business was war with the Bible! It was a congeries of open blasphemy against the word of God in all Bibles, catholic or protestant. But "the writer of it," he added, "must give account to Him who is ready to judge the quick and dead, as St. Peter himself declares; and let this serve as an answer to the dedication of the Review,' now lying before me. But, my protestant readers! what do we say to this Biblical Review? Does it not fulfil St. John's word in the Revelation, concerning the beast and Babylon? Is not this enemy of the Bible drunken with the wine of the great city? How blood-thirstily does this zealot write in his spiritual intoxication, when he says, that the catholic church has a strong arm, and a spiritual and temporal sword, to bring to obedience all heretics, as well as her own rebellious children, if they rise against her with their wrong-headed and obstinate fancies, having their flaming pride lighted up by the Bible!' What would have been our fate all along to this day, had none of the Roman Catholics, especially of those who were high in power, possessed a nobler cast of mind than this; and, above all, had not the faithful God always restrained the wrath of such zealots; who, deaf to the clamours of conscience and humanity, and foolishly imagining themselves always in the right, and us in the wrong, think cruelty sweet, and even please themselves with the idea that (by persecuting us) they are doing God service. Surely many prophecies to this effect, and especially in the Apocalypse, must now be on the point of fulfilment: and well may we arm ourselves with the patience and faith of the saints.

“O that this may be the last occasion of my standing in the gap to vindicate the precious original text of the New Testament! The children of peace cannot love contention; it is troublesome and painful to them to be obliged to contend even for the truth itself. (Gal. vi. 17.) May the Lord Jesus diffuse among us his peace, his grace, and his glory, ever more and more! Ruling even in the midst of his enemies, till he shall have subdued all things; yea, unto Himself!"

Much as he wished to have no further occasion for defending his critical works, his wish could not yet be gratified. For Provost Kohlreif publicly challenged him to a most uncritical measure; namely, to hush the enemies of criticism by admitting that even the various lections were given by inspiration, in order to meet the necessities of various readers. This he felt obliged to answer; and he took the seasonable opportunity of showing its

absurdity, in his " Vindication of the Holy Scriptures," published at Leipsic in 1755. Part I. sect. 20.*

Wetstein also had started afresh against him, by inserting new objections in the second edition of his Prolegomena, in 1749, and by adding the same to his Greek Testament, which came out in 1751. But this piece of acrimony, replenished as it was with tedious minutiæ and personalities, Bengel, happily for himself, never saw. Indeed, the cause of sound knowledge would hardly have gained any advantage by a continuation of the controversy. For Wetstein had now introduced into it so much of an extraneous nature, that he seemed almost to have lost sight of the main object which Bengel desired to keep in view; namely, of deciding whether a reception nearer to the Vulgate be not the more correct one ;-whereas, Wetstein, who had once taken the affirmative side of this question, in agreement with Bentley, had opposed it of late in the most determined manner. On that one point both parties were now so entirely at issue, that no adjustment was to be expected. While then we leave unnoticed Wetstein's additional rejoinder, it is still necessary to justify Bengel's character from one illiberal imputation, that of acting with disingenuous dexterity or double dealing. Bengel, in the preface to his "Harmony of the Gospels," having inserted a letter of Frey respecting Wetstein, which letter was "not in German, like the rest of the preface, but in Latin," Wetstein maintained that this was done with the view both of pleasing the Bâsle literati, and of not offending the illiterate German pietists. Now the most cursory glance at that preface discovers the wickedness of such an imagination; for there we find numerous Latin quotations, which are also left untranslated, because it was presumed that the book would have its learned readers. What double dealing, then, could there be in his leaving untranslated this letter of Frey's?-But it is time to cease noticing the ungracious attacks which Bengel's critical work upon the New Testament drew upon him from various quar

Rather let us pass on to the honourable acknowledgments awarded him by others for his labours and services. As an instance of the rest, we will attend to one whose eminent erudition entitles him to much respect. Dr. Joh. Leon. Hug, professor of divinity in the university of Freiburg, in his "Intro

* See also the second edition of the "Apparatus Criticus." p. 760.

+ See also the more recent edition of Wetstein's Prolegomena, published by Joh. Sal. Semler, in 1764, with Annotations by Semler; pp. 399-430.

duction to the Writings of the New Testament," (2d edit. vol. I. p. 313, &c.) speaks of him as follows:

66

Bengel is the first German who has laboured creditably in this department of learning. While for many years he was engaged as a tutor and lecturer, he was quietly pondering the text of Mill, and early availed himself of Latin and Greek MSS. for consultation. But his valuable industry did not stop here. He proceeded to make numerous collations, and hereby developed more and more his original talent for criticism. For this he was neither indebted to his friends about him, nor to the expensive and valuable helps procured for him, but to the resources with which his own mind was endowed. By long and indefatigable attention, he became quite familiar with the various phenomena of the sacred text, and so well acquainted with the peculiarities and usages of heterogeneous critical documents, that from his own observation he drew out new principles for the profitable application of critical learning. He was the first who classified MSS. according to the incidental agreements which he discovered in their general features and in their particular lections. He discerned in them respectively a common similarity and uniformity, sufficient for evincing two distinct classes; one of which he termed the African, and the other, sometimes, the Asiatic. His observations having thus conducted him to a simplicity of research, and his classification of so many various witnesses having converted them into compact and conspiring parties, he elicited from them certain general principles, whereby he set in motion that present march of criticism which will now proceed, even supposing his own editorial works could ever be forgotten. Wetstein is, in my opinion, deservedly to blame for having neither valued, nor so much as comprehended, Bengel's admirably luminous principles of criticism."

In harmony with these sentiments, has been the general reception of Bengel's critical writings to the present time: and though Biblical criticism became after his death materially advanced every ten years, first by Wetstein, and subsequently by Griesbach and Matthiæ, Bengel's octavo Greek Testament has gone through five editions.

There was published at Oxford, in 1742, (è TheatroSheldoniano, edente Johanne Gambold,) Novum Testamentum Græcum, textu per omnia Milliano cum divisione pericoparum et interpuncturâ, J. A. Bengelii; and in 1745, when the authorized Danish version was revised by command of his majesty the king of Denmark,

the text of Bengel was preferred as the standard for that pur

pose.

A second edition of the "Apparatus Criticus" was published in 1763, by Philip David Burk, "curis beati auctoris posterioribus aucta et emendata;" (enlarged and corrected by the latest labours of its pious deceased author). It contains Bengel's supplementary criticism on the New Testament, with which are embodied his collations of a written copy of another MS. of the Apocalypse. This MS. having been destroyed by a fire at Copenhagen, the copy of it was communicated to Bengel, by J. L. von Mosheim. A particular review of this second edition of the "Apparatus" is found in Dr. John Aug. Ernesti's* " New Theological Library," vol. IV. part ii. p. 109, &c. We shall better learn its value by noticing a few of the principal matters referred to in that review, with Ernest Bengel's counter statements and observations upon it. The reviewer speaks as follows :—“ The Apparatus Criticus of the late prelate Bengel, is one of those books which do honour to our church and country; and though in its general drift and particular remarks it is not without defects and errors, and is far short of a perfect work, nothing of the kind yet published by any member of our own church will bear comparison with it. Its first appearance drew forth great opposition amongst us; for Scripture criticism had been previously very little attended to. The science had hitherto been regarded as dangerous, and even mischievous; but public opinion about it has gradually become quite altered; and Bengel is now not only celebrated in foreign parts, but his merit has been more and more perceived and acknowledged by ourselves; especially since our countrymen have begun in larger numbers to study and engage in works of criticism. This is evident from the first edition being now out of print, and from those continued and frequent inquiries after it, which give good reason to expect a quick circulation for this new

one.

"By comparing the number of pages in the two editions, the augmentation of the second does not appear considerable; for the first consists of six hundred and twelve, and this second, which is of the same type, contains no more than six hundred and twenty. Much, however, upon critical subjects may be furnished

* Professor of Divinity at Leipsic; the well known author of valuable editions of Greek and Latin classics. He died in 1781.

+ Vide E. Bengel's "Elucidation," &c.

It is

within the space of eight quarto pages of letter-press.* to be regretted, that the excellent author either never saw Wetstein's Greek Testament, Bianchini's Evangeliarium, and Sabatierius's Italian version of the Old Testament, or else did not choose to make use of them.†

"Of several pieces in the Appendix, the following here deserve to be noticed :

"1.' An Essay on the duty of preserving the purity of the Greek text of the New Testament;' (Tractatio de sinceritate N. T. Græci tuenda;) which contains a reply to some remarks upon Bengel's work inserted by Dr. Michaelis, in his Tractatio de variis lectionibus N. T. cautè colligendis et dijudicandis; (Essay on the duty of caution in collecting, and deciding upon, the various readings in the Greek text of the New Testament.') Bengel sent it in manuscript to Dr. Michaelis himself, who printed it at Halle with his own observations, in 1750. Bengel said of it to his friends, that 'he could answer Michaelis's remarks, but would not; lest so amicable a contest should lose its agreeableness by prolongation into a controversy.' If the tract of Dr. Michaelis should ever be reprinted, this piece of Bengel's might be usefully annexed to it. "2. Clavicula N. T. Græce ex iteratâ recensione nuper edita; ('A small Key to the Greek Testament, a new edition, repeatedly revised;') which was written chiefly in reply to some strictures of the late Dr. Baumgarten, and is occasionally rather harsh.‡ Baumgarten, though he had not made criticism his particular study, did not want acumen and a pretty good acquaintance with his subject; neither is it unjustly that he upbraids Bengel with having introduced readings of minor importance, and omitted others of greater; nor could Bengel give him any other answer but that it did not belong to his plan to exhibit every particular

* Ernesti altered this remark in part x, p. 490, to the following:-" It was by an oversight (?) that in the review of Bengel's Apparatus, twelve leaves were mentioned instead of twelve sheets; by which it appears that the new edition is a larger work than the old one." This alteration, however, is still more erroneous than his original remark; for he was correct in saying that the second edition contains 620 pages; but this is with the omission of the whole of the Greek text of the New Testament, which was inserted in the first edition; consequently there was a much greater enlargement than the reviewer had noticed.

+ The former of these alternatives is the more probable; and may be accounted for by considering that Bengel, in the latter part of his life, with his new official engagements, his infirm state of health, and his strong anticipation of the nearness of his end, could no longer follow up literary labours with the attention of his earlier years.

The alleged asperity will not easily be perceived, if the manner in which Baumgarten attacked Bengel be impartially considered.