Hebrew, and that the New Testament, with, perhaps, no exception, was written in the Greek."* The Hebrew language is distinguished by a noble simplicity and energy, and the Greek by an extraordinary copiousness as well as by the accuracy of its structure; and whilst our remaining helps for understanding the sacred books in Hebrew are greater than, from its high antiquity, could well have been expected, the critical aids for the just interpretation of the Greek original are numerous and valuable. The Hebrew and Greek originals, at all events, constitute the primary and authentic touchstone, by which all translations, whether ancient or modern, ought to be judged.

The disappearance of the original manuscripts written by the pens, or under the immediate eye and dictation of Prophets and Apostles, ought not to be deplored as an unlooked for disaster, or a fatal loss. No critic doubts the authenticity of the acknowledged productions of Xenophon, Cicero, and other ancient authors of Greece and Rome, because the identical copies which these celebrated individuals personally wrote, are no longer extant. And why then should we question the authenticity, or the general accuracy, of the Sacred Scriptures, penned by Moses, Paul, and other holy men, although it is impossible now to gratify a natural curiosity, by fixing our own eyes on the autographs, or by unrolling these venerable parchments with our own hands?

Inspiration, it is certain, ought not to be ascribed to the copyists. We have good reason, however, to conclude that the great and merciful Author of the Scriptures has never ceased to exercise a peculiar care for the preservation of their integrity and purity; and many circumstances combine to assure us, that they are, in nothing material, mutilated or changed. Transcribers, it may be hoped, have generally engaged in their work under the impression that the books before them were sacred, and that it became them to discover the strictest attention and faithfulness. Scarcely could they fail, we should presume, to display a far more scrupulous accuracy than the transcribers of the most esteemed human compositions. The verse 19, and chap. vii. from verse 12 to verse 27."-Parkhurst's Chaldee Grammar, prefixed to his Hebrew Lexicon, preface.

The Gospel by Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews are thought by some men of learning to have been originally written in the vernacular Hebrew of the age. With regard to the former, the reader may consult the candid remarks of Dr Alexander on the True Canon of Scripture, part ii. sect. 4. As to the latter, it is proved by Dr Owen that the notion of a Hebrew original is without foundation.-See Exercit. iv. prefixed to his Exposition of that Epistle.

mutual jealousies of rival sects, too, both among Jews and Christians, must have contributed to secure the fidelity of the writers, to whatever persuasion they belonged, in transcribing copies of that inspired volume, to which they all appealed as their common and infallible standard. The least appearance of a single sentence or expression fraudulently omitted, foisted, or altered, could hardly escape immediate detection, or fail to bring instant disgrace on all that were concerned in the trick. It particularly deserves to be noticed that our blessed Lord preferred no accusation against the Jews, relating to their transcripts of the Law and the Prophets. Their false comments on the Word, and their backwardness to understand and improve it aright, often called forth his seasonable and merited reproofs: but never did he accuse them of interpolating or corrupting the sacred text. It was a common saying among the Jews, that to alter one letter of the law, was no less a sin than to set the whole world on fire. The Jewish critics of the fifth century, known by the name of Masorites, showed a laudable industry in composing a work intended to ascertain the true reading of the Hebrew Scriptures; and with much scrupulous care, they numbered the verses, the words, the letters, the vowel-points, and the accents. Yet it can be no just matter of wonder, that in a series of books, the very last of which existed more than fourteen hundred years prior to the invention of printing, whatever degree of care were exercised by transcribers, many variations have been introduced. Certain eminent scholars, subsequently to the revival of learning in Europe, have employed themselves, at a vast expense of time and labour, in collecting and comparing the various readings to be found in the ancient manuscripts both of the Hebrew and Greek originals; but, in spite of the gloomy apprehensions many conscientious Christians were apt to entertain, the result is highly satisfactory. These various readings, alarmingly numerous as at first sight they appear, are in reality, with few exceptions, altogether unimportant." They consist almost wholly," says a very respectable writer, "in palpable errors in transcription, grammatical and verbal differences, such as the insertion or omission of a letter or article, the substitution of a word for its equivalent, the transposition of a word or two in a sentence. Taken altogether, they neither change nor affect a single doctrine or duty, announced or enjoined in the word of God."*" The truth is," says another talented inquirer, when adverting to

*

The Evidence and Authority of Divine Revelation, by Robert Hal dane, Esq. vol. i. p. 127, 2d edition.

the researches of Mill, Wetstein, and Griesbach, near the close of a Lecture on the Sacred Text, "that, by a hundred and fifty thousand various readings, no doctrine or duty of our holy religion is affected; and the labours of biblical critics have terminated in establishing, instead of weakening, the authority of the text. We are now fully satisfied that we possess substantially the same text which was exhibited in the autographs of the Evangelists and Apostles; and this is also the result of the critical labours which have been bestowed upon the Old Testament."*

Nor have we cause to undervalue faithful Translations of the Old and New Testaments. Translators, we admit, have considerable difficulties to encounter. To retain the spirit and manner as well as the sense of an author, and to convey his whole meaning, without the slightest shade of diminution, or addition, or change, is an arduous task. The more beautiful, terse, and sublime the original work, it becomes the less easy for the translator to do it perfect justice; and when the book is written in a language long since dead, the difficulty is obviously increased. The Hebrew and Greek originals, it may be confidently affirmed, exhibit, in numberless instances, an energy and a beauty which it is impossible fully to transfuse into any version. Translators, too, who have no claim to miraculous aid from above, whatever be their talents and efforts, or by whatever co-operation they may attempt to ensure a perfect correctness, are universally liable, less or more, to error and mistake. The originals are, without question, the standard to which an ultimate appeal must be made on all questions relative to the genuine meaning of the sacred oracles. No one of the inspired penmen, much less that Divine Spirit by whom they were actuated, is to be held responsible in any degree for errors, greater or smaller, that translators may have committed, whether from deficiencies in knowledge and capacity, inadvertence, or design. Yet the God of the Bible may justly be expected to smile on the labours of its upright and diligent translators; and owing to his gracious, though not miraculous assistance, many versions, both ancient and modern, are distinguished by general accuracy, and entitled to high esteem, as faithful representations of the original records. Our own authorized English version, though not free from imperfections and mistakes, is justly regarded as one of the best that has ever appeared. Let those who have it in their power to acquire a correct knowledge of the original tongues, by all

* Dr Dick's Lectures on Theology, vol. i. pp. 218, 219.

means improve their opportunity; but let not the unlettered Christian complain, that to him the precious Bible is a sealed book. The Holy Scriptures, even when contemplated through the medium of a human translation, still exhibit the workmanship of their Divine Author; shine forth in their native beauty and glory; bear vivid characters of consummate wisdom, and sovereign authority; and, by the concurring influence of the promised Spirit, "are able to make us wise unto salvation, through faith that is in Christ Jesus."*†

CHAPTER II.

PROOFS OF PLENARY AND VERBAL INSPIRATION.

HAVING, in the foregoing chapter, taken a general view of the Inspiration of the Scriptures, we now go forward to discuss the question chiefly contemplated in this Essay.

The divine inspiration of the Bible is absolutely denied, not only by avowed infidels, but, strange to tell, by a class of men who claim the honourable name of Christians. “I think,” says Dr PRIESTLEY, "that the Scriptures were written without any particular inspiration, by men who wrote according to the best of their knowledge, and who, from their circumstances, could not be mistaken with respect to the greater facts of which they were proper witnesses; but (like other men subject to prejudice) might be liable to adopt a hasty and ill-grounded opinion, concerning things which did not fall within the compass of their own knowledge, and which had no connection with any thing that was so."-" Setting aside all idea of the inspiration of the writers, I consider Matthew and Luke as simply historians, whose credit must be determined by the circumstances in which they wrote, and the nature of the facts which they relate." And again, when he is speaking of a particular doctrine, in proof of which some passages in the Epistles are generally adduced, Dr Priestley says, "It is not from a few casual expressions in epistolary writings, which are seldom composed with so much care as books intended for the use of posterity, that we can be authorised to infer that such was the serious opinion of the Apostles. But if it had been their real opinion,

it would not follow that it was true, unless the teaching of it should appear to be included in their general commission."*

The author of these statements may have had the boldness to hazard the following observation :-"That the books of Scripture were written by particular divine inspiration, is a thing to which the writers themselves make no pretensions."† The sacred penmen, however, as we have seen, expressly represent themselves as inspired by the Holy Spirit; and by consequence, the statements in question amount to an open contradiction of their testimony on this radical point. According to Dr Priestley's scheme, their claim to inspiration was false and ill-founded. It must, of course, have been either a deliberate lie, or a gross mistake. If they arrogated inspiration to themselves, while conscious of having been honoured with no such endowment, they were base deceivers, and none of their assertions on any topic can be worthy of credit. If their minds were so heated by enthusiasm, that they ignorantly and precipitately, although sincerely, thought themselves inspired, and pertinaciously held fast the flattering delusion, they were incompetent teachers of religion, and of all men the least capable of "speaking forth the words of truth and soberness." Yet the man who can persuade himself that the obviously intelligent writers of the Old and New Testament Scriptures were universally involved in such hallucinations, must surely have acquired a large portion of credulity.

The inspiration of the sacred writers was not only possible and desirable, but indispensably necessary. Without "particular inspiration," they could not have detailed facts that preceded the creation of man, as most of those narrated in the first chapter of Genesis; nor predicted the events of futurity; nor unfolded the amazing purpose of mercy which, from eternity, lay hid in the bosom of God. Inspiration was requisite to enable them to record, without the possibility of error or mistake, long discourses delivered, interesting conversations held, and singular occurrences that happened in their own presence; and to prepare a volume entitled to the unbounded and perpetual confidence of all mankind, as the supreme standard of faith and practice. Only let the genuineness and authenticity of their writings be established a preliminary

History of Early Opinions, vol. iv. pp. 5, 58; vol. i. p. 70, as quoted by Dr George Hill, Lect. on Divinity, vol. i. pp. 306, 307.

† Priestley's Letters to the Philosophers and Politicians of France, quoted by Dr Dwight in his Theology, vol. i. ser. 48.

Pages 447, 448.