Such is the history in brief of this copy of the Pentateuch, since it was brought from the East to Europe. And here the first question, which naturally suggests itself to the mind, is, how do we know it to be a copy of the same text with that lost one, which was in the hands of the Fathers in the third and fourth centuries of the Christian era? All doubts on this point have been put to rest by the exact correspondence of our present copies with the citations made by the Fathers. In comparing the quotations of the Fathers from the Hebrew with the modern Hebrew text, considerable discrepancies are not unfrequently detected. But with such care have the Samaritans transcribed their manuscripts, that these are found to contain all the citations made more than a thousand years before, and in the very words, in which they then were made. Precisely the same agreements and differences, too, between the Hebrew and Samaritan texts, which the ancients noticed as existing in their day, are found between our present copies of the Hebrew and Samaritan. There can remain no doubt, then, that the manuscripts anciently in use, which the Fathers had from the Samaritans of their time, were transcripts of the same text, that was brought from the East in the seventeenth century; and thus it is clearly traced back to the beginning of the third century after Christ.

And further; from that memorable conversation between our Saviour and the woman of Samaria, recorded in the Gospels, may we not gather hints of its existence among the Samaritans of Naplosa, (or Sychar, as it was then called,) at the commencement of the Christian era ? The narrative in the fourth chapter of John furnishes abundant evidence, that this Samaritan woman, in common with her countrymen, confidently expected the coming of a Messiah. "The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ;" and when, upon her glowing representations of his supernatural powers, her townsmen of Sychar were persuaded to come and see the man, who had told her all things that ever she did, they believed and said; "Now we believe we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ."

Thus

which to ground a decisive judgment. With the exception of the remarkable copy so long preserved among the Samaritans of Naplosa, allowed on all hands to be of very high antiquity, probably none of the manuscripts extant date farther back, than the tenth century of the Christian era. One, however, Kennicott assigns to the eighth century. Most of them are supposed to be of much more recent origin.

we find the expectation of a Messiah to come prevailing then as extensively among the Samaritans as among the Jews; but whence was it derived? Not from intercourse with the Jews; for the Jews would have no dealings with the Samaritans, nor the Samaritans with them; neither would they have borrowed a fundamental doctrine of their religion from their most deadly enemies. Not from the writings of the Prophets; for they did not acknowledge the divine authority of any Scriptures, but the Five Books of Moses. These, then, must have been in their hands, or they never would have looked for the appearance of that greater Prophet, which was to be raised up, like unto Moses.

From these various testimonies, it may safely be inferred, that the Samaritans had their copy of the Pentateuch as early as the time of our Saviour-a copy, which, without going further, it would be fair to presume, had come down to them from the infancy of their nation, just as another copy had been handed down among the Jews. But if it be an independent copy of the Law, it must date nearly a thousand years still farther back, than the period to which we have hitherto traced it. At what time, then, and from what source did the Samaritans receive it? These are the most important inquiries, which now come up for our consideration; but, as they have met with many different answers, it may be well to say a word first in relation to the history of opinions on the subject under discussion.

No sooner had a copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch come to light, than a warm controversy arose among European critics as to its true origin and character. On the one hand, it was treated with contempt, as a comparatively modern and worthless transcript from the Jewish text, wilfully corrupted by the Samaritans; while, on the other, it was esteemed a treasure of inestimable value to the Church, as being an independent copy of the Law, which had descended from the most ancient times. It does not fall within our present purpose to detail all the various opinions, that have been held with regard to its date and its proper authority in settling the text of the Pentateuch. The main point in dispute, however, has been— whether it be of Israelitish origin, and so an original copy of the Law, independent of the Hebrew, or a mere transcript from the Jewish, made by the Samaritans in later times. And it is upon the decision of this question, that almost its entire value may be said to depend.

Father Morin- the same, who published the first edition of it that was printed in Europe began the controversy in his "Exercitationes Ecclesiastica in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum." He came to the conclusion, that the modern Samaritan text was derived from copies existing among the Ten Tribes before the Separation, and yet had been preserved singularly free from corruption. Cappell in his Critica Sacra," and Walton in his "Prolegomena" to the London Polyglot, both followed in the steps of Morin. In the mean time, Morin's theory was warmly opposed by Hottinger, Leusden, Stephen Morin, and the younger Buxtorf. Father Simon and Le Clerc gave the world their views on the questions at issue between the critics. The controversy was afterwards revived by Houbigant in his "Prolegomena." Houbigant, who adopted Morin's theory, was answered by S. Ravius in his "Exercitationes Philologica." On the same side with Houbigant appeared A. S. Aquilinus in a learned treatise entitled "Pentateuchi Hebræo-Samaritani Præstantia in illustrando et emendando Textu Masorethico ostensa." The theological scholars of Germany have entered into the controversy with their characteristic ardor, and, as was to be expected, arrived at very different conclusions. Among the most conspicuous may be mentioned the names of Michaelis, Bertholdt, Bauer, Jahn, Eichhorn, and Gesenius. Eichhorn may be considered a fair representative of those, who agree with Morin in regard to the Israelitish origin of the Samaritan copy. At the head of the opposite party, who assign it a more modern date, may be ranked Gesenius, who attacked the positions of Eichhorn and others in an elaborate treatise, published in 1815, and entitled "De Pentateuchi Samaritani Origine, Indole, et Auctoritate."

In English almost nothing has been written concerning the claims of this Pentateuch. Prideaux, in his Connection, has given a few pages to the subject. Archbishop Usher suggested the theory of its having been compiled from a Hebrew and a Greek copy by Dositheus, a heretic of the first century, who at the same time corrupted the text. But there is so little foundation for this hypothesis, that critics since have hardly deemed it worthy a serious consideration. Whiston and Alexander

Geddes have both maintained the equal or superior authority of the Samaritan text. But by far its ablest defender in England, (unless we ought to except Walton) has been Kenni

cott in various works, particularly in a Dissertation to be found in his second volume on the Hebrew Text.*

In reviewing the history of this controversy, it is easy to see that the discussion has not always been carried on in that calm and candid and liberal spirit of philosophy, without which no critical investigations can lead to any useful results. There appears, on the part of some who embarked in the contest, a strong but unjustifiable reluctance to admit the independent authority of the Samaritan copy. They still retained the old, superstitious veneration for the Hebrew verity, as the Jewish text was wont to be styled a veneration, which they could not be supposed willing to transfer, without a struggle, to a new text, but just introduced to the notice of the Christian world, and found to differ considerably from the Hebrew.† And if, while the Samaritan differed from the Hebrew, it was allowed to be as ancient and valuable, as it was represented, it would follow that some errors existed in the Hebrew; here, then, would be another awkward stumbling block in the way of

*The reader, who may wish to consult the original authorities for the leading facts stated in this Essay, will find them in the following works:

Walton's Prolegomena to the London Polyglot, Cap. xi.; Kennicott on the Hebrew Text, Vol. II.; Whiston's Essay on the True Text of the Old Testament; Eichhorn's Einleitung in das Alte Testament, B. II., pp. 132-177; Simon's Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament, pp. 63-83; Houbigant's Prolegomena, Tom. II., pp. 121-188; and the Dissertations on the Samaritan Letters in the Third Volume of Calmet's large Dictionary.

As a good specimen of the manner in which the Samaritan Pentateuch was first received in Europe by critics of the old school, who obstinately clung to their cherished idea of the absolute integrity of the Jewish text, we quote the following from Houbigant's Prolegomena. We give the passage in the original Latin, as a literary curiosity, and for fear it might lose some of its spirit by any translation of ours.

"Videres alios," says Houbigant, "Samaritanas illas membranas religiosè aversari, atque ab Hebraicæ Linguæ Candidatis longè arcere, alios iratè aspicere, furere, bacchari. Nam, ut ferunt Indicas aves, si cujus de grege illarum nigro collo album quid per lusum alligaveris, cæteras eam iratis oculis aspicere, atque in eam rauco clangore impetum facere, sic illi Samaritanum Pentateuchum, Hodiernis Codicibus non nihil discolorem quem viderent, agebant, rapiebant, discerpebant, clamoribus miris calumniisque proscindebant. Tales fuêre Taylor et Bootius, qui in Morinum furiatâ mente exarserunt. Talis etiam Junior Buxtorfius, qui eum Pentateuchum vocabat exoticum et profanum."

those, who still adhered to the popular doctrine in regard to the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. Besides, since Christianity grew out of Judaism, and as it is to the Jews that we owe our Scriptures of the Old Testament, some would think it wanting in respect to God's chosen people and the sacred record of His revelations to them, to acknowledge the independent, perhaps superior authority of a copy of the Law received through the Samaritans, the ancient and implacable enemies of the Jews. These various considerations appear to have exercised an unfavorable influence upon the tone of some of the earlier inquiries into the origin and character of the Samaritan copy. And more recently, the German critics, who have taken hold of the subject, have many of them naturally hesitated to adopt a theory in regard to the antiquity of this copy, which it would be found impossible to reconcile with their views of the comparatively modern compilation of the Books of Moses. The questions involved in this discussion cannot be considered as settled yet. To the present day there continues no little difference of opinion on the subject among scholars of high repute. One thing, however, is certain; a vast majority of the biblical critics, whose opinions carry much weight with them, have gradually settled down in the theory first advanced by Father Morin, namely, that the Samaritan Pentateuch is an original copy of the law, which has come down to us from the Revolt of the Ten Tribes. And after the most careful investigation, we are firmly persuaded this is the theory, in which the whole theological world will finally acquiesce.

The theory of Morin, we said; but it is not a mere theory unsupported by facts. In the absence of direct historical testimony, it stands on the most solid grounds, which the nature of the case admits. It affords an easy and satisfactory solution of some extraordinary phenomena, which on any other hypothesis are inexplicable.

Nothing but the existence of the Pentateuch among the Samaritans from the infancy of their nation will explain the most striking circumstances in their religious history. If they always had the Law in their hands, we see how it is that they never lost the worship of the true God. But, on any other hypothesis, whence, we ask, was derived their national religion, and why was it not soon overwhelmed by the superstitions of the neighboring nations? If then it shall appear, that they