As these considerations are far from being the bottom and foun- dation of our faith, in our assenting to the authority pf God in the Word, so, on the supposition of what is so, they have a usefulness, as to support in trials and temptations, and the like seasons of diffi- culty: but of these things so far.
OF THE INTEGRITY AND PURITY
HEBREW AND GREEK TEXT OF THE SCRIPTURE;
CONSIDERATIONS ON THE PEOLEGOMENA AND APPENDIX TO THE LATE " BIELIA POLYGLOITA."
PREFATORY NOTE.
There is a tendency to acquiesce iu tlie general vei'dict against our author for the part he took in the controversy with Walton on the subject of the London Polyglott, without any very careful inquiry into the grounds on which it rests. Dr Owen, we are convinced, has been the victim of unintentional misrepresentation on this point, partly through the dexterous management of Walton, partly through his own want of caution in properly defining his position, and partly because on some points he was completely in error. Dr T wells, in his biography of Pococke, accuses Owen of writing against the Polyglott ; and Mr Todd, in his biography of Walton, bitterly re-echoes the charge. Even his friendly biographer, Mr Orme, intimates that he viewed the Polyglott " with jealousy or disap- probation." No statement could be more unfounded. Transparent honesty and perfect truthfulness were leading features of his character ; and we cannot think of him as speak- . ing in any other terms but those of waim and unfeigned admiration, when he eulogizes the Polyglott as "a noble collection," "a great and useful work," "which he much esteemed," and when he declares that he " would never fail, on all just occasions, to com- mend the usefulness of the work, and the learning, diligence, and pains , of the worthy per- sons that have brought it forth." Dr Chalmers, also, in reference to this controversy, censures Owen as " illiterate " for the views he expressed in it, and contrd,sts " the lordly insolence of the prelate " with " the outrageous violence of the puritan." There is moi-e of alliteration than truth in the contrast. Walton's short-lived prelacy did not begin till after his controversy with Owen ; and the charge of " outrageous violence " against the latter appears to have been suggested by the misi'epresentation of his antagonist. Owen professed a desire to conduct the dispute " with Christian candour and moderation of spirit ; " and, on the whole, he redeemed his pledge.
On the nrinute and multifarious details of biblical literature, our author assuredly must yield the palm to Walton. It was not his province. But the real merits of the controversy between them involve two questions, and by his opinions on these it must be judged whether the condemnation so unsparingly heaped on him is altogether well founded. Those questions relate to the various readings in the original text of Scripture, and to the antiquity of Hebrew punctuation.
1. On the subject of various readings, Owen had submitted, in the epistle dedicatory, at the beginning of the former treatise, ample evidence that Papists had resorted on a great scale to the artifice of magnifying the corruption of the text, in order to exalt the Vul- gate and support the claim of their church to infallibility. As critical research multi- plied the various readings by the inspection of the ancient codices, Protestant divines took alarm, and, trembling for the ark of truth, discountenanced such inquiries. That Owen was altogether free from the panic cannot be affirmed. We must sympathize,
346 PREFATORY NOTE.
however, with any pious jealousy for the honour of the holy oracles, in an age when sound principles of criticism had not been clearly established. It will be new, moreovei", to many readers, who have hitherto assumed as true the cliarge against Owen of igno- rant autipatliy to the duties and advantages of sacred criticism, when they are told tliat he not only admitted the existence of various readings, but held that if any others could be discovered from a collation of manuscripts, they "' deserved to be considered ;" dif- fering in this respect from Dr Whitby, who, at a later period, in 1710, published his "Examen Variantium Lectionum," in opposition to Mill's edition of the New Testa- ment, taking up ground from which Owen would have recoiled, and insisting that every woi'd in the common text stood as originally written, — " in iis omnibus lectionem textCis defend! posse." Owen acknowledged and proclaimed the foct, that in spite of all the variety in the readings, not a single doctrine was vitally affected by them. In regard to them, he objected to the unnecessary multiplication of very trivial differences, — an objec- tion of no moment, stated in a single sentence, and never afterwards pressed. He ob- jected further to the practice of Cappell, in making innovations on the received text by the authority of translations only, on the ground that these translations were made from copies essentially different from any now extant. He exonerates ^yalton from this error, but deems him not sufficiently careful to refrain from admitting into his Polj'glott read- ings gathered from such a source. It was against Cappell's theory that he chiefly wrote ; and some strong expressions used in regard to it are quoted by Walton, in his reply to the following treatise, as directed sweepingly against the Polyglott. Few now would ratify the innovations of Cappell. Dr Davidson, in his standard work on biblical criti- cism, " sighs over the groundless conjectures introduced into parts of the Old Testament text by Cappell." Owen's main objection, however, reproduced frequently in the course of his tract, was against the attempt to amend the text by mere conjecture. There is still a diversity of opinion as to the legitimacy of this source of criticism. Grriesbach repudiated the use of it in his edition of the New Testament. Marsh would avail himself of it in regard to the Old Testament, but not in regard to the New. Davidson reckons the cautious use of it lawful in regard to both. At all events, Walton himself professed to discard it as an instrument of criticism; and yet, as Owen shows, he admitted into the Polyglott the conjectural emendations of Grotius. Even Simon, an admirer of Gro- tius, while commending his notes, complains that he " sometimes multiplies the various readings without necessity." So far, therefore, as it was a question of principle between them, Walton was not in advance of Owen. So far as it was a question of fact, Owen had rather the best of the dispute.