say which of the two feelings is the strongest, that of contempt for the criticism, or indignation at the disingenuousness it exposes.

We advance to the consideration of

II. RASH CONJECTURAL EMENDATIONS.

If liberties, in the way of conjecture, may be taken with the text of an ancient author, then there would soon be as many conflicting editions of his works as there were parties, who, through want of knowledge, could not understand, or through prejudice, were disposed to misrepresent them.

It is a canon, acknowledged and acted upon, by all real scholars and true critics, that no conjectural emendation should be admitted into the text of any author, unless the place which seems to need it, be hopelessly corrupt, no meaning being deducible from it as it stands, and except the new words bring out a sense in unison with the general sentiments of the author, or at least not inconsistent with his subject.

If this be a rule, which it is not only safe to follow, but worse than dangerous to disobey, with regard to profane authors, how extremely preposterous must it be, to introduce into the sacred text, conjectural emendations, which produce a sense, entirely at variance with that which the authenticated reading conveys.

There are many passages in the New Testament, which are supposed, by persons not deeply versed in theological studies, to militate against the doctrines of the Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ. But Trinitarians know that these portions of the Divine Word are indisputably stamped with the marks of authenticity; and they believe them,

likewise, to be the words of Inspiration. Trinitarians are convinced, moreover, that these places, properly understood, so far from embarrassing their faith, are, in fact, calculated to confirm it.

But let it be supposed that an impracticable sentence of this kind were discovered. Let it be supposed that all the ingenuity of the learned had been exercised, in vain, to amalgamate it with the orthodox system. When every other resource had failed, what would those, who oppose our views, be ready to say, if we were, upon the strength of our own doctrinal system, to assert that the offending words could not, or ought not, to have been in the original text, in spite of all reasonable and possible evidence that they were there?

For instance, we read, (John v. 30,) "I can of mine own self do nothing." If, perplexed by this text, and yet confident in the soundness of our creed, we were to assert that "nothing" must give place to "every thing," what would be said of our scholarship, or of our integrity? Or if, in the words almost immediately succeeding this text, (v. 31.) "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true," we were to argue, that as the change of one single letter in the original for another, would bring out a meaning conformable to our theory, namely, "my witness is true," and that, therefore, that change ought to be made, what, I repeat the question, would be said of our scholarship, or of our integrity?

The Editors of the Improved Version shall give the answer first. "It ought, perhaps, to be laid down as a general rule, that the received text is, in no case, to be altered by critical, or at least by theological conjecture, how ingenious and plausible soever."*

This language is sufficiently cautious, but yet it is

* Improved Version-Introduction, xviii,

decided. It is hardly credible, that, nevertheless, in the next paragraph, they recommend two theological conjectures, as meriting "very attentive consideration."

These remarks affect two passages which, while they remain in the Sacred Page, will prove its assertion of the Divinity of Christ, should every other testimony to that fundamental doctrine of Revelation be obliterated. They will, hereafter, claim our more particular attention; we, therefore, merely name them now, in conjunction with the proposed conjectural substitutions. "The Word was God," (John i. 1,) is to be changed into "the Word was God's, or of God!" "Of whom Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever," (Rom. ix. 5,) is to be changed into "of whom was Christ, of whom was God, who is over all !"*

To

Of the latter of these conjectures, the Editors say that it is "very plausible," and then go on to defend it. the former also they attach the same epithet, although "it rests upon no authority," which is equally true of both, or they would cease to be mere conjectures.

In their introduction, the Editors, we have seen, notwithstanding they appear to discountenance conjectures, both critical and theological, and especially the latter, recommend these. Most certainly these are not critical conjectures: no one would be hardy enough to defend them as such. They must be, therefore, theological conjectures. That is, they are the violent efforts made by prejudice, baffled in its attempts to find its own creed in the text, to force that creed upon the text.

It is strange that the Editors should refer to Michalis in this matter. Michalis, although no Unitarian, (as neither was Griesbach, we may observe, in passing,) is a

* Improved version, in loc,

favourite with them. Let us hear what he advances upon the subject of theological conjecture.

"Beside the critical conjectures which I have described in the preceding sections of this chapter, there is another kind of conjecture, which can hardly be referred to the same class. It consists in altering the text of the Sacred Writings, according to the maxims adopted by any particular party, whether it be the ruling or the persecuted party in the Church. This species of conjecture I would denote by the name of theological conjecture. Now, a theologian, whose business it is to form his whole system of faith and manners from the Bible, cannot, with any propriety, assume, previously, any system of theology by which he may regulate the Sacred Text, but must adopt that text which is confirmed by original documents, and thence deduce his theological system. Whoever alters the text in subjects which relate to points of divinity, evidently presupposes a principium cognoscendi, that is prior to the Bible itself; and when we enquire into this principium cognoscendi, we find it to be nothing more than a set of principles, which this or that particular person has thought proper to adopt. If we ask, from what source they derive these principles, they answer, from reason. Now I readily admit, that reason is a principium cognoscendi prior to Revelation: but then, I am of opinion, that, if a set of writings, which we suppose to have been revealed by the Deity, are really contradictory to sound reason, we ought not to endeavour to reconcile them by inserting new readings, without any critical authority, but at once reject those writings as an improper standard of faith and manners. Even the writings of a false prophet might be new modelled, so as to make them consistent with the truth: and if these liberties be allowable in one case, they are allowable in others."

Y

There is an infinite difference between the inserting of a reading into the text, without any authority whatsoever, in order to render it, as we suppose, more rational, and the preferring, of two readings which really exist, that which is most conformable to truth.

As critical conjectures have been principally made by those who, in the language of the church, are termed heretics, I will insert one or two examples of the same kind, in the name of the orthodox, and ask those of the opposite party, whether they would admit them as lawful conjectures. For instance suppose I should alter or ὁ πατήρ μου μείζων μου ἐστί (John xiv. 28,) to ὅτι ὁ πατήρ μου εστι, οι ὅτι ὁ πατήρ μου ζῶν μεν ἐστίν, in order to be freed from a text that implies an inequality between the Father and the Son; or if I should alter 1 John v. 20, in the following manner, οὗτος ὁ υἱὸς ἐστιν ὁ ἀληOvòs eòs, in order to show, more distinctly, the divinity of Christ, I think the heterodox would exclaim, "He is either extremely ignorant, or, by having recourse to such miserable artifices, acknowledges the badness of his own cause. But the heterodox, as well as the orthodox, must appear before the impartial tribunal of criticism; where there is no respect to persons, and where it is not allowed for one party to take greater liberties than the other."*

Still more to the purpose are the following remarks of this great man, as they bear directly upon the two emendations in question, recommended by the Improvers, on the authority of Crellius, and other Unitarians. "It must be evident," he says, "to every man that the New Testament would be a very uncertain rule of faith and manners, and indeed wholly unfit to be used as a standard

* Marsh's Michalis, vol. ii. p. 1, 413.