the sacred books. He might have appealed, moreover, to the common sentiments and views of the Jews, in relation to transcribing the Old Testament in general, but particularly the Pentateuch. The Tractatus Sopherim, written no doubt at an early period, exhibits such minute rules and prescriptions in regard to copyists, as no other book on earth, I believe, can be found to exhibit. The prevailing sentiment among Christians must in all probability have been such, in regard to their sacred books, as the Jews from whom they derived them were wont to entertain.

Another view of this subject is presented by Mr. Norton. The Christian writers near the close of the second century and at the beginning of the third, bring reiterated charges against Marcion and other heretics, for mutilating and altering the sacred books. The severe censure which they cast upon them on account of this, does not leave us at liberty to suppose that such alterations were things of every day's occurrence among Christians in general.

In particular does Mr. Norton advert, and with great justice and propriety, to the critical works of Origen, as furnishing evidence against the supposed alterations and variations of the New Testament Mss. Origen furnished a critical edition of the Septuagint framed on the basis of comparison of Mss. He had a critical taste, and was very much inclined to indulge it. Yet all the discrepancies which he notices in the New Testament Mss., are such as, for the most part, are still to be found in them, having been so long and faithfully preserved.

Our author next goes into an examination of a passage in Origen, which has often been quoted, in order to confirm such statements as Eichhorn has made, concerning the alterations and variations in the ancient Mss. He shows, and I think satisfactorily, that no more than the common and well-known sources of error at all times are asserted by Origen. Certainly, if we compare this passage with the variations actually exhibited in this father's critical and exegetical works, we cannot suppose that any thing less than an extravagant estimate has been made of it by neologists in criticism. Compared with a passage from Griesbach, produced here in a Note by Mr. Norton, Origen's language is quite moderate and tame; and yet, as we shall see in the sequel, Griesbach had but little ground indeed, even after the lapse of so many centuries and so much time and room for variations, to make such an assertion.

I may well recommend to the sober and inquisitive reader, other remarks which the author here makes upon Origen's words, and also upon the representations of other ancient writers, in respect to the text of the Gospels.

Nor are the remarks of Mr. Norton less striking, upon the specific and individual character of each Gospel, in regard to its style and manner throughout. Each one has its own peculiar characteristics, which are uniformly preserved. Now this could never have been so, had additions and alterations been continually made from time to time, as they are represented by some to have been. One very striking proof of this is exhibited by Mr. Norton in his Addenda, Note C: where he presents us with three interpolations which are contained in some Codices, but which are so manifestly foreign to the style, manner, and matter of the Evangelists, that even the most unpractised reader could not fail to discover that they must be adscititious. One of these is an addition inserted after Matt. 20: 28. On this I must beg leave to make a few remarks.

I shall not occupy these pages, by inserting the evidently spurious addition just named. But, as no attentive critical reader will, at the present day, fail to judge as Mr. Norton has done respecting it, and this on the ground that the internal evidence of foreign and extrinsic origin is overwhelming and decisive; so I have a suggestion to make here, for Mr. Norton's consideration. If this interpolation of some three or four verses, is so plainly disclosed by its own style and matter, how comes it about that the whole of the two first chapters of this same Evangelist could consist of extraneous and adscititious matter, and yet there be no difference of style or manner from that of the book in general? That there is not any perceptible difference, is a fact which I would establish by appeal to the judgment of every impartial reader. Nay, that positive resemblances, not to say identities, of style are spread over the whole of the two chapters in question, has been made out, in a manner past all fair contradiction, by Gersdorf in his Beiträge zur Sprach-Characteristik der Scriftsteller des N. Testaments. This I take to be generally admitted.

The reply of Mr. Norton would probably be, that this uniformity or similarity of style arises from the hand of one and the same translator of the whole book from the Hebrew originals.' But this cannot be satisfactory. The literality of ancient translations is too well known to be in general called in

question. At all events, the fidelity of the translator of Matthew, if there were any such person, must have been early and universally conceded; for in the very next generation after the apostles, we have decisive evidence, i. e. in Justin Martyr, that the two first chapters of Matthew were regarded and quoted as a part of his Gospel-and of his Gospel in Greek. Of this however, I intend to speak hereafter. It is enough for the present to say, that nothing less than a designed transformation of the original, in the process of translation into the Greek, can be supposed, if we maintain the ground that the two first chapters of Matthew are an interpolation. No translator of that early age could have so perfectly assimilated, in matter and manner, two different writers, unless he had a fixed and steady purpose of this nature, and intended to deceive his readers, by making them believe that there was but one original author. Even then we cannot suppose any translator of that day had skill enough to effect his purpose. Nor have we any evidence, either from the nature of the work, or from the credit attached to it, of any thing else than an honest and simple version; if indeed it be a version, and not an original.

I repeat my question, then, to Mr. Norton: How can two writers be so exactly alike, as the author of the two first, and the last twenty-six chapters of Matthew? It is against all that he has so truly and strikingly said, on pp. 78-82 of his work, respecting the marked peculiarities and differences of style between Mark, Luke, and John. Why has he been silent there, throughout this paragraph, on the characteristics of Matthew? Plainly they are not less marked, nor less uniform and general, than those of either of the other Evangelists. And this, I must add, is one of the most unaccountable of all circumstances, if the book in its present form be a translation—and a translation from two different authors.

I am constrained to believe, that Mr. Norton felt some pressure here; and he has managed this difficulty by keeping silence respecting the peculiar characteristics of Matthew, through the whole of this interesting section of Chap. II. Nor does what he has said of this Evangelist, on p. 90 seq., bring to view this topic. But more of this anon. Í return to the general course of argument.

In 7 of this chapter, Mr. Norton has shewn, in a very happy manner, how every thing in the Gospels tallies with the times when and the places where they were composed; how difficult,

nay impossible, it would be, for spurious and adulterated additions to preserve this concinnity; and consequently, in case the Gospels had been tampered with as Eichhorn supposes, how easy it would be to detect this.

Near the close of the chapter, Mr. Norton presents us with a summary of what it contains; which on account of its importance and the pleasing manner of it, should be here given to the reader.

We have seen then, in the present chapter, that there is no reason to doubt that the Christians of the first two centuries had the highest reverence for their sacred books; and that with this sentiment, they could neither have made, nor have suffered, alterations in the Gospels;-that the manner in which the Christian fathers speak of the corruptions with which they charged some of the heretics, implies, from the nature of the case, that they knew of no similar corruptions in their own copies of the Gospels; that from the notice which Origen takes of the various readings found by him in his manuscripts of the Gospels, we may conclude, that no considerable diversity among the manuscripts of the Gospels had ever existed; that we may infer the same from all the other notices respecting the text of the Gospels in the writings of the fathers; and from the absence of any thing in their works, which might show, that their copies differed more from each other, than those now extant; that the peculiar style of the Gospels generally, and the uniform style of each Gospel, afford proof that each is, essentially, the work of one author, which has been preserved unaltered;—that this argument becomes more striking, when we consider, that far the greater number of the copies of the Gospels, during the first two centuries, were made by Greek transcribers, who, if they had interpolated, would have interpolated in common Greek; that it is from copies made by them that our own are derived; but that the Gospels, as we possess them, are written, throughout, in that dialect of the Greek, which was used only by Jews;-that spurious works, or spurious additions to genuine works, may commonly be discovered by some incongruity with the character or the circumstances of the pretended author, or with the age to which they are assigned; but that with the exception, perhaps, of a few passages, the genuineness of which is doubtful, no such incongruity appears in the Gospels ;and lastly, that the consistency preserved throughout each of the Gospels in all that relates to the actions, discourses, and most extraordinary character of Christ, shows that each is a work which remains the same essentially as it was originally written, uncorrupted by subsequent alterations and additions; pp. 88-90.

The thetical part of this discussion being thus concluded, Mr.

Norton comes next to the consideration of the objections and difficulties that have been raised against such views as he has defended. He informs us, that 'strongly as the corruption of the Gospels has been asserted, he is unacquainted with any formal statement of arguments in its proof.'

To the statement which immediately follows, I desire to express my most unqualified assent and to record my warmest approbation. It is too good to be kept from the readers.

Those by whom it has been principally maintained, belong to that class of German critics, who reject the belief of any thing properly miraculous in the history of Christ. But the difficulty of reconciling this disbelief of the miracles with the admission of the truth of facts concerning him not miraculous, is greatly increased, if the Gospels be acknowledged as the uncorrupted works of those who were witnesses of what they relate, or who derived their information immediately from such witnesses. On the other hand, in proportion as suspicion is cast upon the genuineness and authenticity of those writings, the history of Christ becomes doubtful and obscure. An opening is made for theories concerning his life, character, and works, and the origin of his religion. Any account of our Saviour, upon the supposition that he was not a teacher from God, endued with miraculous powers, must be almost wholly conjectural. But such a conjectural account will appear to less disadvantage, if placed in competition with narratives of uncertain origin, than if brought into direct opposition to the authority of original witnesses; pp. 94-95.

Mr. Norton then has cleared himself here most explicitly and fully from the charge that has sometimes been made against him, viz. that he is a Naturalist, or a so called Rationalist of the lowest order. That the Saviour is a teacher from God, and endued with miraculous powers, is what he openly declares himself to believe; unless I have totally mistaken the drift of the above passage. But I should be slow to believe that I have; for whatever Mr. Norton's religious views may be, I apprehend that one of the last things justly chargeable against him would be, hypocrisy and double dealing. He would not speak as he here does, unless his belief were such as I have stated.

It may be proper, moreover, since I am upon this subject, to bring into view another passage in Mr. Norton's Note, p. LXII., which I have read with great, although not with unmingled satisfaction. The passage runs thus :

In regard to the main event related, the miraculous conception of Jesus, it seems to me not difficult to discern in it purposes worthy