found in another part of the book, and suit the connexion of the discourse in that place, much better than in the passage under consideration, it is probable that they have crept in, and ought to be expunged.

4. Parts of books introduced where they seem to have no connexion with the matters treated of, but which contain clear evidence that they proceeded from the author, may, without impropriety, be so transposed, or arranged, as to render the order more consistent.

It has been inquired, whether there may not be some errors and interpolations in our Scriptures, older than any of our MSS. or historical monuments ;-and

Whether there be any propriety in making conjectural emendations of the SS.-See,

Michaelis' Introduction, vol. II.

Paul, Joach. Sig. Vogel Pr. de conjecturæ usu in crisi N. T., cui adjuncta est brevis Comm. de quarto libro Esuræ. Altd. 1795, 4.

W. Bowyer conjectures on the N. T. 1763. 4.

J. T. Krebs Vindiciæ quorundam locorum N. T. a Jo. Taupio male sollicitatorum L. 1778. 4. II.

H. C. A. Haenlein Examinis curarum criticarum atque exegeticarum Gilb. Wakefield in libros N. T. particulæ V. Erl. 1798-1802. 4.

Schutz Vindiciæ locorum quorundam N. T. a Wakefieldo, qua critico qua interprete, tractatorum. Jen. 1799.

II. It will easily be perceived, that the Laws of Criticism, peculiar to the N. T., must be derived, from the nature of the subjects treated of, from the character of the language in which it is written, and from the nature of those sources whence its various readings are derived.

They are principally the following:

1. Those passages which are inconsistent with the christian religion or history, or with the manner of the writer to whom they are attributed, or with the importance of the doctrine, or the dignity of the sacred teacher, are to be regarded as spurious. These points, however, are to be

judged of, according to the opinions and manner of writing prevalent in the times of the sacred penmen. On doctrinal points, especially, the greatest caution is to be used.

Attention also should be paid to the frauds sometimes committed, in interpolating and corrupting books from pious motives. On the other hand, passages may have been rejected as spurious when really genuine, from the impression that they were unworthy of the sacred writers.

2. That reading, which most nearly approaches the Hebrew or Syrochaldaic idiom, is for the most part to be preferred, to those in which the purely Greek idiom is preserved. Some of the N. T. authors, as Luke and Paul, however, wrote the Greek more in accordance with the classic writers.

The conjecture, that the sacred books, were written in Syrochaldaic, and that the ancient translators, may, in some instances, have erred, could apply to very few, if to any of the books of the N. T.

3. As the sacred writings were constantly used, both publicly and privately, and particular sections employed in the lessons for the church, it may have happened that changes arose from the parallel passages of the O. and N. T., or from the lectionaria.

4. Many MSS. versions, and early writers, are found almost uniformly, following the same reading. Those which belong to the same class, are not to be numbered separately, as independent witnesses, but taken collectively, as one testimony; much less are we to confide implicitly in any one MS., although it be ancient, and carefully written; nor, on the other hand, are the readings even of a modern and inferior MS., to be rejected without consideration.

5. In every reading, it is first of all, to be enquired, to which recension or class of MSS. it belongs.

The age and origin, therefore, not so much of the

MSS. as of the readings, are to be investigated, cf. Seiler, Bibl. Herm. p. 291.

No MS. is extant, which exhibits through all the books, any one recension, incorrupted. It is therefore, from the consent of many of the same class, and from internal criteria, that we are to judge, which recension, any particular reading is to be referred to. Some MSS. in

different parts, follow different recensions.

Very few co

pies belonging to the ancient classes, remain, those belonging to the more modern are much more numerous.

6. That reading, in which all the recensions concur, to be regarded as genuine.

7. The readings of the most ancient classes, especially when recommended by other authority, are to be preferred.

8. The Alexandrian class is sometimes to be preferred to the western, but not uniformly. Where the different classes vary, the greatest attention must be paid to other historical and internal criteria of the genuineness of a

passage.

9. The greatest authority is due to MSS., but the ancient versions, and the works of early ecclesiastical writers, are not to be neglected.

10. In collecting various readings from the ancient versions, and in estimating their importance the following rules should be observed.

a. The greatest weight is due to those made immediately from the Greek. Among these, the most important, are, the Latin, Syriac, and the Gothic.

b. Care must be taken that we use a correct copy of these versions.

c. It is to be observed, whether they are literal, or merely give the sense; whether the faults observed, be chargeable on the versions themselves, or appear to have arisen from the MSS. their authors used.

d. Versions, which, upon examination, appear to follow

a particular class or recension, of MSS. are to be ranked with that class as one witness.

e. No reading, which is derived from the ancient versions alone, and is destitute of other authority, is to be approved; yet the concurrence of all the Versions and the ancient Fathers, renders the reading of the MSS. very suspicious.

11. As to the ancient ecclesiastical writers, the following rules should be observed.

a. We should be careful to use a critical and correct edition of their works, lest we be deceived by corrupted passages.

b. We must diligently attend to the character of these writers, their age, erudition, their discernment; to their disposition to alter the text, &c. We should also endeavour to discover the character and class of the MSS. which they used.

c. It is carefully to be observed in what kind of works, these various readings occur. Whether in commentaries, in doctrinal, practical, or polemical compositions; because quotations are commonly made in one class, much more accurately than in another.

d. The form and manner of the quotation are to be observed-whether the passage be cited pointedly, as a direct proof, or whether it be quoted memoriter-casually alluded to, &c.

It is not reasonable to dismiss all the quotations of the Fathers, with the assertion that they were made negligently, and from memory; because, although this may often have been the case, yet in some instances there is internal evidence that the quotation was made with care, and that the writer really read in his MSS. what we now find in his works.

e. The mere omission of a passage, in the commentaries of the Fathers, is not sufficient evidence against it.

Yet if the passage be important, their silence renders it suspicious.

12. The writings of the ancient heretics, are not entirely to be neglected, in the criticism of the N. T.

13. That interpunction of the words and sentences, and that distinction of paragraphs and chapters, is to be observed, which best agrees with the subject, and the connexion of the discourse.

III. Since it is admitted, in the criticism of the N. T., as in that of other ancient writings, that the true reading, cannot always be determined with absolute certainty, but only a judgment as to what is most probable be formed, it is evident, that more should not be required, in this department, than can be performed-nor a positive judgment be given, without the most careful examination. And moreover, if in the criticism of profane authors caution and modesty should be used, much more should every thing like rashness, or levity, be excluded from the criticism of the Sacred Volume.

Car. Segaar. or. de critice in divinis N. T. libris aeque ac in humanis, sed circumspecte et modeste etiamnum exercenda. Ultraj. 1772. 4.

Several circumstances conspire to render the criticism of the N. T. peculiarly difficult-the peculiarity of the mode of writing, the number of the books, and the danger of alteration from various causes to which they were exposed.

That division of the higher criticism, which relates to the excellences or faults of books-the narration, mode of argument, and the subject generally, will be treated hereafter.