4. But, "whatever be the condition of thefe MSS; yet are they, when taken all together, but very few, compared with the printed editions." So far from these MSS being few, they amount to about 500. My first Differtation specified 70, in our own country; where I have fince difcovered as many more. And if I fhould add about go, which I have seen in France, together with thofe fent to me at Oxford from other foreign parts; the whole number, which I myself have feen, and in part examined, amounts to about 250half the number of the whole, known at prefent in Europe. In the fcale, oppofite to all thefe MSS, are to be now put our modern printed editions; which, as they are almost all taken from the edition of Ben Chaim, in 1525, are reducible in point of authority nearly to that one edition. The oldeft editions, which were printed on a very different plan (i. e. not from MSS the moft perfectly Maforetical, which were the lateft, but from MSS the leaft Maforetical) which were the oldeft) are now very fcarce and uncommon; and indeed thefe fall not within the force of this objection.

5. But, "however numerous the MSS, now extant, may be, they are all late and modern; therefore, not to be compared with thofe ufed by the Maforetic Doctors, above 1000 years ago; and from thefe MSS was our text taken." MSS, of 600, 700 and 800 years of age, are certainly not modern, and to this antiquity may feveral of thefe MSS fairly pretend. A MS, not more than 600 years old, is of refpectable antiquity; especially, when compared with one of 400 or 300: and it is from MSS of thefe later dates, that our common printed editions have been derived. The editions muft agree with the MSS, from which they have been taken, The modern editions agree, and they agree only, with the latest and worst MSS; whereas the older the MSS arc, the more they vary from the modern editions, and vary almoft univerfally for

the better.

"

6. But, as the Chaldee Paraphrafe was taken from MSS near the time of Chrift; and as that Paraphrafe agrees with the modern Hebrew Bibles, in many of the places charged with late corruption: fuch places are certainly uncorrupted" This objection, which has a plaufible appearance at firft, will immediately vanish, when it is obferved, that the modern Chaldee Paraphrafe is (for it has been proved from Chaldee MSS-fee my Second Differtation, pag. 177, &c.) wilfully altered, in feveral places, to make it agree with the modern He brew Text.

7. But, as the Samaritan Pentateuch is fo notoriously corrupted, the Hebrew Text must be preferred, wherever it

differs

differs from the Samaritan." There are indeed many grofs errors in the Samaritan Pentateuch, as it is printed in the London Polyglott (an edition in general highly excellent and meritorious). but then the Samaritan MSS are free from, and will therefore correct, thefe errors. And indeed the Samaritan Pentateuch fhould, in my opinion, be held very precious; becaufe I apprehend, that fome places in the Hebrew Pentateuch will never be intelligible, nor others ever become defenfible, till corrected agreeably to the Samaritan. And it is very material to observe, that the older even the Hebrew MSS are, the more they agree with the Samaritan. Of the Samaritan Pentateuch I have feen Twelve MSS: only Sixteen are now known in Europe; and, of these, Eight are collated for my Work already.

8. But, 66 any fond hopes of great matters from Hebrew MSS must be ill-grounded the trial has been made, and publifhed; for 5 MSS, at Erfurt, were felected to adorn the Hebrew Bible printed by Michaelis, at Hall, in 1720; and the various readings, therein exhibited from these MSS, are fo few, and these few fo trifling, that it is a wonder how the collators could fo weary themselves for very vanity!" This would indeed be a little difcouraging, if it were really fact, But the truth is, that thefe MSS have been strangely mifreprefented, in that edition; and that they contain important variations, which were not fuffered to appear in that Bible. For the learned Editor, being a devotee to the Mafora, publifhed fuch variations only, as would not difgrace the Text Maforetically now established. The proof of this important article has been already mentioned, in pag. 86. But I cannot again mention this discovery, without celebrating that very ingenuous candour, and that ardent love of truth (fuperior to every Family confideration) which rendered my very learned friend Profeffor Michaelis, not only zealous to find out the real fact, but also ready to communicate it.

9. But," all thefe Hebrew MSS, now fo pompously recommended, are fpurious and full of faults; and were fold by Jews to Chriftians, becaufe not worthy of admiffion into the fynagogues."-So eafy a thing it is, to affirm roundly, without the leaft fhadow of proof! If indeed it be a crime to differ from the printed copies, in having readings more agreeable to the Context, more agreeable to the Antient Verfions, and more agreeable to the New Teftament; then must these MSS, efpecially the older of them, plead Guilty: otherwise, every fuch variation exalts their honour, and encreases our obligation. Some of thefe MSS were written by renowned rabbies; and others, for the ufe, or at the command, of

their

their princes and great men. There is one, above 550 years old, written in the days of Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, and therefore probably by that famous rabbi himself, because it contains his Commentary; in which MS are many and valuable variations. And I have found many and valuable variations, in another MS; which did belong to a Synagogue, and to a Synagogue in Jerufalem itfelf; which was preferved there, as very precious and very venerable but it now belongs to the magnificent library of His Majefty The King of Great Britain.

10. But," as all the printed copies, in whatever part of the world printed, have very nearly, if not abfolutely the fame text; that text, thus uniformly eftablished, must have been taken from MSS better, and more to be depended on, than thofe now produced with fuch very ftrange variations." What is here fuppofed, or rather taken for granted, has lately been found, not only to be without foundation, but also to be the very reverse of the truth; because "fome of the printed editions differ from others," as much as the MSS do from the printed editions, and from one another. One only, which is the very first edition of the whole Hebrew Bible, printed in 1488, has more than 12000 variations from the text, as now commonly printed; very many of which variations greatly affeat the fenfe

Laftly. But," as this one may be the only printed edition, which has many and great variations, it may have been taken from a very bad MS." The peradventures, in this last objection, can prove nothing. And how feeble and vain are conjectures, when confronted by real facts! The edition of the Hagiographa, printed in 1487, and that of the whole Bible, printed in 1494, having also been collated for this work, are found to contain thousands of variations; many of which are of indifputable importance. And yet thefe two editions differ fo much from each other, and from that of 1488, as to prove, that they were not printed from one another.

In confequence of the discovery laft mentioned, and of the feveral other difcoveries fpecified in the articles preceding, it follows, with the force of demonftration that "a careful collation of the best Hebrew MSS, and of the oldest printed editions, is The Method abfolutely neceffary to be taken, in order to the forming of a proper judgment, concerning the Hebrew text of the Old Testament." And therefore, fince we have now seen the various objections, attended with their feveral confutations ; fince we have been witneffes to the laft breathings of a dying opinion, concerning the integrity of what is greatly oorrupted; and fince the abfolute neceffity of fuch a collation, as I have under

of military operations; without paffing over in filence the memorable exploits of heroes, he principally fets before our eyes the manners, the laws, the paffions, the follies of mankind, the changeful caprices of fortune, the regular connection of caufes with effects. No author was ever more fuperior to the prejudices which darken hiftorical truth. If, as a proteftant, he fometimes affronts the fanctity of our tenets, yet he does not difguife the madness or the wickedness of his own fect; if, as a fubject of Great Britain, he is attached to the principles of his own country, he attempts not to palliate the exceffes which the fanaticifm of liberty has produced there; he is not unjuft to other nations; he as little flatters popular prejudices as the interefts of the court; always impartial between the violent factions which divide the kingdom, he seems to be the organ of the judgement of pofterity, and his countrymen would applaud him, as well as lefs prejudiced foreigners, if parties would unite in favour of a writer who has the fingular merit of favouring none. In fhort, philofophy and policy have dictated the history of Mr. Hume, one of the beft adapted ever written, under proper reftrictions, to form the fage, the statesman, and the citizen.

The Revolutions of England, by F. Orleans, will not bear a comparison with the exact and comprehenfive hiftories of which I have been speaking. This is a work more brilliant than folid, more pleafing than inftructive; his ideas of government, of legiflation, and of manners, are very fuperficial; all that regards the Stuarts, is written with too glaring a partiality; the French jefuit there regulates most of his opinions, either by the interefts of the court of Rome, or by the principles of the French monarchy; as if the conftitution of England did not, as even its fovereigns acknowledge, differ effentially from that of other nations; as if the regal authority had not there fome limits, which it cannot pafs, without infringing on the rights of the nation. Civil and political actions are laudable or blameable, according to their agreement or disagreement with the laws of each refpective country. That which would be thought patriotifm in Switzerland, or Holland, might be treated as rebellion in England; and that which would be deemed by us a legal exertion of authority, might at London be an act of ufurpation and violence.'

In the latter part of the preface the author, recounting some of the important inftructions which may be derived from hiftory, thus difplays the mifchievous effects of a misguided zeal.

Read only, may we fay to imprudent zealots, the English annals. Experience is the moft certain of all guides. Confult

it,

it, and then form your judgment. Scarce had William the Conqueror established his dominion by arms, when Gregory VII. attempted by his bulls to fubject the whole Christian world to the pontifical throne. He treats as fimony and herefy, an ancient cuftom, which has no object. but to maintain the rights of crowns over the temporalities of the church. Under this frivolous pretence, he depofes fovereigns, and obliges them to draw the fword, in their own defence, against the fpiritual power which they revere. The primate, St. Anfelm, conceives it his duty to refift kings, as if he acted in the cause of God himself; and the kingdom is already filled with difturbances which expofe the clergy to hatred and oppreffion. Do illegal immunities ferve them for a rampart? The falfe decretals furnish them with new claims: St. Thomas of Canterbury indifcreetly fupports them; he oppofes the accuftomed ufages of England, which he treats as impieties; the epifcopal order divides, the ftate is in flames, the throne appears tottering; a horrible marder puts an end to the quarrel: Becket is its victim; but the fire extinguished by his blood leaves inflammable materials, which only require a spark to rekindle them. After the anathemas and exactions of the court of Rome have wearied the patience of the English, and that the monks, the blinded ecclefiaftics, have augmented the fubjects of murmur by prote&ing insupportable abuses, a daring fetary, Wickliff, irritated by the pope, forms from thefe abuses a torrent of invectives against the church; by decrying its minifters, he faps, he overturns its authority; he fhakes its doctrines, by attacking its power and riches; he ftirs up the people to range themfelves under the ftandard of a liberty bordering on fedition; and though he finks under the enterprize, his here, ever renewing, gives birth to twenty other fe&s, equally deftru&tive to the ancient faith. Behold Henry VIII. after having perfecuted the Lutherans, become the enemy of Rome, and the perfecutor of the Catholics; affume the fupremacy, and erect himself into an abfolute mafter in matters of faith, becaufe the fentence of excommunication was promulgated against him at the very moment when he was about to confent to fatisfy the holy fee. Behold the blazing piles of Mary giving to fanaticifm martyrs, whose courageous defence increafes the number of its votaries. Behold the excommunication of Elizabeth, firmly establishing that fchifm which the tyranny of her fifter had been unable to extirpate. Since that time, how often have we seen these transports of zeal followed by the most fatal effects! Catholics, Proteftants, Partizans of the church of England, Prefbyterians, realizing what Ammianus relates of the fourth century, during the Arian