in respect to the preference of 
 the Samaritan Pentateuch : but he avoided the 
 extreme, into which Morinus and Houbigant had 
 fallen. And though he possessed not the Rab- 
 binical learning of the two Buxtorfs, his merits 
 were greater, than some of his contemporaries, as 
 well in England as on the Continent, were willing 
 to allow. 
 
 That the mass of various readings exhibited in 
 this edition, which greatly surpass in number the 
 various readings collected by the industry of three 
 centuries for the Greek Testament, contains but 
 few of real importance, is no subject of reproach 
 to the learned editor, who could only produce what 
 his authorities afforded. Nor is he to be censured 
 for giving all that he had without regard to their 
 relative value. His was the first attempt, which 
 was ever made, to give a copious collection of 
 Hebrew readings : and he could hardly have been 
 justified, if he had exercised his own discretion in 
 regard to the portion, which should be laid before 
 the public. He wisely therefore afforded the 
 opportunity to his readers of selecting for them- 
 selves : and though his extracts are rarely of much 
 
LECTURE XI. 
 
 109 
 
 value for the purpose of critical emendation, they 
 enable us, both to form an estimate of the existing 
 Hebrew manuscripts, and to draw some important 
 conclusions in regard to the integrity of the Hebrew 
 text. 
 
 The major part of this immense collection 
 consists in mere variations of orthography, in the 
 fulness or defectiveness of certain words, in the 
 addition or subtraction of a mater lectionis, of 
 a Vau or a Jod. And if we further deduct the 
 readings, which are either manifest errata, or in 
 other respects are of no value, the important devi- 
 ations will be confined within a very narrow 
 compass. In short Dr. Kennicott's collation has 
 contributed to establish the credit of the Masora. 
 We learn from it this useful lesson, that although 
 a multiplication of written copies will, notwith- 
 standing all human endeavours, produce variations 
 in the text, the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible 
 have been so far protected by the operation of the 
 Masora, that all which are now extant, both the 
 oldest and the newest, may be compared with those 
 manuscripts of the Greek Testament, which Gries- 
 bach refers to the same edition. 
 
 That the integrity therefore of the Hebrew 
 text, from the time when it was fixed by the 
 
110 
 
 LECTURE XI. 
 
 authors of the Masora, has been as strictly pre- 
 served to the present age, as it is possible to 
 preserve an ancient work, is a position, which no 
 longer admits a doubt. Another question of equal 
 importance is, whether we have sufficient reason 
 to believe, that this Masoretic text is itself an 
 accurate copy of the sacred writings. In the 
 examination of this question Hebrew manuscripts 
 are of no use : the oldest now extant are younger 
 by some centuries than the Masora itself: and 
 therefore they cannot furnish the means of cor- 
 recting the faults, which the Masorets themselves 
 may have committed. For though Ante-Masoretic 
 readings should occasionally be found in Hebrew 
 manuscripts, it would be very uncritical to correct 
 the Masoretic text on their authority alone, unless 
 we might take for granted, what we certainly may 
 not, that every Masoretic alteration was an alte- 
 ration for the worse. But if we cannot appeal to 
 positive evidence, we must argue from the evidence, 
 which the nature of the case admits. It is indeed 
 one of those questions, which ought to be holden 
 in the affirmative, till we have reason to believe 
 the negative. Now the learned Jews of Tiberias, 
 in the third and fourth centuries, must have had 
 access to Hebrew manuscripts which were written 
 before the Birth of Christ. We know that they 
 sought and collated them. We know that their 
 
LECTURE XI. Ill 
 
 exertions to obtain an accurate text were equal to 
 their endeavours to preserve it. Why then shall 
 we conclude, that they laboured in vain f 
 
 Our notions of integrity must not indeed be 
 carried to such an height, as to imply that no 
 deviations from the sacred autographs were retained 
 in the Masoretic text, that there are no passages 
 in our present Hebrew Bibles, which betray marks 
 of corruption, and still require critical aid. Such 
 passages undoubtedly there are: and we are still 
 in want of an edition of the Hebrew Bible, con- 
 ducted on the plan of Griesbach's Greek Testament, 
 Kennicott's edition brought us hardly so far in 
 the Criticism of the former, as Mill's edition in 
 the Criticism of the latter. In the years 1/84 — 
 1788 John Bernard de Rossi of Parma published 
 four quarto volumes (afterwards augmented by 
 a supplemental volume) of extracts from Hebrew 
 manuscripts, which form a considerable addition 
 to Kennicott's collations: and in 1793 an edition 
 of the Hebrew Bible was published at Leipzig 
 by Doederlein and Meisner, with the most 
 important readings, which had been given both 
 by Kennicott and Dr. Rossi. But we still want 
 an edition of the Hebrew Bible, in which the 
 readings of manuscripts are united, as in critical 
 editions of the Greek Testament, with judicious 
 extracts from the ancient versions. Such an 
 
4§ fgfr- w 
 
 112 LECTURE XI. 
 
 edition would supply the materials, which if care- 
 fully used, might enable us in various places to 
 correct what appears inaccurate. 
 
 The history of the printed Hebrew text being 
 now brought to a conclusion, it is necessary 
 according to the general plan to describe the 
 Authors who have illustrated the Criticism of the 
 Hebrew Bible, according to its several depart- 
 ments. This description will form the subject of 
 the following Lecture. 
 
LECTURE XII 
 
 In the enumeration of the authors, who have 
 best explained the several departments of Hebrew 
 Criticism, we may proceed by a method similar 
 to that, which was adopted in respect to the 
 Greek Testaments 
 
 As a. general and elementary treatise on the 
 Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Dr. Gerard's Insti- 
 tutes already mentioned in the ninth Lecture, may 
 be again recommended. Though it relates as well 
 to the Interpretation, as to the Criticism of the 
 Bible properly so called, and both subjects are 
 comprehended under one name, yet, as they are 
 not confounded, it will be easy to select such parts, 
 as immediately relate to our present inquiry. 
 
 A knowledge of the editions of the Hebrew 
 Bible may be best obtained from the first volume 
 
1 14 LECTURE XII. 
 
 of the Bibliotheca sacra, as published by Masch. 
 An account both of the original and of the last 
 edition of this work was given in the ninth Lecture, 
 and therefore it is unnecessary at present to observe 
 any thing more, than what particularly relates to 
 the Hebrew Bible. On this subject the learned 
 editor is much more diffuse, and much more 
 profound, than in the account, which he has given 
 of the editions of the Greek Testament. In his 
 description of the Hebrew Bible he confines 
 himself not merely to the external history of the 
 editions, but occasionally institutes critical inquiries 
 in respect to the formation of their text . He has 
 given also a preliminary dissertation Be codicum 
 Hebraicorum diversitatihus, in which the editions 
 of the Hebrew Bible are divided into two classes, 
 the one called Masoretic, the other Amasoretic. 
 The former class comprises the Hebrew Bibles, 
 which have the marginal readings of the Masora, 
 and is subdivided into two portions, according as 
 those readings are quoted, either wholly, or only 
 in part. The second class comprises those editions, 
 in which the readings of the Masora are unnoticed. 
 An account of the editions of the Hebrew Bible 
 to the year 1 730 is given also in the second and 
 fourth volumes of Woljii Bibliotheca Hebnea, 
 De Rossi of Parma has greatly contributed to our 
 knowledge of the early editions of the Hebrew 
 Bibles, both by his Disqmsitio critica de Hebraic* 
 
tJECTURE XII. 115 
 
 typographic? origine, published at Parma in 1776, 
 and by his Apparatus Hehr^o-Bihlicus, published 
 at Parma in 1782. But all the information, 
 communicated on this subject, as well by De Rossi 
 as by Wolf, has been transferred to the Bibliotheca 
 sacra by Masch, either in the first or in the sup- 
 plementary volume* With no less industry and 
 fidelity has the author of the Bibliographical 
 Dictionary (noticed in the ninth Lecture) availed 
 
 himself of the labours of his predecessors. The 
 
 critical editions of the Hebrew Bible are described 
 in Dr. Kennicott's Dissert atio generalis ; and a 
 critical dissertation on the editions of the Bible, 
 which preceded the London Polyglot, is contained 
 in the fourth chapter of Walton s Prolegomena. 
 These Prolegomena, to which we shall have 
 frequent occasion to refer, and which contain an 
 inestimable treasure of Oriental literature, were 
 reprinted in octavo at Leipzig in 1777, by L A. 
 Dathe, Professor of the Oriental Languages in that 
 University^ who accompanied that edition with 
 a valuable preface. The Dissertatio generalis 
 was likewise reprinted in octavo at Brunswick, in 
 1783, by Professor Bruns of Helmstadt, who was 
 Kennicott's chief assistant in the collation of 
 Hebrew manuscripts, and who accompanied the 
 edition both with a preface and notes. 
 
 Of manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible some 
 
 i 2 
 
1 1$ tECTURE' XII. 
 
 account is given in the fourth chapter of Walton's 
 Prolegomena. In the folio edition of the Biblio-* 
 theca sacra, published in 1723, a catalogue of the 
 Hebrew manuscripts is given as far as they were 
 then known. In the second and fourth volumes 
 of the Bibliotheca Hebrtea, the latter of which was 
 published in 1733, a further account is given of 
 the then-known Hebrew manuscripts. To this 
 work should be added H. R Koecheri Nova Bib- 
 liotheca Hebraica, published at Jena in 1783 and 
 1784, in two volumes quarto, as a supplement to 
 that of Wolf. Till the collation was made for 
 Dr. Kennicott's edition our knowledge of Hebrew 
 manuscripts was confined to a very small number. 
 This number however was so increased by that 
 collation, that they now amount to more than six 
 hundred. They are all enumerated by Dr. Ken- 
 nieott in his Dissertatio generalis; and the learned 
 editor has related in what library each manuscript 
 is preserved, by what mark or number it is there 
 known, what books it contains, in what year it 
 was written, (where a date is annexed to it), or 
 to what century he himself refers it (where the 
 manuscript has no date), whether it is written- in 
 Spanish or German hand, and (whenever an account 
 of it has been already published) what author or 
 authors may be further consulted. The Disser- 
 tatio generalis therefore is the work, which is 
 always to be examined in the first instance by 
 
LECTURE XI X. 117 
 
 .those, who are desirous of obtaining information 
 on any Hebrew manuscript, which had been col- 
 lated before 1/70, when Kennicotfs collation was 
 closed. A valuable supplement to Kennieott's 
 catalogue is contained in the following work, 
 Apparatus Hebnco-bibUcus, seu manuscripti, editi^ 
 que codices Sacri Textus, quos possidet novceque 
 variantium lectionum collationi destinat Jo. Bern. 
 
 de Rossi. Parma?, 1782. 8vo. -But whoever 
 
 wishes to become more intimately acquainted with 
 the nature of Hebrew manuscripts in general, 
 must consult the following work by Professor 
 O. O. Tychsen, of the University of Rostock in 
 Mecklenburg: Tentamen de variis codicum He- 
 braicorum Veteris Testamenti manuscriptorum 
 generibus, a Judceis et non Judceis descriptis, 
 eorumque in classes cert as distributione, et anti- 
 quitatis et bonitatis characteribus. Rostochii, 
 1772. Svo, In addition to the rules, which it 
 prescribes, for judging of the antiquity, country, 
 writer, &c. of Hebrew manuscripts, it has digressions 
 on other points of Hebrew literature, which shall 
 be noticed in the sequel. — In determining the 
 antiquity of Hebrew manuscripts, it may be useful 
 likewise to consult a short treatise by Professor 
 Schnurrer of Tubingen, entitled, De codicum 
 Hebrasorum Veteris Testamenti cetate difficulter 
 tfeterminandd, printed in his Dissert at iones philo- 
 logico-criticce, which were published at Gotha and 
 
118 
 
 LECTURE XII 
 
 Amsterdam in 179°> octavo. They, who are 
 acquainted with German, will find the most 
 perspicuous, and the most systematic account of 
 Hebrew manuscripts in the second volume of 
 Eichhorn's Introduction. -Beside the manu- 
 scripts in Hebrew letters, sixteen manuscripts of 
 the Pentateuch in Samaritan letters were collated 
 for Kennicott's edition, of which an account is 
 given in the catalogue of manuscripts in the Dis^ 
 sertatio generalise It was related in the tenth 
 Lecture, that we first became acquainted with the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch at the beginning of the 
 seventeenth century; that the first known copy 
 of it was deposited in the library of the Oratory at 
 Paris ; and that the deviation of its text from that 
 of the Hebrew Pentateuch gave rise to a controversy 
 on the subject of their relative value. But an 
 account of the principal authors on this subject 
 will be more properly given, when we come to that 
 department, which relates to the utility and appli- 
 cation of various readings. —The Samaritan 
 
 Pentateuch was first printed in the Paris Polyglot 
 under the inspection of Morinus, and was reprinted 
 by Walton in the London Polyglot. In these 
 editions it is printed in the Samaritan character, 
 In 179° ^e late Dr. Blayney, Hebrew Professor 
 at Oxford, published it/ in an octavo volume, in 
 the Hebrew character, which had been already 
 used by IJoubigant and Kennicott, in printing the 
 
LECTURE XII. 1 $@ 
 
 deviations of the Samaritan text. Dr. Blayney's 
 edition is moreover accompanied with the readings 
 of the Samaritan manuscripts (collated for Ken- 
 nicott's edition) which differ from the printed 
 Samaritan text. 
 
 On the ancient versions of the Hebrew Bible* 
 which open a second source of various readings, 
 our means of information are very ample. A con- 
 siderable part of Walton's Prolegomena is devoted 
 to this subject : and they are particularly valuable 
 in respect to the oriental versions, which are 
 described in the six last chapters. The second 
 book of Simon's critical History of the Old 
 Testament is wholly employed on the translations 
 of it, both ancient and modern, though the latter 
 are of no value in a critical history of the Hebrew 
 text, on which account the notice of Lewis's and 
 other histories of our English translations must 
 be reserved for the second branch of Theology, 
 the Interpretation of the Bible. In Carpzov's 
 Critica sacra Ceteris Testamenti, printed at 
 Leipzig in 1728, quarto, the second part con- 
 tains also an account of the translations of the Old 
 Testament. A popular account is given of them 
 in the second volume of Prideaux's Connexion: 
 and also in Dr. Brett's Dissertation on the ancient 
 Versions of the Bible, of which the second edition 
 was published in London in 1760, and is re^ 
 
120 
 
 LECTURE XII* 
 
 printed in the third volume of Bishop Watson's 
 Theological Tracts. The object of this latter 
 work, as the author declares on the title-page, was 
 to shew the excellent use, that may be made of the 
 ancient versions towards attaining the true readings 
 of the Holy Scriptures in doubtful places. But 
 that, which far surpasses all other works on the 
 critical application of the ancient versions, is 
 Eichhorn's Introduction to the Old Testament, 
 in which the latter half of the first volume is 
 
 devoted to this subject. The best account of 
 
 the editions of the ancient versions is given in the 
 second part of the Bibliotheca sacra, published by 
 Masch. No work contains so many of the ancient 
 versions, and so well arranged, as the London 
 Polyglot,, 
 
 As the Septuagint is not only the most ancient 
 version of the Hebrew Bible, but is frequently 
 quoted in the Greek Testament, and as it is likewise 
 more familiar to us, than any other ancient version, 
 the Latin only excepted # , the authors, who have 
 
 * TJie hi^ory of the Latin Version has been already given^ 
 in the fourth Lecture. It is only the Latin Vulgate, made by 
 Jerom from the Hebrew, which can be applied to the Criticism 
 pf the Hebrew Bible. The qlci Latin version published by 
 Sabatier (at Rheims in 1743, in three volumes folio,) being 
 jn the Old Testament made from the Septuagint, applies 
 
 immediately 
 
LECTURE XII. 121 
 
 written on it, deserve more particular notice. The 
 first writer, who instituted a systematic inquiry 
 into the Septuagint version, was Archbishop Usher 
 in a work entitled De Grcecd Septuaginta inter- 
 prelum Versione Syntagma, printed in London 
 in 1655, quarto. It is divided into nine chapters^ 
 and relates to the origin of the version according 
 to the account of Aristeas (then supposed to be 
 genuine), to the time when and the place where 
 it was written, to the alterations which were gra- 
 dually made in its text, to the corrections of 
 Origen, to the modern editions, and other subjects, 
 wjth whiph these are immediately connected, This 
 is a work of great merit ; it displays much original 
 inquiry, and may be regarded as the ground-work 
 of later publications on the Septuagint. In l6'6l 
 Isaac Vossius published at the Hague, in quarto, 
 his work entitled De Septuaginta interpretibus, 
 eorumque tralatione et chronologia dissert ationes. 
 Isaac Vossius was such an admirer of the Septu- 
 agint, that he ascribed to it more authority, than 
 to the original itself. But he met with a very 
 powerful adversary in Humphrey Hody, then a 
 young man and Fellow of Wadham College in 
 
 immediately to the Criticism of the Septuagint. In the 
 edition of the Bihliotheca sacra, Part II. Vol. III. as published 
 by Masch, both versions are fully described. Much infor- 
 mation on the subject of the Vulgate may be obtained from 
 body's work Be textibus, fyc. 
 
 1 
 
122 
 
 LECTURE XII 
 
 Oxford, who in l685 published in London, in 
 octavo, his treatise entitled Contra historiam 
 Aristeae de LAX. interpretibus dissert atio : in 
 qua probatur Mam a Judcco aliquo confectam 
 fuisse ad conciliandam authoritatem Versioni 
 Graecae ; et clarissimi doctissimique viri D. Isaaci 
 Vossii aliorumque defensiones ejusdem examini 
 subjiciuntur. This very acute and learned writer 
 has clearly proved his position in respect to the 
 writing which bears the name of Aristeas : some 
 feeble efforts were made indeed to defend the 
 authenticity of that writing, especially by Whiston 
 in an Appendix to his Literal Accomplishment of 
 Scripture Prophecies : but the opinion of Hody 
 is at present very generally adopted. In 1705 
 Hody, who was then become Greek Professor and 
 Archdeacon of Oxford, published the work already 
 quoted in the fourth Lecture, De Bibliorum tex- 
 tibus originalibus, Versionibus Groecis et Latind 
 Vulgata libri quatuor. This is the classical work 
 on the Septuagint* : but there are others which 
 
 * As Hody in common with many other learned men 
 considers the Hexapla and Tetrapla as different works, and 
 they were represented in the third Lecture as only different 
 names of the same work viewed in different lights, it may be 
 necessary to observe, that the latter is the opinion of Eichhorn, 
 and several other very distinguished critics of the present age. 
 It would be foreign to the design of these Lectures to enter 
 into an elaborate discussion on this subject. I will take 
 however this opportunity of correcting an inaccuracy in the 
 
 same 
 
LECTURE XII. 
 
 123 
 
 tire worthy of notice, especially two publications 
 by Dr. Henry Owen, Rector of St. Olave, Hart- 
 street, the one An Enquiry into the present State 
 of the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament ; 
 London, 1769, 8vo ; the other A brief Account 
 historical and critical of the Septuagint Version 
 of the Old Testament. London, lf8f, 8vo. The 
 author, who is himself an excellent critic, treads 
 closely in the footsteps of Hody. The last work 
 especially should be read by every man, who 
 wishes to be acquainted with the history of the 
 Septuagint. The following is likewise a very 
 useful work, as it represents both concisely and 
 perspicuously the several topics, which suggest 
 themselves for consideration on the origin of the 
 Septuagint version. De origine versionis Sep- 
 tuaginta interpretum: auctore S. T. Muecke, 
 Conrectore Lycei Soraviensis. Zullichovice, 
 1788, 8vo. » The authors on some particular 
 subjects connected with the utility and application 
 of various readings will be noticed when we come 
 to that department. 
 
 same Lecture at p. 62. From what was there said of the 
 column of the Hexapla, which contained the corrected text 
 of the Septuagint with its critical marks, and which was 
 transcribed by Eusebius and Pamphilus, it might be inferred, 
 that the Hexaplarian text of the Septuagint has descended to 
 us only in fragments, whereas the observation is true only of 
 the other Greek versions, which Origen applied to the emen- 
 dation of the Septuagint. 
 
124 
 
 LECTURE XH. 
 
 The editions of the Septuagint, are fully de- 
 scribed in the second volume of the second part 
 of the Bibliotheca sacra, as published by Masch ; 
 to which description is prefixed an account of the 
 origin, both of the Septuagint and the other Greek 
 versions of the Bible. It may be proper to observe, 
 that there are four principal or cardinal editions 
 of the Septuagint, from one or more of which all 
 the other editions of the Septuagint have been 
 copied ; namely the Complutensian, the Aldine, 
 the Roman of Sixtus V., and Grabes edition. 
 The Complutensian Septuagint bears the date of 
 1515; it was printed from a collation of Greek 
 manuscripts, which the editors highly extol, but 
 of which we have no further knowledge. The 
 Aldine edition was published at Venice in 1518, 
 two years after the death of Aldus Manutius. 
 The text of this edition was likewise formed from 
 several Greefc manuscripts, but was interpolated 
 in various places from other Greek versions. The 
 Roman edition of Sixtus V., which appeared in 
 1587, was copied from the celebrated Codex Vatu 
 canus, with the exception of such words as the 
 editors regarded in the light of errata. But as 
 such corrections depended wholly on the judgement 
 of the editors, and it is of importance to know the 
 real readings of the Codex Vaticanus, Dr. Holmes 
 in his edition of the Pentateuch has carefully noted 
 the differences, however minute, between the texts 
 
LECTURE XII. 
 
 125 
 
 of the Roman edition and of the Vatican manuscript. 
 Grabe's edition was taken from the no Jess celebrated 
 Codex Alexandrinus, and was printed at Oxford 
 in four folio volumes at different times from 1707 
 to 1720. But though this edition has the Codex 
 Alexandrinus for its basis, it is far from being a 
 mere copy of that manuscript : for Grabe (also Lee 
 who continued it after Grabe's death) adopted 
 many readings partly from the Roman edition,, 
 partly from other manuscripts, where those readings 
 were believed to be genuine. The most convenient 
 edition is that of Breitinger, published at Zurich 
 in 1730 — 1732 in four quarto volumes: for it 
 contains the text of Grabe's edition with the 
 deviations of the Roman edition in the margin. 
 
 Hitherto no collation of manuscripts of the 
 
 Septuagint had been undertaken upon an extensive 
 scale. In 1779 Dr. White, Arabic (now Hebrew) 
 Professor at Oxford, published a Letter to the 
 Bishop of London, suggesting a plan for a new 
 edition of the Septuagint. In the same year 
 Mr. Stroth, Master of the Grammar School at 
 Goth a, published in the fifth volume of Eichhorn's 
 Repertorium the first part of his Catalogue of 
 MSS. of the LXX., which he continued in the 
 eighth and eleventh volumes. In 1788 Dr. Holmes 
 (afterwards Dean of Winchester) published at 
 Oxford proposals for a collation of all the known 
 manuscripts of the Septuagint. The undertaking 
 
126 
 
 LECTURE XII 
 
 was promoted by the Delegates of the Clarendon 
 Press ; a subscription was made toward defraying 
 the expence ; literary men were engaged in various 
 parts of the Continent for the business of collation ; 
 and Dr. Holmes published annually an account of 
 the progress which was made. In ne P UD- 
 
 lished at Oxford the Book of Genesis, which was 
 successively followed by the other books of the 
 Pentateuch, making together one folio volume, 
 with one title-page, and one general Preface. 
 From this general Preface it appears, that eleven 
 Greek manuscripts in uncial letters, and more 
 than an hundred manuscripts in small letters, 
 containing either the whole or parts of the Pen- ' 
 tateuch, were collated for this edition. They are 
 all described in the second and third chapters* 
 And as the text of this edition is a copy of the 
 Roman edition of 1587* the deviations from it 
 observable in the three other cardinal editions, the 
 Complutensian, the Aldine, and Grabe's edition, 
 are constantly noted. The quotations, which are 
 found in the works of the Greek Fathers, are 
 likewise alleged : and finally the Various readings 
 of the ancient versions, namely of such as were 
 made from the Septuagint, for versions made 
 immediately from the Hebrew, can furnish no 
 various readings for the^emendation of the Greek. 
 The plan therefore of this edition is good: it is 
 that which had been already applied by Mill, 
 
LECTURE XII 
 
 127 
 
 Wetstein, and Griesbach to the Greek Testament, 
 Nor is the execution of the plan to be less com- 
 mended : it displays uncommon industry, and 
 apparently great accuracy. The learned editor 
 died in 1 806 : but shortly before his death he 
 published the Book of Daniel, both according to 
 the Septuagint version and that of Theodotion, 
 the latter only having been printed in former 
 editions, because the Septuagint version of this 
 book is not contained in the common manuscripts, 
 and was unknown till it was printed at Rome in 
 1772 from a manuscript belonging to Cardinal 
 Chigi. Since the death of Dr. Holmes, the con- 
 tinuation of this important work has been under- 
 taken by Mr. Parsons, who has properly resumed 
 it with the historical books as they follow the 
 Pentateuch, and from the specimen which he has 
 already given (the Book of Joshua just published) 
 appears well worthy of the task, which has been 
 committed to his care. Every friend of biblical 
 literature must wish to see the completion of this 
 edition. — On the application of the Septuagint 
 version to the criticism of the Hebrew Bible mav 
 be consulted the two following works : F. V» 
 Reinhardi Dissert atio de versionis Alexandrince 
 authoritate et usu in constituendd librorum He- 
 braicorum lectione genuind. Vit ember gee, 1777 * 
 
 4to. G. C Knappii Dissertatio de versione 
 
 Alexandrind in emendandd lectione exempli He~ 
 
128 
 
 LECTURE XII 
 
 braici caute adhibendd. P. i. lU Halos, Itfb, 
 
 17769 4to, The authors who have applied the 
 
 Septuagint to the explanation of the Bible will be 
 mentioned under the second branch of Theology. 
 
 Having already mentioned two sources of 
 various readings, Hebrew manuscripts, and ancient 
 versions, with the writers, from whom the best 
 information may be derived on those subjects, we 
 may now proceed to the third source, which 
 consists of quotations from the Hebrew Bible, 
 which are found in the works of ancient authors. 
 Philo and Josephus, who wrote in Greek and used 
 the Septuagint version, if not exclusively, at least 
 chiefly, especially the former, are of very little use 
 in the criticism of the Hebrew Bible. The Tal- 
 mud, and such other Rabbinical works as contain 
 quotations from the Hebrew, are alone of any 
 value. The Talmud (a word which signifies lite- 
 rally doctrine) may be regarded as the Corpus 
 doctrince Judaicce : and as the precepts, which 
 it contains, relate not merely to doctrines properly 
 so called, but to ceremonies as well civil as religious, 
 it has not been improperly termed Judceorum jus 
 civile et canonicum. The text of it, which is called 
 Mishna, was compiled in the second century by 
 Rabbi Jehuda Hakkadosh; a commentary called 
 Gemara, was added to it at Jerusalem, and another 
 commentary bearing the same name was after- 
 
LECTURE XII. 129 
 
 wards added to it in Babylon. The text of the 
 Talmud is sometimes accompanied with the former, 
 at other times with the latter commentary ; and 
 the text and commentary together receive the 
 appellation of Talmud of Jerusalem, or Talmud 
 of Babylon, according to the commentary, which 
 is annexed. For the different editions of the 
 Talmud the first and fourth volumes of Woljii 
 Bibliotheca Hebrcea must be consulted. That of 
 Surenhusius (Amsterdam 1698—1703, six torn, 
 fol.) contains only the Mishna : but it is accom- 
 panied with a Latin translation. The contents of 
 the Mishna are described in the second part of the 
 Antiquitates Hebrceorum, published by Professor 
 Wahner at Gottingen in 1743, in two volumes 
 
 octavo. It was observed in the preceding 
 
 Lecture, that the Talmud was collated for Dr. 
 Kennicott's edition: several other Rabbinical 
 works were collated, which are mentioned in the 
 Dissertatio generalis, and of which a more ample 
 account must be sought in the BibliothecQ 
 Hebrcea, 
 
 The fourth and last source of emendation in, 
 the Hebrew text is critical conjecture. It was 
 asserted in the ninth Lecture, that the words of 
 the Greek Testament ought in no case to be 
 altered from conjecture : and this rule has been 
 strictly observed by Griesbach. But in the Hebrew 
 
 k 
 
J 30 LECTURE XII. 
 
 Bible there are various reasons against the total ex- 
 clusion of conjectural emendation, though no prudent 
 critic will approve of it, when carried to excess. 
 The causes of accidental error in the transcribing 
 of Hebrew manuscripts were more numerous, as 
 was shewn in the tenth Lecture, than in the 
 transcribing of Greek manuscripts. Hence the very 
 long period, which elapsed between the time when 
 the books of the Old Testament, especially the 
 Pentateuch, were composed, and the time, when 
 even the oldest of the now-existing Hebrew manu- 
 scripts were written, may have occasioned in various 
 places the genuine reading to be totally lost. And 
 the circumstance, that all the Hebrew manuscripts 
 now extant belong, as it were, to one edition, 
 renders the probability, that in various places the 
 genuine reading is contained in no Hebrew 
 manuscript now extant, still greater. The means 
 therefore of correcting from authority are less 
 ample, than in the Greek Testament ; and conse- 
 quently conjectural emendation may be allowable 
 in the former, though not in the latter. Besides, 
 conjectural emendation is not liable to the abuse 
 in the Old Testament, to which it is liable in the 
 New: conjectura theologica in the form of con- 
 jecture critica does not so easily find room in the 
 former, as it does in £he latter. Hence Bishop 
 Lowth in his translation of Isaiah (London, 177 8 > 
 quarto) not only corrected in many places the 
 
LECTURE XII. 13] 
 
 common Hebrew text on the authority of manu- 
 scripts*, but sometimes introduced emendations 
 from mere conjecture. Yet even Lowth has been 
 supposed to have taken this liberty too often, 
 especially by Professor Kocher of Bern in a dis- 
 sertation entitled Vindicice S. texUs Hebrcei Esaice 
 Vatis, adversus D. Roberti Lowthi, Venerandi 
 Episcopi Londinensis, Criticam, printed at Bern 
 in 17&6, and reprinted at Tubingen in 1790. 
 The principles of Houbigant, who carried his 
 conjectures beyond all bounds, have been very ably 
 combated in the following work : Sebaldi Ravii 
 Exercitationes philologicce in C. F. Hubingantii 
 Prolegomena in Scripturam sacram. Lugduni 
 Batavorum, 1785, 4to. Indeed before we have 
 recourse to the desperate remedy of altering an 
 author's words from our own conjecture, we should 
 be fully satisfied that no mode of interpretation 
 will remove the difficulties, which may present 
 
 * It is worthy of notice, though the remark is foreign to 
 the present paragraph, that Michaelis in his German trans, 
 lation of Isaiah, which was made about the same time, and of 
 which nearly one half was printed when Lowth's Isaiah 
 appeared, has in most places, where he has preferred a various 
 reading to the common text, agreed in the choice of that 
 reading with Lowth. This coincidence, without previous 
 concert, between two such eminent critics, argues strongly in 
 favour of the adopted readings. The readings here meant are 
 readings really existing, either in manuscripts, or ancient 
 versions : for on the subject of conjectural emendations Mi- 
 chaehs and Lowth did not agree. 
 
 k 2 
 
132 LECTURE XII. 
 
 themselves. Under the different modes of inter- 
 pretation may be reckoned also the different modes 
 of pronouncing, or, which is the same thing, of 
 pointing, the same word. Michaelis, in his 
 German translation of the Hebrew Bible, has 
 frequently recourse to an alteration of the points : 
 but he made it a rule never to alter the consonants, 
 that is, the words themselves, except in cases of 
 extreme necessity. 
 
 The last department of Hebrew criticism, • 
 which we have to consider, is the utility and 
 application of various readings. This department 
 has been rendered very extensive by the turn, 
 which the criticism of the Hebrew Bible took at 
 the beginning of the seventeenth century. We 
 have seen that the elder Buxtorf denied the very 
 existence of various readings to the Hebrew Bible. 
 The history of the controversy, which consequently 
 took place between Cappellus and the younger 
 Buxtorf, on the integrity of the Hebrew text, 
 was given in the preceding Lecture, where the 
 works were also quoted, which were published at 
 that period. The Critica sacra of Cappellus, 
 which has ever remained a standard work,^ was 
 again published at Halle in 1775 — 1786 in three 
 octavo volumes, with very valuable Notes by 
 Professor Vogel at Halle, and Professor Scharf- 
 enberg at Leipzig. Another very excellent work 
 
LECTURE XII. 133 
 
 is the Critica Sacra Veteris Test amentia published 
 at Leipzig in 1795 by Professor Bauer of Altorf. 
 It is in fact a revision of the first section in the 
 second volume of Glassii philologia sacra, which 
 relates to the criticism of the Bible, as the second 
 section relates to the interpretation of it. Glass, 
 who was Professor at Jena in the seventeenth 
 century, had adopted Buxtorf's high notions of 
 integrity, which are properly modified in Professor 
 Bauer's revision of the work. Carpzov in his 
 Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, published at 
 Leipzig in 1728, quarto, adheres likewise too 
 closely to those high notions : but if proper allow- 
 ance be made on this account, it will be found 
 to be a very useful work, and replete with infor- 
 mation on the subject of Hebrew Criticism. 
 
 With the inquiries, which have been instituted 
 on the integrity of the Hebrew text, two other 
 questions have been mixed, which have no necessary 
 connexion with it, namely the antiquity of our 
 present Hebrew characters, and our present Hebrew 
 points ; for, as was observed in the preceding 
 Lecture, the letters may have been changed, the 
 points may be new, yet the words may have re- 
 mained the same. But the two Buxtorfs, and 
 other writers who have carried to the highest 
 pitch their notions on the integrity of the Hebrew 
 text, have considered this integrity, which in reality 
 
134 
 
 LECTURE XII. 
 
 relates only to the preservation of the words, as 
 including the unchangeableness of the forms, in 
 which the words are expressed. They defended 
 the latter therefore with as much warmth as the 
 former : and represented such critics, as Cappellus 
 and Walton, who denied to the shadow what they 
 allowed to the substance, as men impeaching the 
 integrity of the sacred writings. Hence Professor 
 Wasmuth at Rostock published a quarto volume 
 in 1664, entitled Vindicias Sacrce Hebrcece Scrip- 
 turce, in which he undertakes to defend what he 
 calls originalis authentia divina, tarn vocalium et 
 accentuum, quam ipsarum literarum sacri textus 
 Hebrcei; and this defence is conducted, as he 
 further says on the title-page, adversus impia et 
 imperita multorum prasjudicia, imprimis contra 
 Cappelli, Vossii F.> et Waltoni, autoris operis 
 Anglicani 7ro\vyA(OTTOv, assertiones falsissimas 
 pariter et perniciocissimas. But in later times 
 these questions have been discussed with greater 
 calmness, in proportion as the defence of them 
 appeared less necessary for the purpose of religion. 
 With respect to the letters, the controversy be- 
 tween Johannes Morinus and Cappellus on the 
 one hand, and the younger Buxtorf on the other, 
 has been already related in the tenth Lecture. 
 The opinion of the two former, that the Samaritan 
 were the ancient letters of the Jews was very ably 
 supported by Walton in the third chapter of his 
 
 S 
 
LECTURE XII. 135 
 
 Prolegomena. On the other hand, Steph. Mo- 
 rinus, a French protestant clergyman, in his 
 Exercitationes de lingua primcevd (published at 
 Utrecht in 1694, quarto,) and Wolf in the second 
 volume of his Bibliotheca Hebrcea, have defended 
 the antiquity of the Hebrew letters. The latest 
 and most useful work on this subject is, Josephi 
 Dobrowsty de antiquis Hebrceorum char act eribiis 
 dissertatio. Pragw, 1783, 8vo. This tract con- 
 tains in a short compass a perspicuous statement 
 of all the arguments, both for and against the an- 
 tiquity of the Hebrew letters : and the conclusion 
 which the author deduces is, that not the Hebrew, 
 but that the Samaritan was the ancient alphabet 
 of the Jews. That the present Hebrew or Chaldee 
 character was not used by the Jews before the 
 Babylonish Captivity is an opinion, which is now 
 almost universally received, and the truth of it 
 seems no longer disputable. But it is still a 
 question whether the Samaritan letters, in the 
 form in which we noivjind them in manuscripts of 
 the Samaritan Pentateuch, were the letters used 
 by the Jews before the Babylonish Captivity. 
 Now as letters are continually liable to some trifling 
 alteration, according to the taste or fancy of tran- 
 scribers, and alterations, though at first insensible, 
 will by frequent repetition in the course of two or 
 three thousand years, produce such changes, that 
 the modern form becomes materially different from 
 
136 
 
 LECTURE XII. 
 
 the ancient one, it is highly probable if we argue 
 from analogy, that the Samaritan letters, which 
 are used in the manuscripts no to extant, are in 
 many respects different from those which were 
 used by the Jews and Samaritans before the 
 Babylonish Captivity. But what was the form of 
 the letters then in use among them, or even by 
 what name that alphabet should be called, are 
 questions on which the learned are divided, and 
 on which, for want of data, it is impossible perhaps 
 to come to a decision. Many writers call this 
 alphabet the old Samaritan: Professor Bauer in 
 the Crltica sacra above-quoted calls it Phoenician : 
 Eichhorn in his Introduction calls it Phoenician- 
 Egyptian : Michaelis seems undetermined about 
 the name, though he is equally of opinion that 
 the ancient alphabet differed from the present 
 Samaritan, as well as from the Hebrew. A detailed 
 account of the authors, who by the aid of in- 
 scriptions and medals have endeavoured to trace 
 the forms of the ancient letters in question, of 
 whom the principal are Bayer, Caylus, Buttner, 
 and Dutens, would occasion a digression, which 
 however interesting in itself, is not immediately 
 connected with critical theology. 
 
 Of the Hebrew poinfs the antiquity has been 
 no less contested, than that of the Hebrew letters : 
 and here again their advocates have considered 
 
LECTURE XII. 137 
 
 their antiquity as so connected with the integrity 
 of the text, that they have argued for the divine 
 origin of the Hebrew points. The controversy 
 between Cappellus and the younger Buxtorf on 
 this subject was related in the tenth Lecture, 
 where the works were quoted, which appeared on 
 that occasion. The Arcanum punctationis reve- 
 latum, first printed in 1 62 4, was reprinted in 
 L. Cappelli Commentarii et notw criticce in Fetus 
 Testamentum, which were published at Amsterdam 
 in 1689 by his son, who prefixed to it a clear and 
 useful statement of the controversy. In the same 
 work was published also the Vindicioe mentioned 
 in the tenth Lecture. The subject was so ex- 
 hausted by the original combatants, that from this 
 period the respective advocates, who were numerous 
 on each side, and whom it would be tedious to 
 enumerate, had only to repeat the arguments of 
 their leaders. At length Albert Schultens, Pro- 
 fessor of the Oriental languages at Leyden, in his 
 Institutiones ad fundament a linguce Hebrcece, 
 published at Leyden in 1737 and reprinted in 
 1756, proposed a middle path between the two 
 extremes i and as Schultens was a man of great 
 authority, it will not be improper to quote his 
 words. In the second section, after a statement 
 of the arguments, which had been advanced for 
 and against the antiquity of the points, he says, 
 tt Controversia simplicius proposita non ita diffi- 
 
138 
 
 LECTURE XII. 
 
 culter componi potuisset, si sola Veritas qucesita 
 fuisset. Ampata quvestionis appendices, de hodi- 
 ernis figuris et nominibus vocalium, de Schevatibus, 
 de accentuum numero et munere multiplici : 
 disquire dein quid verisimilius, adfuerintne hide 
 ab antiquissimis temporibus vocales, an ?ion f Hoc 
 ipsum quoque adhuc restringe, et disputa, an non 
 ibi saltern Vocalium notulse adject as a sacris scrip- 
 toribus, ubi summa necessitas id postulabat. Hoc 
 negare non valde verecundum ; ulterius quid ex- 
 igere imprudens et bonce causce noxium. His 
 Jinibus si lis haecce semet coerceat, concordia inter 
 criticos et theologos sponte coibit : et puncta vo- 
 calia communi consensu justum ilium et naturalem 
 locum ob tine bunt , quern indoles linguae Hebrcece, 
 quern usus Orientis s inde a primaeva origin e 3 iisdem 
 
 inter Chaldaeos, Syros, Arabes assignavitr 
 
 In 1769 Michaelisj who had formerly defended 
 the antiquity of the present points, adopted in the 
 second volume of his Miscellaneous Works (Ver- 
 mischte Schriften) published in that year 5 the 
 middle path proposed by Schultens. He admitted 
 on the one hand, that our present system of 
 punctuation was invented and introduced by the 
 Masorets : but he maintained on the other hand 5 
 that even in the earliest ages the Hebrews made 
 at least occasional use of some vowel points. — In 
 the thirty-sixth volume of the History of the 
 Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres pub- 
 
LECTURE XII. ]3g 
 
 lished at Fans in IJ75 is a very valuable Disser- 
 tation by Dupuy, (directed chiefly against the 
 system of Mascleff and his followers) in which 
 the same medium is observed as by Schultens and 
 Michaelis. In the eighteenth volume of Eich- 
 horn s Repertorium is a dissertation by Trende- 
 lenburg, of which the object is to prove that the 
 ancient Hebrews had three vowel marks. And 
 Eichhorn in his Introduction to the Old Testa- 
 ment, §.62, says, " From the preceding remarks 
 it appears, that we may draw the certain conclusion, 
 that the ancient Hebrews had vowel marks, but 
 not the whole number of those which are now in 
 use, probably only three ; that the ancient Hebrew 
 authors provided their writings with vowel marks, 
 not indeed throughout, but only here and there, 
 in difficult ambiguous passages; and that our 
 present system of punctuation was introduced in 
 some later age, probably after Hebrew had ceased 
 to be a living language." The question is veiy 
 clearly stated by Eichhorn : but as these Lectures 
 are not intended to convey dissertations on any 
 single subjects, it would be foreign to their purpose 
 to translate more. The opinion of Schultens, 
 Michaelis, and Eichhorn is now the common 
 opinion of the Oriental scholars in Germany. We 
 must except indeed Professor Tychsen, who has 
 uniformly adhered to the system of Buxtorf. In 
 our own country, Walton, Kennicott, Lowth, and 
 
140 
 
 LECTURE XII. 
 
 many other distinguished Hebrew scholars have 
 sided with Cappellus. Among the few, who in 
 later times have defended the antiquity of the 
 present points, may be mentioned Dr. James 
 Robertson, Professor of the Oriental languages at 
 Edinburg, who prefixed to his Clavis Pentateuchi, 
 published at Edinburg in 1770, a Dissertatio de 
 genuind punctorum vocalium Hebraicorum Anti- 
 quitate # . 
 
 Though the integrity of the Hebrew text de- 
 pends not on the decision of the questions, whether 
 the points be coceval with the letters, or whether 
 
 * As the learned of the present age, with very few ex- 
 ceptions, which bear no proportion to the whole number, 
 admit, that our present system of Hebrew points (whatever the 
 ancient mode of punctuation might have been, or whether 
 Hebrew, while a living language, had points or not) was intro- 
 duced in a later age, after Hebrew had become a dead language, 
 the question occurs, whether it is not allowable therefore, in 
 learning Hebrew, to discard the points altogether, and to make 
 some pronunciation for ourselves, after the manner, either of 
 Masclef, or of Parkhurst, or in some similar way, especially as 
 the study of the language is thereby rendered considerably 
 easier. This question shall be examined, when we come to 
 the Interpretation of the Bible. At present it will be sufficient 
 to observe, that the decision of this question is not wholly 
 dependent, as is commonly supposed, on the decision of the 
 previous question, whether our present points are ancient, or 
 not. For though it necessarily follows, that they must be 
 retained if they are ancient^ it is not a necessary consequence, 
 that they must be rejected, if they are modern. There may be 
 other reasons for retaining them : and it will appear, that those 
 reasons are valid. 
 
LECTURE XII. 
 
 141 
 
 the letters themselves were the original letters of 
 the Jews, yet a question of some importance to 
 the Criticism of the Bible arose out of the contro- 
 versy, as conducted by Cappellus and Buxtorf. 
 This question is, whether the Hebrew Pentateuch 
 or the Samaritan Pentateuch has the greater 
 critical authority. Most writers, who have main- 
 tained the superior antiquity of the Samaritan to 
 the Hebrew letters, have hence concluded that the 
 text of the Samaritan Pentateuch is more ancient, 
 and more free from corruption, than the Hebrew 
 Pentateuch. On the other hand, most writers 
 who defend the antiquity of the Hebrew letters, 
 prefer at the same time the Hebrew to the 
 Samaritan text. The principal advocates of the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch are J. Morinus, in his 
 Exercitationes ecclesiasticce (Paris, l63l, 4to) and 
 his Opuscula Hebrceo-Samaritana (Paris, 1657, 
 1 2mo) : Walton in the eleventh chapter of his 
 Prolegomena ; Houbigant, likewise in the Prole- 
 gomena to his Hebrew Bible ; Kennicott, as well 
 in his Dissertatio generalis, as in his Second 
 Dissertation on the State of the printed Hebrew 
 Text ; and Dr. Henry Owen in his Dissertation 
 on the comparative Excellence of the Hebrew and 
 Samaritan Pentateuch, which is annexed to his 
 above-quoted Brief Account of the Septuagint 
 V zrsion. The principal adversaries of the Sama- 
 ritan Pentateuch are Hottinger, in his Exercu 
 
142 
 
 LECTURE XII. 
 
 tationes Anti-Moriniance de Pentateucho Sama- 
 ritano, published at Zurich in l644, quarto ; 
 S. Morinus in his above-quoted Exercitationes de 
 lingua primcevd ; F. J. Schwarz, Professor at 
 Wittenberg, in his Exercitationes historico-cri- 
 ticce in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum. 
 Vitembergm, 1756, 4to ; and lastly Professor Tych- 
 sen, as well in the above-quoted Tentamen, as in 
 his Disputatio philologico-critica, de Pentateucho 
 Ebroeo-Samaritano, ah Ebraeo eoque Masoretico, 
 descripto exemplari. Butzovii, 17°*5, &to. From 
 the very title of this work it appears that Tychsen 
 was resolved to degrade the Samaritan Pentateuch 
 to the utmost. Hottinger indeed, (to whom 
 Walton replied, Prol. XI. 12.) had called the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch Apographum vitiosum ex 
 Hehrceo-Autographo : but Tychsen goes so far as 
 to assert, that it was derived from some Masoretic 
 copy of the Hebrew Pentateuch, and not before 
 the tenth century. But Tych sen's arguments were 
 fully confuted by Professor Hassencamp of Rinteln, 
 in a German work * printed at Minden in 177 5 > 
 octavo. After all, though the Samaritan Pen- 
 tateuch has been rescued from the charges of its 
 adversaries, it is no necessary consequence, that it 
 
 * Its German title, which' I add for the sake of those who 
 understand the language, and who may wish to procure the 
 work, is, " Der entdeckte Wahre Ursprung der alten Bibel- 
 Uebersetzungen." 
 
1 
 
 LECTURE XIF. 
 
 143 
 
 deserves the preference, which is given to it by 
 some of its friends. The Pentateuch in Samaritan 
 letters, and the Pentateuch in Hebrew letters, 
 emanate from the same source : they are equally 
 derived from the autograph of Moses. The dif- 
 ference in the age between the oldest Hebrew and 
 the oldest Samari tan manuscripts now extant (on 
 whatever side the scale may preponderate) can 
 bear but a small proportion to the whole period, 
 which elapsed from the time of Moses : and during 
 that period the manuscripts in Samaritan letters 
 were subject at least to similar, though not the 
 same, alterations, as the manuscripts in Hebrew 
 letters. The purity of the text depends not on 
 the shape of the character, in which it is expressed : 
 the former may be preserved, though the latter be 
 changed, or the former may be changed, though 
 the latter be preserved. Even therefore if the 
 letters now used in Samaritan manuscripts were 
 precisely the same as those, which were used by 
 Moses himself, we could neither conclude from 
 this conservation of character to a conservation of 
 text, nor from the change of character in the 
 Hebrew manuscripts to a change in the text. 
 But if we may judge from inscriptions and medals, 
 the original letters of the Pentateuch have under- 
 gone material changes, as well in the Samaritan, 
 as in the Hebrew manuscripts. Upon the whole 
 then the two Pentateuch s are more nearly equal 
 
144 LECTURE XII. 
 
 for the purposes of criticism, than the advocates 
 of either have commonly supposed : and wherever 
 their readings are different, the genuine reading 
 must be determined by other arguments than those, 
 which are founded on a supposed intrinsio supe- 
 riority of one to the other. 
 
 Connected with this subject is the question, 
 which has been agitated, whether a copy of the 
 Samaritan, or a copy of the Hebrew Pentateuch 
 was used by the person or persons, who made what 
 is called the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch. 
 The decision of this question is* of some importance 
 in forming our judgement of readings, where the 
 Hebrew and the Samaritan copies are at variance. 
 For, if the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch 
 was made from the Samaritan text, it does nothing 
 more, where it agrees with the Samaritan in op- 
 position to the Hebrew, than repeat, or echo, the 
 evidence of its original ; whereas in the places, in 
 which it agrees with the Hebrew in opposition to 
 the Samaritan, it affords presumptive evidence^ 
 that in those places the Samaritan text was origi- 
 nally the same as the present Hebrew text, and 
 that the error lies in the present Samaritan text. 
 Now that the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch 
 was made from a Samaritan manuscript, is an 
 opinion, which many writers have entertained. 
 Even Hottinger was of that opinion, though he 
 
LECTURE XII 
 
 believed that the Samaritan itself was derived from 
 the Hebrew. But no one has treated this subject 
 so fully as Professor Hassencamp in his Dissertatio 
 philologico-critica de Pentateucho LXX. Inter- 
 pretum Grasco, non ex Hebrceo, sed Samaritano 
 textu converso, printed at Marburg in 17^5, 4to. 
 Professor Tychsen of Rostock in the above-quoted 
 Tent amen printed in 1772, attempted to support 
 the opinion, that it was taken from the Hebrew 
 text, and moreover from a manuscript, in which 
 the Hebrew text (as in the second column of 
 Origen's Hexapla) was expressed in Greek letters. 
 This opinion however was very successfully com- 
 bated by Hassencamp, in the second part of the 
 German work, which has been quoted in a pre- 
 ceding note. 
 
 After this description of the several subjects, 
 which are more or less connected with the criticism 
 of the Hebrew Bible, we cannot better conclude 
 than with a caution against both of the extremes, 
 into which authors have fallen, with respect to the 
 integrity of the Hebrew text. What we ought 
 to understand by that expression was explained at 
 the beginning of the preceding Lecture, where it 
 was observed, that an ancient work may be properly 
 said to have preserved its integrity, if it has de~ 
 scended to the present age in such a state as upon 
 the whole the author gave it. In order therefore to 
 
146 
 
 LECTURE XII. 
 
 defend the integrity of the Hebrew text, it is not 
 necessary to maintain with Buxtorf, that there are 
 no variations in the Hebrew manuscripts, a thing 
 impossible in itself, and contradicted by fact ; nor 
 is it necessary for this purpose to contend, as 
 Professor Tychsen has lately done in his Ten- 
 tamen, that our Masoretic text is so perfect, as 
 to require not the aid of a critical apparatus. 
 The Hebrew Bible/ like the Greek Testament, 
 has been exposed to the variations, which unavoid- 
 ably result from a multiplication of written copies : 
 and even after the introduction of the Masora, it 
 was impossible wholly to avoid them : nor can it 
 he supposed that with all the religious care applied 
 by the learned Jews of Tiberias, the text originally 
 established by the Masora, was every where free 
 from error. Indeed the Jewish writers of the 
 greatest distinction have themselves admitted that 
 the Masoretic text is not infallible, as De Rossi 
 has shewn by some remarkable quotations in the 
 Prolegomena {§. 10.) to his Varice Lectiones 
 Ceteris Testamenti, We'must apply therefore in 
 doubtful passages the same critical remedies,, which 
 are applied to all other ancient works. But among 
 those critical remedies, we must be very cautious 
 of introducing that desperate remedy, emendation 
 from conjecture, which* should never even be 
 attempted, till all other remedies have failed. 
 Nor must we be less cautious of concluding, that 
 
LECTURE XII. . 147 
 
 the Hebrew text is at any place faulty, because 
 at that place some other text, or some ancient 
 version, to which we choose a priori to give higher 
 authority, has a different reading. Indeed if the 
 Hebrew text were s@ faulty, as Morinus has made 
 it in theory, and Houbigant in practice, it would 
 be impossible, in any sense, to assert, that the 
 integrity of the Hebrew Bible had been preserved. 
 The truth, as usual, lies between the two extremes, 
 of Buxtorf and Tychsen on the one hand, and of 
 Morinus and Houbigant on the other. Among 
 all the works on this subject, whether English or 
 foreign, I know of none, in which this golden 
 mean is so well preserved as in the following, of 
 which I will subjoin the whole title, as it clearly 
 expresses the design of the author. Des Titres 
 Primitifs de la Revelation, ou Considerations 
 critiques sur la purete et V integrite du texte 
 original des livres saints de V Ancien Testament ; 
 dans lesquelles on montre les avantages que la 
 Religion et les Lettres peuvent retirer d" une 
 nouvelle edition prqjette'e de ce texte compare avec 
 les manuscripts Hcbreux, et les anciennes versions 
 Grecques, Latines, et Orientates. Par le R. P. 
 Gabriel Fabricy, de Vordre des FF. Precheurs 
 Docteur Theologien de Casanate, de VAcademie 
 des Arcades. Rome, 1772, 2 torn. 8vo. This 
 work was published, while the collations were 
 making for Dr. Kennicott, to whose then-intended 
 
 /2 
 
< 
 
 148 
 
 LECTURE XII. 
 
 edition the title refers, though it is not exactly- 
 descriptive of it, as Kennicott's edition (though 
 Fabricy supposed it would) contains no quotations 
 from the ancient versions. 
 
 f 
 
 Having thus described the first brsnch of 
 Theology, or the Criticism of the Bible, according 
 to the plan proposed in the first Lecture, I shall 
 in the next Course describe, on a similar plan, the 
 second branch, which relates to the Interpretation 
 of the Bible. 
 
 END OF PART II* 
 
A 
 
 COURSE OF LECTURES, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 A DESCRIPTION AND SYSTEMATIC ARRANGEMENT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SEVERAL BRANCHES OF DIVINITY: 
 
 ACCOMPANIED WITH 
 
 AN ACCOUNT BOTH OF THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORS, 
 AND OF THE PROGRESS, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AT 
 DIFFERENT PERIODS, 
 
 IN #( 
 
 etiological learning:. 
 
 BY 
 
 HERBERT MARSH, D.D. F.R.S. 
 
 MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 
 
 PART III. 
 On tlie Interpretation of the Bible, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: 
 
 Printed by J. Smith, Printer to the University ; 
 AND SOLD BY J. DE1GHTON AND SONS, NICHOLSON, AND BARRETT- 
 CAMBRIDGE; AND F. C. & J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
 
 1813. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 IN presenting to the Public the Six following Lectures, 
 which have been lately delivered before the University of Cam- 
 bridge, in continuation of Part I. and Part II. already 
 published, it is necessary to explain what is here meant by the 
 term Part, lest it should be supposed synonymous with the 
 term Branch of Theology, as used in these Lectures. The term 
 Part is here applied in the sense only of Fasciculus, or portion 
 of Lectures given and published at the same period. But the 
 Branches of Theology, as described in the second Lecture, 
 being of very unequal extent, will occupy, some more, others 
 less, than one Part or Fasciculus. Thus the Criticism of the 
 Bible, which is a very extensive Branch, was continued to the 
 end of Part IX. And the Interpretation of the Bible, which 
 is a still more extensive Branch, not only occupies Part III,, 
 but will be continued at least to the end of Part IV. 
 
 Cambridge, 10 June, 1813. 
 
CONTENTS' 
 
 LECTURE XIII. 
 
 f the relation, which the Interpretation of the Bible 
 bears to the Criticism of the Bible, — Difficulty of 
 biblical interpretation. — Some erroneous notions on 
 this subject corrected 
 
 LECTURE XIV. 
 
 Of Words, considered as signs to the reader of what was 
 thought by the writer.— Degrees of difficulty 
 attending the discovery of the notion affixed to any 
 word by the writer. — Sourees of intelligence, in 
 respect to the words of the Hebrew Bible, and the 
 Greek Testament, — Of our authorised version; and 
 the necessity of interpreting from the original 
 Scriptures .......... 
 
 Page 
 
 22 
 
 LECTURE XV. 
 Rules/or the interpretation of Words. — Consequences 
 of neglecting them in the interpretation of the Bible. 
 — The Interpreter, who explains the Bible by the aid 
 of reason and learning, compared zdth the Interpreter, 
 who aspires to the possession of higher means. — Im- 
 portant practical difference between the terms « does 
 not err," and "cannot err." — Further remarks on 
 the necessity of theological learning, and on the 
 causes of its neglect 42 
 
 LECTURE XVI. 
 
 Of the literal and figurative use of zoords ; and of the 
 foundation of this distinction in the origin and 
 formation of language. — Consequences of interpreting 
 
 zvords 
 
iv 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 words literally, when they are used figuratively. — 
 Necessity of arranging the senses of words in genea- 
 logical order 60 
 
 LECTURE XVII. 
 
 Relation of Allegory to Metaphor.— Metaphorical 
 interpretation an interpretation of words. — Alle- 
 gorical interpretation y an interpretation, not of 
 words, but of the things signified by the words. 
 — Origin of allegorical interpretation among the 
 Greeks. — This kind of interpretation not warranted 
 by St. Paul . 79 
 
 LECTURE XVIII. 
 
 Adoption and injudicious use of it by the Greek Fathers. 
 Abuse of it by unbelievers. — The sense of Scripture 
 rendered by it arbitrary and ambiguous. — Allegorical 
 or spiritual interpretation substituted for grammatical 
 interpretation in the twelfth century by the Mystics 
 of the Church of Rome, who have been followed in 
 modern times. — Typical interpretation warranted by 
 the sacred writers. — Definition of a Type ; and the 
 consequences, of neglecting it. — Types and antitypes 
 multiplied by various interpreters, without end, and 
 without foundation 99 
 
 1 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 P. 23. L 12. subjects r. subject. 
 
 P. 6'3. 1. 20. a r. or. 
 
 P. 73. 1. 24» has one, r* has only one. 
 
LECTURE XIII. 
 
 The Criticism of the Bible having been 
 finished in the last Lecture, we now enter on the 
 Interpretation of the Bible, which is the next 
 branch of Theology according to the system 
 explained in the second Lecture. The nature of 
 this system, with the connexion of its several 
 parts, has been already so minutely detailed, that 
 another description of it cannot now be wanted. 
 For, though a knowledge of the preceding 
 Lectures is necessary to a right understanding of 
 what will follow, yet even they, who were not 
 present at the delivery of them, may obtain the 
 required information, as the preceding Lectures 
 are all in print. 
 
 But, as Criticism and Interpretation are not 
 unfrequently confounded, it may not be unneces- 
 sary, before we enter on the latter, to explain once 
 more its relation to the former. They are so 
 closely connected, that no man can be a good 
 Interpreter of the Bible, who is not previously 
 
 B 
 
2 
 
 LECTURE XIII. 
 
 acquainted with the Criticism of the Bible. It 
 is Criticism, and Criticism alone, which enables us 
 to judge of the genuineness, whether of single 
 words, or of whole passages, or of whole books. 
 And, when we have thus obtained what we have 
 reason to believe a genuine text, we have then 
 a solid foundation, on which we may build our 
 interpretation of the text. But till we know 
 what is the genuine text, we must remain in 
 a state of uncertainty, whether our interpretation 
 is founded on a rock, or founded only in the sand. 
 The process of theological study is undoubtedly 
 much shortened, by taking for granted what can 
 be known only by long and laborious investiga- 
 tion. But in a subject so important as that of 
 religion, which concerns our future as well as 
 present welfare, no labour is too great, no investi- 
 gation too severe, which may enable us to discern 
 the truth unmixed with falsehood. In this place 
 I am addressing myself immediately to those, 
 who possess the advantages of a learned education, 
 and chiefly to those, who receive a learned 
 education, for the purpose of becoming qualified 
 to preach the Gospel, From such an audience no 
 apology can be required, for applying to the Bible 
 the principles of reason" and learning ; for, if the 
 Bible could not stand the test of reason and 
 learning, it could not be, what it is, a work of 
 
LECTURE Xlir. 
 
 8 
 
 divine wisdom. The Bible therefore must be 
 examined by the same laws of Criticism, which are 
 applied to other writings of antiquity : and every 
 man, who is set apart for the ministry, should 
 consider it as his boimden duty to study with 
 especial care that primary branch of Theology, 
 the Criticism of the Bible. It is a branch, which 
 gives nutriment and life to all the other branches ; 
 and these will become more or less vigorous, 
 in proportion as that branch either flourishes 
 or decays. By cultivating the Criticism of the 
 Bible, we acquire a habit of calm and impartial 
 investigation, which will enable us to enter with 
 greater advantage on the other departments of 
 Theology ; we learn to discriminate between 
 objects apparently alike, but really distinct ; we 
 learn to sharpen our judgments, and correct our 
 imaginations ; we learn to think for ourselves, 
 without blindly trusting to bare assertion, which 
 may deceive, but can never convince ; and, while 
 we fortify our faith against the shafts of infidelity, 
 we become proof against the seductions of ignorance 
 and fanaticism. Such are the advantages resulting to 
 an Interpreter oi the Bible from a previous acquain- 
 tance with the Criticism of the Bible ; advantages 
 unknown to the mere theological empiric, who 
 regards them as useless for no other reason, than 
 because he has never learnt to comprehend them. 
 
 b 2 
 
4 
 
 LECTURE XIII. 
 
 But however close the connexion may be 
 between Criticism and Interpretation, they are 
 quite distinct in their respective operations. By 
 the one we ascertain what an author has actually 
 written : by the other we ascertain what is really 
 the author s meaning. This distinction we must 
 keep constantly in view, or we shall be in perpetual 
 danger of drawing false conclusions. The difficulty 
 indeed, attendant on the one, is closely allied with 
 the difficulty attendant on the other ; each increases 
 with the antiquity of the author. The more 
 ancient an author is, and the more frequently his 
 works have been transcribed, the greater is the 
 probability that no single copy has descended to 
 posterity, without numerous deviations from the 
 autograph. And beside the accidental mistakes, 
 which are unavoidable in every transcript of an 
 extensive work, the transcribers of the Sacred 
 Writings had stronger temptation to make alterations 
 by design, than can ever take place iu the copy- 
 ing of works unconnected with religion. So much 
 the more necessary is a knowledge of Criticism 
 to the student in Theology. The same difficulty, 
 which attends the Criticism of an ancient work, 
 and which increases in proportion to its antiquity, 
 attends also the Interpretation of that work, and 
 likewise increases with its age. The further we 
 are removed from the period, in. which an author 
 
LECTURE XIII. 5 
 
 wrote, the more difficult is it to discover, the 
 circumstances in which he was placed, the peculiar 
 object which he had in view, the situation and 
 sentiments of his original readers, and the probable 
 consequent tendency of the author's arguments. 
 If, beside the distance of time, we are far removed 
 from him in place, if the laws and customs of his 
 country had no resemblance to our own, if not 
 only his language was different, but his forms ot 
 expression were so little analogous to those which 
 are in use among ourselves, as when literally 
 rendered to imply not unfrequently what the 
 author intended not to say, we must be blind, 
 not to perceive the difficulties, which attend the 
 interpretation of that author. We must be blind 
 not to perceive, that, in order to become thoroughly 
 acquainted with him, something more is wanted, 
 than a knowledge of our own customs, and our 
 own language. 
 
 Let us apply then these general observations to 
 the Bible. When a work is put into our hands, 
 composed partly in Hebrew, and partly in Hebrew- 
 Greek ; when that work contains historic, legisla- 
 tive, poetic, prophetic, and didactic materials ; 
 when between the earliest and the latest of its 
 compositions an interval elapsed of more than 
 fifteen hundred years, and an interval still greater 
 
6 
 
 LECTURE XIII. 
 
 has elapsed between the latest of its compositions 
 and the present age; when they were written 
 in a country, and under circumstances, very 
 different from our own ; when these several kinds of 
 composition, breathing more or less the oriental 
 spirit of the writers, require an attention, as well 
 to particular, as to general rules of interpretation ; 
 surely no man of common understanding will 
 assert, that such a work is easy of interpretation. 
 If the meaning of the sacred writers is so easy 
 and so obvious, why has it been deemed necessary 
 in every age to write Commentaries on the Bible ? 
 Why has it been deemed necessary in every Chris- 
 tian country to set apart by public authority 
 a class of men, for the purpose of studying and 
 explaining the Scriptures, and to exempt them 
 from secular employments, that their time might 
 be wholly employed in their professional duties? 
 It is an error too frequently instilled, and too 
 readily received, that the qualifications for a good 
 Divine are of small extent and of easy attainment. 
 But let those, who have been seduced into this 
 fatal error, reflect only on the manifold subjects, 
 which should engage the attention of the Clergy, 
 and they will soon be convinced that the know- 
 ledge, which they ought to possess, is less cir- 
 cumscribed than they imagine. Let them consider 
 that Christianity is founded in miracles, which 
 
LECTURE XIII. 
 
 7 
 
 must be verified, and in prophecies, which must 
 be explained ; that the writings, which attest the 
 one, and record the other, must be proved authentic 
 and credible ; that to establish this authenticity and 
 credibility a series of testimony must be examined 
 commencing with their first publication ; that 
 internal evidence must be applied to corroborate 
 the external; that this internal evidence can be 
 derived only from an intimate knowledge of the 
 writings themselves ; and lastly that, to obtain this 
 intimate knowledge, we must become acquainted 
 with the languages, in which those writings were 
 composed, and with the various opinions and 
 institutions, which prevailed at different times, 
 among the people and in the country, where and 
 when they were composed. The discourses of 
 inspired writers, no less than the discourses of 
 common writers, were necessarily adapted to the 
 comprehension of those, to whom they were 
 immediately addressed ; adapted therefore to their 
 modes of expression, and their habits of reason- 
 ing. If we then would understand the inspired 
 writers, as they themselves intended to be under- 
 stood, we must likewise be acquainted with 
 those modes of expression, and those habits of 
 reasoning. But this acquaintance can be formed 
 only by those, who have opened to themselves the 
 stores of ancient learning. 
 
 \ 
 
8 
 
 LECTURE XIII. 
 
 Should argument however fail to convince us, 
 that a just interpretation of Scripture requires, on 
 the part of the interpreter, an ample share as well 
 of erudition as of judgment, we may appeal to the 
 experience of almost every age since the foundation 
 of Christianity. If the interpretation of Scripture 
 were easy and obvious, there would be little or no 
 diversity in the explanations, which different com- 
 mentators have given of the same passage. But if 
 we compare the Greek with the Latin commen- 
 tators, we shall frequently find such a variety of 
 interpretation, as would appear almost impossible 
 to be extracted from the same text. If we com- 
 pare the Jewish commentators > either with the 
 Greek, or with the Latin, we shall find as great 
 a variety, though a variety of a different kind. If 
 we compare our English commentators with any 
 of the preceding, we shall find no diminution in 
 the variety of interpretation. Nor do we find 
 uniformity, either among commentators of the 
 same language, or even among commentators of 
 the same Church. It is true, that in all things 
 relating to doctrine and discipline, the Church of 
 Rome preserved during several ages an uniformity 
 of interpretation by the commentary, which was 
 called the Glossa ordinaria. But when the revival 
 of learning had opened new sources of intelligence, 
 and the Reformation had restored the right of 
 
LECTURE XIII. 
 
 9 
 
 unfettered exposition, the Glossa ordinaria was 
 exchanged for new systems of interpretation, from 
 Luther and Melanchthon, from Calvin and Beza, 
 from Grotius, and from Spanheim. 
 
 Here we may observe, that the uniformity of 
 interpretation, in respect to doctrine and discipline, 
 preserved by the Glossa ordinaria, has been con- 
 trasted with that variety of interpretation, which 
 the religious liberty, procured by our Reformers, 
 has introduced among the manifold parties, com- 
 prehended under the title of Protestant. It has 
 been urged, that this diversity of interpretation 
 has occasioned those religious divisions, which have 
 gradually arisen since the period of the Refor- 
 mation. It has been urged, that both the cause 
 and the effect would have been prevented, if the 
 interpretation of Scripture had remained subject, 
 as in the Church of Rome, to some general and 
 acknowledged rule. Before therefore we inquire 
 into the different modes of interpretation, we must 
 examine the principle, on which biblical interpre- 
 tation is conducted, by the Church of Rome on the 
 one hand, and by the Church of England on the 
 other. It was decreed in the fourth session of the 
 Council of Trent, " ne quis sacram scripturam 
 interpretari audeat contra eum sensum quern te- 
 nuit et tenet mater ecclesia, cujus est judicare de 
 
JO 
 
 LECTURE XIII. 
 
 vero sensu." But if the authority, which directs 
 our interpretation, is itself liable to error, we can 
 never be certain that it will exempt us from error : 
 we can never conclude that, because the interpre- 
 tations, which are founded on that authority, will 
 agree with each other, they will therefore agree 
 with the truth. Now the Rule, by which the 
 Church of Rome decides in the interpretation of 
 Scripture, is that which is commonly known by 
 the name of Tradition : and, as the meaning of 
 Scripture is made subject to this Rule, the Rule 
 itself is necessarily considered as independent of 
 Scripture. It is represented, therefore, as derived 
 from the Apostles through a different channel 
 than that of their own writings. It is represented 
 as a doctrina tradita, handed down by the Fathers 
 of the Church, who are considered as the deposi- 
 tories of this Rule ; whence it is inferred that the 
 expositions in which they agree, are the true ex- 
 positions of Scripture. Now all this is mere matter 
 of opinion , and is calculated solely to support the 
 credit of the Church of Rome. There is not the 
 slightest historical evidence, that the Apostles 
 transmitted to posterity any Rule, but what is 
 recorded in the New Testament. The Fathers 
 therefore are precisely on the same footing with 
 respect to the authority of their interpretations, as 
 the commentators of the present age. Nor in fact 
 
LECTURE XIII. 
 
 11 
 
 are they uniform in their interpretations even in 
 regard to doctrine, notwithstanding the agreement 
 alleged by the Church of Rome; though some 
 commentators may be selected, as well ancient as 
 modern, which agree on particular points. The 
 Regida Jidei, therefore, set up by the Church of 
 Rome, was justly discarded by our Reformers, who 
 contended for the right of biblical interpretation 
 unfettered by the shackles of tradition. But in 
 rejecting the Regula Jidei of the Romish Church, 
 as an authority independent of Scripture, re- 
 jection which constitutes the vital principle of the 
 Reformation) they did not therefore determine 
 that no Rule of Faith should be acknowledged by 
 Protestants. The Confession of Augsburg, the 
 Saxon Confession, the Helvetic Confession, our 
 own Articles, the Articles of Dordrecht, are so 
 many different formularies containing the Regula 
 Jidei of the respective Churches. Indeed they were 
 absolutely necessary, to distinguish as well Pro- 
 testants in general from the Church of Rome, as 
 the different parties of Protestants from each other. 
 But though we have a Rule of Faith, as well as 
 the Church of Rome, and to depart from that Rule 
 is to depart from the Established Church, there is 
 a fundamental difference in the principle from 
 which the respective Rules derive their authority. 
 Tradition is supposed independent of Scripture; 
 
12 
 
 LECTURE XIII 
 
 and is applied as a criterion, to determine the 
 meaning of Scripture. But whatever be the Rule 
 of Faith adopted by any Protestant community, 
 it is so far from being considered as independent 
 of Scripture, or as resting on authority derived 
 through another channel, that its validity is ac- 
 knowledged on the sole condition of its being a fair 
 and legitimate deduction from Scripture. This 
 total and absolute dependence of the Regula jidei 
 on the Bible (not the refusal to admit one at all) 
 is that which characterizes Protestants. 
 
 The preceding remarks on the dependence 
 or independence of the Regula Jidei on the Bible 
 have been introduced for the purpose of ascer- 
 taining the principle, on which Protestants should 
 consistently interpret the Bible. When our 
 Reformers had discarded Tradition, as a guide 
 to the meaning of Scripture, it has been asked ; 
 By what means did they determine, that their 
 own interpretations were right, where the Refor- 
 mers differed, either from the Church of Rome, 
 or from each other? They could not appeal to 
 any new Rule of Faith, even if their principles 
 would have allowed it ; for in the interval, which 
 elapsed between the secession from Rome and 
 the publication of the Augsburg Confession, no 
 new Rule of Faith existed. When Luther there- 
 
LECTURE XIII. 
 
 13 
 
 fore and Melanchthon interpreted the Bible with 
 a view to the formation of that Confession, their 
 interpretation was unfettered by pre-conceived 
 religious opinions; they interpreted the Bible, 
 as they would have intrepreted any other work of 
 antiquity ; and for that purpose they employed the 
 erudition, by which our early Reformers were 
 so highly distinguished. When they abandoned 
 therefore the guidance of Tradition, they supplied 
 its place by Reason and Learning. But these 
 invaluable substitutes, these qualities of sterling 
 worth, have been exchanged in modern times for 
 baser metal ; and the Scriptures have been com- 
 mitted to the guidance of disordered imaginations. 
 Nay, our Reformers themselves have been pressed 
 into the service of ignorance and fanaticism; 
 and expressions which they applied to one purpose 
 have been grossly misapplied to another. Of 
 these expressions therefore it is necessary to give 
 an explanation. 
 
 One of these expressions is, " that the Bible 
 is its own interpreter." To understand this expres- 
 sion, as it was meant by our Reformers, we must 
 consider, that it was used in opposition to the 
 Church of Rome. It was used solely with reference 
 to Tradition ', it was intended solely to deny, that 
 Tradition was the interpreter of the Bible: it 
 
14 LECTURE XIII. 
 
 was designed to rescue the interpretation of the 
 Bible from an authoritative rule, which would 
 have counteracted the expositions, on which was 
 founded the Confession of Augsburg. But our 
 Reformers did not assert, that the Bible was so 
 far its own Interpreter, as to require no explana- 
 tion whatever. If this had been their meaning, 
 we might ask; For what reason did both Luther 
 and Calvin think it necessary to write Commen- 
 taries on the Bible ? To what purpose did Luther 
 enjoin the practice, still observed by his followers, 
 of explaining to the people from the pulpit the 
 Gospel, which had been read at the altar ? In fact 
 learning, especially grammatical learning, was the 
 pillar, by which the edifice of the Reformation 
 was supported : and Melanchthon, who composed 
 the Confession of Augsburg, appealed uniformly 
 to the maxim, Scripturam non posse intelligi 
 theologice, nisi antea intellecta sit grammatice. 
 But the meaning of our Reformers, in respect to 
 the Bible being its own interpreter, has been 
 strangely perverted in modern times ; and a mere 
 relative expression has been so construed, as if 
 they had applied it in a positive and absolute sense. 
 An expression, meant only to exclude Tradition, 
 has been made a pretence for the exclusion of 
 Theological Learning; and the maxim, that the 
 Bible is its own interpreter, has been carried so 
 
LECTURE XIII. 
 
 15 
 
 far in the present, as well as in a former age, that 
 men, who can scarcely read the Bible, have dreamt 
 that they are able to expound it. Nor is their 
 inconsistency less remarkable, than their presump- 
 tion. For if the Bible is absolutely its own inter- 
 preter, there can be no necessity for their inter- 
 pretations : there can be no necessity for any class 
 of men employed to study and explain it. 
 Whether we are acquainted with Hebrew and 
 Greek, or know only our mother tongue ; whether 
 we are provided with a store of ancient learning, 
 or our philosophy is confined to the awl and the 
 anvil, we are all equally qualified to understand 
 the Bible. Hence the early Reformers, who were 
 among the most distinguished scholars of their 
 age, have been converted into patrons of ignorance : 
 and a Reformation, which was produced by erudi- 
 tion, has been represented as indebted for its origin 
 to the total absence of human learning. 
 
 Another expression used by our Reformers, 
 namely, " the perspicuity of the Sacred Writings," 
 has been no less abused than the similar expression 
 already noted. When they argued for the per- 
 spicuity of the Bible, they intended not to argue 
 against the application of Learning, but against 
 the application of Tradition to the exposition of 
 Scripture. The Church of Rome, on the ground, 
 
\ 6 
 
 LECTURE XIII. 
 
 and indeed just ground, that the Bible required 
 explanation, contended, that this explanation must 
 be sought in Tradition. No ! said our Reformers ; 
 We need not the aid of your Tradition; to us 
 the Bible is sufficiently perspicuous without it. 
 Here then they made their stand ; here it was, 
 that they unfurled the banner of the Reformation. 
 But in rejecting Tradition as necessary to make 
 the Bible perspicuous, they never meant to declare, 
 that the Bible was alike perspicuous, to the 
 learned and the unlearned. If they had, they 
 would never have supplied the unlearned with 
 explanations of it. But the 'perspicuity of the 
 Bible/ is again an expression, which has been so 
 construed in modern times, as if the genuine 
 principle of Protestantism required us to reject 
 what the authors of Protestantism have provided. 
 In fact the learned, as well as the unlearned, are 
 in need of continual help, to understand the Bible ; 
 men already provided with a store of biblical 
 erudition are perpetually feeling the necessity of 
 further information ; the more we advance, the 
 more sensible do we become of what we want to 
 know ; and only superficial readers will imagine, 
 that a knowledge of the Bible is a matter of easy- 
 attainment. Fortunately for mankind, the passages 
 of Scripture, which we are most concerned to 
 understand, are those, which are understood with 
 
LECTURE XIII. 
 
 17 
 
 the greatest ease. Neither a critical nor a philo- 
 logical apparatus is necessary to discover the will 
 of God in what relates to our own conduct. How- 
 ever difficult it may be, to penetrate into the 
 councils of the Deity, and to fathom the depth 
 of his decrees, the laws, which he has prescribed 
 for the government of our own actions, and in 
 which a misunderstanding might be fatal, are 
 intelligible to the meanest capacity. But the diver- 
 sity, which prevails in many articles of faith among 
 different Christian communities, shews the diffi- 
 culty of rightly understanding the passages of Scrip- 
 ture, on which the Articles, wherein we differ, are 
 founded. And if we further consider the manifold 
 attainments, which are necessary to understand 
 the original Scriptures in all their various rela- 
 tions, we shall not conclude, that they are alike 
 perspicuous to the learned and the unlearned. 
 Augustine, who was not in other respects an 
 advocate for deep erudition, though few men have 
 surpassed him in acuteness of reasoning, has 
 acknowledged, in a Letter to Volusian, the great- 
 ness of the difficulties which attend the interpre- 
 tation of Scripture. " Non quod ad ea, quae 
 necessaria sunt saluti, tanta perveniatur difficultate; 
 sed, cum quisque ibi fidem tenuerit, sine qua pie 
 recteque non vivitur, tarn multa, tamque multipli- 
 cibus mysteriorum umbraculis opacata, intelligenda 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 LECTURE XIII. 
 
 proflcientibus restant, tantaque non solum in verbis, 
 quibus ista dicta sunt, sed etiam in rebus quae 
 intelligendae sunt, latet altitudo sapientiae, ut 
 annosissimis, acutissimis, flagranti ssimis cupidi- 
 tate discendi hoc contingat, quod eadem Scriptura 
 quodam loco habet, m Cum consummaverit homo, 
 tunc incipit." In the same epistle he calls the 
 
 Scripture omnibus accessibilis paucissimis 
 
 penetrabilis. Of the easy and obvious passages, 
 such as relate to our own practice, he says, Sine 
 fuco ad cor loquitur indoctorum atque doctorum. 
 But of those, which require the aid of erudition, 
 he says, Non audeat accedere mens tardiuscula et 
 inerudita, tanquam pauper ad divitem. 
 
 Lastly, let us guard against the prevalent abuse 
 of another position, which was maintained by our 
 Reformers, and likewise in reference to Tradition. 
 When Tradition was discarded as a Rule of Faith 
 independent of the Bible, our Reformers of course 
 maintained, that the Bible alone contained all 
 things, which were necessary for salvation. To the 
 Bible alone, to the Bible without Tradition, did 
 they appeal therefore in opposition to the Church 
 of Rome : and, that all men might be enabled to 
 judge, whether they rightly appealed, they wisely 
 insisted, that the privilege of reading the Bible 
 should be common to all men. But the Cornmen- 
 
LECTURE XIII. lg 
 
 taries, which they wrote, beside the Confessions of 
 Faith, which they composed, may convince us, 
 that when they put the Bible into the hands of the 
 people, they thought it necessary to add an expla- 
 nation of it. Our Reformers therefore carried 
 their opposition to the Church of Rome beyond 
 the mere act of giving a Bible without note or 
 comment. The sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures 
 without the aid of Tradition, did not imply in 
 their opinion the inutility of all explanation. Nor, 
 because the Bible contains all things, which are 
 necessary for salvation, did our Reformers con- 
 clude, that in giving the Bible alone, they did all 
 things, which were wanted on their parts, for re- 
 ligious instruction. When Tradition was dis- 
 carded, the Bible only became the religion of the 
 Protestant ; the Bible only was recognized as the 
 fountain of religious truth. But so apprehensive 
 were the early Reformers, that the streams, which 
 might be drawn from it, would lose the purity of 
 their source, and become tainted in their progress, 
 unless care were taken to lead them into proper 
 channels, that these Reformers employed the most 
 strenuous exertions, to prevent their flowing, either 
 to Popery again, or in any other direction, where 
 falsehood might be mingled with the truth. It 
 was chiefly for this purpose, that they composed 
 
 C 2 
 
20 LECTURE XIII 
 
 both Expositions of Scripture, and those Con- 
 fessions of Faith , to which their followers assented 
 on the ground, that our Reformers had rightly 
 explained the Scripture. On this ground we as- 
 sent in particular to our own Liturgy and Articles : 
 and if we neglect them, we neglect the Faith, to 
 which we profess ourselves attached. On the other 
 hand, as our Liturgy and Articles are avowedly 
 founded on the Bible, it is the special duty of those, 
 who are set apart for the ministry, to compare 
 them with the Bible, and see that their pretensions 
 are well founded. But then our interpretation of 
 the Bible must be conducted independently of that, 
 of which the truth is to be ascertained by it. Our 
 interpretation of the Bible therefore must not be 
 determined by religious system: and we must 
 follow the example of our Reformers, who supplied 
 the place of Tradition by Reason and Learning. 
 Let us beware then, as Protestants, of undertaking 
 that important office, without due preparation. 
 Would any man undertake to expound the law of 
 the land, without a due preparation in the study 
 of the law? Or, if any one thus unprepared should 
 venture on the task, would hearers or readers be 
 found sufficiently credulous to believe in his expo- 
 sitions ? And shall the law of God be treated with 
 greater levity, than the law of man P 
 
LECTURE XIII 
 
 21 
 
 Here then, I trust, the arguments for theo- 
 logical learning may be concluded. It shall be the 
 business therefore of the next, and of the following 
 Lectures, to give directions for the application of 
 it. And let us all implore the blessing of Almighty 
 God, while we are conscientiously striving to dis- 
 cover the truth. If we employ the means, which 
 God has provided us for the understanding of the 
 Scriptures, we may hope, that the grace of God 
 will be granted to our honest endeavours. But, 
 if we neglect those means, let us not deceive our- 
 selves by the vain expectation, that the Almighty 
 will interpose by supernatural means, to supply 
 the defects, which we ourselves occasion, when we 
 disregard the natural means, which he has already 
 furnished for that purpose. 
 
LECTURE XIV. 
 
 The first office of an interpreter is the inves- 
 tigation of single words : for he must understand 
 the elements, of which a sentence is composed, 
 before he can judge of their combination. Now in 
 all languages words are only signs. When they 
 are spoken, they are signs to the hearer of what 
 was thought by the speaker : when they are written, 
 they are signs to the reader of what was thought 
 by the writer. The interpretation therefore of 
 any word, whether written by an ancient or by 
 a modern author, must depend on the following 
 question ; What nofion did the author himself affix 
 to that word, when he committed it to writing? 
 Consequently, all our inquiries into the meaning 
 of a word in any particular passage, inquiries which 
 sometimes diverge in numerous directions, must 
 be all brought at last to concentre in that single 
 point, the notion affixed to it in that passage by 
 the author. 
 
 The discovery of this notion will be attended 
 with greater or less difficulty, according to the 
 
LECTURE XIV. 23 
 
 relative situation of the reader to the author. If the 
 latter uses the same language, which is spoken by 
 the former, and writes on a familiar subject, he will 
 be readily understood, because he employs expres- 
 sions, of which the meaning is determined by 
 usage equally known to both parties. In such 
 cases, the reader, unless he has a previous desire 
 of perverting the author's meaning, will commonly 
 understand the words, as they were intended to 
 be understood : they will really be signs to the 
 reader, of what was thought by the writer. If, 
 instead of writing on a familiar subjects, he writes 
 on matters of science, the difficulty of interpre- 
 tation will indeed be increased ; but this additional 
 difficulty will not be of that description, which 
 creates ambiguity. The words will still perform 
 their functions with exactness : for the defini- 
 tions, which are used in science, prevent all mis- 
 understanding. The Elements of Euclid will be 
 understood, in every age and nation, precisely in 
 the same sense, as they were understood by the 
 author. In works composed on morality and 
 religion, where mixed modes, which are not 
 easily defined, are the objects of contemplation, 
 it is always more difficult to ascertain an author's 
 meaning, however attentive he himself may have 
 been to the choice of his expressions. But in 
 works of fancy and imagination, where, even in 
 
24 
 
 LECTURE XIV. 
 
 the author's own mind, precision and discrimination 
 are frequently overlooked in the combinations of 
 poetic imagery, occasional ambiguity will unavoid- 
 ably take place in the interpretation of his words. 
 
 If the work, which we undertake to interpret, 
 is written in a foreign language, we shall not only 
 have to encounter the preceding difficulties, ac- 
 cording to their several gradations, but the ad- 
 ditional difficulty of understanding the language 
 itself. If indeed it be a modern language, and, 
 beside the assistance derived from grammars and 
 dictionaries, the reader has the advantage of 
 conversing with those, whose language it is, the 
 words of that language may gradually become to 
 him as familiar signs, as the words of his own 
 language. But if the work, which we undertake 
 to interpret, is written in a dead language, an 
 accumulation of difficulty will take place, according 
 to the extent or the scantiness of the means, 
 which we possess, of discovering the meaning of 
 the words, which are extant in that language. 
 This is a kind of difficulty, entirely distinct from 
 that, which attends what is commonly called the 
 learning of a dead language. A dead language, 
 which can be acquired only by grammar and 
 lexicon, is more or less 'easily learnt, according 
 to the paucity or abundance of its words, the 
 
LECTURE XIV. 
 
 25 
 
 simplicity or variety of its inflexions, and the 
 clearness or intricacy of its construction. Hence 
 the Hebrew language is more easily learnt, than 
 the Greek : yet the examples, in which it is 
 difficult to ascertain with precision the meaning 
 of words, are more frequent in the former, than 
 in the latter. A passage may be easily construed, 
 yet not easily understood. When the structure 
 of a sentence is involved in no obscurity, we can 
 easily put together, by the help of a Lexicon, 
 a set of words in one language corresponding to 
 a set of words in another. But the correspond- 
 ence will not necessarily be such, that the 
 meaning, expressed by the translator, shall be the 
 meaning intended by the author. The meaning 
 of words is purely conventional ; their connexion 
 with the notions, which they convey, is founded 
 in the practice or the usage of those, who speak 
 the language, to which the words belong. In 
 a living language this usage is known from con- 
 versation. But in a dead language it can be dis- 
 covered only by reading: and therefore the 
 fewer books we have in that language, the more 
 circumscribed will be our means of discovering 
 what was the usage of it, when it was spoken. 
 Now the Old Testament is the only work, which 
 remains, in the antient Hebrew : nor have we any 
 thing like a Lexicon or Glossary composed, while 
 
26 
 
 LECTURE XIV. 
 
 it was a living language. Indeed it ceased to be 
 a living language so long ago as the Babylonish 
 Captivity ; for Jerusalem was re-built by Jews, 
 who were born in Chaldea, and who returned to 
 the country of their ancestors with the language 
 of their conquerors. 
 
 It is a matter therefore of great importance to 
 the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, to know 
 the sources, from which we derive our knowledge 
 of the Hebrew language. It is true, that we 
 have the advantage of an English translation, as 
 well in the Old Testament, as in the New : but 
 no man would wholly confide in a modern trans- 
 lation, who had the means of understanding the 
 original. At any rate, it is of consequence to 
 know how far our translators themselves were in 
 possession of those means, because this knowledge 
 must determine the degree of confidence to be 
 placed in them. Let us consider therefore in 
 the first instance what were the primary sources, 
 from which the knowledge of Hebrew was drawn ; 
 and in the next place let us inquire into those, 
 which had the chief influence on our modern 
 translations. 
 
 As Chaldee was the language spoken by the 
 Jews of Jerusalem after the Babylonish Captivity, 
 
LECTURE XIV. 
 
 27 
 
 they gradually translated the Hebrew Scriptures, 
 or at least the greatest part of them, into that 
 language. While Chaldee was spoken in the 
 southern part of Palestine, Syriac was the language 
 of Galilee. Now we have a Syriac translation of 
 the whole Hebrew Bible, as well as of the Greek 
 Testament. Since then we have Chaldee and 
 Syriac translations from the Hebrew, they are 
 sources, from which we derive a knowledge of the 
 Hebrew. It is true that Chaldee and Syriac have 
 themselves long ceased to be spoken, if we except 
 perhaps some villages of Palestine, where it is said, 
 that a remnant of them is still preserved. But we 
 have the means of ascertaining the sense of Syriac 
 words from the writings of the Syrian Fathers, 
 especially as some of them were translated into 
 Greek, and the knowledge of Chaldee was long 
 preserved among the Jews, who retained it as a 
 learned language many ages after their final disper- 
 sion. Chaldee and Syriac assist also each other : 
 for in fact they are not so much different languages, 
 as different dialects of the same language. The 
 chief difference between them consists in the vowel 
 points, or the mode of pronunciation. And though 
 the forms of the letters are very unlike, the corre- 
 spondence between the languages (or rather dialects) 
 themselves is so close, that if Chaldee be written 
 with Syriac letters without points, it becomes 
 
28 
 
 LECTURE XIV. 
 
 Syriac, with the exception of a single inflexion in 
 the formation of the verbs. 
 
 Another oriental source, from which we derive 
 a knowledge of Hebrew words, is the Arabic. The 
 most ancient among the Arabic versions of the 
 Hebrew Bible was made indeed above a thousand 
 years after Hebrew had ceased to be spoken. But, 
 on the other hand, we have the means of deter- 
 mining with the greatest exactness the sense of 
 Arabic words, because Arabic is still a living lan- 
 guage, and is spoken over a greater extent of 
 country, than almost any other language. It is at 
 the same time a kind of classical language : it has 
 authors on almost every subject ; and has under- 
 gone the investigation of native grammarians and 
 lexicographers. Its importance therefore to the 
 interpretation of Hebrew is apparent. It serves 
 indeed as a key to that language ; for it is not only 
 allied to the Hebrew, but is at the same time so 
 copious, as to contain the roots of almost all the 
 words in the Hebrew Bible. 
 
 But of all the ancient versions of the Hebrew 
 Bible, there is none so important, both to the 
 critic, and to the interpreter, as the Greek version, 
 which is known by the name of the Septuagint. 
 Nor is the advantage, derived from the Septuagint, 
 
LECTURE XIV. 2Q 
 
 confined to the Hebrew. It is a source of inter- 
 pretation also to the Greek Testament: and so 
 valuable a source, that none other can be compared 
 with it. The Septuagint version was made in 
 Egypt, under the government of the Ptolemies, 
 for the use of the Jews then settled in that country, 
 who were as much in need of a Greek version, as 
 the Jews of Palestine were then in need of a 
 Chaldee version. The Egyptian Jews, to whom 
 Greek was become their vernacular language, were 
 of course desirous of possessing in Greek a faithful 
 representation of the Hebrew Scriptures. But 
 then the structure of the two languages was so 
 widely different, that the translators, adhering to 
 the original, more closely than perhaps necessity 
 required, retained Hebrew for ms and modes of ex- 
 pression, while the words, which they were writing, 
 were Greek. The language therefore of the Sep- 
 tuagint is a kind of Hebrew-Greek, which a native 
 of Athens might sometimes have found difficult to 
 understand. But, as this version became the Bible 
 of all the Jews, who were dispersed throughout 
 the countries, where Greek was spoken, it became 
 the standard of their Greek language. St. Paul 
 himself, who was born in Tarsus, and was accus- 
 tomed from his childhood to hear the Septuagint 
 read in the synagogue of that city, adopted the 
 Hebrew idioms of the Greek version. And when 
 
30 
 
 LECTURE XIV. 
 
 he was removed to Jerusalem, and placed under 
 the guidance of Gamaliel, the Hebrew tincture of 
 St. Paul's Greek could have suffered no diminution. 
 The other Apostles were all natives of Palestine ; 
 as was also the Evangelist St. Mark, and probably 
 the Evangelist St. Luke. Their language therefore 
 was Syriac or Chaldee, of which the turns of ex- 
 pression had a close correspondence with those of 
 the ancient Hebrew. Consequently, when they 
 wrote in Greek, their language could not fail to 
 resemble the language, which had been used by 
 the Greek translators. And, as every Jew, who 
 read Greek at all, (which they who wrote in it 
 must have done) w r ould read the Greek Bible, the 
 style of the Septuagint again operated in forming 
 the stvle of the Greek Testament. Both the He- 
 brew Bible therefore and the Greek Testament are 
 so closely connected with the Septuagint, as well 
 in their language as in their matter, that the Sep- 
 tuagint is a source of interpretation, alike important 
 to the one and to the other. 
 
 We now come to the consideration of that 
 source, from which we have most copiously drawn, 
 and which has had greater influence on our modern 
 translations, than is commonly supposed. This 
 source is the Latin Vulgate. It has been applied 
 to the interpretation, as well of the New, as of the 
 
LECTURE XIV. 31 
 
 Old Testament. But it is of more especial use in 
 the latter, because our sources of intelligence in 
 respect to Hebrew words, are more circumscribed 
 than in respect to Greek. Its intrinsic value also 
 in the Old Testament is greater than in the New. 
 The Latin Vulgate in the New Testament was 
 only corrected by Jerom ; but in the Old Testa- 
 ment it is a translation made by Jerom himself, and 
 made immediately from the Hebrew. Now Jerom 
 was by far the most learned among all the 
 Fathers of the Latin Church: and in order to 
 make his translation of the Hebrew Bible as cor- 
 rect as possible, he passed several years in Palestine, 
 where he was assisted by learned Jews, belonging 
 to the celebrated college of Tiberias. Indeed the 
 benefit to be derived from the Latin Vulgate, was 
 acknowledged by our early Reformers, in the ex- 
 tensive use which they made of it themselves. 
 Wickliffe's English translation was made entirely 
 from the Vulgate : and Luther himself, when he 
 made his German translation, translated indeed 
 from the Hebrew and the Greek, but with the 
 assistance of the Latin Vulgate. This assistance 
 is visible throughout ; and passages have been 
 discovered in Luther's German translation, which 
 agree with the Latin, even where the Latin differs 
 from the Hebrew. 
 
32 
 
 LECTURE XIV. 
 
 But the use of the Latin Vulgate, in trans- 
 lating from the Hebrew, was at that period not 
 merely matter of convenience. It was matter also 
 of necessity. Without the V ulgate, Luther would 
 not have possessed the means of translating from 
 the Hebrew. The knowledge of Hebrew had for 
 ages preceding the period of the Reformation, 
 been confined to the learned among the Jews; 
 and when Luther undertook the task of translating 
 from the original Scriptures, this knowledge had 
 begun only to dawn among Christians. The com- 
 prehensive grammars and lexicons, to which we 
 have now access, are scources of intelligence, which 
 were not open to our early Reformers. The elder 
 Buxtorf, one of the fathers of Hebrew learning 
 among Christians, was not born till after Luther's 
 death; and Luther's only helps in the form of 
 a Hebrew Lexicon, were those of Reuchlin and 
 Munster, extracted from the meagre glossaries 
 of the Rabbins. Under such circumstances a trans- 
 lation from the Hebrew, without the intervention 
 of the Latin, would have been wholly impracticable. 
 
 Here the subject requires a few observations 
 on our own authorised version. It was published 
 by royal authority in, the reign of James the 
 First, having been then compiled out of various 
 
LECTURE XIV. 33 
 
 English Bibles which had been printed since the 
 time of the Reformation. To judge therefore of 
 our authorised version we should have some know- 
 ledge of those previous English Bibles. The first 
 of them was a translation made abroad, partly by 
 Tyndal, and partly by Rogers, but chiefly by the 
 former. It was undertaken soon after the Reforma- 
 tion commenced in Germany, and therefore several 
 years before the Reformation was introduced into 
 England, What knowledge Tyndal had of Hebrew 
 is unknown ; but he of course understood the 
 Latin Vulgate; and he was likewise acquainted 
 with German. Indeed he passed some time with 
 Luther at Wittenberg; and the books, which 
 Tyndal selected for translation into English were 
 always those, which Luther had already translated 
 into German. Now Luther did not translate 
 according to the order, in which the several books 
 follow each other in the Bible : he translated in 
 an order of his own, and the same order was 
 observed also by Tyndal, who translated after 
 Luther. We may conclude therefore that TyndaVs 
 translation was taken at least in part from Luther's : 
 and this conclusion is further confirmed by the 
 Germanisms, which it contains, some of which are 
 still preserved in our authorised version. Further, 
 when Rogers had completed what Tyndal left 
 unfinished, he added notes and prefaces from 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 LECTURE XIV. 
 
 Luther. The translation of the whole Bible, thus 
 made by Tyndal and Rogers, was published at 
 Hamburg under the feigned name of Matthewe : 
 and hence it has been called Matthewe's Bible. 
 Subsequent English editions were Coverdale's Bible, 
 Cranmer's Bible (called also the Great Bible, and 
 sometimes by the names of the printers Grafton 
 and Whitchurch,) the Geneva Bible, and Parkers 
 or the Bishops' Bible which last was published in 
 1568, and from that time was used in our Churches 
 till the introduction of our present version. Now 
 the Bishops' Bible, as appears from Archbishop Par- 
 ker's instructions, was only a revision of Cranmer's 
 Bible : and Cranmer's Bible was only a correction 
 (in some places for the worse) of Matthewe's Bible, 
 that is, of the translation made by Tyndal and Rogers. 
 We see therefore the genealogy of the Bishops' 
 Bible ; and the Bishops' Bible was made the basis 
 of our present authorised version. For the first 
 rule, given by James the First to the compilers 
 of it, was this, " The ordinary Bible, read in the 
 Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to 
 be followed, and as little altered, as the original 
 would permit." But whenever Matthewe's Bible, 
 or Coverdale's, or Whitchurch's or the Geneva 
 Bible came nearer to the original (that is to the 
 editions of the Hebrew Bible and Greek Testa- 
 ment then in use) the text of these other English 
 
LECTURE XIV 
 
 35 
 
 Bibles was ordered to be adopted. Now as this col- 
 lation was made by some of the most distinguished 
 scholars in the age of James the First, it is pro- 
 bable, that our authorised version is as faithful a 
 representation of the original Scriptures as could 
 have been formed at that period. But when we 
 consider the immense accession which has been 
 since made, both to our critical and to our philo- 
 logical apparatus; when we consider, that the 
 whole mass of literature, commencing with the 
 London Polyglot and continued to Griesbach's 
 Greek Testament, was collected subsequently to 
 that period ; when we consider that the most im- 
 portant sources of intelligence for the interpretation 
 of the original Scriptures were likewise opened 
 after that period, we cannot possibly pretend that 
 our authorised version does not require amendment. 
 On this subject we need only refer to the work of 
 Archbishop Nevvcome, entitled, ce An Historical 
 n View of the English Biblical Translations ; the 
 " expediency of revising by authority our present 
 " English Translation ; and the means of executing 
 " such a revision." Indeed Dr. Macknight, in 
 the second section of his general Preface, goes so 
 far as to say of our authorised version, ** It is bv 
 " no means such a just representation of the in- 
 " spired originals, as merits to be implicitly relied 
 a on, for determining the controverted articles of 
 
 D 2 
 
36 LECTURE XIV. 
 
 i( the Christian faith, and for quieting the dis- 
 ce sensions, which have rent the Church." 
 
 In excuse however for neglecting the original 
 languages, and trusting to a modern translation, it 
 has been lately urged, that a man may spend his 
 life in the study of Hebrew and Greek, and yet 
 not become master of the originals, while the mere 
 English scholar, who is versed in the phraseology 
 of our authorised version, may be said to have 
 made no inconsiderable progress in divinity. In 
 answer to this excuse we may propose the following 
 questions : If, with our present critical and philo- 
 logical apparatus, we are unable to discover the 
 meaning of the originals, how could that meaning 
 have been discovered by our early translators? 
 How can we make a considerable progress in the 
 knowledge of the Scriptures by reading only a 
 translation, if the understanding of the originals is 
 impeded by difficulties, which the very authors of 
 that translation must have found much harder to 
 surmount? In the study of the Bible therefore, 
 let those, who are set apart for the Christian 
 ministry, consider well what is required from a 
 good interpreter. Would it not be thought absurd, 
 if a man ignorant of Greek undertook to write 
 a Commentary on Homer, or a man ignorant of 
 Latin to write a Commentary on Virgil ? And is 
 
LECTURE XIV. 3? 
 
 it not equally absurd, to comment on the New 
 Testament without a knowledge of Greek, or on 
 the Old Testament without a knowledge of He- 
 brew ? A knowledge of Greek is, in a greater or 
 less degree, attained by all, who have had the 
 benefit of a learned education. But a knowledge 
 of Hebrew, which is equally required from the 
 foreign Protestant Clergy, is considered as less 
 necessary in this country : and indeed it is so far 
 less necessary, as a perfect understanding of the 
 Old Testament is less necessary to a Christian, 
 than a perfect understanding of the New. .Yet we 
 should surely endeavour to obtain at least so much 
 knowledge of it, as may enable us to compare with 
 the original our English translation, and see that 
 the text itself is accurate — before we attempt an 
 interpretation of that text. 
 
 A further excuse for disregarding the originals 
 and confiding in a modern translation, has been 
 founded in an argument, which to a certain extent 
 is indisputably true. It has been urged, that 
 even if we do learn the original languages, we must 
 still confide in a translator ; and, that whether we 
 look into a Lexicon, which gives us the meaning 
 of single words, or into a Translation, which gives 
 us the meaning of them all together, we are de- 
 pendent on the Lexicographer in the one case, as 
 
38 
 
 .LECTURE XIV. 
 
 on the Translator in the other. Bat there is a 
 material difference, both in the kind, and in the 
 extent of the confidence, which we thus repose. 
 If we depend on a continued translation, we place 
 a two-fold confidence in the translator; a con- 
 fidence in his knowledge of each single word, and 
 a confidence in his right construction of them. 
 But our confidence in the Lexicographer is only 
 of the former description : we learn to construe 
 for ourselves, and thus are enabled to judge, 
 whether others have construed rightly. We are 
 enabled also to judge whether the translator has 
 added or omitted, which we can never know with- 
 out examining the original. Nor is the confidence, 
 which we piace in a Lexicographer even for single 
 words, by any means so implicit, as when we trust 
 to a continued translation. In the latter case, we 
 must wholly rely, both on the judgment and on 
 the fidelity of the translator, being destitute of that 
 knowledge, without which we can form no estimate 
 whatever. But the case is widely different, when 
 we consult a Lexicon. It is not in the power of 
 a Lexicographer to impose on us, as a common 
 translator can. In a Lexicon (at least if it is of 
 any value) we frequently find the same word 
 quoted in various passages, which assist us in de- 
 termining its meaning; if it is a derivative, we 
 become acquainted with the primitive, with which 
 
LECTURE XIV. 3Q 
 
 its meaning must have some connexion ; and if it 
 has various senses, (which we should never know 
 from a continued translation) we may judge from 
 the context and other circumstances, which of 
 those various senses is best adapted to any par- 
 ticular passage. If we extend our knowledge to 
 the oriental languages allied to the Hebrew, and 
 apply also the Septuagint version, the dependence 
 on our Lexicon will he further diminished. We 
 ourselves shall obtain possession of the sources, 
 from which the Lexicographer himself must have 
 drawn his materials, and thence we shall be enabled 
 to judge, whether he has properly applied them. 
 
 Lastly, let us consider the additional obligation 
 of studying the original Scriptures, which lies 
 especially on those, who pretend to the title of 
 Protestant. To repose implicit confidence in a 
 translation, is characteristic of the Church of 
 Rome. Let the Church of Rome decree of her 
 authorised version, Ut nemo illam rejicere quovis 
 praetextu audeat vel prcesumat. But let no 
 Protestant apply these words of the Council of 
 Trent to his own authorised version, whatever pre- 
 dilection he may have for it himself. It is the 
 privilege of Protestants to appeal to the inspired 
 originals. We do not believe, that our translators 
 were inspired, though the Jews believed it of their 
 
40 
 
 LECTURE XIV. 
 
 Septuagint translators. The early Reformers, 
 especially Luther and Melanchthon, thought it 
 one of the most important advantages obtained by 
 the Reformation, that the learned were no longer 
 forced to walk in the trammels of an authorised 
 version, but were at liberty to open the originals. 
 Nor have the foreign Protestant Clergy, from the 
 period of the Reformation to the present age, 
 appealed, either in Academic disputations, or in 
 writings designed for the learned, to any other 
 scriptural authority, than that of the Hebrew, and 
 the Greek, For those indeed, who were unable 
 to understand the originals, they provided trans- 
 lations conducted to the best of their abilities. 
 And since it is infinitely better to read the Scrip- 
 tures in a translation, than not to read them at all, 
 the legislature of different Protestant countries 
 has wisely provided for the reading of them in 
 Churches, according to those translations, which 
 were most approved. But the high and decisive 
 authority, belonging to the inspired originals, was 
 never supposed by any Protestant, at least not by 
 any real Protestant, to attach to a mere trans- 
 lation; though the Church of Rome requires 
 such authority for her own authorised version. 
 When a Protestant government has selected a 
 particular translation, and appointed it to be read 
 in Churches, this selection and appointment has 
 
LECTURE XIY. 
 
 41 
 
 implied only, that such translation was the best 
 which could then be obtained. But it did not 
 imply perfection, or that no future amendment 
 could be required. Indeed we know, that the 
 English version, which had been authorised by 
 Queen Elizabeth, was exchanged for another 
 version, authorised by James the First. We have 
 therefore a precedent in our own Church, for 
 following the advice of Archbishop Newcome, and 
 again revising by authority our English version. 
 But whether we revise it or not, there is one in- 
 ference, which must be drawn from the preceding 
 remarks, namely, that we cannot be qualified for 
 the Interpretation of the Bible, till we under- 
 stand the languages of the Bible, 
 
LECTOR E XV. 
 
 The sources of biblical interpretation having 
 been explained in the preceding Lecture, let us 
 now consider what rules must be observed in the 
 investigation of words, in order to make them 
 perform the office, for which they were intended, 
 and become signs to the hearer or reader of what 
 was thought by the speaker or writer. 
 
 Whether we speak, or whether we write, it is 
 in either case our object to be understood. Every 
 Author therefore must be supposed to employ such 
 words, for the conveyance of his thoughts, as he 
 believes will excite in his readers the same thoughts. 
 Otherwise, he defeats his own object. His words 
 will be fallacious signs ; they will be signs of one 
 thing to the writer, of another thing to the reader; 
 and whether they convey a true, or convey a false 
 proposition, they will not convey, what the reader 
 wants to know, the proposition of the author. 
 Hence also he must be supposed to use his words 
 
LECTURE XV. 
 
 f 
 
 43 
 
 in the same sense, in which they are commonly 
 used by the person?, who speak the language, in 
 which he writes. For, if he uses them in any 
 other sense, they will again be signs of one thing 
 to the writer, of another to the reader. 
 
 To interpret therefore a word in any language, 
 (whoever be the author that used it) we must ask 
 in the first instance; What notion is (or was) 
 affixed to that word, by the persons in general, 
 who speak (or spake) the language? And the 
 answer to this question will constitute our first 
 rule of interpretation. Now the question, when 
 applied to a living language, is easily answered, 
 because the usage of a living language is known 
 from conversation. But when it is applied to a 
 dead language, of which the usage can be learnt 
 only from books, the answer may involve very 
 extensive inquiries. If, for instance, the question 
 be applied to a word in the Hebrew Bible, the 
 answer will involve the use of those sources of 
 intelligence, which were explained in the last 
 Lecture. In like manner, if it be applied to any 
 word in the Greek Testament, the answer will 
 involve inquiries into the usage of words, both 
 among the Greeks in general, and among those in 
 particular, who used the peculiar dialect of Hebrew- 
 Greek. 
 
44 
 
 LECTURE XV. 
 
 But whatever be the sources, from which we 
 derive our knowledge of words, whatever be our 
 means of answering the question above-proposed, 
 that answer will in general determine our inter- 
 pretation of words, as it determines in general an 
 author's application of them. The rules them- 
 selves therefore, which we are now considering, 
 may be explained, without reference to any par- 
 ticular language. But, on the other hand, we 
 must not forget, that they apply only to the words 
 of an original. For when we interpret a trans- 
 lation, the words, which we investigate, are signs 
 to the reader of what was thought by the trans- 
 lator. They may, or they may not, be signs of 
 what was thought by the author. 
 
 It has been already observed, that authors 
 must in general use their words in the sense, in 
 which they are generally understood: and that 
 hence is derived our first rule of interpretation. 
 But how, it may be asked, is the rule to be 
 applied, if a word has various senses ? Is not such 
 a word an ambiguous sign ? And must not the 
 application of the rule be attended in this case 
 with uncertainty f Now if a word has various 
 senses, it will undoubtedly be a sign of one thing 
 in one place, of another thing in another place. 
 But it is no necessary consequence, that the word 
 
LECTURE XV. 
 
 45 
 
 is an ambiguous sign. Its senses, however dif- 
 ferent, may be distinctly marked by the relation 
 of that word to other words, with which it is con- 
 nected in a sentence. And as in cases where a 
 word has only one sense, that sense is determined 
 by usage, in like manner, where a word has various 
 senses, each single sense will be determined by 
 usage. But then the question above-proposed 
 must be restricted to the particular case. And 
 instead of asking indefinitely, What notion was 
 affixed to the word by the persons in general, who 
 spake the language, we must ask j What notion 
 did they affix to it, in that particular connexion f 
 
 Should a doubt however remain, where a word 
 has various senses, that doubt may be frequently 
 removed by the application of another rule, which 
 is likewise founded on the principle, that words 
 are signs to the reader of what was thought by the 
 writer. As the general meaning of words depends 
 on general usage, so their particular application 
 may depend on the particular situation of the per- 
 sons, to whom they were immediately addressed. 
 We may lay it down therefore as a second rule of 
 interpretation, that the meaning of a word, used 
 by any writer, is the meaning, which was affixed 
 to it by those, for whom he immediately wrote. 
 For, if a writer, addressing himself in the first 
 
46 
 
 LECTURE XV. 
 
 instance to particular persons or communities, does 
 not adapt his expressions to the mode, in which 
 they are likely to apply them, he will fail to be 
 understood by the very persons, for whose imme- 
 diate benefit he wrote. When St. Paul, for in- 
 stance, composed an Epistle to any particular 
 community, whether at Rome, at Corinth, at 
 Ephesus, or any other place, he undoubtedly used 
 such expressions, as well as such arguments, as he 
 knew would be understood by that community. 
 And, as he intended to be understood by that 
 community, so and no otherwise did he intend to 
 be understood by all other readers, whether in the 
 first or in the nineteenth century. Now, in order 
 to discover the meaning ascribed to St. Paul's 
 expressions by any particular community to which 
 he wrote, we must make ourselves acquainted with 
 the peculiar situation of that community. We 
 must understand the opinions, which they main- 
 tained on the subjects, on which St. Paul addressed 
 them ; or the expressions, which he employed in 
 the correction or confutation of those opinions, 
 may be understood by us in a different manner 
 from that, in which they understood his expres- 
 sions; and consequently in a different manner from 
 that, in which St. Paul meant them to be under- 
 stood. For if he had not expressed himself so as 
 to be understood by those, whose religious errors 
 
LECTURE XV. 4 J 
 
 it was his immediate object to remove, his imme- 
 diate object would not have been attained. 
 
 Again, as the situation and circumstances of 
 the original readers afford frequently a clue to an 
 authors meaning, so on the other hand, his own 
 situation and circumstances are not less necessary 
 to be taken into the account. We may lay it down 
 therefore as a third rule of interpretation, that the 
 words of an author must be so explained, as not to 
 make them inconsistent with his known character, 
 his known sentiments, his known situation, and 
 the known circumstances of the subject, on which 
 he wrote. 
 
 To judge of the utility of these rules, let us 
 take a case of interpretation, which is very com- 
 mon, and where the want of them is especially 
 felt. When a word has various senses, it often 
 happens, that more than one of them will so far 
 suit the context, as to afford some sort of meaning 
 to the passage. In such a case, an expounder of 
 the Bible takes the liberty of exercising his own 
 discretion; and this discretion is commonly so 
 exercised, as to make the author mean what the 
 expounder imshes him to have meant. Instead of 
 considering the situation of the author, the ex- 
 pounder contemplates his own situation. Instead 
 
46 
 
 LECTURE XV 
 
 of considering the situation of those, whom the 
 author addressed, the expounder contemplates 
 those, whom he himself is addressing. Instead 
 of inquiring into the opinions, which it was the 
 author's object to confute, he concerns himself 
 only with those opinions, which it is his own 
 object to confute. In this manner does he divert 
 the author's meaning from its original purpose ; 
 and by torturing his words, or rather the words of 
 his translator, he contrives to extract from them 
 a meaning, which they were not intended to con- 
 vey. But let us ask, in the name of common 
 sense, whether it be possible to interpret an author 
 as he ought to be interpreted, without due atten- 
 tion to the preceding rules. Suppose, that an 
 ancient author has written on a point of contro- 
 versy. Will any man venture to assert, that such 
 an author can be understood by those, who are 
 ignorant of the subject and circumstances of the 
 controversy ? Take, for instance, the controversial 
 parts of St. PauVs writings, and see the conse- 
 quence of expounding them, without a knowledge 
 of the subject and circumstances. What was the 
 chief controversy, which engaged the attention of 
 St. Paul ? It was a controversy between the Jewish 
 Converts and the Heathpn Converts. The Jewish 
 Converts, attached to their former institutions, 
 contended that the Law of Moses should be united 
 
LECTURE XV. 4Q 
 
 with the Faith of Christ. Had this proposition 
 been true, the Heathen Converts would have been 
 only imperfect Christians ; and, in order to obtain 
 the perfection required of them by the Jewish 
 Converts, they must have submitted to the rites 
 enjoined by the Levitical Law. The question 
 therefore at issue between them, was simply this ; 
 Whether a man could become a good Christian, 
 without remaining, or becoming a Jew? This 
 question, which was then of the highest impor- 
 tance, St. Paul has discussed, especially in his 
 Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, where 
 he has decided the question in the affirmative. 
 But the question, there decided, is very different 
 from any question, which now agitates the religious 
 world : for no man would now suppose, that the* 
 best Christians are they, who have been Jews. 
 Yet how seldom do we find an interpreter of St. 
 Paul, who keeps in view the subject and circum- 
 stances of that controversy, on which St. Paul 
 himself was writing? Men interpret his Epistles, 
 as if he were a writer of the present age: and 
 passages, relating solely to the question at issue 
 between Jewish and Heathen Converts, are so 
 explained, as if the Apostle had been sitting in 
 judgment, to decide between Calvin and Arminius. 
 
 Here perhaps it will be objected, that as the 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 LECTURE XV 
 
 Christian dispensation was designed for all men, 
 there is an inconsistency in supposing, that minute 
 inquiries into the transactions of antiquity should 
 be necessary, in order to comprehend it. How- 
 ever useful such researches may be in the study 
 of the Old Testament, yet to suppose that the 
 New Testament, which prescribes not laws and 
 regulations for a single nation, but dictates equally 
 to all mankind, to suppose that such a work should 
 require a knowledge of what happened eighteen 
 hundred years ago, and in another quarter of the 
 globe, before it can be understood, may appear 
 incompatible with the design of the Deity, in 
 making it the vehicle of his will. Now the object 
 of the Deity is not to be determined by any pre- 
 conceived opinions, on our part, concerning what 
 he ought, or ought not, to have done. What he 
 ought to have done, can be discovered by no other 
 means, than by inquiring what he has done. And, 
 if we find by experience, that the understanding 
 of the New, as well as of the Old Testament, 
 requires extensive knowledge, we must argue ac- 
 cordingly. Instead of the gratuitous supposition, 
 that things ought to have been otherwise, we must 
 conclude that things ought to be, as we find they 
 really are; instead of complaining about difficulties, 
 we must endeavour to surmount them, by obtain- 
 ing the knowledge, which God has given us the 
 
LECTURE XV. 
 
 51 
 
 means of obtaining, and which, from its very 
 necessity, we may conclude, it is our duty to 
 obtain. 
 
 It may be farther objected, that the situation 
 of inspired writers is different from that of common 
 writers. This is certainly true; it is true, both 
 in respect to the writers themselves, and in respect 
 to the confidence, which we may repose in them. 
 We may be previously assured, when a writer is 
 inspired, that every proposition, which he advances, 
 is in strict conformity with the truth. But we 
 must understand an inspired writer, as well as 
 a common writer ; or we shall not know what his 
 propositions are. And the very circumstance, 
 that his propositions must be true, should make 
 us the more anxious to investigate their meaning. 
 But how shall we investigate their meaning, unless 
 we interpret the words by the rules, which we 
 apply to other writings? Shall we imitate the 
 Church of Rome, and, rejecting the aid of human 
 learning, resolve the interpretation of Scripture 
 into the decrees of a Council, on the presumption, 
 that it interprets under the influence of the Spirit, 
 and therefore that its interpretations are infallible? J 
 Or shall we imitate the modern Enthusiast, who 
 likewise rejects the aid of human learning, who 
 likewise aspires to the influence of the Spirit, and, 
 
 E 2 
 
52 
 
 LECTURE XV. 
 
 acting on the same principles as the Church of 
 Rome, determines with equal ease, and with equal 
 confidence in his own decisions? Or shall we 
 follow the example of our Reformers, who, when 
 they had rejected Tradition as a guide to the 
 meaning of Scripture, supplied the place of that 
 tradition by reason and learning P 
 
 It is true, that if we interpret the Scriptures 
 bv the aid of reason and learning, we must resign 
 all pretensions to that infallibility, which is claimed 
 by those, who aspire to the influence of the Spirit ; 
 whether that influence is supposed to display itself 
 in the assurances of an individual, or in the 
 decrees of a general council. But, on the other 
 hand, there are advantages, which compensate for 
 every defect. The man, who interprets Scripture 
 by the aid of reason and learning, without being 
 elated by the supposition of a supernatural inter- 
 ference on his account, will apply, no less modestly 
 than industriously, the means which Providence 
 has placed within his reach. While he uses his 
 honest endeavours to discover the truth, he will 
 pray to God for a blessing on those endeavours : 
 he will pray for that ordinary assistance of the 
 Holy Spirit, without which all our endeavours 
 must be fruitless ; but he will not expect that 
 extraordinary assistance, which was granted of 
 
LECTURE XV 
 
 53 
 
 old, and for higher purposes. He may vary indeed 
 from the interpretations of others, and sometimes 
 perhaps from those which he himself had adopted 
 at an earlier period, when his knowledge of the 
 subject was more confined. If the final results of 
 his interpretation should be such, as in points of 
 doctrine to agree with the deductions, which he 
 had learnt as articles of faith, he will rejoice at the 
 coincidence, and be thankful, that his labours are 
 thus rewarded. But he will feel no enmity to 
 those, whose deductions are different; he is too 
 well acquainted with the numerous requisites of 
 a good interpreter, to expect that they should be 
 often united; and knowing, that interpreters, dif- 
 ferently qualified, and interpreting on different 
 principles, can never agree in their results, he will 
 have charity for those, whose opiuions are different 
 from his own. He will believe indeed, like other 
 men, that his own opinions are right, and conse- 
 quently, that what opposes them is wrong. But 
 the principle, on which he argues, that his opinions 
 are right, is very different from the principle, on 
 which either a general council, or an individual 
 enthusiast, would rest as a basis of the truth. He 
 will not pretend, that he cannot err j he will not 
 pretend, even that the Church, of which he is a 
 member, cannot err. And, though in point of 
 fact, he believes that it does not err, yet, as he 
 
54 LECTURE XV, 
 
 admits the possibility, he feels no enmity to those, 
 who contend, that it does err. Though he believes, 
 that he himself has rightly interpreted the Bible, 
 and thereon founds his conviction, that his own 
 Articles of Faith are legitimate deductions from 
 the Bible, he is no less desirous of granting to 
 others, than of obtaining for himself, the privilege 
 of acting from private conviction. The freedom, 
 with which he maintains, that the doctrines of his 
 own Church are in unison with Scripture, the same 
 freedom he allows to those, who claim that unison 
 for themselves. He believes indeed, and he asserts, 
 that his own is the true religion. Yet he thinks 
 it right, that other men should also have the 
 liberty of believing and asserting that theirs is the 
 true religion. And he submits with humility to 
 that Almighty Being, who alone cannot err, to 
 determine, whether he, or they, be really in pos- 
 session of what each possesses in his own belief. 
 
 Such is the interpreter, who explains the Bible 
 by the aid of reason and learning. Let us now 
 consider the interpreter, who aspires to the pos- 
 session of higher means. When a general Council, 
 assembled by the Church of Rome, deliberates on 
 points of faith, the Holy Spirit is supposed to 
 guide them in their inquiries, and to exempt their 
 decisions from even the possibility of a mistake. 
 
LECTURE XV. 
 
 55 
 
 Here then lies the grand distinction between the 
 interpretative principle of the Church of Rome, 
 and the interpretative principle of the Church of 
 England. The Church of England, like all other 
 Christian communities without exception, asserts, 
 that its doctrines are in strict conformity with 
 Scripture. But in so doing, it merely asserts the 
 fact, that it does not err from the truth ; whereas 
 the Church of Rome, beside the fact of not erring 
 from the truth, claims also the opinion, that it 
 cannot err from the truth. Now this claim of 
 opinion in addition to the claim of fact, makes 
 a difference of infinitely greater moment, than 
 men in general suppose. It has been frequently 
 said, and very lately repeated, that, as the two 
 Churches act alike in maintaining, each for itself, 
 that it does not err, 'tis mere metaphysical subtlety 
 to distinguish between the petty terms of 6 does 
 not,' and 6 can not.' But these terms, insignificant 
 as they may appear, denote nothing less, than two 
 distinct principles of action, and principles so 
 distinct, that the one leads to charity and tole- 
 ration, the other to intolerance and persecution. 
 On the former principle, which is maintained by 
 the Church of England, though we believe that we 
 are right, we admit, that we are possibly wrong ; 
 though we believe, that others are wrong, we ad- 
 mit that they are possibly right ; and hence we 
 
56 LECTURE XV. 
 
 are disposed to tolerate their opinions. But on 
 the latter principle, which is maintained by the 
 Church of Rome, the very possibility of being 
 right is denied to those, who dissent from its 
 doctrines. Now, as soon as men have persuaded 
 themselves, that in points of doctrine they cannot 
 err, they will think it an imperious duty to pre- 
 vent the growth of all other opinions on a subject 
 so important as religion. Should argument there- 
 fore fail, the importance of the end will be sup- 
 posed to justify the worst of means. But the 
 intolerance, thus produced by an imaginary ex- 
 emption from error, is far from being confined to 
 the Church of Rome. The same intolerance is 
 produced in every man, who imagines, that he 
 interprets the Scriptures under the especial gui- 
 dance of the Holy Spirit. It makes no difference, 
 in this respect, whether such especial guidance is 
 supposed to be vouchsafed to a general council, 
 or to an individual in his private apartments. The 
 result in either case is the same. In either case, 
 the persons who believe themselves so gifted, will 
 conclude, that they cannot err. In either case, 
 they will deem it impious to tolerate what the 
 Spirit, as they imagine, has condemned. And 
 hence we may justly infer, that the same inquisi- 
 torial power, which has been exercised by the 
 Church of Rome, would be exercised bv others. 
 
LECTURE XV. 
 
 57 
 
 who set up similar pretensions, if the means of 
 employing that power were once at their com- 
 mand. 
 
 Have we not then sufficient ground for resist- 
 ing pretensions, no less dangerous to the com- 
 munity, than fallacious in themselves? Can we 
 want further arguments for the interpretation of 
 Scripture by reason and learning? Perhaps in- 
 deed I ought not in this place to use arguments 
 at all in their favour. It may appear superfluous 
 to plead for reason and learning in an University 
 like this, where mathematical acumen and classical 
 literature go hand in hand. But it is the misfor- 
 tune of many well-intentioned young men, to have 
 been seduced into a belief, that the acuteness of 
 reasoning, which is wanted in mathematics, and 
 the learning, which they employ in the study of 
 the classics, may be laid aside as useless, nay, even 
 as an encumbrance, when they transfer their in- 
 quiries to religion. The words of maris wisdom 
 are then exchanged for a supposed demonstration 
 of the Spirit. But let us not deceive ourselves on 
 so momentous a subject. Because an inspired 
 Apostle has declared, that his wisdom was derived 
 from the suggestions of the Holy Spirit, let us 
 not imagine, that our wisdom will be dignified 
 by the same supernatural aid. Because an inspired 
 
58 
 
 LECTURE XV. 
 
 Apostle has declared, that his wisdom was not the 
 wisdom of man, but the power of God, let us not 
 imagine, that the same divine illumination, the 
 same intellectual light, in which St. Paul composed 
 his Epistles, will be infused into a modern ex- 
 pounder of them. Nor, because St. Paul has 
 declared, that the wisdom of this world is foolish- 
 ness with God, let us conclude, that the duty of 
 a Christian requires him to discard from the study 
 of the Bible the assistance of human learning. 
 The wisdom of this world, which St. Paul advised 
 the Corinthians to reject, is very different from 
 that, which is meant by human learning : indeed 
 so different, that they, who are least acquainted 
 with the latter, are often best acquainted with the 
 former. Let us remember also, that they who 
 depreciate human learning, as the means of inter- 
 preting the Scriptures, depreciate what was the 
 pillar of the Reformation ; that they act contrary, 
 both to the principles, and to the practice of our 
 Reformers : that they would involve us in mental 
 darkness, and thus bring us back to Popery again. 
 
 Lastly, let us inquire, whether the rules of 
 interpretation, which apply to human authors, 
 are still applicable, when Scripture is referred to 
 the Holy Spirit as its author. Now in whatever 
 manner we suppose that inspiration was comma- 
 
LECTURE XV 
 
 59 
 
 nicated, and whatever degree of agency we ascribe 
 to the writers themselves, we shall find, that the 
 words of Scripture must be still interpreted by the 
 same rules as those, which apply to the words of 
 merely human authors. If the Sacred Writers 
 were so inspired, that, while their knowledge was 
 suggested to them, the mode of committing that 
 knowledge to writing was left to their own dis- 
 cretion, the words which they employed for that 
 purpose, must evidently be interpreted as their 
 words, and consequently by the rules above de- 
 scribed. Nor will the conclusion be different, if 
 the words were inspired. For if the words them- 
 selves were dictated by the Holy Spirit, the choice 
 of those words must have been determined by the 
 same rules, as if they had been chosen by the 
 Sacred Writers. The choice of them must have 
 equally depended on their common usage in the 
 intercourse between man and man. If they had 
 not been so chosen, they would not have been 
 understood by man. They would not have con- 
 veyed to the reader what was thought by the 
 author, and the object of revelation would not 
 have been attained. 
 
LECTURE XVI, 
 
 The rules of interpretation, explained in the 
 last Lecture, were founded on the usage of words, 
 either general, or particular. Now the usage of 
 words in any language means the use of them as 
 determined by the practice of those, who spake 
 and wrote the language. Lexicographers there- 
 fore, when they give the senses of words, accom- 
 pany those senses with passages from authors, who 
 have used them in those senses : and the passages, 
 thus quoted, are considered as authorities or vouch- 
 ers, that such senses belong to those words. When 
 a Lexicon however relates to a dead language, the 
 compiler of it is seldom in possession of authors 
 sufficiently numerous and multifarious, to teach 
 him the usage of that language in its full extent. 
 Examples of the same word occurring only in a 
 few instances, are common in most of the dead 
 languages, and in none so much as in the Hebrew. 
 But the less frequently a word is used, the fewer 
 
LECTURE XVI 
 
 61 
 
 are the opportunities afforded by the language 
 itself, of learning what the usage of it is. Nor 
 are the examples uncommon of words occurring 
 only once among the authors extant in a dead 
 language. And in such cases, the language itself 
 affords us no other opportunity of learning its 
 usage, than one single comparison of a word with 
 others in connexion with it. And though the 
 majority of w T ords in a dead language may often 
 occur, yet whenever the number of their senses 
 bears a considerable proportion to the whole num- 
 ber of examples, the authorities for each single 
 sense will be proportionally reduced. 
 
 To aid therefore our imperfect means of dis- 
 covering by observation the usage of words, we 
 must extend our inquiry beyond the mere relation 
 of words to those who use them. We must con- 
 sider the relation, which words, as signs, bear 
 immediately to the notions, of which they are 
 signs: and we must further inquire into the 
 ground of that relation. For, though the mean- 
 ing of words is no other than that, in which they 
 have been actually used, we must not conclude, 
 that usage is altogether fortuitous. Though the 
 connexion between words and their notions is con- 
 ventional, that convention may have been regu- 
 lated by determinate laws. Indeed the connexion 
 
62 
 
 LECTURE XVI 
 
 between words and their notions may have origi- 
 nated in various causes. But unless the causes 
 are understood, we cannot judge of the effects. 
 Let us inquire therefore into the origin of that 
 connexion, which subsists between words, as signs, 
 and the notioiis of which they are signs. 
 
 A word may be considered at present, either 
 as something seen, or as something heard : either 
 as a written word, or as a spoJcen word : either as 
 a visible, or as an audible sign, of its notion. But 
 in the infancy of language, it was only an audible, 
 not a visible sign. A word was then a mere sound, 
 or utterance of the voice, conveying to the hearer 
 some notion entertained by the speaker. And, 
 though the invention of writing was introduced in 
 so early an age, that all remembrance of that 
 invention is lost in the darkness of remote anti- 
 quity, a considerable period must have elapsed 
 before spoken words could have acquired a repre- 
 sentation in written words. Indeed, before any 
 attempt was made to write by the use of letters, 
 it is probable that in every country some kind of 
 hieroglyphic or picture-writing was employed. 
 But representations of this kind had no connexion 
 whatever with the use of letters : they could not 
 even have led to the invention of letters. They 
 were representations not of the words, but of the 
 
( 
 
 LECTURE XVI. 
 
 63 
 
 objects, to which the words referred. They were 
 easy and obvious representations, when applied to 
 external objects ; nor was the transition difficult, 
 when representations were wanted for things ab- 
 stracted from the observation of the senses. Some 
 resemblance to a visible object suggested a correspon- 
 dent mark ; as, for instance, when a circle, which 
 is a line without end, was used in hieroglyphics, 
 to denote a period without end. But, as soon as 
 men began to write with those characters, which 
 are called letters, they no longer represented the 
 objects, to which the words had reference. The 
 thing then represented was the sound, or utterance 
 of the voice, which denoted the object. Letters 
 are elements, which are simply expressive of 
 sound ; and they were probably suggested by the 
 different forms assumed by the mouth in the 
 utterance of each single sound. In the most 
 ancient languages, each letter was a distinct syl- 
 lable, a distinct single sound; and hence they 
 were easily combined into forms expressive of 
 combined sounds. In this manner did the spoken 
 word acquire a representation in the written word • 
 and thenceforward they were so identified, that the 
 word became no less a determinate sign to the 
 reader of what was thought by the writer, than it 
 was previously to the hearer of what was thought 
 by the speaker. 
 
64 
 
 LECTURE XVI 
 
 « 
 
 In the interpretation therefore of words it is 
 immaterial at present, whether we consider them 
 as visible, or consider them as audible signs. But 
 there is another relation between words and their 
 notions, which has very material influence on the 
 usage of them in every language. And in order to 
 understand this relation, we must consider in what 
 manner it is probable, that language itself was 
 originally formed. The first notions, which men 
 must have wanted to convey to others by the 
 means of words, were notions excited by objects 
 of the senses: and, when words had been provided 
 for these notions, the next effort was the invention 
 of words for notions acquired by reflexion. But 
 here a difficulty occurred, which did not occur in 
 the former case. The words, which were first 
 employed in the infancy of language, to denote 
 external objects, were probably, more or less, an 
 echo to the sense. The particular tones, which 
 were uttered by different animals, or were heard 
 in the operations of inanimate nature, suggested 
 probably the sounds or words, by which the first 
 attempts were made to express the correspondent 
 objects. And, though an object, which itself was 
 destitute of sound, was more easily represented 
 to the eye, than to the 'ear, more easily provided 
 with a picture, than with a word, yet an object, 
 even by its external form, or an action, by the 
 
LECTTJR E XVI. 
 
 05 
 
 mode of its operation, might have occasioned in 
 the person, who was forming a sound for it, such 
 a formation of the mouth, as produced a corre- 
 spondent utterance. In short, external objects, 
 as well as external actions, might, in various ways, 
 which it is here unnecessary to detail, have 
 suggested the sounds or words, which were origi- 
 nally used to denote them. But when words were 
 wanted for things, which could be neither heard, 
 nor seen, nor perceived by any other of the senses, 
 there was no clue, which could lead directly to a 
 sound corresponding with the thing to be repre- 
 sented. All notions, acquired by reflexion, are 
 excluded by their very origin, from any immediate 
 resemblance with either visible or audible signs. 
 They may operate indeed mediately, if they ope- 
 rate on the passioi\s : for in that case an effect 
 may be produced, either in the voice, or in the 
 gesture, which may give rise to a sound corre- 
 sponding with that effect, and therefore indirectly 
 with the cause, which produced that effect. But 
 if the notion was so abstracted from all sensible 
 effect, as to produce no external mark, which 
 might have suggested a correspondent sound, a 
 sound, or word, must have been provided for it in 
 one of these two ways. Either an arbitrary 
 sound must have been invented, without any at- 
 tempt at similitude between the sound and the 
 
66 
 
 LECTURE XVI. 
 
 thing to be represented by it; or some similitude 
 must have been sought between the abstract 
 notion, for which a word was wanted, and some 
 other notion, already provided with a word. The 
 latter mode was not only more easy and obvious ; 
 but also more consonant with an early state of 
 civilization, when the imagination is always more 
 employed in finding resemblances, than the judg- 
 ment in discovering differences. In such cases 
 therefore, it would frequently, and perhaps com- 
 monly happen, that words already provided for 
 one purpose, would, for want of new words, be 
 applied to another purpose, in consequence of 
 some resemblance, whether real or imaginary, be- 
 tween the primary and the secondary purpose. 
 
 In this representation of the origin and for- 
 mation of language, we see the foundation of 
 those distinctions in the senses of words, which 
 are observed in all languages, and which are ex- 
 pressed by the terms, proper and improper sense — 
 literal and figurative sense — grammatical and 
 tropical sense. When a word is used in that 
 sense, which was first annexed to it, the sense, 
 in which it is thus used, is its own, or its 
 proper sense. But when a word is wanted for a 
 sense, which has had no word exclusively attached 
 to it, and it is necessary therefore to employ some 
 word, which has already a connexion of its own, 
 
LECTURE XVI. 
 
 67 
 
 the word, so used in a sense, which does not 
 property belong to it, is said to be used in an 
 improper sense. The literal sense of a word cor- 
 responds so far to its proper sense, that the term 
 literal, by referring to the elements, of which a 
 word is composed, implies that the word is used 
 in its original simplicity, or its original sense. 
 But as the original sense of a word is frequently 
 lost, especially in its transition from one language 
 to another, some derivative sense, occupying the 
 plac^ of the original sense, becomes, from that 
 time, the liter al sense. Now the literal sense is 
 no other than the grammatical sense, the term 
 grammatical having the same reference to the 
 Greek language, as the term literal to the Latin. 
 They equally refer to the elements of a word. 
 For a similar reason, the tropical sense is no other 
 than the figurative sense. As we say in language 
 derived from the Greek, that a trope is used, when 
 a word is turned from its literal or grammatical 
 sense, so we say in language derived from the 
 Latin, that a figure is then used, because in such 
 cases the meaning of the word assumes a new 
 form. The same opposition therefore, which is 
 expressed by the terms literal sense and figurative 
 sense, is expressed also by the terms grammatical 
 sense and tropical sense. But the opposition ex- 
 pressed by the terms proper sense and improper 
 
LECTURE XVI. 
 
 sense is of a different description. Wheri a word 
 is diverted from its proper sense, the senses, to 
 which it is applied, are, all of them, denominated 
 improper senses, of whatever number or kind those 
 senses may be. But though a figurative sense is 
 always an improper sense, as being equally a de- 
 parture from the first sense, an improper sense is 
 not always a figurative sense. To make a sense 
 figurative in the common acceptation of the term, 
 there must not only be a departure from the first 
 sense, as in the case of an improper sense, but there 
 must at the same time be excited something like 
 an image in the mind. 
 
 All languages are more or less figurative : but 
 they are the most so in their most early state. 
 Before language is provided with a stock of words, 
 sufficient in their literal sense to express what is 
 wanted, men are under the necessity of extending 
 the use of their words beyond the literal sense. 
 But the application, when once began, is not 
 limited by the bounds prescribed by necessity. 
 The imagination, always occupied with resem- 
 blances, which are the foundation of figures, dis- 
 poses men to seek for figurative terms, where they 
 might have expressed themselves in literal terms. 
 Figurative language presents a kind of picture to 
 the mind, and thus delights while it instructs; 
 
LECTURE XVI. 69 
 
 whence the use of it, though more necessary, 
 when a language is poor and uncultivated, is never 
 laid aside, especially in the writings of orators and 
 poets. The Hebrew language is highly figurative, 
 as well in the prophetical as in the poetical parts 
 of the Old Testament. The speeches and dis- 
 courses of our Saviour are not less figurative : and 
 numerous mistakes have been made by a literal 
 application of what was figuratively meant. When 
 our Saviour said to the Jews, " Destroy this tem- 
 ple, and in three days I will raise it up," the 
 Jews understood the word e temple * in its literal 
 sense, and asked him whether he could raise again 
 in three days what had taken six and forty years 
 to build. They did not perceive, that his language 
 was figurative, and that he spake of the temple 
 of his body. 
 
 But among all the mistakes, which have been 
 made in the interpretation of that figurative lan- 
 guage, so frequently employed by our Saviour, 
 there is none, which has led to such important 
 consequences, and has created such dissensions in 
 the Christian world, as that which relates to the 
 body of Christ, at the celebration of the Holy 
 Sacrament. When our Saviour at the Last Sup- 
 per took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, he 
 gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is 
 
70 
 
 LECTURE XVI 
 
 my body. In like manner, when he had taken the 
 cup, and given thanks, he said to his disciples, 
 Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the New 
 Testament. In the same figurative language he 
 had spoken on a former occasion, when he said, 
 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, 
 dwelleth in me, and I in him. And then com- 
 paring his body with bread, he added, { This is 
 that bread, which came down from heaven.' The 
 Jews indeed as well on this occasion, as when he 
 spake of the temple of his body, understood him 
 literally, and asked, f How can this man give us 
 his flesh to eat?' though our Saviour himself 
 when he said of his body, that it was the bread 
 which came down from heaven, plainly indicated, 
 that he was only comparing his body with bread. 
 The Church of Rome has followed the example 
 of the Jews, and has likewise ascribed a literal 
 meaning to words, which were purely figurative. 
 But the difficulty which pressed upon the Jews, in 
 regard to literally eating the body of Christ, is not 
 felt by the Church of Rome. The mistake of the 
 Jews consisted in supposing, that our Saviour 
 literally offered them his body to be eaten ; whereas 
 he literally offered his body as a sacrifice, and 
 what he offered in remembrance of that sacrifice 
 was literally bread and wine. But the Church of 
 Rome, regarding the ceremony of the Lord's 
 
LECTURE XVI. 
 
 n 
 
 Supper as an actual representation of that sacrifice, 
 not as a commemoration of it, supposes, that the 
 body and blood of Christ is literally presented to 
 the view of the communicant. And believing, 
 that Christ himself, by the consecration of the 
 bread and wine at the Last Supper, had literally 
 converted them into his own body and blood, be- 
 fore he said to his disciples, e This is my body,* 
 and 1 this is my blood,' they conclude, that the 
 miraculous conversion, thus ascribed to Christ 
 himself, (a conversion, which, had it been neces- 
 sary, lay undoubtedly within the reach of almighty 
 power) is equally performed by the human power 
 of an officiating priest. But the Church of 
 England, with due attention to that figurative 
 style, so frequently employed by our Saviour on 
 other occasions, has interpreted his words on that 
 solemn occasion by the rules of analogy, and by 
 the dictates of common sense. We eat the bread 
 in remembrance, that Christ died for us ; we feed 
 on him only in our hearts by faith with thanks- 
 giving. We believe, that the blood of Christ was 
 shed for us, and will preserve us to everlasting life. 
 But the cup, which we drink, we drink only in 
 remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for us. 
 The same interpretation of our Saviour's words 
 was adopted by the Reformers in general, with the 
 exception only of Luther. He firmly indeed 
 
72 
 
 LECTURE XVI, 
 
 resisted the doctrine of Trans<ubstantiation, or an 
 actual change in the substance of the elements, as 
 maintained by the Church of Rome. He so far 
 took the words of Christ in a figurative sense, as 
 hot to believe that the bread and wine, even after 
 the consecration, meant the same things as the 
 body and blood of Christ. He believed that the 
 bread and wine still retained their proper qualities. 
 But he was perplexed by the expression, This is 
 my body; and though conference after conference 
 was hold en on the subject, he could never be per- 
 suaded to construe that expression consistently 
 with the figurative language which is used through- 
 out ; and he persevered to the last in so strict an 
 interpretation of that expression, as if it meant, 
 This is really and literally my body. Having re- 
 jected however the doctrine of Transubstantiation, 
 or an actual change in the elements, he endeavoured 
 to remove the difficulty, in which he had unne- 
 cessarily involved himself, by supposing that, after 
 the consecration, the body of Christ was united with 
 the bread ; and this union (not conversion) of sub- 
 stance was called Consubstantiation. But there 
 was a difficulty still remaining, which occasioned 
 a controversy of long duration after Luthers death. 
 The Divines of Switzerland objected to the Lu- 
 therans, that our Saviour could not be every where 
 corporeally present, which the doctrine of Con- 
 
LECTURE XVI. 
 
 73 
 
 substantiation implied; while the Lutherans, on 
 their parts, endeavoured to remove that objection, 
 by accounting for the hypostatic union on the 
 ground of what they technically termed ' Com- 
 municatio idiomatum,' or the Communication of 
 properties. And since Christ, as God, must be 
 omnipresent in respect to his divine nature, they 
 hence inferred, that as this divine nature had been 
 united to his human nature, there existed a com- 
 munication of properties from the former to the 
 latter, which made him corporeally present, where 
 he was spiritually present. The argument how- 
 ever did not satisfy their opponents, who thought 
 it wiser to prevent the difficulty, by an uniformly 
 consistent interpretation of figurative language. 
 
 The importance therefore of a due distinction 
 between the literal and figurative use of words 
 in the interpretation of Scripture, can require no 
 further illustration. But in all cases, the literal 
 meaning of a word must be the first object of our 
 inquiry, because its figurative meaning is only an 
 applied meaning ; and, to judge of the propriety 
 of the application, we must understand the nature 
 of the thing applied. If a word has one sense, 
 that sense is of course considered as its literal 
 sense. But if it has various senses, it then becomes 
 a matter of inquiry, and sometimes of difficult 
 
74 
 
 LECTURE XVI. 
 
 inquiry, in what manner those various senses shall 
 be arranged. Now as the words, which relate to 
 the compound notions of reflexion, are used for 
 the most part with the greatest latitude, an ex- 
 amination of the manner, in which the various 
 senses of such words may have been successively 
 formed, will most easily suggest the general prin- 
 ciple, on which the senses of words should be 
 arranged. When such a compound notion is 
 altered only by the subtraction of one of its con- 
 stituent notions, or by the addition of one other 
 simple notion, the second state of that compound 
 notion will so nearly resemble its first state, that 
 the difference will be hardly perceptible ; and 
 hence the same word, which expressed it in its 
 Jirst state, will follow it to its second state. By 
 a similar addition or subtraction, this compound 
 notion enters on a third state, differing more from 
 the first, but still resembling the second. In like 
 manner it goes on to a fourth and a fifth state, 
 each resembling the state immediately preceding it, 
 but differing more and more from the first state, 
 till at length the word acquires a meaning, which 
 has little or no resemblance with the primary 
 meaning. Examples of this description are nu- 
 merous in every language; and there is no de- 
 partment of interpretation, which affords such 
 scope for the skill of the artist, as the discovery 
 
LECTURE XVI. 
 
 75 
 
 and the due arrangement of these several senses. 
 If we put them together in any other order, than 
 that, in which they were successively formed, we 
 shall never comprehend how the same word could 
 have acquired such a variety of senses ; and con- 
 sequently we shall be exposed to perpetual doubt, 
 whether a word, which admits of one sense, is 
 capable of being applied in another. To facilitate 
 the analysis, we should endeavour in the first place 
 to discover, which among the various senses could 
 most easily have given rise to all the rest : for this 
 must have been the primary sense. That which 
 most resembles it, must be the second in order ; 
 and so onward. In this manner we may form a 
 genealogy of senses, in which the resemblance 
 between each parent and its immediate offspring 
 is distinctly visible, though all resemblance be lost 
 between the ancestor and the latest descendant. 
 No Lexicographer has paid such attention to this 
 genealogy of senses, as Schleusner in his Lexicon 
 to the Greek Testament, a Lexicon, which should 
 be in the possession of every student in Theology. 
 
 Nor is it enough, that an interpreter of Scrip- 
 ture understands this arrangement of senses, in 
 regard only to the words of the original. He 
 must be equally attentive to the language, which 
 
LECTURE XVI. 
 
 he employs, as the medium of interpretation. For 
 it frequently happens, that one language authorises 
 * .figurative use of words, which is not applicable 
 to the words, that literalhj correspond to them in 
 another language. If then the latter are substi- 
 tuted for the former, where the former are used in 
 their figurative sense, we shall have an interpre- 
 tation, it is true, but such an interpretation, as 
 conveys to the reader what was thought by the 
 interpreter, not what was thought by the author. 
 Here then we again perceive the superiority of the 
 learned above the unlearned interpreter. The 
 former extracts the senses, which attach to the 
 words, and thus produces an imposition. The 
 latter, intent only on imposing his own meaning 
 on the words, produces what may be termed rather 
 an imposition. Above all things, let us beware of 
 the false conclusion, that we have discovered the 
 meaning of a word, if it does but make a passage 
 intelligible. For if the meaning of a word had 
 nothing else to determine it, than the mere cir- 
 cumstance of its making the passage intelligible, 
 the sense of Scripture would be involved in the 
 greatest ambiguity. It often happens, that various 
 senses may be ascribed to a word, and yet that in 
 each case the sentence will be intelligible. It is 
 possible even, that in each case it will convey a 
 
LECTURE XVI. 77 
 
 truth. But, if it conveys not that truth, which 
 was intended by the author, it conveys not the 
 truth, with which we are then concerned. 
 
 After what has been already said on the general 
 nature of literal and figurative language, it cannot 
 be necessary to examine in detail the several hinds 
 of figures, which have been enumerated by gram- 
 marians and rhetoricians. Indeed the figures of 
 diction, as they are called, relate merely to the 
 addition or subtraction of letters or syllables, and 
 have no concern whatever with the interpretation 
 of words. Nor have we, in this respect, any con- 
 cern with the figures of construction; for they 
 relate to grammatical arrangement, and not to the 
 meaning of words. In short, the figure, with 
 which we are chiefly concerned, is Metaphor : for 
 it is a figure, which is more frequently employed, 
 than all other figures of rhetoric put together. 
 Now, as similitude is the foundation of figurative 
 language in general, so is it especially of Metaphor. 
 -Indeed a Metaphor is itself a Simile, though not 
 in the form of a Simile. For instance, if we say 
 of a distinguished Divine, that he supports the 
 established religion, as a pillar supports the in- 
 cumbent edifice, we make use of a Simile, drawn 
 out in the form of a Simile. But if we contract 
 the Simile into a single position, and give a met a- 
 
78 LECTURE XVI. 
 
 phorical sense to the word Pillar, which before was 
 used literally, we may then say of such a person, 
 that he is a pillar of the Church. On the other 
 hand, as any one who was secretly at work for its 
 destruction, might be compared with a man, who 
 was undermining an edifice, we should say in 
 metaphorical language, that such a person was 
 undermining the Church. But if the mine should 
 at length explode, and the Church should fall, the 
 defender of that Church might exclaim, again in 
 Metaphor, and again in Truth, 
 
 Impavidum ferient ruince. 
 
LECTURE XVII. 
 
 The last Lecture having concluded with an 
 explanation of Metaphor, our present inquiry must 
 be directed to Allegory. But before we attempt 
 the ^interpretation of the latter, we should clearly 
 understand its relation to the former. Now a 
 Metaphor, as the origin of the term imports, is a 
 kind of transfer, which takes place whenever a 
 word, belonging properly to owe subject, is trans- 
 ferred to another subject, to which it does not 
 properly belong. If we apply the word c pillar' 
 to an edifice, we apply it where it properly be- 
 longs : but if we transfer it to a person, we apply 
 it where it does not properly belong. The meta- 
 phorical sense therefore, like the figurative sense 
 in general, belongs to the class of improper senses; 
 and it possesses in an eminent manner that cha- 
 racter of the figurative sense, which consists 
 in presenting an image to the mind. When 
 ,a Statesman is called a pillar of the State, 
 
80 
 
 IiECTURE XVII. 
 
 or a Churchman a pillar of the Church, there is 
 presented an image, which exhibits more clearly, 
 as well as more forcibly, what is meant to be 
 expressed, than could have been expressed by a 
 mere literal term. But metaphorical interpretation 
 always remains an interpretation of words ; whereas 
 allegorical interpretation, as we shall presently 
 find, is an interpretation, not of words, but of 
 things. 
 
 An Allegory indeed has been sometimes con- 
 sidered as only a lengthened Metaphor; at other 
 times as a continuation of Metaphors. Bui we 
 shall best understand, both the nature of Allegory 
 itself, and the character of allegorical interpre- 
 tation, by attending to the origin of the term, 
 which denotes it. Now the term ' allegory,' ac- 
 cording to its original and proper meaning, denotes 
 —a representation of one thing, which is intended 
 to excite the representation of another thing. 
 Every Allegory therefore must be subjected to a 
 twofold examination : we must first examine the 
 immediate representation, and then consider, what 
 other representation it was intended to excite. 
 Now in most Allegories the immediate represen- 
 tation is made in the form of a narrative: and 
 since it is the object of an Allegory to convey a 
 mbriil, not an historic truth, the narrative itself 
 
LECTURE XVII. 
 
 81 
 
 is commonly fictitious. The immediate represen- 
 tation is of no further value, than as it leads to 
 the ultimate representation. It is the application, 
 or the moral, of the Allegory, which constitutes 
 its worth. 
 
 Since then an Allegory comprehends two dis- 
 tinct representations, the interpretation of an 
 Allegory must comprehend two distinct operations. 
 The first of them relates to the immediate repre- 
 sentation ; the second to the ultimate represen- 
 tation. The immediate representation is under- 
 stood from the words of the Allegory : the ultimate 
 representation depends on the immediate represen- 
 tation applied to its proper end. In the inter- 
 pretation therefore of the former, we are concerned 
 with an interpretation of words ; in the interpre- 
 tation of the latter, we are concerned with the 
 things signified by the words. Now, whenever 
 we speak of allegorical interpretation, we have 
 always in view the ultimate representation, and 
 consequently are then concerned with an inter- 
 pretation of things. The interpretation of the 
 words, which attaches only to the immediate re- 
 presentation, or the plain narrative itself, is com- 
 monly called the grammatical, or the literal 
 interpretation ; though we should speak more 
 correctly, if we called it the verbal interpretation, 
 
 G 
 
82 
 
 LECTURE XVII. 
 
 since even in the plainest narratives, even in nar- 
 ratives not designed for moral application, the use 
 of words is never restricted to their mere literal 
 senses. Custom however having sanctioned the 
 application of the term literal, instead of the term 
 verbal interpretation, to mark the opposition to 
 allegorical interpretation, we must understand it 
 accordingly. But whatever be the term, whether 
 verbal or literal, which we employ to express the 
 interpretation of the words, we must never forget, 
 that the allegorical interpretation is the interpre- 
 tation of the things ; of the things signified by the 
 words, not of the words themselves. If we lose 
 sight of this distinction, the subject of allegorical 
 interpretation will immediately be involved in ob- 
 scurity. Indeed the numerous difficulties, which 
 have usually attended the treatment of it, have 
 been chiefly owing to this cause. An interpre- 
 tation of things has been treated, as if it were an 
 interpretation of words; and this heterogeneous 
 mixture of subject and predicate has occasioned 
 equal perplexity, in the arguments, and in the 
 conclusions. 
 
 That the subject of allegorical interpretation, 
 which is of high importance to the Sacred Writings, 
 may be better understood, let us apply the prin- 
 ciple, which has been here explained, to a few 
 
LECTURE XVII. 83 
 
 examples of Scripture. And as every parable is 
 a kind of allegory, let us consider in the first place, 
 that example, which is especially clear and correct, 
 the parable of the sower. " A sower went out to 
 " sow his seed. And, as he sowed, some fell by 
 i( the way-side ; and it was trodden down, and the 
 a fowls of the air devoured it. And some fell 
 " u P on a rock : and as soon as it sprang up, it 
 " withered away, because it lacked moisture. And 
 " some fell among thorns : and the thorns sprang 
 " up with it, and choked it. And other fell on 
 " good ground : and sprang up, and bare fruit an 
 " hundred-fold." Here we have a plain narrative, 
 a statement of a few simple and intelligible facts, 
 such probably as had fallen within the observation 
 of the persons, to whom our Saviour addressed 
 himself. When he had finished the narrative, or 
 the immediate representation of the allegory, he 
 then gave the explanation, or the ultimate repre- 
 sentation of it. That is, he gave the allegorical 
 interpretation of it And that this allegorical 
 interpretation was an interpretation, not of the 
 ivords, but of the things signified by the words, 
 is evident from the explanation itself. « The seed, 
 « is the Word of God. Those by the way-side 
 " are they that hear: then cometh the devil, and 
 " taketh away the Word out of their hearts, lest 
 " they should believe and be saved. They on the 
 " rock are they, which, when they hear, receive 
 
84 LECTURE XVII. 
 
 " the Word with joy : and these have no root, 
 " which for a while believe, and in time of temp- 
 " tation fall away. And that, which fell among 
 " thorns, are they, which, when they have heard, 
 " go forth, and are choked with cares, and riches, 
 ** and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to 
 " perfection. But that on the good ground are 
 " they, which in an honest and good heart having 
 " heard the Word, keep it, and bring forth fruit 
 " with patience." Here then we have an evident 
 explanation, not of the words employed in the 
 narrative, but of the things signified by them. It 
 was the seed itself, with which the Word of God 
 was compared. As the seed was choked, which 
 fell among thorns, so the Word of God is choked 
 by the pleasures of the world : and, as that which 
 fell on good ground produced an hundred -fold, so 
 the Word of God produces in those, who are pre- 
 pared to receive it. In short, an Allegory with 
 its application constitutes a kind of Simile, in both 
 parts of which the words themselves are construed, 
 as on other occasions, either literally or figuratively, 
 according to the respective use of them : and then 
 we institute the comparison between the things 
 signified in the former part with the things sig- 
 nified in the latter part. ' 
 
 Let us now take, as an example of Allegory 
 
LECTURE XVII. 
 
 85 
 
 from the Old Testament, that impressive and 
 pathetic Allegory, addressed by Nathan to David. 
 <c There were two men. in one city, the One rich, 
 " and the other poor. The rich man had ex- 
 " ceeding many flocks and herds. But the poor 
 " man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, 
 <c which he had bought and nourished up ; and it 
 (e grew together with him and with his children ; 
 " it did eat of his own meat, and drank of 
 " his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was 
 " unto him as a daughter. And there came a 
 " traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to 
 " take of his own flock, and of his own herd, to 
 " dress for the way-faring man, that was come 
 " unto him ; but took the poor man's lamb, and 
 " dressed it for the man, that was come to him." 
 When Nathan had finished this narrative, which 
 he had addressed to David, as an allegory, David, 
 not immediately perceiving the intended appli- 
 cation, replied, " As the Lord liveth, the man, 
 " that has done this thing, shall surely die : and 
 " he shall restore the lamb four-fold, because he 
 " did this thing, and because he had no pity " 
 In application then of the narrative to the intended 
 purpose, replied Nathan to David, " Thou art the 
 " man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel ; 
 " I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered 
 " thee out of the hand of Saul, and I gave thee 
 
86 
 
 LECTURE XVII. 
 
 u thy master's house, and thy master's wives into 
 u thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel 
 <c and of Judah ; and if that had been too little, 
 " I would moreover have given unto thee such 
 6i and such things. Wherefore hast thou despised 
 ** the commandment of the Lord to do evil in his 
 ff sight ? Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite 
 " with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be 
 " thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of 
 u the children of Amnion," 
 
 In the preceding examples, the allegorical nar- 
 ratives were accompanied with their explanations ; 
 that is, both parts of the Simile were introduced. 
 But allegorical narratives are more frequently left 
 to explain themselves, especially when the resem- 
 blance between the immediate and the ultimate 
 representation is sufficiently apparent, to make an 
 explanation unnecessary. Of this kind we cannot 
 have a more striking example, than one, which 
 has been frequently quoted, namely, that beautiful 
 allegory in the eightieth Psalm. "Thou hast 
 c< brought a vine out of Egypt : thou hast cast out 
 (t the heathen, and planted it. Thou preparedst 
 (S room for it, and didst cause it to take deep 
 " root, and it filled the land. The hills were 
 f covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs 
 £< thereof were like the goodly cedars. She sent 
 
LECTURE XVII. 8? 
 
 " out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches 
 " unto the river. Why hast thou broken down 
 " her hedges, so that they, which pass by the 
 " way, do pluck her? The boar out of the wood 
 " doth waste it, and the wild beast: of the field 
 " doth devour it. Return, we beseech thee, O 
 " God of hosts, look down from heaven, and be- 
 " hold, and visit this vine." In this Allegory was 
 finely depictured the then-unhappy state of the 
 Jews contrasted with their former prosperity : and 
 its application was sufficiently obvious, without 
 any formal explanation; for the vineyard of the 
 Lord of hosts, was the house of Israel. It is in- 
 indeed an essential requisite in every Allegory, 
 which is left to explain itself that the application 
 be easy and obvious. The subject, designed to be 
 suggested must be one that is familiar to the 
 reader ; and the several circumstances of the im- 
 mediate representation, must have a manifest cor- 
 respondence with those of the ultimate repre- 
 sentation. The immediate representation must be 
 consistent also in its several parts. Whatever ob- 
 ject be selected for the comparison, that object 
 must be kept constantly in view ; and we must be 
 careful that nothing be affirmed of it, which does 
 not properly belong to it. Otherwise the Allegory 
 itself will displease by its incongruity, and lose its 
 effect in the application. 
 
88 
 
 LECTURE XVI I. 
 
 After these examples from Scripture, let me 
 be allowed to quote an instance of Allegory from 
 a profane author, especially as it has been made 
 a subject of examination by Quintillian. It is the 
 well-known passage in Horace, 
 
 O Navis, referent in mare te novi 
 Fluctus? O quid agis? Fortiter occupa 
 Portum. 
 
 On this passage Quintillian observes, " Navim pro 
 " republica, fluctuum tempestates pro bellis civi- 
 C( libus, portum pro pace atque concordia dicit." 
 But, though the passage may be explained by the 
 substitutions here made, it is not that the words, 
 used by Horace, are synonymous with the words, 
 employed by Quintillian for the explanation ; but 
 because the things signified by the former may be 
 compared with the things signified by the latter. 
 It is not that Navis can signify a republic, or that 
 Fluctus can signify civil wars, or that Portus can 
 signify peace. But a ship tossed by the waves 
 may be compared with a nation agitated by civil 
 wars, as a ship, lying safely in harbour, may be again 
 compared with a nation enjoying the blessings of 
 peace. Here then we have another proof, that 
 allegorical interpretation is an interpretation, not 
 of words, but of things. 
 
 From the preceding explanations we are enabled 
 
LECTURE XVII. SQ 
 
 also to reconcile two seemingly contradictory 
 assertions on this subject, for which it would be 
 otherwise difficult to account. It is well known, 
 that many of the ancient Fathers were so fond of 
 allegorical interpretation, as to employ it, not only 
 in the interpretation of allegory, but also in the 
 interpretation of history. In this respect has 
 Jerom complained especially of Origen, ce quod ita 
 allegorizet, ut historian auferat veritatem" On 
 the other hand, Ernesti in his Opuscula philologica 
 et critica, has a Dissertation entitled, De Origene 
 interpret ationis librorum sacrorum grammaticoe 
 auctore. If Origen then, according to Ernesti, 
 was so distinguished for his grammatical inter- 
 pretation, with what propriety could Jerom com- 
 plain, that he was so attached to allegorical inter- 
 pretation ? Is not grammatical or literal interpre- 
 tation always considered as opposite to allegorical 
 interpretation? How then, it may be asked, 
 could the interpretations of Origen be considered 
 as grammatical by one writer, and as allegorical by 
 another f Now this seeming mystery will be ex- 
 plained at once, when we consider, that as Allegory 
 comprehends two distinct representations, the in- 
 terpretation of it comprehends two distinct ope- 
 rations. The one relates to its immediate, the 
 other to its ultimate representation. The one is 
 an interpretation of words ; the other of the things 
 
90 LECTURE XVII. 
 
 signified by the words. The former is the literal 
 or grammatical; the latter the allegorical inter- 
 pretation. Here then we see very clearly, that 
 both literal and allegorical interpretation, though 
 opposed to each other, not only may exist together, 
 but actually do exist together in the interpretation 
 of every Allegory. And they exist together with- 
 out any inconsistency, because they relate to two 
 distinct operations. The same reasoning applies 
 also to any example of real history, if that ex- 
 ample be treated as allegory, and adapted to some 
 purpose beside the narrative, as allegory is in its 
 ultimate representation. For in such a case we 
 have an historical narrative subjected to a two-fold 
 interpretation ; of which the first is the literal, the 
 second the allegorical. And, as these two kinds 
 of interpretation may exist together without con- 
 tradiction, we can easily comprehend, that the 
 same interpreter may display grammatical accuracy 
 in the former, and yet fall into extravagancy in 
 the employment of the latter. This was really the 
 case with Origen. 
 
 From what has been already stated it appears, 
 that the use of allegorical interpretation is not 
 ♦ confined to mere allegory, or fictitious narratives, 
 but is extended also to history, or real narratives. 
 And in this case the grammatical meaning of a 
 
LECTURE XVII. 
 
 91 
 
 passage is called its historical meaning, in contra- 
 distinction to its allegorical meaning. Now there 
 are two different modes, in which Scripture-history 
 has been thus allegorized. According to one 
 mode, facts and circumstances, especially those 
 recorded in the Old Testament, have been applied 
 to other facts and circumstances, of which they 
 have been described as representative. According 
 to the other mode, those facts and circumstances 
 have been described as mere emblems. The 
 former mode is warranted by the practice of the 
 Sacred Writers themselves ; for when facts and 
 circumstances are so applied, they are applied as 
 types of those things, to which the application is 
 made. But the latter mode of allegorical inter- 
 pretation has no such authority in its favour, 
 though attempts have been made to procure such 
 authority. For the same things are then described, 
 not as types, or as real facts, but as mere ideal 
 representations, like the immediate representation 
 in allegory. By this mode therefore is history 
 not only treated as allegory, but converted into 
 allegory : or, in other words, history is thus con- 
 verted into fable. Now it is by artifices, like 
 these, that the adversaries of Christianity have 
 endeavoured to undermine the truth of Scripture 
 History: and we have lately had a notable ex- 
 ample in a distinguished writer of this country. 
 
9 2 LECTURE XVII 
 
 Nor are these allegorical interpreters contented 
 always with their own perversions ; for some of 
 them have attempted to enlist even St. Paul into 
 the service of infidelity. They have endeavoured 
 to prove, that the Mosaic history is mere allegory, 
 by appealing to that passage in the Epistle to the 
 Galatians, where St. Paul, in reference to the 
 history of the two sons of Abraham, says, c Which 
 things are an Allegory? Since then an Allegory 
 is a picture of the imagination, or & fictitious 
 narrative, they conclude that St. Paul himself has 
 warranted, by his own declaration, that mode of 
 allegorical interpretation, which they themselves 
 apply to the subversion of Scripture-history. 
 
 If the pretext, which infidelity thus derives 
 from the words of our authorised version, had 
 been afforded also by the words of the original, 
 we might have found it difficult to reply. But as 
 soon as we have recourse to the words of the 
 original, the fallacy of the appeal is visible at 
 once. If St. Paul himself had been quoted, instead 
 of the translators of St. Paul, it would have in- 
 stantly appeared, that the Apostle did not apply, 
 as is supposed by English readers, the title of 
 allegory to any portion of the Mosaic history. 
 The word 'AWrjyop'ia has never been used by 
 St. Paul in any one instance throughout all his 
 
LECTURE XVII 
 
 93 
 
 Epistles : nor indeed does it occur any where in 
 the Greek Testament, nor even in the Greek 
 version of the Old Testament. At the place in 
 question, St. Paul did not pronounce the history 
 itself an allegory : he declared only that it was 
 allegorized. His own words are ''Ativo. €<mv dWrf- 
 yopovfieva, which have a very different meaning 
 from the interpretation of them in our authorised 
 version. It is one thing to say, that a history is 
 allegorized : it is another thing to say, that it is 
 allegory itself. If we only allegorize an historical 
 narrative, we do not of necessity convert it into 
 allegory. And though allegorical interpretation, 
 when applied to history, may be applied, either 
 so as to preserve, or so as to destroy its historical 
 verity, yet when we use the verb ' allegorize/ as 
 St. Paul has used it, the allegorical interpretation 
 is manifestly of the former kind. Had he meant 
 that the history was an allegory, he need not have 
 allegorized it : an attempt to make a thing what 
 it is already would indeed be no less absurd, than 
 superfluous. In short, when St. Paul allegorized 
 the history of the two sons of Abraham, and com- 
 pared them with the two covenants, he did nothing 
 more than represent the first as types, the latter 
 as their antitypes. Though he treated that portion 
 of the Mosaic history in the same manner as we 
 treat an Allegory, he did not thereby convert it 
 
94 
 
 LECTURE XVII. 
 
 into Allegory. Though he instituted the same 
 comparison which we institute in an Allegory 
 between its immediate and its ultimate represen- 
 tation, yet the subjects of St. Paul's comparison 
 did not thereby acquire the same character with 
 the subjects of an Allegory. In the interpretation 
 therefore of the Scriptures, it is essentially neces- 
 sary, that we observe the exact boundaries between 
 the notion of an Allegory and the notion of a 
 Type. And it is the more necessary, as some of 
 our own commentators, among others even Mack- 
 night, misled by the use of the term c Allegory 1 
 in our authorised version, have considered it as 
 synonymous with Type. An Allegory, as already 
 observed, is n fictitious narrative : a Type is some- 
 thing real. An Allegory is a picture of the ima- 
 gination ; a Type is an historic fact. It is true, 
 that typical interpretation may in one sense be 
 considered as a species of allegorical interpretation ; 
 that they are so far alike, as being equally an 
 interpretation of things; that they are equally 
 founded on resemblance ; that the type corresponds 
 to its antitype, as the immediate representation 
 in an Allegory corresponds to its ultimate repre- 
 sentation. Yet the quality of the things com- 
 pared, as well as the purport of the comparison, 
 is very different in the two cases. When, for 
 instance, Joshua, leading the Israelites into the 
 
LECTURE XVII. 
 
 95 
 
 Holy Land, is described as a type of our Saviour 
 leading his disciples into the kingdom of heaven ; 
 or when the sacrifice of the Passover is described 
 as a type of the sacrifice of our Saviour on the 
 cross; the subjects of reference have nothing 
 similar to the subjects of an Allegory, though the 
 comparison between them is the same. And 
 though a type, in reference to its antitype, is 
 called only a shadow, while the latter is called the 
 substance, yet the use of these terms does not 
 imply, that the former has less historical verity, 
 than the latter. 
 
 St. Pau4 therefore has afforded, neither by his 
 language, nor by his arguments, the slightest 
 pretext for that wildness of allegorical interpre- 
 tation, which lias been applied to the subversion 
 of historical truth. The practice of converting 
 into allegory the narratives of ancient authors was 
 derived from a very different source. It origi- 
 nated among the Greeks; and long before the 
 birth of Christ. The work, on which this species 
 of allegorical interpretation was first employed, 
 was the Iliad of Homer : and a collection of alle- 
 gorical expositions is still extant, which has been 
 published under the title, Heraclidis Allegorice 
 Homericce. It is true, that the actions ascribed 
 to the heroes of the Iliad, cannot be regarded as 
 
9 6 
 
 LECTURE XVII. 
 
 real history; that they cannot be considered as 
 a journal of events, which actually happened before 
 the walls of Troy. But the author certainly meant, 
 that they should assume the character of real 
 events. For unless the descendants of those heroes 
 could have supposed at least that they were reading 
 the actions of their ancestors, the Iliad would 
 never have become a national poem. There was 
 nothing therefore in the character of those actions, 
 at all resembling allegorical representation, a 
 representation, which not only professes to be 
 a picture of the imagination, but a picture intro- 
 duced merely for the sake of another picture, 
 that resembles it. Nor were the actions, ascribed 
 even to the Deities of the Iliad, any other than 
 such, as accorded with the superstition of the age, 
 and to the original readers exceeded not the 
 bounds of credibility. But when the savage man- 
 ners of the ancient heroes became offensive to the 
 polished Greeks of later ages, and the mythology 
 of Homer became disgusting to those, who had 
 been educated in the schools of Aristotle and Plato, 
 the commentators on Homer had recourse to the 
 expedient of allegorical interpretation. Unable to 
 defend him by a literal exposition, yet unwilling 
 to abandon a national author, whom the Greeks 
 had ever holden in the highest veneration, his 
 philosophic interpreters drew the veil of allegory 
 
LECTURE XVII. 
 
 97 
 
 over the actions of the Iliad, and represented them 
 thus disguised, as the depositories of sublime and 
 mysterious truths. 
 
 The example of the Greeks became infectious 
 to the Jews, who, after the age of Alexander, 
 were established among them in numerous colonies, 
 especially in Egypt under the government of the 
 Ptolemies. Hence they learnt, not only the lan- 
 guage of the Greeks, but their habits of thinking 
 and reasoning. And, since Judaism appeared 
 foolishness to the Greeks, as did afterwards Christ- 
 ianitv, the Jews themselves had the weakness and 
 the impiety, to treat the writings of Moses as the 
 Greeks had treated the writings of Homer. Thus 
 they sacrificed the historic truths recorded by the 
 divine lawgiver, and converted miracles into 
 allegories, that Moses might appear in the garb 
 of a Platonic philosopher. Philo of Alexandria, 
 who wrote in the early part of the first century, 
 has exhibited in numerous instances the Jewish 
 mode of allegorizing the books of Moses. Edu- 
 cated at Alexandria in the Platonic philosophy, 
 he made this philosophy a rule for the interpre- 
 tation of Scripture. If then the grammatical or 
 historical meaning of a passage accorded not with 
 the rule, a mystical meaning was sought to supply 
 its place; and facts, which had been recorded by 
 
 H 
 
98 LECTURE XVII. 
 
 Moses as supernatural events, were transformed 
 into ideal representations, supposed to have no 
 other object, than to convey some religious mys- 
 tery, or moral truth. The same mode of allegorical 
 interpretation, as Philo himself relates, was em- 
 ployed by the Therapeutse and the Essenes : and 
 from the Jews it was transferred to the Christian 
 Fathers. 
 
LECTURE XVIII. 
 
 When the early Fathers had adopted the 
 mode of allegorical interpretation, which was de- 
 scribed at the end of the last Lecture, they applied 
 it to the defence of the Sacred Writings against 
 the objections of the Greek philosophers. But 
 however well-intentioned that application might 
 have been, it was ill calculated to serve the cause 
 of Christianity. For, instead of confuting their 
 adversaries by an argumentum ad judicium, they 
 only silenced their adversaries by a retort of the 
 argumentum ad hominem. Thus, when Celsus^ 
 the Epicurean philosopher, had objected to the 
 Mosaic account of the Creation, the Temptation, 
 and the Fall of Man, the answer of Origen, in his 
 treatise against Celsus, was better adapted to a 
 defeat of his immediate opponent, than to a per- 
 manent defence of the Bible. It was urged by 
 Origen, that the narratives, to which Celsus had 
 objected, should be explained allegorkally : and 
 
 h 2 
 
100 
 
 LECTURE XVIII. 
 
 he argued, that Celsus could not consistently 
 reject this mode of interpretation, because it was 
 employed by the Greek philosophers themselves. 
 But, though truth is frequently conveyed in the 
 form of an Allegory, the truth, which is thus 
 conveyed, is moral, not historic truth. The nar- 
 rative, which imparts the Moral, is itself fictitious. 
 If therefore a narrative, professedly historical, be 
 treated as a narrative purely allegorical, the 
 history itself is thereby abandoned. That some 
 moral inference may still be drawn from it, is 
 nothing to the purpose. Moral inferences are 
 drawn from professed fables, which are themselves 
 a kind of allegory. But their value is confined 
 entirely to the application of them ; whereas his- 
 toric facts are\ recorded for their own sakes, and 
 independently of any moral use, which may after- 
 wards be made of them. If we ascribe then the 
 character of allegory to an historical narrative, we 
 defeat the very purpose, for which the facts, con- 
 tained in it, were recorded. Besides, if this treat- 
 ment of an historical narrative is admissible in one 
 case, it is admissible in others: and thus all 
 history, both sacred and profane, may be diverted 
 from its original intent. For nothing is more 
 easy, than such a mode 'of treatment. We have 
 only to look for some sort of resemblance between 
 the fact, to which allegorical interpretation shall 
 
LECTURE XVIII. 
 
 101 
 
 be applied, and some other fact (whether near or 
 remote, is of little consequence), and we obtain at 
 once, upon these principles, the immediate and 
 the ultimate representation of an Allegory ; we 
 have at once an allegorical, instead of an historical 
 narrative. In this manner was the history of our 
 Saviour and the twelve Apostles converted a few 
 years ago by a French writer into a mere Allegory: 
 and persons, whose existence is established by the 
 strongest of all possible evidence, were transformed 
 into ideal representations of the Sun and the twelve 
 signs of the Zodiac. By a similar process were 
 the miracles of our Saviour converted into Alle- 
 gories, in the former part of the last century, by 
 a member of this very University. Indeed this 
 writer imagined, that he had not only the ex- 
 ample of the Fathers, but the example also of 
 St. Paul in his favour. And since, according to 
 the words of our authorised version, St. Paul had 
 made an Allegory of one fact, he thought himself 
 at liberty to make an Allegory of another. That 
 St. Paul did not apply the title of Allegory to any 
 historic fact, that he afforded not even a pretext 
 for this mode of allegorical interpretation, was fully 
 proved in the last Lecture. But it would be 
 difficult, if not impossible, to vindicate the conduct 
 of the Fathers. Their mode of allegorizing Scrip- 
 ture was of a very different description from that, 
 
102 
 
 LECTURE XVIII. 
 
 which was applied by St. Paul. For instead of 
 applying historical facts, as types of other facts, 
 by which the historical verity is preserved, they 
 often applied them in such a manner, that the 
 historical verity was destroyed. They often ex- 
 plained historical facts, as if real existence no more 
 attached to them, than to the immediate repre- 
 sentation of an Allegory. 
 
 We have reason therefore to complain, that the 
 early Fathers have afforded by their own conduct 
 a pretext to modern unbelievers for such a mode 
 of allegorical interpretation. It is true, that a 
 mode, which is indefensible in itself, can derive no 
 real support from the practice of those, to whom 
 authority no more attaches, than to any modern 
 interpreter. And whatever confidence the Church 
 of Rome may repose in the expositions of her 
 Fathers, we may hence learn, that such confi- 
 dence is ill bestowed. Indeed the early Fathers, 
 by their injudicious conduct in the interpretation 
 of the Bible, not only affected many parts of its 
 history, but placed the Bible itself in a very false 
 and injurious light. Though they silenced, by 
 the aid of Allegory, their immediate opponents, 
 who argued on the same principles, yet the very 
 circumstance, that principles, applied to the de- 
 fence of the Heathen mythology, were applied 
 
LECTURE XVIII. 
 
 103 
 
 also to the defence of the Bible, could produce no 
 other effect, than that of degrading the latter to 
 the level of the former. When a passage of the 
 Bible, conveying professedly an historical fact, 
 was defended against the objections of the Heathens 
 by resolving that passage into a mere Allegory, 
 the veil, which was thus drawn over it, served only 
 to present it in the same dress, in which the 
 Heathens exhibited the fables of their Gods. The 
 latter indeed had some excuse for their allegorical in- 
 terpretations ; they had reason for concealing under 
 the veil of Allegory their ludicrous and indecorous 
 legends. Hence Arnobius, in his treatise adversus 
 Gentes, addresses himself to a Heathen in the 
 following manner : Istce omnes historice, quae tibi 
 turpes videntur, atque ad labem pertinere divinam, 
 mysteria in se continent sancta, rationes miras 
 atque alias, nec quas facile quivis possit ingenii 
 vivacitate pernoscere. Neque enim quod scriptum 
 est, atque in prima est positum verborum fronte, 
 id significatur et dicitur, sed allegoricis sensibus, 
 et subditivis intelliguntur omnia ilia Secretis. 
 But that Christian Commentators should in like 
 manner have sought for allegorical senses and 
 hidden meanings in the Bible, where the Sacred 
 Writers have recorded the plain and simple words 
 of Truth, of Truth which has no deformity to 
 
 » 
 
104 
 
 LECTURE XVIII 
 
 hide, and needs not the veil of Allegory, affords 
 equal matter of surprise and of regret. 
 
 Nor is this the only evil, which has arisen 
 from such a treatment of Scripture. If the literal 
 or grammatical meaning of a passage may be 
 exchanged at pleasure for an allegorical meaning, 
 the meaning of Scripture will be involved in perfect 
 ambiguity: it will assume as many different forms, 
 as the fancies of interpreters are multifarious. In 
 grammatical interpretation, which is an interpre- 
 tation of words, there are certain rules of inter- 
 pretation, from which we cannot depart. But al- 
 legorical interpretation, which is an interpretation 
 of things, is subjected to neither rule nor limit. 
 As soon as an interpreter has learnt, what things 
 are literally signified by the words of a passage, 
 he has nothing else to do, than to let loose his 
 imagination for the discovery of some other things, 
 which, may resemble the things literally signified, 
 and then those other things will at once be alle- 
 gorically signified. And since the same thing 
 may to various interpreters suggest various resem- 
 blances, the same passage may have as many 
 allegorical meanings, as there are persons, who 
 undertake its interpretation. Hence Arnobius, in 
 continuation of this subject, observes, Potest alius 
 
LECTURE XVIII. 
 
 105 
 
 aliud, et argutius jingere, et veri cum similitudine 
 suspicari. Potest aliud tertius ; potest aliud 
 quartus : atque, ut se tulerint ingeniorum opi- 
 nantium qualitates, ita singula? respossunt infinitis 
 interpret ationibus explicari. Cum enim e rebus 
 occlusis omnis ista, quce dicitur Allegoria, sumatur, 
 nee habeat Jinem certum, in quo rei, quce dicitur, 
 sitjixa atque immota sententia, unicuique liberum 
 est in id, quo velit, attrahere lectionem, et qffir- 
 mare id positum, in quod eum sua suspicio, et 
 conjectura opinabilis duxerit. 
 
 But, notwithstanding the numerous objections, 
 to which this mode of interpretation is exposed, 
 it has prevailed, more or less, in almost every age 
 of Christianity. Indeed the very causes, which 
 should have led to the rejection of it, are the 
 causes which have operated in its favour. For 
 though a mode of interpretation, which may be 
 applied to any purpose, is really fit for no purpose, 
 yet, if an interpreter has no other means of attain- 
 ing his purpose, he finds it difficult to withstand 
 the temptation of employing what is always at 
 hand for every purpose. The use, which was 
 made of it by the early Fathers, and the advantage 
 taken of their injudicious conduct, have been al- 
 ready explained. But allegorical interpretation, 
 when once adopted, was not long confined to the 
 
106 
 
 LECTURE XVII i. 
 
 controversies between the Greek Fathers and the 
 Greek philosophers, it was soon discovered to be 
 equally useful for controversy of every description. 
 And hence, if one opinion was supported by gram- 
 matical interpretation, a different opinion could 
 be as easily supported by allegorical interpretation. 
 But beside the motive of utility, there was some- 
 thing attractive in the thing itself. The imagi- 
 nation, delighting in allegory, is easily charmed 
 into allegorical interpretation, while the dryness 
 of grammatical interpretation is, in an equal 
 degree, an object of its aversion. The former 
 was recommended also by the facility of its ap- 
 plication, while the exercise of the latter required, 
 on the part of the interpreter, at least some share 
 of knowledge and judgment. It is no wonder 
 therefore, that in proportion as learning declined, 
 the passion for allegorical interpretation increased. 
 And the use of grammatical interpretation having 
 been proportionally diminished in the Church of 
 Rome by the substitution of an authorised version 
 for the original Scriptures, there at length arose, 
 in the darkness of the middle ages, a race of 
 Fanatics who rejected grammatical interpretation 
 altogether. They were distinguished in the twelfth 
 century by the appellation of the Mystics, from 
 their mystical mode of interpreting Scripture. 
 These Mystics had an utter contempt for human 
 
LECTURE XVIII 
 
 107 
 
 reason, and human learning; they supposed them- 
 selves especially guided by the Spirit ; and hence 
 they compensated, by a kind of spiritual inter- 
 pretation, for that grammatical interpretation, 
 which they had never learnt. At the same time, 
 the Latin version of the New Testament, in the x 
 absence of the Greek original, supplied them with 
 an argument for the rejection of literal or gram- 
 matical interpretation, and the adoption of spiritual 
 or allegorical interpretation, which the original 
 itself does not supply. They appealed namely 
 to that passage in St. Paul's Second Epistle to 
 the Corinthians, which in the Latin Vulgate is 
 translated c lit era occidit, spiritus autem vivificat ;' 
 and in our own authorised version, e the letter 
 killeth, but the spirit giveth life.' In this passage, 
 the Mystics imagined that St. Paul was drawing 
 a parallel between two different kinds of inter- 
 pretation. Construing therefore 6 litera' by * literal 
 interpretation,' and ( spiritus ' by 6 spiritual inter- 
 pretation,' they inferred, that the Apostle had 
 condemned the former, and recommended the 
 exclusive employment of the latter. Now the 
 Apostle, according to his own words, was drawing 
 a parallel of a totally different description: a 
 parallel, which had no concern whatever with 
 interpretation. He was drawing a parallel between 
 the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ. 
 
108 
 
 LECTURE XVIII. 
 
 The former does not afford the means of salvation: 
 the latter does afford the means of salvation. This, 
 and this only, is what St. Paul meant, when he 
 said, that the one killeth, and that the other 
 giveth life. It is true, that he applied the term 
 Tpa^fxa to the former, the term TLveujua to the 
 latter. But then he added explanations of those 
 terms, which remove all ambiguity. The Law 
 of Moses he called Tpdjujua, as being Aiaicovia w 
 ypdfxfiaari, as being AiaKovba evTervTrcojuevrj ev XiQois. 
 The Gospel of Christ he called Ihev/ma, as being 
 AhxkovIcl tov UvevjuLCLTos ev ^6^. Now, as these 
 explanations are not only Greek explanations, but 
 Greek explanations of Greek terms, they are ab- 
 solutely incapable of being transfused into any 
 version. They can be understood only, with 
 reference to the words of the original. It is 
 therefore impossible, that any one who expounds 
 this passage from the words of a translation, 
 should expound it in the sense of the Author. 
 But as the Mystics, like other members of the 
 Church of Rome, expounded from an authorised 
 version, they fell into an error, which a knowledge 
 of the original would have prevented. They fell 
 into the error of supposing, that literal or gram- 
 matical exposition not only might be, but ought 
 to be discarded. And hence they acquired such 
 a contempt for every thing not spiritual or alle- 
 
LECTURE XVIII. 109 
 
 gorical, that the plain and literal meaning of a 
 passage was regarded as a sort of husk, or chaff, 
 fit only for the carnally-minded, and not suited 
 to the taste of the godly. 
 
 But whatever absurdities might result from 
 their interpreting the New Testament without a 
 knowledge of Greek, the Mystics were in no 
 danger of observing them. And in other respects 
 the use of a translation was really advantageous. 
 They could more easily bend it to their particular 
 purpose : for, in the interpretation of Scripture, 
 the words of a translation are always more pliant, 
 than -the words of the original. The obscurity, 
 in which the sense of Scripture was thus involved, 
 so far from being thought injurious, afforded them 
 both pleasure and protection. Mystical inter- 
 preters delight in obscurity : obscurity is their 
 proper element. If a passage is obscure in itself, 
 they are in less danger of being thwarted by a 
 literal meaning. If they make it obscure, they 
 obtain this advantage, that the greater the ob- 
 stacles, which they can oppose to the judgment, 
 the greater is the scope for the exercise of the 
 fancy. This fancy has been equally indulged by 
 the Mystics of every age ; and however eccentric 
 we may think the expositions displayed in the 
 Area mystica, or Mystical Ark, of Richard of 
 
HO LECTURE XVIIi. 
 
 St. Victor, who flourished in the twelfth century, 
 they have been fully equalled by the mystical ex- 
 positions of these latter times. Nor is it by any 
 means a matter of astonishment, that spiritual 
 interpretation should recommend itself to our 
 modern practitioners. No grammatical analysis, 
 no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, no knowledge 
 of antiquity, no knowledge of^ the situation and 
 circumstances, either of the author, or of his 
 original readers, is necessary for this purpose. 
 Such knowledge is wanted only for grammatical 
 interpretation. It is wanted only, when the 
 words, which we interpret, are destined to perform 
 the office, for which they were originally intended. 
 It is wanted only, when the words, which we 
 interpret, are considered, as signs to the reader 
 of what was thought by the author. But the 
 expounder, who regards them as passive instru- 
 ments disposeable at his own will, and who em- 
 ploys them, as machines for the conveyance of 
 his own thoughts, is freed at once from the 
 shackles, which bind the grammatical interpreter, 
 and is exempted from all other wants, than merely 
 that of knowing what is best adapted to his own 
 purpose. 
 
 Men, who are little versed in the history of 
 biblical interpretation, and have never witnessed 
 
LECTURE XVIII. 
 
 1 11 
 
 the wonders, that are done by the aid of allegory, 
 will be surprised perhaps to hear, that the Supre- 
 macy of the Pope has been discovered in the first 
 chapter of Genesis. The interpreter, who made 
 this discovery, was himself a sovereign pontiff, and 
 one, who exercised that supremacy with unlimited 
 sway. It was Pope Innocent the Third; the 
 same, who excommunicated King John of England, 
 and who threatened even the Emperor of Con- 
 stantinople. For this purpose he addressed to 
 him a Latin Epistle, in which he quoted from the 
 first chapter of Genesis the passage relating to the 
 two great lights, the greater light to rule the day. 
 the lesser light to rule the night. By these two 
 lights, said he, are meant the office of Pope and 
 the office of King ; by the greater light is meant 
 the former office, by the lesser light the latter 
 office ; so that, as the light, which rules the day, 
 is superior to the light, which rules the night, 
 the dignity of Pope is superior to the dignity of 
 King. Lest this interpretation should appear 
 incredible, I will give the words of the original 
 Epistle. Pope Innocent III. then, having quoted 
 from the Latin Vulgate, Fecit Deus duo luminaria 
 magna, luminare majus, ut prasesset diei, et lumi- 
 nare minus, ut prasesset nocti, subjoined the fol- 
 lowing interpretation ; Id est, duas dignitates 
 instituit, quae sunt, Pontificalis Auctoritas, et 
 
3 12 LECTURE XVIII. 
 
 Regalis Majestas. Sed ilia, quce prceest diebus, 
 id est spiritualibus, major est altera, quce noct'tbus, 
 id est, carnalibus ; ut quanta est inter Solem et 
 Lunam, tanta inter Pontifices et Reges, diffe- 
 rentia cognoscatur. Now this allegorical inter- 
 pretation, absurd as it may appear, is not more 
 absurd, than many, which are vented in the 
 present age. It is however absurd enough : for 
 the comparison is not only unwarranted, but is an 
 actual inversion of the truth. The things spiritual, 
 and the things carnal, to which reference is here 
 made, should have changed their position ; the 
 luminaries should have been transposed. For 
 spiritual dominion, whether exercised by the 
 Pope, or by those who resemble him, is not a 
 power, that rules the day, but a power, that rules 
 the night. 
 
 Let us now consider that kind of allegorical 
 interpretation, which consists in the application 
 of things, recorded in the Old Testament, to simi- 
 lar things recorded in the New Testament. That 
 kind may be properly called typical interpretation ; 
 for it is an application of types to their antitypes. 
 It is warranted by the authority of the Sacred 
 Writers themselves. But, they have warranted the 
 use of it only to a certain extent; and, if we 
 transgress the limits, which they have prescribed, 
 
LECTURE XVfll. 113 
 
 we shall be in perpetual danger of taking things 
 for what they were not designed to be. To con- 
 stitute one thing the type of another, as the term 
 is generally understood in reference to Scripture, 
 something more is wanted than mere resemblance. 
 The former must not only resemble the latter, but 
 must have been designed to resemble the latter. 
 It must have been so designed in its original in- 
 stitution. It must have been designed as some- 
 thing preparatory to the latter. The type, as well 
 as the antitype, must have been pre-ordained; 
 and they must have been pre-ordained, as con- 
 stituent parts of the same general scheme of divine 
 providence. It is this previous design, and this 
 pre-ordained connexion, which constitute the re- 
 lation of type and antitype. Where these qualities 
 fail, where the previous design and the pre-ordained 
 connexion are wanting, the relation between any 
 two things, however similar in themselves, is not 
 the relation of type to antitype. The existence 
 therefore of that previous design and pre-ordained 
 connexion must be clearly established, before We 
 can have authority for pronouncing one thing the 
 type of another. But We cannot establish the 
 existence of that previous design and pre-ordained 
 connexion, by arguing only from the resemblance 
 of the things compared. For the qualities and 
 circumstances, attendant on one thing, may have 
 
 i 
 
114 
 
 LECTURE XVIII. 
 
 a close resemblance with the qualities and cir- 
 cumstances attendant on another thing, and yet the 
 things themselves may be devoid of all connexion. 
 How then, it may be asked, shall we obtain the 
 proof required? By what means shall we deter- 
 mine, in any given instance, that what is alleged 
 as a type was really designed for a type ? Now 
 the only possible source of information on this 
 subject is Scripture itself. The only possible 
 means of knowing, that two distant, though simi- 
 lar, historic facts, were so connected in the general 
 scheme of divine Providence, that the one was 
 designed to pre-figure the other, is the authority 
 of that Work, in which the scheme of divine 
 Providence is unfolded. Destitute of that autho- 
 rity, we may confound a resemblance, subsequently 
 observed, with a resemblance pre-ordained: we 
 may mistake a comparison, founded on a mere 
 accidental parity of circumstances, for a com- 
 parison, founded on a necessary and inherent 
 connexion. There is no other rule, therefore, by 
 which we can distinguish a real from a pretended 
 type, than that of Scripture itself. There are no 
 other possible means, by which we can know, that 
 a previous design, and a pre-ordained connexion 
 existed. Whatever persons, or things therefore, 
 recorded in the Old Testament, were expressly 
 declared by Christ or by his Apostles, to have 
 
LECTURE XVIII, 115 
 
 been designed as pre-jigurations of persons or 
 things relating to the New Testament, such per- 
 sons or things, so recorded in the former, are 
 types of the persons or things, with which they 
 are compared in the latter. But if we assert, 
 that a person, or thing, was designed to pre-figure 
 another person or thing, where no such pre-figu- 
 ration has been declared by divine authority ', we 
 make an assertion, for which we neither have, nor 
 can have, the slightest foundation. And even 
 when comparisons are instituted in the New 
 Testament between antecedent and subsequent 
 persons or things, we must be careful to distinguish 
 the examples, where a comparison is instituted 
 merely for the sake of illustration, from the ex- 
 amples, where such a connexion is declared, as 
 exists in the relation of a type to its antitype. 
 
 The consequences of neglecting the precautions 
 here proposed are sufficiently apparent in the 
 history of typical interpretation. Volumes have 
 been filled with types and antitypes, which exist 
 only in the fancy of the writers. Men of lively 
 imagination are continually at work for the dis- 
 covery of resemblances, while judgment and eru- 
 dition are not always at hand, to suggest the 
 differences. Things really discordant are thus 
 supposed to be consonant : and they are united on 
 
 I 2 
 
\]0 
 
 LECTURE XVIII. 
 
 the ground of similarity, when their difference 
 should have led to a separation. But, when once 
 they are brought together, however faneiful their 
 resemblance, it is but a small additional effort of 
 the imagination, to perceive in the one a symbol 
 of the other. And the things, when thus sym- 
 bolized, find an easy transition into types and 
 antitypes. Suppose however, that the resemblance 
 between the things themselves would bear the 
 strictest inquiry, yet if the inference be drawn 
 without a proof of previous design and pre-ordained 
 connexion, we may still multiply our types and 
 antitypes without end. Even the self-same type 
 may be provided with various antitypes, according 
 to the different views of the interpreters. For 
 the discovery of types and antitypes is often de- 
 termined by the religious party, to which the 
 interpreter belongs, or by the peculiar sentiments, 
 which the interpreter entertains. Thus Cardinal 
 Bellarmine, in his treatise De Laicis, discovered, 
 that the secession of the Protestants under Luther 
 was typified by the secession of the Ten Tribes 
 under Jeroboam ; while the Lutherans with equal 
 reason retorted, that Jeroboam was a type of the 
 Pope, and that the secession of Israel from Judah 
 typified, not the secession of the Protestants under 
 Luther, but the secession of the Church of Rome, 
 from primitive Christianity. But to whichever of 
 
LECTURE XVIII. 
 
 H7 
 
 the two events the secession under Jeroboam may 
 be supposed the most similar, (if similarity exists 
 there at all beyond the mere act of secession) we 
 have no authority for pronouncing it a type of 
 either. We have no proof of previous design, 
 and of pre-ordained connexion between the sub- 
 jects of comparison : we have no proof, that the 
 secession of the Israelites under Jeroboam was 
 designed to pre-figure any other secession what- 
 ever. This single example is sufficient to shew 
 what abuse may be made of typical interpretation : 
 and, though examples might be easily multiplied, 
 by quotations from various authors, the precautions 
 already given will serve to secure us from error, 
 without further inquiry into the errors of others. 
 
 The subject of allegorical and typical inter- 
 pretation having been thus concluded, our next 
 inquiry must be directed to the interpretation of 
 prophecy. For the interpretation of prophecy is 
 so far connected with typical interpretation, as 
 types are prophetic of their antitypes. But the 
 interpretation of prophecy opens such a field of 
 investigation, and involves so many important 
 considerations, that it must be reserved for another 
 season . 
 
 ETSD OF PART III, 
 
A 
 
 COURSE OF LECTURES, ( 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 A DESCRIPTION AND SYSTEMATIC ARRANGEMENT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SEVERAL BRANCHES OF DIVINITY: 
 
 ' • \ - • • ACCOMPANIED - '' '• , * , '. f * * ^toI 
 
 AN ACCOUNT BOTH OF THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORS, 
 AND OF THE PROGRESS, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AT 
 
 DIFFERENT PERIODS, 
 
 IN 
 
 It 
 
 C&eologtcal learning, | 
 
 BY 
 
 HERBERT MARSH, D.D. F.R.S. 
 
 MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 
 
 PART IV. 
 
 On the Interpretation of Prophecy, 
 
 i ■ * 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: 
 
 Printed by J. Smith, Printer to the University ; 
 FOR F. C. & J. RIVINGTON, LONDON; 
 AND DEIGBTONS, NICHOLSONS, AND BARRETT, CAMBRIDGE, 
 
 1 8 1 6. 
 
[Entered at Stationers' Hall!] 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 Connexion betz&een the interpretation of types, and 
 the interpretation of prophecy. A type is a species 
 of prophecy. Of the difference betzsoeen real and imagi- 
 nary types. Prophetic character of a real type. 
 The principles, here applied to the interpretation of 
 types, illustrated by tzco examples, the one relating 
 to Baptism, the other to the Lordts Supper. Di- 
 gression on the Sacrament of Baptism as connected 
 with Regeneration, occasioned by the present contro- 
 versy on that subject. Additional remarks on the 
 previous design, which is essential to the character of 
 a real type. Revelation alone can afford an expla- 
 nation of types. False reasoning about their ob- 
 scurity. Prophecies delivered by words subject to 
 the same difficulties as prophecies delivered by things. 
 Of the qualifications necessary for an interpreter of 
 Hebrezv prophecy 
 
 LECTURE XX. 
 
 The general principles of interpretation, which zvere 
 explained in Lecture xm — xvu, applicable to the 
 interpretation of prophecy. Whether the inspiration 
 of suggestion, which is absolutely necessary in pro- 
 phecy, creates a difference in the principle of inter- 
 
iv CONTENTS. 
 
 Pace 
 
 pretation. The prophecies relating to the Messiah 
 selected for particular examination, not only on 
 account of their importance, but because they involve 
 almost every question of real interest in the 
 subject of prophecy in general. Connection be- 
 tween these prophecies and the truth of our religion. 
 Frequent appeals to these prophecies, both by Christ, 
 and by his Apostles, as prophecies, which testified of 
 Christ, and which were fulfilled in his Divine 
 Mission, Prophecies of this description must be 
 prophecies, which relate to the coming of Christ, 
 according to their literal and primary sense 2& 
 
 LECTURE/ XXI. 
 
 The importance of literal prophecies relating to the 
 Messiah further considered. Various examples of 
 such prophecies quoted and explained 3Q 
 
 LECTURE XXII. 
 
 An inquiry into the foundation of secondary senses, 
 ascribed to Hebrezo prophecy. Of the difficulties, 
 with zvhich that notion is attended. The primary 
 and secondary senses of a Hebrew prophecy have no 
 analogy to the double meaning observable in various 
 examples of heathen oracles. Nor have they any 
 resemblance to the double sense of an allegory. 
 Bishop Warburtoris system of primary and secondary 
 senses considered. The existence of secondary senses 
 can be previously established by no system whatever. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 In evert/ single instance they depend entirely on the 
 authority of Christ and his Apostles. Explanation 
 of this position. Some passages of the Old Testa- 
 ment, which are quoted in the New Testament, are 
 applied, neither as prophecy in a primary sense, nor 
 as prophecy in a secondary sense, but merely in the 
 way of accommodation 
 
 ERRATUM. 
 
 p. 28. line 19. Nathaniel read Natlianaeh 
 
ft 
 
 1LECTURE XIX, 
 
 As we proceeded m the last Lecture from the 
 interpretation of allegory to the interpretation of ; 
 types, so we may now proceed from the interpreta- 
 tion of types to the interpretation of prophecy. 
 There is indeed a natural connexion between the 
 one and the other: for since a type is not an 
 accidental, but a designed prefiguration of its anti- 
 type, it is virtually a prediction of its antitype. 
 Nor is the resemblance between types and prophecy 
 confined to the things themselves ; it extends also 
 to the principles, by which they must be inter- 
 preted. The principles, which apply to the inter- 
 pretation of types, having been already explained, 
 it is unnecessary to repeat them in detail : but it 
 will be proper to take a general view of them, that 
 the analogy of the former to the present subject 
 may be distinctly seen. 
 
 To constitute a type, something more is requisite, 
 than a mere resemblance of that, which is called its 
 antitype. For one thing may resemble another, 
 
2 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 when the things themselves are totally unconnected. 
 But it is the very essence of a type, to have a ne- 
 cessary connexion with its antitype. It must have 
 been designed, and designed from the very be- 
 ginning, to prefigure its antitype ; or it partakes 
 not of that character, which belongs to a real type; 
 a character, which implies, not an accidental parity 
 of circumstances, but a pre-ordained and inherent 
 connexion between the things themselves. Where 
 this character is wanting, there is wanting that 
 relation of type to antitype, which subsists between 
 the things of the Old Testament, and the things of 
 the New. And the only mode of distinguishing 
 the cases, where this relation actually exists, from 
 the cases where it is only supposed to exist, is to 
 examine what things in the Old Testament have 
 been represented by Christ and his Apostles as 
 relating to things in the New. For then we have 
 authority for such relation : then we know, that 
 one thing was designed to prefigure the other. 
 But without such authority, it is absolutely im- 
 possible, that we should obtain the knowledge, 
 which is necessary on this subject. There are no 
 human means, by which we can discover, that what 
 has happened at one period, or in one nation, was 
 originally intended to point out something similar, 
 which should happen at another period, or in 
 another nation. The reality of such previous 
 
LECTURE XIX. 
 
 3 
 
 design, the reality of a fore-ordained connexion 
 between a type and its antitype, must depend 
 therefore entirely on the authority of Christ and 
 his Apostles. 
 
 Having ascertained the mode, by which alone 
 we can discover the existence of a type, we may in 
 the next place consider its prophetic character. 
 When two apparently independent events, distant 
 from each other many hundreds, or even some 
 thousands of years, are so connected in the general 
 scheme of Divine Providence, that the one was 
 designed to indicate the other, the one is no less 
 prophetic of the other, than a verbal declaration, 
 that the thing, which forms the antitype, would in 
 due season be accomplished. Whether a future 
 event is indicated by words, or indicated by other 
 tokens, the connexion of that event with the words 
 in the one case, or the tokens in the other, will be 
 equally a fulfilling of prophecy. We cannot have 
 a more remarkable, or a more important example, 
 than that of the paschal lamb, as applied to the 
 death of Christ. For not only was the paschal 
 lamb sacrificed for the sins of the Jews under cir- 
 cumstances resembling those, under which our 
 Saviour was sacrificed for the sins of the world, but 
 we have the authority of Scripture itself for the 
 assertion, that the sacrifice of the paschal lamb was 
 
 A 2 
 
4 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 from the very beginning designed to indicate the sacri- 
 fice of Christ on the cross. When John the Baptist 
 first saw our Saviour, he exclaimed, ' Behold the Lamb 
 of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.' 
 St. Paul is still more particular : for he says, Christ, 
 * our passover is sacrificed for us:' and St. Peter 
 declares, that we were redeemed ' with the precious 
 « blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and 
 c without spot, who verily was fore-ordained, before 
 ' the foundation of the world.' From a comparison 
 of these passages we learn, not only that the two 
 sacrifices resembled each other, but that the sacrifice 
 of the paschal lamb was originally intended, to 
 designate the sacrifice of Christ. The former sacri- 
 fice therefore has all the qualifications, which are 
 necessary to constitute a type. And since the 
 Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was instituted by 
 Christ himself in remembrance of his death and 
 passion, the ceremony, which was a type of the one, 
 may be considered as a type also of the other. 
 
 Again, as the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, by 
 prefiguring the death of Christ, has reference to 
 the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, so the Sacra- 
 ment of Baptism was likewise prefigured by an 
 event of great importance' in the history of the 
 Jews. St. Paul, in his first Epistle to the Co- 
 rinthians, (x. 1.) says, 6 Brethren, I would not 
 
LECTURE XIX. 5 
 
 ' that ye should be ignorant, how that our fathers 
 e were under the cloud, and all passed through the 
 e sea, and were baptized unto Moses in the cloud, 
 
 * and in the sea : and did all eat the same spiritual 
 
 * meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink ; 
 
 * for they drank of that spiritual Rock, that fol- 
 
 * lowed them, and that Rock was Christ.' In this 
 passage it is evident, that St. Paul considered the 
 being baptized unto Moses, as typical of being 
 baptized unto Christ. The Jews, who admitted 
 proselytes by baptism, appear to have generally con- 
 sidered the passage of their forefathers through the 
 Red Sea, not as a mere insulated historical fact, 
 but as something representative of admission to the 
 divine favour by baptism. They said, that 6 they 
 
 * were baptized in the desert, and admitted into 
 ' covenant with God before the law was given.' 
 (See Whitby in loc.) On the authority of St. Paul 
 the Church of England also considers that event as 
 a type of baptism : for in the baptismal services we 
 pray in the following words, 6 Almighty and ever- 
 6 lasting God, who — didst safely lead the children of 
 
 * Israel thy people through the Red Sea, figuring 
 e thereby thy holy Baptism.' The circumstances 
 also, which attended the type, accord with the cir- 
 cumstances attending the antitype. When the 
 followers of Moses, having forsaken Egypt, passed 
 through the Red Sea ? in their progress to the Holy 
 
(3 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 Land, that passage was to them an entrance, not 
 only into a new temporal, but into a new spiritual 
 state. In like manner, the followers of Christ, 
 when they have forsaken sin, and passed through the 
 laver of baptism, on their progress to the kingdom 
 of heaven, have also entered into a new spiritual 
 state. ' Know ye not (saith St. Paul in his Epistle 
 ' to the Romans, vi. 3.) that so many of us as were 
 * baptized unto Jesus Christ, were baptized unto his 
 1 death ? * — and therefore that we ' should walk in 
 newness of life?' c As many of you (saith St. 
 6 Paul again in his Epistle to the Galatians, iii. 27.) 
 s as have been baptized unto Christ, have put on 
 6 Christ.' And when he gave an account of his 
 own conversion, in the speech which he made to 
 the Jews of Jerusalem, he used the following words,, 
 which, though addressed to him by Ananias^ he 
 sanctions by his own repetition of them. e Arise 
 and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling 
 on the name of the Lord.' (Acts xxii. 16.) And 
 this washing away of sin, in the sacrament of 
 Baptism, the same Apostle in his Epistle to Titus 
 (iii. 6.) has called c the washing of regeneration: 
 Here then we have another instance of type and 
 antitype, ratified by the authority of a divine 
 Apostle, in all their various relations. 
 
 Resting on such divine authority, the Church of 
 
LECTURE XIX. 7 
 
 England has adopted this example with all the cir- 
 cumstances, which are warranted by St. Paul : and 
 since in this particular instance our Church has 
 been lately subjected to severe and unmerited 
 censure, the occasion requires a few additional 
 remarks in its defence. Our twenty-seventh Article 
 declares, that < Baptism is not only a sign of pro- 
 c fession,and mark of difference, whereby Christian 
 
 < men are distinguished from others, that are not 
 e christened, but it is also a sign of regeneration or 
 
 < new birth, whereby as by an instrument, they that 
 
 < receive Baptism rightly, are grafted into the 
 
 * Church, the promises of forgiveness of sin, 
 c and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the 
 
 • Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed.' In 
 the several services for Baptism, as also in the 
 service for Confirmation, Regeneration is repre- 
 sented as an essential part of Baptism. It is the 
 inward grace of that, of which water is the outward 
 sign. Nothing can be clearer on this subject than 
 our Catechism, which expressly declares, that 
 whereas the outward visible sign in Baptism is 
 1 Water wherein the person is baptized/ so the 
 inward spiritual grace, is < a death unto sin, and a 
 new birth unto righteousness.' If then we detach 
 regeneration from baptism, we not only fall into 
 the absurdity of making the outward act a visible 
 sign of nothing to be signified, buj; we destroy the 
 
8 
 
 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 Sacrament of Baptism as a Sacrament, altogether. 
 It is essential to a Sacrament, that the outward act 
 be accompanied with an inward grace. If Baptism 
 therefore, as some pretend, is nothing more, than 
 6 an outward work of man upon the body,' it is a 
 perfect mockery of religion to retain it as a cere- 
 mony in our Church : for if such only be Baptism, 
 it has no more to do with the concerns of religion, 
 than the common ablutions of domestic life. Vain 
 is the pretence of those, who assert, that we imitate 
 the Ch urch of Rome, in believing, that grace is 
 conferred at baptism merely ex opere operato, (as it 
 is called in the Canons of the Council of Trent.) 
 The grace of God accompanies the outward act : 
 but the outward act is not the efficient cause 
 of it. The twenty-seventh Article compares indeed 
 Baptism with an instrument, by which the 
 promises of God to forgive our sins are visibly 
 signed and sealed. But, not to mention, that 
 in every legal instrument the signing and the 
 sealing is accompanied with the declaration of 
 its being our own act and deed, and that this 
 mental assent is the thing, which gives force 
 to the signature and the seal, the comparison 
 in question is limited by the very words of the 
 Article to those, who c receive Baptism rightly* 
 And Baptism, according to the general rules of our 
 Church, is not received rightly, unless, either by 
 
LECTURE XIX. § 
 
 ourselves or by our sureties, we make professions 
 of Repentance and Faith. ' What is required 
 ' (says our Catechism) of persons to be baptized ? 
 < Repentance, whereby they forsake sin ; and Faith, 
 ( whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of 
 ( God made to them in that Sacrament.' Con- 
 formably with this doctrine of our Catechism, 
 godfathers and godmothers, in the name of the 
 child to be baptized, make a public declaration, 
 before the baptism itself is administered, that they 
 renounce sin, and believe in the promises of God. 
 And whereas these previous declarations are made 
 by the godfathers and godmothers at the public 
 baptism of infants, the same previous declarations 
 are made by the parties themselves, in the minis- 
 tration of baptism to such as are of riper years. In 
 the exhortation also to this service, the Priest says, 
 ' Doubt ye not, therefore, but earnestly believe, 
 * that he will favourably receive these present per- 
 ' sons, truly repenting, and coming to him by 
 faith? Repentance and Faith, therefore, expressed 
 either by ourselves or by our sureties, are the causes 
 which operate in producing that spiritual grace, 
 which is conferred at baptism. Thus St. Paul, 
 when he spake of washing away sins at baptism, 
 spake at the same time of 6 calling on the name of 
 the Lord.' But how under such circumstances 
 can we call on the name of the Lord, except by 
 
10 
 
 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 professions of repentance and faith?* In like 
 manner, when we receive the Sacrament of the 
 Lord's Supper, it is not the bread, which we eat, 
 nor the wine which we drink, any more than the 
 water, which is used in baptism, which confers 
 the spiritual grace, but the repentance and faith, 
 which accompany the eating of the bread and the 
 drinking of the wine. Our Articles are very clear and 
 precise on this subject. The twenty-eighth Article 
 says, 6 To such as rightly, worthily and with faith 
 6 receive the same, the Bread, which we break, is a 
 6 partaking of the Body of Christ : and likewise the 
 e cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of 
 c Christ.' On the other hand, says the twenty- 
 ninth Article, 6 The wicked, and such as be void 
 1 of a lively faith, although they do carnally and 
 
 * If it be objected, that in the short service, which our Church, 
 has provided for the private baptism of infants, there are no 
 expressions of faith and repentance, though by our Catechism they 
 are required of persons to be baptized, we may answer, that we 
 seldom meet with a general rule, without some exception for ex- 
 treme cases. In the words of the rubric, this short service is to 
 be used only ' when need shall compel : ' and if the child lives, it 
 must afterwards be brought to Church, when the same professions 
 of repentance and faith are made as in the other services. These 
 professions therefore are only deferred, and deferred from the 
 urgency of the case. On the other hand, if the child dies, we 
 trust that the Almighty takes the will for the deed, since the in- 
 tended professions of faith and repentance would have been carried 
 into effect, if the opportunity had been afforded by the life of th« 
 child being spared* 
 
LECTURE XIX 
 
 11 
 
 ' visibly press with their teeth the Sacrament of the 
 € body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they 
 'partakers of Christ.' The relation therefore both 
 of the outward sign to the inward grace, and of the 
 inward grace to that which is required to obtain it, is 
 so distinctly marked, that one should hardly suppose 
 it possible to mistake the meaning of our Articles. 
 There is an act of the mind, and there is an external 
 token of it : for every act of the mind must have 
 some external token. But neither here nor in other 
 cases does the real virtue of the act consist in the 
 token. Each of our Sacraments has its own exter- 
 nal token : but in both of them are the acts of the 
 mind acknowledgements of Repentance and Faith. 
 Unless therefore it is superstition to believe, that 
 the grace of God accompanies Repentance and 
 Faith, there is no superstition in believing, that the 
 grace of God accompanies, as well the Sacrament 
 of Baptism, as the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. 
 And since that peculiar grace, which is called 
 Regeneration, is a grace, which is conferred on us 
 only once in our lives, (for it is a different thing 
 from renovation) the Sacrament, which we receive 
 only once in our lives, and which then admits us 
 to the Christian Covenant, would appear to be the 
 appointed means of conferring that grace, even if 
 St. Paul had not declared it. But that St. Paul 
 has declared it cannot admit a doubt. Unless 
 
12 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 Regeneration had belonged to Baptism, the Apostle 
 would not have called the act of Baptism < the 
 washing of Regeneration/ or the laver of Baptism 
 * the laver of Regeneration.' For there is nothing 
 beside Baptism, to which the term < washing,* or 
 rather the term ' laver/ which is a better transla- 
 tion, can possibly apply. It is strange therefore, 
 that such efforts should now be made to detach 
 Regeneration from Baptism ; though we must 
 acknowledge, that in the estimation of those, who 
 make such efforts, the separation is highly useful. 
 For, as soon as Regeneration is detached from 
 Baptism, it may be employed on other occasions : 
 it may be made the instrument of conversion at a 
 later age : and thus the pangs of the new birth 
 may become tokens of admission to that holy state, 
 which the converts are taught to expect in vain 
 from a Sacrament deprived of its spiritual grace. 
 But strange as this doctrine may appear, it is yet 
 more strange, that men should detach Regeneration 
 from Baptism, and still pretend to be Churchmen. 
 There is no possible artifice, by which the 
 words of our baptismal services can be distorted 
 from their real meaning. In the words of our 
 Public Baptism of Infants, the Priest thus addresses 
 the congregation, immediately after the baptism is 
 completed. ' Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, 
 4 that this child is by baptism regenerate, and 
 
LECTURE XIX. 13 
 
 c grafted into the body of Christ's Church, &c.' 
 And the thanksgiving, which immediately follows, 
 begins thus, c We yield thee hearty thanks, most 
 < merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee U re- 
 ' generate this infant with thy Holy Spirit.' Unless 
 therefore the expression ' it hath pleased God to 
 regenerate' is synonymous with the expression c it 
 shall please God to regenerate,' unless the past is 
 the same with the future, it is impossible to deny, 
 that they, who wilfully and deliberately detach 
 regeneration from baptism, impugn essentially the 
 doctrine of our established Church, inasmuch as 
 they impugn it in one of our Holy Sacraments.* 
 
 Having thus illustrated two very remarkable 
 types of the Old Testament, the one applying to 
 the Sacrament of Baptism, the other to the Sacra- 
 
 * As it is impossible to explain away the strong expressions, 
 which have been here quoted, an attempt of another kind has 
 been made, namely, to shew that they are inconsistent with a 
 prayer in the former part of the service, which contains the fol- 
 lowing passage: 4 We call upon thee for this infant, that he coming 
 « to thy holy Baptism, may receive remission of his sins by spiritual 
 * regeneration/ But there is no inconsistency in believing, that 
 what was only a subject of prayer at the commencement of the 
 service, was a grace already obtained at the close of the service. 
 The grace conferred at Baptism is the effect of Repentance and 
 Faith: and the professions of Repentance and Faith are made 
 after the prayer for regeneration, but before the declaration, that 
 the child is regenerate. The prayer therefore, and the declara- 
 tion, are perfectly consistent. 
 
14 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 merit of the Lord's Supper, we may now proceed 
 with that analogy, which subsists between the 
 interpretation of types and the interpretation of 
 prophecy. Whatever be the mode, in which a pro- 
 phecy is conveyed, whether it be conveyed by 
 words, or conveyed by things, the connexion be- 
 tween that conveyance, and the event in which we 
 seek the completion, must be clearly established, 
 or the very existence of the prophecy will remain 
 unproved. But it appears from the arguments 
 already used, that an event in the history of the 
 Jews, or a ceremony performed in the temple of 
 Jerusalem, cannot be regarded as typical, and con- 
 sequently not as prophetical of any rite performed 
 in the Church of Christ, unless it was determined 
 by the Deity, that such event should happen, or 
 such ceremony be instituted, with a view to what 
 the Deity foresaw would take place in later ao-es. 
 Where no such connexion exists between a former 
 event or ceremony, and a later event or ceremony, 
 the former can in no wise be considered as typical, 
 and consequently not as prophetical, of the latter. 
 The histories of Greece and Rome afford various 
 examples of events at one period, which resemble 
 the events of another period. But we do not there- 
 fore regard them as types and antitypes. And why 
 do we not regard them as such ? Because we per- 
 ceive no connexion between them : because we 
 
LECTURE XIX. 15 
 
 perceive nothing more than, that the things are 
 similar : because we have no evidence, that in the 
 general scheme of Divine Providence, the one was 
 intended to represent the other. This evidence can 
 be afforded only by revelation: and therefore we 
 never seek for types and antitypes except in the 
 Sacred Writings. But then, for this very reason 
 we must make the Sacred Writings the basis, and 
 the sole basis, on which we build our theories of 
 types, and typical prophecy. We have therefore 
 no warrant to conclude, that the events or ceremo- 
 nies of one period were designed by the Deity to 
 be typical, and therefore prophetical, of the events 
 or ceremonies of another period, unless (as in the 
 two examples which I selected as an illustration of 
 types) Revelation itself has declared them to be 
 such. 
 
 It has indeed been objected by the advocates of 
 a more extensive scheme, that an explanation of 
 types in the Bible itself is in general not to be 
 expected. It has been urgecTThat their very nature 
 requires obscurity and concealment : and conse- 
 quently that an explanation of them would be 
 inconsistent with their original design. But the 
 explanation, for which we must have recourse to 
 Scripture, is not an explanation to be sought in the 
 Old Testament, or an explanation accompanying 
 
l6 LECTURE XIX, 
 
 the type. It is an explanation to be sought in the 
 New Testament, or an explanation accompanying 
 the antitype. That such explanations, in various 
 instances, are given in the New Testament, no one 
 can deny. Who, for instance, would deny that the 
 sacrifice of the paschal lamb is declared in the New 
 Testament to be a prefiguration of the death of 
 Christ. And if it was deemed necessary to explain 
 one type, where could be the expediency, or the 
 moral fitness, of withholding the explanation of 
 others ? Must not therefore the silence of the New 
 Testament, in the case of any supposed type, be an 
 argument against the existence of that type ? If it 
 was agreeable to the design of typical representa- 
 tion, that they, to whom the type was originally 
 given, should remain ignorant of its real tendency, 
 or of the thing, which it was meant to prefigure, 
 it must have been agreeable to the same design, 
 that, as soon as the prefigured antitype had taken 
 place, its relation to the type should be clearly 
 revealed. The observance of a type is superseded 
 by the accomplishment of the antitype. It is 
 necessary therefore that we should know the exact 
 period of that accomplishment : or we shall know 
 not the period, when the observance of the type 
 should cease. Whatever advantage therefore the 
 Jews might have derived from their remaining in 
 ignorance, that certain ceremonies performed in 
 
LECTURE XIX. 17 
 
 the temple of Jerusalem were only shadows of 
 better things to come, yet when those better things 
 were come, it was of the highest importance, that 
 the mystery should be removed, and the types 
 explained. But revelation alone could give the 
 explanation. For that one thing was designed to 
 prefigure another, can be known only to Him who 
 designed it, and to those, to whom he has vouch- 
 safed to reveal it. 
 
 When we proceed to the interpretation of pro- 
 phecies delivered in words, we shall find no less 
 caution necessary, than in the interpretation of pro- 
 phecies delivered by things. We must not imagine 
 that in every instance, where the words of a 
 Hebrew prophet appear to bear some resemblance, 
 or to be applicable to events which are passing in 
 the present age, they were therefore designed to be 
 predictions of those events. If we argue from mere 
 similarity, without taking other things into con- 
 sideration, the consequence will be, that wherever 
 the meaning of a passage is in itself sufficiently 
 general to admit of more applications than one, 
 various interpreters will compare it with various 
 events, and they will all declare, that the passage 
 is a prophecy of that particular event, to which they 
 themselves apply it. Indeed we know by expe- 
 rience, that passages in the writings of the Hebrew 
 
18 
 
 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 prophets have been applied to as many different 
 events, as the interpreters themselves are numerous. 
 Yet each interpreter is confident of his own expla- 
 nation : and is persuaded that all other interpreters 
 are mistaken. In this manner is the sure word of 
 prophecy, as St. Peter very justly calls it, exposed 
 to suspicion, on the part of those, who are inclined 
 to question the truth of our holy religion. 
 
 But though the difficulties attending the inter- 
 pretation of the Hebrew prophets are confessedly 
 great, those difficulties are not insurmountable. 
 And if the interpretation of prophecy is really 
 subject to determinate rules, the conclusions, to 
 which such rules must eventually lead, will be no 
 less certain, when those difficulties are overcome, 
 than if they had never existed. The sole difference 
 consists in the labour, in the skill, and in the time, 
 which are wanted in the one case, but hot in the 
 other. If it be objected therefore, that the sacred 
 oracles are ambiguous, because the explanations of 
 them are various, we may confidently answer, that 
 the fault is in the interpretation, and not in the 
 text. It is no wonder that in the explanations of 
 the Hebrew prophets we should discover incon- 
 sistency, when an office, for which so many qualifi- 
 cations are required, is undertaken by men, in 
 whom those qualifications are wanting altogether. 
 
LECTURE XIX. It) 
 
 In the first place, it is impossible to enter into 
 the true spirit of Hebrew prophecy, without a 
 knowledge of the Hebrew language. The style of 
 history is for the most part, so plain and simple, 
 that a narrative of events delivered in one language 
 may be adequately expressed in other languages. 
 The same observation applies to the didactic parts 
 of Scripture : the rules, which are necessary for the 
 guidance of our own conduct, requiring of them- 
 selves so much plainness and perspicuity, as to be 
 equally expressible in every language. But the 
 prophetic style of Scripture is of so peculiar a kind, 
 that it is always difficult, and sometimes impossible 
 to express in English what is expressed in Hebrew. 
 Even in poetry, which is more easily rendered than 
 prophecy, it is no easy task to transfer the spirit of 
 the original into the words of a translation. Words 
 in one language may have a literal correspondence 
 to words in another language ; while they are inca- 
 pable of being employed in the same figurative 
 sense. The usage of the two languages, which 
 alone can determine the meaning of words, may be 
 alike in one respect and different in another. But, 
 if the words of a translation convey only a literal 
 sense, where the words of the original convey a 
 figurative sense, the words of the author and the 
 words of the translator will convey two different 
 senses. Hence the same prophecy may be differ- 
 
 B 2 
 
20 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 ently understood, according as it is interpreted from 
 the words of the original, or interpreted from the 
 words of a translation. Now the style of prophecy 
 would in any language be more figurative than that 
 of history : and in Hebrew prophecy it is so much 
 the more figurative, as the oriental languages them- 
 selves more abound in metaphor, than the languages 
 of Greece and Rome. 
 
 Another cause of difference in the interpretation 
 of Hebrew prophecy is, that while one interpreter 
 considers the situation and circumstances of the 
 writer whose works he explains, another interpreter 
 expounds without the least regard for what is 
 necessary to be known, in order to discover his 
 author's meaning. Hebrew writers, who lived at 
 different periods, from five hundred to fifteen hun- 
 dred years before the birth of Christ, are all viewed 
 in the self-same light: and the light, in which 
 they are thus viewed, is moreover the light, in 
 which the language of the translator would be 
 viewed, if that language were the language of the 
 author. Hence the notions, which the Hebrew 
 writers affixed to their own words, are exchanged 
 for notions, which the interpreter, differently cir- 
 cumstanced, affixes to the jvords of a translation. 
 Again, while one interpreter investigates the words 
 of his author with grammatical precision, and at- 
 
 ■ 
 
LECTURE XIX 
 
 21 
 
 tempts only to discover what the words themselves 
 convey, another interpreter, either regardless or 
 incapable of grammatical analysis, employs his 
 ingenuity in torturing the words of his author, or 
 rather of his author's translator, till he has brought 
 them to speak, what he had previously determined, 
 that they should speak. 
 
 Since then so many causes are incessantly 
 operating to produce variety in the interpretation 
 of prophecy, we need not wonder, if the effects 
 correspond with the causes. But the very con- 
 sideration of those causes is sufficient to remove 
 the charge of ambiguity from the sacred text, and 
 to fix it, where it belongs, in the interpretations 
 alone. 
 
LECTURE XX. 
 
 Having examined the causes, which produce 
 the variety observable in the expositions of Hebrew 
 prophecy, we might in the next place inquire, 
 whether it is not possible to assign such rules of 
 interpretation, as may be the means of greater 
 harmony in our commentaries on that subject. 
 But the general rules for the interpretation of the 
 Bible, which have been fully explained in former 
 Lectures, are applicable, as well to the prophetic 
 books, as to other parts of the sacred volume. 
 For in every instance we must consider the words, 
 which we interpret, as signs to the reader of what 
 was thought by the author. 
 
 There is indeed one distinction to be made 
 between the interpretation of prophecy, and the 
 interpretation of history : a distinction founded on 
 a difference of inspiration. The inspiration of pro- 
 phecy must be different from that, which would at 
 least be sufficient for the inspiration of history. If 
 an historian records events, which have either come 
 
LECTURE XX. 23 
 
 within his own knowledge, or of which he has the 
 means of obtaining correct information, he cannot 
 want that kind of inspiration, which is called an 
 inspiration of suggestion. And exemption from 
 error is in such cases sufficiently secured, if the 
 Holy Spirit, while it leaves the historian to act for 
 himself, as long as the record is true, is ready to 
 interpose, whenever there is danger of a deviation 
 from the truth. But widely different is the case 
 of prophecy. An inspiration of suggestion is there 
 absolutely necessary: for it lies not within the 
 power of unassisted man to discover what persons 
 will be born, or what transactions will take place, 
 after a lapse of some hundreds of years. It is true, 
 that our own reason enables us to argue from the 
 past to the future. A comparison of causes with 
 their consequences at a former period may warrant 
 the conclusion, that a recurrence of the same causes 
 will probably lead to a recurrence of the same con- 
 sequences. And when those causes actually have 
 recurred, we may predict with some probability, 
 that the time is not far distant, when also the 
 consequences will recur. If, for instance, we com- 
 pare the present situation of our Church with its 
 situation at a former period, we must have our 
 apprehensions, and perhaps our forebodings. But 
 such forebodings are very different from that know- 
 ledge, which enables men to foresee, not merely 
 
24 LECTURE XX. 
 
 the consequences of causes now operating, but such 
 distant events, as are wholly unconnected with any 
 thing, which is passing in the present age. When, 
 for instance, Isaiah foretold the coming of Christ, 
 he foretold not only a very distant event, but an 
 event, to which he could not possibly argue from 
 the state of the Jews, at the time, when he wrote. 
 A foreknowledge of such events can be obtained by 
 no other means, than by an immediate communica- 
 tion from God himself. 
 
 Let us apply then the principles of interpreta- 
 tion, as explained in a former Lecture, to the two 
 different cases of history and prophecy. When 
 we interpret the words of a sacred historian, and 
 consider those words, as signs to the reader of what 
 was thought by the author, we may regard the 
 historian himself as the author. But when we 
 interpret a prophecy, we must distinguish between 
 the author, and the writer. For when the know- 
 ledge of the writer is communicated to him by an 
 immediate suggestion of the Holy Spirit, we must 
 consider the Holy Spirit, as the author of that 
 knowledge, which the prophet, as a writer, com- 
 municates to the reader. But then this knowledge 
 might be communicated to the prophet in two dif- 
 ferent ways, either of which lay within the reach 
 of Almighty power. The understanding of the 
 
LECTURE XX. 25 
 
 prophet might be opened in a supernatural manner, 
 so as to give him an insight into future events, 
 while the record of those events, or the mode of com- 
 mitting them to writing, was left entirely to him- 
 self. In this case, though the prophecy has the 
 Holy Spirit for its author, yet the words of the 
 prophecy are the words of the prophet. And if the 
 prophet was the author of the words, those words 
 must be signs to us of what was thought by the 
 prophet. On the other hand, the words also, as 
 well as the things signified by the words, might 
 have been communicated to the prophet. In this 
 case he was the mere instrument of communication 
 to the reader ; and the Holy Spirit must then be 
 regarded as the author, as well with respect to the 
 words, as with respect to the things. But whether 
 the words were chosen by the prophet, or chosen 
 by the Holy Spirit, the principle, on which they 
 were chosen, must in either case have been the 
 same. In either case, the choice of them must 
 have depended on the connexion, which the usage 
 of the Hebrew language had established between 
 words, and the things signified by those words. If 
 they had not been so chosen, they could not have 
 been signs to the reader of what was thought by 
 the author, whether we refer them to the prophet, 
 or refer them to the Holy Spirit. Whoever was 
 the author of a passage, which we propose to inter- 
 
26 
 
 LECTURE XX. 
 
 pret, we must conclude, that he used his words in 
 such senses, as he supposed would be ascribed to 
 them by his readers. For if he used them in other 
 senses, he would not inform, but mislead. Conse- 
 quently, whether we interpret prophecy, on the 
 supposition that the words were chosen by the 
 prophet, or interpret prophecy on the supposition 
 that the words were chosen by the Holy Spirit, we 
 must on either supposition apply the same rules of 
 interpretation. 
 
 After these general remarks on the interpreta- 
 tion of prophecy, let us proceed to the particular 
 consideration of the prophecies, which relate to the 
 Messiah. Various reasons may be assigned for 
 selecting these prophecies, as subjects of our special 
 attention. In the first place, they are more im+ 
 portant, than all other prophecies put together. 
 Whether we can discover in the writings of the 
 Hebrew prophets a description of the events which 
 are passing in the present age, is a question of 
 little moment. But the prophecies relating to the 
 Messiah are of such importance, that they affect 
 the very truth of our religion. And in the next 
 place, an inquiry into those prophecies includes the 
 consideration of almost eve'ry thing which relates to 
 prophecy in general. It includes the questions of 
 primary senses, and secondary senses, of prophecy. 
 
LECTURE XX. %7 
 
 It includes also the question, which has been so 
 much agitated under the name of accommodation. 
 When we examine therefore the prophecies, which 
 relate to the Messiah, we examine every question 
 of real interest in the subject of prophecy at large. 
 
 Let us begin with an inquiry into that connexion, 
 which subsists between the truth of our religion, 
 and the prophecies relating to the Messiah. It is 
 evident from the writings of the New Testament, 
 that both our Saviour and his Apostles appealed to 
 the prophecies of the Old Testament, as afford- 
 ing a principal proof of his divine mission. In a 
 conversation with the Jews in the temple of Jeru- 
 salem, relating to this very subject, our Saviour 
 directed them to < search the Scriptures' (John v. 
 39.): and then he added, « they are they, which 
 testify of me.' Now the writings of the New 
 Testament were not then in existence: conse- 
 quently our Saviour could have meant only the 
 Scriptures of the Old Testament, and therefore the 
 prophecies of the Old Testament. When he 
 addressed the twelve Apostles on his last journey to 
 Jerusalem, (Luke xviii. 31.) he said, < Behold, we 
 
 < go up to Jerusalem, and all things, that are 
 « written by the prophets concerning the Son of 
 
 < man, shall be accomplished.' When he shewed 
 himself, after his resurrection, to the two disciples, 
 
28 .LECTURE XX. 
 
 who were journeying toEmmaus (Luke xxiv. 25.) he 
 said to them, 'O fools, and slow of heart, to believe 
 ' all that the prophets have spoken ! Ought not 
 ' Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter 
 c into his glory ? And beginning at Moses and all 
 ' the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the 
 
 < Scriptures the things concerning himself.' When 
 he afterwards appeared in Jerusalem to the eleven 
 Apostles, he addressed them in a similar manner, 
 (Luke xxiv.. 44.) 6 These are the words, which I 
 
 < spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that 
 ' all things must be fulfilled, which were written 
 f in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in 
 * the psalms, concerning me.' 
 
 The same appeal, which was made to the pro- 
 phecies of the Old Testament by Christ himself, in 
 proof of his divine mission, was made also by the 
 Apostles of Christ. When Philip, after his call to 
 the Apostleship, met with Nathaniel, he said, 
 (John i. 45.) < We have found Him, of whom 
 f Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, 
 Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.' When 
 St. Peter addressed the Jews after the miracle per- 
 formed in the temple by himself and St. John, he 
 reminded them (Acts 18.) how * those things, 
 < which God before had shewed by the mouth of 
 g all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath 
 
LECTURE XX. %9 
 
 < so fulfilled:— 6 And he shall send Jesus Christ, 
 c which before was preached unto you, whom the 
 
 * heaven must receive until the times of the resti- 
 
 < tution of all things, which God hath spoken by 
 
 < the mouth of all his prophets, since the world 
 
 < began.' Then observing that Moses had pro- 
 phesied of Christ, he concluded by saying, « Yea, 
 
 < and all the prophets, from Samuel, and those 
 
 < that follow after, as many as have spoken, have 
 
 < likewise foretold of these days: Again, in his 
 address to Cornelius, St. Peter declared of Christ, 
 (Actsx. 43.) 'To Him give all the prophets 
 
 < witness, that through his name whosoever be- 
 
 < lieveth in him shall receive remission of sins.' 
 And in the first chapter of his first Epistle (v. 10.) 
 speaking of the salvation wrought by Jesus Christ, 
 he said, ' Of which salvation the prophets have 
 c inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied 
 
 < of the grace, that should come unto you : search- 
 ' ing what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of 
 1 Christ, which was in them, did testify, when it 
 ■ testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and 
 
 * the glory, that should follow." 
 
 The appeals of St. Paul to the prophets of the 
 Old Testament, as bearing witness to the coming 
 of Christ, are still more numerous, than those of 
 St. Peter. At the very beginning of his Epistle to 
 
30 
 
 LECTURE XX 
 
 the Romans, he calls himself f an Apostle, sepa- 
 ' rate4 unto the gospel of God, which he had pro- 
 ' mised afore by his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 
 ' concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.' In 
 the third chapter of the same Epistle, he speaks 
 of the righteousness of God, manifested by Jesus 
 Christ, as being 6 witnessed by the law and the 
 prophets.' And at the close of the same Epistle 
 he declares of the preaching of Jesus Christ, that 
 it c now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures 
 s of the prophets, according to the commandment 
 ' of the everlasting God, made known to all nations 
 6 for the obedience of faith.' In his second chapter 
 of the Epistle to the Ephesians he declares, that 
 Jesus Christ is the corner-stone of that building, 
 which is founded on " the Apostles and Prophets' 1 
 When he was accused before Felix, he replied, 
 (Acts xxiv. 14.) e After the way, which they call 
 f heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, 
 
 * believing all things, which are written in the law, 
 and in the prophets: And when he pleaded before 
 Agrippa, against the same accusation of the Jews, 
 he said, (Acts xxvi. 22. 23.) < Having therefore 
 : obtained help from God, I continue unto this 
 ' day, witnessing both to small and to great, saying 
 < none other things, than those, which the prophets 
 
 * and Moses did say should come; that Christ 
 ' should suffer, and that he should be the first, that 
 
LECTURE XX. 
 
 31 
 
 « should rise from the dead, and should shew light 
 « unto the people, and to the Gentiles/ Lastly, 
 when he was come to Rome, and had assembled 
 before him the chief of the Jews in that city, ' he 
 
 * expounded and testified of the kingdom of God, 
 ' persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of 
 c the law of Moses, and out of the prophets.' 
 
 Nor are the passages, already quoted, the only 
 passages in the New Testament, in which an appeal 
 is made to the prophets, as testifying of Jesus 
 Christ. The Evangelist St. Mark begins his Gospel 
 with an appeal of this description. 6 The beginning 
 ' of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as 
 it is written in the prophets, Behold I send my 
 « messenger before thy face, which shall prepare 
 < thy way before thee.' And Zacharias, the father 
 of John the Baptist, being ' filled with the Holy 
 Ghost,' (Luke i. 67.) pronounced the following 
 blessing at the circumcision of his son, who was 
 destined to be the forerunner of the Messiah. 
 ' Blessed be the Lord God of Israel ; for he hath 
 6 visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised 
 
 * upa horn of salvation for us in the house of his 
 
 * servant David, as he spake by the mouth of his 
 ' holy prophets, which have been since the world 
 ' began.' 
 
32 
 
 LECTURE XX, 
 
 From these repeated appeals to the prophets of 
 the Old Testament, it appears, that their testimony 
 is represented in the New Testament as a principal 
 argument for the divine mission of Christ. Search 
 the Scriptures, says our Saviour, for f they testify 
 of me.' In me r says our Saviour, are the prophe- 
 cies e fulfilled, Jesus of Nazareth, says St. Philip, 
 is the person, of whom the prophets did write. 
 To Jesus Christ, says St. Peter, gave the prophets 
 witness. The preaching of Jesus Christ, says 
 St. Paul, was made manifest by the Scriptures of 
 the prophets. The fact, therefore, that Jesus was 
 the Messiah, is evidently founded on the predic- 
 tions of his coming in the writings of the Hebrew 
 prophets. 
 
 It is true, that our Saviour appealed also to his 
 miracles, in proof of his divine mission. When 
 John the Baptist heard in prison the works of 
 Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto 
 him (Matth. xi. 3.) < Art thou He, which should 
 come, or do we look for another.' Jesus answered, 
 and said unto them, 4 Go, and shew John again 
 c the things, which ye do hear and see. The 
 c blind receive their sight ; the lame walk ; the 
 c lepers are cleansed ; the deaf hear ; and the dead 
 c are raised up/ Now the power of working mira- 
 cles affords an unquestionable proof, that the person, 
 
LECTURE XX 
 
 33 
 
 possessed of that power, has authority from God. 
 To perform a miracle is to suspend or counteract 
 in that instance the general laws of nature. And 
 these are laws, which no one but the author of 
 them has the power of suspending, or counteract- 
 ing. * When our Saviour therefore appealed to his 
 
 ' * We must distinguish between a power producing effects which 
 are really preternatural, and « a power which produces effects 
 * which might seem preternatural to those, who have no knowledge 
 < of the means.' In Mechanics, and in Optics, experiments may 
 be made, which to those, who are unacquainted with the principles, 
 must appear wonderf ul. But in such experiments, wonderful as 
 they may appear to the illiterate, the laws of nature are neither 
 suspended nor counteracted. On the contrary, those very experi- 
 ments are the results of the laws of nature. They have no resem- 
 blance therefore to a miracle, in any degree whatever, or in any 
 sense whatever. In our Saviour's miracles, there was neither 
 mechanical, nor optical, nor any other deception ; but a real sus- 
 pension of the laws of nature. And that any other power, than 
 the Almighty power, which both made those laws, and governs 
 the world by them, should be able to alter the constitution and 
 course of nature by a suspension of those laws, is, as far as I can 
 judge, absolutely incredible. The Jews indeed, who did not deny 
 the reality of our Saviour's miracles, ascribed them to the opera- 
 tion of evil spirits : and Celsus, in his attack on the Christian 
 religion, ascribed them to the operation of magic. The Jewish 
 argument, that evil spirits can work miracles, and therefore that 
 the miracles of our Saviour are no proof of his divine authority, 
 was revived in the former part of the last century, during the con- 
 troversy oh the argument from miracles. And even a late Prelate 
 of our own Church, whose words are quoted at the beginning of 
 this Note, has very incautiously subscribed to the Jewish doctrine, 
 #iat evil spirits have the power of working miracles : a doctrine 
 which tends to destroy the argument from miracles, since the 
 performance of a miracle, if it does not in itself imply divine 
 
 authority, 
 
 C 
 
34 
 
 LECTURE XX. 
 
 miracles, lie appealed to them, as a proof, as a 
 legitimate proof, that he was armed with divine 
 authority. And his miracles alone (independently 
 of other arguments, which establish his own true 
 Divinity) would be sufficient to prove, as Nicodemus 
 declared, that he was e a teacher sent from God.' 
 But that connexion, which subsists between the 
 covenant made with the Jews through Moses, and 
 the covenant made with all mankind through 
 Christ, would be entirely lost, were it not for the 
 intervention of the prophecies relating to the 
 Messiah. These prophecies form the link, which 
 connects the two covenants. By these prophecies 
 are we enabled to comprehend the whole scheme 
 of Divine Providence, and to understand in what 
 manner it was gradually unfolded for the redemp- 
 tion of mankind. 
 
 That Jesus of Nazareth therefore was the pro- 
 mised Messiah, is a fact, which we must be able to 
 establish, or we shall fail of establishing that com- 
 prehensive scheme of Divine Providence, which 
 
 authority, cannot possibly do so by any accidental circumstances, 
 whether of benevolence or of any other attribute, which may accom- 
 pany the miracle. These remarks I should not have made in a 
 Lecture relating to prophecy, if the passage, to which this Note 
 refers, had not been disputed on tfie authority of Bishop Horsley. 
 But the further consideration of this question must be deferred, till 
 miracles themselves become the immediate subjects of our inquiry. 
 
LECTURE XX. 35 
 
 includes the two covenants in one general system. 
 And we shall otherwise be unable to account for 
 those repeated and solemn appeals to the Hebrew 
 prophets, on the part, both of Christ, and his 
 Apostles. Christ himself has commanded us to 
 search the Scriptures, that we may know how they 
 testify of him. We must be able therefore to Jind 
 what he has commanded us to seek : or the com- 
 mand will have been given in vain. His Apostles 
 have further declared, that he is the person, of 
 whom the prophets did write; that he is the person, 
 to whom the prophets gave witness ; that he is the 
 person, whose preaching was made manifest by the 
 prophets. Unless therefore we could shew in what 
 manner the prophets did testify of Christ, the 
 declarations, that they did so, would serve only to 
 confound us. And the argument for the truth of 
 our religion, w hich we now derive from prophecy, 
 would weaken, instead of confirming, the argument 
 derived from miracles. 
 
 The Hebrew prophets therefore must manifestly 
 have borne testimony to the coming of Christ. 
 And this testimony must have been so decisive, as 
 to admit of no ambiguity, no question, whether 
 their predictions relate to the person of Jesus Christ, 
 or not. There must be prophecies therefore in the 
 Pld Testament, which strictly, literally, and directly 
 
30 LECTURE XX. 
 
 predict the coming of our Saviour. There must 
 be something more than passages, which may be 
 accommodated (as it is called) to Jiis life and cha- 
 racter. Passages from classic authors are frequently 
 accommodated, or, in other words, applied to a 
 present event, as descriptive of that event. But 
 such applications are founded on a mere accidental 
 parity of circumstances. In such cases, there is no 
 previous design on the part of the quoted author ; 
 there is no connexion, foreseen on his part, between 
 the quoted words and the event, to which they are 
 applied. Though they are descriptive therefore of 
 the event, they are not predictive of it. 
 
 There must likewise be something more in the 
 writings of the Hebrew prophets, than passages, 
 which predict the coming of Christ in a sense, 
 which is sometimes called remote, at other times 
 secondary, at other times mystical A prophecy, 
 which relates to our Saviour in a mere remote or 
 mystical sense, can hardly come within that descrip- 
 tion of prophecy, by which the preaching of Christ 
 was made manifest. Nor is this the only inconveni- 
 ence, to which we are thus exposed. For, if we adopt 
 the notion, that the prophecies in general, which 
 relate to the Messiah, have' two senses, a primary 
 and a secondary, we involve prophecy itself in such 
 uncertainty, as to deprive it of the character ascribed 
 
LECTURE XX. 37 
 
 to it by St. Peter, who called it the sure word of 
 propheey. I do not mean to assert, that no pro- 
 phecy in the Old Testament has a secondary sense : 
 but I mean to assert, and shall hereafter endeavour 
 to prove, that the system, by which prophecies of 
 the Old Testament are in general supplied with a 
 double meaning, is untenable. Nor do I mean to 
 assert^ that there are no passages of the Old Testa- 
 ment, which are quoted and applied in the New 
 Testament to events, of which they neither are, 
 nor were meant to be, prophetic. The writers of 
 the New Testament were at liberty to make such 
 applications of passages from Hebrew authors, as 
 we make ourselves from Greek and Latin authors. 
 But if we extend the doctrine of accommodation 
 even to those passages, where the sacred writers 
 have both declared them to be prophetic, and have 
 employed them as arguments founded on prophecy, 
 the doctrine of accommodation, so understood, 
 amounts to nothing less, than a rejection of pro- 
 phecy. And even with regard to secondary senses, 
 if it were true, that the passages in general, which 
 have been quoted in the New Testament as pro- 
 phetic of Jesus Christ, were prophetic of him, not 
 in their primary and literal sense, but merely in 
 some secondary or mystical sense, the evidence for 
 our religion, which is founded on prophecy, would 
 be much less satisfactory, than we have reason to 
 believe it.. 
 
* t 
 
 4 
 
 38 LECTURE XX. 
 
 Under such circumstances, it becomes a matter 
 of the highest importance, that We should be able 
 to produce a sufficient number of passages from the 
 Old Testament,, which predict the coming of Christ 
 in their plain, literal, and proper sense. For such 
 passages alone can possess that decisively prophetic 
 character, which the declarations of Christ and his 
 Apostles have taught us to expect. It shall be the 
 business therefore of the next Lecture to collect, 
 and explain, such passages. And when we are 
 satisfied about the existence of prophecies, which 
 have strictly and literally foretold the coming of 
 Christ, we may safely inquire in another Lecture, 
 into the foundation of secondary senses. 
 
/ 
 
 LECTURE XXI. 
 
 It appears from the preceding Lecture, that, 
 when, agreeably to our Saviour's directions, we 
 search the Scriptures of the Old Testament for 
 passages which testify of Christ, for passages, 
 which in the words of St. Peter give witness to 
 Christ, and by which in the words of St. Paul the 
 preaching of Christ is made manifest, we must 
 search for passages, which relate to our Saviour, 
 according to their plain, literal, and proper sense. 
 If the words of a Hebrew prophet, though applica- 
 ble to a certain event, were not originally written 
 with reference to that event, they cannot be con- 
 sidered as prophetic of that event. No passage 
 therefore of the Old Testament, which from mere 
 accidental similitude, may be accommodated or 
 applied, like a passage from a classic author, can 
 be included among those passages, for which our 
 Saviour commanded us to search, as for passages, 
 by which he was testified. Nor can we, in the 
 first instance, include those passages, which, though 
 
40 LECTURE XXI. 
 
 they do relate to our Saviour, relate to him only in 
 some secondary sense. For we have no means of 
 discovering, that a prophecy of the Old Testament 
 really has any other meaning, than that, which the 
 words themselves convey by their own proper 
 import, except where some other meaning has been 
 affixed to them, either by Christ or by his Apostles. 
 In whatever case a passage of the Old Testament, 
 which, according to its plain and literal sense, 
 relates to some earlier event in the Jewish history, 
 is yet applied, either by Christ, or by an Apostle 
 of Christ, to what happened in their days, and 
 moreover is so applied as to indicate that the pas- 
 sage is prophetic ; of that passage we must con- 
 clude, on their authority, that, beside the plain or 
 primary sense, it has also a remote or secondary 
 sense. But, in arguing from that authority to the 
 existence of a secondary sense, we must be careful 
 not to argue in a circle. When we are searching 
 the Scriptures for prophecies, which testify of 
 Christ, we are searching for that, by which his 
 divine authority is to be established. We are 
 searching for the means of establishing that au- 
 thority. If therefore while we are thus searching 
 we have recourse to passages, which depend on that 
 authority, to passages, of which, without that 
 authority, we should not even know, that they 
 were prophetic of our Saviour, we previously take 
 
LECTURE XXI. 41 
 
 for granted the thing, which is hereafter to be 
 proved. We argue from premises, which are only 
 so far valid, as the inference is valid, which we 
 deduce from those premises. In other words, we 
 prove, as well the premises by the inference, as the 
 inference by the premises. Consequently, when 
 we search the Scriptures of the Old Testament for 
 prophecies, which testify of Christ, we must in the 
 first instance, confine our search to those prophe- 
 cies, which relate to him in a strict and literal sense. 
 And the divine authority of Christ being thus 
 established, in conjunction with the argument from 
 miracles, we may then with consistency consider 
 the prophecies, which relate to him in a secondary 
 sense. 
 
 Such then being the importance of those pro- 
 phecies, which relate to the Messiah according to 
 their strict and literal sense, I trust that this 
 Lecture will not be considered as tedious, if, instead 
 of producing only one or two examples by way of 
 illustration, I extend the inquiry to many such 
 examples. But to prevent mistakes about the 
 meaning of any passage, which is said to be literally 
 prophetic of the Messiah, it is necessary to define 
 the term, and to explain what is generally under- 
 stood by literal interpretation. When we consider 
 the senses of single words, we consider whether 
 
42 
 
 LECTURE XXr, 
 
 they are used in a literal sense, or used in a jigura- 
 tive sense ; whether they are used in a grammatical 
 sense, or used in a tropical sense ; whether they 
 are used in their primary and proper sense, or used 
 in an improper or acquired sense. But when we 
 speak of the literal or grammatical interpretation 
 of a whole sentence, we do not thereby understand 
 that every single word in that sentence is to be 
 construed according to its proper, literal, and gram- 
 matical sense. Even in the plainest narratives we 
 often meet with single words, which are used in a 
 figurative sense. Yet if no mystical, or allegorical 
 meaning is affixed to those narratives, in addition 
 to the plain facts, which the words themselves were 
 intended to record, those narratives are still said to 
 be taken in a literal sense. In like manner, if a 
 passage, instead of recording a past event, is the 
 record of a future event, that passage is said to be 
 literally understood, if the application of it is con- 
 Jined to that one event, however figurative the sense 
 may be of any single word, or words, employed in 
 that passage. This explanation is so much the 
 more necessary, as Hebrew prophecy abounds with 
 figurative terms. 
 
 Let us now consider the examples, which strictly 
 and literally relate to the Messiah, though in some 
 of them we shall find many single words, which 
 
LECTURE XXI. 43 
 
 are highly figurative. But I must previously ex- 
 press my obligations on this subject to Bishop 
 Chandler, whom I have chosen for my guide in the 
 selection of those prophecies, which literally pre- 
 dict the coming of Christ. Indeed a better guide 
 on this subject we cannot have. No man has more 
 clearly perceived the importance of literal prophecy 
 relating to the Messiah ; no man has taken greater 
 pains to determine the question, what is literal 
 prophecy, and what is not ; nor has any one sur- 
 passed him in that kind of erudition, which is 
 necessary for such an inquiry. Since then we may 
 be contented with the examples, which Bishop 
 Chandler has given of literal prophecy, I will now 
 produce them,, accompanied with such brief re* 
 marks, as the prophecies themselves suggest.* 
 
 Beginning with the last prophet in the Old 
 Testament, and concluding with the prophet Isaiah, 
 he takes his first example from Malachi iii. 1* 
 f Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall pre- 
 t pare the way before me : and the Lord, whom 
 
 * A minute and critical examination of every expression, used in 
 the prophecies here quoted, would be contrary to the plan of these 
 Lectures. In fact, it is a deviation from that plan (as explained 
 in the first Lecture), to produce so many examples relating to one 
 subject, and nothing but the great importance of this subject could 
 justify such -a deviation. We are at present concerned with the 
 principles of interpretation: and examples only so. far accord with 
 the plan, as they serve to illustrate those principles. 
 
44 LECTURE XXI. 
 
 ( ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even 
 c the Messenger of the Covenant, whom ye delight 
 * in ; behold he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.' 
 This prophecy is the more remarkable, as two per- 
 sons are introduced into it ; namely, the Lord who 
 shall come to his temple, and the Messenger, who 
 shall prepare his way. When two or more persons 
 are mentioned, there is always less probability, that 
 the -agreement between the description and the 
 event should be accidental, than when only one 
 person is mentioned. And in the present case the 
 description not only corresponds with the persons of 
 our Saviour, and John the Baptist, but corresponds 
 with no other two persons in the whole Jewish 
 history. It must therefore be a prophecy of our 
 Saviour and John the Baptist: a prophecy of our 
 Saviour and John the Baptist, according to its plain 
 and literal meaning : and it is quoted as such by 
 our Saviour himself, Matth. xi. 10. 
 
 The second example is taken from Malachi iv. 
 5, 6. e Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet 
 ' before the coming of the great and dreadful day 
 ' of the Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the 
 1 fathers to the children, and the heart of the 
 ^children to the fathers,' lest I come and smite the 
 ' earth with a curse.' This prophecy our Saviour 
 himself applies to John the Baptist, Matth. xvii. 
 
LECTURE XXI. 45 
 
 12, 13. Some commentators indeed have sup- 
 posed, that he applied it only in a secondary sense, 
 because when John the Baptist was asked, * Art 
 « thou Elias ?' he saith, 'I am not.' John i. 21. 
 But though John the Baptist was not literally 
 Elias, or Elijah, the prophecy might literally relate 
 to him : for the literal interpretation of a whole 
 sentence does not exclude the figurative use of 
 single words. In all countries, and in all lan- 
 guages, it is common to affix the names of known 
 and distinguished characters to persons resembling 
 them in a later age : and there were various points, 
 in which John the Baptist resembled the prophet 
 Elijah. They were alike in courage: they were 
 alike in zeal for the restoration of pure religion : 
 they were alike in the austerity of their manners. 
 Truly therefore might John the Baptist be called 
 another Elijah. And though he was not literally 
 Elijah, though he was Elijah only in a metaphorical 
 sense, yet we have already seen, that the meta- 
 phorical use of single terms does not prevent a whole 
 passage from being a literal prophecy . 
 
 The third example, which is a very important 
 one, is taken from Haggai ii. 6 — 9- ' For th «s 
 < saith the Lord of hosts ; Yet once, it is a little 
 ' while, and I will shake the heavens, and the 
 £ earth, and the sea, and the dry land. And I will 
 
40 
 
 LECTURE XXI. 
 
 i shake all nations, and the Desire of all nations 
 
 * shall come, and I will fill this House with glory, 
 saith the Lord of hosts. The silver is mine, and 
 
 s the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts. The 
 e gJ° r y of this latter bouse shall be greater, than of 
 ' the former, and in this place will I give peace, 
 
 * sai th the Lord of hosts.' It is well known, that 
 the second temple of Jerusalem was in itself far 
 inferior in glory to the first temple, or the temple 
 of Solomon. The greater glory therefore of the 
 second temple could have been no other, than that, 
 which it derived from the advent of the Messiah. 
 The Jews themselves have always understood this 
 passage of the Messiah, though, when the Messiah 
 was come, they refused to acknowledge him, be- 
 cause he did not answer in all respects to the 
 expectations, which they themselves had. formed. 
 But whatever doubts they might have entertained 
 
 ' during the life of our Saviour, whatever expecta- 
 tions they might have formed, while the second 
 temple was still standing, one should have sup- 
 posed, that the destruction of that temple by the 
 - Romans, with the total failure of the attempts, 
 , which have been made to rebuild it, would have 
 convinced the J ews of later ages, that the Messiah, 
 whom they expected, as the glory of the second 
 Temple, could have been no other, than Jesus 
 Christ. There is no longer room for an expectation 
 
LECTURE XXI. 4 7 
 
 of the Messiah : there is no possibility of a future 
 Messiah being the glory of the second Temple. For 
 the second Temple is destroyed, and destroyed as 
 the true Messiah predicted. 
 , .. u •. '. x ' •■ ■* f 
 
 The fourth example is taken from Zech, ix. 9. 
 
 * Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion ; shout, 
 < O daughter of Jerusalem : behold thy King 
 
 * cometh unto thee; he is just, and having salva- 
 ' Hon; lowly and riding upon an ass, and upon a 
 
 * colt, the foal of an ass.' There is no other event 
 in the Jewish history, to which this prophecy can 
 be applied, than to the entrance of our Saviour into 
 Jerusalem : and the Evangelists accordingly apply 
 it to that purpose. It is therefore a plain and literal 
 prophecy of Jesus Christ. For of whom but of 
 Jesus Christ, can it be said, that he is both just 
 and having salvation? Of whom but of Jesus 
 Christ can it be said, that he entered Jerusalem in 
 the manner described, and was at the same time 
 entitled" to the appellation of King f 
 
 The fifth example is taken from Zech. xii. 10. 
 1 I will pour upon the house of David, and upon 
 « the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace 
 
 < and of supplications : and they shall look upon me* 
 
 < whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn 
 * for him^ as one mourneth for his only son, and 
 
 * 
 
48 
 
 LECTURE XXI 
 
 ' shall be in bitterness for him, as one, that is in 
 c bitterness for his first-born.' This passage is 
 quoted by St. John in his account of the crucifixion, 
 and is there represented as prophetic of our Saviour's 
 being pierced with a spear by one of the Roman 
 soldiers. An objection indeed has been made on 
 account of the difference in the personal pronouns ; 
 the words of Zechariah being < They shall look on 
 me, whom they have pierced,' whereas the words 
 quoted by St. John (xix. 37.) are, c They shall 
 look on him, whom they pierced.' But there are 
 Hebrew manuscripts, in which the text of Zechariah 
 agrees with the text of St. John ; and even if there 
 were not, the first person is so frequently exchanged 
 for the third person in quotations, that one cannot 
 allow the exchange in question to form any serious 
 ground of objection. The prophet was hardly 
 speaking of himself; and that he could allude only 
 to our Saviour, appears from a comparison of this 
 prophecy with the corresponding prophecy in 
 Isaiah (liii. 5.) 6 he was wounded for our trans- 
 gressions.' For if the simple fact, that one of the 
 Roman soldiers pierced our Saviour's side, does not 
 of itself determine the prophecy as belonging to 
 our Saviour, the circumstances of the case must 
 confine it to him alone. Here can be no accidental 
 parity of circumstances ; for there is no other per- 
 son, beside our Saviour, to whom the words of the 
 
LECTURE XXI. 4Q 
 
 prophet can be applied. He is assuredly the only 
 one, whose side was pierced for our transgressions : 
 he is assuredly the only one, of whom it can be 
 said, that he bare our sins in his own body on the 
 tree. 
 
 The sixth example is taken from Daniel ii. 44. 
 c And in the days of these kings shall the God of 
 c heaven set up a kingdom, which shall not be 
 i destroyed ; and the kingdom shall not be left to 
 * other people, but it shall break in pieces, and 
 6 shall consume all these kingdoms, and shall stand 
 ' for ever.' 
 
 There is no necessity for dwelling long upon 
 this prophecy. There is only one kingdom, of 
 which we can say, c it shall not be destroyed.' 
 There is only one kingdom, of which we can say, 
 ' it shall stand for ever/ And that kingdom is the 
 kingdom of Christ, 
 
 The seventh example, which is likewise taken 
 from the book of Daniel (vii. 13, 14.) is a similar 
 prophecy of the Messiah, though with considerable 
 amplification. 6 1 saw' (says Daniel) 4 in the night- 
 c visions, and behold one like the Son of Man came 
 c with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient 
 \ of days, and they brought him near before him- 
 
 \ 
 
 ^ * * m- I , '• 'I 
 
50 LECTURE XXI. 
 
 < And there was given him dominion, and glory, 
 ' and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and lan- 
 ' guages should serve him : his dominion is an 
 ' everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, 
 f and his kingdom that, which shall not be de- 
 ' stroyed.' 
 
 That this prophecy was literally and strictly ful- 
 filled in the person of our Saviour, and that it nei- 
 ther has been, nor ever can be, fulfilled in any one 
 else, is so obvious, that explanation is unnecessary. 
 Of no temporal prince can it be said, that all 
 nations and languages shall serve him. Of no 
 human being can it be said, that his dominion is 
 an everlasting dominion. 
 
 The eighth example is the celebrated prophecy 
 of Daniel relating to the seventy weeks. Ch. ix. 
 24 — 27. ' Seventy weeks are determined upon 
 c thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the 
 6 transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to 
 e make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in 
 f everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision 
 i and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 
 6 Know therefore and understand, that from the 
 6 going forth of the commandment, to restore and 
 6 to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince 
 6 shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two 
 
LECTURE XXI. 
 
 51 
 
 ' weeks. The street shall be built again, and the 
 ' wall even in troublous times. And after three- 
 
 * score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but 
 
 * not for himself. And the people of the Prince, 
 ' that shall come, shall destroy the city and the 
 c sanctuary : and the end thereof shall be with a 
 6 flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are 
 ' determined. And he shall confirm the covenant 
 c with many for one week i and in the midst of the 
 ' week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation 
 c to cease ; and for the overspreading of abomina- 
 c tions he shall make it desolate, even until the 
 c consummation, and that determined, shall be 
 c poured upon the desolate.' 
 
 No prophecy has been subjected to greater con- 
 troversy, than this : and the modes of computing 
 the chronological parts of it are almost as various 
 as the interpreters are numerous. An examination 
 of the various opinions, which have been entertained 
 on this very difficult subject, cannot now be at- 
 tempted, as it would require a dissertation of itself: 
 nor is it necessary for our present purpose. From 
 whatever event we date the computation, or in 
 whatever manner we explain the threescore and 
 two weeks, after which Messiah shall be cut of£ 
 the description of the thing itself so accords with 
 the circumstances of our Saviour s death, that we 
 
 d 2 
 
52 LECTURE XXI. 
 
 cannot apply it to any one else. He was cut off, 
 but not for himself. And before the seven weeks, 
 which were added to the threescore and two weeks, 
 had likewise elapsed, that is, before seven times 
 seven years had elapsed after the time when 
 Messiah was cut off, the people of the prince, that 
 should come, that is, the Romans under the com- 
 mand of Titus, destroyed the city and the sanc- 
 tuary. And that the prophecy of Daniel was accom- 
 plished according to its strict, literal, and primary 
 sense, is evident from the definition of time, with 
 which it is accompanied. A prophecy, in which 
 the period of its accomplishment is determined, is 
 incapable of a two-fold application. 
 
 v • % 
 
 The ninth example is taken from the prophet 
 Micah, ch. v. 2. ' But thou Bethlehem Ephra- 
 c tah, though thou be little among the thousands 
 6 of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth 
 6 unto me, that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings 
 c forth have been of old from everlasting.' Nothing 
 can be clearer, than that this prophecy was strictly 
 and literally fulfilled in the person of our Saviour. 
 No one ever doubted that our Saviour was born at 
 Bethlehem, a town near Jerusalem, a town belong- 
 ing to the tribe of Judah, and anciently called 
 Ephrath or Ephrata, which name the prophet 
 Micah retains, in order to distinguish the Bethle- 
 
LECTURE XXI. 53 
 
 hem of Judah from another Bethlehem in the 
 north of Palestine. That Bethlehem of Judah, 
 though formerly a place of some importance, was 
 little better than a village at the time of our 
 Saviour's birth, is a fact universally known. That 
 our Saviour was a ruler in Israel, appears from the 
 tenor of his whole life. And he is unquestionably 
 the only one, who ever appeared in the form of 
 man, of whom we declare, that his goings forth 
 were e from everlasting? 
 
 The tenth example is taken from the prophet 
 Habakkuk, (ii. 3, 4.) : and the eleventh from the 
 prophet Amos (ix. 11, 12.) But as the application 
 of these two prophecies to the Messiah is less 
 obvious, than that of the other examples, let us 
 proceed to the twelfth and last example, which is 
 the most important of all. 
 
 This example is taken from the fifty-third 
 chapter of Isaiah, and properly begins at the third 
 verse. ( He is despised and rejected of men ; a 
 4 man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And 
 i we hid as it were our faces from him : he was 
 ' despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he 
 c hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows : 
 e yet did we esteem him stricken, smitten of God 
 e and afflicted. But he was wounded for our trans- 
 
 4 
 
54 
 
 LECTURE XXI. 
 
 c gressions ; he was bruised for our iniquities. The 
 ' chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and 
 s with his stripes we are healed. All we, like sheep, 
 c have gone astray : we have turned every one to 
 ' his own way ; and the Lord hath laid on Him 
 6 the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he 
 f was afflicted ; yet he opened not his mouth. He 
 f. is brought, as a lamb to the slaughter : and, as a 
 € sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth 
 ' not his mouth. He was taken from prison and 
 e from judgment ; and who shall declare his genera- 
 * tion ? For he was cut out of the land of the 
 ' living : for the transgression of my people was he 
 c stricken. And he made his grave with the 
 £ wicked, and with the rich in his death, because he 
 f had done no violence, neither was any deceit in 
 ' his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise 
 ' him ; he hath put him to grief. When thou 
 ' shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall 
 f see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the 
 f pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand, 
 f He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be 
 ' satisfied. By his knowledge shall my righteous 
 c servant justify many : for he shall bear their ini- 
 ' quities. Therefore will I divide him a portion 
 ' with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with 
 c the strong : because he hath poured out his soul 
 ' unto death, and he was numbered with the trans- 
 
LECTURE XXI. 55 
 
 c gressors, and he bare the sin of many, and made 
 * intercession for the transgressors.' 
 
 In the chapter of Isaiah, which has been just 
 quoted, we have a plain and literal description of 
 our Saviour s sufferings, death, and burial : indeed 
 no less plain and literal, than any historical narra- 
 tive could be, which was written after the events 
 themselves had taken place. And that this literal 
 description is really literal prophecy, is a matter, 
 which cannot be questioned. The only way to 
 prove, that it is history, and not prophecy, would 
 be to prove the whole chapter an interpolation in 
 the book of Isaiah. Now one should hardly sup- 
 pose, that it was interpolated by the Jews, to whom 
 it is a serious obstacle. But if it is an interpolation, 
 the Jews alone could have been the authors of it. 
 Had it been interpolated by Christians, it would 
 never have been admitted by the Jews into their 
 copies of the Hebrew Bible. Yet it has been 
 universally admitted : for not a single Hebrew ma- 
 nuscript was ever discovered without this Chapter. • 
 If the Jews however did interpolate this Chapter, 
 we cannot possibly suppose, that the interpolation 
 was subsequent to the death of Christ. They would 
 surely not have been so absurd as to fabricate evi- 
 dence against themselves, though their veneration 
 for the sacred oracles prevented them from 
 
50 
 
 LECTURE XXI. 
 
 expunging what already existed there. If therefore 
 the Chapter is an interpolation at all, it must have 
 been interpolated before the events, described in it, 
 had taken place. But if the Chapter was written 
 before the events, described in it, had taken place, 
 it is still an example of literal prophecy, whether 
 it proceeded from Isaiah, or proceeded from some 
 other prophet. And it is immaterial whether we 
 call the writer of this prophecy by the name of 
 Isaiah, or call him by any other name. But in fact 
 there is no more reason to doubt the authenticity 
 of this Chapter, than of any other in the whole 
 book. Nor have the Jews themselves, when pressed 
 with this prophecy, though they acknowledge the 
 difficulties to which it exposes them, ever attempted 
 to made those difficulties by pretending that Isaiah 
 was not the author of it. 
 
 Now there is no person in the whole of the 
 Jewish history, from the time of Isaiah to the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem, to whom this prophecy is 
 applicable, except to our Saviour : and to Him it 
 is applicable in every point. Of whom but of our 
 Saviour can it be said, that he hath borne our 
 griefs, and carried our sorrows ? Of whom, but of 
 our Saviour can it be said, that he was wounded 
 for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniqui- 
 ties ? Of whom else could it be said, that he was 
 
LECTURE XXI. 57 
 
 stricken for the transgression of his people, and that 
 his soul was art offering for sin f In fact that single 
 sentence, ? he was numbered with the transgressors, 
 he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for 
 the transgressors,' is the sum and substance of the 
 history, which the Evangelists have given of our 
 Saviour's passion. An objection indeed has been 
 made to that part of the prophecy, where it is said, 
 c he made his grave with the wicked, and with the 
 rich in his death.' For though our Saviour died 
 with the wicked, he did , not make his grave with 
 the wicked : nor was he literally buried with the 
 rich. But the objection does not affect the Hebrew 
 original i it affects only our English translation. 
 Bishop Lowth has more correctly rendered the pas- 
 sage in the following manner : I His grave was 
 appointed with the wicked ; but with the rich man 
 was his tomb.' This translation removes the first 
 difficulty, but not altogether the second. The most 
 accurate translation is the Latin translation of Pro- 
 fessor Dathe : f Destinatum quidem ei erat sepul- 
 chrum cum impiis, sed in morte sua divitibus 
 similis fuit.' This translation perfectly accords with 
 the circumstances of our Saviour's death and burial. 
 In consequence of being crucified in company with 
 malefactors, he was so far destined to have also his 
 grave with them ; for, according to the common 
 course of things, he would, after being crucified 
 
58 
 
 LECTURE XXI. 
 
 with them, have been also buried with them. On 
 the other hand, though he was not buried with the 
 rich, being laid in a sepulchre where no one had 
 lain before, yet he was buried after the manner of 
 the rich, being laid in a tomb, which a man of the 
 highest rank among the Jews had prepared for his 
 own family. Thus we see, that every part of this 
 remarkable prophecy was strictly and literally ful- 
 filled in the person of our Saviour. 
 
 To the examples already quoted from Bishop 
 Chandler's Defence of Christianity, might be added 
 other prophecies, which literally apply to our 
 Saviour, and to no one else. But it will be suf- 
 ficient to add one more example, which is an ex- 
 ample of great importance. In the ninth Chapter 
 of Isaiah, says the prophet ; 6 Unto us a Child is 
 c born, unto us a Son is given ; and the government 
 t shall be upon his shoulder ; and his name shall be 
 < Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The 
 « everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the 
 ' increase of his government and peace there shall 
 6 be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon 
 6 his kingdom to order it, and to establish it with 
 c judgement and with justice, from henceforth even 
 e for ever." Here we have a description, which is 
 quite inapplicable to any temporal prince. What- 
 ever allowances be granted for oriental hyperbole; 
 
LECTURE XXI. 5Q 
 
 whatever deductions be made on this account from 
 the grandeur of this description, there is one part at 
 least, which must be taken literally. When Isaiah 
 declared, that of his government there should be 
 no end, the expression is too precise, to admit any 
 latitude of interpretation. This part therefore 
 must be interpreted literally. But of what tem- 
 poral Prince can we say, that his government has 
 no end f There are also other reasons, which pre- 
 vent its application to any temporal Prince among 
 the Jews. The prophecy was delivered in the 
 reign of Hezekiah, to whom indeed a son was 
 born ; but a son, who was neither Counsellor, nor 
 Wonderful, nor the Prince of Peace. For 6 Ma- 
 * nasseh made Judah and the inhabitants of Jem- 
 i salem to err, and to do worse than the heathen, 
 ' whom the Lord had destroyed before the children 
 'of Israel.' (2 Chron. xxxiii. 9.) And his govern- 
 ment had not only an end, but a melancholy end : 
 for the King of Assyria 6 bound him with fetters, 
 and carried him captive to Babylon.' Nor did 
 many years elapse, before Jerusalem itself was 
 levelled with the ground. And if we examine the 
 later period of the Jewish history, if we endeavour 
 to find in this sublime passage a description, either 
 of Judas Maccabaeus, or of Simon, or of Hyrcanus, 
 or of any other prince of the Asmonsean race, the 
 prophecy is again inapplicable. For those princes 
 
6o 
 
 LECTURE XXI. 
 
 were not of the house of David i and to the house 
 of David was that prophecy restricted. It applies 
 therefore to the person of the Messiah, and of the 
 Messiah alone. 
 
 The examples, which have been quoted in this 
 Lecture, afford sufficient proof, that the Hebrew 
 prophets have strictly and literally foretold the 
 coming of Christ. How far, and in what respect, 
 they have foretold his coming in a secondary sense, 
 shall be the subject of inquiry in the next Lecture. 
 
3LECTURE XXII, 
 
 The examples, which were quoted in tlfc pre- 
 ceding Lecture, are sufficient to shew, that, if 
 agreeably to our Saviour's directions, we search the 
 Scriptures of the Old Testament for passages, 
 which testify of Him, our researches will not be 
 fruitless. For the examples, quoted in that Lec- 
 ture are prophecies, which testify of Christ, 
 according to their plain and literal meaning. We 
 may now, therefore, without anxiety, inquire into 
 the foundation of that sense, which is sometimes 
 called the remote sense, at other times the mystical 
 sense, at other times the secondary sense, of pro- 
 phecy. For let the result of an inquiry into 
 secondary senses be what it will, the prophecies, 
 which testify of Christ according to their primary 
 sense, are sufficiently numerous, to supply us with 
 arguments for the truth of our religion. 
 
 In conducting the proposed inquiry, we must 
 examine the two following questions. First, we 
 
62 
 
 LECTURE XXII. 
 
 must examine what the difficulties are, which 
 attend the notion of secondary senses in general. 
 And then we must examine, whether, notwith- 
 standing those difficulties, there are not some pro- 
 phecies of the Old Testament, which really have a 
 secondary sense. 
 
 In the first place then, let us consider the 
 difficulties, which attend the notion of secondary 
 senses in general. With respect to single words, 
 there are few, which do not admit of more senses 
 than one : and it frequently happens, that the same 
 word, in different passages, is used in very different 
 senses. But then it must be observed, that in each 
 of these passages, the word has its determinate 
 meaning : and that it is not allowable to exchange 
 at pleasure the sense, which attaches to the word 
 in one case, for the sense, which attaches to it in 
 another. If it were, the words of an author would 
 be understood in a very different sense from that, 
 which he himself affixed to them ; they would not 
 be signs to the reader of what was thought by the 
 author; and the object of his writing would be 
 defeated. 
 
 On the other hand, 'though perspicuity is in 
 general the first duty of an author, there are cases, 
 where the object, which he has in view, can be 
 
LECTURE XXII. 63 
 
 attained only by ambiguity. It may be an author s 
 design to write enigmatically : and this object will 
 be best promoted by the selection of such words, 
 as admit of two different senses in one and the same 
 place. Words so chosen, and so placed, are then 
 designedly used in a double sense. But in such 
 cases, though the words are used in a double sense, 
 and the author's meaning is so far ambiguous, there 
 is in general a limit to the ambiguity. If the 
 author intended nothing more, than a common 
 enigma, it is a thing, which admits of a solution. 
 We may discover, not only what the two senses 
 are, in which the ambiguous term is used, but also 
 in what manner each of those senses, according to 
 the author's design, is to be applied. And even 
 where the author intended to leave the reader, or 
 hearer, entirely in the darJc, with respect to the 
 proper application of the two senses attached to 
 the ambiguous term, it is seldom a question what 
 those Senses are. When, for instance, a heathen 
 oracle was delivered in such ambiguous terms, as to 
 make it accord with a future event, whether that 
 event proved favourable, or unfavourable, to the 
 person, who consulted the oracle, the ambiguity 
 consisted, not in any doubt about the senses them- 
 selves, between which the person had to choose, 
 but in the want of a clue, to determine his choice. 
 
04 LECTURE XXII. 
 
 There is no analogy, therefore, between the 
 ambiguity observable in the two preceding cases, 
 and the double sense of prophecy, as the term is 
 understood, in reference to the sacred writings. 
 When we interpret a prophecy of the Old Testa- 
 ment, which, besides its literal meaning, is sup- 
 posed to contain a mystical meaning, or, in other 
 words, a prophecy, which is supposed to contain, 
 both a 'primary, and a secondary sense, the grand 
 difficulty is to ascertain what that secondary sense 
 really is. We are not in want of a clue, to deter- 
 mine our choice between two senses already known ; 
 but we want a clue, which shall lead us from the 
 knowledge of one sense to a discovery of the other. 
 The primary sense of a Hebrew prophecy is ascer- 
 tained by a grammatical analysis of the Hebrew 
 words. But no such grammatical analysis will 
 assist ug, in discovering the secondary sense of a 
 Hebrew prophecy. Indeed most writers, who treat 
 of secondary senses, contend, that those secondary 
 senses were unknown to the prophets themselves ; 
 and that Divine Providence so ordered it, that the 
 very persons, who committed to writing the words, 
 which were dictated by the Holy Spirit, did not 
 perceive the whole extent of their meaning. But 
 if words, employed in a' Hebrew prophecy, were 
 intended to convey a sense so remote from the 
 tommon acceptation of the words, that even the 
 
LECTURE XXII. 05 
 
 prophet, who wrote the words, did not perceive the 
 sense intended, the same divine authority, which 
 communicated the prophecy, must interpose, to 
 explain the prophecy. For, without such divine 
 interposition, it would be absurd to suppose,' that 
 we could discover the meaning of a prophecy, 
 which the prophet himself 'was unable to discover. 
 If we say, that a prophecy relating to the Mes- 
 siah may be understood by us, though not by the 
 prophet, because we have the advantage of having 
 seen its accomplishment, we argue, though uncon- 
 sciously, from a petitio principii. When it is pre- 
 viously known, that a prophecy does relate to the 
 Messiah, they, who live to see its accomplishment, 
 will undoubtedly have a more comprehensive view 
 of the subject, than they, who lived in a preceding 
 age. But, when the question is in agitation, whe- 
 ther a certain passage of the Old Testament, which, 
 according to its literal meaning, does not apply to 
 the Messiah, has also a mystical meaning, which 
 does so apply, we take for granted the thing to be 
 proved, if we begin by arguing about its accomplish- 
 ment. We must ascertain the existence of the 
 prophecy, before the accomplishment of the pro- 
 phecy can be matter even of inquiry. It is true, 
 that the words, in which a prophecy is delivered, 
 may be of such general import, as not to excite 
 the notion of any one particular event ; but that a 
 
66 LECTURE XXII. 
 
 particular event may happen in a future age, which 
 so accords with the words of the prophecy, as to 
 enable us to perceive a connexion between the words 
 and the event, which was not perceived before the 
 event. And, if a prophecy can be interpreted by 
 no other means than by history, or by the actual 
 arrival of that very event, to which the prophecy 
 relates, the prophecy must in that case he fulfilled, 
 before the prophecy can be understood. But then 
 it must be observed, that throughout the whole of 
 this reasoning the existence of the prophecy is pre- 
 supposed. We set out with the supposition, that 
 a certain passage was originally designed to be pro- 
 ' phetic of some future event : and then comparing a 
 particular event with the description given in that 
 passage, we argue from the similarity between the 
 event and the description, that the one is connected 
 with the other. But in whatever case we must 
 previously examine, whether a passage of the Old 
 Testament really was designed for prophecy, or 
 not ; in other words, wherever the existence of a 
 prophecy must be previously established, something 
 more is requisite for that purpose, than a mere 
 correspondence between the passage in question, 
 and the event, to which we apply it. 
 
 Now, if we consider the peculiar character of 
 prophecy in a secondary sense, we shall find that 
 
 ■ i 
 
LECTURE XXII. 6? 
 
 the existence of every such prophecy must be 
 established, before we can begin to argue about its 
 accomplishment. And to conduct such a proof is 
 not quite so easy, as many writers have imagined. 
 In this respect, there is a material difference be- 
 tween prophecy in a primary sense, and prophecy 
 in a secondary sense. The primary sense of a 
 prophecy is the literal sense of the passage^ by 
 which the prophecy is conveyed. And this sense 
 we obtain by a grammatical analysis of the words. 
 But when we attempt to discover a secondary 
 sense, we attempt to go further, than the words 
 will carry us. Beside the plain and primary sense, 
 which the words of the prophecy do convey, we 
 seek for some remote, or mystical sense, which the 
 words of the prophecy do not convey. Conse- 
 quently we undertake what we ourselves have not 
 the means of performing. 
 
 It is true, that many writers have endeavoured 
 to shew the practicability of the attempt by com- 
 paring the double sense of prophecy with the double 
 sense of allegory. Every allegory has two senses ; 
 one of which is a literal sense, the other an 
 allegorical sense. And a knowledge of the first 
 sense leads us to a discovery of the second sense. 
 Why therefore (it is said) may we not ascribe a 
 double sense to prophecy ? And, if a prophecy 
 
 ■ E % 
 
68 LECTURE XXIL 
 
 has a double sense, may we not argue from \hejirst 
 to the second sense, in the same manner, as we 
 argue from the first to the second sense in allegory? 
 This is the common argument in favour of that 
 system, which provides a double meaning for the 
 prophecies of the Old Testament, the one relating 
 to the Jewish, the other to the Christian dispensa- 
 tion. But the argument, though very specious, 
 and employed by very eminent writers, will appear 
 on examination to be altogether untenable. It is 
 founded on a supposed analogy between the double 
 sense of prophecy, and the double sense of allegory; 
 whereas, the two things, instead of being analogous, 
 are totally dissimilar. When we interpret a //ro- 
 phecy, to which a double meaning is ascribed, the 
 one relating to the Jewish, the other to the Christian 
 dispensation, we are in either case concerned with 
 an interpretation of words. For the same words, 
 which, according to one interpretation, are applied 
 to one event, are, according to another interpreta- 
 tion, applied to another event. But, in the inter- 
 pretation of an allegory, we are concerned only in 
 the first instance with an interpretation of words : 
 the second sense, which is usually called the 
 allegorical sense, being an interpretation of things, 
 as was fully proved in the Lecture on that subject. 
 An allegory is commonly delivered in the form of 
 a narrative, as in those two incomparable allegories, 
 
LECTURE XXII. 
 
 our Saviour's parable of the sower, and Nathan's 
 parable to David. And the interpretation of the 
 words gives nothing more, than the plain and 
 simple narratives themselves ; whereas the moral of 
 the allegory is learnt by an application of the things, 
 signified by those words, to other things, which 
 resemble them, and which the former were intended 
 to suggest. There is a fundamental difference 
 therefore between the interpretation of an allegory, 
 and the interpretation of a prophecy with a double 
 
 sense. 
 
 If we proceed with the parallel, we shall find 
 other differences, which destroy the analogy alto- 
 gether. In the interpretation of prophecy we are 
 concerned with historic truth : in the interpretation 
 of allegory we are concerned with moral truth. 
 And this difference leads again to a still greater 
 difference. For since the object of allegory is moral 
 truth, the narrative, which conveys the allegory, is 
 commonly fictitious, as in the two examples 
 already quoted. But in the interpretation of pro- 
 phecy, whether we consider the primary, or consider 
 the secondary sense, we are wholly and solely con- 
 cerned with real events. Lastly, in the interpreta- 
 tion of an allegory, we have a clue, which leads us 
 from one sense to the other. Sometimes the 
 allegory is accompanied with an explanation : and 
 
70 LECTURE XXII. 
 
 even where an allegory is left to explain itself, the 
 application of one sense to the other must be easy 
 and obvious, or the object of the allegory will be 
 defeated. If the immediate representation, which 
 is suggested by the words of the allegory, has not a 
 manifest correspondence with the ultimate repre- 
 sentation, or the moral of the allegory, we lose the 
 very thing, which constitutes its worth. In every 
 allegory therefore there is, and must be, a clue, 
 which leads from one sense to the other. But in 
 the interpretation of a prophecy, to which a double 
 meaning is ascribed, we have no clue whatever, 
 which can lead us from the primary to the secondary 
 sense. The primary sense is suggested by the 
 words of the prophecy. But the secondary sense 
 is suggested, neither by the words of the prophecy, 
 nor by the things, which those words signify. It 
 is a hidden, a remote sense ; indeed so hidden, and 
 so remote from the literal sense, that it is supposed 
 to have been unknown even to the prophet, who 
 committed the prophecy to writing. 
 
 Yet, with all these impediments, the system of 
 primary and secondary senses received such an 
 accession of strength from the celebrated author of 
 the Divine Legation, that many subsequent writers 
 have agreed with him in the opinion, that the 
 system, as he explained it, is proof against every 
 
LECTURE XXII. 71 
 
 objection. According to this explanation, the ex- 
 istence of secondary senses in Hebrew prophecy is 
 founded on the supposition of their < logical pro- 
 priety and moral fitness.' The secondary sense of 
 a prophecy is there represented, as having the same 
 relation to the primary sense, which an antitype 
 has to its type. But, if the primary and secondary 
 senses of prophecy are subservient to the same end 
 with types and antitypes, it is inferred, that they 
 rest on the same foundation. As the Jews, for 
 instance, when they sacrificed their paschal lamb, 
 were not aware, that this was a type, prophetic of 
 the sacrifice of Christ, so it is argued, that there 
 might be verbal prophecies of the same event, 
 though the literal meaning of those prophecies no 
 more suggested that event to the Jews, than the 
 type, by which it was prefigured. And the moral 
 jitness, as well of primary and secondary senses on 
 the one hand, as of types and antitypes on the 
 other, is argued on the following ground. The 
 Law being only a preparation for the Gospel, the 
 .Jews were kept in ignorance about the real ten- 
 dency of types, till those types were superseded by 
 the accomplishment of their antitypes : for, if they 
 had previously understood the meaning of those 
 types, they might have neglected the Law, before 
 the fulness of time was come. A fore- knowledge 
 of its intended abolition, a tore-knowledge, that it 
 
72 LECTURE XXII, 
 
 was only a shadow of better things to come, might 
 have induced them to disregard the preparatory 
 Dispensation, even during the period, while it was 
 destined to last. But the same reason, as is further 
 argued, for which the Jews were kept in ignorance 
 about the meaning of types relating to the Messiah, 
 must have operated also in the case of verbal 
 prophecy relating to the Messiah. The same veil 
 of obscurity, which was thrown over the former, 
 is supposed therefore to have been necessarily 
 thrown over the latter, in order to preserve cow- 
 sistency in the several parts of the Jewish Dispen- 
 sation, And to this purpose nothing is supposed 
 to have been better adapted than the use of 
 secondary senses; because these senses are so re- 
 mote from the literal sense, that they occurred not 
 to the prophets themselves. Lastly, to the objec- 
 tion, that secondary or mystical senses may be 
 multiplied without end, while the literal or primary 
 sense of a passage can be only one, it is answered, 
 that, when the system is so explained, the secondary 
 sense has no less its limit, than the primary sense, 
 the one being determined by a reference to the 
 Christian dispensation, as the other is determined 
 by a reference to the Jewish dispensation. 
 
 Such is the sum and substance of that ingenious 
 system, which was proposed by the celebrated 
 
LECTURE XXII. 73 
 
 author of the Divine Legation. But, if we examine 
 it closely, we shall find, that it labours under diffi- 
 culties, which are not easily surmounted. In the 
 first place, the tendency of this system is to destroy 
 entirely the, notion of prophecies, which relate to 
 the coming of Christ according to their literal 
 sense. But we have already seen, not only how 
 important it is to shew the existence of such pro- 
 phecies ; we have further seen, that many such 
 prophecies really do exist. That the tendency of 
 this system is to destroy the notion of literal pro- 
 phecy, appears from the very purport of the 
 system. The logical propriety and moral fitness, 
 which are supposed to have operated in one case, 
 must be supposed to have operated in another. 
 The whole system would be destroyed by the 
 allowance of exceptions. If concealment was the 
 object of secondary senses, that object would be 
 defeated by every prophecy, which foretold the 
 comin<* of Christ in a literal sense. And accord- 
 ingly we find, that the author himself, in his 
 Doctrine of Grace, speaks of the prophecies which 
 relate to the Messiah, as relating to him generally 
 in a secondary sense. But in a part of his Divine 
 Legation he appears so sensible of the importance 
 of literal prophecy, that he allows the existence of 
 some such prophecies, and even argues against 
 Grotius, who denies their existence. At the same 
 
 1 
 
74 LECTURE XXII. 
 
 time, being aware, that prophecies, however few, 
 which predict the coming of Christ according to 
 their 'primary sense, are so many obstacles in the 
 way of a system, which is founded in obscurity, he 
 endeavours to remove those obstacles by saying, 
 that whatever prophecies do relate to the Messiah 
 in their primary sense, are delivered in such figu- 
 rative terms, as to produce the same obscurity, 
 which is produced by secondary senses.. Bu4i this 
 attempt to remove the acknowledged obstacles is 
 by no means satisfactory. For however figurative 
 the use of single words in any passage may be, yet 
 if the passage itself is interpreted literally, as the 
 primary sense requires, we shall still obtain a deter- 
 minate sense. We shall obtain the sense, conveyed 
 by the words of the passage : and the meaning of 
 each Word, whether literal or figurative, will be 
 ascertained by the context. Let the terms there- 
 fore of any passage be as figurative, as the argument 
 may require, yet the primary sense of that passage 
 can never be subject to the same obscurity, which 
 envelops a mystical or secondary sense. It is im- 
 possible, that a sense, which the words of the 
 passage do convey, should be equally concealed 
 from the view of the reader, with a meaning, which 
 the words of the passage do not convey. The 
 system in question therefore is irreconcileable with 
 the notion of prophecies, which predict the coming 
 
LECTURE XXII. 75 
 
 of Christ in a primary sense. And the conse- 
 quences of rejecting that notion are sufficiently 
 apparent from the preceding Lecture. 
 
 Another difficulty, under which the system 
 labours is this ; that the existence of a thing is 
 argued from the supposed propriety of the thing. 
 But there are hundreds of things, of which we 
 might plausibly shew, that they would properly 
 have taken place, not one of which ever has taken 
 place. Even therefore if it be granted, that a 
 passage of the Old Testament, which literally relates 
 to one event, has a moral fitness for relation to 
 another event, that moral fitness will not establish 
 the existence of such relation. But let the inference 
 be allowed, and the existence of the secondary sense 
 admitted, it will still be of no use to us, unless we 
 have the means of discovering that sense. And 
 how shall we discover that sense by the logical 
 propriety or moral fitness, which we ascribe to it ? 
 These are qualities, which attach to so many things, 
 that they can never lead to the discovery of any 
 one thing. If we say, that the secondary sense is 
 determined by a reference to the Christian Dispen- 
 sation, there are again so many objects of reference 
 in the Christian Dispensation, that we shall be still 
 at a loss for the particular application. In the 
 application of secondary senses we are concerned, 
 
» 
 
 76 LECTURE XXII. 
 
 not with the comparison of some event with a sense 
 already known, but w ith the comparison of some 
 event with a sense, which is to be discovered, and 
 discovered by its relation to that event. Conse- 
 quently, if different interpreters select different 
 events for the objects of comparison, as they un- 
 doubtedly will, unless they abide by some common 
 authority, they may agree in the opinion^ that a 
 passage of the Old Testament has a secondary 
 sense, but they will differ in opinion with respect 
 to the question, what that secondary sense really is. 
 
 After all then, it appears that there is no system 
 whatever, by which we can either establish the 
 existence of secondary senses, or by which, on the 
 supposition of their existence, we can discover their 
 real meaning. We must be contented, therefore, 
 as at the beginning of the preceding Lecture, to 
 resolve the question of secondary senses, into a 
 question of authority. In whatever case a passage 
 of the Old Testament, which according to its strict 
 and literal sense, relates to some earlier event in the 
 Jewish history, is yet applied, either by Christ, 
 or by an Apostle of Christ, to what happened in 
 their days ; and moreover, is so applied, as to indi- 
 cate, that the passage is prophetic ; of such passage 
 
I 
 
 LECTURE XXII. 77 
 
 we must conclude on their authority, that beside 
 its plain and primary sense, it has also a remote or 
 secondary sense. The difficulties, which no human 
 system can remove, are in such cases removed by 
 Divine Power ; the discoveries, which human rea- 
 son attempts in vain, are there unfolded by divine 
 intelligence ; and the same divine authority, which 
 communicated the prophecy, interposes to explain 
 the prophecy. Though we ourselves are unable to 
 discover any other meaning in a Hebrew prophecy, 
 than that which the words themselves convey by 
 their own proper import; yet, when we have such 
 authority for the opinion, that beside the plain Or 
 primary sense, which the words convey to us, they 
 have also a remote or hidden sense, which the 
 . words do' not convey to us, it would be presump- 
 tuous to question the existence of that sense, by 
 opposing the result of our own researches to the 
 decisions of unerring wisdom. 
 
 Notwithstanding the difficulties therefore, which 
 attend the notion of secondary senses in general, 
 we must allow, that there are some passages of the 
 Old Testament, which really have a secondary 
 sense. But, since in every instance, where a pas- 
 sage of the Old Testament has a secondary sense, 
 the existence of that secondary sense depends 
 entirely on the divine auth6rity,'which has ascribed 
 
78 LECTURE XXII. 
 
 it to the passage, we must wholly confine the appli- 
 cation of a secondary sense to those particular 
 passages, to which a secondary sense has been 
 ascribed by divine authority. There is no supposed 
 logical propriety, no supposed moral fitness, which 
 can either establish the existence, or lead to the 
 discovery, of such senses. It is authority, and au- 
 thority alone ; though we may fairly presume from 
 the very exercise of such authority, that in every 
 instance where a secondary sense is applied by such 
 authority, there is a moral fitness for the applica- 
 tion. But then the application does not depend on 
 such moral fitness : it depends on the authority 
 itself And since this authority is confined to 
 individual cases, the doctrine of secondary senses 
 is reducible to no system. As in the relation of 
 types to antitypes we cannot go beyond those par- 
 ticular examples, which are ratified by divine au- 
 thority, so in every instance the same divine 
 authority must be produced, before we can recog- 
 nise, in a prophecy of the Old Testament, both a 
 primary and a secondary sense. 
 
 Indeed, if we once transgress the limit prescribed 
 by this authority, it will be difficult to find any 
 limit to the introduction of secondary senses. For 
 since the secondary sense of a passage is a sense, 
 which the words do Hot convey of themselves, it is 
 
LECTURE XXII. 79 
 
 manifest that/ as soon as we begin to trust in our 
 own interpretation, we shall interpret without rule 
 or guide. Though no passage can have more than 
 owe grammatical meaning, yet, as soon as we begin 
 to indulge ourselves in the invention of mystical 
 meanings, it is impossible to say, where we shall 
 stop. We shall come at length to that wantonness 
 of interpretation, which is displayed by most of the 
 Jewish Commentators, and by many among the 
 Christian Fathers. We have already seen, that 
 there is no analogy between the interpretation of 
 prophecy and the interpretation of allegory, unless 
 indeed it should s§ happen that an allegory was 
 meant to be 'prophetic, which however is not its 
 usual character. But such was the fondness for 
 allegorical interpretation, that instead of confining 
 it to allegory itself, both Jewish and Christian 
 Commentators have extended it to history and 
 prophecy, where it is wholly inapplicable. When 
 allegorical interpretation is employed where it pro- 
 perly belongs, namely, in the interpretation of a 
 real allegory, there is always a connexion between 
 the literal and the allegorical sense. There is 
 always a clue, which leads us from one sense to the 
 other. But if we endeavour to find an allegorical 
 sense, eitjier in history or in prophecy, we endea- 
 vour to find a sense, with which the literal sense is 
 wholly unconnected. The sense therefore will be 
 
SO LECTURE XXir. 
 
 supplied by mere imagination : and not only will 
 different interpreters invent different senses, but 
 even the same interpreter may invent as many as 
 he pleases. Indeed there have been Jewish Com- 
 mentators, who have boasted, that they could 
 discover seventy Midrashim, or mystical meanings 
 in one sentence. Some limit therefore is absolutely 
 necessary: and enough has been already said to 
 shew, that the only limit, in which we can confide, 
 is the limit assigned by the authority of Christ and 
 His Apostles, 
 
 This appeal to authority, as the foundation of 
 secondary senses, is consistent also with the plan, 
 which is adopted in these Lectures. For it has 
 been already shewn, that there are prophecies, 
 which foretel the coming of Christ, according to 
 their literal and primary sense. By these prophe- 
 cies, united with the argument from miracles, we 
 establish the divine authority of Christ and his 
 Apostles, independently of secondary senses. When 
 we appeal therefore to their authority in proof of 
 secondary senses, we are not liable to the charge 
 of arguing in a circle. Such a charge applies only 
 to those, who, while they undertake to prove the 
 truth of our religion from .prophecy, yet argue only 
 on the supposition of secondary senses. For, as the 
 existence of secondary senses depends on the au- 
 
LECTURE XXII. 81 
 
 thority of Christ and his Apostles, we cannot argue 
 from those senses to the truth of our religion with- 
 out taking for granted the thing to be proved. But, 
 on the other hand, though we cannot apply them 
 to that particular purpose, there are other purposes, 
 to which they may be applied. For though they 
 prove nothing hy themselves, yet when combined 
 with those prophecies, which relate to the Messiah 
 in their primary sense, they serve at least to illus- 
 trate that unity of design, which connects the 
 Jewish with the Christian Dispensation. 
 
 If we further undertake to examine, what par- 
 ticular passages of the New Testament afford 
 examples of prophecy applied in a secondary sense, 
 we shall find it to be a question, in which there 
 ever has been, and probably ever will be a diversity 
 of opinion. For not only are commentators at 
 variance on the question, what are literal prophe- 
 cies of our Saviour, and what are not, but even they 
 who are agreed on this previous question, are still 
 at variance as to the question, what appellation 
 shall be given to those passages, which are applied 
 to the period of our Saviour's ministry, and yet 
 literally belong to another period. That there are 
 such passages we cannot doubt: and we may 
 allege, as an instance, that passage in the thirty-first 
 Chapter of Jeremiah, which is applied to the 
 
82 LECTURE XXII. 
 
 massacre of the children at Bethlehem. The words 
 of Jeremiah are, c A voice was heard in Ramah, 
 ( lamentation, and bitter weeping : Rahel weep- 
 * ing for her children, refused to be comforted for 
 e her children, because they were not. Thus 
 ' saith the Lord^ Refrain thy voice from weeping, 
 6 and thine eyes from tears : for thy work shall be 
 ' rewarded saith the Lord, and they shall come 
 ' again from the land of the enemy.' This passage 
 evidently relates to the carrying away of the Jews 
 into captivity, and their future return. For it 
 appears from the fortieth Chapter of Jeremiah, that 
 Ramah was the place, to which Nebuzaradan, the 
 captain of Nebuchadnezzar's guard, first brought 
 his captives from Jerusalem. According to its 
 literal meaning therefore it is obviously a prophecy 
 of a totally different event from the massacre of the 
 children in Bethlehem by order of Herod. Nor 
 do we perceive how it can be a prophecy of this 
 event even in a secondary sense. For not only 
 were Ramah and Bethlehem two distinct places, 
 the one lying as far to the north as the other to the 
 south of Jerusalem, but the consolation, afforded to 
 Rahel, that her children should come again, was a> 
 consolation, which could not be afforded to the 
 mothers of the murdered children in Bethlehem. 
 A comparison therefore of the sorrow, expressed in 
 the one case 3 with the sorrow, which was felt in the 
 
LECTURE XXII. 83 
 
 other, appears at least to constitute the sole ground 
 of application. Such applications of passages in 
 the Old Testament to events recorded in the New, 
 various writers, for instance Bishop Kidder in his 
 Demonstration of the Messias, and Dr. Nicholls in 
 his Conference with a Theist, have called by the 
 name of accommodation. But other writers have 
 asserted that even such passages are prophecies, at 
 least in a secondary sense, of the event, to which 
 they are applied. The very passage, which we 
 have been just considering, is introduced with the 
 words, 6 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken 
 by Jeremy the prophet.' Hence it has been 
 inferred, that St. Matthew, who quoted the passage, 
 regarded it as a prophecy at least in some sense, 
 since the use of the term f fulfilled' implies a pre- 
 diction of that event, in which it was fulfilled. 
 And if in the opinion of an inspired Apostle any 
 passage of the Old Testament was a prediction of 
 that event to which he himself applied it, we must 
 conclude, that such passage really was a prediction of 
 that event, though we ourselves could not have 
 discovered it. To diminish however the difficul- 
 ties, which we should still feel on such occasions, 
 a distinction has been made by some Commentators, 
 especially by Professor Da the in the Notes to his 
 Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible, between 
 quotations introduced with the formula, 6 Then 
 
 iii' '. . > ttv * y * 1 
 
 i 
 
84 LECTURE XXII. 
 
 was fulfilled/ and quotations introduced with the 
 formula, ' This was done that it might he fulfilled.' 
 Though quotations therefore of the latter kind are 
 quotations of prophecies, relating either in a primary 
 or in a secondary sense, to those very events, to 
 which they are applied, quotations of the former 
 kind are supposed to have been intended for 
 nothing more, than what is called an accommoda- 
 tion, or an application of a passage to a correspond- 
 ing event. And this distinction has really a founda- 
 tion in the practice of the Jews themselves. For 
 Surenhusius in his third Thesis De jbrmulis alle- 
 gandi, has quoted Rabbinical expressions corres- 
 ponding to the expressions of the New Testament, 
 e Then was fulfilled/ and * this was done that it 
 might be fulfilled/ And it appears, that the latter 
 expression only was used with passages, which were 
 quoted by way of argument, or proof. But if the 
 term accommodation be applied, as it is by some 
 writers, to passages of the Old Testament, which 
 are quoted in the New Testament with the strong 
 expression, c this was done that it might be ful- 
 filled/ the use of it in such cases is neither war- 
 ranted by the practice of the Jewish writers, nor 
 can be consonant with the design of the sacred 
 writers themselves. Passages so introduced must 
 be regarded as real prophecies, at least in a se- 
 condary, if not in a primary sense. To use there- 
 
LECTURE XXII. 85 
 
 fore the term accommodation for the passages in 
 «meraL which are taken from the Old Testament, 
 and applied to the events of the New, is to carry 
 the principle of accommodation to an extent, which 
 it will not bear. Nor can the term ' secondary 
 sense' be applied in that general manner : for there 
 are certainly prophecies in the Old Testament, 
 which relate to the Messiah in a primary sense. 
 Indeed, if all the passages, which are quoted as 
 prophecies in the New Testament, were mere ac- 
 commodations, they would cease to be prophecies 
 altogether. They would not be prophecies even in 
 name. And though passages, which are prophetic 
 in a secondary sense, are still prophecies, yet if all 
 the prophecies relating to the Messiah predicted 
 the coming of Christ in a mere mystical or se- 
 condary sense, we should not have that sure word 
 of prophecy, which both our Saviour and his 
 Apostles have taught us to expect. 
 
 Let us now recapitulate, and place in one 
 point of view, the preceding inquiries into the 
 prophecies relating to the Messiah. Many of 
 these prophecies relate to him according to their 
 literal and primary sense. From these prophecies, 
 in conjunction with miracles, we can argue to the 
 divine authority of Christ and his Apostles. Their 
 authority being thus established, we can appeal to 
 
80 
 
 LECTURE XXII. 
 
 that authority, as evidence, that any passage of the 
 Old Testament, literally relating to some event 
 under the Jewish dispensation, but quoted by them 
 as a prophecy of some event under the Christian 
 dispensation, is a prophecy of that event in a 
 secondary sense. But as not all the passages of the 
 Old Testament, which literally relate to events 
 under the Jewish dispensation, are in their appli- 
 cation to events under the Christian dispensation 
 applied in the same manner, we must endeavour to 
 distinguish the cases, in which the Sacred Writers 
 themselves intended to give examples of prophecy, 
 from the cases, in which they meant only to quote 
 for the purpose of similitude or illustration. In 
 the former, we have examples of prophecy in a 
 secondary sense : in the latter alone, we have 
 examples of accommodation. 
 
 END OF PART IV 
 
» 
 
 \ 
 
 ■ 
 
A 
 
 COURSE OF LECTURES. 
 
 Part V. 
 
COURSE OF LECTURES, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 A DESCRIPTION AND SYSTEMATIC ARRANGEMENT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SEVERAL BRANCHES OF DIVINITY : 
 
 ACCOMPANIED WITH 
 
 AN ACCOUNT BOTH OF THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORS, 
 AND OF THE PROGRESS, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AT 
 DIFFERENT PERIODS, 
 
 IN 
 
 BY 
 
 HERBERT MARSH, D. D. F.R.S. & F. A. S. 
 
 LORD BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH, 
 AND MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 
 
 PART V. 
 
 On the Authenticity of the New Testament. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: 
 
 Printed by J. Smith, Printer to the University; 
 AND SOLD BY DEIGHTONS, NICHOLSONS, AND BARRETT, CAMBRIDGE. 
 AND F. C. & J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
 
 1820 
 
[Entered at Stationers' Hall.'] 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE XXIII. 
 
 Page 
 
 The third Branch of Divinity, according to the 
 system adopted in these Lectures, relates to the 
 Authenticity and Credibility of the Bible. Defi- 
 nition of these terms. Reasons for making the 
 two subjects, though distinct in themselves, to con- 
 stitute only one branch of Divinity. Authenticity 
 must be first considered. The Authenticity of the 
 New Testament, the subject of the present, and 
 three following Lectures. Influence of this inquiry 
 of the Divine Origin of Christianity. Authenticity 
 of the New Testament to be proved, both by exter- 
 nal, and by internal evidence. The external evi- 
 dence for the Authenticity of the New Testament 
 to be examined, before the internal. The several 
 parts of which external evidence consists, usually 
 arranged in chronological order. Difficulties at- 
 tending this arrangement in regard to the New 
 Testament : and the author s reasons for inverting 
 the usual order. 1 
 
iv 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 Page 
 
 Testimony of the principal Greek and Latin Fathers 
 to the Authenticity of the New Testament, begin- 
 ning with the end of the fourth century, and 
 ascending to the age, which was next to the 
 Apostolic. The Fathers, whose testimony is here 
 produced, are, Jerom, Gregory of Nazianzum, 
 Epiphanius, Athanasius, Fusebius, Origen, Ter- 
 tullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenceus, . . 20 
 
 LECTURE XXV. 
 
 Residt of the inquiries instituted in the preceding 
 Lecture. Another view may be taken of the sub- 
 ject, in which it will appear, that we , may obtain 
 a result, which is still more decisive. This result 
 is obtained by arguing from the statement of Eu- 
 sebius, respecting those books of the New Testament, 
 which had been universally received. The argu- 
 ment applied to the Epistles of St. Paul. The 
 same argument applied to the four Gospels, the 
 Acts of the Apostles, and the other books, which 
 had been universally received. Of the books, which 
 had not been universally received. Each of these 
 books considered separately : and their authenticity 
 confirmed by arguments specially applying to them. 
 Of the Apostolic Fathers, and the proper mode of 
 applying their testimony to the authenticity of the 
 New Testament. Testimony of Papias. Remarks 
 on Justin Martyr. Conclusion to be drawn from 
 the external evidence in favour of the New Testa- 
 ment . . . . , */, r t , 44 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE XXVI. 
 
 Pa 
 
 s the internal evidence in favour of the New Tes- 
 tament. The first question to be asked ts, whether 
 internal evidence agrees with the external. Import- 
 ance of this agreement : and of the evil consequences, 
 which follow from their disagreement. Exact 
 agreement between the external and internal 
 evidence for the Neiv Testament. Various degrees 
 of internal evidence. It may not only be applied 
 in confirmation of external evidence ; but with 
 respect to the New Testament it is of that 
 description, which affords a proof of authenticity 
 independently of external evidence. Illustration 
 of this proof. Knowledge displayed in the 
 historical books of the New Testament, respecting 
 the several relations, which the Jews in the time 
 of our Saviour bore, as well to each other as to 
 foreign nations, is such, as no writer could have 
 possessed, ivho was not contemporary with the 
 events described. The agreement ivith dates, 
 both of time and of place, and indeed the 
 general agreement ivith co-existent things and 
 circumstances, is such, as cannot be found in any 
 spurious production. Explanation of the differ- 
 ence between artificial and undesigned coincidences: 
 and of the manner, in which coincidences of the 
 latter kind operate as arguments for authenticity. 
 Examples of such coincidence from the Gospels, 
 and the Acts of the Apostles. The authenticity 
 of the Epistles of St. Paul may be established in 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 a similar manner. Proof of authenticity, appli- 
 cable to the Neiu Testament in general, deduced 
 from the peculiar Greek dialect, in which the 
 several books are composed. Further proof from 
 the style, the manner, and the character of the 
 several writers. All these internal marks of 
 authenticity, combined with the external evidence, 
 are decisive in favour of the New Testament 69 
 
LECTURE XXIII* 
 
 The system of Theology adopted in these Leo 
 tures consists of seven branches ; namely,, the 
 Criticism of the Bible., the Interpretation of the 
 Bible, the Authenticity and Credibility of the 
 Bible, the Divine Authority of the Bible, the In- 
 spiration of the Bible, the Doctrines of the Bible, 
 and the History of those Doctrines with Ecclesi- 
 astical History in general. 
 
 The two first Branches, having been already 
 considered, we now enter on the third Branch, 
 which relates to the Authenticity and Credibility 
 of the Bible. And it is hardly possible, that these 
 important questions should be examined at a 
 period more seasonable than the present, when 
 every effort has been made to shake the fabric of 
 Christianity to its very basis. If it could be 
 proved, that the Bible were not authentic, the 
 foundation itself would be destroyed, on which 
 we build our faith in this life, and our hopes of 
 
 A 
 
1 
 
 LECTURE XXIII 
 
 everlasting* happiness in the life to come. If, for 
 instance, it were true, that the Holy Gospels were 
 not written by the Evangelists to whom they are 
 ascribed, or that the Epistles, which we believe to 
 be St. Paul's, were the fabrications of an impos- 
 tor, who assumed the name of the Apostle, though 
 it would still be an unfair conclusion, that Chris- 
 tianity itself was a fraud (since we cannot argue 
 from the doubtfulness of a record to the falsity of 
 the things recorded), we should yet be destitute 
 of positive proof, and unable to afford the evi- 
 dence required, that our religion was given by 
 divine revelation. It is a matter therefore of the 
 highest importance to establish the authenticity 
 of the sacred writings. And this importance will 
 appear still more conspicuous, when we have 
 shewn, how closely the proof of their authenticity 
 is connected with the proof of their divine autho- 
 rity, or with the evidences for our Holy Religion. 
 
 But before we enter on this proof, it is neces- 
 sary to give a definition of the term ** Authentic* 
 For as the term is used by different writers in dif- 
 ferent senses, it is impossible that any one should 
 argue with perspicuity on this subject, unless he 
 previously explains what 'he himself understands 
 by it. Some writers use the term c authentic' in 
 so extensive a sense, as to make it include both 
 
LECTURE XXIII. 
 
 3 
 
 the question of authorship, and the question of 
 fidelity and truth. In this acceptation of the term, 
 a book, though genuine if written by the person 
 to whom it is ascribed, is not authentic, unless the 
 accounts, which it contains are worthy of credit. 
 With this distinction between the terms 'au- 
 thentic' and - genuine/ great caution is necessary 
 to prevent confusion in the conduct of the argu- 
 ment. For with this distinction the proof of 
 genuineness is one thing, the proof of authenti- 
 city is another. And though we may often argue 
 from the former to the latter, we cannot always 
 do it. There are many books > both ancient and 
 modern, of which no doubt is entertained in re- 
 gard to the authorship, but of which doubts may 
 be entertained in regard to the question, whether 
 the authors have related what is worthy of credit. 
 But it too frequently happens, that writers who 
 thus distinguish authenticity from genuineness, 
 overlook the distinction in their mode of reason- 
 ing : and the very circumstance, that other 
 writers have used the terms as synonymous, has 
 led them more easily to the conclusion, that when 
 they have conducted the proof of genuineness, 
 they have furnished also a proof of authenticity, 
 even in their sense of the term. It is true, that 
 when the question relates to the sacred writings 
 a proof of the former affords a sure foundation, on 
 
4 
 
 LECTURE XXIII 
 
 which we may establish the truth of the latter. 
 But the inference is not immediate, unless we 
 take for granted, what it is our previous duty 
 to prove. Another inconvenience arising from 
 such an application of the terms e genuine* and 
 e authentic/ is, that, though they are thus dis- 
 tinguished, they do not each for itself denote 
 a separate quality, but are so far alike, that the 
 latter includes the former, while it includes also 
 an additional quality. 
 
 These inconveniences will be avoided, by using 
 the term c authentic* in the confined sense, in which 
 many English, and most foreign writers use it; 
 and by expressing the quality, otherwise included 
 in the term ! authentic/ by a term, which applies 
 to that quality only. In this manner all ambi- 
 guity will be avoided, and the argument may be 
 conducted with precision. Instead therefore of 
 employing the terms c genuineness' and f authen- 
 ticity', I employ the terms ' authenticity* and f cre- 
 dibility 1 ; the former to denote, that a book was 
 written by the author, to whom it is ascribed, the 
 latter to denote, that the contents of the book are 
 justly entitled to our assent. 
 
 There is one more point, on which the use and 
 application of these terms requires explanation. 
 
LECTURE XXHI 
 
 5 
 
 If the term ' authenticity' is taken in a sense, which 
 distinguishes it from that of credibility, why, it 
 may be asked, have both of these subjects been 
 referred to the same branch of Divinity? The 
 answer is, that though they are distinct in them" 
 selves, and each of them requires a separate 
 proof, they are so connected, when the question 
 relates to the sacred writings, that they may justly 
 be considered as parts of the same division, and 
 fprming together only one branch of Divinity. 
 
 The first inquiry must of course be directed to 
 the authenticity of the sacred writings : for till this 
 point has been determined, we cannot enter on 
 the inquiry about their credibility. If they were 
 forgeries, the ground on which we assent to them, 
 would not exist. We must likewise separate the 
 proof of authenticity in reference to the Old Tes- 
 tament, from the proof of authenticity in reference 
 to the New : for the evidence and the arguments, 
 which are applicable to the former, are different 
 from the evidence and the arguments, which are 
 applicable to the latter. The Old Testament, 
 from the priority of its composition, would on that 
 account take precedence of the New. But there 
 are other reasons, which in the present instance 
 make it adviseable to depart from the order of 
 time. For not only is the authenticity of the 
 
6 
 
 LECTURE XXIII. 
 
 New Testament a matter of primary importance 
 to every Christian, but the proof of it may be 
 conducted independently of the Old Testament, 
 whereas the authenticity of the Old Testament 
 derives at least a part of its support from the au- 
 thenticity of the New. The authenticity there- 
 fore of the New Testament shall be the subject 
 of our investigation at the present season. 
 
 In the conduct of this inquiry we must always 
 bear in mind, that we are concerned with a ques- 
 tion, which is purely historical. The inquiry is, 
 whether the books of the New Testament were 
 written in the first century, and by the authors, 
 to whom they are ascribed, or whether (as many 
 have asserted) those books are the fabrications of 
 a later age, and destitute of claim to the author- 
 ship assigned to them. This question must be 
 examined on the same principles, and in the same 
 manner, as we would examine the claims of any 
 other ancient writings. To those, who question 
 the fact, that the Epistles ascribed to St. Paul 
 were written by that Apostle, we must apply the 
 same kind of reasoning, which we would apply to 
 those, who might choose to doubt whether Ci- 
 cero or Pliny were the authors of the Epistles 
 ascribed to them. That the Epistles of St. Paul 
 were written by inspiration, which those of Cicero 
 
LECTURE XXIII. 7 
 
 ■and Pliny were not, makes no difference in the 
 inquiry, which is now before us. We must prove 
 their authenticity, before we can prove their in- 
 spiration. Their authenticity is the ground-work, 
 on which alone we can rest our arguments for in- 
 spiration : till the former question is determined, 
 the latter cannot be entertained. If the Epistles, 
 ascribed to St. Paul, were forgeries in his name, all 
 .claim to inspiration would at once be destroyed. 
 Though it is certain therefore, as will be shewn 
 hereafter, that St. Paul was divinely inspired, we 
 should argue in a circle, if while the question 
 was pending, whether the Epistles ascribed to 
 St. Paul, were written by him or not, we took for 
 granted that they were written by inspiration, and 
 thence inferred that they were authentic. We 
 must be careful in our defences of Christianity to 
 admit no proposition as a link in the chain of our 
 reasoning, if that proposition is itself dependent 
 on the proposition, which we are endeavouring to 
 maintain. We must remember, that such de- 
 fences are conducted, not merely for the purpose 
 of confirming the faith of those who have never 
 doubted, but for the purpose of confuting un- 
 believers. If therefore we at any time betray a 
 flaw in our reasoning, if we are ever guilty of a 
 petitio principii, if we attempt to prove premises 
 by inferences, as well as inferences by premises, 
 
8 
 
 LECTURE XXIII. 
 
 our adversaries will not fail to detect our want of 
 precision, and will argue from the weakness of 
 the defence to the instability of the thing de- 
 fended. Thus the cause of Christianity may be 
 injured by the endeavours, which are made for its 
 support. 
 
 On the other hand, if, when the question 
 relates to authenticity, we consider the sacred 
 writers in the same light, in which we should 
 consider any other writers, we not only lose 
 nothing in the strength of our arguments, but in 
 the end are considerable gainers. If we treat 
 them in the first instance merely as human writ- 
 ers, we do not therefore abandon their claim to 
 be considered as divine. We merely defer the use 
 which we would make of it, and defer it for the 
 purpose of rendering the future use of it more 
 secure. 
 
 That the proof of authenticity, conducted on 
 these principles, will produce all the advantages, 
 which we can desire to obtain, may be shewn by 
 a single example. In the second chapter of the 
 first Epistle to the Corinthians, the author of it 
 writes as follows (ver.4.),, "My speech and my 
 " preaching was not with the enticing words of 
 u mm> * wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit 
 
LECTURE XXIII 
 
 9 
 
 <f and of power/' And in what manner he af- 
 forded this demonstration of the spirit and of 
 power, appears from what he further says to the 
 Corinthians in the twelfth chapter of the same 
 Epistle. He there describes the diversities of 
 gifts, which the Holy Spirit had conferred on the 
 Church of Corinth. c There are diversities of 
 f gifts (says the author of this Epistle) but the 
 ' same Spirit/— c To one is given by the Spirit the 
 ( word of wisdom ; to another the word of know- 
 ledge by the same Spirit ; to another faith by the 
 ' the same Spirit ; to another the gifts of healing 
 ' by the same Spirit ; to another the working of 
 
 f miracles/- Now, whatever attempts may be 
 
 made to explain the other qualities imparted 
 to the Corinthians by ascribing them to the 
 ordinary operations of the Holy Spirit, it is im^ 
 possible to explain in that manner the power 
 of working miracles. The laws of nature can- 
 not be suspended, as they must be at the work?* 
 ing of a miracle, without the special inter- 
 ference of that Being, who gave those laws, 
 and who alone can controul them. Now let us 
 suppose, for the sake of argument, though the 
 proof of it is yet to come, that this Epistle was 
 written by St. Paul ,* and let the supposition be 
 made merely as we would make it of an Epistle 
 ascribed to Cicero or to Pliny, without any 
 
10 
 
 LECTURE XXIII. 
 
 reference to its inspiration. This simple fact, 
 which is assumed, not as a petitio principii, but 
 merely to see what will follow from it when it is 
 proved, immediately suggests the following ques- 
 tion. Is it possible, that St. Paul should have 
 written to the Corinthians in the manner and in 
 the words, which have been just quoted, if, 
 during his residence among them, he had neither 
 given proofs of his own power of working miracles, 
 nor imparted, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, that 
 power to others. An impostor may boast in one 
 place of the wonders which he has done in an- 
 other : and, if the places are distant, he may pos- 
 sibly escape detection. But that the same per- 
 sons should be reminded of miracles performed 
 among them, if no miracles had been wrought, is 
 too much either for knavery to attempt, or for 
 credulity to admit. If then the Corinthians, 
 among whom St. Paul, at his first visit, resided 
 more than eighteen months (Actsxviii.) had never 
 witnessed either miracles performed by the Apo- 
 stle himself, or supernatural gifts imparted to 
 others, and yet after his departure to Ephesus, 
 had received an Epistle, as coming from St. Paul, 
 and referring to miracles, which they knew had 
 never been performed, they could not have be- 
 lieved that the Epistle was written by St. Paul, 
 and they would have rejected it as an attempt to 
 
LECTURE XXIII. 
 
 11 
 
 impose on them. But they did not reject this 
 Epistle : they accepted and held it in honour. 
 They accepted and held in honour a second 
 Epistle from the same author,, in which he like- 
 wise claims divine authority (ch.x. 8.) : they re- 
 ceived with veneration St. Paul himself, a second , 
 and a third time. They admitted therefore the 
 miracles to which St. Paul alluded, by admitting 
 the Epistle, which contained the reference. 
 
 Having thus shewn the importance of our pre- 
 sent inquiry, I will next consider the kind of 
 evidence to be produced, and the mode, in which 
 such evidence should be arranged. As we are now 
 concerned with an historical question, for which 
 historical evidence can be produced, the produc- 
 tion of that historical evidence is the Jirst thing, 
 we should undertake. In cases, where we have 
 no records, as evidence for historical facts, their 
 existence must be established by the process of in- 
 duction, or by shewing that certain effects, which 
 are acknowledged, could not have been produced 
 but by the operation of certain assigned causes. 
 And such indirect proof may be strong enough 
 for the purpose. But where historical evidence 
 can he alleged, it is always adviseable to begin with 
 it. Now the historical evidence for the authenti- 
 city of the New Testament is- no other than the 
 
12 
 
 LECTURE XXIII. 
 
 external evidence,, consisting of the testimony 
 of ancient writers, and the existence of certain 
 early translations. The internal evidence, which 
 is drawn from the contents of the books, will 
 then properly follow in confirmation of the exter- 
 nal evidence. It is true, that this order is fre- 
 quently inverted, and that the internal evidence 
 is first produced as a preparation for the recep- 
 tion of the external. But where external evi- 
 dence is so decisive as in the present case, and 
 where no preparation is wanted for its reception, 
 we should place it in the foremost rank. 
 
 In the disposition of the several parts, of which 
 external evidence consists, I have ventured to 
 depart from the general practice : and for this 
 departure it is necessary, that I should offer a 
 particular explanation and apology. In quoting 
 ecclesiastical writers, as evidence for the authen- 
 ticity of the New Testament, it has been usual 
 to begin with the Apostolic Fathers, or the Fa- 
 thers, who were contemporary with the Apostles; 
 and thence to proceed to the Fathers of the 
 second, third,- fourth, and as many following 
 centuries, as appeared expedient for the purpose, 
 But there is a disadvantage attending this chro- 
 nological arrangement, inasmuch as it exposes the 
 proof of authenticity to various objections at the 
 
LECTURE XXIH. 
 
 very outset. Barnabas and Hermas do not afford 
 the testimony for which they are quoted. Clement 
 of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp were certainly 
 acquainted with some books of the New Testa- 
 ment ; but they have been alleged as evidence for 
 other books, where the quotations produced for 
 that purpose are really insufficient. We cannot 
 indeed expect to find in their writings such ample 
 testimony to the books of the New Testament, 
 as we find in the works of later writers. And it 
 is not so much their silence, that is injurious to 
 the proof, because that silence may be easily 
 explained : it is the desire of making them say 
 more, than the circumstances, under which they 
 wrote, could allow them to say. 
 
 The silence of the Apostolic Fathers in regard 
 to many, or even most of the books, which com- 
 pose the New Testament, may be explained in 
 such a manner, as to obviate the inference, that 
 such books did not exist in the first century, be- 
 cause the Apostolic Fathers have not quoted from 
 them. In the first place, the collection of all 
 those various books, which compose the New 
 Testament, and the formation of them into a 
 single work, was an operation, which required 
 a much longer period, than is commonly sup- 
 posed. The four Gospels, though ultimately 
 
14 
 
 LECTURE XXIII. 
 
 designed for general use, were written in such 
 different and distant places, that many years must 
 have elapsed before the possessors of one Gospel 
 became generally possessed of the other three. 
 The Epistles of St. Paul were addressed to various 
 communities scattered throughout Asia, Greece, 
 and Italy : and it could not have been the work 
 of a few years to collect all these Epistles into a 
 single volume. But beside the difficulties arising 
 from the distance between the places where the 
 originals were preserved, the multiplication of 
 copies, even when the books were once collected, 
 was much less practicable, than it has been since 
 rendered by the art of printing. The purchase 
 of manuscripts was attended with expence : and 
 the primitive Christians were in general poor. 
 Under all these circumstances it was not to be 
 expected, that copies of all the various books, 
 which compose the New Testament, should have 
 been already in the hands of the Apostolic Fa- 
 thers. And there is an additional consideration, 
 which will account for their silence, even in re- 
 gard to books, which they probably did possess. 
 The most voluminous writers are commonly in 
 possession of many books, which they never 
 quote, because it is both unnecessary and unusual 
 to quote a work, unless the subject, on which the 
 author is writing, affords occasion for it. We 
 
LECTURE XXTII. 
 
 15 
 
 cannot therefore conclude, that because a writer 
 of the first century has not quoted a particular 
 book of the New Testament, the book was 
 wholly unknown to him. Still less can we argue 
 from his silence, that the book did not exist, 
 when he wrote. And the objections to the au- 
 thenticity of the New Testament, which have been 
 drawn from the silence of the Apostolic Fathers, 
 are certainly devoid of foundation. 
 
 But then it must be admitted on the other 
 hand, that their positive evidence applies only to 
 a small portion of a work, where positive evidence 
 is wanted for the authenticity of the whole. If we 
 begin therefore our proof of authenticity with quo- 
 tations from the Apostolic Fathers, we subject 
 ourselves to difficulties, which are less easily over- 
 come atlthe commencement, than they are at the 
 close^of our "researches. The production either of 
 dubious, or of scanty evidence, before it is known 
 that unquestionable and ample evidence may be 
 afforded, not only exposes us to the attacks of our 
 adversaries before we are prepared for our de- 
 fence, but is apt to injure the cause even with the 
 well-disposed, by exciting prejudices which would 
 not otherwise be entertained. The difference 
 between ancient and modern times is too easily 
 overlooked. As we are enabled at present to 
 
10 
 
 LECTURE XXIII. 
 
 multiply copies of books without limit, and no 
 one who now writes on a subject of Divinity can 
 be destitute of a Bible entire in all its parts, we are 
 exposed to the danger of forgetting that the same 
 facility did not exist in the early ages of Chris- 
 tianity. But if this difference is overlooked, the 
 inference may be drawn, that at least the Fathers 
 of the Church must have possessed whatever 
 books of the New Testament existed in their 
 days. And since Ignatius and Poly carp, if not 
 the other Apostolic Fathers, unquestionably wrote 
 at a period, when all the books of the New Testa- 
 ment must have been written, if written by the 
 persons to whom they are ascribed, the next 
 inference is, that the books, which they have not 
 quoted were the fabrications of a later age. Such 
 are the consequences of making the works of the 
 Apostolic Fathers a prominent feature in the proof 
 of authenticity. 
 
 But there is another reason for not beginning 
 with their works, which is no less cogent, than 
 the preceding. When we appeal to one set of 
 writings, for the purpose of establishing the au- 
 thenticity of another, we should take especial 
 care, that the writings to which we make our 
 first appeal, should themselves be free from all 
 suspicion. But the writings ascribed to the 
 
lecture xxrn. if 
 
 Apostolic Fathers, and especially the Epistles, 
 which bear the name of Ignatius, have descended 
 to us in a very questionable shape. And, though 
 we should probably go too far, if we asserted, as 
 some critics have done, that they are entirely 
 spurious, this at least is certain, that if they came 
 originally from the hands of those Fathers, their 
 writings have been so interpolated with passages, 
 which from the nature of the subjects could not 
 have existed in the first century, as to cast a shade 
 over that which may probably be genuine. At 
 the same time it must be admitted, that if those 
 writings have been only interpolated, the inter- 
 polations appear to have been made for a different 
 purpose, than that of obtaining evidence for the 
 authenticity of the New Testament. The passages 
 therefore, which have reference to books of the New 
 Testament, are on that account less liable to sus- 
 picion. But still they are not exempt from it. 
 And even if every doubt were removed, even if it 
 were certain, that all the passages were genuine, 
 which have been quoted from the Apostolic Fa- 
 thers, as evidence for the New Testament, they 
 would still fail of producing the effect intended. 
 For most of them are really of that description, 
 that the authors might have written them, though 
 they had never seen the book, or books, to which 
 they are supposed to allude. If then we make 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 LECTURE XXII I. 
 
 their writings the foundation of our proof, we 
 expose ourselves to the charge of building on a 
 foundation of sand. Of this weakness our adver- 
 saries have taken advantage : and nothing has so 
 contributed to impair the proof, that the New 
 Testament is authentic, as the importance, which 
 has been falsely attached to the works of the 
 Apostolic Fathers. 
 
 For these reasons I propose to invert the order, 
 which has been hitherto observed in conducting 
 the proof of authenticity. I propose to begin with 
 the Fathers of the fourth century, and to ascend 3 
 through the third and the second, to the first 
 century. Writers of the fifth and following cen- 
 turies may be omitted as unnecessary for our pre- 
 sent purpose. But among the writers of the 
 fourth century, there are some, and especially 
 Eusebius and Jerom, whose testimony is of great 
 importance. The nearer we approach to the age 
 of the Apostles, of so much the greater value will 
 be the evidence produced, when such evidence is 
 clear and decisive. And we shall find in the 
 progress of our inquiry, that we can ascend with 
 such decisive evidence to an age so near to the 
 apostolic age, that where the chain of evidence 
 will cease, its place can be supplied by argument ; 
 by argument which will incontestably prove, that 
 
LECTURE XXIII. 
 
 19 
 
 there was only one short period, in which a 
 forgery was possible, and, that if during- that 
 period a forgery had been attempted, it could not 
 have escaped detection. 
 
 Such is the kind of proof, which I propose to 
 offer, as the external evidence for the New Testa- 
 ment, and to which I shall proceed in the fol- 
 lowing Lecture. 
 
 B 2 
 
3LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 Agreeably to the plan proposed in the preced- 
 ing Lecture for the arrangement of the evidence 
 in favour of the New Testament, I begin with the 
 testimony of Jerom, who was born about the mid- 
 dle of the fourth century, and was ordained Pres- 
 byter at Antioch in the year 378. It is well known 
 that Jerom was the most learned of the Latin 
 Fathers : and he was peculiarly qualified, not 
 only by his profound erudition, but by his exten- 
 sive researches, his various travels, and his long 
 residence in Palestine, to investigate the authen- 
 ticity of the several books, which compose the 
 New Testament. Of these books he has given a 
 catalogue in his Epistle to Paulinus, on the study 
 of the Holy Scriptures*. He begins his catalogue 
 (which is nearly at the close of the Epistle) with 
 the four Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 
 The Acts of the Apostles he mentions as another 
 
 * Tom. IV. Part II, col. 56'8. ed. Martianay. 
 
LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 21 
 
 work of St. Luke, whose praise is in the Gospel. 
 He says that St. Paul wrote Epistles to seven 
 Churches : these seven Churches are such as we 
 find in the titles of the Epistles of St. Paul con- 
 tained in our present copies of the New Testa- 
 ment. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews he observes, 
 that most persons (namely in the Latin Church) 
 did not consider it as an Epistle of St. Paul : but 
 we shall presently see that his own opinion was 
 different. He further states, that St. Paul wrote 
 to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. The seven 
 Catholic Epistles he ascribes to James, Peter, 
 J ohn, and J ude, and expressly says, that they were 
 Apostles. And he concludes his catalogue with 
 the remark, that fhe Revelation of John has as 
 many mysteries as words. 
 
 This Catalogue accords with the books, which 
 we receive at present, with the exception of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. The rejection of this 
 Epistle is a fact, which Jerom has not attempted 
 to conceal : and therefore as he confidently speaks 
 of all the other books of the New Testament, his 
 testimony is so much the more in their favour. 
 As we are now concerned with a statement of 
 facts, it would be foreign to our present purpose 
 to inquire into the causes, which induced the 
 Latin Church to reject the Epistle to the He- 
 
22 
 
 LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 brews. But whatever those causes may have 
 been, they did not warrant the rejection of it, in 
 the estimation of Jerom himself. For in his 
 Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, or, as it is 
 frequently called, his Treatise of illustrious men, 
 and in the article relating to St. Paul, Jerom 
 expressly asserts that St. Paul wrote the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews. And in his Epistle to Dardanus % 
 alluding to the then -prevailing custom in the Latin 
 Church to reject the Epistle to the Hebrews, he 
 adds, iC But we receive it and he assigns this 
 powerful reason, which it is necessary to give in 
 his own words, e nequaquam hujus temporis con- 
 c suetudinem, sed veterum scriptorum auctoritatem 
 sequentes/— To his Catalogue of the books of the 
 New Testament may be added his revision of the 
 Latin Version, which revision contained the same 
 books as we have at present. 
 
 Prom Jerom in the Latin Church we may 
 ascend to Gregory of Nazianzum in the Greek 
 Church, who was born about the time of holding 
 the celebrated council of Nicaea. He has given 
 a catalogue, which is entitled, { Of the genuine 
 ' books of inspired Scripture/ and contained in 
 his thirty -third poem f . In this Catalogue he 
 
 * Tom. it col. 608. 
 
 f Greg. Nazianz. Op. Tom. II. p. 98. Ed. Paris. 1630. 
 
LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 23 
 
 enumerates the four Gospels, which he ascribes 
 to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John ; the Acts of the 
 Apostles; fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, including 
 therefore the Epistle to the Hebrews ; seven 
 Catholic Epistles, namely, one Epistle of James, 
 two Epistles of Peter, three Epistles of John, and 
 one Epistle of Jude. These are the books, which 
 according to Gregory's Catalogue constituted the 
 New Testament. The only book, which is not 
 contained in it, is the book of Revelation. But 
 this omission may rather be ascribed to the de- 
 ference, which Gregory of Nazianzum considered 
 as due to the Greek Church, of which he was a 
 leading member, than to any doubts, which he 
 himself entertained respecting its authenticity. 
 For as the Latin Church in the fourth century did 
 not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Greek 
 Church in the fourth century did not receive the 
 book of Revelation. But Gregory himself ap- 
 pears to have considered it as a work of authority : 
 for in his thirty-second Oration he quotes a pas- 
 sage from it, with the remark cc as John teaches 
 lc me in his Apocalypse/' * 
 
 Epiphanius, who was Gregory's contemporary, 
 has given a complete catalogue of the books of 
 
 * Tom. I. p. 516. 
 
24 
 
 LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 the New Testament. It is contained in the first 
 section of his third Book against heresies : and 
 the order is as follows : * the four holy Gospels : 
 fourteen Epistles of the Holy Apostle Paul ; the 
 Acts of the Apostles ; the catholic Epistles of 
 James, Peter, John and Jude; and the Revela- 
 tion of John. To all these books Epiphanius 
 applies the appellation of divine scriptures : and 
 his catalogue includes all the books, which consti- 
 tute the present canon of the New Testament. 
 
 Athanasius, who was appointed Bishop of Alex- 
 andria in the year 326, and therefore must have 
 been born before the end of the third century, has 
 in his Festal Epistle given a Catalogue of the books 
 of the New Testament in the following order fl 
 The four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, 
 Luke, and John ; then the Acts of the Apostles, and 
 the seven Epistles of the Apostles, called catholic, 
 of James one, of Peter two, of John three, of Jude 
 one. Beside these there are fourteen Epistles of 
 the Apostle Paul, the first to the Romans, then 
 two to the Corinthians ; then that to the Gala- 
 
 * Tom. II. p. 941. ed. Petavii. 
 
 f Tom, L PartN. p. 96. ed, Benedict. There is no reason to 
 entertain any doubt about the Festal Epistle, whatever there may 
 about the Synopsis. See the Admonitio of the Benedictine edi- 
 tors at p. 958. 
 
LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 25 
 
 tians, the next to the Ephesians, then to the 
 Philippians, then to the Colossians, after them the 
 Epistles to the Thessalonians, and the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews ; then two to Timothy, to Titus 
 one, the last to Philemon ; and again the Revela- 
 tion of John. " These (adds Athanasius) are the 
 £C fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may 
 " be satisfied with the oracles contained in them. 
 " In these alone the doctrine of religion is 
 " taught." This catalogue not only contains all 
 the books of the New Testament, which we re- 
 ceive at present, but describes them so particu- 
 larly, that no question can arise in regard to any 
 one of them. 
 
 We now ascend to the testimony of Euse- 
 bius, who was born at Caesarea in Palestine 
 about the year 270, and was afterwards Bishop 
 of that city. In the twenty-fifth Chapter of the 
 third Book of his Ecclesiastical History, he states 
 the result of his inquiries about the several books 
 of the New Testament. And this statement is 
 so much the more important, as we learn from it, 
 in what manner the several books of the New 
 Testament were received, not merely at the time 
 when Eusebius wrote, but as far back, as the 
 researches of Eusebius would carry him. His 
 object was to ascertain what books of the New 
 Testament had been universally received, and 
 
26 
 
 LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 what books had ever been called in question. 
 This object is announced in the title of the Chap- 
 ter, which is, c Of the Scriptures universally ac- 
 " knowledged, and those which are not so." And 
 it appears from the observations which he has made 
 in the course of this chapter, that he adopted the 
 true mode of discovering what he wished to know. 
 It appears that he examined the most ancient re- 
 cords of Christianity to which he had access ; and 
 the most ancient records of Christianity to which 
 Eusebius had access, must have extended to the 
 age of the Apostles. The books of the New Tes- 
 tament, which according to Eusebius had been 
 universally received, and which he places there- 
 fore in the first class, were the four Gospels, the 
 Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of St. Paul, the 
 first Epistle of St. Peter, and the first Epistle of 
 St. John. Here it must be observed, that Euse- 
 bius is stating an historical fact. After all the 
 inquiries, which he had instituted about the books 
 of the New Testament, he found, that the four 
 Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles,, the Epistles of 
 St. Paul, the first Epistle of St. Peter, and the 
 first Epistle of St. John had been universally re- 
 ceived. There is one difficulty attending his state- 
 ment of the Epistles of St. Paul. He speaks of 
 those Epistles generally, whence it might be infer- 
 red, that he meant to include the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews. But as we know that doubts were en- 
 
LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 27 
 
 tertained respecting- this Epistle, as Eusebius him- 
 self acknowledges in the third chapter of the same 
 book, and since in his twenty-fifth chapter he is 
 stating matters of fact, not matters of opinion, the 
 general expression, used by Eusebius cannot be 
 so construed, as to include the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews. 
 
 The books which Eusebius refers to the second 
 class, or the class of books not universally re- 
 ceived, are the Epistle of St. James, the second 
 Epistle of St. Peter, the second and third of St. 
 John, and the Epistle of St. Jude. And here we 
 must again remember that Eusebius is not ex- 
 pressing any doubt on his part, whether these 
 books are entitled to a place in the sacred ca : 
 non . He is again stating an historical fact : he 
 is stating that these books had been received by 
 many, but not by all. And the article, which he 
 uses on this occasion, shews, that they had been 
 received by the many, that is, by the great majo- 
 rity. We must further recollect, that in searching 
 ecclesiastical writers, as Eusebius did, for testi- 
 mony to the books of the New Testament, every 
 quotation from a book of the New Testament, 
 found in their writings, afforded positive proof, 
 that the book then existed, and was known to 
 them ; whereas their silence in regard to a book 
 
28 
 
 LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 of the New Testament was mere negative evi- 
 dence, which,, as appears from the remarks, that 
 were made on the Apostolic Fathers, is no real 
 proof, that such a book was unknown to them, 
 and still less that such a book did not then exist. 
 The circumstance therefore, that the Epistle of 
 St. James, the second Epistle of St. Peter, the 
 second and third of St. John, and the Epistle of 
 St. Jude had not been universally received, when 
 Eusebius instituted his inquiries, affords much less 
 reason to suspect their authenticity, than might 
 otherwise be supposed. 
 
 On the book of Revelation, the only book 
 which remains to be considered in the catalogue 
 of Eusebius, he has expressed himself with so 
 much ambiguity, that it is difficult to determine 
 what he really meant. In his representation of 
 that book he has departed from the plan, which he 
 adopted in regard to the other books of the New 
 Testament : and by mixing opinion with fact has 
 given a very confused account. As it appears 
 from his own statement that this book had been 
 received by some, but not by others, he ought 
 consistently to have placed it in the second class. 
 But he annexes it to the first class, with an ex- 
 pression of doubt, which shews that it could not 
 belong to a class, on which no doubt existed. And 
 
LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 2Q 
 
 to make the inconsistency still greater, he after- 
 wards places it among a set of books decidedly 
 spurious, with another expression of doubt, which 
 shews that it would be equally improper, to rank 
 it among: such books. Whether Eusebius was 
 intentionally ambiguous on the subject of a book, 
 which even then had excited much controversy, 
 or whether he was accidentally inconsistent, there 
 can be no doubt respecting the class, to which 
 according to the arrangement of Eusebius, the 
 book itself should be referred. And its authenti- 
 city must hereafter be established, with that of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, and of the books, 
 which Eusebius himself has placed in the second 
 class. 
 
 From Eusebius let us ascend to Origen, who 
 was born in the year 184, within a hundred years 
 therefore of the time, when St. J ohn, and probably 
 other Apostles were still living. He was edu- 
 cated under Clement of Alexandria ; and he was 
 not only the most profound scholar, but the most 
 acute critic, among all the Fathers of the Greek 
 Church. But we have been unfortunately deprived 
 of much important testimony, which his writings, 
 if they had descended entire to the present age, 
 would have afforded to the authenticity of the 
 New Testament. The works of Origen, which 
 
30 
 
 LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 are now extant, bear but a small proportion to 
 those, which he composed : and even of the books 
 which have been preserved, there are several, 
 which exist only in the Latin translation, made 
 by Rufinus at the end of the fourth century. This 
 is the more to be lamented, as it has exposed the 
 testimony of Origen to doubts, which otherwise 
 would not have been entertained. 
 
 The testimony of Origen to the books of the 
 New Testament must now be collected, partly 
 from the occasional notice which he has taken of 
 them in his Homilies, partly from the extracts made 
 by Eusebius from writings of Origen then extant, 
 and partly from the quotations which Origen him- 
 self has made from the New Testament. In his 
 thirteenth Homily on the book t)f Genesis, having 
 occasion to refer to the New Testament, he 
 observes,* that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 
 Paul, Peter, James, and Jude, were the authors 
 of the books of which the New Testament is com- 
 posed. And these are the authors to whom the 
 books of the New Testament are now ascribed 
 In his seventh Homily on the book of Joshua, 
 where he again introduces the several writers of 
 the New Testament he' is more explicit, f He 
 
 * Tom. lh p. 95, ed. Delarue. 
 f Ibid. p. 412. 
 
LECTURE XXIV. 31 
 
 mentions Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, as the 
 authors of the four Gospels : and Luke as author 
 also of the Acts of the Apostles. To Paul he 
 ascribes fourteen Epistles; to James and Jude, 
 each one Epistle : to Peter two. And he adds, 
 that John spake both in his Epistles, and in the 
 book of Revelation. If then in the general ex- 
 pression, the Epistles of St. John, we include the 
 third, as well as the second, we have from Origen 
 a complete catalogue of the books of the New 
 Testament, such as we receive at present. But 
 unfortunately his Homilies on the book of Joshua 
 exist only in the Latin translation of Rufinus : 
 whence a suspicion has been entertained that 
 Rufinus added to the catalogue, and that it con- 
 tained fewer books, as it came from the pen of 
 Origen. But the suspicion appears to be ill founded. 
 For if Rufinus had made alterations in Origen's 
 catalogue, he would have made them in conformity 
 with the canon of his own Church. Otherwise no 
 motive is assignable for a corruption of his author's 
 text. But if Rufinus had altered the catalogue of 
 Origen so as to make it suit the canon of the Latin 
 Church, it would not have ascribed fourteen, as 
 it really does, but only thirteen epistles to St. 
 Paul. 
 
 Another source of information respecting Ori- 
 
32 
 
 LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 gen's testimony to the books of the New Tes- 
 tament is a collection of passages, extracted by 
 Eusebius from then-existing works of Origen, and 
 put together in the twenty-fifth chapter of the 
 sixth book of his Ecclesiastical History. These 
 passages were quoted by Eusebius, partly from 
 Origen's Commentary on St. Matthew, partly 
 from his Commentary on St. John, and partly 
 from his Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 In the Extract from his Commentary on St. 
 Matthew, Origen speaks of the four Gospels and 
 ascribes them to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. 
 In the Extract from his Commentary on St. John, 
 Origen having occasion to mention the Epistles, 
 speaks generally of the Epistles ascribed to St. 
 Paul, without making any exception; he men- 
 tions two Epistles of St. Peter, and three Epistles 
 of St. John, but with the remarks, that some 
 persons doubted whether the second epistle of 
 St. Peter, and the second and third of St. John 
 were authentic. In the same extract he ascribes 
 the book of Revelation to St. John the Apostle. 
 In the extract from his Homily on the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews, Origen examines the question, whe- 
 ther St. Paul was the author of that Epistle, or not. 
 He observes, that the Greek style of that Epistle is 
 not the style of St. Paul : but he allows that the 
 sentiments, though not the language, are those of 
 
LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 33 
 
 the Apostle. And he adds, <( If therefore any 
 " church receives this Epistle as Paul's,, it is to be 
 ec commended on that account : for it is not with- 
 " out reason, that the ancients have handed it 
 " down as Paul's." Origen's opinion on this 
 Epistle, which is rather ambiguously expressed, 
 may perhaps be illustrated by a passage in the 
 writings of his master, Clement of Alexandria, 
 which is preserved by Eusebius in his Ecclesias- 
 tical History *. In this passage Clement asserts, 
 that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by 
 St. Paul ; but that it was written by St. Paul in 
 Hebrew, and that the Greek epistle is a trans- 
 lation of it by St. Luke. That it was written by 
 St. Paul in Hebrew, is asserted also by Jerom in 
 his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers under the 
 article Paulus ; and he adds that this is the rea- 
 son why the Greek text differs from the style of 
 St. Paul 
 
 Let us now recapitulate the testimony of 
 Origen to the books of the New Testament, 
 as contained in the passages already quoted. 
 If we may rely on the Catalogue, which is 
 given in his seventh Homily on J oshua, all the 
 books of the New Testament, which we receive 
 at present were received by Origen. And there 
 
 * Hist. Eccles. Lib. VI. c. 14, 
 
34 
 
 LECTURE XXIV 
 
 is less reason to suspect the fidelity of that cata- 
 loguers it is not contradicted by any thing, which 
 occurs in the extracts made by Eusebius. If in 
 those extracts Origen denies that the Greek words 
 in the Epistle to the Hebrews proceeded from the 
 pen of St. Paul, he admits that its doctrines are 
 those of the Apostle : and we need only consult 
 the indexes to Origen's works,, to see that he has 
 quoted the Epistle to the Hebrews, as scripture 
 authority, from the beginning to the end. — He 
 further admits in those extracts, that the second 
 Epistle of St. Peter, and the second and third of 
 St. John, were not universally received, as did 
 also Eusebius in the work which contains those 
 extracts. But Origen does not say, that he reject- 
 ed them himself. On the contrary, he has several 
 quotations from the second Epistle of St. Peter. 
 And if no quotations from the second and third 
 Epistles of St. John, are to be found in what now 
 remains of the works of Origen, no conclusion can 
 be drawn unfavourable to those Epistles, which 
 are not only extremely short, but are unlikely in 
 themselves to afford much matter for quotation. 
 Lastly, it must be observed of these extracts, that 
 no mention is made in them, either of the Acts of 
 the Apostles, or of the Epistle of St. James, or of 
 the Epistle of St. Jude. But from this silence no 
 inference whatever can be drawn. The first of 
 those extracts relates only to the four Gospels ; 
 
LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 35 
 
 the third only to the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and 
 the books, which are named in the second extract, 
 are named rather incidentally, than with a view of 
 completing the catalogue of the books of the New 
 Testament. The omission therefore of any single 
 book is no argument against it. Of the Acts of 
 the Apostles the authenticity was never doubted : 
 and Origen has numerous quotations from it. He 
 has many quotations also from the Epistle of St. 
 James. And he has quoted the Epistle of St. Jude. 
 — I have been thus minute in regard to the testi- 
 mony of Origen, because it is not only of great 
 importance, but has been much disputed. And 
 I think we may conclude from all that has been 
 said, that the Scriptures of the New Testament 
 which we receive at present, were received also 
 by Origen, at the beginning of the third century. 
 
 Prom Origen we may ascend to Tertullian, the 
 most ancient of the Latin Fathers. He was born 
 about the middle of the second century, little more 
 therefore than fifty years after the death of St. 
 John. Tertullian has no where given a professed 
 catalogue of the books of the New Testament : 
 and therefore his testimony must be collected, 
 partly from detached passages, and partly from 
 his various quotations. The four Gospels and the 
 Acts of the Apostles he has named and quoted so 
 
 c 2 
 
36 
 
 LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 frequently,, as the works of Matthew, Mark,, Luke, 
 John, that it is unnecessary to refer to particular 
 places. On the Epistles of St. Paul he expresses 
 no doubt, except on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 which Tertullian ascribes to Barnabas.* There 
 are some books of the New Testament on which 
 Tertullian is silent, namely the Epistle to Philemon, 
 the second Epistle of St. Peter, with the second 
 and third of St. John. Whether he has quoted 
 the Epistle of St. James is a subject of dispute. 
 But, if an author does not profess to give a com- 
 plete catalogue of the books of the New Testament, 
 his mere silence in regard to any book is no argu- 
 ment against it. 
 
 Let us now return to the Greek Church, and 
 examine the testimony of Clement, the preceptor 
 of Origen. The works of Clement, which are 
 enumerated by Eusebius and Jerom, have most of 
 them been destroyed : but, even those which re- 
 main afford abundant testimony to the scriptures 
 of the New Testament. They contain numerous 
 quotations from our four Gospels, and the Acts of 
 the Apostles. The Epistle to the Hebrews he ex- 
 pressly ascribed to St. Paul, as appears from what 
 has been already stated : and among the works of 
 
 * De Pudicitia cap. xx, p. 582, ed. Rigaltii. 
 
LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 37 
 
 Clement, which are now extant, we still find many 
 quotations from that Epistle. Indeed there is only 
 one Epistle of St. Paul, from which we do not find 
 quotations in the works of Clement ; and that is, 
 the Epistle to Philemon. But as this Epistle was 
 quoted by Origen, the circumstance of its not 
 being quoted by Clement can reasonably be as- 
 cribed to no other cause, than that none of the 
 subjects, of which he was treating, required a quo- 
 tation from it. Of the Catholic Epistles he has 
 quoted the Epistle of St. James, the first Epistle 
 of St. Peter, the first Epistle of St. John, and the 
 Epistle of St. Jude. And the book of Revelation 
 he has quoted frequently. It has been said indeed 
 that Clement has no where quoted the Epistle of 
 St. James. But this is a mistake. He has quoted 
 it, as well as Origen, as appears from the extracts 
 produced by Griesbach in the second volume of 
 his Symbolse Critical That volume contains all 
 the quotations from the Greek Testament, which 
 are contained in the remaining Greek works of 
 Clement and Origen : and they are of peculiar 
 importance, in reference, as well to the integrity, 
 as to the authenticity of the New Testament. 
 They shew, that the Greek manuscripts, which 
 were used by Clement and Origen, no otherwise 
 differed from the Greek manuscripts which have 
 descended to the present age, than as different 
 
 / 
 
38 
 
 LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 copies of the same work unavoidably vary in their 
 readings. 
 
 As Clement of Alexandria has borne such 
 ample testimony to the authenticity of the New 
 Testament, we must not forget its peculiar im- 
 portance. Though the precise year of his birth 
 is unknown,, we may conclude from various cir- 
 cumstances that he was not born later, than the 
 middle of the second century. He was born 
 therefore at a time, when persons must have been 
 still living, who remembered at least some of the 
 Apostles, especially the Apostle St. John. He was 
 sufficiently near therefore to the Apostolic age, to 
 be enabled to ascertain the question, whether the 
 books, ascribed to the Apostles and Evangelists, 
 were justly ascribed to them, or not. According 
 to an account recorded by Epiphanius,* he was 
 born at Athens : and according to other ancient 
 writers, he travelled through Italy, Greece, Pa- 
 lestine, and other parts of Asia, before he became 
 Presbyter of the Church at Alexandria.! He 
 visited therefore the countries, that contained the 
 Christian communities, to which St. Paul, not an 
 hundred years before the birth of Clement, had 
 
 * Haeres. xxxii. 6. Tom. I. p. 213. ed. Paris, 1622. 
 t See the authorities quoted in Fabricii Bib. Gr. Vol. VI I. 
 p. 120. ed. Harles. 
 
LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 addressed his various Epistles. The countries, 
 which he visited, must likewise have included the 
 places, where the four Gospels were written. He 
 had therefore ample means of ascertaining 1 the 
 truth in regard to the authenticity of the books, 
 which compose the New Testament, and it was 
 not the character of Clement of Alexandria to take 
 things upon trust, or to believe without good evi- 
 dence. Independently of what is related by Eu- 
 sebius and Jerom, his works sufficiently shew, 
 that he was educated in the philosophy of the 
 Greeks, and that he would not have taken the New 
 Testament for his guide, but on the clearest con- 
 viction of its authenticity and truth. 
 
 The last writer, whose testimony shall be pro- 
 duced at present, is Irenaeus, who was Bishop of 
 Lyons, about the middle of the second century. 
 Both his name and his language shew that he 
 was by birth a Greek : and though the year of 
 his birth is not exactly known, it is probable 
 from various circumstances that he was born 
 before the end of the first century. But the 
 testimony of Irenaeus derives its greatest import- 
 ance from the fact, that he was a disciple of 
 Poly carp, who was a disciple of St. John* In 
 
 * Hieronymus de V. i. s. v. Irenotvs. 
 
40 
 
 LECTCJHE XXIV. 
 
 the works of Irenaeus, which have descended to 
 the present age, we no where find a professed 
 catalogue of the books of the New Testament ; 
 and his testimony must be collected from his va- 
 rious quotations, and a few detached remarks. 
 In the first chapter of his third book against He- 
 resies, there is a passage, in which he expressly 
 ascribes the four Gospels to Matthew, Mark, 
 Luke, and John. This testimony will not be 
 invalidated by any mistake, which Irenaeus, may 
 have made respecting the circumstances, under 
 which he supposed, that St. Matthew's Gospel 
 was written. He says namely, that St. Matthew 
 wrote his Gospel among the Jews, when St. Paul 
 and St. Peter were founding the Church at Rome. 
 Though Irenseus was probably misinformed in 
 regard to this particular circumstance, his testi- 
 mony to the main fact, that our Gospels were 
 written by the persons, to whom they are ascribed, 
 is not therefore to be rejected. Still less is it to be 
 rejected on account of any fanciful reason, which 
 he has elsewhere assigned, of there being four 
 and only four authentic Gospels. Testimony to 
 a fact is not destroyed by an opinion, however 
 absurd, which the witness considers as the cause 
 qf its happening. The 'testimony therefore of 
 Irenaeus to the authenticity of our four Gospels 
 may be safely admitted. And his quotations from 
 
i 
 
 LECTURE XXIV. 41 
 
 them are so. numerous, that they occupy more than 
 twelve folio columns in the index of scripture pas- 
 sages annexed to the Benedictine edition . In the 
 fourteenth Chapter of his third Book he expressly 
 ascribes the Acts of the Apostles to St. Luke the 
 companion of St. Paul : and his quotations from 
 that book are very numerous. Of the Epistles 
 of St. Paul, he has largely quoted from those to 
 the Romans, the Corinthians, the Galatians, the 
 Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalo- 
 nians. He has quoted likewise from the Epistles to 
 Timothy and Titus : and all these Epistles he has 
 repeatedly ascribed to St. Paul. But he has none 
 from the Epistle to Philemon, at which we need 
 not be surprised, as that Epistle contains no points 
 of doctrine, and could afford therefore no matter 
 for quotation in writings, which were all contro- 
 versial. On the question, whether the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews was written by St Paul, Irenaeus is 
 silent. But we must not attach to his silence 
 more importance, than it deserves. Irenasus, 
 though born a Greek, was transplanted to the 
 Latin Church, which then rejected the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews. If therefore, he had quoted it as 
 authority in controversial writings, he would have 
 afforded his adversaries this ready answer, that 
 he produced as authority what was not allowed 
 by his own Church. And since he has no where 
 
42 LECTURE XXIV. 
 
 asserted, that St. Paul was not the author of that 
 Epistle, his mere silence argues rather the custom 
 of the Latin Church, (as it is termed by Jerom) 
 than the opinion of Irenaeus himself. Of the 
 Catholic Epistles Irenaeus has quoted (according 
 to the index in the Benedictine edition) from the 
 Epistle of St. James, both Epistles of St. Peter, 
 and the first and second of St. John, That he 
 has never quoted the third Epistle of St. John 
 is no argument whatever against it. As it con- 
 tains no doctrine, a quotation from it in the 
 works of Irenaeus was not to be expected. His 
 silence on the Epistle of St. Jude has been con- 
 sidered by some writers as an argument, either 
 that the Epistle was unknown to him, or that he 
 did not consider it as a book of authority. But 
 his silence admits of another solution, and one 
 which is not improbable, namely, that the parti- 
 cular controversies, in which he was engaged, 
 did not require a quotation from that Epistle. 
 And this solution leaves its authenticity unim- 
 paired. On the book of Revelation his testimony 
 is clear and positive. He has not only quoted it in 
 numerous instances, but has expressly ascribed 
 it to St. John the Apostle*. And Irenaeus from 
 his acquaintance with Polycarp the disciple of 
 
 * Adv. Hajres. Lib. IV". c. 20. §, 11. Lib, V. c. 26. init. 
 
LECTURE XXIV. 43 
 
 St. John, had the means of obtaining certain 
 information on this subject. 
 
 Lastly, we may observe on the quotations of 
 Irenaeus, that they bear ample testimony, as well 
 to the integrity, as to the authenticity of the New 
 Testament. For those quotations are so nume- 
 rous, and many of them so long, as to afford un- 
 doubted evidence, that the books of the New 
 Testament, which were known to the disciple of 
 Polycarp, are the same books, which have de- 
 scended to the present age. 
 
 Here then we will conclude the catalogue of 
 our authorities for the authenticity of the New 
 Testament. In the next Lecture shall be given 
 the result of the inquiries, which have been insti- 
 tuted in the present, 
 
r 
 
 LECTURE XXV* 
 
 It appears from the preceding Lecture, that all 
 the books of the New Testament, which we re- 
 ceive at present, were received in the fourth cen- 
 tury, as the works of the authors to whom they 
 are ascribed. They were received as such by 
 Jerom the most learned of the Latin Fathers : 
 and if the testimony of Jerom required support 
 from a contemporary in the Latin Church, we 
 might add the Catalogue which Augustine has 
 given in his treatise of Christian Doctrine,* and 
 in which he distinctly enumerates every book, 
 which is now contained in the New Testament. 
 Among the Greek Fathers of the fourth century, 
 we have seen, that Athanasius and Epiphanius 
 have likewise given complete Catalogues of the 
 books of the New Testament : and if the Cata- 
 logue, which is given by , Gregory of Nazianzum, 
 contains not the book of Revelation, the omission 
 
 Tom. Ill, P. i. p . 23, ed. Benedict. 
 
LECTURE XXV. 
 
 45 
 
 may be rather considered as an act of deference 
 to the Greek Church, which then rejected the 
 book of Revelation, than as expressive of the 
 opinion entertained by Gregory himself. 
 
 When we ascend from the fourth to the third 
 century, we find Origen the most learned of the 
 Greek Fathers, who, as appears from the preceding 
 Lecture, received all the books of the New Tes- 
 tament, which constitute our present canon. When 
 we further ascend from the third to the second cen- 
 tury, we find Irenaeus in the West, and Clement 
 of Alexandria in the East, bearing ample testimony 
 to the books of the New Testament. The Epistle 
 to Philemon, the second Epistle of St. Peter, with 
 the second and third of St John, are the only 
 books of the New Testament, from which we do 
 not find quotations in the works of Clement, 
 though the works which now remain bear only 
 a small proportion to those, which he composed. 
 But the Epistle to Philemon, and the second and 
 third of St. John are so short, and so little adapted 
 to doctrinal discussion, that Clement could hardly 
 have had occasion to quote them. Nor can we 
 conclude that the second Epistle of St. Peter did 
 not then exist, because the remaining works of 
 Clement contain no quotation from it. We have 
 the positive testimony therefore of Clement of 
 
46 
 
 LECTURE XXV. 
 
 Alexandria to the whole of the New Testament, 
 with the exception of four short Epistles, which all 
 together contain little more than a hundred of our 
 modern verses : and even of these, we have no 
 reason to suppose that Clement rejected them. 
 The positive testimony of Irenaeus is no less 
 important. And though he cannot be produced, 
 with Clement of Alexandria, as evidence for the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, he cannot, for the reasons 
 already assigned, be produced as evidence against 
 it. We may rest therefore satisfied with the tes- 
 timony of Clement on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 though it was long rejected by the Latin Church. 
 And on the book, which was long rejected by the 
 Greek Church, the Revelation of St. John, we 
 have the testimony, both of Clement and of 
 Irenaeus. 
 
 The evidence for the authenticity of the 
 New Testament has thus been carried upwards, 
 as high as the age, which succeeded the age of 
 the Apostles. And if no evidence has yet 
 been produced from the writings of those, who 
 were contemporary with the Apostles, we have 
 had the evidence of those, who knew their 
 disciples, the evidence therefore of those, who 
 could hardly be mistaken in regard to the ques- 
 tion, whether the books of the New Testament 
 
LECTURE XXV. 
 
 47 
 
 were written by the authors, assigned to them, 
 or not. And if such evidence had been pro- 
 duced in favour of a classic author, there is no 
 scholar, who would not be fully satisfied with the 
 proof. 
 
 But another view may be taken of the subject, 
 in which it will appear, that from the evidence 
 already produced we may obtain a result, which is 
 still more decisive. This result is obtained by 
 reasoning from the statement of Eusebius, with 
 respect to the books, which were universally re- 
 ceived. These books were, the four Gospels, 
 the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of St. 
 Paul, the first Epistle of St. Peter, and the first 
 Epistle of St. John. That all these books had 
 been universally received, is a fact, attested by 
 Eusebius, and confirmed by the writers, who 
 preceded him. Now if the historical books of the 
 New Testament were universally received, they 
 must have been received as authentic in the very 
 places, where they were composed, and by the 
 persons, to whom they were first delivered. And 
 whatever apostolic epistles were universally re- 
 ceived, they must have been received as authentic 
 by the very persons, or communities, to whom they 
 were immediately addressed. 
 
48 LECTURE XXV. 
 
 Let us first apply the argument to the Epistles 
 of St. Paul, which are of two kinds, Epistles to 
 whole communities, and Epistles addressed to in- 
 dividuals. Of the former kind are the Epistles to 
 the Romans, the Corinthians, the Galatians, the 
 Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, and the 
 Thessalonians. These Epistles having been uni- 
 versally acknowledged as Epistles of St. Paul, 
 they must have been acknowledged as such by 
 those particular communities, to whom they were 
 respectively addressed. Let us inquire then, whe- 
 ther these Epistles could have been so acknow- 
 ledged, if they had not been written by St. Paul. 
 No forgery in the name of St. Paul could have 
 been successfully attempted during the life of the 
 Apostle : for his long and continued intercourse 
 with the several communities, to whom those 
 Epistles are addressed, would unquestionably have 
 led to a detection of the fraud. If therefore 
 these Epistles were forgeries, they must have been 
 fabricated after the death of St. Paul. Having 
 ascertained the point of time, after which they 
 must have been forged, if they really were 
 forged, let us next consider the point of time 
 before which the forgery must have taken place, 
 if there was forgery at all* Whether written by 
 an Apostle, or not, their existence in the middle 
 
LECTURE XXV. 4Q 
 
 of the second century, is a fact, which it is impos- 
 sible to deny. For all these Epistles are repeat- 
 edly quoted by Irenaeus in one part of the Roman 
 Empire, and by Clement of Alexandria in another. 
 And no doubt can be entertained in regard to 
 their quotations, whatever be the doubts attending 
 those of the Apostolic Fathers. The portion of 
 time therefore, in which a forgery was possible, 
 was confined to so small a compass, as to render it 
 impracticable. If a work is fabricated by one 
 writer in the name of another, there is no chance 
 of succeeding with the imposition, unless a con- 
 siderable period has elapsed, between the time of 
 the fabricator, and the time of the person, to whom 
 he ascribes his fabrication. If this person lived 
 at so remote a time, that no external evidence can 
 be obtained in confutation of the fraud, an inge- 
 nious impostor may excite a belief, that a work, 
 which is really his own, is the work of a writer, 
 who lived in a former age. But between the death 
 of St. Paul, and the middle of the second century, 
 when these Epistles, whether authentic or not, are 
 known to have existed, the interval was so short, 
 that no forgery could have escaped detection. In 
 whatever portion of this interval such a forgery 
 is supposed to have been committed, the supposi- 
 tion is equally absurd. 
 
 D 
 
50 LECTURE XXV. 
 
 That the absurdity of such a supposition may 
 be rendered apparent,, we must argue on some 
 particular Epistle. Let us take therefore., as an 
 example the Epistle to the Romans, and consider 
 the absurdities, to which the supposition of a forgery 
 will lead. If we suppose, that the Epistle to the 
 Romans was forged during the former half of the 
 period, which has been proved to be the limiting 
 period, it was forged at a time, when many per- 
 sons must have been still living, who were mem- 
 bers of the Christian community at Rome, when 
 St. Paul himself was there. And these persons 
 must surely have known, whether they had ever 
 received from St. Paul an Epistle, or not. Unless 
 therefore an impostor could have made them 
 believe, that they had received an Epistle from 
 St. Paul, which they knew they had not received, 
 it was impossible that a forgery could then be 
 attended with success. Let us now suppose it to 
 have been fabricated during the latter half of the 
 limiting period, which is the most advantageous 
 supposition, that can be made in behalf of a for- 
 gery. At that time perhaps no one was living, 
 who remembered St. Paul at Rome: and so far 
 many obstacles were removed, which, on the for- 
 mer supposition, were irt the way of a forgery. 
 But other obstacles existed, which were still suffi- 
 
LECTURE XXV. 51 
 
 cient to counteract it. If no one was then living:, 
 who remembered St. Paul at Rome, the next ge- 
 neration could not have been extinct, or the child- 
 ren of those who remembered St. Paul. And is 
 it credible, that they should have admitted an 
 Epistle addressed to their fathers, as coming from „ 
 St. Paul, an Epistle containing salutations to more 
 than twenty of their fathers by name, if they had 
 never heard from their fathers, that such an Epis- 
 tle had been received from St. Paul ? And this 
 must have been the case, if the Epistle to the 
 Romans was first brought to light in the second 
 century. Whatever be the time therefore assigned 
 for a forgery, the supposition of it is attended 
 with equal absurdities : and hence we must draw 
 the only inference, which remains, that the Epistle 
 to the Romans is authentic. 
 
 The same kind of reasoning, which has been 
 used on the Epistle to the Romans, applies also 
 to the Epistles, which were written to the Corin- 
 thians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philip - 
 pians, the Colossians, and the Thessalonians. A 
 fraud on those communities was impracticable, 
 for the same reasons that a fraud was impractica- 
 ble on the Christian community at Rome. 
 
 On the Epistles addressed to Timothy, Titus, 
 
 n 2 
 
52 
 
 LECTURE XXV. 
 
 and Philemon, which according to Eusebius, were 
 likewise universally acknowledged, we cannot ar- 
 gue precisely in the same manner, as on the other 
 Epistles. An Epistle addressed to an individual 
 may in general be more easily forged, than one, 
 which is addressed to a whole community. But 
 then we must remember, that Timothy and Titus 
 were men in public stations ; that they were iden- 
 tified with the communities, over whom they 
 presided ; and that those communities would not 
 have acknowledged the Epistles addressed to 
 Timothy and Titus, as Epistles written by St. 
 Paul, if neither they nor their fathers had ever 
 learnt that St Paul had written those Epistles. 
 The authenticity of the Epistle to Philemon can- 
 not be confirmed in the same manner. It is alto- 
 gether a private Epistle. But this Epistle does 
 not require an additional proof. For it is of that 
 description, that there could exist no possible 
 motive to a forgery. 
 
 The authenticity of the two Catholic Epistles^ 
 which were universally received, namely the first 
 Epistle of St. Peter, and the first Epistle of St. 
 John, may be confirmed in the same manner, as 
 that of St. Paul's Epistles. ' If they were univer- 
 sally received, they must have been received as 
 authentic by the persons, or communities for 
 
LECTURE XXV. 53 
 
 9 
 
 which they were immediately intended, and to 
 whom they were first delivered. Otherwise their 
 reception could not have been universal. They 
 were received therefore by the persons, who must 
 have known, whether Jihose Epistles were written, 
 by St. Peter and St. John, or not. 
 
 Let us now apply the argument to the histori- 
 cal books of the New Testament, which were 
 likewise universally received. These books hav- 
 ing been received by every Christian community 
 as the undoubted works of the authors, to whom 
 they are ascribed, they must have been received 
 as such in the places, where they were written, 
 and consequently by persons, who had ample 
 means of knowing, whether those books were 
 written, or not, by the persons, to whom they are 
 ascribed. It does not indeed appear from the 
 books themselves in what places they were writ- 
 ten : and though we may form a very probable 
 opinion, we have no absolute certainty. But in 
 whatever places they were written, they must 
 have been allowed in those place to have been 
 the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. 
 If they had not been so allowed, some doubts at 
 least of their authenticity must have come to the 
 knowledge of Eusebius, and he would not have 
 expressed himself so confidently, as he did. Some, 
 
54 LECTURE ;XXV. 
 
 doubts also of their authenticity must have come 
 to the knowledge of Irenaeus and Tertullian in 
 the West, or of Clement and Origen in the East. 
 But those writers confirm the testimony of Euse- 
 bius in regard to the fact, that the authenticity of 
 those books was never doubted. 
 
 We may argue then in the same manner in 
 regard to the historical books, as we did on the 
 Epistles of St. Paul. The evidence of their ex- 
 istence has been already carried as high as the 
 middle of the second century. And this evidence 
 does not consist in a vague report about Gospels in 
 general, or in quotations,, unaccompanied with 
 the name of the Evangelist, and supposed only 
 from their resemblance to have been borrowed 
 from the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 
 John. Whatever doubts may be entertained in 
 regard to the quotations relating to the History 
 of our Saviour, which are found in the writings 
 of the Apostolic Fathers, or in the works of 
 Justin Martyr, it is impossible to entertain a doubt 
 respecting those,, which were made by Irenaeus 
 and Clement of Alexandria. For they have ex- 
 pressly and repeatedly declared, that they quote 
 from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 
 John : and their quotations are so numerous, as 
 to afford abundant proof, that the Gospels, from 
 
LECTURE XXV. 
 
 55 
 
 which they quoted, not only bore the same titles, 
 but were the same in substance, as the Gospels, 
 which we have at present. And if their quota- 
 tions prove, in the first instance, nothing more 
 than the existence of our four Gospels in the 
 middle of the second century, and a belief in their 
 authenticity on the part of those early writers, (in 
 which however they could hardly have been mis- 
 taken) yet as this belief was common to all Chris- 
 tians, to the Christians therefore who dwelt in 
 the places where those Gospels were written, the 
 supposition of a forgery must be attended with 
 the same absurdities, which have been shewn to 
 attend a similar supposition respecting the Epis- 
 tles of St. Paul. - . 
 
 If our four Gospels were forgeries, the fabri- 
 cation could have taken place at no other period, 
 than during the first half of the second century. 
 It is well known that St. John lived nearly to the 
 end of the first century : and no one, till after 
 his death, could have had any chance of imposing 
 on the world a fictitious Gospel, written in his 
 name, or even in the name of the other Evan- 
 gelists. Since then the supposition of a forgery 
 after the middle of the second century is pre- 
 cluded by the proof of previous existence, we 
 must unavoidably come to one of these two con- " 
 
56 
 
 LECTURE XXV 
 
 elusions ; either that our four Gospels are authen- 
 tic, or that they were forged in the former half of 
 the second century. But during- all this period 
 maqy persons must have been still living, who had 
 been acquainted with St. John, if not with the other 
 Evangelists. Many persons therefore must have 
 been still living, both at Ephesus and elsewhere, 
 who certainly knew, whether St. John had written 
 a Gospel, or not. And if he did not write the 
 Gospel ascribed to him, as the supposition of a 
 forgery implies, is it credible that the Christian 
 community at Ephesus, or the Christian commu- 
 nities in other places where St. John had inter- 
 course, would have acknowledged a Gospel, first 
 brought to light in the second century and pre- 
 tended to have been written by St. John in the 
 first, when neither they, nor their fathers, had 
 ever heared that St. John had written a Gospel? 
 Whatever credulity our adversaries may have 
 ascribed to the primitive Christians, it is impos- 
 sible they should have been ensnared by an 
 imposition like this. But the primitive Chris- 
 tians were not so credulous, as our adversaries 
 have represented them. If they had been thus 
 credulous, we should never have heared of doubts 
 entertained about any book of the New Testa- 
 ment. Indeed we cannot have a stronger proof 
 of the care and caution, with which the claims to 
 
LECTURE XXV. 
 
 57 
 
 authenticity were examined in the early ages of 
 the Church, than the doubts, which we know 
 were entertained in regard to some books of the 
 New Testament. 
 
 The mode of reasoning, which has been ap- 
 plied to the Gospel of St. John, may be applied 
 to the three other Gospels, and to the Acts of 
 the Apostles. If those books were forgeries, 
 they must also have been forged in the former 
 half of the second century ; at a time therefore, 
 when it was known, whether Matthew, Mark, 
 and Luke had written such books or not : and 
 consequently at a time, when books falsely as- 
 cribed to them would not have been universally 
 received as their works. 
 
 We have such a confirmation therefore of 
 authenticity, in regard to the books, which con- 
 stitute the first class of Eusebius, as we should 
 vainly attempt to give of any profane author. 
 And the external evidence for the authenticity of 
 those books may now be considered as complete. 
 
 Let us proceed then to the books, which be- 
 long to the second class, and see what additional 
 proof, from external evidence, may be obtained 
 in their behalf. These books are the Epistle to 
 
LECTURE XXV. 
 
 the Hebrews, the Epistle of St. James, the second 
 Epistle of St. Peter, the second and third of St. 
 John, the Epistle of St. Jude, and the book of 
 Revelation. The authenticity of these books can- 
 not be confirmed in the same manner with the 
 authenticity of the books, which were universally 
 received ; because the arguments* which have 
 been applied to the latter, are not applicable to 
 the former. But other arguments may be applied, 
 which if they produce not the same effect, are still 
 sufficient to command our assent 
 
 The first of them, the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 though rejected during the four first centuries 
 by the Latin Church, was in that very period 
 received by the Greek Church : and it was ac- 
 knowledged as an Epistle of St. Paul by Clement 
 of Alexandria, whose testimony has been already 
 quoted. The testimony of Clement is confirmed 
 by that of Pantaenus, who was the preceptor of 
 Clement, and who likewise declares that the 
 Epistle was written by St. Paul*. It receives 
 additional confirmation from the Canon of the 
 Syrian Church, as exhibited in the old Syriac 
 version. Though some of the books which con- 
 stitute the second class, 'were not admitted into 
 
 * Clement himself appeals to Pantaenus, under the title (xaKa- 
 pto§ -rrpeo-fivrepos. Eusebii Hist. Eccles. Lib. VLc, 14. 
 
LECTURE XXV. 
 
 the Syrian canon, it received the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews ; this Epistle is placed in the old Sy- 
 riac version with the rest of St. Paul's Epistles ; • 
 and it is so placed, not merely in our modern 
 editions, but in manuscripts of that version. Now 
 when the question relates to the authenticity of 
 an Epistle, originally composed in an oriental dia- 
 lect, and addressed to Jews residing in the East, 
 as the language pf the Epistle implies, the deci- 
 sion of the Syrian Church is of the highest possi- 
 ble moment. The Syrian Church decided in its 
 favour, and by that decision our own Church 
 may, in the present instance, very safely abide. 
 And we may abide by it with so much the greater 
 safety, as the reason alleged for its rejection was 
 removed both by Jerom and by Clement of Alexan- 
 dria. The cause of its rejection, as assigned by 
 Jerom in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers *, 
 was the difference of its Greek style from that of 
 other Epistles, ascribed to St. Paul. But if St. 
 Paul wrote it in Hebrew, and the Greek is a 
 translation, the objection to its authenticity is at 
 once removed. 
 
 The next book of the New Testament on 
 which doubts have been entertained, is the Epistle 
 
 * Under the Article Paulus. Tom. II. col. 826". ed. Vallarsi, 
 
(jo 
 
 LECTURE XXV. 
 
 of St. James. And here again the authority of the 
 Syrian Church, which has decided in its favour, is 
 of the greatest possible moment. Whether the 
 Epistle be ascribed to James the son of Zebedee, 
 or to James the son of Alpheus, both of whom 
 were Apostles, we must conclude, that it was 
 written, if not in Palestine itself, at least in some 
 neighbouring country. The question therefore, 
 whether this Epistle might be justly ascribed to 
 James an Apostle, could not be more easily de- 
 cided, than by the Church of Syria, which bor- 
 dered on Palestine. But the Epistle of St. James 
 has always made a part of the Syrian canon ; and 
 the Syrian canon has so much the greater weight 
 in the present instance, as it received only three 
 out of the seven Catholic Epistles, and the Epistle 
 of St. James was one of them. Nor must we 
 forget, that in the place, where Eusebius acknow- 
 ledges, that this Epistle was not universally re- 
 ceived, he declares that it was received by the 
 great majority. We must remember also, that 
 before an Epistle written in Palestine could be 
 generally known in the Greek Church, a longer 
 period was necessary, than was wanted for the 
 general diffusion of Epistles, which had been 
 written to communities, that made a part of that 
 Church. The lateness therefore of its general 
 reception, in comparison with the Epistles to the 
 
LECTURE XXV. 
 
 61 
 
 Corinthians, and other Grecian communities, is 
 so far from being* an argument against this Epis- 
 tle, that it is precisely what under all circum- 
 stances there was reason to expect. And if the 
 author of it assumes no higher title, than that of 
 servant of Jesus Christ, this title is no argument, 
 that the author was not an Apostle. For St. Paul 
 himself takes the title of servant of Jesus Christ, 
 both in his Epistle to the Romans and in his 
 Epistle to the Philippians. 
 
 For the second Epistle of St. Peter we cannot 
 produce the same high authority, as was produced 
 for the Epistle of St. James. The second Epistle 
 of St. Peter, with the second and third of St. John, 
 and the Epistle of St. Jude, are the four Catholic 
 Epistles, which are not contained in the old 
 Syriac version. But the omission of them may 
 probably be ascribed to the early age, in which 
 the Syrian Canon was formed. And, if that 
 Canon was formed before those Epistles were 
 known to the Syrian Church, the omission of 
 them cannot be construed into a rejection of them. 
 Now the lateness of the time, when this Epistle 
 was written, is apparent from the Epistle itself. 
 We may infer not only from particular passages, 
 but from its general tenor, that the author then 
 foresaw his death approaching. If therefore this 
 
ft2 LECTURE XXV. 
 
 short Epistle became universally known at a later 
 period, than the first Epistle ascribed to St. Peter, 
 we must not thence conclude that the first only is 
 authentic. If the second is not contained in the 
 old Syriac version, it is contained in the Philo- 
 xenian version, and is quoted as an Epistle of 
 St. Peter by Ephrem the most ancient of the 
 Syrian Fathers.* And its resemblance to the 
 first Epistle, both in matter and in manner, is 
 really such, that if the first Epistle was written 
 by St. Peter, which no one ever doubted, we 
 must conclude the same also of the second 
 Epistle. 
 
 On the second and third Epistles of St. John, 
 it is unnecessary to make many remarks. Both 
 of these very short Epistles were addressed to 
 individuals, one of whom is unknown even by 
 name, and of the other, it is unknown who he 
 was. The general diffusion of these Epistles 
 therefore in the early ages of Christianity would 
 have been contrary to all expectation. And even 
 when they were known, they could afford but 
 little matter for quotation. The silence therefore 
 of the early writers, which Eusebius consulted, 
 
 * In his Greek works, vol. II. p. 387, (printed at Rome in 1743) 
 he quotes 2 Pet. iii. 10, and ascribes it to St. Peter, whom he calls 
 4 pandpio*: Ylirpo<s, 6 Kopv(pctio<i twi/ 'Attoo-toAwi/. 
 
LECTURE XXV. 
 
 63 
 
 though it induced him, to place them among 
 books, which were not universally received, 
 hardly bears on the question of their authenti- 
 city. And since they resemble both in matter 
 and in manner the first Epistle of St. John, which 
 was universally acknowledged, there can be no 
 reason for rejecting either the second or the 
 third. 
 
 The Epistle of St. Jude, the last of the Epistles 
 in the second class of Eusebius, was also an Epistle, 
 which from its shortness was likely to attract less 
 general attention, and hence to become universally 
 known, at a later period, than many other books. 
 But when it was known, it was received as the 
 work of the author, to whom it is ascribed. And 
 it is quoted as such, both by Clement of Alexan- 
 dria, and by Origen t. 
 
 Lastly, of the book of Revelation the authen- 
 ticity may be confirmed by arguments, which 
 cannot easily be rejected. For it is not only 
 quoted, and quoted frequently, both by Clement 
 of Alexandria and by Origen : it is quoted also 
 in numerous instances by Irenseus : and by Ire- 
 nseus, whose testimony is decisive on this subject, 
 
 * See the second volume of Griesbach's Symbol* Critic*. 
 
04 LECTURE XXV. 
 
 it is expressly ascribed to John the Apostle. The 
 testimony of Irenaeus, if it wanted confirmation, 
 would receive an accession of strength from the 
 testimony of Justin Martyr, who was born in 
 Palestine about the end of the first century. In 
 the second part of his Dialogue with Trypho the 
 Jew, Justin Martyr referring to the book of 
 Revelation, says expressly, that it was written by 
 "John, one of the Apostles of * Christ * And 
 this testimony of Justin Martyr to the book of 
 Revelation is so much the more remarkable, as it 
 is the only book in the whole New Testament, 
 of which Justin Martyr has ever named the 
 author. For though his silence about the authors 
 of the other books cannot affect the positive evi- 
 dence of the writers already quoted, the circum- 
 stance, that he has not been silent, in regard to 
 the question, whether the book of Revelation was 
 written by St. John the Apostle, acquires addi- 
 tional importance from his silence on other 
 occasions. 
 
 The external evidence for the authenticity of 
 the New Testament is now complete : and the 
 proof has been conducted, without the aid, either 
 of the Apostolic Fathers, 6r of any other writers, 
 
 * p. 315, ed. Thirlby. 
 
LECTURE XXV. 6 5 
 
 whose testimony can in any way be questioned. 
 But though we have sufficient proof, independently 
 of the Apostolic Fathers, there is no reason for our 
 rejecting them altogether as useless. When the 
 passages in their writings, which are supposed 
 only from their resemblance to have been bor- 
 rowed from corresponding passages in the Gospels, 
 or other books, are brought forward, as usual, in 
 the first instance, we are then indeed lost in un- 
 certainty, whether such passages were borrowed 
 from the New Testament, or not. But when we 
 have already proved, that such books of the New 
 Testament, as they are supposed to have quoted, 
 were then in existence, and therefore might have 
 been quoted by them, it becomes much more cre- 
 dible, that those books really were quoted by them. 
 It is true, that, if the validity of a witness must be 
 previously established by means, which prove of 
 themselves what the witness is intended to prove, 
 the importance of his evidence is thereby dimi- 
 nished. But in the present case we are not so 
 much concerned with the obtaining of more evi- 
 dence, which is quite unnecessary, as with shewing, 
 that the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers, as far 
 as it goes, is consistent with the evidence already 
 produced. But there are some books of the New 
 Testament, which the Apostolic Fathers, if their 
 writings are genuine, have mentioned hy name, 
 
 E 
 
(3(j LECTURE XXV. 
 
 Clement of Rome, in his first Epistle to the Corin- 
 thians quotes a passage from St. Paul's first 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, and calls it an < Epistle 
 of the blessed Paul the Apostle.' * Ignatius, in his 
 Epistle to the Ephesians, refers them to the Epis- 
 tle, which they had received from St. Paul, whom 
 he calls < Paul the holy, the martyr/ f And in like 
 manner Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philip- 
 pians,J reminds them of the Epistle, which they 
 had received from St. Paul, whom he calls ' the 
 blessed* and renowned Paul/ These are refer- 
 ences, such as we might expect from the Apostolic 
 Fathers in their respective Epistles : and we may 
 be satisfied, if they have afforded as much evidence, 
 as under all circumstances might be reasonably 
 expected. 
 
 Another very ancient writer, who was certainly 
 born in the first century, is Papias, who though 
 his testimony is confined to the Gospels of St. 
 Matthew and St. Mark, the former of which he 
 says was written in Hebrew, must not be omitted. 
 This testimony is recorded in a fragment of the 
 works of Papias, which Eusebius has preserved in 
 his Ecclesiastical History .§ 
 
 * Patres Apostolici. ed. Cotelerii, Tom. I. p. 173. 
 
 t Ibid. Tom. II. p. 15. I Ibid. ib. p. 185. 
 
 § Lib. iii. cap. 39- 
 
LECTURE XXV. 
 
 67 
 
 There is one more writer, whom it has been 
 usual to quote as evidence, for our four Greek 
 Gospels, namely Justin Martyr. I have already 
 quoted him as evidence for the book of Revelation, 
 because his testimony on that book is clear and 
 decisive. But I cannot consistently quote him as 
 evidence for our four Greek Gospels, because the 
 quotations, which he is supposed to have made 
 from them, are involved in difficulties, which 
 I have fully stated elsewhere, and which it is 
 unnecessary to repeat. Nor is the loss of one 
 witness to the authenticity of the Gospels a matter 
 of any importance, when their authenticity has 
 been already established beyond the possibility of 
 doubt. Indeed the loss is more than compensated 
 by the advantage, which is obtained in regard to 
 the integrity of the Gospels ; which integrity 
 would materially suffer, if it were true, that 
 Justin Martyr, instead of quoting from a Hebrew 
 Gospel, like others, who were born in Palestine 
 at the same period with himself, had derived his 
 quotations from our Greek Gospels. 
 
 s 
 
 To the testimonies of Christian writers it has 
 been usual also to add the testimonies of Jewish 
 and heathen writers. But their testimony, as 
 well as the testimony of ancient heretics, shall be 
 reserved for the proof of credibility. 
 
 e 2 
 
68 
 
 LECTURE XXV 
 
 The external evidence for the authenticity of 
 the New Testament requires no further illustra- 
 tion. In the next Lecture, therefore, which will 
 be the last of the present series, I shall proceed 
 to the internal evidence, which affords much matter 
 of interesting and curious inquiry. 
 
1 
 
 LECTURE XXVI. 
 
 W hen external evidence has been produced for 
 the authenticity of a work, the first question to be 
 asked in regard to the internal evidence, is whe- 
 ther it agrees with the external. The internal 
 evidence for the authenticity of any book, is 
 deduced from the book itself. If the book contains 
 nothing inconsistent with the notion, that it was 
 written by the author to whom it is ascribed, or, 
 in other words, if the contents of the book are 
 such, that it might have been written by him, then 
 the proof from external evidence, that it was 
 written by him, not only remains unimpaired, but 
 receives additional support from its agreement 
 with the internal. If indeed the evidence, deduced 
 from the contents of a work, goes no further, than 
 to shew that it might have been written by the 
 author assigned to it, it is internal evidence of the 
 lowest kind ; it can only be applied in aid of the 
 external evidence, and cannot establish the au- 
 thenticity of a work by itself. But even smh 
 
70 LECTURE XXVI. 
 
 internal evidence is of great importance. For, 
 if instead of finding from the contents of a work 
 that it might have proceeded from the author 
 assigned to it, we discovered any thing inconsistent 
 with his known situation and character, the credit, 
 which had been given to the external evidence, 
 may not only be weakened, but be destroyed. 
 And we may be compelled to admit, that however 
 specious the external evidence may appear, there 
 must be somewhere a defect, either in the state- 
 ment of facts, or in the reasoning which is founded 
 on them. If a book contains within itself undeni- 
 able marks of a different age, or a different country, 
 from that to which it is said to belong, or if it evi- 
 dently betrays an author of a different description 
 from him who is said to have written it, we must 
 conclude, that they, who have said so, have been 
 led into error. Since then internal evidence, ! if 
 it is at variance with the external, may be strong 
 enough to counteract it, an agreement between 
 them is of great importance, even if the internal 
 evidence goes no further than to shew, that the 
 book in question might have been written by the 
 author, to whom external evidence ascribes it. 
 It is true, that where external evidence is so 
 strong, as it is in favour of the New Testament, a 
 discovery of any thing in the books themselves, 
 which might oppose that evidence, would be con- 
 
LECTURE XXVI. 71 
 
 trary to all expectation. And we should have so 
 much the more reason to be surprised at such a 
 discovery, as it would be a discovery, which had 
 eluded the vigilance of Origen and Jerom. 
 
 In fact, the more closely we examine the seve- 
 ral books, which compose the New Testament, 
 the more we must be convinced, that both their 
 matter and their language accord with the known 
 situations and characters of the respective authors. 
 Spurious compositions betray themselves, by allu- 
 sions to persons and things, which did not exist 
 at the period assigned for the composition ; by a 
 display of knowledge, which the pretended author 
 could not have possessed ; by the delivery of opi- 
 nions, which he could not have entertained ; by 
 peculiarities of language, which accord not with 
 his country or his character ; by the introduction 
 of customs and manners, which were foreign to 
 the age in which he lived ; or by some other dis- 
 cordance, into which every impostor is likely to 
 fall, from the difficulty of uniformly recollecting 
 the difference between his own situation, and the 
 situation of the person, to whom he ascribes his 
 work. If therefore the books of the New Testa- 
 ment had not been the works of the Apostles and 
 Evangelists, some incongruity would have been 
 discovered between those books and the pretended 
 
72 LECTURE XXVI. 
 
 authors of them. But every thing, which we find 
 in the New Testament is precisely what we might 
 expect to find, from persons so circumstanced as 
 the Apostles and Evangelists. Whether we con- 
 sider the New Testament in reference to matters 
 of geography, or in reference to states and go- 
 vernments, or in reference to prevailing customs., 
 we every where find representations, which accord 
 with the geography, the policy, and the customs 
 of the first century. The facts, which are re- 
 corded, and the sentiments, which are delivered, 
 harmonize with the country, the age, and the 
 character of the several writers. The lan- 
 guage also is exactly the kind of language 
 which such persons would have used. In short 
 every thing throughout the New Testament, is 
 in unison with the belief, that the several books 
 of it were written by the authors, to whom they 
 are ascribed. Now it has been shewn already, 
 that the external evidence in the present case is 
 so strong, as to require nothing more from inter- 
 nal evidence, than a bare agreement with it. And 
 since the internal evidence sufficiently shews, that 
 the several books of the New Testament, might 
 have been written by the authors, to whom they 
 are ascribed, the external evidence incontestably 
 proves that they were so. 
 
LECTURE XXVI. 73 
 
 Here then we might rest contented with the 
 proof, which has been already given. But since 
 internal evidence may go further, than that of a 
 mere auxiliary to the external, and every thing-, 
 which relates to the authenticity of the New 
 Testament deserves our serious attention, let us 
 consider how far internal evidence may be car- 
 ried on the present occasion. Let us inquire, 
 whether a proof may be obtained from the New 
 Testament itself, independently of external evi- 
 dence, not only that it might have been written 
 by the persons to whom the several books are 
 ascribed, but that those books could not have 
 been written by any other persons, than persons 
 so circumstanced as the Apostles and Evangelists. 
 
 Let us begin with the historical books of the 
 New Testament, and consider, in the first place, 
 the knowledge which they display of the several 
 relations, which the Jews, in the time of our 
 Saviour, bore, as well to each other , as to foreign 
 nations. The various changes, both in their 
 civil and in their religious state, from the reign 
 of Herod the Great to the Procuratorship of 
 Pestus, with the jarring opinions of the different 
 Jewish sects, are so introduced in the historical 
 books of the New Testament, as could be expected 
 only from writers, to whom the civil and religious 
 
74 
 
 LECTURE XXVI. 
 
 state of the Jewish nation was familiar. The 
 divisions and subdivisions made by the Romans 
 in the governments of Judaea, Samaria, and Gali- 
 lee., the subjection of Judaea to a Roman Procu- 
 rator on the banishment of Archelaus, its tempo- 
 rary administration by Herod Agrippa, and its 
 subsequent return to the Procuratorship, are 
 facts not formally recorded in the historical books, 
 but occasionally introduced, and so introduced, 
 as would be done by no writer, who had lived 
 in a different country, or in a different age. From 
 the intimate knowledge thus displayed by the 
 persons who wrote the historical books of the 
 New Testament, we must conclude, that they 
 were conversant with Palestine, and contempo- 
 rary with the facts, which they record. The 
 knowledge, which they display, relates frequently 
 to matters so minute, to matters of such little ap- 
 parent interest, beyond the narrow limits of 
 Judaea, that a writer of any other country, or of 
 any other age could hardly have possessed it. 
 And the difficulty of obtaining it in any subse- 
 quent age was further increased by the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem, and the subversion of the Jew- 
 ish state ; a subversion so complete, as to have 
 obliterated among the Jews themselves all remem- 
 brance of minute relations and transactions, which 
 preceded that event. The history of our Saviour 
 
LECTURE XXVI. 
 
 75 
 
 which is recorded in the Gospels, and the trans- 
 actions at Jerusalem, recorded in the Acts of the 
 Apostles, must have been recorded therefore at 
 a time, when the Jewish state was still in being. 
 Nor is it merely a knowledge of things relating 
 to Judaea, that we find displayed in the New 
 Testament. Whether they relate to Jerusalem, or 
 relate to Ephesus, or to Corinth, or to Athens, 
 or to Rome, we find representations, that accord 
 with the places, which are the scenes of action. 
 That an impostor therefore in the second century 
 should have united this knowledge of foreign 
 countries with that minute knowledge of J udaea, 
 as it existed in the first century, is quite incre- 
 dible. 
 
 But for the sake of argument, let us suppose 
 that the thing was possible, and consider the 
 conclusion, to which the supposition will lead. 
 If the historical books of the New Testament 
 were fabricated by an impostor, or by impos- 
 tors, who had all the knowledge necessary to 
 make those books agree with the circumstances, 
 under which they were said to be written, and 
 they were accordingly made to agree, in order to 
 conceal the fraud, the fraud would still betray 
 itself, and betray itself through the means, which 
 were employed to conceal it. 
 
70 
 
 LECTURE XXVI. 
 
 In compositions, which are not intended to 
 deceive, but are honest representations of what 
 the writers know or believe, an agreement with 
 dates, whether of time or of place, and in general 
 an accordance with things that are co-existent, 
 will be of such a description, as to betray no ap- 
 pearance of design. And for this reason will 
 such agreement be without design, because there 
 is no fraud to be concealed. Indeed they who 
 have had opportunities of searching for internal 
 marks of authenticity, whether in books, or in 
 written letters, will have observed examples of 
 coincidence in dates, of which the writers them- 
 selves were evidently not aware. And the au- 
 thenticity of their writings is thus established by 
 means, which had escaped their own notice. 
 But if an impostor undertakes to fabricate a work 
 in the name of another, and in order to give 
 colour to the forgery contrives an artificial coin- 
 cidence with times, or places, or co-existent trans- 
 actions, such coincidence being itself a fabri- 
 cation, contrived for a particular purpose, the 
 contrivance will always be apparent. The object 
 of an impostor is to obtain the semblance of 
 authenticity ; and that object would be defeated; 
 if the coincidence were ' not easily perceived. 
 Far different is the situation of a writer, who has 
 no need of contrivance, who has no imposition 
 
LECTURE XXVI. 
 
 77 
 
 to conceal, who honestly writes in his own name, 
 and assumes not a character, which does not 
 belong to him. Conscious of his own integrity 
 he has no motive to obtain a semblance of authen- 
 ticity, when he knows it to be real His agree- 
 ment therefore with dates, whether of time or of 
 place, his accordance with things or persons co- 
 existent with what he himself describes, will 
 every where appear to be incidental and unde- 
 signed. It will appear as the consistency of 
 truth, not as the consistency of art. Though 
 every minute examination will confirm the accu- 
 racy of the agreement, the agreement will not be 
 glaring. On the contrary, it will often happen, 
 that such coincidences not only lie concealed 
 from the view of common observers, but require 
 a combination of various and sometimes uncon- 
 nected facts, before it is possible to perceive 
 them. And as such coincidences must be free 
 from all suspicion of design, the stronger is 
 their evidence for authenticity, when they are 
 discovered. 
 
 Now if we examine the historical books of 
 the New Testament, we shall find many coin- 
 cidences of this description ; coincidences, which 
 are not apparent, but which, as soon as they are 
 
78 
 
 LECTURE XXVI. 
 
 discovered, are found to be perfectly exact. It 
 will be sufficient to give two or three examples. 
 
 In the third chapter of St. Luke's Gospel * it 
 is related, that while John the Baptist was preach- 
 ing in the country about Jordan, there came to him 
 certain soldiers, who as appears from the expres- 
 sion used by St. Luke,f were not merely soldiers 
 by profession, but soldiers in actual service. Now 
 the Roman soldiers, who were then stationed in 
 Judaea, do not appear to have been at that time 
 engaged in any war: and though it might be 
 reasonably inferred, that St. Luke would not have 
 used an expression that did not accord with the 
 actual state of things, the accordance is not appa- 
 rent from his own narrative. He further relates 
 in the same chapter, J that Herod the Tetrarch 
 being reproved by John the Baptist for Herodias 
 his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils, 
 which Herod had done, added yet this above all, 
 that he shut up John in prison. But what con- 
 nexion there was between Herod and the soldiers 
 just before mentioned, does not appear. Nor does 
 it appear what connexion there was between those 
 soldiers and the place of John's imprisonment ; 
 
 * \er. 14. -j- ^Tparevofxevoi, not <yrpar«arat. 
 
 % Ver. 19, 20. 
 
LECTURE XXVI. 79 
 
 though we may infer that the place of his impri- 
 sonment was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 
 the Jordan, because the order for his imprisonment 
 was given while John was preaching there. Again, 
 in the sixth chapter of St. Mark's Gospel where 
 St. Mark also mentions the imprisonment of John 
 the Baptist, and assigns the same reason for it, 
 which St. Luke did, we find an expression applied 
 to the person, whom Herod subsequently dispatched 
 with the order, that John the Baptist should be 
 beheaded, which expression is used for persons, 
 who are in military service * Now it does not 
 at all appear from the narrative of St. Mark, why 
 a military person was employed on this occasion. 
 The order for the death of John the Baptist was 
 given by Herod at an entertainment, an enter- 
 tainment, at which Herodias was present with her 
 daughter. The entertainment was given on Herod's 
 birth-day ;f and, as described by St. Mark, it has 
 simply the appearance of an entertainment given 
 at a royal court. Though we must conclude there- 
 fore, that St. Mark, as well as Luke, had reasons 
 for employing the particular expressions, which they 
 did on this occasion, those reasons are not apparent. 
 But we shall discover those reasons, if we consult 
 
 * ^eKovXarcop, ver. 27. On this word see Schleusner's 
 Lexicon. 
 
 t Mark vi. 21. 
 
MO 
 
 LECTURE XXV f. 
 
 the account, which Josephus has given of the im- 
 prisonment and death of John the Baptist. It is 
 given in the eighteenth book, and the fifth chapter 
 of his Jewish Antiquities. From this account it 
 appears, that Herod the Tetrarch was then actu- 
 ally engaged in a war with Aretas, a king of 
 Arabia Petrasa, whose daughter had been married 
 to Herod, but who returned to her father, in con- 
 sequence of Herod's ill treatment. Aretas there- 
 fore determined to invade the territory of Herod : 
 and Herod marched to meet him. Now the army 
 of Herod in marching from Galilee to the confines 
 of Arabia Petraea, must have passed through the 
 country, where John was baptizing: and accor- 
 dingly we find in the account of Josephus, that 
 the place of John's imprisonment was Machasrus, 
 a fortress on the eastern side of the Jordan. It 
 further appears from the same account, that this 
 fortress was on the borders of the country subject 
 to Aretas; and this circumstance again explains 
 the march of Herod's army into the neighbourhood 
 of the Jordan. Here then we find a very remark- 
 able coincidence between the expressions used by 
 the Evangelists, and the actual state of things. 
 The soldiers, who came to John while he was 
 preaching in the country about the Jordan, were 
 soldiers of Herod the Tetrarch, soldiers then in 
 actual service: and St Luke has accordingly 
 
LECTURE XXVI. 
 
 Si 
 
 employed an expression which denotes such actual 
 service. Now, if this Gospel, instead of being- 
 written by St. Luke, had been fabricated in a later 
 age, the fabricator would hardly have known, that 
 the soldiers who came to John the Baptist, were 
 soldiers in actual service, though the knowledge of 
 it was familiar to a contemporary author. On the 
 other hand, if (what is certainly possible) he had 
 learnt the fact from the Antiquities of Josephus, 
 and used a suitable expression to give his work the 
 colour of authenticity, he would have taken care 
 to make the coincidence apparent, or his object 
 would not have been attained. But the coinci- 
 dence, though perfect when discovered, is not 
 apparent. It resulted from knowledge, which was 
 familiar to the author ; and he had no inducement 
 to make a display of it, because it was familiar to 
 him. A coincidence so perfect, and at the same 
 time so concealed, was never discovered in a spu- 
 rious production. — The expression used by St. 
 Mark leads to the same conclusion. The person 
 dispached by Herod with the order, that John the 
 Baptist should be beheaded, was a person employ- 
 ed in military service, because Herod was at the 
 head of his army, then marching against Aretas. 
 And St. Mark has accordingly used an expression, 
 in speaking of that person, which denotes a mili- 
 tary character. The coincidence is very remark- 
 
 F 
 
g2 LECTURE XXVI. 
 
 able, though it does not appear on the face of the 
 narrative. And it does not appear on the face of 
 the, narrative, because it is the coincidence of 
 truth, not the coincidence of design. Further, on 
 comparing; the account of Josephus with that of 
 St. Mark, we perceive why Herodias was present 
 at an entertainment, which (as appears from the 
 preceding statement) must have been given, while 
 Herod was engaged in war. Herodias was the 
 cause of the war. It was on her account, that 
 the daughter of Aretas, the wife of Herod, was 
 compelled by ill-treatment to take refuge with her 
 father. And as the war, which Aretas had under- 
 taken, was undertaken to obtain redress for his 
 daughter, Herodias had a peculiar interest in ac- 
 companying Herod, even when he was marching 
 to battle. No spurious productions could bear so 
 rigid a test, as that which has been here applied 
 to the narratives of St. Mark and Luke. 
 
 Let us now take an example from the Acts of 
 the Apostles. At the beginning of the twenty- 
 seventh chapter, the author relates, that when 
 St. Paul was sent from Caesarea to Rome, he was 
 with the other prisoners, committed to the care of 
 Julius, an officer of the Augustan Cohort, that is 
 a Roman Cohort, which had the honour of bearing 
 the name of the Emperor, Now it appears from 
 
I 
 
 LECTURE XXVI. 83 
 
 the account, which Josephus has given in his 
 second Book on the Jewish War,* that when 
 Felix was Procurator of Judaea, the Roman gar- 
 rison at Caesarea was chiefly composed of soldiers 
 who were natives of Syria. But it also appears, 
 as well from the same book, $ as from the twentieth 
 book of his Antiquities, % that a small body of 
 Roman soldiers was stationed there at the same 
 time, and that this body of Roman soldiers was 
 dignified with the title of 2EBA2TH or Augustan, 
 the same Greek word being employed by Josephus, 
 as by the author of the Acts of the Apostles. This 
 select body of Roman soldiers had been employed 
 by Cumanus, who immediately preceded Felix in 
 the Procuratorship of Judea, for the purpose of 
 quelling an insurrection. § And when Festus, who 
 succeeded Felix, had occasion to send prisoners 
 from Caesarea to Rome, he would of course entrust 
 them to the care of an officer belonging to this 
 select corps. Even here then we have a coinci- 
 dence, which is worthy of notice ; a coincidence, 
 which we should never have discovered, without 
 consulting the writings of Josephus. But, that 
 
 * Bell. Jud. lib. 2. cap. xiii. §. 7. Tom. II. p. 178. eel 
 Havercamp. 
 
 t Cap. xii. §. 5. p. 174. 
 
 ♦ Anti( l- Jud. lib. 20. cap. vi. Tom. I. p. 967. ed. Havercamp. 
 § lb. ib. 
 
 F 2 
 
q | LECTURE XXVI. 
 
 which is most worthy of notice, is the circum- 
 stance, that this select body of soldiers bore the 
 title of Augustan. This title was known of course 
 to St. Luke, who accompanied St. Paul from 
 Csesarea to Rome. But, that, in the time of the 
 Emperor Nero, the garrison of Caesarea, which 
 consisted chiefly of Syrian soldiers, contained also 
 a small body of Roman soldiers, and that they 
 were dignified by the epithet Augustan, are cir- 
 cumstances so minute, that no impostor of a later 
 age would have known them. And they prove 
 incontestably, that the Acts of the Apostles could 
 have been written only by a person in the situation 
 of St. Luke. 
 
 I will add only one more example of coinci- 
 dence, which is so much the more remarkable, 
 because though it is in all respects complete, it 
 lies at the same time so concealed, as to have 
 excited the suspicion of an error, which suspicion 
 has been finally removed by the discovery of a 
 Greek coin. In the thirteenth chapter of the 
 Acts of the Apostles, the author, describing the 
 transactions of St. Paul in Cyprus, gives to Ser- 
 gius Paulus, the Roman governor of that island, 
 a Greek title, which was applied only to those 
 governors of provinces, who were invested with 
 
LECTURE XXVi. 
 
 $5 
 
 proconsular dignity;* And on the supposition, that 
 Cyprus was not a province of this description, it 
 has been inferred, and inferred even by Grotius, 
 that the title given to Sergius Paulus in the Acts 
 of the Apostles, was a title which did not properly 
 belong to him. A passage indeed has been quoted 
 from Dion Cassius, who in the fifty-fourth book of . 
 his Roman History, f speaking of the governors of 
 Cyprus and some other Roman provinces, applies 
 to them the same title which is applied to Sergius 
 Paulus in the Acts of the Apostles. But as Dion 
 Cassius is speaking of several Roman provinces at 
 the same time, one of which was certainly governed 
 by a Proconsul, it has been supposed, that for the 
 sake of brevity, he used one term for all of them, 
 whether it applied to all of them or not. That 
 Cyprus however ought not to be excepted, and 
 that the title which he employed as well as St. 
 Luke really did belong to the Roman governors of 
 Cyprus, appears from the inscription on a Greek 
 coin, belonging to Cyprus itself, and struck in the 
 very age, in which Sergius Paulus was governor of 
 that island. It was struck in the reign of Claudius 
 Caesar, whose head and name are on the face of 
 it: and in the reign of Claudius Caesar St. Paul 
 visited Cyprus. It was a coin belonging to the 
 
 * This title is avdv-rraTw. 
 
 f Page 523, ed. Hanovia? l6*06. 
 
86 
 
 LECTURE XXVI. 
 
 people of that island, as appears from the word 
 KYnpiHN on the reverse. And though not struck, 
 while Sergius Paulus himself was governor, it was 
 struck, as appears from the inscription on the 
 reverse, in the time of Proclus, who was next to 
 Sergius Paulus in the government of that Island, 
 And on this coin the same title AN6YI1AT02 is 
 given to Proclus, which is given by St. Luke to 
 Sergius Paulus. An engraving of this coin may 
 be seen in the plate, which belongs to the 106th 
 page of Havercamp's edition of the Thesaurus 
 Morellianus. And the coincidence, which it shews, 
 is of that description, that it is sufficient of itself 
 to establish the authenticity of the work in which 
 the coincidence is found. 
 
 Nor is it merely in the historical books of the 
 New Testament, that we find coincidences, which 
 argue the authenticity of the books, in which they 
 are discovered. In the Epistles of St. Paul we 
 find perpetual allusions to places, persons, events, 
 and circumstances, which may likewise be traced 
 in the Acts of the Apostles. Now if those Epistles 
 had been forgeries in the name of St. Paul, the 
 impostor would either have confined himself to 
 doctrines, avoiding altogether such allusions, as, 
 if found to be incorrect, might lead to a detection : 
 or if he possessed the Acts of the Apostles, and in 
 
LECTURE XXVI. 87 
 
 fabricating the Epistles was thus enabled to make 
 the allusions in the latter correspond with the 
 transactions in the former, the coincidence between 
 the allusions and the transactions would have been 
 every where rendered apparent. But the allusions 
 in the Epistles of St. Paul, though always found 
 to be exact, as soon as they are discovered, are in 
 general so little apparent that various combinations 
 are necessary, before we can see the coincidence. 
 Those Epistles therefore possess the true internal 
 marks of authenticity. It is unnecessary to give 
 examples from the Epistles of St. Paul, because 
 they have I been numerously given, and satisfac- 
 torily explained in that excellent work the Horae 
 Paulinae. 
 
 Let ms now consider the internal evidence 
 afforded by the peculiar language of the Greek 
 Testament. It is written in a dialect, which was 
 never used by persons born and educated in any 
 part of Greece. It is such a dialect, as would be 
 used by persons, who were educated in a country, 
 where Chaldee or Syriac was spoken as the verna- 
 cular tongue, but who acquired also a knowledge 
 of Greek, by frequent intercourse with strangers. 
 Now this was precisely the situation of the Apos- 
 tles and Evangelists : and we find accordingly, thai 
 their Greek is perpetually mixed with oriental 
 
88 LECTURE XXVI. 
 
 idioms. It is no objection to this argument, that 
 Joscphus, the Jewish historian, has written in 
 Greek of a different description. A man of refined 
 education may obtain the power of writing in a 
 foreign language with as much correctness, as the 
 natives themselves. But the writers of the Greek 
 Testament were men in humble stations, who 
 never sought to obtain an exemption from the 
 dialect, they had once acquired. They were conr 
 cerned with facts, and with doctrines : and if these 
 were correctly stated, the purity of their diction 
 appeared to them a matter of no importance. It 
 is true, that one of them was a man of erudition, 
 and moreover born at Tarsus. But if St. Paul 
 was horn at Tarsus, he was educated at Jeru- 
 salem : and his erudition was the erudition of a 
 Jewish, not of a Grecian school. 
 
 The language therefore of the Greek Testa- 
 ment is precisely such as we might expect from 
 the persons, to whom the several parts of it are 
 ascribed. But we may go still further, and assert, 
 not only that that the language of the Greek 
 Testament accords with the situation of the per- 
 sons, to whom it is ascribed, but that it could not 
 have been used by any person, or persons, who 
 were in a different situation from that of the 
 Apostles and Evangelists, It was necessary to 
 
LECTURE XXVI. SQ 
 
 have lived in the first century , and to have been 
 educated in Judaea, or in Galilee, or in some adja- 
 cent country, to be enabled to write such a com- 
 pound language as that of the Greek Testament. 
 Unless some oriental dialect had been familiar 
 to the persons, who wrote the several books of 
 the New Testament, they would not have been 
 able to write that particular kind of Greek, by 
 which those books are distinguished from every 
 classic author. Nor would this kind of language 
 have appeared in the several books of the New 
 Testament, even though the writers had lived 
 in Judaea, unless they had lived also in the same 
 age with the Apostles and Evangelists. Judaea 
 itself could not have produced in the second cen- 
 tury the compositions, which we find in the New 
 Testament. The destruction of Jerusalem and 
 the total subversion of the Jewish state, intro- 
 duced new forms and new relations, as well in 
 language, as in policy. The language therefore 
 of a fabrication attempted in the second century 
 would have borne a different character from that 
 of writings composed in the same country before 
 the destruction of Jerusalem. And even if the 
 dialect of a former age could have been success- 
 fully imitated, no inhabitant of Judaea in the 
 second century would have made the attempt. 
 The Jews, who remained in that country, will 
 
90 
 
 LECTURE XXVI. 
 
 hardly be suspected of such a fabrication. And 
 the only Christians who remained there in the 
 second century were the Nazarenes and the 
 Ebionites. But the Nazarenes and the Ebion- 
 ites used only one Gospel, and that Gospel was 
 in Hebrew. They will hardly be suspected 
 therefore of having forged Greek Gospels. Nor 
 can they be suspected of having forged Greek 
 Epistles., especially as the Epistles of St. Paul 
 were rejected by the Ebionites,, not indeed as 
 spurious,, but as containing docrines at variance 
 with their peculiar tenets. But if Judtea could 
 not have produced in the second century such 
 writings as we find in the New Testament, no 
 other country could have produced them. For 
 the Christians of the second century, who lived 
 where Greek was the vernacular language, though 
 their dialect might differ from the dialect of 
 Athens, never used a dialect, in which oriental 
 phraseology was so mingled with Greek words, 
 as we find in the New Testament. The language 
 therefore clearly shews, that it could not have 
 been written in any other age, than in the first 
 century, nor by any other persons, than by persons 
 in the situation of the Apostles and Evangelists. 
 
 We must not indeed forget, that two books 
 of the New Testament were originally written in 
 
LECTURE XXVI. 
 
 91 
 
 Hebrew, namely, the Gospel of St. Matthew, and 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews. But if the argu- 
 ments, which have been used in regard to lan- 
 guage, do not apply to them immediately, those 
 arguments apply to them indirectly > and with no 
 inconsiderable force. If those arguments shew 
 that the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew was written 
 before the destruction of Jerusalem, and that 
 Gospel is a translation, it follows a fortiori, that 
 the original was written before that period. And 
 if those arguments further shew, that the Greek 
 Gospel of St. Matthew was written by a person 
 similarly situated with St. Matthew, we must 
 conclude, either that the translation was made by 
 St. Matthew himself (and there are instances of 
 the same author writing the same work in two 
 different languages) or that the translator was so 
 connected with the author, as to give to the trans- 
 lation the value of an original. The Hebrew 
 Gospel of St. Matthew was retained by the He- 
 brew Christians of Palestine, and still existed 
 though with various interpolations, in the fourth 
 century. But the Greek Gospel was necessarily 
 adopted by the Greek Christians : it was so adopt- 
 ed from the earliest ages : and it is no less the 
 Gospel of St. Matthew, than the Gospel, which 
 St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew. Similar remarks 
 
Q2 LECTURE XXV J. 
 
 apply to the Epistle, which was written by St. 
 Paul to the Hebrews. 
 
 Let us now consider the language of the 
 Greek Testament in another relation than that of 
 dialect. Let us consider it in reference to the style 
 or the manner of writing, which is different in 
 different books. In the historical books of the 
 New Testament we find the simplicity of writers, 
 who were more intent upon things, than upon 
 words : we find men of plain education, honestly 
 relating what they knew, without attempting to 
 adorn their narratives by any elegance or grace 
 of diction. And this is precisely the kind of 
 writing, which we should expect from the per- 
 sons, to whom those books are ascribed. In the 
 Epistles of St. Paul we find a totally different 
 manner ; but again it is precisely such as we 
 should expect from St. Paul. His arguments, 
 though irresistible, are frequently devoid of me- 
 thod : in the strength of the reasoning the regula- 
 rity of the form is overlooked. Though occasional 
 reference is made to Greek poets, we trace in none 
 of his Epistles the characters of Greek philosophy. 
 The erudition there displayed is the erudition of a 
 learned Jew ; the argumentation there displayed, 
 is the argumentation of a Jewish convert to 
 
LECTURE XXVf. 
 
 Christianity confuting his brethren on their own 
 ground. Who is there, that does not recognise 
 in this description the Apostle, who was born at 
 Tarsus, but educated at the feet of Gamaliel? 
 
 If we further compare the language of the 
 New Testament with the temper and disposition 
 of the writers, to whom the several books of it 
 are ascribed, we shall again find a correspondence, 
 which implies, that those books are justly ascribed 
 to them. The character of: the disciple, whom 
 Jesus loved, is every where impressed on the 
 writings of St. John. Widely different is the 
 character impressed on the writings of St. Paul : 
 but it is equally accordant with the character of 
 the writer. Gentleness and kindness were cha- 
 racteristic of St. John : and these qualities cha- 
 racterize his writings. Zeal and animation marked 
 every where the conduct of St. Paul : and these 
 are the qualities, which are every where 4iscern- 
 ible in the writings ascribed to him. 
 
 It is now unnecessary to allege any further 
 arguments, to prove the authenticity of the New 
 Testament. The internal marks of authenticity, 
 which have been described in the progress of this 
 Lecture, are so numerous, so various, and some 
 of them so extraordinary, that they never could 
 
gi LECTURE XXVI. 
 
 have been discovered in spurious productions. 
 And if to this internal evidence we add the 
 weight of that external evidence, which was given 
 in the two preceding Lectures, we have such 
 an accumulation of proof, as establishes the 
 authenticity of the New Testament, beyond the 
 possibility of doubt. 
 
A 
 
 COURSE OF LECTURES, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 A DESCRIPTION AND SYSTEMATIC ARRANGEMENT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SEVERAL BRANCHES OF DIVINITY: 
 
 ACCO. jf VNIED WITH 
 
 AN ACCOUNT BOTH OF THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORS, 
 AMD OF THE PROGRESS, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AT 
 DIFFERENT PERIODS, 
 
 IN 
 
 €%eolo steal lUavnim* 
 
 BY 
 
 HERBERT MARSH, D. D. F.R.S. & F.A.S. 
 
 LOUD BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH, 
 AND MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 
 
 PART VI. 
 On the Credibility of the New Testament. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: 
 
 Printed by J. Smith, Printer to the University ; 
 AND SOLD BY DEIGHTONS, NICHOLSONS, AND BARRETT, CAMBRIDGE. 
 AND F. C. & J. R1VINGTON, LONDON. 
 
 1822 
 
[Entered at Stationers* Hall.~\ 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 Pa 
 
 The inquiry into the Credibility of the New Testa- 
 ment distinct from the inquiry into its Authenticity. 
 Explanation of the term Authenticity: the use of 
 it in these Lectures, and the reasons for so using it. 
 Transition from Authenticity to Credibility appa- 
 rently more easy in regard to the books of the New 
 Testament 3 than in regard to common books. Heasons 
 why it is not so. The Credibility of the New Tes- 
 tament must be established independently of its In- 
 spiration, because the proof of Inspiration depends 
 on the proof of Credibility. Arguments for the Cre- 
 dibility of the New Testament reduced to two heads. 
 We may argue from the character and situation of 
 the writers, or we may argue from the writings 
 themselves. When we argue from the character of 
 the writers to the Credibility of their writings, we 
 argue on the supposition of the Integrity of the New 
 Testament. Explanation of this term. Difference 
 between a perfect text of the Greek Testament, and 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Pa 
 
 the Integrity *of the Greek Testament. Arguments 
 for its Integrity drawn from a consideration of 
 the obstacles to a general corruption of the Greek 
 manuscripts. Additional obstacles opposed by the 
 ancient versions, and the loritings of the Greek Fa- 
 thers. The general check, which was afforded by 
 the joint operation of manuscripts, fathers, and ver- 
 sions, must have preserved to us the New Testament 
 in the same state upon the whole, zvhich was given 
 to it by the writers themselves. The conduct of the 
 Greek Church, from which we have received our 
 Greek manuscripts, an additional reason for believ- 
 ing that they have not been wilfully corrupted. The 
 arguments for the Integrity of the Greek manu- 
 scripts would be entirely destroyed, if it were true 
 that 1 John v. 7. existed originally in the Greek 
 manuscripts, and was afterwards expunged. Neces- 
 sary connexion therefore between the general Inte- 
 grity of the New Testament, and the evidence relat- 
 ing to that passage. Summary statement of the 
 evidence. History of the passage, from its origin 
 in the Latin version to its introduction in a modern 
 Greek manuscript, and thence to a printed edition. 
 Result of this inquiry is, that the general princi- 
 ple, by which we maintain the Integrity of the 
 New Testament, is not affected. Application of this 
 principle to the period, in which all other arguments 
 would fail : and the inference thence deduced, that 
 the Greek manuscripts, which have descended to the 
 present age, are free from the corruptions, which 
 have been ascribed to them 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 V 
 
 LECTURE XXVIII. 
 
 Page 
 
 The integrity of the New Testament having been proved, 
 we may argue from the character of the writers to 
 the Credibility of their writings. Mode of conduct- 
 ing that argument. Application of it to the Apos- 
 . tolic Historians, St. Matthew and St. John. They 
 had no motive to deceive others, and could not be 
 deceived themselves. St. Matthew wrote his Gospel 
 under circumstances, which leave no other alternative, 
 than either that the history is true, or that a fraud 
 was committed which was morally impossible. Similar 
 argument applicable to the Gospel of St. John. 
 Credibility of the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke. 
 Though not eye-witnesses to the facts recorded in 
 their Gospels, like St. Matthew and St. John, they 
 derived their information from those who were eye- 
 witnesses. Whether the information was communicated 
 to them in zvriting, or only in verbal conversation. 
 The former has been already shewn to be more proba- 
 ble : and, being more secure, than a communication 
 by words, is more favourable to the Credibility of 
 their Gospels. Their dependence on the Apostles for 
 their information was equal in either case : and their 
 independence, with respect to each other, is no more 
 affected by the supposition of a written, than by the 
 supposition of a verbal communication. The author's 
 mode of explaining the verbal harmony of the three 
 first Gospels does not impair, but secure the inde- 
 pendence of St. Mark and St. Luke, as historians* 
 with reference to each other. Strange mistake y which 
 
yi CONTENTS. 
 
 ] 
 
 has been generally made on this subject. The i Vera- 
 city of the Evangelists* does not depend on the mode 
 in which they obtained their materials, but on the 
 mode, in which they employed their materials. St. 
 Mark and St. Luke employed their materials as 
 faithfully, as they obtained their materials securely. 
 Proof of this assertion. St. Mark and St. Luke 
 encountered the same dangers zoith the Apostles, and 
 therefore gave similar proofs of their sincerity. 
 General inference to the Credibility of the four 
 Gospels, as drawn from the arguments employed in 
 this section 
 
 LECTURE XXIX. 
 
 The Credibility of the facts recorded in the New Tes- 
 tament estimated from a consideration of the facts 
 themselves. Three different ways, in which those facts 
 may be considered. We may compare the several 
 parts of each single book : or we may compare one 
 book with another : or we may compare the whole with 
 other zwrks of acknowledged credit. The Gospels, 
 when examined singly, are found to be consistent in 
 their several parts, and have so far the internal marks 
 of truth. When the Gospels of St. Mark and St, 
 Luke are compared with the Gospel of St. Matthew, 
 they are found to corroborate each other. The 
 matter, which is common to the three first Gospels, 
 forms of itself a Narrative of our Saviour s ministry, 
 from his baptism to his death and resurrection. Hence 
 arose the supposition, that such a Narrative once 
 existed in a separate form. The supposition of such 
 
CONTENTS. VII 
 
 Page 
 
 a Narrative accounts not for any verbal harmony : 
 it accounts only for the harmony in the matter of the 
 three first Gospels. The harmony in the arrange- 
 ment of the common matter by St. Mark and St. 
 Luke, inexplicable on any other supposition, unless 
 we abandon the notion, that St. Mark and St. Luke 
 wrote independently of each other. A faithful ad- 
 herence, on the part of St. Mark and St. Luke to a 
 written communication from the Apostles an argu- 
 ment for the Credibility of their Gospels. Credibility 
 of the facts, which each of the three first Gospels has 
 peculiar to itself. Character of St. John's Gospel 
 different from that of the other three : but his Gos- 
 pel equally credible. The apparent contradictions 
 in our four Gospels do not impair the veracity of 
 the writers, or the credibility of their writings. 
 Comparison of the Acts of the Apostles, with the 
 Epistles of St. Paul, and the inference thence 
 deduced, that the history is true. Confirmation of 
 the facts recorded in the New Testament, by a com- 
 parison with Josephus and Tacitus. The actions 
 ascribed to our Saviour, shewn to be of that descrip- 
 tion, that the Apostles and Evangelists not only 
 would not have, recorded them, but could not have 
 recorded them, if they had not been true . 54 
 
 LECTURE XXX. 
 
 Special inquiry into the Credibility of the Miracles 
 recorded in the Nero Testament. Importance of this 
 inquiry to the truth of Christianity. Definition of 
 a miracle, as the term is used by Christ and his 
 
Vlll CONTENTS. 
 
 Apostles. Attempts of the Jews in the time of our 
 Saviour to evade the inference from miracles by as- 
 cribing them to the agency of evil spirits. Absurdity 
 of such attempts, and insufficiency of the answers^ 
 which have been sometimes given. A real miracle 
 can be performed only by the special interference of 
 God himself. The attempts of the Jews, to account 
 
 for the miracles of our Saviour, hozvever absurd those 
 attempts might be, establish the existence of the mi- 
 racles. Objections of modern philosophers to the 
 existence of miracles, on the ground that they are 
 incapable of proof. Anszver to the objection, that 
 the notion of a miracle destroys itself. Answer to 
 the argument from experience as explained by Mr. 
 Hume. Proof that miracles may be established by 
 human testimony. Proof that the miracles, recorded 
 
 in the New Testament, are sufficiently established by 
 human testimony. Illustration of the argument by 
 an examination of the miracle performed in the 
 restoration of Lazarus. The Miracles ascribed, to 
 the Apostles equally credible. Additional argument 
 
 for the Credibility of the Miracles performed by St. 
 Paul. Inference from the Credibility of facts to 
 the Credibility of doctrines ; whence it appears, that 
 the doctrines recorded in the New Testament, are 
 doctrines, which came from God ... * 
 
LECTURE XXVil. 
 
 The Authenticity of the New Testament having 
 been established in the Lectures, which I gave 
 on a former occasion, I now enter on a subject 
 of equal importance, the Credibility of the New 
 Testament. The two subjects, though closely 
 connected, are in themselves distinct. The ques- 
 tion of authorship is one thing : the question of 
 truth is another. As a history may be true, 
 though the author is unknown, so the authorship 
 may be certain, and yet the history be doubtful. 
 From the fact, that a book, ascribed to an ancient 
 author, is justly ascribed to him, we cannot argue 
 to the truth of its contents without intermediate 
 links in the chain of our reasoning. And, though 
 the process, by which we go from the first to the 
 second, is in some cases easier, than in others, 
 it is in all cases necessary to establish the latter 
 by a separate and independent proof. 
 
 The meaning of the term c authentic', as used 
 in these Lectures, has been already explained 
 
 A ' 
 
2 
 
 LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 on a former occasion, and may be easily inferred 
 from the observations, which have just been 
 made. But to remove all danger of mistake, 
 in regard to a word which is variously used, 
 I will again explain the different applications of 
 it, and again assign the reason for preferring that 
 sense, which is here ascribed to it. While some 
 writers use the term 'authentic' as synonymous 
 with c genuine', there are other writers, who dis- 
 tinguish the terms, by using the epithet c genuine' 
 for books written by the authors to whom they 
 are ascribed, and applying the term e authentic' 
 in those cases only, where such books are likewise 
 entitled to credit. When the term c authentic' 
 is used in this latter sense, it would be tautology 
 to speak of authenticity and credibility : for au- 
 thenticity then includes credibility. We must 
 then speak of books, as being genuine and cre- 
 dible; which comes to the same thing, as if we 
 called them authentic and credible, when the terms 
 in question are used as synonymous. Now every 
 author, when a word is used in different senses, 
 may adopt that, which he himself prefers, provided 
 he gives a previous definition, and throughout the 
 course of his reasoning adheres to that definition. 
 But experience has shewn, that when the term 
 authentic is professedly used in the compound 
 sense of ' genuine and credible', men sometimes 
 
LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 3 
 
 forget this definition in the progress of their 
 argument. When a book has been proved to be 
 genuine, and therefore authentic in the sense of 
 those who use the terms as synonymous, the ar- 
 gument may be pursued by others, who use the 
 term c authentic' in its compound sense. Hence • 
 the error may arise, that a book, which had been 
 proved to be only genuine, is considered as a 
 book, which had been proved to be both genuine 
 and credible. 
 
 But no such confusion can arise if the term 
 authentic is used in its plain and simple sense, 
 as denoting nothing more, than that the book, 
 to which we apply this epithet, was written by 
 the person to whom it is ascribed. For this 
 reason it is so used in these Lectures. In so 
 using it 3 we are exempt from the danger of 
 including more in the term, than the argument 
 will allow. In every stage of our reasoning we 
 shall be aware, that when the proof of Authen- 
 ticity is ended, Credibility still remains to be 
 proved. 
 
 In arguing on the books of the New Testa- 
 ment, the transition from Authenticity to Credi- 
 bility, appears at first sight to be much easier, 
 than when we argue about other books. In 
 
\ LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 regard to common books, however satisfactory 
 the proof of authorship may be, there still may 
 be room to doubt, whether the author is entitled 
 to credit. But such doubts are excluded, when 
 we know that the author was divinely inspired. 
 Since then the Apostles and Evangelists wrote 
 under the influence of divine inspiration, it seems ' 
 to follow as a thing of course, that the writings 
 ascribed to them are worthy of credit, as soon 
 as we have shewn, that those writings are justly 
 ascribed to them. Indeed the argument might be 
 rendered still easier : we might with equal reason 
 omit the proof of authenticity altogether. We 
 might begin with the proposition, that the New 
 Testament was divinely inspired : and then we 
 should come at once to the conclusion of its cre- 
 dibility, without even moving the question, by 
 whom the several books of it were written. 
 
 But this mode of reasoning, though it recom- 
 mends itself by its great convenience, and has 
 therefore not unfrequently been adopted, is at- 
 tended with the same defect, as an attempt to 
 prove a proposition in geometry by means of 
 another proposition, which is itself dependent on 
 the proposition to which we apply it. That all 
 Scripture was written by inspiration is perfectly 
 true. But we must prove the fact, before we 
 
LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 5 
 
 can appeal to it. And that proof can be obtained 
 by no other means, than by arguments drawn 
 from the New Testament itself ; arguments there- 
 fore which imply, that the New Testament is 
 true. If therefore while we are conducting the 
 proof, that the New Testament is true, we argue 
 from a proposition, which is dependent on that 
 truth, we prove premises by inferences as well 
 as inferences by premises. That is, we prove 
 nothing whatever. 
 
 The Credibility therefore of the New Testa- 
 ment must be established independently of its 
 inspiration, or it cannot be established at all. 
 But established it may be, and established on 
 principles, superior to every objection. 
 
 The arguments for the Credibility of the New 
 Testament may be referred to two general heads. 
 We may argue from the character and situation 
 of the writers to the credibility of their writings : 
 or we may argue from the contents of the writings 
 themselves. Now independently of divine inspi- 
 ration, the character and situation of the persons, 
 who wrote the several books of the New Testa- 
 ment afford a strong presumption that their record 
 is true. And this presumption will be raised to 
 positive proof, when we have considered the argu- 
 
t 
 
 6 LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 ments in detail. Equally convincing shall we find 
 the arguments, which are drawn from the writings 
 themselves ; whether we compare the several parts 
 of each single book, or compare one book with 
 another, or compare the whole with other works 
 of acknowledged credit. For the sake of perspi- 
 cuity we must arrange the various arguments 
 under their respective heads. And those, which 
 are deduced from the character and situation of 
 the writers, are entitled to our first consideration. 
 
 But before we can apply those arguments to 
 the New Testament, it will be necessary to insti- 
 tute an inquiry, on the result of which the propriety 
 of such application must entirely depend. When, 
 for instance, we argue from the character and 
 situation of St. John to the Credibility of his 
 writings, we argue on the presumption, that the 
 Gospel and the Epistles which we now possess 
 as the works of St. John, are the same works 
 with those, which were written by the Apostle. 
 But ancient writings, which have descended to 
 us in manuscript, must have been exposed to the 
 danger of alterations, as well designed as acci- 
 dental, to interpolations as well as to omissions. 
 And such alterations may have been, unless we 
 can prove the contrary, committed to an extent, 
 that the original work, under the hands of tran- 
 
LECTURE XXVII. 7 
 
 scribers, has gradually assumed a totally new form. 
 Now it is evident, that when we argue from the 
 character of a writer to the credibility of his 
 writings, the argument can apply only to what 
 was written by himself. And if the interpolations 
 or alterations have been numerous, they may 
 prevent the application of the argument alto- 
 gether. That we may be enabled therefore to 
 apply the argument to the books of the New 
 Testament, we must previously shew, that the 
 books, which we now possess, as works of Apos- 
 tles and Evangelists, are the same books, as those 
 which were composed by Apostles and Evangelists. 
 In other words, to the proof of the Authenticity 
 of the New Testament we must add the proof of 
 its Integrity. 
 
 But in the conduct of this proof we must not 
 be expected to give more, than the nature of the 
 subject admits! When the term ' Integrity' is 
 applied to the New Testament, we must not 
 understand it in so strict a sense, as if this In- 
 tegrity could not be established, without a proof, 
 that we have at present copies of the Greek Tes- 
 tament, which are in every word the same with 
 the autographs of the sacred writers. We must 
 not confound the notion of integrity with the 
 notion of a perfect text. We may establish the 
 
8 . LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 former, though we may fail in establishing- the 
 latter. 
 
 No one, who is acquainted with the criticism 
 of the Greek Testament, will contend, that among; 
 the Greek manuscripts, which we now possess, 
 there is any one which contains either the Gospels 
 or the Epistles precisely in the same words, from 
 the beginning to the- end, which were used by 
 the writers themselves. In the multiplicity of 
 readings only one can be the genuine reading; 
 and this genuine reading may be contained, some- 
 times in one copy, sometimes in another. We 
 must collect therefore from all, and by the rules 
 of criticism determine, which among the various 
 readings has the strongest claim. But in this 
 critical employment there will always be room for 
 diversity of opinion : and from the imperfection 
 of human judgement, we shall never attain an 
 unerring result. Our endeavours therefore to 
 form a copy of the Greek Testament, in which 
 there shall be no deviation from the autographs 
 of the sacred writers, in other words, our endea- 
 vours to form a perfect text of the Greek Tes- 
 tament can never be entirely successful. We 
 may approximate, and we have approximated as 
 nearly to a perfect text, as under all circumstances 
 can be justly expected. But something will ever 
 
LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 9 
 
 be wanting to render the coincidence complete 
 between the autographs and the best of copies, 
 which we can form at present. 
 
 Widely different is the conclusion to which 
 we shall come,, when we argue for the general 
 Integrity of the New Testament ; namely, when 
 the term is used in that sense, in which alone 
 it is necessary to use it, for the purpose of esta- 
 blishing the Credibility of the New Testament. 
 If the facts originally recorded, and the doctrines 
 originally delivered in the New Testament, are 
 the same in the existing copies, we have all the 
 integrity which is wanted to make the New Tes- 
 tament the basis of our faith and morals. Though 
 the criticism therefore of the Greek Testament is 
 on various accounts a matter of high importance, 
 and has accordingly been treated as a primary 
 branch of theology, we must not suffer the im- 
 perfections, to which all human exertions are 
 exposed, to influence our reasoning upon subjects, 
 to which those imperfections do not apply. That 
 Integrity, which is necessary to establish Credi- 
 bility, does not depend on a variation of words, 
 if there is no variation in the sense. It will be 
 sufficient therefore, if we can prove, that the New 
 Testament has descended to us, upon the whole, 
 in the same state, in which it was originally 
 
10 
 
 LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 written; and that we may justly confide in 
 every thing which relates to facts and to 
 doctrines. The remaining part of this Lecture 
 therefore shall be employed in the proof of such 
 Integrity. 
 
 In the first place we may observe, that a 
 general corruption of the sacred text was in 
 itself impracticable. If one party was inclined, 
 either to omit what opposed their peculiar tenets, 
 or to insert what might afford them additional 
 support, there was always some other party, both 
 ready and willing to detect the fraud. And even 
 if they persevered in altering their own manu- 
 scripts, they had not the power of altering the 
 manuscripts in the hands of their opponents. 
 Though the corruption therefore might be partial, 
 it could not become general. Nor must we forget 
 that the books, which compose the Greek Tes- 
 tament, have been transcribed, beyond all com- 
 parison, more frequently than the works of any 
 other Greek author. And it is evident that the 
 difficulty of corrupting the Greek manuscripts 
 must have increased with every increase in their 
 number. Though it cannot be denied, therefore, 
 that there is stronger temptation to alter a work, 
 which relates to doctrines, than to alter a work, 
 which relates to matters indifferent, the impedi- 
 
 i 
 
 V 
 
LECTURE XXV II. 
 
 11 
 
 ments to the alteration of the Greek manuscripts 
 were still more powerful than the temptation. 
 The Gospels, which were written in different 
 places, and the Epistles,, which were addressed 
 to different communities, were multiplied in copies, 
 dispersed in Palestine and Egypt, in Asia Minor, 
 Greece, and Italy. Under such circumstances a 
 general corruption of the Greek manuscripts was 
 a thing impossible. For it could not have been 
 effected without a union of sentiment, which never 
 existed, nor without a general combination, which 
 could not have been formed, before Christianity 
 had received a civil establishment. But if such 
 a combination had been practicable, it could not 
 have been carried into effect, without becoming 
 a matter of general notoriety. And ecclesiastical 
 historians are silent on such a combination. The 
 silence of history is indeed no argument against 
 the truth of a fact established by induction, if the 
 fact was such that it could not be generally 
 known. But the silence of history is important 
 in reference to a fact, which if it ever existed, 
 must have been a subject of general notoriety. 
 Whatever corruptions therefore may have taken 
 place in the Greek manuscripts, those corruptions 
 must have been confined to a few, and could 
 not, by any possibility, have been extended to 
 them all. 
 
12 
 
 LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 The impediments to a general corruption were* 
 further augmented by the ancient versions of the 
 New Testament, which in general accord as to 
 facts and doctrines with the Greek manuscripts. 
 If therefore the Greek manuscripts could have 
 been generally corrupted, it is quite incompre- 
 hensible how such corruptions could have been 
 diffused among all the manuscripts of all the an- 
 cient versions, which were dispersed throughout 
 the Roman empire ; the Syriac, and Armenian 
 in Asia, the Coptic, the Sahidic, and Ethiopic 
 in Eastern Africa, to which we must add the 
 ancient manuscripts of the Latin version, dis- 
 persed over Italy, Gaul, and Western Africa. 
 Nor are the impediments already enumerated the 
 sole impediments to a general corruption. It 
 must have extended also to the quotations from 
 the Greek Testament, which are contained in 
 the voluminous writings of the Greek Fathers. 
 The mutual and general check, therefore, which 
 was afforded by the joint operation of manuscripts, 
 fathers, and versions, must have preserved to us 
 the New Testament in the same state, upon the 
 whole, which was given to it by the writers 
 themselves. 
 
 But there is another argument, in favour of 
 the position, that the manuscripts of the Greek 
 
LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 13 
 
 Testament have descended to us without any 
 material alteration, either in facts or in doctrines. 
 The Greek manuscripts, which we now possess, 
 were received, not through any channel, which 
 came from the ancient heretics, but from the 
 orthodox members of the ancient Greek Church. 
 And this Church maintained the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, of the Incarnation, of the Atonement, 
 and other leading articles of the Christian faith, 
 in common with the Church to which we ourselves 
 belong. And though the Greek Church could not 
 guard against those accidental mistakes, which 
 unavoidably arise from a multiplication of written 
 copies, we have sufficient reason to believe, that 
 the ancient Greek Church abstained, with the 
 most scrupulous and conscientious exactness, from 
 every wilful corruption of the sacred text. We 
 cannot have a stronger proof of this assertion, 
 than the conduct of the ancient Greek Church, 
 in regard to the seventh verse in the fifth chapter 
 of St. John's first Epistle. That verse, which 
 is wanting in the most ancient manuscripts even 
 of the Latin version, and was no more known 
 to Augustin, than it was to Chrysostom, was gra- 
 dually introduced into the Latin Vulgate by the 
 Church of Rome. But it was never admitted by 
 the ancient Greek Church. Not a single Greek 
 manuscript was ever known to contain the 
 
14 
 
 LECTURE XXVTI. 
 
 passage, till after the invention of printing : and 
 that solitary manuscript, which does contain it, 
 was certainly not written in Greece. 1 Now the 
 conduct of the ancient Greek church, in regard to 
 that memorable passage, shews its conscientious 
 regard for the purity of the sacred text. And 
 hence we may safely conclude, that the manuscripts 
 of the New Testament, which we have received 
 from that Church, have descended to us untainted 
 by wilful corruptions, either in matters of fact, 
 or in matters of doctrine. 
 
 I am aware indeed, that this argument, and 
 not only tikis argument, but evert/ argument for 
 the Integrity of the New Testament, which has 
 been used in this Lecture, must fall at once to 
 the ground, if it be true, that the passage in 
 question proceeded from the pen of St. John. 
 If that passage existed in Greek manuscripts 
 
 1 By Erasmus it was called Codex Britannicus, from the 
 country where it was found, and where it was probably 
 written. Having belonged to one Froy, a Franciscan Friar, 
 it came many years afterwards into the hands of Dr. Montfort, 
 whence it acquired the name of Codex Montfortianus. Of 
 Dr. Montfort the MS. was purchased by Archbishop Usher, 
 with whose other MSS. it was removed to Trinity College, 
 Dublin, whence it is now called the Dublin MS.— The Codex 
 Ravianus, which used to be quoted with the Codex Montfor- 
 tianus, has been abandoned since the discovery, that it is a 
 copy of a printed edition, 
 
LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 IS 
 
 anterior to those which have descended to the 
 present age, and was expunged by adversaries 
 of the doctrine which it contains, the extinction 
 of the passage must have been universal. It must 
 have affected the manuscripts in the hands of 
 the orthodox, no less than the manuscripts be- 
 longing to the heretics. It must have equally 
 affected the manuscripts of the ancient versions. 
 It must have equally affected the quotations of the 
 Greek Fathers, who quote the sixth and eighth 
 verses in succession, without the words which 
 begin with kv tw ovpavw and end with ev ty\ yfj.^ 
 Now if it was really possible, that such corruption 
 could in spite of every impediment be thus gene- 
 rally extended, what becomes of all the arguments, 
 which have been employed in this Lecture to 
 prove the general Integrity of the New Testa- 
 ment ? Those arguments are founded on the 
 supposed impossibility of doing that, which must 
 
 2 Bengelii Apparat. Crit. p. 458, edd. 2 da . Wetstenii Libelli 
 ad Crisin. N. T. ed. Semler, p. 9 1 : and the Note of Matthai to 
 1 John v. 7- When the Greek Fathers quote the words of the 
 8th verse with the words that precede it, they quote in the 
 following manner. OJk ev t<u vhan [xovov, aAA' iv tw v^citi, 
 na\ tw ai'fxan' Kai to Trvev/jLCt e<TTi to fxaprvpovv oti to Trvevfxct 
 ecrTiv tj aAtjOeia' oti Tjoels elcriv o't jxapTvpovvres, to Trvevjma, ko\ 
 to vtiwp Kai to v aifxa' Ka\ ol TpeT<i ek t6 ev el<rt. In this 
 passage there is consistency of reasoning: and certainly no 
 insertion is wanted, to improve the text of St. John. 
 
]() LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 have been done, if the passage in question origi- 
 nally existed in Greek manuscripts. 
 
 If it be true in regard to that passage, that 
 the ancient Greek manuscripts, which have de- 
 scended to the present age, with the works of 
 the ancient Greek Fathers, and the manuscripts 
 of the ancient versions, the oldest of the Latin 
 version not excepted, have descended to us in 
 a mutilated state, there is an end to that security, 
 which is derived from their mutual agreement, 
 for the Integrity of the New Testament in all other - 
 places. And we are brought at length into this 
 dilemma : either to relinquish a part, or abandon 
 the whole. 3 
 
 Whether the passage be genuine, or not, the 
 doctrine of the Trinity stands, in either case, 
 unshaken. For the sake therefore of the passage 
 itself, I should think it unnecessary to make ano- 
 ther remark on it. But if the defence of that 
 passage requires the sacrifice of a principle, with- 
 out which we cannot maintain the general Integrity 
 of the New Testament, it then behoves us to 
 
 3 I am here speaking in reference to the common printed 
 editions. For 1 John v. 7- is no part of the Greek Original, 
 as represented by the Greek MSS. and the Greek Fathers* 
 
LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 inquire, whether the passage deserves to be main- 
 tained, and maintained at so great a price. 
 
 Though every Library in Europe has been 
 searched for Greek manuscripts containing the 
 Catholic Epistles, there is only one Greek manu- 
 script in which the passage has been found : and 
 this solitary manuscript, as will presently appear, 
 has no pretension to be numbered among the 
 ancient Greek manuscripts. As all other Greek 
 manuscripts, which are now extant, are destitute 
 of the passage, it is of less importance to know 
 the precise number of those which have been 
 quoted by name, especially as they do not con- 
 stitute the whole number. They amount however 
 to not less than one hundred and thirty-two. 
 The Greek Fathers have never quoted the passage, 
 which they certainly would have done, if it had 
 existed in their manuscripts. Now the manu- 
 scripts which were used by Irenaeus and Clement 
 of Alexandria, could not have been written later 
 than the second century. The manuscripts used 
 by Origen, could not have been written later than 
 the third century. The manuscripts used by the 
 Greek Fathers, who attended the Nicene Council, 
 could not have been written later than the fourth 
 century. In this manner we may prove that the 
 Greek manuscripts in every century were destitute 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 of the passage, till we come to the period when 
 the oldest of our existing manuscripts were written. 
 Further, the passage is wanting, not only in the 
 manuscripts of all other ancient versions,* beside 
 the Latin : it is wanting also in the most ancient 
 manuscripts of the Latin version itself. Latin 
 manuscripts, which have not the passage in the 
 text, are still preserved to the amount of more 
 than fifty. 5 Some of them indeed have the passage 
 in the margin, added by a later hand ; but it is the 
 reading of the text, which constitutes the reading 
 of the manuscript. And as the oldest Latin 
 manuscripts were destitute of the passage, so it 
 was never quoted by the Latin Fathers during the 
 four first centuries. 6 
 
 4. J designedly use the expression ' manuscripts of all other 
 ancient versions' : for it has been inserted in printed editions of 
 the Syriac and Armenian Versions in opposition to the Syriac 
 and Armenian manuscripts. See Preface to my Letters to 
 Archdeacon Travis, Notes 8, 9, 10, 11. 
 
 5. Forty was the number of which I gave an account in 
 the 13th Note of the Preface to my Letters to Archdeacon 
 Travis, which were published in 1795. But it appears from 
 Griesbach's last edition, published in 1806, that many more 
 Latin MSS. have been discovered, which have not the passage 
 in the text 
 
 6. An exception has been claimed for Cyprian, who lived 
 in the middle of the third century. Now there is really no 
 pretext for saying that Cyprian quoted 1 John v. 7. The 
 utmost that can be said is, that he referred to it : and it will 
 presently appear, that even in so saying we should be mistaken. 
 The words of Cyprian, in his Treatise De Unitate Ecclesiae, 
 
 on 
 
\ 
 
 LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 At the end of the fourth century, the cele- 
 brated Latin Father Augustin, who wrote ten 
 Treatises on the first Epistle of St. John, in 
 all of which we seek in vain for the seventh 
 verse of the fifth chapter, was induced in his 
 controversy with Maximin to compose a gloss 
 upon the eighth verse. Augustin gives it pro- 
 fessedly as a gloss upon the words of the eighth 
 verse, and shews by his own reasoning that the 
 seventh verse did not then exist. 7 The high cha- 
 
 on which so much stress has been laid, are as follows. Dicit 
 Dominus, Ego et Pater unura sumus. Et iterum de Patre et 
 Filio, et Spiritu sancto, scriptum est : Et hi tres unum sunt. 
 The passage is so worded in Bishop Pearson's edition, Tom. I. 
 p. 109. but manuscripts of Cyprian have tres unum sunt, 
 without hi. — The first quotation which Cyprian has here made 
 is, Ego et Pater unum sumus, which is taken from John x. 30. 
 His second quotation is hi tres unum sunt, or as manuscripts 
 have it, tres unum sunt. For the words ' de Patre et Filio 
 et Spiritu sancto scriptum est' are Cyprian's own words, and 
 can in no sense be called a quotation. Since then the 
 words which Cyprian has quoted from the place in question 
 are not only words of the eighth verse, but are quoted by 
 Augustin from the eighth verse, as will presently appear, the 
 quotation of those words alone is no proof that they were taken 
 from the seventh verse. But the final clause of the eighth 
 verse relates to spiritus, aqua, et sanguis ; whereas Cyprian 
 declares, that the tres unum sunt, which he has quoted, was 
 written de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu sancto. Could Cyprian 
 have argued thus if he had quoted from the eighth verse? 
 Undoubtedly he might, as will appear from the following 
 Note. 
 
 7. Augustin in his Treatise Contra Maximinum Arianum, 
 
 lib. 
 
 B 2 
 
20 LECTURE XXVIT. 
 
 racter of x\ugustin in the Latin Church soon gave 
 celebrity to his gloss ; and in a short time it was 
 
 lib. ii. cap. 22, (Tom. VIII. col. 725, ed. Benedict.) thus quotes 
 the words of the eighth verse, ' Tres sunt testes, spiritus, et 
 aqua, et sanguis ; et tres unum sunt/ He then makes various 
 remarks on the words, spiritus, aqua, sanguis, and proceeds 
 thus. Si vero ea, quae his significata sunt velimus inquireie, 
 non absurde occurrit ipsa Trinitas, quae unus, solus, verus, 
 summus est Deus, Pater et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus, de 
 quibus verissime dici potuit, 'Tres sunt testes et tres unum 
 sunt' : ut nomine spiritus significatum accipiamus Deum Patrem 
 —nomine autem sanguinis Filium — et nomine aquas Spiritum 
 sanctum. The gloss which Augustin here puts on the eighth 
 verse, very clearly shews, that he knew nothing of the seventh 
 verse, which appears also from the fact that he has never quoted 
 that verse. Facundus, another African Bishop, to whom the 
 seventh verse was still unknown, quotes the eighth verse at full 
 length (lib. i. cap. 3, p. 14, ed. Sirmond.), and then gives the 
 gloss which Augustin had made on it. For after the words 
 spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt, he thus delivers 
 what he supposes to be St. John's meaning : in spiritu signi- 
 ficans Patrem,— in aqua vero Spiritum sanctum significans— 
 in sanguine vero Filium significans. Let us now consider the 
 terms, which are employed by Augustin and Facundus, when 
 they state their interpretation of the eighth verse. Augustin 
 having observed, that if we inquire into the meaning of spiritus, 
 aqua et sanguis, the Trinity itself not unaptly occurs, as con- 
 sisting of three persons, immediately adds, de quibus verissime 
 dici potuit, ' Tres sunt testes, et tres unum sunt.' Facundus, 
 instead of dici potuit, says plainly dicit. He says, that St. John 
 in the eighth verse speaks of the Trinity. His own words are, 
 Joannes Apostolus in Epistola sua de Patre et Filio et Spiritu 
 sancto sic dicit. He then quotes the whole of the eighth 
 verse, but not a syllable of the seventh. Now when Facundus 
 says that St. John in the eighth verse speaks of the Trinity, 
 he uses the same kind of language, which Cyprian had used, 
 wko in quoting tres unum sunt (which Augustin quotes from 
 
 the 
 
LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 21 
 
 generally adopted. It appeared indeed under dif- 
 ferent forms ; but it was still the gloss of Augustin, 
 though variously modified. The gloss having 
 once obtained credit in the Latin Church, the 
 possessors of Latin manuscripts began to note 
 it in the margin, by the side of the eighth verse. 
 
 the eighth verse) says that it was written of the Trinity: 
 de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu sancto, scriptum est. The 
 scriptvm est of Cyprian is not at all stronger than the 
 dicit of Facundus. It can make no difference in this case, 
 whether we say scriptum est, or dictum est. Yet Facundus 
 was expressly commenting on the eighth verse. Consequently 
 we are not warranted to conclude that Cyprian meant the 
 seventh verse. And it is really incredible that the seventh 
 verse should have existed and have been known to Cyprian, 
 and yet have remained unknown (as it certainly did) to 
 Augustin. But all doubts on this question have been long 
 since removed by Facundus himself, in the very chapter where 
 he quotes the eighth verse. In confirmation of the gloss upon 
 that verse, he appeals to the authority of Cyprian, and says 
 that Cyprian understands those words of the Trinity, namely 
 the words spiritus, aqua, et sanguis. Facundus having quoted 
 spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt, a second time in 
 the same chapter, and having observed that some men refused 
 to understand these words of the Trinity, immediately adds, 
 quod tamen Joannis Apostoli Testimonium B. Cyprianus, 
 Carthaginensis antistes et martyr,— de Patre et Filio et Spiritu 
 sancto dictum intelligit. Ait enim, < Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater 
 unum sumus; et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto 
 scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt'. Here then Facundus 
 declares, not only that Cyprian understands the eighth verse 
 of the Trinity, but in support of his assertion appeals to that 
 very passage in the works of Cyprian, which in modern times 
 has been taken for a proof, that Cyprian was speaking of the 
 seventh verse. 
 
22 LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 Hence the oldest of those Latin manuscripts, 
 which have the passage in the margin, have 
 it in a different hand from that of the text. In 
 later manuscripts we find margin and text in 
 the same hand; for transcribers did not venture 
 immediately to move it into the body of the text, 
 though in some manuscripts it is interlined, but 
 interlined by a later hand. After the eighth cen- 
 tury the insertion became general. For Latin 
 manuscripts written after that period have gene- 
 rally, though not always, the passage in the body 
 of the text. Further, when the seventh verse 
 made its first appearance in the Latin manu- 
 scripts, it appeared in as many different forms, as 
 there were forms to the gloss upon the eighth 
 verse. 8 And though it now precedes the eighth 
 verse, it followed the eighth verse, at its first 
 insertion, as a gloss would naturally follow the 
 text, upon which it was made. 9 It is not there- 
 fore matter of mere conjecture, that the seventh 
 verse originated in a Latin gloss upon the eighth 
 
 8. The various forms, in which the seventh verse made its 
 first appearance in the Latin MSS. may be seen on consulting 
 the notes of Erasmus, Mill, and Sabatier to 1 John v. 7 : 
 Simon Hist, des Versions, chap. i^. and Porson's 6th Letter. 
 
 9- Bengelii Appar. Crit. p. 467. ed. 2 da . It is so placed 
 also by Vigilius Tapsensis, who quotes thus. Tres sunt qui 
 testimonium perhibent in terra, aqua, sanguis, et caro ; et tres 
 in nobis sunt : et tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in ccelo 
 Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt. 
 
LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 23 
 
 verse : it is an historical fact, supported by evi- 
 dence, which cannot be resisted. 
 
 But many centuries elapsed before the passage 
 was exhibited in Greek. The first Greek writer 
 who has given it, is Manuel Calecas, who lived as 
 late as the fourteenth century. And we need not 
 wonder at finding the passage in his works, as 
 Calecas was a convert to the Church of Rome. 
 In the fifteenth century the passage was quoted by 
 Bryennius, who was likewise so attached to the 
 Church of Rome, that he quoted other readings 
 of the Vulgate which are not found in the Greek 
 manuscripts. 10 
 
 At length, in the sixteenth century a Greek 
 manuscript of the New Testament appeared 
 with 1 John v. f. Its original appellation was 
 Codex Britannicus: but it is now called the 
 Dublin manuscript. 11 It made its first appearance 
 about the year 1520: and that the manuscript 
 had just been written, when it first appeared, 
 is highly probable, because it appeared at a critical 
 juncture, and its appearance answered a particular 
 
 10. See the above quoted Preface, p. 17- 
 
 11. That the Dublin MS. is the same with the Codex 
 Britannicus is proved in my Notes to the second volume of 
 Michaelis' Introduction, under the article Codex Montfortianus. 
 
24 
 
 LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 purpose. 12 But whether written for the occasion 
 or not, it could not have been written very long 
 before the sixteenth century. For this manuscript 
 has the Latin Chapters, though the Ke(pa\ma of 
 Eusebius are likewise noted. Now the Latin 
 Chapters were foreign to the usage of the Greek 
 Church, before the introduction of printed edi- 
 tions, in which the Latin Chapters were adopted, 
 as well for the Greek as for the Latin Tes- 
 tament. Whatever Greek manuscripts therefore 
 were written with Latin Chapters, were written in 
 the West of Europe, where the Latin Chapters 
 were in use. They were written by the Greeks, 
 or by the descendants of those Greeks, who 
 fled into the West of Europe, after the taking of 
 
 12. Erasmus had published two editions of the Greek Testa- 
 ment, one in 1516, the other in 1519, both of which were 
 without the words, that begin with eV tw ovfjaiw and end with 
 eV tjJ yy. This omission as it was called by those who paid 
 more deference to the Latin translation than to the Greek 
 original, exposed Erasmus to much censure, though in fact the 
 complaint was for non-addition. Erasmus therefore very pro- 
 perly answered, addendi de meo quod Grsecis deest, provinciam 
 non susceperam. He promised however, that, though he could 
 not insert in a Greek edition what he had never found in a 
 Greek manuscript, he would insert the passage in his next 
 edition, if in the mean time a Greek MS. could be discovered, 
 which had the passage. In less than a year after that declaration, 
 Erasmus was informed, that there was a Greek MS. in England, 
 which contained the passage. At the same time a copy of the 
 passage, as contained in that MS. was communicated to 
 Erasmus: and Erasmus, as he had promised, inserted that 
 copy m his next edition, which was published in 1522. 
 
LECTURE XXV It, 25 
 
 Constantinople, and who then began to divide 
 their manuscripts according* to the usage of the 
 country, in which they fixed their abode. 13 The 
 Dublin manuscript therefore, if not written for the 
 purpose to which it was applied in the third edition 
 of Erasmus/ 4 could hardly have been written 
 more than fifty years before. And how widely 
 those critics have erred in their conjectures, who 
 have supposed that it was written so early as the 
 twelfth century, appears from the fact, that the 
 Latin Chapters were not invented till the thirteenth 
 century. 15 But the influence of the Church of 
 Rome in the composition of the Dublin manuscript, 
 is most conspicuous in the text of that manuscript, 
 which is a servile imitation of the Latin Vulgate. 
 
 13. There are three Greek manuscripts with the Latin 
 Chapters in our University Library, marked Hh. 6. 12. Kk. 5. 
 35. and LI. 2. 13. That which is marked LI. 2. 13. and is 
 evidently the oldest of the three, was written at Paris, by 
 Jerom of Sparta, for the use and at the eXpence of a person 
 called Bodet, as appears from the subscription to it. Now 
 
 Jerom of Sparta died at the beginning of the sixteenth 
 century. 
 
 14. The third edition of Erasmus has 1 John v. 7. precisely 
 in the words of the Dublin MS. 
 
 15. They were invented by Hugo de S. Caro, who died in 
 1262. The precise year, in which he divided the text of the 
 Latin Vulgate into its present Chapters is not known. But as 
 it appears from the Preface to the Cologne edition of his works, 
 that he composed his Concordance about the year 1248, and 
 his division of the Vulgate into the present Chapters was con- 
 nected with that Concordance, it could not have been done 
 many years before the middle of the thirteenth century. 
 
20 LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 It will be sufficient to mention how it follows 
 the Vulgate at the place in question. It not only 
 agrees with the Vulgate, in the insertion of the 
 seventh verse : it follows the Vulgate also at the 
 end of the sixth verse, having xpiarros, where all 
 other Greek manuscripts have irvevima : and in the 
 eighth verse it omits the final clause, which had 
 never been omitted in the Greek manuscripts, and 
 was not omitted even in the Latin manuscripts 
 before the thirteenth century. 16 Such is the cha- 
 racter of that solitary manuscript, which is opposed 
 to the united evidence of all former manuscripts, 
 including the Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex 
 Alexandrinus. 
 
 It has been already observed, that when the 
 passage first appeared in Latin, it appeared under 
 various forms, though it subsequently acquired 
 the permanent form, which it now retains in the 
 Latin Vulgate. It appeared also under various 
 forms, when first exhibited in Greek. The Dublin 
 manuscript gives it in one form : Calecas and 
 Bryennius in other forms : the Greek translation 
 of the Acta Concilii Lateranensis again in another 
 form. 17 And the differences are exactly such as 
 might be expected in different Greek translations 
 
 16. Here there is an additional proof, respecting the age 
 of the Dublin MS. 
 
 17. See the above quoted Preface, Notes 19 — 23. 
 
LECTURE XXVII. 2/ 
 
 of the same Latin original. Nor had it acquired 
 a settled form, when introduced in our printed 
 editions. The Complutensian editors gave it in 
 one form : Erasmus in another form i Robert 
 Stephens again in another form. Such is the 
 origin and progress of that celebrated passage, 
 which men of learning and talent have taken for 
 the genuine production of St. John. 
 
 It is true, that in the opinion of some critics 
 internal evidence may be discovered in this pas- 
 sage, which they think sufficient to overturn the 
 external evidence. Now internal evidence may 
 shew, that a passage is spurious, though external 
 evidence is in its favour ; for instance, if it con- 
 tains allusions to things which did not exist in the 
 time of the reputed author. But no internal evi- 
 dence can prove a passage to be genuine, when 
 external evidence is decidedly against it. A spu- 
 rious passage may be fitted to the context, as well 
 as a genuine passage. No arguments therefore 
 from internal evidence, however ingenious they 
 may appear, can outweigh the mass of external 
 evidence, which applies to the case in question. 18 
 
 18. One of the arguments from internal evidence is, that 
 iv Ttj yjjj in the eighth verse implies that something had 
 preceded with ev tw ovpavu. But they who argue in this 
 manner forget, that ev tt} yrj is wanting in the Greek MSS. 
 as well as eV tw ovpavu. Also in the oldest Latin MSS. the 
 
 eighth 
 
28 LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 The sacrifice therefore of that principle, by 
 which we defend the general Integrity of the New 
 Testament, is a sacrifice to which the passage is 
 not entitled. That important principle therefore 
 remains unshaken : and the general Integrity of 
 the New Testament is liable to no objection. 
 That principle has been rescued from the danger, 
 to which many incautious friends of Christianity 
 have exposed it, by endeavouring inadvertently to 
 defend a part at the expence of the whole. 
 
 But if any thing were still wanted to shew the 
 justness of the reasoning which has been adopted 
 in this Lecture, we might appeal to actual expe- 
 rience. If the Greek manuscripts had undergone 
 any material alterations, the facts and doctrines of 
 the New Testament, as represented by the Greek 
 Fathers, would not have accorded, as they do, with 
 the present state of those manuscripts. And still 
 less would those manuscripts accord as they do, 
 with the words, which are quoted by Irenaeus, 
 and Clement of Alexandria, from Greek manu- 
 scripts, which could not have been written much 
 later than the middle of the second century. 
 
 eighth verse is equally destitute of in terra, which was inserted 
 for the very purpose of having something to correspond with 
 in ccelo, and shews how well the several parts of the inter- 
 polation have been fitted to ea^ch other. 
 
LECTURE XXVII. 
 
 29 
 
 It is true, that though the Greek manuscripts 
 quoted by these ancient Fathers, could not have 
 been written much later than the middle of the se- 
 cond century, they may have been of no earlier date. 
 So far therefore, as we are enabled to institute an 
 actual comparison, the proof of Integrity, which is 
 founded on this comparison, carries us no higher, 
 than the middle of the second century. Conse- 
 quently, this proof, though very satisfactory as far 
 as it goes, still leaves the Greek manuscripts 
 exposed to the charge of corruption, in the 
 interval which elapsed, between the age of the 
 Apostles, and the middle of the second century. 
 And this is precisely the period, which the adver- 
 saries of Christianity have assigned for their cor- 
 ruption. But here that important principle, which 
 has been already defended, comes again ,to our 
 assistance, and enables us to maintain the Integrity 
 of the Greek manuscripts, where all other argu- 
 ments would fail. Both the Gospels and the 
 Epistles were originally delivered into the hands 
 of those, who were friends of the Apostles and 
 Evangelists. Such persons cannot be suspected 
 of having wilfully corrupted the copies entrusted 
 to their care. On the contrary, they must have 
 been anxious to preserve those sacred records in 
 their original purity. When transcripts had been 
 multiplied, and some of them had fallen into the 
 
30 
 
 LECTURE XXVII, 
 
 hands of their adversaries, their anxiety to pre- 
 serve the purity of those records, must have 
 increased with every attempt to corrupt them. 
 Let it be granted therefore that such attempts 
 were made ; and let us see, what must have been 
 the consequence. The adversaries of the Christian 
 faith, as it is taught in the Sacred Writings, may 
 have endeavoured to rid themselves of passages, 
 which opposed their peculiar tenets. And they 
 may have had recourse to the desperate remedy 
 of expunging such passages from their own 
 manuscripts. But if they did so, they them- 
 selves must have known, that it was a desperate 
 attempt. They could not imagine that the ex- 
 tinction of a passage in their manuscripts would 
 operate as a sort of magic on the manuscripts 
 possessed by their opponents. When Tertullian 
 accused Marcion of having corrupted the text of 
 St. Luke, can any one imagine that Tertullian 
 was so absurd, as to introduce those corruptions 
 into his own manuscripts? Since then we have 
 received our manuscripts of the Greek Testament, 
 not from the ancient heretics, but from the hands 
 of the orthodox, our manuscripts of the Greek 
 Testament must stand acquijtted of the charge of 
 having perpetuated corruptions introduced by 
 adversaries of the orthodox faith. 
 
LECTURE XXVII. 31 
 
 Having thus vindicated the Integrity of the 
 New Testament, I shall proceed in the next 
 Lecture to the proof of its Credibility. 
 
 / 
 
LECTURE XXVIII. 
 
 The Integrity of the New Testament having been 
 established in the last Lecture, we are now war- 
 ranted to argue from the character of the writers 
 to the Credibility of their writings. If we inquire 
 into the character of the persons, who wrote the 
 books of the New Testament, we shall find, that 
 independently of their inspiration, which will be 
 proved hereafter, when that branch of Theology 
 can be consistently introduced, they possessed 
 every qualification, which can be required of a 
 writer, to make his writings worthy of credit. 
 Let us begin with the historic books, the Gospels, 
 and the Acts of the Apostles : and in the first 
 place let us consider the Gospels of St. Matthew 
 and St. John. 
 
 There are not many historians, who have 
 themselves been witnesses, of the events, on which 
 they have written : and we are in general satis- 
 fied, if an historian does but faithfully repeat the 
 information, which he has obtained from others. 
 
LECTURE XXVIII. 33 
 
 Such histories are often written many centuries 
 after the period of the events themselves ; yet if 
 the materials of those histories are drawn from 
 creditable sources, we do not withhold our assent 
 to them. But St. Matthew and St. John were 
 from the beginning both eye-witnesses and mi- 
 nisters of the Word. They not only saw and 
 heard what was done and said by our Saviour : 
 they themselves bore a part in the transactions 
 which they have recorded. 
 
 It is true, that a writer may profess to record 
 what he has seen and heard, profess to record 
 even things in which he himself has borne a part, 
 and yet that writer may produce a narrative, 
 which is altogether fictitious. But though the 
 thing is possible, we can in no case argue, that 
 an apparently serious history is destitute of truth, 
 unless we can shew, either that the writer had 
 some motive to impose upon his readers, or that 
 he himself was so weak and credulous as to be 
 unable to distinguish truth from falsehood, or that 
 the facts themselves are of that description, that 
 no evidence can be sufficient to warrant our assent 
 to them. The two first questions will be consi- 
 dered in the present Lecture, which relate to the 
 character and situation of the sacred writers. And 
 that the facts recorded, as well those which are 
 
 C 
 
34 
 
 LECTURE XXVIII. 
 
 miraculous, as those which are of ordinary oc- 
 currence, are not incredible in themselves, will 
 appear from the two next Lectures. 
 
 In the first place therefore let us ask, whether 
 the Apostles could have any motive to deception in 
 the propagation of the Christian Religion. The 
 object of an impostor is always some advantage to 
 himself. He deceives others,, for the very purpose 
 of turning their deception to his own account, 
 whether the object which he contemplates, be the 
 promotion of his profit, or of his power, or of his 
 fame. But these are objects^ which could not be 
 contemplated by the Apostles. They sacrificed 
 every earthly advantage to the cause, in which they 
 were engaged. They forsook all,, to follow their 
 Lord and Master. It is true, that they fled from 
 him, when he was conducted to the tribunal, which 
 condemned him to death ; whether influenced by 
 personal fear, or by momentary doubts on the 
 divine authority of a person, thus apparently 
 abandoned by that Almighty Being, in whose 
 name he had professed to act. But St. John, his 
 beloved disciple, returned and followed him to the 
 cross. Nor did the other Apostles, with the excep- 
 tion of the apostate Judas, withdraw themselves 
 from the sacred cause. When Christ was risen 
 from the dead, he again found the eleven gathered 
 
LECTURE XXVI II. 
 
 35 
 
 together at Jerusalem, whither they returned after 
 the ascension, and were continually in the tem- 
 ple praising and blessing God. 
 
 The sincerity therefore of the Apostles rests 
 on a foundation, which no argument can shake. 
 Nor did they merely renounce all worldly advan- 
 tages. They submitted to persecutions, such as 
 no man would endure, except from a firm con- 
 viction, that he was propagating nothing but the 
 truth. Nor were the sufferings, which they un- 
 derwent, accidental or unforeseen. When the 
 Founder of the new religion had suffered death 
 upon the cross, his disciples could hardly expect 
 to propagate that religion, without danger to 
 themselves. Indeed they had been previously 
 warned of the impending danger. If they have 
 persecuted me (said our Saviour) they will also 
 persecute you. Yet the Apostles persevered 
 against all opposition, which was made both by 
 Jews and by Gentiles. And they were prepared 
 to sacrifice their lives, rather than abandon the 
 cause, in which they were engaged. 
 
 In thus appealing to the sufferings, endured 
 in the first instance by Christ himself, and then 
 by his faithful disciples, I appeal to facts, which 
 are not recorded in the New Testament alone. 
 
36 
 
 LECTURE XXVIII 
 
 That Christ himself suffered death under Pontius 
 Pilate is recorded by Tacitus 1 ; and the same 
 historian records the sufferings, which were en- 
 dured by the early Christians. Similar testimony 
 is given by his contemporary Suetonius 2 . But 
 it is almost unnecessary to produce any evidence 
 for the persecution of the primitive Christians, 
 when they were unavoidably exposed to it by the 
 cause in which they were engaged. A religion 
 directly opposed to the prejudices, both of the 
 Jews and of the Gentiles, could not fail to draw 
 on the early professors of it persecution, torture, 
 and death. And the fortitude, with which they 
 endured their sufferings, sufferings which nothing- 
 could have induced, or have enabled them to 
 bear, but a firm conviction that they were suffer- 
 ing for the truth, is attested by the same Roman 
 historians, who have recorded their persecutions. 
 It is true, that even the Apostles did not all of 
 them suffer martyrdom. Of the two Apostolic 
 historians, St. Matthew and St. John, it is cer- 
 tain that St. John died a natural death, and it is 
 uncertain whether the report of St. Matthew's 
 martyrdom be true. But if men are prepared to 
 suffer persecution even unto death, in attestation 
 of the facts, which they record, and of the doc- 
 trines, which they maintain, their sincerity is suf- 
 
 V. Annal. XV. 44. 2. Claud, cap. 25. Nero, cap. \6. 
 
LECTURE XXVIII. 3J 
 
 ficiently proved, even though the punishment of 
 death does not actually follow. 
 
 Having shewn that the Apostolic historians 
 could have no motive to impose upon their 
 readers, we may in the next place consider, 
 whether it is credible,, that they were deceived 
 themselves. The facts, which they have recorded, 
 and of which they themselves were witnesses, 
 were of that description, that nothing more was 
 wanted than the use of their senses to deter- 
 mine, whether such events really happened or 
 not. It is true that even the external organs of 
 sense may be so obscured by superstition or fana- 
 ticism, that men may fancy they have seen, or 
 heard, what was presented to their imaginations 
 by some artful contrivance. But when a writer 
 records either the dreams of his own fancy, or 
 the delusions which others have imposed on him, 
 his fanaticism will always be apparent. Far dif- 
 ferent are the characters of St. Matthew and 
 St. John. The simplicity, the sobriety, and the 
 dignity, with which they relate their story, are 
 qualities the reverse of those, which mark the 
 fanatic. Nor did the Apostles exhibit in their 
 conduct any signs of fanaticism. Their zeal was 
 tempered with discretion; their firmness was 
 attended with calmness ; in their devotion to 
 
I 
 
 38 LECTURE XXVIII. 
 
 the sacred cause they forgot not the rules of 
 common prudence j though prepared to sacrifice 
 their lives, when the sacrifice was wanted, they 
 courted not the death of the martyr from vanity 
 or ostentation. Such men were no enthusiasts ; 
 such men were no fanatics ; such men therefore 
 are worthy of credit, when they relate what they 
 themselves believe, when they relate what they 
 profess to have seen and heard. Are they sus- 
 pected of credulity, their own conduct will acquit 
 them. They doubted especially the truth of the 
 Resurrection, till they were convinced by the 
 actual presence of Christ himself. On that occa- 
 sion our Saviour upbraided them with their un- 
 belief, because they believed not them, who had 
 seen him after he was risen. But so much the 
 more reason have we to believe in the testimony 
 of the Apostles, to believe in the testimony of 
 those, who withheld their own assent, till the 
 fact was established by the evidence of their own 
 senses. 
 
 Prom the character of the Apostolic histo- 
 rians, let us proceed to their situation and cir- 
 cumstances. St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in 
 that very country, to which the history relates. 
 And though we cannot now determine the pre- 
 cise year, when it was written, it was unques- 
 
LECTURE XXVI H. 
 
 39 
 
 tionably written at a time when hundreds and 
 thousands were still living in Judaea, who must 
 have remembered the period, assigned for the 
 ministry of Christ. Now a writer, who wishes 
 to impose on his readers a fabulous story as a 
 true one, can have no prospect of success, unless 
 he withdraws his story from the scrutiny of his 
 readers, either by remoteness of time, or by dis- 
 tance of place. It would be a desperate effort, 
 if an historian attempted to make his readers 
 believe, that certain events had happened in the 
 very place where they lived, and at a time which 
 they could well remember, unless those events 
 had really happened at the time, and in the place 
 assigned. To make such an attempt with a fabri- 
 cated story could never enter into the mind of 
 any man, however ignorant, or absurd. But this 
 would have been precisely the situation of St. 
 Matthew with respect to his original readers, if 
 he had attempted to impose on them a fabulous 
 story. We are reduced therefore to this dilemma. 
 Either the history is true : or a fraud was com- 
 mitted, which was morally impossible. 
 
 The Gospel of St. John, though not written 
 in Judaea, and written later than the Gospel of 
 St. Matthew, was still written under circum- 
 stances, which must have exposed it to detection. 
 
40 
 
 LECTURE XXVIII. 
 
 i 
 
 if the narrative had been false. Whether, as is 
 most probable, it was written at Ephesus, or at 
 some other place of Asia Minor, it was written 
 in a country, which abounded with Jews, who 
 had synagogues in all the principal cities. And 
 they were no less interested than their brethren 
 of Judaea, iu every thing which related to the 
 history rof that person, who was the founder of 
 a religion, intended to supersede the religion of 
 Moses. They must have been anxious to obtain 
 the most correct information concerning that 
 extraordinary person : and they had sufficient 
 opportunities of obtaining such information, in the 
 annual journies to Jerusalem at the feast of the 
 Passover. And unless we suppose, that St. John 
 deferred the writing of his Gospel to extreme 
 old age, a supposition improbable in itself, and 
 inconsistent with the character of his Gospel, 
 there might have been, and probably were among 
 his immediate readers, persons, who were present 
 with him at the crucifixion. But whether per- 
 sonally present, or not, they had ample means of 
 knowing, whether the narrative of St. John was 
 entitled to credit. And that it is entitled to credit, 
 the Jews themselves, as, well unbelievers, as 
 believers, have shewn by their own conduct. The 
 Jews, who embraced Christianity in the Apostolic 
 age> gave positive proof of their belief in the 
 
# 
 
 LECTURE XXVIII. 41 
 
 Gospel history. And even they who rejected 
 Christianity, have at least indirectly borne testi- 
 mony in its favour. It no where appears that 
 they regarded the Gospel history as a fable : it no 
 where appears, that they rejected even the mira- 
 cles, though they evaded the inference, that Jesus 
 was a Teacher sent from God, by contending 
 that those miracles were no proof of divine inter- 
 position, as the same things could be done by the 
 agency of evil spirits. Now if they had been 
 able to deny the facts themselves, their rejection 
 of Christianity would have rested upon much 
 firmer ground, than that on which they were con- 
 tented to rest it. Nor does it appear, that the 
 Jews ever made an attempt to invalidate the 
 facts, when the Gospels had been written. The 
 first Apostolic historian was not confuted by the 
 Hebrew Jews : the other Apostolic historian was 
 not confuted by the Greek Jews. If such a con- 
 futation had ever been written, it could not have 
 been lost and forgotten. For though hundreds 
 and thousands of ancient records have perished, 
 either when the use of them was superseded by 
 other writings, or when their value was unknown, 
 or when forcible means were employed for their 
 destruction ; none of these causes could have 
 operated, in regard either to a Hebrew or to 
 a Greek manuscript, containing a confutation *of 
 
42 
 
 LECTURE XXVIII. 
 
 the Gospel history by the Jews of the first cen- 
 tury. Such a document must have been cherished 
 by the Jews of all succeeding generations : the 
 copies of it would have been so multiplied, as 
 to have rendered the extinction of it by the Christ- 
 ians a matter impossible : and even if the at- 
 tempt had been made, that attempt would have 
 been recorded by the Jews, as an acknowledge- 
 ment of weakness on the part of the Christians. 
 We may conclude therefore, that though the Gos- 
 pel of St. John was written under circumstances, 
 which, had it contained deviations from the truth, 
 must have led to a detection of them, no such 
 detection was ever made. And as the Jews of 
 Asia Minor, as well as the Jews of Judaea, 
 must have been both able and willing to detect 
 every falshood, which the Gospel of St. John 
 might have contained, we may justly conclude, 
 that there were no falshoods to be detected. 
 
 7 
 
 Whether we argue therefore from the cha- 
 racter of the Apostolic historians, or argue from 
 their situation and the circumstances under which 
 they wrote, we find sufficient guarantee for the 
 truth of their Gospels. They recorded what they 
 themselves had seen and heard : they had no mo- 
 tive to deceive their readers: nor could they be 
 deceived themselves. Their situation and circum- 
 
LECTURE XXVIII. 
 
 43 
 
 stances afford us additional security; and prove 
 that their record is true, because it could not have 
 been false, without detection and exposure. 
 
 Let us now proceed to the two Evangelists, 
 who were not Apostles. St. Luke was eye-witness 
 to a considerable part of the transactions, which 
 he has recorded of St. Paul in the Acts of the 
 Apostles. But it does not appear, that either St. 
 Luke or St. Mark were eye-witnesses of the facts, 
 which they have recorded in their Gospels. In- 
 deed we must conclude from the manner, in which 
 St. Luke has expressed himself in the Preface to 
 his Gospel, that his perfect understanding of the 
 things, which he has related, was not the result of 
 his own observation. And though it is not impos- 
 sible, that St. Mark had been present at some of 
 the transactions which he has recorded, there is 
 no evidence, that he was. The twelve Apostles 
 are the only persons, of whom we know, that they 
 were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word 
 from the beginning. 
 
 But, if St. Mark and St. Luke did not write 
 from their own knowledge, their sources of infor- 
 mation were the best, which an historian can have, 
 who derives his information from others. It is 
 
44 
 
 LECTURE XXVIII. 
 
 evident^ from St. Luke's Preface, that his know- 
 ledge of the facts, which he has recorded in his 
 Gospel, was derived from information communi- 
 cated by the Apostles. The same source of infor- 
 mation must have been equally open to St. Mark : 
 for one of the twelve Apostles was his friend and 
 companion. The Credibility therefore of the 
 Gospels, which were written by St. Mark and 
 St. Luke, though it rests on a different foundation 
 from the Credibility of the other two, still rests 
 on a foundation which is perfectly secure. 
 
 In estimating the Credibility of their Gospels, 
 there are two subjects of special enquiry. The 
 first of them regards the materials of their Gos- 
 pels : the second of them regards the mode, in 
 which those materials were employed. 
 
 With respect to the materials, or the informa- 
 tion itself, the first question, which occurs, is ; In 
 what manner was that information conveyed ? Was 
 it conveyed by the Apostles in writing, or was it 
 conveyed in verbal conversation ? In one of these 
 two ways the information must have been con- 
 veyed, for conveyed it certainly was : but in which 
 of them, neither the Evangelists themselves, nor 
 any other writer has declared to us. It is a case 
 
LECTURE XXVIII. 
 
 45 
 
 therefore, in which we are left to argue from 
 induction. History is silent in regard to any 
 written document communicated by the Apostles 
 to St. Mark and St. Luke : history is equally 
 silent in regard to the fact, that the information 
 was merely verbal. If the silence of history 
 therefore is conclusive against the former, it is 
 equally conclusive against the latter • and conse- 
 quently proves, that the Apostles communicated 
 to St. Mark and St. Luke no information what- 
 ever. The objection therefore involves an absur- 
 dity^ and is consequently void of foundation. The 
 notion, that a written document, if it ever existed, 
 could not have been lost, is destitute of truth 
 for this plain and obvious reason. When St. 
 Mark and St. Luke had finished their Gospels, 
 the materials which they had employed in the 
 composition of them were no longer wanted. 
 And if those materials were written in the native 
 language of the Apostles, which we must suppose 
 them to have been, St. Mark and St. Luke would 
 have understood them, as appears from the He- 
 braisms of their Gospels, but those materials 
 would have appeared as a foreign jargon, either at 
 Ephesus, or at Corinth, or at Rome. There was 
 no motive therefore to the preservation of such 
 a document, when the Gospels of St. Mark and 
 St. Luke were already written. The question 
 
id 
 
 LECTURE XXV HI. 
 
 whether St. Mark and St. Luke had written 
 information, or only verbal information, is a 
 question, which as history is silent in regard to 
 both parts of the alternative, must be decided by 
 induction alone. And here we must be guided 
 by the question, which of the two suppositions 
 will best explain what it is necessary to explain. 
 It would be foreign to the present Lecture to 
 renew the discussions which have taken place 
 upon this question. I will merely observe there- 
 fore, that the conclusion to which I came after an 
 elaborate inquiry, is that which is best adapted 
 to the Credibility of their Gospels. A communi- 
 cation in writing is unquestionably more secure 
 than a communication by words. 
 
 But are St. Mark and St. Luke independent 
 historians, if each of them employed a written 
 document? Now it is really difficult to compre- 
 hend, how their independence, if destroyed by 
 written information, could have been secured by 
 verbal information. They were dependent in 
 either case; in either case equally dependent. 
 They can in no case be considered as independent 
 historians, in that sense, in ' which St. Matthew 
 and St. John were independent historians. They 
 cannot be called independent witnesses, like St. 
 Matthew and St. John : for St. Mark and St. 
 
LECTURE XXVIII. 47 
 
 Luke have recorded the testimony of others. In 
 reference to the events themselves, they were 
 necessarily dependent on the Apostles. The only 
 independence which we can ascribe to St. Mark 
 and St. Luke,, is independence in reference to 
 each other. And this independence is in no 
 respect affected by the supposition of a written 
 document; according- to that form, in which I 
 have ever maintained it. 
 
 It is well known that the verbal harmony, of 
 the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke with that 
 of St. Matthew was formerly explained on the 
 supposition, that the succeeding" Evangelists copied 
 from the preceding. This supposition, though 
 formerly entertained by the most eminent Divines, 
 either makes St. Luke dependent on St. Mark, 
 if St. Mark's Gospel was first written, or St. 
 Mark dependent on St. Luke, if St. Luke's Gos- 
 pel was first written. To secure therefore that 
 independence, which alone can be attributed to 
 St. Mark and St. Luke, namely, independence 
 with respect to each other, I ascribe that verbal 
 harmony, not to the authors themselves, but to 
 the Greek translator of St. Matthew's Hebrew 
 Gospel. The verbal harmony which is observed 
 in the Greek Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, 
 and St. Luke, lies chiefly in the Gospels of St. 
 
4.8 
 
 LECTURE xxvrii. 
 
 Mark and St. Luke, when compared with that of 
 St. Matthew. The Greek text of St. Matthew is 
 found to accord with the Greek text of St. Mark, 
 so frequently, so closely, and in such long conti- 
 nued periods, that such periods could not have 
 been written without the intervention of some 
 harmonizing' cause. The verbal harmony between 
 the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke is no 
 less remarkable. But there is a circumstance 
 attending that harmony, which had escaped the 
 notice of preceding writers. By an analysis of 
 the three first Gospels, I discovered, that the 
 verbal harmony between the Gospels of St. Mat- 
 thew and St. Luke was of that peculiar kind, 
 that the former did not harmonize with the latter 
 alone, except in those portions of their Gospels, 
 where St. Mark had no matter in common with 
 St. Matthew. This observation suggested the 
 thought, that such verbal harmony would have 
 been occasioned, if the Greek translator of St. 
 Matthew's Hebrew Gospel had recourse for as- 
 sistance to the Gospel of St. Mark, where St. 
 Mark had matter in common with St. Matthew, 
 but that in those portions of St. Matthew's Gospel, 
 where St. Luke only had matter in common with 
 St. Matthew, the translator had recourse to St. 
 Luke. It is true, that all this is mere supposition. 
 But it must be tried like every other supposition, 
 
f 
 
 LECTURE XXVIII. ^9 
 
 by its ability, or its inability to explain existing 
 effects. If the Greek translator of St. Matthew's 
 Hebrew Gospel did act, as I suppose him to have 
 acted, he would have produced the effects, which 
 were produced. Conversely therefore we may 
 argue from the real existence of the effects to 
 the probable existence of the cause assigned. 
 And if this conclusion be right, St. Mark and 
 St. Luke are proved to be independent historians, 
 as far as independence can be ascribed to them. 3 
 
 Is their veracity impeached, the answer is that 
 the ' Veracity of the Evangelists' has no possible 
 
 3. The writers, who have objected to my mode of explaining 
 the verbal harmony of St. Mark and St. Luke with St. Mat- 
 thew, have entirely mistaken the cause which I assigned. 
 The only cause, which I assigned for that verbal harmony, is 
 that which I have just explained. The supposition of a writ- 
 ten document, communicated by the Apostles to St. Mark and 
 St. Luke, as stated in my Dissertation on the three first Gos- 
 pels, was made solely for the purpose of explaining the matter, 
 which St. Mark and St. Luke have in common with St. 
 Matthew. And throughout the whole of the Dissertation the 
 supposed document was never applied to the explanation of 
 verbal harmony. On the contrary, there is a chapter, m 
 which I expressly shew, that the supposition of a written 
 document will not account for the verbal harmony. It is 
 therefore the more extraordinary, that so many writers should 
 have represented me as explaining the verbal harmony by a 
 cause, which I myself have shewn to be inadequate to that 
 purpose. But it is not a singular case, that when one objector 
 has made a mistake, others follow him, without reading the 
 book, on which he animadverts. 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 LECTURE XXVIII. 
 
 connexion either with the materials of their 
 Gospels, or with the mode in which those mate- 
 rials were conveyed. To estimate the veracity 
 of an historian we must inquire, not how he 
 obtained his materials, but how he employed them. 
 And that St. Mark and St. Luke employed their 
 materials faithfully will presently appear. 
 
 We have already seen, that St. Mark and St. 
 Luke, though not witnesses to the transactions, 
 which they have recorded, derived their infor- 
 mation from those, who were. We have seen, that 
 if the conclusion is right, in regard to a written 
 communication, they received their information 
 in that manner, which was the most secure. And 
 we have further seen, that if the verbal harmony 
 of their Gospels with that of St. Matthew, was 
 owing to that cause, which has been shewn to be 
 highly probable, they are historians, who wrote 
 independently of each other. 4 
 
 4. Another attempt having been made to explain the verbal 
 harmony of the three first Gospels by a supposition, which also 
 implies that St. Mark and St. Luke wrote independently of 
 each other, it is proper that I should mention it, especially as 
 it has met with approbation. According to this hypothesis 
 the verbal harmony of the three first Gospels is explained in 
 the following manner. The Apostles remembered the words, 
 
 as 
 
LFXTURE XXVIII. 
 
 51 
 
 The first of the two questions, respecting the 
 Credibility of their Gospels has now received a 
 satisfactory answer. The materials of which St. 
 Mark and St. Luke composed their Gospels have 
 been shewn to be of that description, that we 
 can argue to the Credibility of their Gospels, as 
 far as we can argue from materials, without con- 
 as well as the substance of our Saviour's Discourses : and in 
 conversing with each other about the past events, a repetition 
 of the same thing produced gradually a repetition of it in the 
 same words. If then St. Matthew used the words; which he 
 himself remembered, and St. Mark and St. Luke used the 
 words, which were communicated to them by the Apostles, 
 the verbal harmony might have been produced, which we now 
 find. This is certainly the most favourable manner in which 
 the hypothesis can be proposed. But in whatever form it be 
 proposed, it is incapable of explaining any harmony in Greek 
 Gospels, unless it is coupled with another supposition, which 
 is contradicted by the Evangelists themselves. If Christ, in 
 his intercourse with the Apostles, and the Apostles in their 
 intercourse with each other, used the language in which they 
 were educated, namely, the language of Galilee, it is clear that 
 no repetition in Syriac could have produced a verbal harmony 
 in Greek. Now it appears from the exclamation on the cross, and 
 from many other expressions, recorded by the Evangelists, that 
 the language of our Saviour was a dialect ef the Syriac. And 
 that the twelve Apostles, who were men of Galilee, used like- 
 wise the dialect of that country, which was somewhat different 
 from the dialect of Jerusalem, though understood there, ap- 
 pears from the remarks which were made on the dialect of 
 St. Peter. Since then it is evident that the hypothesis cannot 
 explain any verbal harmony in Greek Gospels, it is unnecessary 
 to shew (what might easily be done) that it would fail to 
 account for the peculiarities of the verbal harmony. 
 
 D 2 
 
52 
 
 LECTURE XXVIII. 
 
 sidering the mode of employing* them. We must 
 now therefore enter on the second question/which 
 if likewise answered satisfactorily, will place the 
 Credibility of their Gospels on the firmest foun- 
 dation. But this question is so easily answered, 
 that no long inquiry is necessary for that purpose. 
 That St. Mark and St. Luke employed with fide- 
 delity the materials, which they obtained with 
 certainty, is proved by the same arguments, from 
 which we infer, that the Apostolic historians em- 
 ployed their materials with fidelity. The sincerity 
 of the Evangelists, who were not Apostles, is 
 proved in the same manner, as the sincerity of 
 the Apostles themselves. St. Mark encountered 
 the same dangers with St. Peter; St. Luke the 
 same dangers with St. Paul. The arguments, 
 which shew that St. Matthew and St. John 
 were not liable to be deceived, apply also to St. 
 Mark and St. Luke. If the Apostles were not 
 deceived, neither could St. Mark and St. Luke 
 be deceived : for their knowledge was derived 
 from the Apostles. Lastly, their situation and 
 the circumstances under which they wrote, are 
 again guarantees for the truth of their Gospels ; 
 and for reasons similar to>those, which have been 
 already explained, in reference to the Gospels of 
 St. Matthew and St. John. 
 
LECTURE XXVIII. 
 
 53 
 
 Having thus argued from the character and 
 situation of the sacred historians to the Credibi- 
 lity of their writings, I shall proceed in the next 
 Lecture to consider what additional evidence may 
 be obtained from the writings themselves. 
 
 > 
 
LECTURE XXIX. 
 
 In estimating the Credibility of the facts, recorded 
 in the New Testament, from a consideration of 
 the facts themselves, we must distinguish those, 
 which are miraculous from those, which are not 
 so. For though the miracles recorded in the 
 New Testament admit of satisfactory proof, the 
 evidence, which is necessary to prove the reality 
 of a miracle, must in all cases be stronger, than 
 the evidence which would be merely sufficient to 
 command our assent, in regard to facts of ordinary 
 occurrence. The present Lecture therefore will 
 relate to facts in general, without adverting to 
 miracles in particular. And the Credibility of 
 the miracles shall be distinctly considered in the 
 next Lecture. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to produce an argument 
 for the position, that the ordinary events recorded 
 in the New Testament are not incredible in 
 
LECTURE XXIX. 00 
 
 1 1 
 
 themselves. They are, without exception, events 
 which might have happened under the circum- 
 stances assigned. Most of them are such as 
 might be expected to happen under the circum- 
 stances assigned. And many of them are such 
 as, under those circumstances, could hardly fail 
 to have happened. 
 
 Let us proceed therefore to institute the com- 
 parison, which was proposed in the last Lecture. 
 Now there are three ways, in which this com- 
 parison may be conducted. We may compare 
 the several parts of each single book: or we 
 may compare one book with another : or we may 
 compare the whole with other works of acknow- 
 ledged credit. 
 
 If we estimate the Credibility of the Gospels 
 by considering them singly, we shall find that 
 each of them is consistent throughout ; that each 
 of them contains a plain and unaffected narrative, 
 of which the several parts have a perfect agree- 
 ment. In each of the Gospels the several parts 
 contribute to one and the same object; nor do 
 we any where find examples of incongruity or 
 incoherence. So far therefore as we can judge 
 from the contents of each single Gospel, we must 
 pronounce them to be worthy of credit. 
 
.50 
 
 LECTURE XXIX. 
 
 If we compare the Gospels with each other, 
 we shall find, that they derive Credibility from 
 their mutual support. The Gospels of St. Mat- 
 thew, St. Mark, and St. Luke are similar both 
 in matter, and in manner. Indeed these three 
 Gospels have so much matter in common, that 
 when we have deducted what each of these three 
 Evangelists has peculiar to himself, the matter 
 which remains common to all three, constitutes 
 one uniform Narrative of our Saviour's ministry, 
 from his baptism to his death and resurrection. 
 Hence originated the supposition, that such a 
 Narrative once existed in a separate form ; that 
 it was a Narrative, to which the Apostles, as eye- 
 witnesses and ministers of the word, had contri- 
 buted generally; that the additions to it in St. 
 Matthew's Gospel, were the additional suggestions 
 of his own observation, while the additions to it 
 in the Gospels of St Mark and St. Luke, were 
 additional suggestions from St. Peter and other 
 Apostles. This is the mode, in which I have 
 represented the supposition of such a written 
 document. 
 
 It would be foreign to the present Lecture to 
 repeat the arguments, which have been alleged 
 in its favour. But as the supposition itself is 
 connected with the Credibility of the Gospels, 
 
LECTURE XXIX. 
 
 57 
 
 and the object of the supposition has been 
 greatly misunderstood, it is necessary to explain 
 the real object. That the Narrative of our 
 Saviour's ministry, which constitutes the common 
 matter of our three first Gospels, had previously 
 existed in a separate form, is a supposition which 
 accounts not for any verbal harmony. The 
 harmony, which it explains, is the harmony in the 
 common matter of the three first Gospels. And 
 there are some things of this description, which 
 can be explained on no other supposition, unless 
 we abandon the notion that St. Mark and St. 
 Luke wrote independently of each other. It 
 will be sufficient to mention a single case. 
 
 In that Narrative of our Saviour's ministry, 
 which constitutes the common matter of the three 
 first Gospels, the principal facts of that Narrative 
 though contained in the three Gospels, are not 
 contained in them according to the same ar- 
 rangement. But St. Mark and St. Luke inva- 
 riably agree in their arrangement, even in 
 regard to facts, which are differently arranged 
 by St. Matthew. Now this agreement on the 
 part of St. Mark and St. Luke, even where St. 
 Matthew has a different arrangement, must be 
 explained, either on the supposition, that they 
 drew their materials from a common document, 
 
58 LECTURE XXIX. 
 
 and uniformly adhered to the order of that docu- 
 ment : or it must be explained on the suppo- 
 sition, that one copied from the other. But this 
 latter supposition destroys entirely the notion, 
 that St. Mark and St. Luke, were independent 
 historians. Whether they had written information 
 from the Apostles, or had only verbal informa- 
 tion, they were dependent on the Apostles for 
 their information, as much in the latter case, as 
 in the former. Their independence therefore 
 as historians can be only in reference to each 
 other. But even this independence is taken from 
 them, by the supposition that one copied from 
 the other. Nor is this supposition objectionable 
 on that ground alone. It has been shewn by 
 other arguments, by arguments not easily con- 
 futed, that the succeeding Evangelists did not 
 transcribe from the preceding. There is no 
 other mode therefore of accounting for that har- 
 mony of arrangement in the Gospels of St. Mark 
 and St. Luke, than the supposition of a written 
 communication, and their adherence to the order 
 of it. 
 
 Now a faithful adherence, on the part of 
 St. Mark and St. Luke to a written communication 
 from the Apostles, is an argument for the Credi- 
 bility of their Gospels. And as St. Matthew 
 
LECTURE XXIX. 
 
 has recorded the same facts, though in a different 
 order, there is additional apostolic authority for 
 the truth of the facts themselves. And the facts, 
 which St. Mark and St. Luke have in common 
 with St. Matthew constitute the chief portion 
 of their Gospels. 
 
 Let us now consider the matter which each 
 of these three Gospels has peculiar to itself. The 
 additions, which were made by St. Matthew rest 
 generally on the same authority, with the mat- 
 ter which is common to all three. With the 
 exception of the two first Chapters, they were all 
 within the limits of his own experience. And 
 he had sufficient opportunity of learning, from 
 Joseph and Mary, who were the best possible 
 witnesses, the truth of the circumstances, which 
 attended the birth of our Saviour, the flight into 
 Egypt, and the settlement at Nazareth. The 
 matter which is peculiar to St. Luke's Gospel, 
 rests again on the same authority as the other 
 parts of his Gospel, with the exception of the 
 two first Chapters. The appeal in his Preface 
 to those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of 
 the word from the beginning, embraces every 
 transaction which is included in the ministry of 
 Christ. And from the intercourse of St. Luke at 
 Jerusalem, with those, who must have remembered 
 
60 LECTURE XXIX. 
 
 what related to Zacharias and Elizabeth, to the 
 birth of John the Baptist, and the birth of Christ 
 at Bethlehem, he had ample means of information 
 respecting- the events, which he has recorded in 
 his two first Chapters. The matter, which St. 
 Mark's Gospel has peculiar to itself, both might 
 have been, and probably was, supplied by his 
 intercourse with St. Peter. But the matter 
 peculiar to St. Mark's Gospel consists in the 
 notice of additional circumstances attending the 
 principal facts. For there is hardly a principal 
 fact recorded in the Gospel of St. Mark, which 
 is not contained, either in the Gospel of St. 
 Matthew, or in the Gospel of St. Luke. 
 
 The three first Gospels therefore corroborate 
 each other, and the argument from the character 
 of the writers to the Credibility of their writings 
 is confirmed by a consideration of the facts 
 themselves. 
 
 The Gospel of St. John has comparatively 
 little matter in common with the other three : 
 and the matter which it has in common is chiefly 
 contained in the four last Chapters. St. John, 
 the beloved disciple of our Saviour, who was on 
 all occasions admitted to the most familiar inter- 
 course, who was present at the crucifixion, and 
 
LECTURE XXIX, 
 
 61 
 
 who from that hour took Mary the mother of 
 Jesus to his own home, appears to have more 
 fully understood the divine nature of his Master, 
 than either St. Matthew, St. Mark, or St. Luke. 
 In the Gospel therefore of St. John the divine 
 nature of our Saviour is explained more clearly, 
 than in the three first Gospels. This knowledge 
 of the divine nature St. John had undoubtedly 
 obtained from our Saviour himself in that fami- 
 liar intercourse, with which he was especially 
 honoured. But there is no inconsistency between 
 the accounts of St. John, and the accounts of 
 the other Evangelists. The veracity of historians 
 cannot be impeached by the mere circumstance 
 that they have taken different views of the same 
 subject. The most faithful biographers, if they 
 write independently of each other, will give 
 different representations of the same person, 
 according to the views which they have respec- 
 tively taken. But if they contradict not each 
 other in regard to the matter which they have 
 in common, and are consistent with themselves 
 •in the views, which they have respectively taken, 
 their writings have all the marks of honesty 
 and truth. 
 
 Before I conclude the comparison of our 
 Gospels with each other, it is necessary to take 
 
LECTURE XXIX. 
 
 some general notice of the alleged contradictions, 
 though it would be impossible in a single Lec- 
 ture, to go through the various objections in 
 detail. The examples, which have been alleged 
 of supposed contradiction, relate to a variation in 
 the circumstances attending the same principal 
 facts. But objections of this kind though very 
 specious, are not very solid. When the same 
 fact is reported by different persons, the relation 
 of the main fact is frequently, if not commonly, 
 attended by some variation in the circumstances. 
 Either circumstances are remembered by one 
 reporter, which were not remembered by another : 
 or if equally remembered they may not appear 
 equally important : or one circumstance may be 
 adapted to excite interest in one set of readers, 
 while another circumstance is better adapted to 
 excite interest in another set of readers. A 
 variation therefore in the circumstances attend- 
 ant on a principal fact can never amount to a 
 contradiction, unless it can be shewn, that the 
 different circumstances are of that description, 
 that if one of them be true, the other must be 
 false. 
 
 There are no two Evangelists, which have 
 a closer agreement in the main facts, which are 
 common to both, than St. Mark, and St. Luke. 
 
LECTURE XXIX. 63 
 
 Yet St. Mark in recording- the same facts with 
 St. Luke, has frequently recorded them with 
 the addition of circumstances unnoticed by St. 
 Luke. On the other hand, St. Luke has some- 
 times added a circumstance unnoticed by St. 
 Mark. But if one historian has any where 
 more than the other, he does not therefore con- 
 tradict the other. If indeed St. Mark and St. 
 Luke had each of them augmented their nar- 
 rative of the same fact, with the addition not only 
 of different but of incompatible circumstances, 
 then indeed their accounts would vary in a 
 manner, which would amount to a real contra- 
 diction. But the addition of such incompatible 
 circumstances, by these Evangelists is not a 
 matter which can be easily proved. 
 
 That portion of the Gospel History, in which 
 the adversaries of Christianity have taken the 
 greatest pains to discover contradictions, is the 
 history of the Resurrection, which is recorded 
 by all four Evangelists. But in the same pro- 
 portion as ingenuity has been displayed in the 
 attack on that important history, in that same 
 proportion have the friends of Christianity dis- 
 played talent and learning in its defence. We 
 have many excellent vindications of that impor- 
 tant history : but there is none, which lies in a 
 
64 
 
 LECTURE XXIX. 
 
 shorter compass, and at the same time is more 
 satisfactory, than Bishop Sherlock's Trial of 
 the Witnesses. 
 
 And after all, if it were possible to produce 
 real contradictions, they would not destroy the 
 general truth of the Gospel history. Nor could 
 the truth even of any particular fact be invali- 
 dated by such a variation in the circumstances. 
 The inference might affect the circumstances; 
 but not the fact itself. Indeed the Credibility of 
 our Gospels is so little affected by the existing 
 variations, that they operate as arguments in its 
 favour. They shew that the Gospels contain no 
 cunningly devised fable : they shew that the 
 Evangelists did not concert among themselves a 
 story for the deception of mankind. If such had 
 been their design, they would have taken care 
 to avoid even the appearance of a variation in 
 their accounts. But when four historians write 
 a history of the same person, and (whatever be 
 the sources from which they draw their materials) 
 write independently of each other, there is no 
 guarantee, either for the veracity of the writers, 
 or for the Credibility of 'their writings, which 
 can exempt them, without the intervention of a 
 miracle, from variations of that description, which 
 we find in the four Gospels. Consequently such 
 
LECTURE XXIX. 
 
 65 
 
 variations cannot affect the Credibility of the 
 Gospels. 
 
 Let us now proceed to the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles. This book must obviously be compared with 
 the Epistles of St. Paul. For it contains an 
 account of the Christian Communities, to which 
 those Epistles were addressed, and describes the 
 intercourse of St. Paul with the persons, to whom 
 he wrote. That St. Paul was the author of the 
 Epistles ascribed to him, and that Luke wrote 
 the Acts of the Apostles, has been already proved 
 in the Lectures, which relate to the Authenti- 
 city of the New Testament. The present com 
 parison is instituted for the purpose of shewing 
 that the Acts of the Apostles contain a true his- 
 tory. Now the allusions in the Epistles of St 
 Paul to facts and circumstances recorded in the 
 Acts of the Apostles, afford ample proof, that 
 those facts and circumstances are true. If an 
 historian may attempt to deceive his readers by 
 fabulous accounts of things reported to have hap- 
 pened at a distance, the writer of an Epistle, 
 to whomsoever it might be addressed, could not 
 possibly make his readers believe, that things had 
 been done among them, which never had been 
 done. The allusions therefore in St. Paul's Epis- 
 tles to facts and circumstances recorded in the 
 
 E 
 
60 LECTURE XXTX. 
 
 Acts of the Apostles, are unanswerable proofs, 
 that those facts and circumstances are true. It 
 would be absurd to suppose, that there was a 
 collusion between the writer of the history and 
 the writer of the Epistles, for the purpose of giv- 
 ing credit to the history. Such a collusion (as 
 appears from the preceding argument) would 
 have been impracticable. Besides, if those allu- 
 sions had been made for the purpose of giving 
 credit to the history, they would have been made 
 more pointedly; they would have been made in 
 such a manner, that every one might perceive the 
 connexion between the narrative and the allu- 
 sions. Otherwise their object, if made for such a 
 purpose, would have been defeated. But the allu- 
 sions in the Epistles of St. Paul, though always 
 found to accord with the narrative, as soon as 
 they are observed, are more frequently concealed, 
 than apparent. They are not forced upon the 
 notice of the reader, because the introduction of 
 them resulted not from art or design. They are 
 mere incidental allusions, suggested by the matter 
 of the Epistles themselves. They contain no refer- 
 ence, direct or indirect, to any narrative, in which 
 the reader might find the facts and circumstances 
 recorded. When such allusions therefore are 
 compared with the narrative, and are found to 
 agree with it in every particular, we have indis- 
 
t 
 
 / 
 
 LECTURE XXIX. 6? 
 
 pu table proof, that the facts and circumstances 
 are true. 
 
 The books of the New Testament having; 
 been compared with each other, we may now 
 compare them with other works of acknowledged 
 credit. There is no writer to whom we can more 
 effectually appeal, than to the Jewish historian, 
 Josephus. When we appeal to Josephus, in con- 
 firmation of facts recorded by the sacred historians, 
 we appeal to a writer, who could have no design 
 to corroborate their accounts. The subject matter 
 of Josephus has no visible connexion with the 
 subject matter of the Gospels and the Acts of the 
 Apostles. The passages in the former, which 
 illustrate passages in the latter, have not been 
 collected without much industry and careful re- 
 search. Nor are the examples of agreement con- 
 fined to facts, which might be generally known. 
 The conformity extends also to matters so minute, 
 that unless those matters were true, such confor- 
 mity could not have existed. If they had been 
 fabricated by the Evangelists, either Josephus 
 would not have known them, or he would not 
 on their sole authority have recorded them. An 
 agreement in writers, who are not only uncon- 
 nected with each other, but who write for differ- 
 ent purposes, and are even opposed to eacli other 
 
 e2 
 
(} 8 LECTURE XXIX. 
 
 in their religious opinions, is inexplicable on any 
 other supposition, than that they agree in record- 
 ing the truth. And since writers of this descrip- 
 tion cannot often have opportunities of adverting 
 to the same things, we may fairly conclude from 
 their agreement where such opportunities are 
 offered, that the same accuracy exists also in 
 other places, where we cannot apply a similar 
 proof. 
 
 It is an argument unfair and unwarranted, 
 when the adversaries of Christianity contend, that 
 the silence of Josephus on any fact recorded in 
 the Gospels is a reason for our disbelieving it. 
 A fact may be known to one historian, and yet 
 be unknown to another; or if known to him, it 
 may not suit the purport of his history to record 
 it. Indeed the views and motives of one historian 
 maybe so much at variance with the views and 
 motives of another historian, that the one may 
 feel an interest in suppressing what the other 
 feels an interest in recording. Now this was 
 precisely the situation of a writer who rejected 
 Christianity, when compared with the situation of 
 those, who were recording the acts of Christ and 
 his Apostles. 
 
 The examples of agreement between Josephus 
 
LECTURE XXIX. @9 
 
 4 
 
 and the Evangelists, which have already been 
 given in a former Lecture 1 , to prove the Authen- 
 ticity of the New Testament, may be equally 
 well applied to the proof of its Credibility. The 
 same undesigned coincidence, in regard to facts, 
 not generally known, or incidentally mentioned, 
 which prove that the writings are genuine, prove 
 also that the writings are true. 
 
 Similar confirmation may be obtained from 
 the testimonies of heathen authors. But as we 
 , have already an ample collection of such Testi- 
 monies a , it will be sufficient to add one other 
 example. In the sixth chapter of the Acts of the 
 Apostles, ver. 9, St. Luke speaks of a synagogue 
 at Jerusalem, belonging to a class of persons, 
 whom he calls Aifiepnvoi, a term which is evi- 
 dently the same with the Latin Libertini. Now 
 whatever meaning we affix to this word (for it 
 is variously explained); whether we understand 
 emancipated slaves, or the sons of emancipated 
 slaves, they must have been the slaves, or the 
 sons of slaves to Roman masters. Otherwise the 
 Latin term Libertini would not apply to them. 
 
 1. Lecture XXVI. 
 
 % See Lardner's Collection of Jewish and Heathen Testi- 
 monies to the Truth of the Christian Religion. 
 
70 
 
 LECTURE XXIX. 
 
 That among* persons of this description there were 
 many at Rome, who professed the Jewish religion, 
 whether slaves of Jewish origin., or proselytes 
 after manumission, is nothing very extraordinary. 
 But that they should have been so numerous at 
 Jerusalem, as to have a synagogue in that city, 
 built for their particular use, appears at least to 
 be more than might have been expected. Some 
 commentators therefore have supposed that the 
 term in question, instead of denoting emancipated 
 Roman slaves, or the sons of such persons, was 
 an adjective belonging to the name of some city 
 or district ; while others, on mere conjecture, have 
 proposed to alter the term itself. But the whole 
 difficulty is removed by a passage in the second 
 book of the Annals of Tacitus 3 . From that 
 passage it appears, that the persons whom Tacitus 
 describes as being libertini generis, and infected, 
 as he calls it, with the Jewish superstition, were 
 so numerous at Rome in the time of Tiberius, 
 that four thousand of them were sent to the island 
 of Sardinia, and that all the rest of them were 
 ordered, either to renounce their religion, or to 
 depart from Italy before a day appointed. We 
 can now therefore account for the number of 
 Libertini in Judaea at the period, of which St. 
 
 3. Annal. II. 85. Tom. t p. 129. ed. Brotier. 
 
LECTURE XXIX. 
 
 71 
 
 Luke was speaking, which was about fifteen years 
 after their banishment from Italy. 
 
 The review which has been taken of the facts 
 recorded in the New Testament, shall be con- 
 cluded with some remarks, from which it will 
 appear, that the actions, ascribed to our Saviour, 
 are of that description, that they could not have 
 been recorded, if they had not been true. In- 
 dependently of the miracles performed by our 
 Saviour, which shall be considered in the next 
 Lecture, his general conduct as described by the 
 Evangelists, is that of a person surpassing both in 
 wisdom and in goodness the most perfect charac- 
 ter, that was ever drawn by Roman or by Gre- 
 cian eloquence. The character of our Saviour, 
 as represented by the Evangelists, is not drawn 
 in a formal manner, exhibiting at one view 
 the various qualities, of which that character is 
 composed. The character of our Saviour must 
 be learnt by comparing the facts, recorded of 
 him, with the situations, in which he was placed, 
 and the circumstances, under which he acted. 
 This comparison exhibits unshaken fortitude in 
 the severest trials, calmness undisturbed by pro- 
 vocation, kindness returned for injury, and dignity 
 maintained inviolate through every action of his 
 life. Nor is the wisdom and the judgement dis- 
 
72 LECTURE XXIX. 
 
 played on every trying occasion less conspicuous 
 in the character of our Saviour. At the same 
 time we perceive the gradual unfolding of a 
 scheme for the general welfare of mankind, a 
 scheme uniform and consistent in all its parts, 
 yet misunderstood at first by the Apostles them- 
 selves, as being opposed to the general prejudices 
 of the Jews. Facts of this description could not 
 have been invented by the Apostles. Plain and 
 unlettered Jews, as the twelve Apostles were, 
 though adequate to the office of recording what 
 they had seen and heard, were incapable of fabri- 
 cating a series of actions, which constitute the 
 most exalted character, that ever existed upon 
 earth. If the learning and the ingenuity of Plato 
 or Xenophon might have enabled them to draw 
 a picture of Socrates more excellent than the 
 original itself, it was not in the power of unlet- 
 tered Jews to give ideal perfection to a character, 
 which was itself imperfect, and to sustain that 
 ideal perfection, as in a dramatic representation, 
 through a series of imaginary events. Indeed 
 it is highly probable, that the Apostles and Evan- 
 gelists were not wholly aware of that perfection, 
 which they themselves have described. For that 
 perfection is not contained in any formal pane- 
 gyric, expressive of the writer's opinion and indi- 
 cating that opinion to the reader. It is known 
 
LECTURE XX[X. 73 
 
 only by comparison and by inference. We are 
 reduced therefore to this dilemma. Either the ac- 
 tions, which are ascribed to our Saviour, are truly 
 ascribed to him ; or actions have been invented 
 for a purpose, of which the inventors themselves 
 were probably not aware, and applied to that 
 purpose by means, which the inventors did not 
 possess. And when we further consider, that 
 the plan developed by those facts was in direct 
 opposition to the notion of the Jews respecting 
 a temporal Messiah, we must believe in what was 
 wholly impossible, if we believe, that unlettered 
 Jews could have invented them. 
 
LECTURE XXX. 
 
 In the whole extent of our theological inquiries, 
 there is no question of such vital importance, 
 as the question, whether the miracles, ascribed 
 to our Saviour, are justly ascribed to him. If 
 we had reason to believe, that they were merely 
 pretended miracles ; if we had reason to believe, 
 that they were mere delusions, which ignorance 
 and credulity mistook for something supernatural, 
 a main pillar of Christianity would be shaken to 
 its very foundation. Our Saviour himself appeals 
 to his miracles, as proofs of his divine mission. 
 By the argument from miracles, combined with 
 the argument from prophecy, he established the 
 fact, that he was the promised Messiah. And 
 these are the arguments on which we ourselves 
 must rely, for our belief in the divine origin 
 of the Christian religion. Prophecy fulfilled, 
 and real miracles, cannot ' be ascribed to the 
 mere agency of man. When a religion there- 
 fore is introduced by miracles, and prophecies 
 are accomplished in it, that religion cannot be 
 
LECTURE XXX. 
 
 75 
 
 the invention of man, that religion proceeded 
 by revelation from God. But if no miracles were 
 performed, and no prophecies were accomplished, 
 the arguments which were founded on them, 
 both by Christ and by his Apostles, would then 
 rest on a mere imaginary foundation. It is true 
 that other arguments have been used as evidences 
 for Christianity, in addition to the two great 
 arguments, which were employed by Christ and 
 his Apostles. And those additional evidences 
 are very useful, as auxiliaries to the 'principal 
 arguments. But if we take away miracles and 
 prophecy, the auxiliaries will become too feeble 
 to stand by themselves. Miracles and prophecy 
 alone can prove, that the origin of Christianity 
 was divine. 
 
 The importance therefore of the inquiry, 
 which we are now going to institute, is such, 
 that it influences the question, whether our 
 religion originated, as unbelievers assert, in mere 
 human invention, or is a religion which came 
 from God. 
 
 But before we enter on this inquiry, we must 
 determine what is meant by a miracle. For 
 without a clear definition of the term, our argu- 
 ments on a subject of such intricacy and difficulty 
 
76 
 
 LECTURE XXX. 
 
 can never be brought to a determinate conclusion. 
 A miracle, as defined by Dr. Johnson, is some- 
 thing above human power. But as in the scale 
 of creation there are Beings superior to man,, 
 though alike subordinate to God, we may rather 
 define a miracle, as something which cannot be 
 performed without the special interference of 
 God himself. This definition of a miracle accords 
 with the application of the term, as used by 
 Christ and his Apostles. They argue from those 
 miracles as proofs of a divine mission, which 
 they would not be, if they were Owing to the 
 agency of Beings inferior to God. Nicodemus 
 likewise understood the term in the same sense, 
 when applied to the actions of our Saviour. ' We 
 'know (said he) that thou art a Teacher come 
 s from God, for no man can do these miracles, 
 e that thou doest, except God be with him/ 
 
 Another definition of a miracle is a suspension 
 of the laws of nature. This definition accords 
 with the preceding : for a suspension of the laws 
 of nature is an act, which can be performed only 
 by God himself. That Almighty Being, which 
 created the world, and ordained the laws by which 
 it is governed, can at his pleasure, either partially 
 suspend, or even permanently alter them. But 
 no other power can alter or suspend what is 
 
LECTURE XXX. 77 
 
 ordained by the almighty power. A real miracle 
 therefore is different, as well in kind, as in de- 
 gree, from things which appear only wonderful or 
 marvellous. If experiments can be made in natu- 
 ral philosophy, which seem marvellous to those, 
 who know not the relation of the cause to the 
 effect, they are no deviations from the laws of 
 nature; on the contrary, they are produced by 
 those laws. They are the work of man acting 
 under those general rules, by which the almighty 
 Creator directs and governs the world. But a mira- 
 cle neither is, nor can be the work of man, unas- 
 sisted by the special interference of God. For when 
 a miracle is performed, an effect is produced, which 
 is contrary to the laws of nature. This notion 
 of a miracle is adopted also by Mr. Hume : and 
 we shall presently see, that arguing even from 
 the notion, which he himself adopts, we may 
 fairly meet his objections to the Credibility of 
 miracles. But we must previously examine some 
 other objections. 
 
 ... ■ \ 
 
 We have already seen how justly Nicodemus 
 argued from the miracles performed by our Sa- 
 viour. But other Jews endeavoured to evade the 
 inference, by contending that those miracles were 
 owing to the agency of evil spirits. That such 
 a notion was entertained by Jews in the first 
 
78 
 
 LECTURE XXX. 
 
 century, is not surprising-, as it accorded with then 
 prevalent opinions. But that a controversy should 
 have been conducted in modern times, respecting 
 the question, whether the agency of evil spirits 
 could account for those miracles, is what we 
 should not have expected. Nor have we less 
 reason to be surprised at the manner, in which 
 this question has been answered even in the ne- 
 gative. It has been contended, that the miracles 
 performed by our Saviour could not have been 
 owing to the agency of evil spirits, because 
 they were acts of benevolence. Undoubtedly the 
 miracles of our Saviour were no less illustrations 
 of divine benevolence, than they were illustrations 
 of divine power. And it does not require much 
 reasoning to shew the absurdity of ascribing acts 
 of benevolence to Beings so constituted as to pro- 
 duce only evil. But if this were the sole reason, 
 why the miracles of our Saviour could not be 
 owing to the agency of evil spirits, the argument 
 from miracles would be at once defeated. For 
 if Beings inferior to God, though superior to man, 
 were unable to effect those miracles, for no other 
 reason, than because the character of those mira- 
 cles accorded not with the' character of those 
 Beings, it would follow as a necessary conse- 
 quence, that those miracles might have been 
 performed by spirits of an opposite character. 
 
LECTURE XXX. 
 
 79 
 
 The scripture teaches us, that there are good, as 
 well as evil spirits : and with respect to power, 
 we cannot suppose the former inferior to the 
 latter. But if we admit that any power inferior 
 to the almighty power could have produced the 
 miracles which Jesus did, those miracles must 
 cease to prove the divine origin of Christianity. 
 The evasion therefore of the Jews must be met 
 by an absolute and general denial. Though the 
 miracles of our Saviour were illustrations of his 
 benevolence, we must argue from them as illus- 
 trations of his power. It is the power which he 
 displayed in the working of miracles, that argued 
 his divine authority. And if those miracles, as 
 illustrations of power, had not in themselves im- 
 plied divine authority, they could not have done 
 so, either by the attribute of benevolence, or by 
 any other concomitant circumstances whatever. 
 
 But the consideration of the manner, in 
 which the evasion of the Jews may be most effec- 
 tually answered, is of less importance, than the 
 admission, which that evasion implies. The very 
 attempt to account for the miracles, whether right 
 or wrong, implies at least the existence of them. 
 We have therefore not only the testimony of the 
 Apostles, whose sincerity is proved by their sacri- 
 fice of all earthly advantages ; we have the testi- 
 
80 
 
 LECTURE XXX. 
 
 mony of those, who were interested in denying 
 the miracles. And if they had been able to deny 
 those miracles, they would certainly have done it. 
 The miracles performed by our Saviour, were 
 not, like most of the pretended miracles, as well 
 of ancient as of modern times, performed in 
 secret, or in the presence only of a chosen few. 
 They were performed in the presence of hundreds 
 and of thousands : they were performed, as well 
 in the presence of adversaries, as in the presence 
 of friends. Such miracles come attested by very 
 different evidence, from that which has been 
 alleged in favour of those pretended miracles, 
 recorded, either by profane historians, or by 
 legendaries of the Church of Rome. 
 
 If indeed the objections of some modern 
 philosophers were founded in truth, it would be 
 useless to produce any evidence whatever. For 
 according to those objections there is no evidence 
 by which the truth of a miracle can be established. 
 Before we proceed therefore with the evidence 
 for the miracles recorded in the New Testament, 
 it is necessary that we should inquire, whether 
 a miracle is capable of proof. 
 
 It was a favourite maxim with the French 
 Encyclopedists, and with those who adopted 
 
J' 
 
 LECTURE XXX. 81 
 
 their principles, that the notion of a miracle 
 destroys itself. They contended that the notion 
 of a miracle involved an absurdity, as consisting 
 of parts which were irreconcileable. Now the 
 notion of a miracle undoubtedly implies, that the 
 World is governed by general laws, and that a 
 miracle is an event which is contrary to those 
 laws. But the government of the world by gene- 
 ral laws, and a departure from those laws on 
 particular occasions, are irreconcileable only on 
 the two following suppositions ; either that there 
 is no God, or, that if there is a God, both himself 
 and the Universe are bound in the chains of 
 fatalism. Now the latter supposition is hardly 
 different from the former. There is at least no 
 practical difference, between the non-existence 
 of a God, and the existence of a God, who pos- 
 sesses not the attributes of Deity. With those 
 who can deny the being of a God, I know not 
 how to argue. Where the human intellect is 
 so perverted, that they who can perceive intelli- 
 gence and design in a clock-work, which repre- 
 sents the movements of the heavenly bodies, are 
 yet unable to perceive intelligence and design, 
 when they ascend from the humble imitation to 
 the great original, no arguments can avail. It is 
 useless to argue with those, who deny that a con- 
 trivance implies a contriver: who can doubt 
 
 F 
 
$2 LECTURE XXX. 
 
 whether the eye was made for seeing, or the 
 ear for hearing. Nor would I pretend to argue 
 with those, who, if they admit that there is a God 
 in name, deny him the attributes, which constitute 
 a God in reality. If the wisdom displayed in the 
 works of the Creation indicate a wise Creator, 
 no ties of necessity could have shackled the exer- 
 cise of his wisdom, no ties of necessity could 
 have limited the exercise of his power. But if 
 the same power, which made the laws of nature 
 is able to suspend them, it cannot be true, that 
 the notion of a miracle destroys itself. 
 
 A more powerful and a more seducing argu- 
 ment is the argument from experience, as ex- 
 plained by Mr. Hume, in his Essay on Miracles. 
 He begins by asserting' what is very true, that 
 " a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature V 
 He then proceeds in the following words. "As 
 " a firm and unalterable experience has established 
 " these laws, the proof against a miracle from the 
 es very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argu- 
 ff ment from experience can possibly be imagined." 
 In the next page he proceeds in the following words. 
 (( 'Tis a miracle, that a dead man should come 
 " to life, because that has never been observed in 
 et any age or country. There must therefore be 
 
 1. Hume's Essays, Vol. II. p. 180. 2d ed. London, 1753. 
 
LECTURE XXX. 
 
 83 
 
 "an uniform experience against every miraculous 
 " event ; otherwise the event would not merit the 
 " appellation. And as uniform experience amounts 
 " to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof 
 e f from the nature of the fact, against the existence 
 <f of any miracle." In the second part of the same 
 Essay, he compares the value of human testimony 
 when opposed to general experience in regard 
 to miracles. And to render the parallel more ob- 
 vious, he founds the value of human testimony 
 on experience also. ec 'T\s experience only" (says 
 Mr. Hume z ) cc which gives authority to human 
 u . testimony : and 'tis the same experience which 
 ce assures us of the laws of nature. When there- 
 ec fore these two kinds of experience are contrary, 
 "we have nothing to do, but to subtract the 
 " one from the other." Since then experience is 
 against a miracle, whereas experience does not 
 always decide for the veracity of a witness, the 
 experience which operates against a miracle can 
 never, in the opinion of Mr. Hume, be overcome 
 by any testimony in its favour. 
 
 A learned Prelate, who has deservedly gained 
 much reputation by his defence of the miracles, 
 has met the objection of Mr. Hume by arguing 
 against the parallel which he has drawn between 
 
 2. Ibid. p. 202. 
 F 2 
 
81 LECTURE XXX. 
 
 the two kinds of experience, and by combating; 
 the argument, that the connexion between hu- 
 man testimony, and the events testified, is founded 
 on experience alone. This connexion Mr. Hume 
 had endeavoured to establish in the former part 
 of his Essay by the following argument 3 . "It 
 < e being a general maxim, that no objects have 
 « any discoverable connexion together, and that 
 "all the inferences we can draw from one to 
 « another, are founded merely on our experience 
 " of their constant and regular conjunction, 'tis 
 iff evident we ought not to make an exception to 
 « this maxim in favour of human testimony, whose 
 -connexion with any events seems, in itself, as 
 - little necessary as any other/' Now it is cer- 
 tainly a very broad assertion, that all the infer- 
 ences we can draw from one object to another are 
 founded merely on the experience of their regular 
 conjunction. And it may be fairly answered by 
 the counter-assertion, that the relation of cause 
 and effect may be established independently of 
 experience. But if this relation may be esta- 
 blished a priori, when we argue, generally and 
 abstractedly, yet when we consider the relation 
 of a particular cause to a particular effect, our 
 experience that the latter does follow the former, 
 
 3. Hume's Essays, Vol. II. p. 177. 2* ed. London, 1753. 
 
LECTURE XXX. ®$ 
 
 affords a proof of that connexion, which perhaps 
 is more satisfactory than any reasoning- a priori. 
 
 I would meet therefore Mr. Hume's objection, 
 not by denying the parallel, nor by resisting that 
 part of his argument, which makes the value of 
 testimony dependent on experience, but by resist- 
 ing- that part of the argument, which connects 
 experience with miracles. And if there is a flaw 
 in this part of his reasoning, the whole of it falls 
 at once to the ground. 
 
 It appears from his own words, which have- 
 been already quoted, that he argues on the sup- 
 position of " a firm and unalterable experience'" 
 in regard to the laws of nature. He takes for 
 granted therefore that those laws are unalterable, 
 at the very time when the question is in agitation, 
 whether they were altered in particular cases. 
 The argument therefore postulates what it pro- 
 fesses to prove. When we argue for the possibi- 
 lity of a miracle, we argue for the possibility of 
 a deviation from the laws of nature ; and we 
 argue on the ground, that the same Almighty 
 Being who made those laws must have the power 
 of altering or suspending them. If therefore white 
 we are contending for an alteration or suspension 
 of those laws, with respect to the miracles ascribed 
 
 i 
 
86 
 
 LECTURE XXX. 
 
 to our Saviour, we are told that those laws 
 are unalterable, we are met by a mere petitio 
 principii. In short the argument from experi- 
 ence, as applied to miracles, includes more than 
 the nature of the argument admits. Though an 
 event may be contrary to common experience, 
 we must not set out with the supposition, that the 
 rule admits of no exception. We must not con- 
 found general with universal experience, and thus 
 include beforehand the very things for which an 
 exception is claimed. 
 
 Indeed Mr. Hume himself appears to have 
 been aware, that his reasoning on the subject of 
 miracles was not altogether conclusive. In the 
 second part of his Essay * he qualifies his infer- 
 ence by saying, " that no human testimony can 
 ■ c have such a force as to prove a miracle, and 
 ■i make it a just foundation for any system of 
 " religion." And he adds a note, which begins 
 with the following words. * I beg the limitations 
 " may be remarked, when I say, that a miracle 
 " can never be proved, so as to be the foundation 
 V of a system of Religion. For I own, that 
 <c otherwise there may possibly be miracles, or 
 " violations of the usual course of nature, of such 
 
 4. Humes Essays, Vol. II. p. 203. <2d ed. London, 1753. 
 
LECTURE XXX. 
 
 87 
 
 " a kind as to admit of proof from human testi- 
 " mony." 
 
 We see then, that Mr. Hume admits, after all, 
 that a miracle may be proved by human testi- 
 mony. He contends indeed for an exception, 
 when the alleged miracles are made the founda- 
 tion of a system of religion. Now the case, for 
 which Mr. Hume thus claims an exception, is 
 the very case, in which above all others we 
 might expect the interposition of the Almighty, 
 the very case therefore in which the existence of 
 miracles would be most probable. The founda- 
 tion of a new religion is a matter of such high 
 importance, that there cannot be an object more 
 worthy of that special interference, which is shewn 
 by a suspension of the laws of nature. And it 
 is the suspension of those laws, by which the 
 special interference of the Almighty is made known 
 to us. When we read of wonders in the ancient 
 historians, or in the legends of the Church of 
 Rome, or when we contemplate the miracles al- 
 leged to have been performed in the middle of 
 the last century at the tomb of the Abbe Paris, 
 on which Mr. Hume particularly dwells, we can 
 discover no motive for the special interference of 
 the Almighty by a suspension of his laws. They 
 were not occasions worthy of such high inter- 
 
88 LECTURE XXX. 
 
 ference, without which a miracle is a thing im- 
 possible. In all such cases therefore we may be 
 certain, that some deception was practised, whe- 
 ther we are able to discover that deception, or 
 not. But in the miracles ascribed to our Saviour 
 and his Apostles, there was an object that did 
 merit the divine interposition. The object was 
 nothing less than the promulgation of a new 
 religion, which was designed to regulate the faith 
 and practice of the whole human race. 
 
 If it be objected, that the divine origin of 
 Christianity is in this manner pre-supposed, in 
 order to strengthen an argument by which it 
 must be proved, the answer is, that I am not at 
 present giving any proof whatever. I am merely 
 arguing against that exception to the general 
 principle, which Mr. Hume himself admits. And 
 since even they who reject Christianity must 
 allow that its professed object was the introduc- 
 tion of a religion which should influence the 
 whole human race, this alone is sufficient to 
 prevent the miracles, recorded in the New Testa- 
 ment, from being made an exception to the rule. 
 In arguing against that exception nothing more 
 is intended, than to claim for those miracles the 
 benefit of a fair trial. The trial itself is the ob- 
 ject of our next consideration. 
 
LECTURE XXX. SQ 
 
 It has been already admitted, that events of 
 ordinary occurrence may be credited on testimony, 
 which would be insufficient to command our 
 assent to events of a different description. The 
 argument from experience is so far valid, that in 
 proportion as any alleged fact is a deviation from 
 our experience, in that same proportion do we 
 require additional evidence, before we believe it. 
 An inhabitant of the torrid zone, who had never 
 passed the limits of his own country, and there- 
 fore had never seen water except in a liquid state, 
 would certainly not believe it, when told for the 
 first time, that there were other countries, in 
 which water at certain seasons of the year was 
 converted into a solid mass, capable of sustaining 
 the greatest weights. Such a conversion would 
 to him appear miraculous, because it was con- 
 trary, both to his own experience, and to the 
 experience of all those, with whom he had pre- 
 viously conversed. And he would be no more 
 disposed to believe that water could be converted 
 into a solid body, than to believe that it could 
 be converted into wine. But his unbelief would 
 gradually give way, as the testimony to the 
 fact became stronger. If his intercourse with 
 persons who had been in colder climates should 
 increase, and they all concurred in asserting the 
 same fact, the unbelief which had been founded 
 
gO LECTURE XXX. 
 
 on the argument from experience, would finally 
 yield to human testimony. In like manner a 
 fact way be proved by human testimony, which 
 is contrary to the experience, not of one country 
 only, but of all countries. 
 
 It is contrary to the common experience of 
 all countries, that a dead man should be restored 
 to life. But a fact even of this description is 
 still capable of being proved by human testimony. 
 We must guard against that fallacious mode of 
 stating the argument from experience, which 
 includes in the statement itself the very thing for 
 which we claim an exception. We must not say, 
 that it is contrary to universal experience, that 
 a dead man has been restored to life : nor must 
 we say in the words of Mr. Hume, that such an 
 event f has never been observed in any age or 
 country 5 .' In so stating the argument, we pre- 
 judge the question. If we set out with the 
 supposition, that such an event has never hap- 
 pened, the question whether it did happen in 
 a particular instance cannot even be proposed. 
 But if we say, that such an event is contrary to 
 the common experience of all countries, we say 
 as much as can or ought to be said, when the 
 
 5. Hume's Essays, Vol. if! p- 181, 2d. ed. London, 1753. 
 
LECTURE XXX. 
 
 91 
 
 question is in agitation, whether such an event 
 has taken place or not. And as we have seen 
 that the argument from the experience of one 
 country, may be overcome by human testimony, 
 so we shall find that human testimony may 
 overcome the argument from the common expe- 
 rience of all countries. 
 
 Let us select for a trial the miracle performed 
 by our Saviour in the restoration of Lazarus. 
 This miracle is recorded in the eleventh Chapter 
 of St. John's Gospel: and the circumstantial 
 account not only of the transaction itself, but 
 of every thing, which preceded and followed it, 
 shews that St. John himself was eye-witness to 
 the whole. In the first place, therefore, we 
 have the testimony of a witness, whose character 
 for veracity is unimpeachable. And the fact itself 
 is of that description, that St. John could not 
 have been deluded by any art or contrivance 
 into a belief of the fact, if it had not really 
 happened. Prom the report of Martha, the 
 sister of Lazarus, it appeared that Lazarus had 
 been dead four days, and already in that state, 
 which is an unerring proof of real death. AIL 
 suspicion therefore of any collusion is precluded. 
 It cannot be pretended, that Lazarus was not 
 dead, when placed in the tomb. When the 
 
Q2 LECTURE XXX. 
 
 tomb was opened, his very face was bound about 
 with a napkin. But if his sisters Martha and 
 Mary had placed him in the tomb alive, to 
 afford an opportunity for a pretended miracle, 
 they would not have done that, which must 
 have extinguished life, if life had remained. His 
 burial was likewise a matter of notoriety : for 
 persons were assembled in the house of Martha 
 and Mary comforting them for the loss of 
 their brother: and when Mary went out to 
 meet our Saviour, they said, " She goeth unto 
 « the grave to weep there." When our Saviour 
 himself arrived at the grave, he was attended 
 not only by the sisters of Lazarus, and by his 
 own disciples, but by many Jews who were 
 likewise witnesses to the miracle. It was an 
 act therefore not performed in secret, or in the 
 presence only of friends : it was done publickly, 
 and was open to the scrutiny of those, who were 
 not the followers of Jesus. Such persons cannot 
 be considered as prejudiced witnesses : yet such 
 was their conviction of the fact, that in conse- 
 quence of this miracle they became believers. 
 The miracle was moreover ^subjected to a judicial 
 examination by the chief priests and pharisees 
 assembled in Council. And what was the result 
 of their examination. The result, as stated in 
 the words of St. John was, " This man doeth 
 
LECTURE XXX. 9 3 
 
 " many miracles : if we let him alone all men 
 " will believe on him." 
 
 Surely then we have sufficient evidence for 
 the truth of the miracle in question. Though it 
 is contrary to common experience, that a man 
 really dead should come to life, yet as human 
 testimony may outweigh the argument which is 
 founded on such experience, so in the present 
 instance the testimony is so powerful that it 
 must preponderate. 
 
 In like manner we may establish the truth 
 of the other miracles ascribed to our Saviour. 
 We have likewise satisfactory evidence for the 
 miracles ascribed to the Apostles. And there is 
 an additional argument for the miracles ascribed 
 to St. Paul, in the appeal which he has made 
 to the persons, in whose presence he performed 
 them. But as this argument has been fully 
 explained at the beginning of the Lectures, on 
 the Authenticity of the New Testament, it need 
 not now be repeated. 
 
 The facts recorded in the New Testament, 
 as well those which are miraculous, as those, 
 which are of ordinary occurrence, have now been 
 shewn to be worthy of credit. 
 
g4 LECTURE XXX. 
 
 But beside the Credibility of facts we must 
 consider the Credibility of doctrines. The latter 
 question however lies within a narrow compass. 
 When the Credibility of the facts has been esta- 
 blished, the Credibility of the doctrines follows 
 as a matter of course. As the miracles ascribed 
 to our Saviour are justly ascribed to him, they 
 prove his divine authority, and consequently 
 that his doctrine was from God. In like man- 
 ner since St. Paul and the other Apostles were 
 gifted with the power of miracles, that power 
 which God alone could have given them, is again 
 a proof that their doctrine was from God. As the 
 facts therefore recorded in the New Testament, 
 are fully entitled to our assent, so the doctrines 
 recorded in the New Testament, may be justly 
 admitted as the basis of our faith and morals. 
 
 Here then I will conclude the series of 
 Lectures on the Authenticity and Credibility of 
 the New Testament : a series of regular and 
 continued deduction, in which no proposition 
 has been admitted without previous proof, in 
 which no argument has been applied, tfyat is 
 dependent on the subject of application. I have 
 complied therefore with the strictest demands, 
 which can be made by those, who require a 
 reason of the hope that is in us. And if these 
 
LECTURE XXX. 
 
 95 
 
 Lectures,, thus rigidly adhering to the laws of 
 consistent demonstration, shall be the means of 
 convincing one unbeliever, the labour bestowed 
 on them will not have been bestowed in vain. 
 
c 
 
 A 
 
 r 
 
A 
 
 COURSE OF LECTURES, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 A DESCRIPTION AND SYSTEMATIC ARRANGEMENT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SEVERAL BRANCHES OP DIVINITY : 
 
 ACCOMPANIED WITH 
 
 AN ACCOUNT BOTH OF THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORS, 
 AND OF THE PROGRESS, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AT 
 DIFFERENT PERIODS, 
 
 IN 
 
 BY 
 
 HERBERT MARSH, D.D. F.R.S. &F.A.S 
 
 LORD BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH, 
 AND MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 
 
 PART VII. 
 On the Authority of the Old Testament. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: 
 
 Printed by J. Smith, Printer to the University ; 
 SOLD BY DEIGHTONS, NICHOLSONS, AND BARRETT, CAMBRIDGE J 
 AND C. & J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
 
 1823 
 
[Entered at Stationers' Hall."] 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 » 
 
 LECTURE XXXI. 
 
 Pnge 
 
 Statement of the reasons, why the Authenticity 
 and Credibility of the New Testament were con- 
 sidered, before similar inquiries had been instituted 
 in regard to the Old Testament. The records 
 which contain the Mosaic and Christian religions, 
 must not be confounded with the religions them- 
 selves. The authority of the later record having 
 been established independently of the former record , 
 we may argue from the authority of the New Testa- 
 ment to that of the Old Testament without 1 arguing 
 in a circle. Difference between the Old and New 
 Testaments, with respect to the applicability of the 
 terms 'authentic' and 'credible.' These terms 
 though applicable to every book of the New Testa- 
 ment, are not equally applicable to every book of 
 the Old Testament. They are applicable to the 
 five books of Moses. Proof of their Authenticity 
 has been already given. The term is not applicable 
 to those historic books, of which the authors are 
 unknown. But the term ' credibility ' is applicable 
 to all of them. Reasons for the credibility of the 
 
iv CONTENTS. 
 
 Pentateuch. Reasons for the credibility of the other 
 historic books of the Old Testament. The propheti- 
 cal writings considered, with reference to their 
 authenticity and credibility. Both terms are appli- 
 cable to all the prophetical books. Illustration of 
 the term 'credibility,' as applied to prophecy. 
 General remarks on the five remaining books of 
 the Old Testament, namely, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, 
 Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's Song 
 
 LECTURE XXXII. 
 
 The books of the Old Testament considered, not indi- 
 vidually, but collectively. Explanation of the term 
 'authority,' as used in this and the following 
 Lecture. Examination of the question, whether the 
 authority of the Old Testament may not be esta- 
 blished generally. Explanation of the mode of 
 arguing from the authority of the New Testament 
 to that of the Old Testament. The testimony of 
 our Saviour to the books of the Old Testament 
 sufficient proof of their authority. Different ways 
 in which he has borne such testimony. All the 
 Hebrew Scriptures, as they existed in the time of 
 our Saviour received his sanction. If therefore they 
 contained the same books, which are now contained 
 in our Hebrew Bibles, we have the sanction of 
 our Saviour for every book of the Old Testament, 
 that is, every canonical book of the Old Testament. 
 Consequent necessity of our inquiring into the He- 
 brew Canon, or the Canon of the Old Testament* 
 
CONTENTS. V 
 
 Pa 
 
 as it existed at Jerusalem in the time of our Sa- 
 viour. The Hebrew Scriptures divided into three 
 classes. Antiquity of this division. The first class 
 always termed the Law; and the second class the 
 Prophets. The books of the third class, which at 
 first had no distinguishing title, were afterwards 
 called in Hebrew Chetubim, in Greek, Hagiographa. 
 Our Saviour in appealing to the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures observed the three-fold division of them. 
 Comparison of his appeal with those of Philo and 
 Josephus. According to the Jewish reckoning, the 
 three classes contained twenty-two books; whereas 
 the canonical books of the Old Testament, as ar- 
 ranged in our Bibles, amount to thirty-nine. Ex- 
 planation of the manner, in which the Jews made 
 the books of the Old Testament amount to twenty- 
 two : whence it follows, that the books, which con- 
 stituted the Hebrev) Bible in the time of our Saviour, 
 agreed, as to their real number, with the books 
 which now constitute our Hebrew Bibles . 
 
 LECTURE XXXIII. 
 
 Object of this Lecture to prove that the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures, which received the sanction of our Saviour, 
 contained the same books, which are now contained 
 in our Hebrew Bibles. That the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures at a certain period contained certain books, 
 is an historical fact, for which in the first instance 
 we may inquire after historical evidence. But 
 direct historical evidence to the books which com- 
 
Vi CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 posed the Hebrew Scriptures in the first century 
 cannot now be obtained. The fact still capable 
 of proof from induction. Mode of conducting that 
 proof. The chief object is to connect the catalogue 
 of the Hebrew Scriptures, which Jerom has given 
 in his Prologus galeatus, with the account which 
 Josephus has given of the Hebrew Scriptures, in his 
 treatise against Apion. When we have connected 
 Jerom' s catalogue with the account of Josephus, we 
 may connect the Hebrew Scriptures as they existed 
 in the time of our Saviour, with the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures as they exist at present. In other words it 
 will follow, that the Canon of the Old Testament, 
 as it existed at Jerusalem in the time of our Saviour, 
 was the same Canon, as that which is now repre- 
 sented by our Hebrew Bibles. Mode of connecting 
 the catalogue of Jerom with the account of Josephus ; 
 whence it appears, that the Hebrew Scriptures in 
 the time of Josephus, contained the same books, 
 which they contained in the time of Jerom. This 
 inference is confirmed by additional evidence draxm 
 from Josephus himself. The Hebrew Scriptures 
 to which our Saviour appealed, were the same He- 
 brew Scriptures, to which Josephus appealed. The 
 Hebrew Scriptures enumerated by Jerom in his 
 Prologus galeatus, contained the same books, which 
 are now contained in our Hebrew Bibles. The 
 final conclusion therefore is, that the Hebrew Canon 
 in the time of our Saviour uSas the same Hebrew 
 Canon which is now represented by our Hebrew 
 Bibles ; and that we have his sanction for every 
 canonical book of the Old Testament 31 
 
CONTENTS. V" 
 LECTURE XXXIV. 
 
 Page 
 
 Our inquiries into the Integrity of the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures may be divided into two periods, the one 
 extending from the time of Moses to that' of our 
 Saviour, the other from the time of our Saviour to 
 the present age. In the former period we may 
 collect historical notices, concerning the care which 
 was taken by the Jews for the preservation of the 
 Hebrew Scriptures. In the latter period we must 
 endeavour to repel the charge, which has been laid 
 to the Jews, of having wilfully corrupted the Hebrew 
 Scriptures; and further to shew that the utmost 
 caution has been used to prevent accidental mistakes. 
 The preservation of the Pentateuch or the Book of 
 the Law, a matter of special importance to the Jews. 
 Care taken in this respect by Moses himself. Re- 
 marks on the Temple-copy of the Law. Whether 
 this copy was preserved, when the Temple was de- 
 stroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Preservation of the 
 law {whether the Temple- copy or not) during the 
 Babylonish captivity, and production of it by Ezra, 
 when the Temple was rebuilt. On the preservation 
 of the other books, which were written before the 
 Babylonish captivity. Collection made by Ezra 
 and Nehemiah, of the books which were written 
 before, during, and after the Babylonish captivity. 
 The books so collected formed the Canon of the 
 Hebrew Scriptures, and were preserved in the Temple 
 till the destruction of it by Titus. The Hebrew 
 Scriptures, which received the sanction of our Sa- 
 viour, received his sanction, as they then existed. 
 
Viii CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 No charge of previous corruption alleged against 
 the Scribes and Pharisees. The question examined 
 whether the Jews have subsequently corrupted the 
 Hebrew Scriptures. Obstacles to the execution of 
 such an attempt, even if the Jews had been inclined 
 to make it. On the extreme caution, which has been 
 employed by the Jews, to prevent even accidental 
 mistakes. Remarks on certain alterations and 
 additions, which are neither wilful corruptions, 
 nor accidental mistakes. Recapitulation and con- 
 clusion 51 
 
LECTURE XXXI* 
 
 The authenticity and credibility of the New 
 Testament having been established in the last 
 eight Lectures, I now proceed to the authen- 
 ticity and credibility of the Old Testament. It 
 is true, that in this arrangement the order of 
 time is inverted. But whatever rules may be 
 observed in the position of historical facts, we 
 are not restricted by similar rules, in our modes 
 of reasoning on those facts. When we undertake 
 to establish the authority of different records, 
 the question, which of them shall be first sub- 
 mitted to examination may depend on circum- 
 stances unconnected with priority of composition : 
 and that arrangement must always be preferred, 
 which enables us to conduct our proofs in the 
 most satisfactory manner. If then the autho- 
 rity of a later record can be established without 
 a previous inquiry into the authority of a former 
 record, and the authority of the later record 
 will assist us in establishing the authority of 
 
 A 
 
2 LECTURE XXXI. 
 
 the former record, the later record becomes 
 of necessity the first object of inquiry. 
 
 Precisely in this relation do the Old and 
 New Testaments stand with respect to each 
 other. The records, which contain the Mosaic 
 and Christian religions, must not be confounded 
 with the religions themselves. The new Cove- 
 nant was certainly founded on the old Covenant : 
 the Mosaic dispensation was certainly a prelude 
 to the Christian, yet the authority of the record, 
 which conveys the Christian Covenant, may 
 be examined without reference to the record 
 which conveyed the former Covenant. And 
 this rule has been strictly observed in all the 
 Lectures relating to the authenticity and credi- 
 bility of the New Testament. Though the new 
 Covenant itself is founded on the old Covenant, 
 the truth of the record, which conveys the new 
 Covenant, was not founded on the truth of the 
 record, which conveys the old Covenant. Both 
 the authenticity and the credibility of the New 
 Testament were established by arguments, which 
 are wholly independent of the Old Testament. 
 The external evidence for the authenticity of 
 the New Testament was shewn to consist in 
 the testimony of Greek and Latin writers to 
 the fact, that the several books of the New 
 Testament were written by the persons, to whom 
 
LECTURE XXXI. 3 
 
 they are ascribed. And, as this fact is an 
 historic fact, a fact open to the observation of 
 man, human testimony is competent proof. This 
 external evidence was then confirmed by internal 
 evidence, drawn from the New Testament, with- 
 out any reference, direct or indirect, to the Old 
 Testament. In like manner the credibility of 
 the New Testament, as well in regard to the 
 miracles, as to the facts of ordinary occurrence, 
 was established without reference to the Old 
 Testament. For it was established by argu- 
 ments drawn partly from the character and situ- 
 ation of the Apostles and Evangelists, in other 
 parts from the New Testament itself. 
 
 We may argue therefore from the authority 
 of the New Testament to that of the Old Testa- 
 ment, without exposing ourselves to the charge of 
 arguing from premises dependent on the infer- 
 ence to which we apply them. The mode of 
 application will be explained in the next Lecture. 
 
 Another reason for beginning with the New 
 Testament is, that the proofs of authenticity 
 and credibility, in reference to the individual 
 books, may be conducted more easily and more 
 intelligibly, than the similar proofs in regard to 
 the Old Testament. Every book of the New 
 
4 LECTURE XXXI. 
 
 Testament is ascribed to a particular author: 
 and it was shewn that every book of the New 
 Testament was justly so ascribed. A distinct 
 inquiry was then instituted into the credibility 
 of the New Testament, from which it appeared 
 that the term was applicable, as well to the in- 
 dividual books, as to the books, when taken 
 collectively. 
 
 In extending our inquiries from the New 
 to the Old Testament consistency requires, that 
 we should apply the same terms in the same 
 sense. But we cannot say, that a book is au- 
 thentic, or written by the author, to whom it 
 is ascribed, when the author of that book is 
 unknown. Nor will the difficulty be removed 
 by altering the meaning of the term authentic. 
 If we make a distinction between the terms 
 'authentic' and 'genuine/ and say that a book 
 is genuine when written by the author to whom 
 it is ascribed, but authentic only, when the author 
 is entitled to credit: we transfer the difficulty 
 from one term to another. The term 'au- 
 thentic' being then taken in a compound sense, 
 and made to include both the notion of genuine 
 and the notion of credible, it is tautology to speak 
 of authenticity and credibility : for authenticity 
 then includes credibility. Instead of saying that 
 
LECTURE XXXI. 5 
 
 the books of the New Testament are authentic 
 and credible, according to the definition, which 
 has been hitherto observed in these Lectures, 
 we must then say, that they are genuine and 
 credible. But this substitution of terms will 
 be of no avail, when we extend our inquiries 
 to the Old Testament. Whether a book, written 
 by the author to whom it is ascribed be called 
 a genuine book, or be called an authentic book, 
 the application of the term c genuine* will be 
 equally difficult with the application of the term 
 c authentic/ when we are concerned with a book, 
 of which the author is unknown. Since then 
 it is useless to alter the terms, when the difficulty 
 remains the same, let us take a summary 
 view of the books of the Old Testament, with 
 reference to the terms ' authentic 3 and ' credible/ 
 according to the sense, in which they have been 
 applied to the New Testament. 
 
 The five books of Moses are both authentic 
 and credible. The arguments for their authen- 
 ticity have been already stated in a Discourse 
 which I delivered from this pulpit more than 
 thirty years ago \ But a proof of authenticity 
 is not equally applicable to all the historical 
 
 1 The third edition was printed in 1800, and is entitled 
 < The Authenticity of the Five Books of Moses vindicated.' 
 
6 
 
 LECTURE XXXI. 
 
 books of the Old Testament. Whether the book 
 of Joshua derived its name from Joshua as the 
 author of it, or was so called because Joshua 
 was the principal actor in it, has long been a 
 subject of dispute. The truth probably lies be- 
 tween the two opposite opinions. The principal 
 materials, of which the book is composed, were 
 probably committed to writing by Joshua him- 
 self: and these materials were afterwards em- 
 ployed in the composition of the work, which 
 bears his name. This supposition will at least 
 remove many difficulties, which attend the opinion 
 that the book in its present form was written 
 at the time when the Israelites took possession 
 of Canaan. To the book of Judges no author's 
 name is prefixed : nor have we at present suffi- 
 cient data, to form even a probable conjecture, 
 who the author of it was. The variety of per- 
 sons to whom it has been ascribed, sufficiently 
 shews, that nothing is really known about the 
 author. The book of Ruth was evidently so 
 called, not from the author, but from the sub- 
 ject of the book. With respect to the books of 
 Samuel, it is impossible that both of them should 
 have been written by the prophet of that name : 
 for the death of the prophet Samuel is described 
 before the end of the first book. The two books 
 of the Kings and the two books of the Chronicles, 
 
LECTURE XXXI. 1 
 
 were probably written after the return from the 
 Babylonish Captivity : and it appears from the 
 references, which they contain, that they were 
 drawn from records, which existed before the 
 Captivity. But whether the books of the Kings 
 and the Chronicles were compiled by Ezra, or 
 by some other person, is matter of mere conjec- 
 ture. To the book, which bears the name of 
 Ezra, as also to the book, which bears the name 
 of Nehemiah, the term 'authentic' may be justly 
 applied. For we have sufficient reason to believe, 
 that Ezra and Nehemiah were the authors of the 
 books, which bear their names. The author of 
 the book of Esther is again unknown ; its title 
 being evidently derived from the person, whose 
 history it records. 
 
 From the preceding review of the historical 
 books in the Old Testament it appears that 
 the term ' Authenticity ' is inapplicable to the 
 greater part of them. But the term < Credibility ' 
 is applicable to them all When the author is 
 known (as for instance we know the author of 
 the Pentateuch) we may argue, as we did in 
 regard to the New Testament from the situation 
 and character of the writer to the credibility 
 of his writings. Hence we argue, and justly 
 argue from the authenticity to the credibility of 
 
o LECTURE XXXI. 
 
 the Pentateuch. The four last books contain 
 events, which were contemporary with the author 
 himself; events in which he bore the principal 
 part. And he had ample means of knowing the 
 truth of what he has recorded in the first book. 
 The Jews themselves, from the commencement 
 of their existence as a nation, have afforded one 
 continued chain of evidence for the credibility 
 as well as the authenticity of the Pentateuch. It 
 is impossible, that they should have received from 
 the very beginning a code of legislation as com- 
 ing from the hands of Moses, and a narrative 
 of events connected with that legislation, if the 
 record, which contained those events and that 
 legislation, had not been true. 
 
 In like manner we may argue from the 
 authenticity to the credibility of the books of 
 Ezra and Nehemiah. Those writers were also 
 contemporary with the events which they have 
 described, and bore a principal part in them. 
 
 In the books, of which the authors are un- 
 known, the arguments for credibility must rest 
 on a different ground. But if we cannot argue 
 from the known situation and character of the 
 writer, we may have reason to believe, that the 
 author, though we know not his name, wrote 
 
LECTURE XXXI. Q 
 
 under circumstances, which enabled him to ac- 
 quire a perfect knowledge of the facts recorded. 
 Now there is nothing* which more displays the 
 accuracy of an historian, or excites greater confi- 
 dence in the truth of his narrative, than refer- 
 ences to books of authority, as vouchers for his 
 own history. And it is worthy of notice, that 
 such references occur chiefly, though not solely 
 in the books of the Kings and of the Chronicles, 
 where we are most at a loss to discover the 
 authors. In the two books of the Kings, we 
 find references, at one time, to a book called the 
 Acts of Solomon, at other times to a book called 
 the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, at other 
 times again to a book called the Chronicles of 
 the Kings of Israel. In the two books, which 
 now bear the name of the Chronicles, we find 
 references to the book of Nathan, to the book 
 of Gad, to the book of Shemaiah and Iddo, to 
 the book of Jehu, to the book of the Kings of 
 Israel, and to the book of the Kings of Israel 
 and Judah. 
 
 Now the historic books of the Old Testa- 
 ment have been received as true by the Jews of 
 every age: consequently by the Jews, who 
 lived at the same time with the authors of those 
 histories. But the Jews, who were contempo- 
 
10 LECTURE XXXI. 
 
 rary with the authors of those histories, must 
 have known the character of those ancient 
 records, to which the historians appealed. They 
 must have known likewise, whether those histo- 
 rians employed with fidelity the records to which 
 they appealed. But if those records had not 
 been known to be faithful records, and the histo- 
 rians had not faithfully employed their materials, 
 their histories would never have been received 
 as true histories. Indeed the sacred historians 
 could have had no motive to write, as they did, 
 if their narratives were false. The picture, 
 which they drew, both of the kingdom of Judah 
 and of the kingdom of Israel, was not a picture, 
 which could flatter the vanity of their country- 
 men. The actions ascribed both to the kings of 
 Judah and to the kings of Israel are for the most 
 part of that description, that nothing but a con- 
 viction of their truth could have induced a Jew- 
 ish historian to record them. 
 
 The truth of the narratives, which relate to 
 the declension of the Jewish state, appears also 
 from their accordance witji the prophetical writ- 
 ings, of the same period. But, as we are now 
 taking only a general view of the subject, it 
 would be foreign to the present Lecture to con- 
 sider this argument in detail. 
 
LECTURE XXXI. 
 
 11 
 
 From the summary view, which has been 
 taken of the historical books, let us proceed to 
 a similar view of the prophetic books. They 
 contain the writings of the four greater prophets : 
 Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the writ- 
 ings of the twelve other prophets, which from 
 the comparative shortness of their compositions, 
 are called the twelve minor prophets. To all 
 these books the term authenticity is applicable 
 without exception. Each of these books is as- 
 cribed to a particular author : and we have rea- 
 son to believe that they are justly so ascribed. 
 But the arguments for the authenticity of each 
 single book, even if contracted to the smallest 
 possible compass, would greatly exceed the limits, 
 which are now prescribed to us. And they are the 
 less necessary at present, because it will be the 
 object of the two following Lectures to establish 
 generally the authority of the Old Testament, 
 and to fix it on a basis, unconnected with the 
 consideration of the individual books. 
 
 But it is necessary to make a few observations 
 on the term Credibility as applicable to the pro- 
 phetic writings. The truth of a prophecy, like 
 the truth of a history, depends on the accordance 
 of the writing with the events to which it 
 relates; though in the one case the writing 
 
12 
 
 LECTURE XXXI. 
 
 precedes, in the other case follows the events. 
 And as a history may be true, though the author 
 is unknown, so a prophecy may be true, even 
 though it proceeded not from the author to whom 
 it is commonly ascribed. The truth of a pro- 
 phecy has indeed no dependence on the name 
 of the person who delivered it. If a prophecy 
 has been literally fulfilled, it is a true prophecy, 
 whoever was the person, that first committed the 
 prophecy to writing. When we speak of a pro- 
 phecy in the Old or New Testament, we always 
 mean the prediction of some event, which no 
 man could have foreknown without divine assist- 
 ance. By the aid of reason we may argue from 
 existing causes to their probable effects : by the 
 aid of history we may learn in what manner such 
 causes have operated on former occasions: and 
 we may argue from analogy, that a recurrence 
 of the same causes will, under similar circum- 
 stances, produce similar effects. But such an 
 insight into the probable consequences of exist- 
 ing causes, is very different from that fore- 
 knowledge of distant events, which is displayed 
 in the prophecies of the .Old Testament. The 
 most important of those prophecies, the prophe- 
 cies relating to the Messiah, not only related to a 
 very distant event, but to an event unconnected 
 with any causes, which were then operating. 
 
LECTURE XXXI. 13 
 
 It appears then, that two questions must be 
 asked, in order to ascertain the truth of a pro- 
 phecy. The first question is, Do the words of 
 the alleged prophecy, according to their plain 
 and literal meaning, relate to that distant event, 
 to which they have been subsequently applied? 
 The second question is, Was that prophecy de- 
 livered so long before the event predicted, as to 
 place it beyond the reach of human foresight? 
 If these two questions can be answered in the 
 affirmative, we have a true prophecy. In other 
 words, we have a divine prophecy. And this 
 inference will be valid, whether the prophecy 
 was written, or not, by the author to whom it 
 is usually ascribed : whether it be an original 
 part, in other words, whether it be an authentic 
 part of the book, which contains it, or not. 
 
 The truth of this reasoning will best appear 
 from an example. For this purpose let us take 
 the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. This chapter 
 contains as literal a description of the sufferings, 
 death, and burial of our Saviour, as if it were 
 literal history. Yet it is unquestionably literal 
 prophecy. And it would be literal prophecy, 
 even if it were not written by the prophet Isaiah. 
 It is a constituent part of the Septuagint Version, 
 as well as of the Hebrew Bible: and therefore 
 
14 
 
 LECTURE XXXI. 
 
 must have existed in the Hebrew Bible at the 
 time when that version was made. It is well 
 known that this Greek version was begun, if 
 not completed, in the time of Ptolemy Phila- 
 delphus, King; of Egypt : and if the translation 
 of the prophetical books was not made at the 
 same time with that of the Pentateuch, it cannot 
 have been deferred to a later period, than that 
 of Ptolemy Philometor. For in his reign the 
 Jews of Egypt, in imitation of the Jews of 
 Palestine, adopted the practice (previously con- 
 fined to the Pentateuch) of reading in the Syna- 
 gogue Lessons from the Prophets. And this 
 practice could not have been adopted by the 
 Egyptian Jews, without a Greek translation. 
 The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah therefore, must 
 have existed in the Hebrew Bible before the 
 time of Ptolemy Philometor. It must have been 
 written therefore at a time, and under circum- 
 stances, which placed a knowledge of the events 
 predicted beyond the reach of human foresight. 
 Consequently it is a true prophecy, a divine 
 prophecy. 
 
 Having now taken a summary view both of 
 the historical and of the prophetical books, in 
 reference to authenticity and credibility, I will 
 conclude with some remarks on the five re- 
 
» 
 
 LECTURE XXXI. 
 
 maining books of the Old Testament, These 
 are the book of Job, the book of Psalms, the 
 book of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's 
 Song. These five books are placed together 
 in our Bibles; and occupy the space between 
 the historical and the prophetical writings. 
 Four out of these five books, as will hereafter 
 appear, constituted the third class of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, according to the description of Jo- 
 sephus. Later Jews referred all of them to 
 the third class: and according to the descrip- 
 tion of Jerom 1 , these five books, in the very 
 order in which they now stand in our own 
 Bibles, were then the first five books in the 
 class of Hagiographa. But we are at present 
 concerned with those books in reference only 
 to the terms authenticity and credibility. The 
 antiquity of the book of Job, as well as of the 
 things recorded in it, can admit of no doubt. 
 Indeed it is most probable, that it relates to 
 events, which preceded the age of Moses. Nor 
 is it impossible, that Moses himself was the 
 author of it. But as this is only matter of 
 opinion, we cannot apply to it the term authen- 
 ticity. This however does not affect the truth 
 of the book, whether we regard the whole of 
 it as real history, or consider it, as a book in- 
 
 1 See his Prologus Galeatus. 
 
16 
 
 LECTURE XXXI. 
 
 tended to convey religious instruction, founded 
 only in part on real history. The book of 
 Psalms contains a collection by different authors, 
 some of whom as appears from the subjects, must 
 have lived as late as the Babylonish captivity. 
 But as the greatest part of them are ascribed 
 to David, and justly so ascribed, they are strictly 
 authentic. The same term applies to the book 
 of Proverbs, which is entitled the Proverbs of 
 Solomon the Son of David. It applies also 
 to the book of Ecclesiastes, which is entitled 
 " the words of the Preacher the son of David." 
 And lastly it applies to the remaining book, 
 which is entitled "the Song of Songs, which 
 is Solomon's." 
 
 As a general statement is all that is here 
 intended, and the present Lecture was meant 
 only to explain the state of the question, the 
 arguments in favour of the individual books 
 cannot now be adduced. But in the two next 
 Lectures, which will relate to the books of the 
 Old Testament collectively taken, I shall en- 
 deavour to prove that they, are, all of them, 
 books of undoubted authority. 
 
LECTURE XXXIl. 
 
 The several books, which constitute the Old 
 Testament, were examined in the last Lecture, 
 with reference to their Authenticity and Cre- 
 dibility. Such examination was necessary for 
 a right understanding of the subjects, which we 
 are now considering. It was necessary to as- 
 certain how far those terms, which are appli- 
 cable to every book of the New Testament, are 
 applicable to the books of the Old Testament. 
 The result of the examination was, that both 
 of those terms are not applicable to every book 
 of the Old Testament. 
 
 I propose therefore in the present Lecture 
 to take a different view of those writings : and 
 to consider them not individually, but collectively. 
 For this purpose it will be necessary to adopt 
 a term, which may be applied to them all. Such 
 
 B 
 
18 LECTURE XXXII. 
 
 a term is the term f authority/ which may include 
 both authenticity and credibility, where both 
 terms are applicable, and denote credibility or 
 truth, where the other term cannot be applied. 
 In this general view of the Old Testament we 
 shall be freed from various difficulties, which 
 may attend the examination of single books. 
 If then we can find a solid basis, on which the 
 whole superstructure can be securely built, the 
 authority of the Old Testament will be established 
 at once. t 
 
 Now the credibility of the New Testament, 
 as proved in the preceding Lectures, is not con- 
 fined to facts of ordinary occurrence. It extends 
 also to the miracles recorded in the New Tes- 
 tament. But a miracle is nothing less than 
 a suspension of the laws of nature : and those 
 laws can be suspended by no other power, than 
 that almighty power, by which those laws were 
 ordained. Every miracle therefore performed 
 by our Saviour was a proof of divine interpo- 
 sition : and the argument of Nicodemus was 
 irresistible, when he said, "no man can do the 
 miracles, which thou doest, except God be with 
 him." The testimony of our Saviour therefore 
 was more than the testimony of man : it was 
 testimony, which carried with it divine authority 
 
LECTURE XXXII. 1Q 
 
 The evidence produced from the Greek and 
 Latin Fathers in favour of the New Testament, 
 went no further, than to prove its authenticity. 
 The fact, that a certain book was written by 
 a certain author, being a fact, which lies open 
 to the observation of man, may be established 
 by the testimony of man. But such proofs of 
 authenticity are distinct from the proofs of cre- 
 dibility. We may argue indeed, in many cases, 
 from the former to the latter : we may in such 
 cases make the former the basis, on which the 
 latter is raised as a superstructure. In such 
 cases we argue from the character and situation 
 of the writer to the credibility of his writings. 
 But we cannot thus argue upon every occasion ; 
 for the character and situation of a writer may 
 be such, as to destroy the credit of his writings. 
 The proof of credibility therefore must generally 
 be conducted in a manner, which is distinct 
 from the proof of authenticity. And these dis- 
 tinct proofs were given in regard to the New 
 Testament. 
 
 But the testimony of our Saviour to a book 
 of the Old Testament establishes its authority 
 at once. The two separate processes of authen- 
 ticity and credibility are then unnecessary. It 
 is then immaterial, whether we know the name 
 
 b 2 
 
20 LECTURE XXXII. 
 
 of the author, or not. Whatever name he bore, 
 his work has the stamp of authority: and this 
 authority renders it worthy of credit, even if we 
 are unable to discover in the work itself sufficient 
 data for the establishment of its own credibility. 
 
 There are various ways in which our Saviour 
 has borne testimony to the books of the Old 
 Testament. The books of Moses he has quoted 
 repeatedly, and quoted them, as the work of 
 Moses. Next to the books of Moses he made 
 the greatest use of the book of Psalms: and 
 in quoting the 11 Oth Psalm he expressly as- 
 cribed it to David 1 . The books of Isaiah and 
 of Daniel he both quoted and ascribed to Isaiah 
 and Daniel. But the greater part of his quo- 
 tations from the Old Testament were made with- 
 out reference to the particular book, from which 
 the passages were taken. This mode of quo- 
 tation was agreeable to the practice of the Jews. 
 The learned among the Jews in the time of 
 our Saviour confined their studies almost wholly 
 to the Old Testament, with which therefore they 
 were so well acquainted, that a quotation from 
 the Hebrew Scriptures suggested of itself the 
 place from which the passage was taken. It 
 is true, that there are several books of the Old 
 
 1 Matt. xxii. 43, 44. 
 
LECTURE XXXII. 21 
 
 Testament, which are neither named nor quoted 
 in any part of the New Testament. But no 
 conclusion injurious to those books can thence 
 fairly be deduced. Though every book, which 
 was actually quoted by our Saviour derives au- 
 thority from that quotation, it would be unjust 
 to argue, as if the books, which were not quoted, 
 were books devoid of authority. We must con- 
 sider the purpose, for which our Saviour appealed 
 to the books of the Old Testament. The im- 
 mediate object of every such quotation was to 
 illustrate some fact, or some doctrine, to which 
 the passage was applied. If therefore on such 
 occasions we do not find all the books of the 
 Old Testament applied in illustration, the ob- 
 vious conclusion is, not that the books, which 
 were omitted, had less authority, than those which 
 were quoted, but that they were less applicable 
 to the immediate object, than the books, which 
 were selected for quotation. 
 
 If indeed our Saviour had intended to enu- 
 merate the books of the Old Testament, or to 
 determine the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, 
 the omission of any book in that catalogue or 
 canon would have been fatal to the authority 
 of the book omitted. But neither our Saviour 
 nor his Apostles had any such intention. The 
 
22 LECTURE XXXII. 
 
 canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was already 
 known : and that canon was sanctioned by our 
 Saviour, though he quoted not from every part of 
 it. There is no ground therefore for any dis- 
 tinction between the books, which were quoted, 
 and the books, which were not quoted by our 
 Saviour. Whenever he appealed to the Scrip- 
 tures, that is, to the Scriptures of the Old Testa- 
 merit (for no book of the New Testament was 
 then in existence) he appealed to the Hebrew 
 Scriptures without distinction. When he com- 
 manded the Jews to 'search the Scriptures 2 / 
 he spake of those Scriptures generally. And 
 after his resurrection he expounded to the Apos- 
 tles " in all the Scriptures the things concerning 
 himself 3 /' 
 
 It appears then that all the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures, as they existed in the time of our Saviour 
 received the sanction of his authority. If then 
 the Hebrew Scriptures, as they existed in the 
 time of our Saviour, contained the same books, 
 which are now contained in our Hebrew Bibles, 
 we have the sanction of our Saviour for every 
 book of the Old Testament. I mean of course 
 the canonical books of the Old Testament. For 
 the writings, which we call apocryphal, were never 
 a part of the Hebrew Canon. 
 
 2 John v. 39. 5 Luke xxiv. 2f. 
 
LECTURE XXXII 
 
 23 
 
 To facilitate the proof, that the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures in the time of our Saviour contained the 
 same books which are now contained in our 
 Hebrew Bibles, we must previously consider the 
 mode, in which the Jews have been accustomed 
 to divide and arrange the writings of the Old 
 Testament. These writings were formed into 
 three classes. The first class contained the five 
 books of Moses, and was denominated simply the 
 law, or the law of moses. The second class 
 was denominated the prophets, and included 
 not only the books, which we designate by that 
 name, but various historical books, as written by 
 persons, to whom the Jews gave also the appella- 
 tion of prophet. To the third class were referred 
 the remaining books of the Old Testament. 
 When this three-fold division was first made, it 
 does not appear, that the third class, like the 
 two former, was distinguished by any particular 
 title : but the books of this class were afterwards 
 called in Hebrew Chetubim, in Greek Hagio- 
 grapha. The period, when these titles were 
 first applied to the books of the third class is not 
 exactly known : but that they were so applied 
 in the fourth century, appears from the Talmud *, 
 
 4 In the Tract called Bava Bathra, where the books of the 
 
 Old Testament are enumerated, the first class is called PDlfi* 
 
 the 
 
24 
 
 LECTURE XXXII. 
 
 and from Jerom's Preface to the books of the 
 Old Testament 5 . 
 
 The three-fold division itself existed long 
 before the time of our Saviour. In the Second 
 Prologue to the Wisdom of Jesus the son of 
 Sirach, which Prologue was written by the Greek 
 translator in the time of Ptolemy Euergetes, the 
 
 the books of the second class are called DW13> and those of 
 the third class 
 
 5 The words of Jerom are, Tertius Ordo 'AyioypcKpa possidet. 
 In Martianay's edition of Jerom's Works (torn. I. p. 3,J8.) the 
 Preface from which these words are quoted is called Praefatio 
 Hieronymi Presbyteri de omnibus libris Veteris Testamenti. 
 And Jerom himself in the latter part of the Preface (Ibid p. 322.) 
 says of it, Hie Prologus Seripturarum quasi galeatum principium 
 omnibus libris quos de Hebraeo vertimas in Latinum convenire 
 potest ; ut scire valeamus, quicquid extra hos est, inter ' 'Am oKpv<pa 
 esse ponendum. Since then it is in reality a Preface to all the 
 books of the Old Testament; which Jerom translated from Hebrew 
 into Latin, it should in strict propriety be placed at the beginning 
 of his Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible. But having been 
 placed in the manuscripts between the book of Ruth, and the 
 first book of Samuel (though I know not for what reason) it is, 
 so placed in the printed editions. And from this position it h as 
 acquired the title of Praefatio in libros Samuel et Malachim, 
 which it bears in the edition by Vallarsi, torn. IX. p. 454. But 
 as this title, as well as that of Praefatio in librum Regum, is 
 inconsistent with the contents of the Preface, and with the de- 
 scription which Jerom himself has given of it, I have retained 
 the title adopted by Martianay, and called it Jerom's Preface 
 to the books of the Old Testament. It is commonly known 
 by the name of Prologus galeatus, in consequence of Jerom's call- 
 ing it Prologus Scripturarum, quasi galeatum principium. 
 
LECTURE XXX1L 25 
 
 three-Fold division of the Hebrew Scriptures is 
 twice mentioned. In both places the first class 
 is termed the law : in both places the second 
 class is termed the prophets. But the third 
 class had then obtained no particular title. In 
 the first place of that Prologue, the three classes 
 are described as containing "The Law, The 
 Prophets, and other books of our Fathers." In 
 the second place of that Prologue, they are 
 described as containing "The Law, The Pro- 
 phets, and the rest of the Books." 
 
 Philo and Josephus, who have likewise a 
 three-fold division of the Hebrew Scriptures, 
 in which the first class contains the law 6 , and 
 the second class is termed the prophets \ have 
 
 6 Both Josephus and Philo use this term in the plural, say- 
 ing the laws of Moses, instead of the law of Moses. But this 
 makes no difference, as they evidently mean the same thing, 
 which in Hebrew is expressed by iTWV Josephus indeed has 
 expressly declared that he means the five books of Moses. His 
 own words are, Xlevre fxeu ecrrt t<x Mtoi/crewc a tov<s re No/xou? 
 irepie^ei, nai rt]v rrjs dvdpunroyovias irapdhoeiv. Contra Apion. 
 lib. i. cap. 8. torn. II. p. 441: ed. Havercamp. 
 
 7 Philo uses the expression, Aoyia devTrto-Qevra hid nPO- 
 <I>HTQN, torn. II. p. 475. ed. Mangey. — Josephus uses the 
 expression, Ol fxerd Mtavafjv nPO<I>HTAI, torn. II. p. 441. ed. 
 Havercamp. or Eusebii Hist. Eccles. lib. hi. cap. 10. (torn. I. 
 p. 103. ed. Reading) where Eusebius has quoted from Josephus 
 the whole passage relating to the Hebrew Scriptures. He has 
 
 also 
 
26 LECTURE XXXII. 
 
 so far given a title to the third class, that they 
 have characterized the books, of which it then 
 consisted. Philo describes the third class, as 
 containing Hymns, (that is, Psalms) and other 
 books, by which knowledge and piety are pro- 
 moted and perfected 8 . Josephus describes the 
 third class as containing Hymns (or Psalms,) 
 to God, and instructions of life for man V The 
 two descriptions are very similar: and we may 
 conclude from these descriptions, that the book 
 of Psalms then occupied the first place of the 
 third class. Now it is worthy of notice, that the 
 book of Psalms still occupies the first place of 
 the third class, not only in printed editions of 
 the Hebrew Bible, but generally in the Hebrew 
 manuscripts. , 
 
 Let us now consider in what manner our Sa- 
 viour himself describes the Hebrew Scriptures. 
 When he appeared to the Apostles after his resur- 
 rection, he said to them, " These are the words, 
 which I spake unto you, while I was yet with 
 
 also quoted the passage from Philo, Hist. Eccles. lib. ii. cap. 17. 
 torn. J. p. 67. ed, Reading. 
 
 8 "Ynvovs, «a\ to a/Wa oh iiri&rtjfxr} xa\ evaefieia avvav^ovrai 
 Ka\ reXetovvrai, 
 
 9 "Yfxvovs ek rov Qeov, Kai reus ai/0/>wW? vnoOtjKas rov 
 ftlov. 
 
LECTURE XXXII. 27 
 
 you, that all things must be fulfilled which are 
 written in the law of moses, and in the pro- 
 phets, and in the psalms, concerning me l V 
 Here we have an exact description of the He- 
 brew Scriptures according- to the Jewish division 
 of them. The first class contained the books of 
 Moses : the second class contained the books of 
 the Prophets : the third class contained the books, 
 of which the Psalms occupied the first place, 
 and hence afforded a title in the time of our 
 Saviour to the class itself. For as Josephus 
 expressly declares , that the third class then con- 
 tained four books 11 , we may be assured4hat our 
 Saviour understood by the appellation of the 
 psalms, when added to the law, and the pro- 
 phets, not merely that single book, but the class, 
 of which that book was the head. 
 
 From the consideration of the three classes, 
 let us proceed to the consideration of the several 
 books of which the three classes were composed. 
 According to Josephus, in the place where he 
 has stated the three-fold division, the first class 
 contained five books, the second class contained 
 thirteen books, and the third class contained 
 
 10 Luke xxiv. 44. 
 
 " The words quoted in the 9th note are preceded by the 
 words A/ U Xoittcl) TE22APE2. 
 
28 
 
 LECTURE XXXII. 
 
 four books 12 . The whole number therefore, con- 
 tained in the three Glasses was twenty-two. Like- 
 wise according* to Jerom, in the Preface above 
 quoted, the books which then constituted the 
 Hebrew Bible, amounted to twenty-two l3 . Now 
 the number of books in the Old Testament, ac- 
 cording to our Bibles, amounts to thirty-nine, 
 independently of the Apocrypha, which are no 
 part of the Hebrew Canon. 
 
 But this difference arises merely from the 
 mode, in which the Jews have been accustomed 
 to combine and arrange the books of the Old 
 Testament. This mode is fully explained by 
 Jerom in the above quoted Preface. From this 
 Preface, which is commonly known by the name 
 of Prologus galeatus, it appears 14 , that the book 
 of Ruth was made an appendage to the book of 
 Judges : that the two books of Samuel were 
 regarded as one book ; as also the two books of 
 the Kings, and the two books of the Chronicles: 
 
 12 Josephi Opera, torn. II. p. 441. ed. Havercamp ; or Eu- 
 sebii Hist. Eccles. torn. I. p. 103. ed. Reading. 
 
 13 Libri viginti duo: id est, Mosi quinque, Prophetarum 
 octo, : Hagiographarum novem. torn. I. p. 319- ed.' Martianay. 
 The difference between Jerom and Josephus, in their division 
 of the books belonging to the second and third classes will be 
 considered hereafter. 
 
 14 Ibid. 
 
LECTURE XXXII. %9 
 
 that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were again 
 converted into one book ; that the Lamentations 
 of Jeremiah were made an appendage to the 
 prophecy of Jeremiah; and lastly, that the 
 twelve minor prophets were regarded as consti- 
 tuting only a single book. In this manner the 
 number of books in the Old Testament, which 
 according to our own arrangement amount to 
 thirty-nine, was reduced by the Jews to twenty - 
 two. 
 
 In these combinations and reductions it was 
 evidently the object of the Jews to make the 
 number of books in the Hebrew Bible, accord 
 with the number of letters in the Hebrew alpha- 
 bet. But however fanciful the object of those 
 reductions may have been, and whatever mystery 
 the Jews may have subsequently imagined to 
 lie concealed in the supposed undesigned coin- 
 cidence, we are concerned only with the fact, 
 that the reduction was made, and made in the 
 manner above described. From that mode of 
 reduction, it appears that the books which con- 
 stituted the Hebrew Bible in the time of Jose- 
 phus, and consequently in the time of our Sa- 
 viour, agreed, as to their real number, with the 
 books which now constitute the Hebrew Bible. 
 
30 LECTURE XXXII. 
 
 But from their agreement in number we 
 cannot immediately argue to the identity of the 
 books. Various links must be inserted in the 
 chain of our reasoning, before we can conclude, 
 that the Hebrew Scriptures in the time of our 
 Saviour contained precisely the same books, 
 which are now contained in our Hebrew Bibles. 
 This proposition requires a separate proof; and 
 this separate proof shall be the subject of the 
 next Lecture. 
 
LECTURE XXXIII. 
 
 The fact, which it is proposed to establish in 
 this Lecture, is a fact of the utmost importance 
 to the authority of the Old Testament. Our 
 present object is to prove, that the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, which received the sanction of our 
 Saviour, contained the same books, which are 
 now contained in our Hebrew Bibles. 
 
 But before we enter on the proof, it is neces- 
 sary to consider the principle, on which the 
 proof must be conducted. That the Hebrew 
 Scriptures in the first century contained such 
 and such books, is an historical fact, for which 
 in the first instance we may inquire after his- 
 torical evidence. Now we have Jerom's cata- 
 logue of the books, which composed the Hebrew 
 Bible in the fourth century : we have Origen's 
 catalogue of those books, as they existed in 
 
32 LECTURE XXXIII. 
 
 the third century, as also the catalogue of the 
 Talmud ; we have Melito's catalogue, written 
 soon after the middle of the second century. 
 But we have no catalogue of the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures so ancient as the first century. 
 
 Josephus in the passage, where he divides the 
 Hebrew Scriptures into three classes, containing 
 together twenty-two books, has not mentioned 
 those books by name, except the books of Moses, 
 which constituted the first class, and the Psalms, 
 which were placed at the head of the third 
 class. Nor has he in any other part of his 
 writings given a catalogue of the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures. If we endeavour to collect evidence from 
 the quotations, which are scattered in the works 
 of Josephus, we shall again fail of attaining 
 our object. For there are several books of the 
 Old Testament which he has never quoted. 
 At least no quotation has been hitherto disco- 
 vered in his writings, either from the book of 
 Job, or from the book of Proverbs, or from 
 Ecclesiastes, or from Solomon's Song. 
 
 If we examine the works of Philo, who like- 
 wise wrote in the first century, we shall find 
 the evidence still more defective. Philo has 
 given no catalogue of the books, which then 
 
LECTURE XXXIII. 
 
 33 
 
 constituted the Hebrew Scriptures, and there 
 are not less than eight books of the Old Tes- 
 tament, from which he has never quoted. At 
 least no quotation has been hitherto discovered 
 in the works of Philo, from the books of Ruth, 
 Nehemiah, the Chronicles, the book of Daniel, 
 the Lamentations of Jeremiah, Esther, Eccle- 
 siastes, and Solomon's <Song. 
 
 If we examine the quotations in the New 
 Testament, for the purpose of ascertaining the 
 books of the Old Testament, we shall again 
 fail of obtaining sufficient evidence. For there 
 are six books of the Old Testament, namely the 
 books of Judges, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ec- 
 clesiastes, and Solomon's Song, from which no 
 quotations' have been hitherto discovered in the 
 New Testament. It is true, that no conclusion 
 injurious to those books can be drawn from 
 the circumstance, that they were not quoted. 
 For the non -quotation of them may be explained 
 on a supposition, which is very consistent with 
 their existence in the Hebrew Scriptures. It 
 has been already observed, that we may rather 
 explain the non-quotation of those books on the 
 supposition, that they furnished no matter adapted 
 to the purpose, for which quotations were made 
 from the other books of the Old Testament. 
 
 C 
 
34 LECTURE XXXIII. 
 
 But this is not the question, with which we are 
 now concerned. We are now concerned with 
 the question, what positive evidence can be 
 adduced for the existence of those books in the 
 Hebrew Canon. It was shewn in the preceding 
 Lecture, that the Hebrew Scriptures in general 
 received the sanction of our Saviour. But we 
 are now seeking for evidence to determine what 
 those Scriptures in the time of our Saviour really 
 were. 
 
 From the statement already made it appears, 
 that no writer of the first century has either 
 given a catalogue of those books, or enabled us 
 to determine them by his quotations. If then 
 the historical fact that the Hebrew Scriptures 
 in the time of our Saviour contained the same 
 books, which are now contained in our Hebrew 
 Bibles, can be established by no other means, 
 than by direct historical evidence, our endea- 
 vours to establish that fact must be fruitless. 
 There is indeed one source of information, 
 still open to us ; namely the Septuagint version, 
 which existed long before the first century. 
 But the Septuagint version contains many books, 
 which never did and never could make a part 
 of the Hebrew Canon. We cannot therefore 
 argue from the Septuagint to the books, which 
 
LECTURE XXXITI. 
 
 35 
 
 received the sanction of our. Saviour. We 
 want a catalogue of those books, and of those 
 books only. And as no such catalogue exists 
 as ancient as the first century, the proof re- 
 quired is still wanting, if it depends on direct 
 historical testimony. 
 
 But is it really true, though it has been con- 
 fidently asserted, that no historical fact can be 
 established, without direct historical evidence? 
 Are there no facts in ancient history, which 
 we firmly believe, though the facts are not on 
 record ? Is there no such thing as proof from 
 induction? Indeed historical facts not only 
 may be established by the aid of induction, 
 but may be frequently established more firmly 
 than they can by direct historical evidence. 
 When we appeal to historical evidence, we 
 depend on the accuracy and the veracity of 
 the reporter, in both of which there is at 
 least a possibility of error. But it not un- 
 frequently happens, that, when a fact is esta- 
 blished by induction, we not only prove it to 
 be true, but prove, that it cannot be false. 
 
 Let us try therefore, whether we cannot 
 establish by induction the important fact, that 
 the books, which are now contained in our 
 
 c 2 
 
36 LECTURE XXXIII. 
 
 Hebrew Bibles, and those books only, were the 
 books, which received the sanction of our 
 Saviour. It is this sanction on which we must 
 depend for the general authority of the Old 
 Testament. It is this sanction, and not the 
 opinions, either of Greek or of Latin Fathers ; 
 it is this sanction, and not the decree of any 
 general Council, which must determine the 
 canonical books of the Old Testament. 
 
 We may begin by assuming that the He- 
 brew Scriptures, which received the sanction 
 of our Saviour were the same Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures, which constituted the twenty-two books 
 in the three classes of Josephus. No alteration 
 can have been made in the interval, which 
 elapsed, between the time when our Saviour 
 appealed to the three classes of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, and the time when Josephus made 
 a similar appeal. We have the testimony of 
 Josephus himself, that a copy of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures was preserved in the Temple 1 . That 
 copy, as long as the Temple existed, was suffi- 
 cient guarantee against every alteration. Jose- 
 
 1 Josephus in appealing to the copy of the Scriptures pre- 
 served in the Temple, uses these words : ArjAoZrai ltd twc dva- 
 Keifxevwv ev ™ lepui ypafx/xdrwu. Antiquit. Lib. V. Cap. 17- 
 Tom. L p. 273- ed. Havercamp. 
 
LECTURE XXXIII. 37 
 
 phus was born within a very few years after 
 the death of our Saviour : he was born in the 
 37th year of the Christian era, born therefore 
 three and thirty years before the destruction of 
 the Temple by Titus. His mode of education 
 must have afforded him frequent access to the 
 Temple copy of the Scriptures, whether it be 
 true, or not, that after the destruction of the 
 Temple he obtained the copy itself. If there- 
 fore we can prove that the three classes of 
 Josephus contained the same books, which are 
 now contained in our Hebrew Bibles, we prove 
 that the same books were contained also in the 
 three classes of the Hebrew Scriptures to which 
 our Saviour appealed. 
 
 For this purpose we must endeavour to 
 connect the account of Josephus with the 
 account, which Jerom has given of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures in his Prologus galeatus. In this 
 Preface or Prologue Jerom, like Josephus, 
 divides the Hebrew Scriptures into three classes, 
 which he calls the law, the prophets, 
 and the hagiographa. He has further enu- 
 merated the several books of which each class 
 consisted : and it appears from this enume- 
 ration, that the books, which were then con- 
 tained in the Hebrew Bible, were the same 
 
38 LECTURE XXXIII. 
 
 books, which are now contained in it*. If then 
 we can connect the catalogue of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, which was given by Jerom, with the 
 account of the Hebrew Scriptures, which was 
 given by Josephus, we shall connect the He- 
 brew Scriptures, as they now exist, with the 
 Hebrew Scriptures, which received the sanction 
 of our Saviour. 
 
 In comparing the accounts of Josephus and 
 Jerom, there is no difficulty in regard to the 
 first class ; for this class was always appropriated 
 to the five books of Moses. Josephus indeed 
 expressly declares, that these were the books 
 which constituted his first class; and he has 
 given the additional explanation, that they re- 
 lated, as well to the creation of man, as to the 
 law 3 . And Jerom enumerates in his first class 
 the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Num- 
 bers, and Deuteronomy 4 . 
 
 The only difficulty therefore, which attends 
 the comparison of the two accounts, is that 
 
 * Hieronymi Op. Tom. I. p. 318. ed. Martianay. 
 
 3 IleVre \xkv i<rrt rd Mwiw, a tovs re No'/jove -nepi^h 
 
 Tom. II. p. 441. ed. 
 
 Havercamp. 
 
 4 He adds, Hi sunt quinque libri Mosi, quem proprie Thora, 
 id est Legem, appellant. 
 
LECTURE XXXIII. 
 
 3Q 
 
 which relates to the two other classes. Accord- 
 ing to the account of Josephus, the second 
 class contained thirteen books, and the third 
 class contained four books 5 , whereas according 
 to the account of Jerom, the second class 
 contained eight books,, and the third class con- 
 tained nine 6 . But then it must be observed 
 that if we take the two classes together, both 
 writers agree as to the number. Both writers 
 agree in stating the number to be seventeen. 
 The only difference consists in the repartition 
 of the books between the two classes. And as 
 we know that the Jews have been gradually 
 augmenting the number of books in the third 
 class, by a proportionate diminution of the num- 
 ber in the second, we need not wonder if the 
 third class, which in the first century contained 
 only four books, contained nine at the end of 
 the fourth century, and that the books of 
 the second class had been proportionally re- 
 duced from thirteen to eight 7 . Notwithstanding 
 
 6 ' 'A71-0 le rrj<; Mwvo-em reXevrr}^ p-e^pi 'Aprageptjov; 
 tow /uera He'o^V Uepacou fiaviXew, 01 fxerrd Mtova-fjv itpo(pr\Tai 
 tci koct' avTovs Trpa^devra ffvveypa^p-av iv TPI2I nat ALKA 
 (3i/3\ioi<!. At cV Xonrai TE22APE2 vfxvov^ ek toV 9eoV ku\ 
 to?? dvQpu>Tcoi<i i/VodtyKa? rov fitov irepie^ovai. 
 
 6 Prophetarum octo, Hagiographorum novem. 
 
 7 Later Jews have made an additional augmentation to the 
 books of the third class, by detaching Ruth and the Lamentations 
 
 from 
 
40 LECTURE XXXIII. 
 
 therefore the inequality of the division, we 
 may argue from the two classes together as 
 safely as we could argue from each single 
 class, if the division between them had re- 
 mained unaltered. 
 
 Since then Josephus and Jerom agree, in 
 making the whole number of books, which com- 
 posed the Hebrew Scriptures, amount to twenty- 
 two : since they further agree both as to the 
 number of the books, and the books themselves 
 which composed the first class : since they agree 
 also as to the number of books, which com- 
 posed the second and third classes together, 
 we may fairly argue from Jerom's catalogue 
 of the books contained in those classes, to the 
 particular books, which composed the second 
 and third classes of Josephus. But it appears 
 from Jerom's catalogue that his second and 
 third classes contained all the books of the 
 Hebrew Bible, except the five books of Moses, 
 which belonged to the first class. We may 
 safely infer therefore, that, as the first class 
 of Josephus contained also the five books of 
 
 from the books to which they were previously annexed, and trans- 
 ferring them to the Hagiographa. This was done by some of the 
 Jews even in the time of Jerom, as he relates in his Prologus 
 galeatus. And they are generally so printed in our Hebrew Bibles. 
 
LECTURE XXXIII. 41 
 
 Moses, his second and third classes, in like 
 manner, contained the other books of the Hebrew 
 Bible. 
 
 But if any doubt should remain on the 
 accuracy of this conclusion, it may be corro- 
 borated by Josephus himself. In that passage 
 of his treatise against Apion, to which reference 
 has been so frequently made, Josephus, though 
 he has not enumerated the seventeen books, 
 which composed the two last classes, has given 
 a description of those books : and this descrip- 
 tion exactly agrees with the inference deduced 
 from the preceding comparison. Of the thirteen 
 books, which composed the second class he says, 
 that they were written in the interval, which 
 elapsed, between * the death of Moses and that 
 of Artaxerxes Longimanus 8 . Of the four books, 
 
 8 According to the common printed text of Josephus, his 
 words (Contra Apion. lib. I. 8.) are 'A7ro he rrjs MwuVcto? reXevTrjs 
 f*€%pi rrj<s ' Apra^ep^ov, tou /xerd 'Siep^v Uepawv /3a<n\e£o?, 
 dpyi}?, ot fxerd Mw'vvfjv, k.t.A.. But in Note 5, I have quoted 
 these words without dp^r}?, because it is wanting both in the copy 
 given by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. lib. III. c. 10.) and in most 
 manuscripts of the works of Josephus. See Havercamp's Note. 
 And it will presently appear, that-opv^s does not accord with the 
 context. Not the reign of Artaxerxes, and still less the beginning 
 of his reign, but the death of Artaxerxes is the limit assigned by 
 Josephus for the duration of that succession of prophets, by whom 
 the thirteen books of the second class were written. 
 
42 
 
 LECTURE XXXIII. 
 
 which composed the third class, he says, that 
 they contained <<r Hymns to God, and instruc- 
 tions of life for man/ 5 All the historical books 
 therefore of the Old Testament, except the five 
 books of Moses, and all the prophetical books 
 without exception must have belonged to his 
 second class 9 . Now the historical books of the 
 Old Testament, beside the books of Moses, 
 amounted, after the Jewish mode of reckoning, 
 to seven; namely Joshua, Judges with Ruth, 
 Samuel in one book, the Kings in one book, 
 the Chronicles in one book, and Ezra with 
 Nehemiah in one book. The prophetical 
 writings according to the same mode of reckon- 
 ing, were composed of Jive books, namely, 
 Isaiah, Jeremiah with the Lamentations, Ezekiel, 
 Daniel, and the twelve minor prophets in one 
 book. If then we refer all the historical books 
 of the Old Testament except the books of 
 Moses, to the second class of Josephus, and refer 
 to the same class all the prophetical writings, we 
 shall have twelve out of the thirteen books, of 
 
 <■ 
 
 9 The historical books, which the Jews refer to the second 
 class, or the class of the Prophets, are called in printed editions of 
 the Hebrew Bible Prophetae priores, or Prophetse anteriores. It is 
 true, that there are some historical books, which the Jews now 
 refer to the third class. But it is evident, that in the time of 
 Josephus, the third class contained no historical book. 
 
LECTURE XXXIII. 4<5 
 
 which that class was then composed. We shall 
 have, according to the Jewish reckoning, seven 
 historical, and Jive prophetical books, the former, 
 as well as the latter, being- anciently referred 
 by the Jews to the class of the prophets. 
 These twelve books must have belonged to the 
 second class of Josephus : for they could neither 
 belong to the first class, which was appropri- 
 ated to the books of Moses, nor could they 
 belong to the third class, which in the time 
 of Josephus, as appears from his own descrip- 
 tion of it, was confined to books of a very 
 different character. 
 
 If it be objected, that in thus referring the 
 above-named historical books, and the above- 
 named prophetical books, to the second class 
 of Josephus, we take for granted the existence 
 of those books in the Hebrew Canon at that 
 period, the answer is, that we have already 
 argued to the existence of those books from the 
 comparison of Josephus with Jeroro. We are 
 now only shewing in what manner the descrip- 
 tion which Josephus has given of the two last 
 classes agrees with the inference above deduced. 
 But we may go still further, and shew from 
 Josephus himself, that the twelve books in 
 question were then a portion of the Hebrew 
 
44 
 
 LECTURE XXXIII. 
 
 Scriptures. For not one of those twelve books 
 is included among- those, from which it appears 
 that Josephus has never quoted. 
 
 To ascertain the thirteenth book of the 
 second class, it is necessary to consider the 
 books of the third class. It has been already 
 shewn that the book of the Psalms was at the 
 head of the third class, as it is to this very 
 day in our Hebrew Bibles. The book of Pro- 
 verbs, and the book of Ecclesiastes must likewise 
 have belonged to the third class : for they lite- 
 rally contain, according to the words of Josephus, 
 cc instructions of life for man." Indeed the book 
 of Proverbs, and the book of Ecclesiastes, as 
 well as the book of Psalms, have been referred 
 to the third class by the Jews of every age. 
 
 We have now only two books remaining, 
 among all the books of the Old Testament, 
 which have not been referred to one of the 
 three classes; namely the book of Job and 
 Solomon's Song. Since then it appears that 
 one book is still wanted to complete the second 
 class, and that only three out of the four have 
 been determined of the third class, it ne- 
 cessarily follows, that one of these two books 
 belonged to the second, the other to the third 
 
LECTURE XXXIII. 45 
 
 class. Whether we can positively determine, 
 to which of the two classes those books re- 
 spectively belonged, is a matter of little im- 
 portance. In the catalogue, which Jerom has 
 given of the Hebrew Scriptures, the book of 
 Job, and Solomon's Song are both of them 
 referred to the third class. But Josephus must 
 have intended to include one of them in the se- 
 cond class, which would otherwise be incomplete, 
 while the third class would be redundant. It 
 is most probable, that the book of Job was 
 included by Josephus, in the second class; as 
 an historical book; and that the Song of Solo- 
 mon was included in his third class under the 
 character of Hymns. But whether this opinion 
 be correct or not, it makes no difference to the 
 general argument. The seventeen books; which 
 compose the second and third classes of Jose- 
 phus, will in either case be the same with the 
 seventeen books, which are enumerated in the 
 second and third classes of Jerom. 
 
 That later Jews have referred to the third 
 class various books, which are here referred to 
 the second class of Josephus, affords no argu- 
 ment against the accuracy of our reasoning. 
 The book of Daniel, for instance, was removed 
 by the Jews in the fourth century from the 
 
40 
 
 LECTURE XXXIII 
 
 class of the prophets to the class of Hagio- 
 grapha. But it is certain, that in the time of 
 Josephus the book of Daniel occupied a place 
 among the prophets. Josephus himself has de- 
 termined the place, to which the book of Daniel 
 belonged, not only by his description of the two 
 last classes, but by an actual appeal to Daniel 
 as a prophet. In the twelfth book of his Jewish 
 Antiquities, he says, that ec the Temple was de- 
 stroyed according to the prophecy of Daniel, given 
 four hundred and eight years before 10 ; And when 
 our Saviour quoted the book of Daniel he called 
 it the book of Daniel the prophet 11 . It still 
 occupied a place among the prophets in the 
 time of Origen, who lived in the third century. 
 For Origen has given a catalogue of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, arranged according to the order of 
 the Jews in twenty-two books ; and in this cata- 
 logue Daniel is placed between Jeremiah and 
 Ezekiel 12 . 
 
 The historical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, 
 
 10 Trjv S* epriixwo-iv tov vaov <rwe/3rj yeveo-dai Kara rrjv Aavi- 
 tj\ov 7rpo(pr]Teiav irpo tst panocri'usv ' kcli oktw yevofxevrjv ctcov. 
 Antiquit. lib. XII. cap. 7. §. 6. Tom. I. p. 617. ed. Haver- 
 camp. 
 
 11 Matt. xxiv. 15. 
 
 12 Origen's Catalogue of the Hebrew Scriptures is preserved 
 by Eusebius. Hist. Eccles. lib. VI. cap. 25. Tom. I. p. 290. 
 ed. Reading. 
 
LECTURE XXXIII. 47 
 
 Esther, and the Chronicles have likewise been 
 removed to the third class; yet they cer- 
 tainly belonged to the second class of Josephus. 
 They were not only excluded from the third 
 class by the character of the third class : but 
 their position in the second class accords with 
 the description, which Josephus has given of 
 that class. He says, that the books belonging 
 to the second class were written, in the interval, 
 which elapsed, between the death of Moses, 
 and that of Artaxerxes Longimanus, or as he 
 himself expresses it, Artaxerxes, successor of 
 Xerxes 13 . And he adds, that though books were 
 written after that period, they were not so 
 highly esteemed because the succession of pro- 
 phets had then ceased 1 *. While he excluded 
 therefore the Apocryphal books of the Old 
 Testament, all of which were written after the 
 time of Artaxerxes, he must have included 
 the historical books, which belonged to the 
 Hebrew Canon. Of these canonical books, 
 the book of Esther is that which records the 
 latest portion of biblical history. But even this 
 
 13 See Note 8. 
 
 14 'Atto Apragepgov fxe%pi rov naff »7>a? ypovov yeypairrai 
 fiiv CKCtcTTCt' TTJO-rew? 8' ov% ofxola*; ^fmtdi to?<? irpo dwrdiv, §td 
 to p.q <y€ve<rdai Ttjv twi/ Hpo(pr]Tuv dupifirj Oiaoo^t/l/. Tom. II. 
 p. 441. ed. Havercamp. 
 
48 
 
 LECTURE XXXIII. 
 
 book must have been included in the second 
 class of Josephus; for according to Josephus 
 himself, who has made copious extracts from it, 
 the book of Esther must have been written 
 during the reign of Artaxerxes, and before the 
 expiration of the limit assigned to the com- 
 position of the books belonging to the second 
 class 15 . 
 
 Whatever view therefore we take of the 
 books, which belonged to the classes of Josephus, 
 we come to the same conclusion. We may 
 justly therefore infer, that the books, which 
 constituted the Hebrew Scriptures in the time 
 of Josephus, were precisely the books, which 
 constituted the Hebrew Scriptures in the time 
 
 , 15 The history of Esther is given by Josephus, Antiquit. 
 lib. XI. cap. 6. At the beginning of the Chapter he relates, 
 that Xerxes was succeeded by a king, ov 'ApTageptyv "EWrjves 
 Ka\ov<ri. He then relates the history of Esther, as it is related in 
 the book of Esther, using only the name of Artaxerxes, instead of 
 Ahasuerus. He concludes his history of Esther with the insti- 
 tution of the feast of Purim, and says, §. 13. "Eyoa^e hi Map- 
 £qi^a?oe to?? 4u Trj 'ApTCt^epf^ov /3a<ri\€(t)<! ^wcriv Toi»3a/ot? 
 Taura? irapacpvXaacreiv Ta? tj/nepa*;, , kcu iopTrjv a<yeiv avTas, 
 Ka\ to?? eKjovois irapovlovvai. Since then, according to Josephus 
 the history of Esther took place during the reign of Artaxerxes, 
 successor of Xerxes, and he asserts that no book written after the 
 time of Artaxerxes was admitted into the Hebrew Canon, the 
 book of Esther, without which his second class would be incom- 
 plete, must have been coeval with the history itself. 
 
LECTURE XXXIIT. 4Q 
 
 of Jerom. The two writers not only agreed 
 as to the books, which belonged to the canon 
 of the Old Testament: they agreed also as to 
 the exclusion of the books, which did not be- 
 long to it. Josephus excludes them by saying, 
 that they were written, when the succession of 
 prophets had ceased 16 . And Jerom excludes 
 them from his catalogue of the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures, by saying that he had given that cata- 
 logue for the purpose of shewing, that all 
 books, beside those, are apocryphal 17 . 
 
 Since then the Hebrew Scriptures, which 
 received the sanction of our Saviour were the 
 same Hebrew Scriptures which were known to 
 Josephus : since they contained the same books, 
 which were enumerated by Jerom, and still 
 constitute our Hebrew Bibles, the authority of 
 the Old Testament according to the canon of 
 our own Church, though not according to the 
 canon of the Church of Rome, rests upon a 
 basis, which cannot be shaken 18 . 
 
 16 See Note 14. 
 
 17 Hie Prologus Scripturarum, quasi galeatum principium, 
 omnibus libris, quos de Hebraeo vertimus in Latinum, convenire 
 potest ; ut scire valeamus quicquid extra hos est inter ' ' Airoupvtya 
 esse ponendum. Hieronymi Op. Tom. I. p. 322. ed. Martianay. 
 
 18 The Church of England receives as canonical those books 
 of the Old Testament, which constitute the Hebrew Scriptures, 
 
 and 
 
 D 
 
50 LECTURE XXXIII. 
 
 It remains only to shew, that the books 
 themselves have descended to the present age 
 without material alteration. In other words, it 
 is still necessary to establish the Integrity of 
 the Hebrew Bible : and this shall be the business 
 of the next Lecture. 
 
 and those books only. Consequently it receives those books, and 
 those books only, which received the sanction of our Saviour. 
 But there is no such sanction for many of the books, which are 
 received as canonical by the Church of Rome. 
 
LECTURE XXXIV* 
 
 VJur inquiries into the Integrity of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, may be divided into two periods ; 
 the one extending- from the time of Moses to 
 that of our Saviour, the other extending from 
 the time of our Saviour to the present age. 
 In the former period we may collect such his- 
 torical notices, as we can find, respecting the 
 care, which was taken by the Jews for the 
 preservation of their sacred writings. In the 
 latter period we must endeavour to shew, that 
 the charge of wilful corruption, which has been 
 laid to the Jews, is devoid of foundation; that 
 the utmost care has been taken to guard against 
 accidental mistakes ; and that the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures have descended to the present age with 
 as few alterations as is possible in works of 
 high antiquity. 
 
 d 2 
 
52 LECTURE XXXIV. 
 
 The preservation of the Pentateuch was a 
 matter of special importance to the Jews: it 
 was their code of legislation, as well civil as 
 religious; it was the book by which all their 
 institutions were determined during their ex- 
 istence as a nation. In the thirty-first chapter 
 of the book of Deuteronomy, we find an account 
 of the care, which was taken in this respect 
 by Moses himself. It is there related, that 
 " Moses wrote this Law, and delivered it unto 
 ff the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the 
 Cf ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto 
 "all the elders of Israel. And Moses com- 
 tc manded them, saying, At the end of every seven 
 " years, in the solemnity of the year of release, 
 " in the feast of tabernacles, when all Israel is 
 ec come to appear before the Lord thy God, 
 " in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt 
 " read this law before all Israel in their hear- 
 
 ^i 11( r 1} ' "And it came to pass, when Moses 
 
 tc had made an end of writing the words of 
 r this Law in a Book, until they were finished, 
 e( that Moses commanded the Levites, which 
 " bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, 
 « saying, Take this Book of the Law, and 
 «, put it in the side of the ark of the covenant 
 
 1 Ver. 9—11. 
 
LECTURE XXXIV. 06 
 
 "of the Lord your God 2 ". Since then, the 
 Book of the Law, as written by Moses, was 
 entrusted to the Priests and the Levites, was 
 deposited in the ark of the covenant, and read 
 to the people every seventh year, sufficient 
 care was taken for the uncorrupted preservation 
 of it. 
 
 In the subsequent books of the Old Testa- 
 ment we find frequent references to the Law of 
 Moses. In the eighth chapter of the book of 
 Joshua the children of Israel were commanded 
 to build an altar, "as it is written in the book 
 of the law of moses 3 ". But there is a more 
 remarkable passage in the first chapter of Joshua, 
 « Only be thou strong and very courageous, 
 tc that thou may est observe to do all accord- 
 " ing to the Law, which Moses my servant 
 "commanded thee. Turn not from it to the 
 " right hand nor to the left, that thou mayest 
 " prosper whithersoever thou goest. This Book 
 " of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth, 
 (C but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, 
 " that thou mayest observe to do all that is 
 <* written therein 4 ." In the books of the Kings, 
 in the books of the Chronicles, in the book of 
 
 * ver. 24—26'. 3 Ver. 31. 4 Ver. 7, 8. 
 
54 LECTURE XXXIV. 
 
 Ezra, in the book of Nehemiah, we find also 
 references to the Law of Moses, as the code 
 of legislation, by which the Jewish institutions 
 were determined both before, and after the Baby- 
 lonish captivity. 
 
 We have already seen, that the autograph 
 of Moses was, by his own command entrusted 
 to the Priests and the Levites, and deposited 
 in the ark of the covenant. When the Temple 
 of Solomon was built, which was about five 
 hundred and fifty years after the death of Moses, 
 the ark of the covenant was removed to C( the 
 most holy place'* of the Temple 6 . But from 
 the seventh chapter of the first book of Kings, 
 where this removal is related, it appears, that 
 "there was nothing in the ark, save the two 
 "tables of stone, which Moses put there at 
 "HorebV That the two tables of stone, con- 
 taining the ten commandments were deposited 
 in the ark of the covenant, appears from the 
 tenth chapter of Deuteronomy 7 . But the two 
 tables of stone were not the book of the Law, 
 which Moses also commanded to be placed in 
 the ark. The book of the Law therefore must 
 have been placed in some other part of the 
 
 s 1 Kings vii. 6". 6 Ibid. ver. 9- 7 Ver. 5. 
 
LECTURE XXXIV. 55 
 
 Temple. That it was the custom of the Jews 
 to preserve their sacred writings in the Temple, 
 we know from the authority of Josephus 8 . And 
 that in the time of Josiah, King of Judah, there 
 was a copy of the law in the Temple appears 
 from what is related both in the second book 
 of the Kings, and in the second book of the 
 Chronicles 9 . " When they brought out the 
 <f money, that was brought into the house of 
 "the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a book of 
 " the Law of the Lord given by Moses. And 
 fi Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the 
 " Scribe, I have found the Book of the Law 
 « in the house of the Lord." To understand 
 these words we must recollect, that Manasseh 
 and Amon, the two immediate predecessors of 
 Josiah in the kingdom of Judah, were gross 
 idolaters ; and that Manasseh converted the Tem- 
 ple itself into a place of idol-worship. Manasseh 
 reigned fifty and five years 10 : and such was 
 his cruelty during this long reign, that he shed 
 innocent blood, "till he had filled Jerusalem 
 from one end to the other 11 /' The Temple 
 therefore having been so long employed as a 
 place of idolatry, the priests of Jehovah having 
 
 8 See Lect. xxxiii. note 1. 
 
 9 2 Kings xxii. 8. 2 Chron. xxxiv. 14. 
 
 10 2 Chron. xxxiii. 1. 11 2 Kings xxi. 16". 
 
50 
 
 LECTURE XXXIV. 
 
 been killed or expelled to make room for the 
 priests of Baal, and every thing sacred having 
 been destroyed, which was not concealed from 
 the idolaters,, the discovery of the book of the 
 Law, when the Temple was restored to its former 
 worship., could not fail to excite surprise, whe- 
 ther it was the autograph of Moses., or only a 
 faithful copy of it. That the Book of the Law 
 was found in the Temple, was not of itself 
 any cause of wonder. It was the discovery of 
 the Temple-copy of the Law, at a time and 
 under circumstances, which had left no hope of 
 its preservation. 
 
 Whether the Temple-copy of the Law was 
 rescued from destruction when Jerusalem was 
 taken by Nebuchadnezzar, it is difficult at pre- 
 sent to determine. It appears from the second 
 book of Chronicles 12 , that the sacred vessels of 
 the Temple were either destroyed or carried 
 to Babylon. But neither in this place, nor in 
 the second book of Kings, nor in the fifty-second 
 chapter of Jeremiah, where the vessels of the 
 Temple are minutely described, do we find any 
 account of the Book of the Law. In that apo- 
 cryphal work, which we call the second book 
 
 12 Chap, xxxvi. 18, 19. 
 
 V 
 
LECTURE XXXIV. 57 
 
 of Esdras, the unknown author, assuming to 
 himself a character, which did not belong to 
 him, thus addresses himself to God in the name 
 of the Hebrew Ezra ; f? Thy Law is burnt, there- 
 fore no man knoweth the things concerning 
 ''thee 13 /' If this account were correct, not 
 only the Temple-copy of the Law, but all other 
 copies of the Law must have been destroyed 
 at the taking of Jerusalem. If after the Baby- 
 lonish captivity, when Ezra was restoring the 
 Temple-worship, no man knew the things of 
 the Law, no copy of it could have been left. 
 A thing so improbable in itself, and contra- 
 dicted by better authority, can hardly be ad- 
 mitted on the evidence of an author, who wrote 
 under a false name, whose book comparatively 
 modern was never a part even of the Septuagint, 
 and of which our English translation is nothing 
 more than a translation from the Latin. 
 
 The authentic books of Ezra and Nehemiah 
 afford us no reason to suppose, that the Law 
 of Moses had been so destroyed, as is represented 
 in that apocryphal book, called the second book 
 of Esdras. From the eighth chapter of Nehe- 
 miah it is evident, that the Book of the Law 
 
 13 2 Esdras xiv, 21. 
 
58 LECTURE XXXIV. 
 
 (whether the Temple-copy or not) was preserved 
 during the period of the Babylonish captivity. 
 For when the worship of God was restored at 
 Jerusalem, "they spake unto Ezra the Scribe, 
 ce to brine: the Book of the Law of Moses, which 
 se the Lord had commanded to Israel. And Ezra 
 " the priest brought the Law before the con- 
 iC gregation 1 V The prophet Daniel must also 
 have had a copy of the Law, for he appealed 
 to it, and quoted it 16 . 
 
 On the preservation of the other books, which 
 were written before the Babylonish captivity, 
 we have no historical evidence. But if we may 
 argue from analogy, the sacred writings in 
 general were preserved in the Temple. When 
 Joshua made a covenant with the people, he 
 wrote the " words in the book of the Law of 
 " God 16 ." And when Samuel had anointed Saul, 
 " he told the people the manner of the kingdom, 
 and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the 
 Lord 17 ." From these occasional notices we may 
 infer, that when the Temple was built, it became 
 the general depository of the sacred writings, 
 which were thus preserved to the time of the 
 Babylonish captivity. 
 
 14 Nehemiah viii. 1, 2. 16 Daniel ix. 13. 
 
 16 Joshua xxiv. 25, 26*. 17 1 Sam. x. 25. 
 
LECTURE XXXIV. 5Q 
 
 When the Temple was rebuilt, we have 
 equal reason to believe, that it became again 
 the depository of the sacred writings : and we 
 know that it was so in the time of Josephus. 
 Ezra and Nehemiah, who lived in the reign of 
 Artaxerxes, the period assigned by Josephus 
 for the closing of the Hebrew Canon, are repre- 
 sented in the tradition of the Jews, as members 
 of that Synagogue, which was known by the 
 name of the Great Synagogue. And though it 
 cannot be denied, that the accounts of the Jews 
 concerning the Great Synagogue have a large 
 admixture of fable, the existence of such a Syna- 
 gogue for the purpose of collecting and arranging 
 the Hebrew Scriptures can hardly be doubted. 
 Whether the circumstances, ascribed to it, be 
 true or not, the fact itself must have had 
 some foundation, or the belief in it would not 
 have so generally prevailed. The very titles, 
 which are borne by Ezra in his own authentic 
 work, accord with the belief, that he was en- 
 gaged in the formation of the Hebrew Canon. 
 He is not only called Ezra the Priest: he is 
 also called Ezra the Scribe. In the seventh 
 chapter of the Book of Ezra 18 , we find, that 
 Artaxerxes the king gave a letter ff unto Ezra 
 
 18 Ver. 12. 
 
60 LECTURE XXXIV. 
 
 "the priest, a Scribe of the Law of the God 
 " of Heaven. " The title of Scribe, or in Hebrew 
 Sopher 19 , was given to those, who were en- 
 trusted, not merely with the copying, but with 
 the preservation of the sacred writings. Even 
 the high-priest Hilkiah, when he found in the 
 Temple the Book of the Law, delivered it to 
 Shaphan the Scribe 20 . That Nehemiah was also 
 engaged in collecting the Hebrew Scriptures, 
 and in the formation of a Temple-Library, is 
 recorded in the second chapter of the second 
 book of the Maccabees 21 ; a book which though 
 no part of the Hebrew Canon, has always been 
 a part of the Septuagint, as far as our knowledge 
 of it extends. 
 
 When the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures 
 had been thus formed, it does not appear that 
 any attempt was made to destroy or to injure 
 it till the time of Antiochus Epiphanes ; when 
 the books of the Law, which were found in 
 the Temple, were cut in pieces and burnt with 
 fire 22 . But the Temple-copy of the Law of 
 Moses could not have been the only copy, which 
 then existed. And it appears, that Judas Mac- 
 cabeus <f gathered together all those things (which, 
 
 19 20 2 Chron. xxxiv. 15. 
 
 21 Ver. 13. 22 1 Mace. i. £6'- 
 
LECTURE XXXIV. Ul 
 
 as appears from the context includes all those 
 writings) which were lost by reason of the war 23 .' , 
 From that period to the time of our Saviour, 
 the Hebrew Scriptures remained undisturbed in 
 the Temple : and their preservation in the Temple 
 till its destruction by Titus, appears from the 
 accounts of Josephus which have been already 
 quoted. 
 
 The preceding narrative has been given, for 
 the purpose of shewing the care which was taken 
 by the ancient Jews for the safety of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures. But our inquiries into the integrity 
 of the Hebrew Bible, during the period which 
 has elapsed since the age of our Saviour, are 
 still more important. The Hebrew Scriptures, 
 which received the sanction of our Saviour, re- 
 ceived his sanction as they then existed: and 
 therefore must have been free from those 
 corruptions, with which the Jews have been 
 subsequently charged. Nor does it appear, that 
 our Saviour, though he reproved the Scribes and 
 Pharisees for many other abuses, has ever accused 
 them of corrupting the sacred writings. 
 
 The question therefore, which we must now 
 examine is, whether the Jews have corrupted 
 
 ,3 2 Mace. xi. 14, compared with ver. 13. 
 
62 LECTURE XXX [V. 
 
 the Hebrew Scriptures since the time of our 
 Saviour. The charge has been frequently made, 
 as well in modern times, as in the early ages 
 of the Church. But the known veneration of 
 the Jews for the Hebrew Scriptures must induce 
 us to receive such a charge with extreme caution. 
 Josephus, in the place, where he describes the 
 three classes of the Hebrew Scriptures, says, 
 it appears from experience, with what veneration 
 the Jews regard their sacred writings; and he 
 concludes with saying, "Into all the Jews is 
 <c instilled from their very birth the belief, that 
 " those writings are the precepts of God, to 
 11 which they are firmly attached, and for which, 
 cc if necessary, they are prepared to die 54 ." It 
 is not very credible, that men should wilfully 
 corrupt those very writings, to which they were 
 so warmly, so devotedly attached. Though they 
 ceased to exist, as a separate nation, when Je- 
 rusalem was destroyed by the Romans, their 
 veneration for the Law of Moses continued with- 
 out abatement. Even in their state of dispersion 
 the Book of the Law has been the guide of their 
 actions, as far as their circumstances would allow 
 
 24 Uaart avfupvTov evriv evdw e/c ty}? Trptorr}^ yeveaews: 'lovha'iots 
 to vofu^eiv ctVTct 0eou Zo^jxcLTa^ /ecu tou'tojc eixfxeveiv } k<xi virep 
 avTwv, el he'oi, dvtja-Keiv tjtem. Tom. II. p. 442. ed. Havercamp., 
 See also what Philo says, torn. II. p. 139. ed. Mangey. 
 
LECTURE XXXIV. 63 
 
 v 
 
 them to follow it. They could have had no 
 motive therefore to corrupt the Law of Moses. 
 Nor could they have had any motive to corrupt 
 the historical books of the Old Testament. The 
 places, in which they have been chiefly sus- 
 pected, are prophecies relating to the Messiah. 
 But if it were really true, that the Jews had 
 formed a design of altering the prophecies of 
 the Messiah, so as to render them inapplica- 
 ble to the person of Jesus Christ, they would 
 have acted in such a manner as to defeat their 
 own purpose. For the prophecies, which relate 
 most clearly to our Saviour, the prophecies which 
 afford the least possible room for doubt, are 
 precisely the prophecies, which have been left 
 untouched : while the places, where doubts have 
 been excited, in consequence of a difference 
 between the Hebrew and the Septuagint, are for 
 the most part places of little importance. And, 
 what is still more extraordinary, there are pas- 
 sages in the Hebrew Bible, which merely in 
 consequence of their difference from the Septua- 
 gint, the Jews have been suspected of corrupting, 
 when it appears from a comparison of the He- 
 brew with the Greek, that the Hebrew reading 
 is less favourable to the Jews than the Greek 
 reading 25 . 
 
 25 Waltoni Prolegom. vii. 4. 
 
64 LECTURE XXXIV. 
 
 In fact, the charge of corrupting" the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, though it has been repeated in modern 
 times, had its origin in the ignorance of those, 
 who introduced it. The Greek and Latin Fathers 
 were for the most part unacquainted with Hebrew, 
 though Origen and Jerom were illustrious excep- 
 tions. The Greek Fathers quoted from the Sep- 
 tuagint ; the Latin Fathers from the Latin version, 
 which was made from the Septuagint. They had 
 no Latin translation from the Hebrew till the time 
 of Jerom : and even his translation was not im- 
 mediately adopted as the authorised version of the 
 Latin church. Nor must we forget the state of 
 the Septuagint itself, in the third century ; the 
 copies of which so differed from each other, as 
 well as from the Hebrew Bible, that Origen un- 
 dertook his celebrated work called the Hexapla, 
 for the purpose of correcting the existing evils. 
 Under these circumstances, when the ancient 
 Fathers, in controversy with the Jews, quoted 
 passages of Scripture from the Greek and Latin 
 versions, it necessarily happened, that such quota- 
 tions occasionally differed from the Hebrew. The 
 revival of Hebrew learning by the establishment 
 of the school at Tiberias, enabled the Jews to de- 
 tect the differences, between the Hebrew original 
 and the Septuagint version. They replied, there- 
 fore, that the quotations of their opponents were 
 
LECTURE XXXIV. uo 
 
 incorrect, as differing from the Hebrew original. 
 But their opponents, relying on the infallibility of 
 the Greek version, retorted on the Jews, that the 
 difference arose from their own corruption of the 
 Hebrew. This is the origin of the charge, so 
 frequently laid to them. And it is enough to 
 know its origin to perceive its want of foundation. 
 
 But even if the Jews had been inclined to 
 corrupt the Hebrew Scriptures, there were so 
 many impediments in the way of such corruption, 
 that they could not have carried it to any great 
 extent. Charges of that description are more 
 easily made, than proved. Men frequently argue, 
 as if the omission of a passage in one manuscript 
 would operate, as it were by magic, its extinction 
 from all the rest. But it is really not an easy 
 matter to expunge, without detection, from works 
 of such general circulation, as the Hebrew Bible, 
 and the Greek Testament. The checks on the 
 corruption of the latter have been fully described 
 on a former occasion : and similar checks have 
 operated, to secure the integrity of the Hebrew 
 Bible. 
 
 That accidental mistakes have been made in 
 transcribing the Hebrew Scriptures, is nothing 
 more, than what is common to the transcripts of 
 
 E 
 
06 LECTURE XXXIV. 
 
 every work. And Hebrew manuscripts especially 
 were liable to such mistakes, as well from the 
 similarity in some of the Hebrew letters, as from 
 other causes peculiar to the Hebrew language. 
 But the guards and fences, which were erected 
 by the Jews, to stop the progress of such mistakes, 
 were proportionate to the causes, which tended 
 to produce them. The operation of the Masora, 
 in protecting the Hebrew manuscripts from error, 
 has been explained on former occasions. It will 
 be sufficient therefore at present to observe in 
 general terms, that the rules, by which Hebrew 
 transcribers are bound in the copying of the 
 Scriptures, are so strict, that if they cannot secure 
 a total exemption from error, they go as far, as 
 can be expected from human efforts. 
 
 But we must not omit to notice a species of 
 alteration in the Hebrew Scriptures, which can 
 neither be ranked among wilful corruptions, nor 
 among accidental mistakes. In the Pentateuch 
 we sometimes find names of places, which names 
 were not given to those places till after the time 
 of Moses. For instance Hebron was, before the 
 conquest of Palestine by Joshua, called Kirjath- 
 arba, as is related in the book of Joshua itself 26 . 
 
 Joshua xiv. 1 5. 
 
LECTURE XXXIV. 67 
 
 Yet in the book of Genesis it is called by the later 
 name of Hebron 27 . This name could not have 
 been written by Moses, who lived before the time 
 of its adoption. Prom this and similar examples 
 it has been inferred, that the Pentateuch itself 
 was written at a later period, than that which is 
 commonly ascribed to it. 4nd where we have no 
 other arguments to determine the date of an 
 ancient work, arguments like these will have 
 considerable weight. But where we have con- 
 vincing arguments on the other side, arguments 
 which prove the authenticity of the work, we 
 must conclude that the author himself used the 
 ancient names ; and that the later names were 
 afterwards substituted, for the sake of perspicuity. 
 
 Other passages, which could not have pro- 
 ceeded from the hand of Moses, are of the 
 following description, " These are the kings, 
 that reigned over the land of Edom, before there 
 reigned any king over the children of Israel 28 . 
 These words where undoubtedly written after the 
 establishment of monarchy in Israel, and there- 
 fore long after the time of Moses. But they do 
 not prove, that the Pentateuch itself was not 
 written by Moses. They only shew, that we 
 
 27 Gen. xiii. 18. 28 Gen. xxxvi. 31. 
 
 E 2 
 
58 LECTURE XXXIV. 
 
 have here an addition to the text of Moses. 
 Now such additions do not affect the general 
 authenticity of the work, and are easily dis- 
 tinguished from what was written by Moses. 
 
 Additions of another xkind are such as that, 
 which is found in the thirty -fourth chapter of 
 Deuteronomy. The thirty-third chapter, which 
 contains the blessings pronounced by Moses on 
 the tribes of Israel, has evident tokens of being 
 the conclusion of the work, as finished by Moses 
 himself. But as some account of his death ap- 
 peared a necessary addition to it, the supplement 
 was made, and probably by Joshua, whence it 
 was engrafted on the book itself. 
 
 We may conclude with the general obser- 
 vation, that whatever additions have been made 
 to the original text, either in this place, or 
 any other place of the Hebrew Bible, those 
 additions, which contain historical notices, must 
 have been made, either before, or at the time 
 when the canon was determined, and conse- 
 quently would not have been admitted, unless 
 they had been entitled to credit. 
 
 Let us now recapitulate in a few words what 
 has been proved in the preceding Lectures. 
 
LECTURE XXXIV. 69 
 
 It has been proved, that the Hebrew Scriptures, 
 as they then existed, received the sanction of our 
 Saviour. It has been proved, that the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, which received the sanction of our 
 Saviour, contained the same books, which are 
 now contained in our Hebrew Bibles. And lastly 
 it has been proved, that the books themselves 
 have descended to the present age, not only free 
 from wilful corruption, but as free from accidental 
 mistakes, as can possibly be expected in works 
 of high antiquity. We may rely therefore on 
 the authority, and the integrity of the Hebrew 
 Bible. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 P. 24. Note 5. 1. 7. vertimas read vertimus.' 
 
 28. 13. Hagiographarum read Hagiographorum. 
 
 48. — ; — 15. li 10. irapovhovvai read •napaZovva.i. 
 
I