they still continue to submit to the same difficulties. What, it might be asked, could possibly have induced them thus to act, in direct opposition to their own worldly interests, and the express declarations of the word of God, unless we suppose they were impelled by their conscience to do so? But supposing that they acted, in the first instance, from mistake, or to further the views of some ambitious leader. How are we now to account for their continuance in this mistake, when those interests must have ceased; and when they must have learned from other Christians, that such predictions were still to be found in the genuine copies of the Scripture? Again, if the Jews and Christians of Arabia were originally swayed by worldly motives in rejecting Mohammed's claim, still the Jews and Christians of other countries could have had no such motives nor could they have been so wrought upon as to alter their Scriptures, reject Mohammed, and persevere in what they must have known to be error, for no assignable reason whatsoever.

It has often been urged indeed in the preceding tract, that if Mohammed's assertion had not been true, he would hardly have acted so inconsistently as to have made it, when it was in the power of so many to prove its falsehood (p. 341, &c.) To this it may be replied: It can be shewn from the Koran itself, that both the Jews and Christians denied the truth of this

assertion the consequence of which was, a new revelation said to be given, in which both these communities were charged with having corrupted the Scriptures, followed up by a prohibition, that none of the new converts to Islamism should either read or copy them out hereafter. The denial of the Jews and Christians was, therefore, set at nought; and no Moslem was permitted to enquire for himself, whether their assertion was true or not. But how did the Mohammedans act, with respect to this question, when they had made considerable conquests in countries inhabited by the Christians? Was the enquiry then made? No; the documents, as it has already been remarked, necessary for the prosecution of such enquiry, were all destroyed; and the sword was appealed to as the safest arbiter in such questions. Nothing can be more easy, we will allow, than to say that Mohammed was a prophet,—that otherwise the great Ruler of the Universe would not have suffered him thus to have imposed upon mankind, and, therefore, that we ought to place implicit confidence in all that he has said. This is indeed a summary way of settling our question. It is our duty, however, to examine first, and then determine: to ascertain whether the circumstances of the case are such as to demand our implicit confidence, and then to act accordingly. In the present instance, there is not a shadow of probability in the truth of

Mohammed's assertion; and, therefore, it is our duty entirely to reject it.

From what has been said it must appear, that there is no good reason for supposing, that any general corruption of the Scriptures took place from the times of the Babylonian captivity to those of Mohammed; because, nothing short of an universal consent between the Jews, Christians, and Samaritans, could have effected such an object and because it is utterly impossible that such an universal consent could ever have taken place and further, that if the attempt had been made, it must have been known to the Mohammedans, and others, who had every means in their power for discovering and divulging it. That any corruption has taken place since the times of Mohammed, has not been asserted; it will not be necessary, therefore, to pursue the enquiry through the subsequent centuries ending with the present time.

But, as some among ourselves have asserted, and others are still disposed to maintain, that there is some ground for the assertions on which the Mohammedans found their objections: namely, that the Jews have wilfully corrupted the Scriptures, with the view of weakening the testimonies relating to our Lord, it may not be amiss briefly to consider, whether these assertions have any foundation in truth or not.

SECTION III.

THE OPINIONS OF DR. KENNICOTT AND OTHERS, ON THE GENERAL CORRUPTION OF THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES EXAMINED. THE TESTIMONY OF CAPELLUS AS TO THE VERSIONS. THE PRINCIPAL VARIETIES DISCOVERABLE IN THE MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT AFFECT THE GENERAL DECLARATIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES ON POINTS RELATING TO RELIGION.

It has been supposed, and strongly maintained by some, that the Hebrew Scriptures have undergone a wilful corruption by the Jews; and that this was carried into effect for the purpose of opposing the ministry of our Lord. Others have asserted, that although this corruption may not have been undertaken for any sinister purpose, yet, that it is so extensive and pernicious in its nature, as to make it necessary to call in the aid of the ancient versions, in order to correct the original text; and even to have recourse to conjecture, when the versions fail to elucidate certain obscurities, with which we may accidentally meet.

The grounds, on which these opinions appear to have been maintained, may be reduced to the following. First: The assertions found in some of the ancient Fathers of the Church. Secondly: The discrepancies observable in certain passages cited in the New Testament from the Old. Thirdly: A probability, that the text followed by some of the ancient translators differed considerably from that which we now have. And, fourthly The varieties of reading discoverable

in the Hebrew manuscripts themselves, when compared with one another, and with the Samaritan copy of the Law.

It will not be necessary to dwell long on the assertions of the ancient Fathers of the Church, in the first place, because, unless it can be shewn, that these were grounded on documents in their hands, and adduced as facts, of which they had certain knowledge, they can be treated only as opinions, entitled to no particular deference on account of their antiquity; particularly, when we know, that these Fathers had it not in their power to consult the originals, in which it had been presumed the corruptions were made. Many of their assertions lay claim to no better a foundation, than that of the hatred manifested by the Jews to the Christian cause. Of this kind are most of the objections of Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Eusebius of Cesarea, Jacob of Edessa, Eusebius of Emessa, Ephrem the Syrian, Epiphanius, Augustine, and Abulfaragius, as cited by Dr. Kennicott. * Some of them manifestly relate to the Greek text of the Septuagint, and not to that of the Hebrew Bible. Others involve the discrepancies discoverable in the chronologies of the Hebrew and Greek texts, which can by no means affect our general ques

* Dissertatio Generalis, appended to Dr. Kennicott's edition of the Hebrew Bible, §. 75, &c.