1.  The only legitimate criticism of the sacred text is that which has for its object to restore it, as far as possible, to its primitive form.  Had we the autograph of Moses in the exact form in which he deposited it in the sanctuary (Deut. 31:26), this would be a perfect text; and so of any other book of the Old Testament.  In the absence of the autographs, which have all perished, we are still able to establish the form of their text with a reasonable degree of certainty for all purposes of faith and practice.  The means of accomplishing this are now to be considered.

2.  Here ancient manuscripts hold the first place.  It is obvious, however, that in settling the true reading of a given passage we cannot look simply to the number of manuscript testimonies.  The quality of the manuscripts must also be taken into account.  Here age is of primary importance.  Other things being equal, the oldest are the most worthy of credence, as being nearest to the original sources.  But, in estimating the testimony of a manuscript, there are other qualities besides age that must be carefully considered—­the care of the transcriber; its freedom from interpolations by later hands (which can, however, as a general rule, be easily detected); and especially its independence, that is, its independence as compared with other manuscripts.  We may have a group of manuscripts whose peculiar readings mark them as having come from a single source.  Properly speaking, their testimony is valid only for the text of their source.  The authority of a single independent manuscript may be equal in weight to their combined testimony.  Then, again, the character of the different readings must be considered.  The easiest reading—­that which most naturally suggests itself to the scribe—­has less presumption in its favor than a more difficult reading; and that on the simple ground that it is more likely that an easy should have been substituted for a difficult reading than the reverse.  There are many other points which would need discussion in a work designed for biblical critics; but for the purposes of this work the above brief hints are sufficient.

The Masoretic manuscripts have a great degree of uniformity, and are all comparatively recent.  Chap. 14, No. 7.  We have reason to believe that the Hebrew text which they exhibit has a good degree of purity.  But we cannot consider these manuscripts as so many independent witnesses.  The text of the Samaritan Pentateuch is independent of the Masoretic text.  Could we believe that we possess it in a tolerably pure form, its critical value would be very great.  But, according to the judgment of the best biblical scholars, it has been subjected to so many alterations, that its critical authority is of small account.

3.  Next in order come ancient versions, the value of which for critical purposes depends on their character as literal or free, and also upon