NOTE. It will perhaps tend to the elucidation of the argument, to offer a few remarks on the several copies of the Pentateuch, mentioned above. 1. Of the extraordinary attention employed by the Jews, in order to the incorrupted preservation of the integrity of the Hebrew text, Mr. Butler remarks, in his Hora Biblica: 66 : The Jews bestowed on the copies made by them, even an excess of care. It has been a constant rule with them, that, whatever is considered as corrupt, shall never be used, but shall be burnt, or otherwise destroyed. A book of the law wanting but one letter, with one letter too much, or with an error in one single letter, written with any thing but ink, or written on parchment made of the hide of an unclean animal, or on parchment not purposely prepared for that use, or prepared by any but an Israelite, or on skins of parchment tied together by unclean strings, shall be holden to be corrupt: that no word shall be written, without a line first drawn on the parchment; no word written by heart, or without having been first orally pronounced by the writer: that before he writes the name of God he shall wash his pen; that no letter shall be joined to another; and that, if the blank parchment cannot be seen all round each letter, the roll shall be corrupt. There are settled rules for the length and breadth of each sheet, and for the space to be left between each letter, each word, and each section. These Maimonides mentions as some of the principal rules to be observed in copying the sacred rolls. "But the attention of the Jews was by no means confined to the writing of the copies of the holy word; they made almost incredible exertions to preserve the genuineness and integrity of the text. They counted all the verses, words, and letters of all the twenty-four books of the Old Testament, and of each of those twenty-four books, and of every section of each book, and of all its subdivisions. They counted the number of all the similar words of each section, and of every subdivision. For instance, so many times the word ELOHIM occurs in the first subdivision of the first section, so many times in the second, &c. They counted every word that must be written with a certain letter, which is called full with such a letter, and which word, would have the same sound without that letter. They counted every word that must be written without such a letter, and which word would have the same pronounciation if written with that letter. They pointed out every verse in which such or any other word occurs, by mentioning the first three or four words, the first part of each sentence in which that word is written, in such and such a manner, that is, with or without such a letter, &c.'" 2. The Samaritans were partly of Hebrew extraction. Their language was originally the same as that of the Jews, differing only, at a later period of their history, in the character in which it was written. The feud which existed between these two nations, was very ancient, and like other religious animosities, exceedingly bitter. Had it commenced after the completion of the Old Testament canon, there would have been no reason, why each party should not have preserved its own copy of the prophets and hagiography, as well as of the law; and the circumstance of the Jews only possessing the latter scriptures, or admitting their plenary authority, proves that they were not written while there was any considerable commerce between these two nations. This fact alone therefore gives to the Samaritan Pentateuch an undeniable date of more than four hundred years before the Christian æra. Another proof of its antiquity, is that the ancient Hebrew language, in which it is written, ceased to be the vernacular language of the Samaritans at a very remote period; and hence, it became necessary to have the sacred books translated into the vulgar Samaritan. The original text and this version, both in the Samaritan character, may be found in the London Polyglot, Tom. I. Besides this, there was a Greek version, made for the use of those Samaritans, who only understood that language, as the Septuagint was used by the Hellenistic Jews.* * See Prideaux's Connections, VOL. I. pt. i. b. 6. To the believer in the divine authority of the Bible, there appears a remarkable proof of God's providence in the existence of these distinct editions of the books of Moses ;-preserved as they were, for centuries before the Christian æra, by nations so notoriously hostile to each other, and handed to us, after the lapse of between two and three thousand years, by the undoubted posterity of their respective original possessors :each having been the foundation of several versions, which in their turn, have tended to confirm the authority of their originals:-neither varying from the other, so as at all to affect the credibility of the history or the authority of the doctrines of the Pentateuch, and yet each sufficiently distinct to prove its perfect independency, and to shew the specific difference between the religious opinions and customs of the Jews and the Samaritans. 3. The Greek version of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, was undertaken by the command of Ptolemy Philadelphus, who reigned in Egypt A. C. 280. It was from the beginning received by the Hellenistic Jews, and was read in the synagogues throughout Egypt, Greece, Asia, and even in Jerusalem itself, the Hebrew being understood by the scribes and priests only. One of the most decisive proofs of the estimation in which it was held, is to be found in the abundant use made of it by the writers of the New Testament, which, whatever credit may otherwise attach to them, proves at least that it was a version in common use in that age. Upwards of one hundred and fifty passages in the New Testament are quoted from the Septuagint, and many of them without the slightest literal alterations. These may be found in Horne's Introduction.* The miraculous passage of the Red Sea to which the text refers, is related alike by the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and the Targum or Chaldee paraphrase, on the part of the Jew; and by the Hebreo-Samaritan, and the Samaritan version, on that of the Samaritan, with which, in all essential facts, Josephus agrees. Vide Antiq. l. ii. c. 15, 16. Beyond this accumulated written testimony, it is proper to remark, that the Arabic names of places in the neighbhourhood of which this prodigy is alleged to have occured, give a strong confirmation of the * Vol. II. pp. 386-424. history of Moses. The encampment of Israel is in the book of Exodus called PHI-HAHIROTH, which signifies the mouth of holes. The present Arabic name of that point on the borders of the Red Sea, which corresponds with the Phi Hahiroth of Moses is THOUAIRECQ, i. e. gaping holes or conduits, names obviously of the same origin, and probably derived from some small reservoirs in that place, of which the remains are still to be observed. The plain at the extremity of which Thouairecq is situated, is now called the plain of BEDE-the unparalleled prodigy. Its northern extremity is a range of craggy mountains -the BAAL ZEPHON, (Lord of the North) of Scripture,—now named EUTAQUA, which signifies both north and place of deliverance. The southern boundary of Bede is a similar range, the loftiest point of which is now called KORICABE, which is synonimous with MIGDOL of the Hebrew, both words describing an elevated and impregnable situation.* * PERE SICARD quoted in SCHIMMELPENNINCK'S Biblical fragments. VOL. I. pp. 201-203. CHAPTER IV. INFIDEL OPINIONS OF SCRIPTURE PROPHECIES. Scripture prophecy worthy of a divine Author-and likely to win belief.—Mr. Paine's abuse of the prophets of the Old Testament.-The absurdity of the opinion that the prophecies were written after the events to which they are supposed to allude— or that prophecy was fulfilled by mere casualty.—The predictions of Moses respecting the dispersion and calamities of the children of Israel.-Prophecies referring to Christ.—The prophets destitute of all ordinary motive.—Infidelity dishonourable to God. PRESCIENCE belongs to God alone; but no reason appears why man may not be divinely instructed on the subject of futurity. There is no natural obstacle on his part, to the reception of such information, since he is capable of memory and hope; nor any apparant moral hinderance on the part of God, to its communication. He who believes that God could certainly reveal the doctrines of the immortality of the soul and a future state, is, à fortiori, compelled to admit, that on less important future events, there is no law which constrains the Deity to hold his rational creatures n entire ignorance. God, it is true, cannot |