Value of Ancient Testimony.

85

led, by such means, into many painful doubts, are not only still open to conviction, but are ever craving for comfort and satisfaction in regard to their earlier faith.

Well aware, then, that, in addressing such persons, I must exhibit a total absence of all onesidedness, an absolute fairness and candour, a willingness to admit everything which is true, and a determination to say nothing that is unjust or intolerant, let me begin by observing that no one has a right to find fault with any inquirer who, when duly qualified, sets himself honestly to consider the critical evidences which exist for believing in the genuineness of the various books belonging to our canonical Scriptures. I am quite aware there are those who say that the authority of the ancient Church which first settled the sacred canon ought to be held final. Certainly we cannot blame the great mass of Christians who are content to abide by that authority, who say, "As we have not learning of our own to investigate the matter, and as we have every confidence in the wisdom of the ancient Church which has handed us down the present books of the Old and New Testaments, we are content to receive them through historical evidence, and to take them on external authority." This sort of reasoning is the only possible ground on which the vast majority of people can base their faith in the Scripture canon. Nor has any critic a greater right to call this credulity or superstition than he would have to charge the great bulk

of mankind with such faults, because they believed in the genuineness of the Eneid of Virgil or the Odes of Horace, all of which are unquestionably received on authority which is external to our ordinary means of judgment. Nevertheless, when men of learning and of leisure determine to reexamine the canonical authority of the books of Scripture for themselves, it is unfair to accuse them of any excessive scepticism; for, unquestionably, the great fields of criticism and research lie equally open to them as to their predecessors. Indeed, in some respects, more so, inasmuch as in ancient times many of those elements of investigation which we possess were wanting. For example, consider the invention of printing, by means of which general learning has become so much revived, and scholarship so much increased. Consider also, that since those early times the pursuit of what is called Comparative Philology has risen to a science. Since then, also, historical and critical investigations have afforded new canons for testing the authenticity of ancient documents and records of which our forefathers knew nothing. By these and other means we now have new powers of criticism in our hands, which give to modern thought many advantages in deciding upon some of the important questions which are here brought before it.

At the same time nothing can be more foolish or dangerous than for persons who have no adequate knowledge of these various branches of learn

Divisions of Criticism.

87

ing to attempt to dabble in such investigations, or even to form a judgment upon them. For, by so doing, they often become afflicted with unnecessary doubts, which rob them of all settled convictions of Divine truth, and cause them to read their Bibles in a spirit of perpetual captiousness and unbelief.

Such is the class with which I now propose to deal; not for the purpose of scolding, but of helping them; and to guide them, if possible, out of their anxious perplexities. Assuming, then, that I have such for my readers, my object will be to provide them with certain Cautions, which may aid them in disentangling truth from error, and in tracing out some of the fallacies of our modern school of destructive criticism.

This subject being too large and complex to be treated under one section, I must divide it into the following parts, viz. :

i. Textual Criticism.
ii. Doctrinal Criticism.
iii. Historical Criticism.

iv. Prophetic Criticism.
v. Moral Criticism.

i. TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

In one sense all Biblical criticism, in so far as it is exerted upon the meaning of the Scripture text, may very justly be called textual. It is not, however, under that somewhat loose and irregular meaning of the term that I am now about to speak.

Again, inasmuch as the Scriptures are contained in various MSS. of both different ages, and of different comparative values, the readings of the text being often much more pure and authoritative in one MS. than they are in another,—it follows that a second department of what may very fairly be called Textual Criticism is, to examine the age and authority of these MSS., not only by means of the material upon which they are written, but also by the shapes of the letters, and other varying marks of penmanship, into the nature of which I need not now enter. For, after the valuable labours of such men as Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach, and others, I feel justified in taking it for granted that we have, in the main, almost as perfect a collation of the texts of Scripture as it is possible for us to obtain from existing

sources.

Taking all this into consideration, however, there yet remains another kind of Textual Criticism which forms one of the main battle-fields of modern scepticism; inasmuch as there are many critical considerations which occasion grave doubts whether the text of Scripture, and especially that from which our own Authorized Version is translated, does not still contain a variety of divergences from the original sacred autographs. It is on this ground that we are often obliged to defend the Word of God from many of those attacks which the critical school of unbelief has lately made against the genuineness and authority of the sacred books,

Verbal Inaccuracies.

89

and by virtue of which it denies their inspired authority.

1. Such, at all events, is the sense in which I use the words Textual Criticism here, and upon which I now propose to offer a few Cautions for the assistance of any readers and inquirers who may be distressed by anxious doubts upon the subject.

CAUTION I.-Let us never be driven into unbelief by the assumption of verbal inaccuracies in the sacred text; seeing that such verbal inaccuracies often occur in the works of old authors, being transmitted through later editions of their works without any fault of their own.

To some minds, unfamiliar with the difficulties of this controversy, such an admission as this may seem disloyal to Revelation. Much more is lost, however, than gained, when we attempt to prove too much, endeavouring to hold positions which are untenable. We shall often have to notice this through the following pages; and, therefore, it is well at once to deal with it. Candour in controversy is the essence of success; and without it victory over doubt is impossible. Any one, for instance, who attempts to maintain that there are no difficulties in the present text of Scripture, simply betrays the cause which he is most anxious to defend, and surrenders it into the hand of the enemy. Those who are unskilful in Biblical criticism may be ignorant of the fact; and, when

G