come down to me in its original purity, through the space of seventeen centuries, and after having passed through the hands of so many thousand persons, the greater part of whom were, perhaps, either weak or ignorant? I pursue this important point of criticism, and am alarmed at the prodigious number of different readings. I observe a skilful critic,* who discovers not less than thirty thousand. This critic flatters himself, nevertheless, that he has exhibited the most perfect copy of the evidence of the witnesses, and asserts, that he has compiled it from above ninety manuscripts collected from all parts, and collated it with the nicest exactness. It is with difficulty that I recover from my astonishment; and this moment of amazement does not easily admit reflection. I must carefully guard against these first impressions, and make a most scrupulous inquiry into the causes of this prodigious number. of variations. A multitude of reflections here offer themselves to my mind. I consider the most essential of them. It is true, that I am acquainted with no ancient

* Dr. Mill.

book which contains near so many various readings as that which I have now under examination. But ought I to be much surprised at this? Ever since there have been books in the world, was there ever any one so much read, copied, translated, comment. ed on, in so many places, and by so many readers, transcribers, translators, and commentators, as this? The most laborious, the most studious man, might spend his life in reading and collating the different versions which have been made of this book in various languages, from the first moment of its publication. A book (I have already made. this observation) which contained the pledge of eternal life, must it not have appeared the most important of all books to that society. which was intrusted with it, which acknowledged its authenticity and truth, and which has transmitted this precious deposit from age to age? I am therefore no longer astonished at these thirty thousand various readings. It is in the nature of things, that the more the copies of a book are multiplied, the more numerous, of consequence, are its various readings. My surprise will be entirely removed, if, reverting to this learned

R

critic, I find from him, that these thirty thousand variations have been formed, not only from the copies of the original text, but also from those of all the different versions, &c. I run over these variations, and I satisfy myself with my own eyes, that they do not affect the essential points, nor those which constitute the basis of the evidence. Here I find one word substituted for another; there, one or more words transposed or omitted; in a third place, some remarkable words which seem to have passed from the margin into the text, and which do not occur in the most original manuscripts.* If, notwithstanding the collection of the various readings in the works of Cicero, Ho

* Most people are aware that the epistles of St. Paul contain whatever is essential in the gospels. The authenticity of thirteen of these epistles has never been called in question; the authenticity only of the epistle to the Hebrews has been questioned; and since then it has been attributed to that apostle, at least as to its contents. It is an observation of the critics, that there are fewer various readings in these epistles than in the gospels, because the transcribers, in writing the histories, or parallel discourses, having in their mind the expressions of "another evangelist, might easily insert them in that which

66

they were copying. They even appear to have purposely "done this sometimes, that they might explain one passage by "another. This has seldom happened in St. Paul's epistles."Preface to the Epist. of St. Paul, N. T. of Berlin, 1741, page 3.

race, and Virgil, the most severe critics think that they possess the authentic texts of these authors, why should I not believe that I have also the authentic text of the records in question? If the variations of these records were a sufficient reason to reject .them, should I not be obliged of consequence, if I acted consistently, to reject all the books of antiquity?

This remark brings me back to the reflections of the same nature which I made in the second chapter, relative to the real or pretended contradictions of the gospel-evidence. If I am to reason consistently on this subject, I must conform myself to the rules of sound criticism; and I must form my judgment of this book, in the same manner, and by the same method, that I should judge of any other book whatever.

But a book designed by Divine Wisdom to increase the light of reason, and to afford to mankind the most positive assurances of a life to come-ought not such a book to have been secured by that wisdom from the possibility of alteration? And if it had been so preserved, would not that

alone have been the most demonstrative proof that it was the dictate of the supreme legislator?

I shall not attempt to wave the objection: truth is my aim; I seek after it, ever fearful of mistaking the shadow for the sub, stance. What is it then that I now require? I require that Providence should have miraculously interposed to preserve unaltered. this precious book, which it seems to have abandoned, like all others, to the dangerous influence of second causes.

I do not as yet distinctly see what it is I desire. I perceive, in general, the necessity of an extraordinary intervention to preserve the evidence in its native purity. What I wish then amounts to this, that Providence had, in a miraculous manner, inspired or guided all the transcribers, all the translators, all the commentators, of every age and of every place; or had prevented the wars, the conflagrations, the inundations, and, in general, all the revolutions which have caused the loss of the original writings of the witnesses,