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 ἐργαζόμενον τῷ σαββάτῳ, εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἄνθρωπε, εἰ μὲν διδας τί ποιεις, μακάριος εἶ. εἰ δε μη οίδας, ἐπικατάρατος καὶ παραβάτης εἶ τοῦ νόμου. To opo." On the same day, seeing a certain person working 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 a transgressor of the law." 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 Bezæ.

An

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 thcological 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.

ferent authors, are noticed by the Professor. In the application of his remarks to the Bible, the sources from which our knowledge of the Hebrew language is derived, are described :—i. e. the Chaldee and Syriac Translations of the Old Testament, the Arabic and Greek versions, and the Latin vulgate. In this lecture, the Margaret Professor appears as an advocate for a revision of the common version, and gives a very decided opinion on its necessity, founded on reasons which he details. We cannot possibly pretend,' he declares,' that our authorized version does not require amendment. Our own sentiments on this subject are in unison with the Professor's, but, who shall revise? The lecture concludes with exhortations to the study of the original Scriptures. We cannot be qualified for the interpretation of the Bible, till we understand the languages of the Bible.'

In the next lecture, we have rules given us for the interpretation of words. As every author must be supposed to employ such words, for the conveyance of his thoughts, as he believes will excite in his readers the same thoughts, the first rule obviously is, to ascertain the notion affixed to each particular word by the persons in general who speak (or spoke) the language in which it exists. Another rule is, that the meaning of a word, used by any writer, is the meaning which was affixed to it by those for whom he immediately wrote. And a third, that the words of an author must be so explained, as not to make them inconsistent with his known character, his known sentiments, his known situation, and the known circumstances of the subject on which he wrote. These rules are exemplified in the chief controversy which engaged the attention of St. 'Paul!' We cannot perceive that the passages in the writings of the Apostle, to which the Professor refers, relate solely to the question, whether a man could become a good Christian 'without remaining or becoming a Jew.' Sed non his locus.

6

We entirely agree with Dr. Marsh, that we must understand an inspired writer, or we shall not know what his propositions are; and that the propositions of such a writer are to be investigated by the application of the same rules which we employ to understand other writers; but we cannot think that the interpreter who explains the Bible by the aid of reason and learning, will always be liberal, or, that intolerance is excluded from a Church by the admission, on the part of its members, that it may possibly be wrong. We could inform the Professorwho have thought it an imperious duty to prevent the growth of 'all other opinions on a subject so important as religion.' He uses these words in describing the principle of interpretation adopted by the Church of Rome, and by enthusiasts; but they

6

have certainly been exemplified in the practice of the Church of England, whose Act of Uniformity has slain its thousands; and the various attempts to enforce it, have proved as fatal to the peace and lives of mankind, as the assumed infallibility of the Church of Rome. From what principle did the cruel persecutions in the reigns of Elizabeth, James I, Charles I. and Charles II. proceed? The ruling powers of the Church thought it' an imperious duty to prevent the growth of all other opinions' than their own, on the subject of religion.' We entertain very great respect for the Margaret Professor, and give him credit for integrity in the assertion of his own opinions; but we cannot allow him to make that essential difference between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome, which would allot bigotry and persecuting principles to the latter, and true liberality to the former. In their practice they have but too much resembled each other. The Professor maintains, that between cannot 'err,' as claimed by the Romish Church, and does not err,' as affirmed of the Church of England, there is an important difference. Now we should be glad to decide this question between the two Churches, by the answer which the Professor might give to our question in relation to his own Church - She does not err :'-but has she ever erred? The sense of our liability to error, if felt and practically regarded, would induce mutual forbearance in all our differences; but the instructions received from the faithful records of History prove, that the most grievous offences against charity have been committed by men who were neither enthusiasts, nor members of the Church of Rome; and lead us to express our devout wish that the means of employing inquisitorial power' may never be at the command of religionists of any description. See P: 56.

6

The next division of the lectures, is of a philological complexion; in which the Professor adverts to the formation of language, and treats of the literal and figurative use of words. Hieroglyphic writing, by which, not words, but objects, are represented, could not, he thinks, have led to the invention of letters, which represent, not the objects, but the sound or utterance of the voice, which denotes the objects letters are simply expressive of sound, and were probably suggested by the different forms assumed by the mouth in the utterance of each single sound. Words which expressed objects of sensation, were suggested by the objects themselves; and in providing words for notions acquired by reflection, some similitude must have been sought between the abstract notion, for which a word was wanted, and some other notion, already provided with a word. The proper or improper, the literal or grammatical, and the figurative or tropical, senses of words are explained,

and the consequences of explaining words literally, when they are used figuratively, are exemplified in the Transubstantiation of the Church of Rome, and the Consubstantiation of Luther. We cannot pay the Church of England the compliment which she receives from Dr. Marsh, p. 71, that she has with due 'attention to that figurative style, so frequently employed by our 'Saviour on other occasions, interpreted his words "This is my 66 body". "This is my blood" by the rules of analogy, and by 'the dictates of common sense,' while the strong and unqualified expressions The Body and Blood of Christ are verily and. indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper,' remain in her formularies. The exemplification of metaphor and simile, with which the lecture concludes, might have been spared. It certainly possesses the prime excellence of exampleperspicuity; but it appeared to us undignified in the delivery, nor is it an ornament to the printed lectures.

The seventeenth and eighteenth lectures, are on Allegory; which is defined an interpretation not of words, but of the 'things signified by the words.' Examples of it are cited from the Bible, and the abuse and injudicious use of it are pointed out. The History of Allegorical Interpretation, a mode of interpretation which, it is said, originated with the Commentators on Homer in the latter ages of Greece, is given to us, as it existed among the Jews of Alexandria, the Greek Fathers, the Mystics in the twelfth century, and their followers in more modern times.

The last lecture concludes with some observations on typical Interpretation; and announces the subject of Prophecy for the next series of lectures.

Dr. Marsh informs us that the Supremacy of the Pope has been discovered in the first chapter of Genesis

The interpreter who made this discovery, was himself a sovereign Pontiff, and one who exercised that supremacy with unlimited sway. It was Pope Innocent the Third, the same who excommunicated King John of England, and who threatened even the Emperor of Constantinople. For this purpose, he addressed to him a Latin Epistle, in which he quoted from the first chapter of Genesis, the passage relating to the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, the lesser light to rule the night. By these two lights, said he, are meant the office of Pope and the office of King; by the greater light is meant the former office, by the lesser light the latter office; so that as the light which rules the day, is superior to the light which rules the night, the dignity of Pope is superior to the dignity of King,' p. 111.

'The luminaries,' says the Professor, in exposing the absurdities of this allegorical interpretation, should have been 'transposed. For spiritual dominion, whether exercised by