one of the finest speeches in all the history. The speech I mean is that of Judah to his brother Joseph, then governor of Egypt, offering to ransom his brother Benjamin by the sacrifice of his own liberty. It is impossible for any one, whose taste can relish genuine simple nature, not to be deeply affected with that speech as it is in the Pentateuch. On reading it, we are perfectly prepared for the effect which it produced on his unknown brother. We see, we feel, that it was impossible for humanity, for natural affection, to hold out longer. In Josephus, it is a very different kind of performance-something so cold, so far-fetched, so artificial, both in sentiments and in language, that it savours more of one who had been educated in the schools of the Greek sophists, than of those plain, artless, patriarchal shepherds.

The other thing that deserves our notice in this author, is the excessive fear he had of exposing himself to the ridicule of his Greek and Roman readers, whose favour he very assiduously courts. This hath made him express himself on some points with such apparent scepticism, as hath induced many to think that he was not a firm believer in his own religion. But this, on a closer examination, will be found entirely without foundation : on the contrary, he piques himself not a little, on the distinction of his nation from all others by the knowledge and worship of the true God. But he did not write his history to make proselytes, and therefore chose to put on those parts of his work, which he thought would expose him most to the sneer of the infidel, such a gloss as would make it pass more easily with Gentile, and even with philosophical readers, (for he had an eye to both), amongst whom we know the Jews were branded with credulity even to a proverb. It may be thought, indeed, that with regard to the more ancient part of his history, as nothing in point of fact can be got from it which is not to be learnt from the Bible, that part, at least, can be of little or no service to Christians. But even this conclusion would not be just. As the historian himself was a Pharisee, a contemporary of the Apostles, and one who lived till after the destruction of the Jewish temple and polity by Titus Vespasian, we may reap instruction even from his errors. They will serve to show,

what were the tenets of the sect at that time, what were their notions both concerning historical events and sacred institutions, and what were some of their principal traditions. All this to the Christian divine is a matter of no little consequence, for the elucidation of several passages in the New Testament, which allude to such erroneous sentiments and vain traditions. From the time of the rebuilding of the temple under Ezra, to its final demolition, and the total extinction of the Jewish government by the Romans, Josephus alone affords almost all the light we have.

The two books of Maccabees are the only other ancient monuments now extant of the transactions of that people within the aforesaid period. These books, though they are not acknowledged by Protestants to be canonical scripture, very well deserve your attention as historical tracts of considerable antiquity, and, to all appearance, worthy of credit. We have indeed, in English, an excellent work of Prideaux, called, The Connexion of the Old Testament History with that of the New, which I would also earnestly recommend to your perusal. I hope I scarcely need to mention, that it is more proper for the student to read Josephus in his own language than in a translation: it will thus answer a double end, as an exercise in Greek as well as in history.

To the knowledge of the sacred, it will be found proper to add as much at least of profane history as is most nearly connected with it, and may serve to throw some light upon it; together with a little of the chronology and the geography of the times and the countries about which the history is conversant. The connexion which the four great monarchies, the Assyrian, the Persian, the Macedonian, and the Roman, have with the Jewish history, is manifest; but as to these, it is by no means requisite that, in this place, I should be particular. The Jewish history is necessary to the theologian, the others are useful: the former ought to be begun immediately, the latter should be studied afterwards, as ye find leisure and opportunity: But we do not incline to embarrass you with a needless multiplicity of directions.

In the next prelection I intend to begin with some observations on the history of the sacred canon.

LECTURE II.

THE subject of this day's discourse is, as I hinted to you at a former meeting, some observations on the nature and utility of the history of the sacred canon; to which I shall add some reflections, tending to explain both the origin and the character of that species of history which is denominated ecclesiastical. As to the history of the canon, it will be proper, in the first place, to give an explanation of the phrase. That book which we Christians denominate the Bible, Bẞλos, the Book, by way of eminence, and which is also termed the canon, and the sacred canon, comprehends a considerable number of treatises or pieces, totally distinct, composed (for the most part) at periods distant from one another, and in sundry places, written by diverse pennen, on different subjects, and in various styles; nor were they all originally in the same language. The greater part of the books which compose the Old Testament are in Hebrew, a small part in Chaldee, and all the books of the New Testament in Greek; at least, if the originals of any of them were in another tongue, they are not now extant: some are in prose, and others in verse; some are historical, some juridical, and some prophetical: some instruct us by the way of simple narrative; some are written in a highly figurative and allegoric diction ; some in a vehement and declamatory, others address us in a free epistolary strain: one piece is a collection of devotional hymns and prayers, another is an assemblage of moral maxims and observations. The name canon, in like manner as the word Bible, we have borrowed from the Greek. The term navwv, with them, signifies rule, or standard. Now the scriptures are thus denominated as being eminently the great rule or standard to the Christian, in all that concerns both faith and manners. Hence also those writings, of whose authenticity and inspiration there is sufficient evidence, are termed canonical scripture.

Now, concerning the several books of which the Bible is composed, a number of questions naturally arise in the mind of the inquisitive student. Such are the following:-Who were the writers and compilers, and at what periods, in what places, and on what occasions, were the writings and compilations made? Whence arises that authority they have so generally obtained? Has this been an immediate, or a gradual consequence of their publication? Has the Christian world been unanimous in this respect in regard to all these books, or has it been divided as to all, or any of them? and, if divided, what have been the most cogent arguments on the different sides? How, by whom, where, and when, were they collected into one volume? What hath been their fate and reception since? What have been the most remarkable editions and translations they have undergone? What the variations occasioned by these, and what the most eminent paraphrases and commentaries they have given rise to ?—I would not be understood by this enumeration, as meaning to insinuate, that all these questions are of the same importance. There is a manifest and very considerable difference among them in this respect. A succinct account, however, of all the facts which would serve for a solution to the several queries abovementioned, those at least which are of principal moment to the theologian, would constitute what is commonly called the history of the sacred canon.

The utility of such inquiries to the theologian is the point which naturally comes next to be discussed. As the questions themselves are pretty different in their nature, however much connected by their concurrence in composing the history of the Bible, the purposes they are fitted to answer are also different. In order to prevent mistakes, let it be observed once for all, that, by the history of the Bible, I do not here mean the history contained in the Bible, but the history of the compilement, and of the various fates of the book so denominated. The same thing may be said of that synonymous phrase, the history of the canon. As to those queries which regard the origin of the sacred books, they are chiefly conducive for confirming the truth of our religion; and as to those which regard their reception, good or bad, with all the

consequences it hath produced, they are chiefly conducive for illustrating its doctrines. I use the word chiefly in both cases, because, in inquiries into the origin of the scriptures, discoveries will sometimes be made, which serve to illustrate and explain the meaning of things contained in them; and, on the other hand, in inquiries into their reception, with its consequences, we shall often be enabled to discover the grounds of the favourable reception they have met with, and thereby to trace the vestiges of a divine original. To the former class belong questions like these: Who were the writers? When, where, for whose use, and to what purpose were they written? Whence arises the veneration they have drawn? Why, by whom, and on what occasion or occasions, were they collected?—To the latter class belong the following: In what manner have they been received in different countries, and at different periods? To what causes does the reception, whether good or bad, appear imputable? What are the most eminent editions? What are the principal variations to be found in the editions and manuscripts still extant? What translators and commentators have been occupied in conveying and illustrating their doctrine to the most remote nations and distant ages?-In the discussion of such questions, especially in what regards the books of the New Testament, there arises a number of curious investigations, tending to discriminate the genuine productions of the authors whose names they bear, from the spurious pieces ascribed to them; the authentic dictates of the Holy Spirit, from those which, at most, can only be styled apocryphal, that is, hidden or doubtful. That the church was early pestered with a multitude of fictitious accounts of the life of Christ and the labours of his apostles, is manifest, not only from the concurrent testimony of all antiquity, but even from the introduction which the evangelist Luke hath given to his Gospel: "Forasmuch," says he, as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us." It is universally acknowledged, that John's Gospel was not written till a considerable time afterwards; and if none had preceded Luke in this work but Matthew and Mark, he would never have denominated them many.

66