profane authors; for Michaelis concludes the remark above cited by telling us that the New Testament "is competently exact, even in the worst manuscript now extant; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them." But every manuscript that has been examined has erasures and corrections, and where both are legible, the substituted reading is not always the best. Some of these corrections are in the same hand-writing as the text, others have been added by a second hand: in either case they may have proceeded from the correction of a mere clerical error; they may have been altered in deference to the reading of some better manuscript; or they may have resulted from pure conjecture, or from fraud. Again the discrepancies between different copies consist of the omission or addition of whole passages, as well as the employment of different words, or inflexions of words. Yet with all this, no contradictions are introduced; there is nothing to detract from the testimony to a single important fact, or the full developement of a single fundamental doctrine. By far the greater number of the various readings are such as do not in any degree affect the sense, and often cannot be made apparent in a translation. Thus we have Dabid, for David; Lord for God; Mõuses for Mōses; and changes nearly equivalent to the substitution, in English, of & I, for and I, or All mighty for Almighty: many of them being in fact nothing more than the amalgamation or resolution of two consecutive words, the one ending, and the other beginning with a vowel, and those vowels being changed or not as the words happen to be conjoined or separated by the writer.* Very few produce any alteration in the general purport of a sentence, and fewer still in that of an entire paragraph. Most of them relate to historical, geographical, or other collateral circumstances of minor importance, or to detached narratives that do not touch upon the leading events; such as the story of the woman taken in adultery, forming the first eleven verses of the eighth chapter of St. John's Gospel, and which might be omitted without detriment to any truth on which Christi

*Such as jo, and ammo, or 210 21sine and mo, in Malayalim. Examples will be readily supplied by those conversant in other oriental languages.

anity depends: and in the very few cases where a fundamental doctrine is involved, that doctrine may invariably be made out from other passages, concerning which no resonable doubt has ever being entertained. For instance, in the famous controverted passage relating to the Trinity, (1 John v. 7.), admit that its genuineness cannot be maintained; and the doctrine of the Trinity stands firmly on the same unassailable basis as before. As a second example we may add the litigated reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. The words are, "God manifest in the flesh," and the question lies between OC, who, O, which, and OC, a contraction for OEO God, (C being in either case, and commonly, used for ). The last has the authority of all but three out of ninety-one manuscripts, and were OC the true reading, the sense would be the same, for the relative could only refer to EO in the preceding sentence. But admitting that O were the true reading, we lose but one passage of a great multitude by which the divinity of Christ, and the incarnation of God are sustained: the passage cannot be made to contradict these doctrines; at the worst a single corroborating witness is withdrawn, and these great truths remain intact, as satisfactorily, if not quite as fully, supported as before.

Such, then, is the nature of the variations that lapse of time, and the imperfections of human nature have entailed upon our books, and so little has their purity been contaminated by them. We may safely challenge the world to produce any single remnant of antiquity, so free from perplexing contradiction, so uniformly consistent, so complete in every essential feature. I am not, I need hardly say, here speaking of ancient writings in their character of intellectual productions; but simply as of mere manual transcripts from the same original, and only with a reference to the amount of damage they have sustained by the accidents incident to their transmission to our times. And whether a comparison be instituted with literary works, or with those professing to be the standard of any existing system of religion, I repeat, that in the little they have suffered the Christian Scriptures stand alone. "The differences,” observes Tomline in reference to the Old Testament, and the remark appertains as fully to the New, "are of so little moment that it is sometimes absurdly objected to this

laborious work of collation, that it does not enable us to correct a single important passage; whereas this very circumstance implies that we have derived from these excellent undertakings the greatest advantage; namely the certain knowledge of the agreement of the copies of the ancient Scriptures now extant in the original languages, with each other, and with our Bibles."

It is a circumstance worthy of note that the variations between our manuscripts are not promiscuous and random. So great similarity exists between certain sets of them, and the readings peculiar to these so regularly differ from those running with like uniformity through other sets, that they are readily classified under several distinct recensions. Learned men are not, indeed, agreed as to their method of classification; and various schemes have been proposed. The fact, however, may be stated in general to have arisen from some early recensions, in Egypt, at Constantinople, in Africa, or elsewhere; and the various copies made in these countries give, in the main, the text usually received in their respective Churches, though minor variations were doubtless introduced by each fresh copy made. The existence at a very early time of two distinct classes, or families, as they are termed, has been traced by a diligent comparison of the quotations in the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, with those made by Tertullian and Cyprian. But the appellations given to the several classes and their distribution is of less importance; the fact that they may be thus arranged is generally acknowledged by those competent to judge of it, and it is important, not only as marking the singular care that has been bestowed to secure correctness, and therefore the veneration in which the books were held, but also as showing at least as many independent lines of descent as there are distinct families of manuscripts. And their real and substantial agreement may satisfy the Christian, and fairly suggest a presumption to the unbeliever, that a special providence has watched over their integrity, and secured them from vital error. Extreme verbal accuracy, (and the errors amount to little more than mere verbal inaccuracy,) is not thought so necessary in communicating ordinary facts, or explaining ordinary principles, as that a deficiency in this respect is fatal to their credit: nor is there any reason why a greater degree of

precision, provided there be no real ambiguity, should be deemed requisite for transmitting a divine communication. From a more perfect copy, in the words of Horne, “infidelity can expect no help, false doctrine no support, and even true religion no accession to its excellence, as indeed it needs none." Variations such as those that do exist, so far from detracting from our confidence, gives us, on the contrary, additional and most convincing proof, that in all essential points, our books have come down to us, as they left the hands of the apostles: nothing important has been added, nothing altered, nothing lost.

The same remarks apply to the discrepancies which exist between the original, and such ancient versions as have been preserved. Most of them are of very inferior moment; perhaps the two most interesting are found in the cases referred to above, 1 John v. 7, and 1 Tim. iii. 16. The argument for the genuineness of the former of these depends almost entirely on the Vulgate and other versions, on the authority of which it has been admitted into the received text, though it has scarcely a single Greek manuscript in its favour; in the latter passage the case is reversed; the manuscripts are almost unanimous in favour of the received reading, EO; the versions read it as if translated, some from OC, and some from O. The variations also between our books and citations in the fathers may be dismissed with a like remark; though these may, in some cases of mere verbal difference, be owing to a loose method of quotation, of which, when I come to speak in detail of the testimony of early writers, I shall have occasion to give examples. I shall say no more, in this place, than that these versions and quotations are occasionally of service to correct an error, or supply an omission in the original, by showing what was the reading when they were made: but the instances are few and by no means of importance.

So much concerning the medium through which the Christian Scriptures have been preserved. All that has been said concerning this, however, weighty as it must surely be acknowledged, is but auxiliary to our main argument. The proof of the integrity of our books, by what means so ever they have come down to us, depends far less on the antiquity of these venerable parchments, than on considerations drawn from their contents; and it is easier

in almost every case, as has been already said, to demonstrate the general or minute correctness of a tale of public, or even of private interest, than to bring home to its rightful age and owner the handy work of a mere amanuensis. The process is at once more accurately conclusive, and more accessible to the man of ordinary acquirements and understanding.

I have referred above to the translations and citations of the ancient Christian writers, rather with a view to the verbal agreement between them and the New Testament, as now received, than to bring out the full extent of their important testimony to its integrity. It will be my business now to exhibit the real value of that testimony; for it is in fact the sheet anchor of this division of our argument, the main stay, to which all else is but subsidiary. I shall, then, next advert to the catalogues, commentaries, translations, and such other remains of the ages preceding the art of printing, as will bring us connectedly to the earliest times. The prosecution of this object will occupy considerable space, and to it the following section will be exclusively confined.

SECT. II.

THE TESTIMONY OF CHRISTIAN WRITERS. Authenticity of works cited.-Favourite systems of divinity. Table of writers.-Those of second period considered. The barrenness and want of originality in the third period. The fathers to Eusebius.-Four classes of writers mentioned by Eusebius.-Doubts concerning some books a proof of care in settling the Canon.-Formation of the Canon of the New Testament.-Method of quotation.-Writers to Cyprian. The divine authority of Scripture uniformly acknowledged: that of tradition fails.-Origen.-Tertullian. Titles of respect given to the Scriptures.-Irenæus. -Justin Martyr.-The Apostolic Fathers.-The Peschito Syriac Version.-Divine authority claimed by and ascribed to our writings.-Not due to any others.-Uncorrupted preservation of the New Testament.—Conclusion. It is obvious that in tracing back the history of any past event, we may commence from the present, or any