takes or rejects the system on the whole and without distinction.> p. 75, 76.

The other passage that we shall quote, closes a train of reflections upon the French Revolution, which took place, says Mr. Eustace, in a country where there was no public virtue, and no public opinion.'

What has been the result of this tremendous revolution? what have been its benefits? has it improved the literature of France ? has it produced one single historian, one poet, one sound philosopher? No: literature is on the decline; its utility is disputed; the dry sciences have usurped its place; and the language itself tends to barbarism. Has it improved even military tactics? No: the art of war consists in carrying a post, or gaining a battle with the least possible bloodshed. Was this the art of the French generals, and above all, of Napoleon? They gained their end by numbers, by bloody sacrifices, by a prodigality of carnage. Has it ameliorated the manners, and improved the principles of the nation? No; it corrupted their morals, and perverted their principles; had it lasted one generation more, France would have been inhabited by monsters, and Europe would have been compelled to wage against it a war of extermination. What then has it produced? It has deluged Europe with blood, and covered France with ruins and with graves.' p. 95, 96.

Art. IX. 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 Theological Learning. By Herbert Marsh, D.D. F.R.S. Margaret Professor of Divinity. Part III. On the Interpretation of the Bible. pp. 121. Price 3s. Deightons, Cambridge. Rivingtons, London. 1813.

COMMUNICATIONS of a literary or theological nature, from the Margaret Professor, whether they be made viva voce from the divinity chair, or through the medium of the press, are always acceptable to us. His comprehensive knowledge of the subjects of which he treats, the lucid order in which he arranges them, and the perspicuity of his language, recommend him as a writer; dignified manner, and clear and forcible enunciation, distinguish him as a speaker. For his labours in the department of Biblical Criticism he is entitled to our thanks. We wish him health and leisure to accomplish the objects of his professional studies; and shall be happy to accompany him into any of the walks of Biblical literature into which he may conduct us.

In this portion of the lectures, which relates to the interpretation of the Bible, many remarks will be found worthy

the attention of every student for the ministry in every class of professing Christians. An acquaintance with the principles of sacred Criticism, and the knowledge of the rules of Biblical Interpretation, are primary considerations with every man who fills the office of Expositor of the word of God. It is the combination of genuine learning with true piety, which. makes the "workman that needeth not to be ashamed."

As Criticism and Interpretation are not unfrequently confounded, the Author commences his thirteenth lecture, by explaining the relation which the latter bears to the former. The object of Biblical Criticism, he justly remarks, is to ascertain what an author actually wrote-the words which came from his pen the object of Interpretation, to ascertain the author's meaning-the import of his words. Before a writer, or a speaker, attempts the exposition of a Book, he should obtain a correct copy of it ;-every comment ought to be founded on a genuine text. The Criticism of the Bible must therefore precede the Interpretation of the Bible.

To every Christian-to all who believe the Scriptures to be the word of God, it must surely appear important to possess the sacred writings in the greatest attainable purity. The only way in which we could possess the very words of the original writers, would be, either by having the Autographs, the different books in the very hand-writing of their respective Authors, or a copy of those books exactly resembling the originals. The Autographs have perished;-no book of the Bible is preserved in the hand-writing of its author; nor does any copy exist which is an exact transcript from an Autograph. Should any person suppose that the New Testament has remained invariably the same through seventeen centuries, and has been conveyed to us in its pristine purity, his error may easily be corrected, if he will use his reflection on indisputable facts. The supposition is correct, as it regards the doctrines and the precepts of Scripture, and as it relates to the Books of Scripture in the main; but incorrect in respect of the words of Scripture. Many persons, it should seem, have never put to themselves the following very obvious questions. Since the art of printing was not invented before the middle of the fifteenth century, in what form did the Scriptures exist previously to that invention?-and when they were first printed, in what manner did the first editors proceed in committing them to the press? The first part of the question, is answered by the fact, that the Scriptures existed in a written form, on parchment and paper, nearly fourteen hundred years; and as new copies were wanted, to supply the loss and waste of old ones, and to answer the demand of those who wished to procure them, they were written out from

preceding copies. If the writers committed no mistake-if they never transposed a sentence, nor omitted, nor added, nor changed a word, in all the thousands of copies which were written out during fifteen centuries, they must all have been guided by a miraculous agency. This supposition, however, is too improbable to be admitted; and if any person's credence is so peculiar as to lead him to adopt it, facts will prove its falsehood.

Several hundred copies of the New Testament, of different degrees of antiquity, and all of them written before the invention of printing, and preserved in public and private libraries, have been examined and compared, and no one manuscript is, in all respects, like another. The possessors of these manuscripts must therefore have occasionally read differently from each other, and that which was Scripture to one, could not be Scripture to another. For example: the possessor of one M.S. would read, Mark iii. 32. Thy "mother and thy brethren, without, seek thee;" and the possessor of another M.S. would read "Thy mother, and thy "brethren, and thy sisters, without, seek thee" If we ask which of the two manuscripts,-the one containing the former reading, and the other, the latter, contains the passage as it was originally written, it will be beyond the ability of a man unacquainted with Biblical Criticism, to give a satisfactory answer. Should such a person say, the difference is of no importance; it is easy to reply, how can you tell that there are not very important differences in the varying manuscripts of the New Testament? Besides, you must first ascertain whether a passage be genuine, before its importance, or nonimportance, can be a subject of consideration. If the words"and thy sisters," were written by the pen of the Evangelist Mark, it cannot be any objection to their being regarded as a part of the sacred writings, that they were not inserted in the printed copies of the New Testament, because the first editors may have printed from the MSS. in which they are omitted. This was unquestionably the case in various instances; for of the many MSS. still preserved, they employed but a very small number, in preparing, and in printing, the early editions of the New Testament.

In the first stereotype 12mo. Cambridge Testaments, Galatians iv. 29. is thus printed: "But as then, he that was born "after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the "spirit, to remain, even so it is now?" The words to remain' are no part of the English translation; but how is this known? Present a copy of this impression to an Englishman, in a distant country, where he could have no access to other copies, and on the supposition that he was unaċVOL. III. N. S.

G

quainted with the New Testament, would he not consider the words as part of the genuine text; and feeling himself embarrassed in attempting their explanation, would he not be apt to pronounce the passage unintelligible? But put a copy of this edition into the hands of an editor of the English version at Cambridge, or Oxford, and it would be immediately detected as a spurious addition; nor would the circumstance of its having occupied a place in the text, prevent its excision. What answer would a person ignorant of Biblical Criticism, return to the following question On what ground do you not receive these words as part of the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to St. Luke? Τη αυτή ημέρα θεασάμενός τινα εργαζόμενον τῷ σαββάτῳ, εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἄνθρωπε, εἰ μὲν οἶδας τί ποιῆς, μακάριος εἶ. εἰ δε μη διδας, ἐπικατάρατος καὶ παραβάτης El Tou Topov. "On the same day, seeing a certain person workεἴ τοῦ νόμου. ing on the Sabbath, he said to him, friend, if thou knowest what thou art doing, thou art happy; but if thou knowest not, thou art accursed, and ₺ transgressor of the law." An expositor of the New Testament ought surely to be prepared to satisfy the inquiry. The passage was once accounted genuine, since it exists in the Codex Beza.

The purpose of Criticism is to collect, compare, and examine, the varieties found in existing MSS. of the Scriptures; and from the best rules of decision, to apportion to every reading its value, and to make as near an approximation as possible to the original words. Every man possessed of common intelligence, will allow that a collection of four hundred MSS. is a better apparatus for this purpose than a collection of four or sixteen, and of course, that the first printed copies of the New Testament might not be furnished with an unimpeachable and unalterable text. To add to the Divine word--to regard that as a part of the inspired volume, which its Author never inserted in it, is not less culpable than is the rejection of any sentence which is essentially a part of it.

Biblical criticism conducted independently on all party bias, guards the Divine volume against additions and subtractions; against the mistakes of the careless, and the corruptions of the wilful. One important advantage resulting from an acquaintance with it, is, the removal of our doubts in relation to the uncertainty of the sacred text. We know the extent to which those doubts can go; we know that neither the authority, nor the excellence of the New Testament is impaired by various readings; and we feel ourselves repaid for the time and labour devoted to this study, by the confidence in the Divine records with which it inspires us.

It is always with regret that we hear that the mention of a various reading excites alarm in any man; and we are especially grieved, when we perceive the ministers of religion disquieted

and dismayed, as if the foundations of the building were shaken, and the Church of Christ nodded to her fall* ! We recommend them to see with their own eyes the state of every critical question, and to furnish themselves with competent skill in Biblical Criticism, that, instead of betraying their fears, and manifesting their ignorance, they may quit themselves as men, and be strong in resisting opponents, and in defending friends. In apology for these remarks we must plead their necessity, as taught us by our own observations; and we must further insert Dr. Marsh's thoughts on the importance of the subject.

The process of theological study is undoubtedly much shortened, by taking for granted what can be known only by long and laborious investigation. 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 investigation too severe, which may enable us to discern the truth unmixed with falsehood-every man, who is set apart for the ministry should consider it as his bounden duty to study with especial care that primary branch of Theology the criticism of the Bible.

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.' pp. 2, 3.

The Author proceeds to state the difficulties which attend the criticism and interpretation of an ancient work; and applies his observations on these subjects to the Bible; examines the principle of interpretation as maintained by the Church of Rome, and as asserted by Protestants; and corrects the notions which he regards as erroneous. We trust that we are as little superstitious as the Margaret Professor, and at the same time equally rational; but we cannot subscribe to all his sentiments on the Regula fidei,' nor do we think that he has given us the full meaning of the expression, The Bible is its own interpreter.' In the 14th lecture, Professor Marsh commences his remarks on the interpretation of the Bible. The first office of an interpreter, he observes, is the investigation of single words; for he must understand the elements of which a sentence is composed, before he can judge of their combinations. The object of inquiry in this connexion, is, the notion affixed to a word in any particular passage by the author of a Book: the difficulties which attend our inquiries into the meaning of words, arising from the nature of the subject, and the language of dif* Porson's Letters to Travis.