netrating into Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, and at last even to Rome, carried with them copies of the sacred books into all those countries. Thus widely dispersed throughout the world, they could not possibly be corrupted.

V. In the third century before Christ, the sacred books were translated into the Greek language, and again six several times in the second century after Christ. In the course of time they were translated into other languages, and in this manner the copies, into which any corruption that might have been attempted must have been introduced, were placed in the hands of many and widely separated nations. Thus we find that the further we trace these books, the more difficult it becomes to conceive in what manner they could possibly have been corrupted.[b]

[a) Especially as such attempts were strictly forbidden in the books themselves. Deut. iv. 2.]

(b) See GABRIEL FABRICY.de Titres Primitives de la Revelation. Rome, 1772. 2 tom. 8vo.]

13. The Corruption of the Old Testament is in the nature of the thing impossible.

If, notwithstanding what has been said, the corruption of the books of the Old Testament should be still insisted on, it can be shown to be in itself impossible.If the adulteration had taken place previously to the Babylonish captivity, it would have affected those places only which convey censures against the idolatry then so much in vogue, and the passages in which the worship of one God is inculcated: yet the slightest inspection shews that all these are left untouched.- -After the return from the captivity all the Jews held their sacred books in such veneration as to undergo contumely, derision. persecution, and every sort of torments, rather than depart from their injunctions. Comp. the books of Maccabees, and JOSEPHUS Contra Apion. I. 8. Men entertaining such sentiments certainly would not have thought of corrupting the sacred books; nor can we imagine what part they could have been induced to corrupt.In the ages after Christ, indeed, the Jews, being pressed by the Christians with the fulfilment of the prophecies in Jesus, might have been

tempted to tamper with these witnesses concerning the Messiah. But the least examination will prove their innocence of this crime.

-If then the Jews have left untouched those parts which they had the strongest inducements to corrupt, they are certainly to be absolved from the suspicion of having adulterated any other parts.

Every book must be considered as incorrupt, until the contrary is proved. We therefore demand from the opposers of these books clear and indubitable instances of corruptions. Such however have not been given either by those of the Fathers who have accused the Jews of corrupting the Old Testament, or by those modern theologians who have espoused the same opinion.

The Fathers-1) believed the Alexandrine version to have been made by men under the influence of divine inspiration and perfectly to accord with the genuine Hebrew text. Whenever therefore the Jews cited any thing from the Hebrew text in words differing from that version, they asserted it to be a corruption of the true text, and in this manner decided in a cause to judge of which they were utterly disqualified by their ignorance of Hebrew. Hence, 2) the specimens of corruptions which they adduce, have no bearing on the subject; being nothing more than different versions of the same words, sometimes better, sometimes worse, sometimes of equal value with those which they approved; or various readings, generally of little moment. Nor 3) do they all agree in urging this charge against the Jews. Origen, who was skilled in Hebrew, aquits them of it; and Jerome, although he generally consents to the accusation, yet when he speaks seriously, defends the sincerity of the Jews, and refers to Origen as his authority. And even 4) those Fathers, who in their disputes against the Jews charge them with corrupting the Old Testament, are not always consistent; for several of them in treating of other subjects speak of the Jews as faithful guardians of the sacred books, as if they had forgotten what they had elsewhere asserted in their controversies with those same Jews.

The modern scholastics who join in this accusation of the Jews, 1) being generally ignorant of the Hebrew language, take upon themselves the office of judge without possessing the proper qualifi

cations; or 2) if more learned, confound errors and interpolations with corruptions; or 3) lastly, being led astray by too much zeal, suppose that they cannot better defend the Vulgate Latin version from the objections of Protestants than by aspersing the integrity of the Hebrew text. on which alone the latter place reliance. Comp. DU PIN. Diss. Prelim. I. iv. 4. p. 145–154. [On the Canon p. 146. ss.] The Christian church generally, however, has not sanctioned the accusation against the Jews, as is evident from its proceedings in all ages.- -In the second century it received the Greek versions, which were derived from the Hebrew text; the version of Daniel by Theodotion was even used in public worship.In the third century the Hexapla of Origen, in which the Hebrew text was twice copied, was approved of, and even the Alexandrine version altered to agree with it; and further, this correction of the Greek version of the Hebrew text, was used in public worship by the churches of Palestine.In the sixth and seventh centuries the Latin church adopted the version of Jerome, made immediately from the He brew, which was again, in the end of the eighth or beginning of the ninth century, by Alcuin, and afterwards in the sixteenth century, by the theologians under the inspection of Sixtus V. and Clement VIII., partially corrected by a comparison with the Hebrew text.These facts abundantly prove that the untarnished integrity of the Hebrew text has been acknowledged in all ages. [a]

The instances of supposed corruptions by the Jews, which have been advanced in modern works, are errors in various readings, with perhaps the single exception of Deut. xxvii. 4, where the Jews seem to have altered into y for the purpose of depriving the Samaritans of the argument in defence of their establishment of a temple and place of worship in Mount Gerizim. For an account of the other instances which have been alleged, see Einleit. Th. I. § 14. S. 65, and § 149-151. S. 521-538.

[a) The principal assertor of the corruption of the Hebrew text was JOHN MORIN, a priest of the Oratory at Paris, who maintained his hypothesis in his Exercitationes Biblicæ, 1633-1669. He was strongly opposed by several writers, among whom the most eminent was SIMON DE MUIS, in his Assertio Hebraicæ veritatis altera, Parisiis, 1634, 8vo. This work was answered by MORIN in his Diatribe Elenchica de Sinceritate Hebræi Græcique textus dignoscenda, Parisiis, 1639, 8vo. DE

Muis replied warmly in his Assertio tertia, Parisiis, 1639, 8vo. Vossius, in his Chronology, and in his work on the Septuagint, espoused the opinions of MORIN, but with little strength of argument, or success. SIMON, Hist. Crit. du V. T. L. I. c. xviii. xix.]

§ 15.

The books of the Old Testament are worthy of credit.

See

In order to constitute the books of the Old Testament documents of unquestionable authority, it is not sufficient that they should be genuine and incorrupt, which it has hitherto been my object to prove them; but it is also necessary that they should be worthy of credit. That they are so, shall now be shown.

A historian is worthy of credit when he has had sufficient opportunities of becoming acquainted with the truth, and is disposed impartially to declare it. They may be said to have had opportunities of ascertaining the truth respecting any particular transactions, who have been natives of the country in which they took place, or at least, have lived in the times in which they occurred, or who have been both natives and contemporaries. A still greater degree of certainty attaches to the information of men who have been present at or concerned in the transactions which they describe, or have been governors or rulers, who themselves administered and directed all the af fairs, and consequently were perfectly acquainted with them all. So also they who undertake to give a history of times antecedent to their own, are the more worthy of confidence, if they have derived their information from public or domestic documents of the country and times in question, especially if these should be written by persons present at the transactions, or themselves concerned in them or acting as rulers.-The sincerity of the narration must be admitted, if there is no reason to suspect the insertion of any thing false, or the omission or misrepresentation of any thing through partiality. This must be allowed to be the case, if the author affords no ground for suspicion, but relates of his own nation and its leading men, of his own relations and connexions, and, if he took part in the transactions, of himself, not only what is honourable, but also whatever may have occurred that is disgraceful; and if he does not anxiously endeavour to excuse any thing of this latter sort. Lastly, the know. Jedge of transactions and the sincerity of the account given of them.

are much less to be called in question, if the work has merited the confidence of its contemporaries, who were competent to judge of the truth of the facts and of the veracity of the account.- -That all these circumstances unite to prove the credibility of the sacred writers, can easily be shown.

Moses in his last four books narrates events all of which took place in his own time, in all of which he not only was personally concerned, but had command; so that it was impossible for any thing that occurred to be unknown to him.In the first book he relates a more ancient history, which he drew from ancient documents: the fidelity with which he has made use of them, appears from his suitable combination of the different documents into one body; from the frequent recurrence of titles; from the difference of style, of language, and of manner of narration observable in the different fragments; and from the preservation of obsolete words which he did not allow himself to change for others, but thought it preferable to retain, with explanatory additions.The sincerity of his narration is conspicuous in every part in the history of the earlier periods he is brief, rejecting fictions, and being unwilling to relate any thing doubtful or uncertain: the faults of the patriarchs, of his own nation, of his ancestor Levi, and of his brother Aaron and his sister Miriam, are told candidly and without any attempt to excuse them : he does not conceal his own homicide, neither does he defend himself; he mentions his own timidity, pusillanimity, and indecision, nor does he conceal the aid and counsel which he received from others; Ex. iii. 11. iv. 10. ss. v. 22. s. xvii. 4. xviii. 12-26. Num. xi, 10-15. xiv. 1-11. Deut. i. 37. iii. 23-29. iv. 21. s. xxxi. 2. xxxii. 50-52.—Lastly, what he had written he publicly committed to the chief men of the nation, and read to all the people and all of them, who had with their own eyes beheld the transactions which he had recorded, unanimously received his books as true.

The rest of the historical writers of the Old Testament generally relate events more ancient than their own times.- -1) It appears from their writings that their accounts were compiled by them from public and contemporary documents, with such care that they often preserved even the words and phrases of their authorities, and even frequently in express terms refer their readers to the public annals