been proved by evidence fairly decisive in such matters, that the canonical books as recognised by the primitive Christians, and transmitted to our days, are supported by clearer proofs of their genuineness and authenticity, and have come down to us less injured than any documents of antiquity. The Apocryphal and spurious writings to which allusion has been made, and which Mohammed seems principally to have employed, never received universal assent, but were rejected from the canon; some were of posterior date
Professor Lee takes a very able and satisfactory view of the question in three sections. 1. Examination of the question whether any corruption of the Scriptures took place during the Babylonian captivity. 2. Whether any corruption of the Scriptures took place soon after the birth of our Lord. The nature of the arguments drawn from a consideration of the different versions stated. And after making due allowance for certain varieties of reading, the conclusion drawn, that no corruption has taken place. 3. 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.—Persian Controversies.
