the Sahidic version, the Vercelli manuscript, and the manuscripts collated by Thomas Bishop of Heraclea, for the Philoxenian Syriac, in 616. He considers that the Egyptian text was imported into the west by Eusebius of Vercelli, and the Palestine text republished at Alexandria by Euthalius, while the Byzantine retained its authority in the capital of the Greek empire. It is material to observe, that whichever recension we prefer, or if rejecting the scheme altogether as not sufficiently established, (and even Griesbach allows, that no manuscript preserves any recension in a pure state, but is said to be of one, or of the other, as the readings of that recension predominate,) we consider the variations as accidental; the more the subject is investigated, the more reason we shall find to be satisfied, that though the literal identity of the received with the original text is abandoned by all, the doctrinal identity is established; and that even the most faulty manuscript extant, supposing all others to have perished, would not pervert one article of our faith, or affect one moral precept. In conclusion, I observe, that their general uniformity demonstrates both the veneration in which the Scriptures have been held, and the care that was taken in transcribing them, and affords us an additional and most convincing proof, that they exist at present in all essential points, the same as when they came from the hands of their authors.

The consideration of MSS. leads us to that of printed copies, and disposes us to enquire into the qualifications of editors. It is natural to ask, what manuscript the first editors adopted; but the result of our enquiries is more mortifying than those who have not studied the subject are prepared for, as the answer must be, that they had not access to those which are now acknowledged to be the best, some of which, indeed, have been brought to light since their time; that those they used were few, and comparatively modern, and that they do not always abstain from conjectural emendation. The primary editions are no more than three; the Complutensian, and those of Erasmus and Beza. From these all succeeding ones have been derived, some containing im

provements, but others being mere reprints. The art of printing had been discovered, and employed in giving circulation to the Latin Bible, more than half a century before it was applied to the original text. Aldus had printed as an experiment, in 1504, the first six chapters of St. John's Gospel; but the honour of giving to the world the whole Testament in the language in which it was written was reserved for Erasmus, who published it at Basil in 1516. In the Gospels he made a MS. of the fifteenth century his basis, and in the remainder another, and towards the conclusion of the Apocalypse translated into Greek from the Latin version what was wanting in it. The Greek Testament had been printed two years earlier as a volume of the first Polyglott Bible, which had been achieved under the patronage of Cardinal Ximenes at Alcala, the ancient Complutum, from which it derives its appellation, to distinguish it from the later ones of Paris and London; but it was not till 1522, by which time Erasmus's had reached two editions, that it was allowed by Leo the Tenth to be sold. It was arranged from MSS. of a recent date, and the editors are accused of sometimes deserting them, out of deference to the Latin version. Beza formed his first text upon the third of Robert Stephens, which is little more than a reprint of the fifth of Erasmus; but that of 1565 is altered chiefly from his own celebrated MS. and that of Clermont; and the edition of 1598 is particularly interesting to us, as being that adopted as the basis of our authorized version. Upon Stephens's third edition, and the improved text of Beza, a new one was formed, it does not appear by whom, and published in 1624 by Elzevir, which has acquired the appellation of the received text, and is the one in universal use. Other editions are distinguished by their collections of various readings, but they retain the received text. Curcelleus, the first editor, 1658, of note of this description, was followed by Walton in the English Polyglott, and by Bishop Fell; but the celebrated edition of Mills, published at Oxford in 1707, the result of thirty years' labour, and containing all the

readings then known, formed an æra in biblical criticism. The edition of Wetstein, which appeared in 1751, is considered by Bishop Marsh as invaluable. His enumeration of various readings far surpasses those of his predecessors. He collated many manuscripts for the first time, and recollated others, inspected the versions and the quotations by the Fathers, and rendered the use of his readings more easy, by describing the character of the manuscripts he used. Birch published an edition at Copenhagen, 1788—1798, with readings from the Escurial and Italian manuscripts, which had not been previously examined, and Matthæi one, Riga 1782, with readings exclusively from Moscow manuscripts of the Byzantine family.

But of all the critical editions, that of Griesbach, 1796, is universally allowed to be the most complete. His object was an arrangement of the readings which had been discovered up to his time; but as, from the number of his discriminating marks, it is difficult for one imperfectly acquainted with his work to ascertain their respective merits, Dr. White has supplied us, in his Criseos Griesbachiensis Synopsis, with a convenient index.

The ancients had a double division of the New Testament, into longer and shorter sections, τίτλοι and κεφαλαία, in Latin breves and capitula; and to show their difference it may be observed, that Matthew's Gospel contains 68 of the first, and 355 of the second, even the former being much shorter than our chapters, which were made for both Testaments by Cardinal Hugh de Sancto Claro, when he projected a Concordance. He subdivides them into smaller portions by the first seven letters of the alphabet, which he placed at equal distances in the margin; but this division has been superseded by that into verses, which, for the New, was invented by Robert Stephens, and first introduced into his edition of 1551. The Geneva English Testament, printed in that city, 1557, is the first of our translation in which it appears.

The punctuation seems to have been commenced by Jerome, who introduced the comma and the colon; the note of

The

interrogation was not used till the ninth century. editors of printed editions have placed the points arbitrarily, and Stephens, in particular, varied his in every edition; and as they form no part of the original, we are of course entitled to vary them according to our judgment. It is well known, as an instance of this, that not only Augustine, but all the Greek Fathers, from Irenæus to Chrysostom, who introduced the present punctuation of the passage, marked the third and fourth verses of the first chapter of John's Gospel in the following manner: "All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. That which was made in him was life." And this is preferred by Dr. Burton, and other modern critics.

SECTION V.

On the Language of the New Testament.

HAVING shown that the authenticity of the New Testament may be established by the strongest evidence, and that the text as handed down to us is sufficiently correct, we have next to examine the language in which it is written. That language it is well known is Greek; but it is Greek of a peculiar character, as all who are conversant with the classical authors will allow, and to distinguish it from that in which they wrote, it has been termed Hellenistic. It is not a distinct dialect, because it differs not in grammar, but in idiom; that is, the inflection of nouns and verbs is the same, but the phrases are different; being precisely the same sort of difference as exists between the English composition of a native and of a foreigner, who, though he understands the rules of grammar, thinks in his own language what he afterwards writes down in the other. Thus in the New Testament, the phraseology is Hebrew, but the words are Greek. When the Apostles went beyond the Holy Land to preach the Gospel, it was necessary that they should make use of

another language, their own being confined to Syria; and Greek, which seems then to have been spoken over the Roman empire even more than French in modern Europe, had many advantages over Latin, especially to those whose missions were chiefly directed to the eastern provinces. Cicero (pro Archia) had said when Rome was in its glory, that Latin was confined to its own narrow limits, while almost all nations read Greek. That language therefore was naturally preferred as the vehicle of a revelation, alike designed for Gentile and Jew. It had become the adopted language of the latter, to whom the Gospel was always first proposed. Their persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, the encouragement held out by the Ptolemies, and other concurring causes, had occasioned a considerable dispersion of the nation, not only in Asia and Africa, but even in Achaia and Italy, as appears from their historian Josephus, from the Acts of the Apostles, and from Roman authors. The gradual loss of their own tongue, and the adoption of Greek, naturally followed among these colonists; and this was much promoted by the translation of the Bible into the Alexandrian dialect, which, being used in their synagogues, soon became the standard of their language. Hence a certain uniformity of idiom would arise among the Jews speaking Greek, wherever dispersed. We find the distinction between them and the Jews of Palestine marked in the book of Acts, in which we read, that there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected; and for these there is a peculiar word in the original, 'Exλvioral, Hellenizing or Grecianizing, the real Greeks being called 'Exλnvés. This version is called the Septuagint, because it is the reputed work of seventy-two translators, sent for the purpose by the high-priest from Jerusalem to Alexandria, at the desire of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, who wished to enrich with a copy of the Scriptures the library which he was then founding at

2 Thus in Diodorus Siculus, and in other authors, the Greek settlers in Italy are distinguished from the natives, "Iraλo, by the similar word

Ιταλιώται.