Prophet will become guilty of a tautology, for which, perhaps, no good reason can be given. Let us, then, read the text, as he would have it : "That they may possess the residue of mankind, and of all the heathen, &c." But this is not all, the citation differs in other respects from the Hebrew text, and agrees, for the most part, with the Septuagint. St. Peter, therefore, may have cited that text, as containing all that was necessary for his purpose, which was, to declare the purposes of God with respect to the Gentiles. The part contained in the prophecy relating to Edom, had now ceased to interest the Jews, and, therefore, it was not necessary that he should bring it forward on this occasion. Had it fallen to his lot to prove, that the Hebrew Scriptures had undergone no corruption, he probably would have cited the text in exact conformity with the prophecy, as we now have it. We may, therefore, dismiss Dr. Kennicott's remark as of little importance.

Having considered some of the most formidable allegations of Dr. Kennicott, it may not be necessary to go through the whole of his Dissertatio to shew, that no reliance can be placed on the charge of wilful corruption, with which he has charged the Jews. Should it be necessary, this can be done at some future time. We proceed, therefore, thirdly, to notice the varieties which are found to exist between the

LL

ancient versions of the Scriptures, and the Hebrew text, as we now have it.

The most learned and elaborate work, that has appeared on this subject, is the Critica Sacra of Capellus; a work, which cost its author the labour of more than thirty years. Upon the opinion of Capellus, therefore, some stress may be laid, as to the facts which had been the result of his own enquiries. After a most minute investigation of this subject, then, the following is among his conclusions. "Non minus ex iis, quæ supra disputata sunt, planum est id quod statim initio monuimus, et sæpius toto opere inculcavimus, plerasque omnes, quæ observari et deprehendi in sacris libris possunt, varias lectiones, levissimi esse ac pene nullius momenti, ut parum admodum intersit, aut vero perinde omnino sit, utram sequaris, sive hanc sive illam."* And again, "Raro admodum aut vix unquam sensus ex varia lectione oritur vel nullus prorsus, vel falsus, vel ineptus atque ridiculus, vel rectæ fidei et bonis moribus adversus atque contrarius.”

The utmost made out by Capellus was, that the translators appeared in several places to have read a word differently, either with regard to the vowels, the consonants, their position, the collocation of words in a sentence or the like;

Critica Sacra Capelli. edit. Scharfenburg. tom. II. p. 928-9.

which, in some instances, would cause a little variety in the sense, construction, or pronunciation but in no case, does any difference appear as to doctrine, predictions, or historical facts. These appear the same, both in the versions, and in the Hebrew copies, as we now have them. The only difference discernible is, that those which respect the Messiah are much more explicit and clear in the Hebrew copies, than they are in the versions. Some of the versions made by the Jews and others unfriendly to Christianity, have, no doubt, wilfully obscured some of the declarations respecting the Messiah: but this affects not our question. We profess not to gather our religious knowledge from them. We only make use of them to ascertain, whether they translated from the Hebrew text as we now have it. Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, for example, have given in Isaiah vii. 14. η νεανις, the young woman, instead of maplevos, the virgin, as given by the Septuagint. Yet here we can have no doubt, that both translated from the word by, as we now have it in the Hebrew copies. This sort of errors, therefore, does not affect our question.

The real discrepancies, however, appear to be much fewer than Capellus has represented them, as his editor Scharfenburg has ably shewn. We need not, therefore, be at all disturbed on their account.

Let us, in the last place, notice the discre

pancies found to exist among the Hebrew manuscripts themselves. After the laborious collations of Dr. Kennicott and De Rossi of all the Hebrew MSS. of any note to which they had access-of the several editions of the Hebrew Bible-the citations found in the Talmud, the Commentaries, and other writings of the Jews, it appeared, that very few various readings of any importance existed and that those which did, affected no point of doctrine, prediction, or historical fact whatsoever. The far greater number consisted in the addition or omission of the letters N, 1, or ', which seldom affect the sense and never on any important point. Some arose from the Scribes having mistaken one letter for another, similar either in form or sound. But in no instance has it appeared, that even these variations can be ascribed to a vicious disposition on the part of the copyists. The whole may be satisfactorily accounted for, on the consideration of human infirmity, from which nothing, with which man has any thing to do, is entirely exempt. Similar varieties of reading, we know, exist in the several copies. of the Koran, yet no one has thought of accusing the Koran, on this account, of having undergone any wilful corruption.

That the Jews have given false glosses on the Scripture is certainly true: but, as they can lay claim to no exclusive knowledge of the meaning of its context, we are at liberty to shew, that those

glosses are false whenever we meet with them. The same may be done either by a Mohammedan or Hindoo, who has previously furnished himself with the knowledge necessary for such enquiry. But no one can assume the position, that because the Jews have been inimical to Christianity or Mohammedanism, they have therefore corrupted the Scriptures: or, because they have given false glosses on its meaning, we may therefore be excused if we neglect to make out their real meaning.

CHAP. III.

THE USUAL DEFINITIONS OF MIRACLES DIFFICULT OF APPLICATION IN OUR QUESTION. THE STATEMENTS OF THE SCRIPTURE, ON THIS SUBJECT, THE SUREST CRITERIA BY WHICH ANY ONE MIGHT BE KNOWN TO BE A TRUE PROPHET: NAMELY, THE PREDICTION OF FUTURE EVENTS, IN SUPPORT of DOCTRINES CONFORMABLE WITH THOSE ALREADY REVEALED. MOHAMMED'S CLAIM TRIED BY THESE CRITERIA. SOME STATEMENTS OF THE MOOLA CONSIDered AND REFUTED.

HAVING shewn, that the context of the Holy Scriptures, as we now have them, may be relied on, we proceed, in the third place to enquire, what the intimations are, which they have given of the character of a prophet, by which it may certainly be known, that he has come from God. Of the various definitions of miracles and other