the Gospels was founded upon the belief, real or pretended, of their being the genuine works of those to whom they were ascribed. The statement, therefore, resolves itself into the following dilemma. Either the great body of Christians determined to believe what they knew to be false; or they determined to profess to believe it. The first proposition is an absurdity in terms; the last is a moral absurdity; p. 40 seq.

On p. 42 seq. the reader will find a long and interesting Note, which contains an examination of some additional positions of Eichhorn's in the second edition of his Introduction to the New Testament, and which are in themselves substantial contradiction of his opinion as stated in the preceding paragraphs. Yet although he has, in this new edition, represented the present copies of our Gospels as coming in tacitly and without opposition during the period between A. D. 150 and 175, and this by virtue of weight and authority given to them in consequence of their titles, (i. e. The Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, etc.), yet in another part of this second edition he has left the passages that have been quoted and examined above, just as they were in the first edition of his work. This, on the part of Eichhorn, is presuming a great deal, either on the good nature of the public toward him, or on their stupidity; for stupid they must indeed be, in case they should not perceive that his two positions are quite at variance with each other.

The general argument in favour of the integrity of the New Testament Mss. and Codices down to the present time, as exhibited in the preceding pages, may be applied, as Mr. Norton supposes, in its full strength, to the Mss. in circulation near the end of the second century. In order to shew how difficult it would have been to bring about any considerable changes in copies of the Gospels at that day, Mr. Norton endeavours to calculate, as near as may be, how many copies of these, at the least estimation of their numbers, must have been in circulation.

Our present Gospels, it is conceded, were in common use among Christians about the end of the second century. The number of manuscripts then in existence bore some proportion to the number of Christians, and this, to the whole population of the Roman empire. The population of the Roman empire in the time of the Antonines is estimated by Gibbon at about one hundred and twenty millions; and, probably, it had not decreased at the period of which we are speaking. With regard to the proportion of Christians, the same writer observes: "The most favourable calculation will not permit

us to imagine, that more than a twentieth part of the subjects of the empire had enlisted themselves under the banner of the cross before the important conversion of Constantine." If not more than a twentieth part of the empire was Christian at the end of the third century, just after which the conversion of Constantine took place, we can hardly estimate more than a fortieth part of it as Christian at the end of the second century; p. 45 seq.

The author then adduces several passages, and very striking ones they are, from Pliny and Tertullian, which shew that the estimate of one fortieth part for Christians, falls, in all probability, very far short of the truth. He accepts it however, because he chooses to come much within the bounds that may be thought just and proper, rather than hazard any thing by going a step beyond them. He then proceeds:

"The fortieth part of one hundred and twenty millions, the estimated population of the empire, is three millions. There were Christians without the bounds of the empire, but I am willing to include those also in the number supposed. At the end of the second century, then, there were three millions of believers, using our present Gospels, regarding them with the highest reverence, and anxious to obtain copies of them. Few possessions could have been more highly valued by a Christian than a copy of those books, which contained the history of the religion for which he was exposing himself to the severest sacrifices. Their cost, if he were able to defray it, must have been but a very trifling consideration. But a common copy of the Gospels was not a book of any great bulk or expense. I shall not, therefore, I think, be charged with over estimating, if I suppose that there was one copy of the Gospels for every fifty Christians. Scattered over the world as they were, if the proportion of them to the heathens was no greater than has been assumed, fifty Christians would often be as many as were to be found in any one place, and often more; but we cannot suppose that there were many collections of Christians without a copy of the Gospels. Origen, upon quoting a passage from the New Testament, says that it is written not in any rare books, read only by a few studious persons; but in those in the most common use." In truth, there can be little doubt, that copies of the Gospels were owned by a large portion of Christians who had the means of procuring them; and in supposing only one copy of these books for every fifty Christians, the estimate is probably much within the truth. This proportion, however, will give us sixty thousand copies of the Gospels for three millions of Christians; pp. 49-52.

To forestall the objection here, that the copies of the Gospels could not have been so numerous, because of the high price VOL. XI. No. 30.

36

of Mss. in ancient times, the author has given us in a Note, some matter of curious interest respecting the price of ancient books. Martial, in his Epigrams, has stated the price of his 13th book, which contains 272 verses, to have been four sestertii; or, if this should be thought too much, two sestertii, which would still leave a profit, as he says, to the bookseller. The last named sum amounts to about seven cents of our money.

With such facts in view, one can scarcely refrain from believing, that the estimate of 60,000 copies of the Gospels as being in circulation at the close of the second century, is far-very far-within the bounds of truth. Other facts adduced by the author cast still more light on the subject, and render it altogether probable, in my apprehension, that if he had doubled, or even trebled, the number of copies, he would still have been within the bounds of truth and soberness.

Now as Irenaeus, about 180, asserts the general reception and acknowledged authority among Christians of the four Gospels, in language as strong and as unlimited as would be employed at the present moment, it must follow of course, as Mr. Norton justly concludes, that these Gospels had been a long time in circulation, in order to be so widely diffused and universally received.

In Chapter II. Mr. Norton proceeds to adduce other considerations, which serve to confirm the position which he has taken. He shows, in the first place, that "it would have been inconsistent with the common sentiments and practice of mankind, for transcribers to make such alterations and additions as have been imagined, in the sacred books which they were copying." Such practices do not appear in the works of Thucydides, Tacitus, and other historians. But the Gospels, in addition to the usual motives for care in transcription, present the highly important and influential ones which are drawn from their being deemed sacred. They were the basis of the Christian religion, inasmuch as the words and deeds of Jesus, recorded in them, must be the foundation of this religion. It would have been deemed sacrilegious, therefore, to have purposely mutilated or disfigured these records in any way whatever.

To illustrate and confirm this, Mr. Norton brings passages from Papias, Justin Martyr, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and others, which are quite to his purpose, and fully exhibit the common sentiments of Christians at that time, in respect to preserving the integrity of

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 origiBut this cannot be satisfactory. The literality of ancient translations is too well known to be in general called in