Besides, it is plain, from the manner in which preceding attempts are mentioned, that several of the accounts that had been given were such as could not be depended on; otherwise this circumstance, that many had undertaken the work before him, instead of being a good reason for his taking up the subject, would have been a very strong reason for his not doing it, since Christians were already so amply supplied with information. But the very expressions he uses evidently contain an insinuation, at least, that the writers he alludes to had not themselves been sufficiently informed of the truth: "It seemed good to me," says he, "having had perfect understanding of all things, from the very first, to write them to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus."

But to return to the two classes into which the questions relating to the history of the canon were divided, they will generally be found, agreeably to the observation already made concerning the principal utility of each, to be treated by authors of different denominations with different views. -Those who, as defenders of revelation, have entered the lists with its adversaries, more especially those who, like Stillingfleet in the last age, or Lardner in the present, have applied themselves to support the authority and inspiration of the scriptures, did always consider themselves as under a necessity of doing something for our satisfaction, in regard to the questions of the first order. Those, on the other hand, who have assumed the character, not of the champions of religion, but of its interpreters, do commonly attach themselves more to the discussion of the questions of the second order. Accordingly, we find a great deal of information on these topics in the works of some of our scriptural critics; whether they come under the denomination of scholiasts, paraphrasts, commentators, translators, or barely editors, particularly the two last. The only examples of these I shall now mention, are Houbigant's Prolegomena to the different parts into which he has divided his Latin version of the Old Testament, and Mill's and Wetstein's Prolegomena to the splendid and valuable editions they have given of the Greek New Testament, with the various readings. These I only mention by the way, as deserving to be carefully perused by

B

you, if you should happen to meet with them. For all the three (especially the first) being voluminous and expensive works, and not very common, there are not many that, in this part of the world, have an opportunity of consulting them.

There is indeed one author, who, in a particular work written on purpose, has, with a good deal of judgment and acuteness, treated all the questions of both classes above enumerated: the author I mean is Richard Simon, a priest of the Oratory, commonly known by the name of Father Simon. This man first published, in French, a book entitled A Critical History of the Old Testament, which was soon after followed by another in the same language, entitled A Critical History of the New Testament; both which together complete the history of the sacred canon. This work has been translated, not badly, into Latin. There is a translation of it into English [which I have seen] that is very ill executed, in regard both to the sense and to the expression. In relation to the character of the performance, it will not be improper to make here a few observations. In the first place, it clearly evinces in the author a large fund of erudition, accompanied with an uncommon share of critical sagacity and penetration; and, I may justly add, a greater degree of moderation than is generally to be met with, in those either of his sect as a Romanist or of his order as a priest. What particularly qualified him for the task he has undertaken was, not only his thorough acquaintance with ancient history, sacred and profane, but his profound skill in the oriental languages, and in all branches of rabbinical literature. To say thus much is no more, in my apprehension, than doing justice to his abilities and indefatigable application: at the same time it is but doing justice to you, my hearers, to take notice of what I think amiss in his performance. I told you, and told you truly, that he shows more moderation than is customary with those of his sect and order, yet not so much of impartiality as not to betray, on several occasions, that (if he was not a disguised freethinker, as has been suspected by some eminent Catholics) he was deeply tinctured with the servile spirit of his church. Hence the implicit deference

he sometimes officiously displays, to human prescriptions, to oral tradition, to those customs which can plead the sanction of antiquity, or of a general reception, however absurd they may be when examined on the principles of reason, however unscriptural, or even anti-scriptural, when examined on those of holy writ: nay, I might add, his deference to those practices and tenets, concerning which his knowledge and discernment must have satisfied him, that their origin was such as could by no means serve to recommend them. Hence also the propensity he shows, on every occasion, to insist on the ambiguity and obscurity of the scriptures, which he greatly exaggerates, and on the need of an infallible interpreter. Hence the straitened and ambiguous manner wherein he expresseth himself on some delicate points, which he could not altogether avoid mentioning, and on which it is plain that he did not think himself at liberty to speak out his sentiments. On such topics, ye will perceive a timidity and caution, very unlike the generous freedom and boldness of a man who hath ever been unaccustomed to the galling yoke of human authority. He puts one in mind of the situation described by the poet, and even appears to consider himself as incedens per ignes suppositos cineri doloso. But I shall say no more here of this author, having had an occasion of late both of giving and of supporting my opinion of him, more fully, in the third preliminary dissertation to the translation of the Gospels, to which I refer you. As to his work I may justly say, that on the whole, with all its errors and defects, (and what human composition is exempt from errors and defects?) the Critical History of the Old and New Testaments contains a valuable fund of knowledge, and deserves an attentive perusal from every serious inquirer into the divine oracles. On some points he has been warmly opposed by some Protestant divines, to whose animadversions on his work he has returned answers. The controversy is published in the later editions of his book. In some things they appear to be in the right, but not in all.

Houbigant also, another priest of the Oratory, has, in the work of his above-mentioned, freely animadverted on some of Simon's observations. He too is no inconsiderable critic,

though of a very different turn. The excess of Simon (where alterations appeared necessary) perhaps was diffidence; of Houbigant, temerity. I am not sure, that some of our modern English critics on the Hebrew Scriptures are not chargeable with this fault of Houbigant—I mean their making too free with the text, in setting aside the common reading for the sake of emendations merely conjectural. But as to these things, every person ought to judge for himself. I purpose to lay only the materials before you, which may serve as premises: it is yours to canvass and arrange them, and to draw the proper conclusions. It is not my province to dictate, but to suggest. Your assent to any opinions that might be laid before you would be of little value, if it were the result of a lazy and implicit confidence, and not of a careful examination and rational conviction. Let me only subjoin, before dismissing this article, a recommendation of Michaelis's Introductory Lectures to the Sacred Books of the New Testament, which will deserve your serious perusal. Thus much shall suffice for what concerns the history of the canon, and the valuable purposes to which this branch of knowledge is subservient.

I proceed now to consider the ends which may be answered by ecclesiastical history, and to inquire what is the readiest and most profitable way of studying it. Before that memorable era, the incarnation of the Son of God, the history of the church of God was the history of one particular people, first distinguished by the name of the patriarch Israel, otherwise called Jacob, whose descendants they were; and, after the loss of the ten tribes, who were carried into captivity by Shalmanezer king of Assyria, denominated from Judah, one of the sons of Jacob, and one whose progeny the greater part of the remnant were, the nation of the Jews. The history of that people, and the history of the church, was, under the Mosaic economy, the same thing. Neither do we find in the annals, and other remains of those ancient times, the least vestige of the distinction of a community into church and state, such as hath obtained universally in the nations who have received the Christian law. This distinction hath given rise to a species of history, whereof the world before had not

conceived so much as an idea. It may not therefore be improper, in the first place, to trace its origin, that we may the better apprehend what is meant by the history of the church. When we consider attentively the institution of Moses, we perceive that it comprehends every thing necessary for forming a civil establishment; not only precepts regarding the disposition and morals of the people, and the public and private offices of religion, but also laws of jurisprudence; such as regulate the formalities of private contracts, inheritance, succession, and purchases; such as fix the limits of jurisdiction and subordination of judicatories-appoint the method of procedure in trials, both civil and criminal—and the punishments to be awarded by the judges to the several crimes. I may add, it comprehends also a sort of law of nations for the use of that people, in adjusting the terms of their intercourse with other states and kingdoms, and prescribing rules to be observed in making and conducting peace and war, entering into public treaties, and the like. In this polity or state, however, we find that what concerns religion forms an essential, or rather the principal part. Every thing in their constitution seems to act in subserviency to this great end, the preservation of the purity of their faith and worship. In this there was a very material difference between them and Pagan nations. In these last, the established superstition, in whatever popular traditions it may have been originally founded, was modelled by the ruling powers in such manner as that it might best answer the purpose of an engine of government. The religion of such nations, therefore, can be considered in no other light, than as one of those political machines which in various ways co-operated for the support of the whole. With the Jews, indeed, the case was totally different; for, in their establishment, the religion was manifestly not the means, but the end.

God hath been considered as in some respect the chief magistrate or head of that community, and the government for that reason has been not unfitly termed a theocracy. Thus much seems even implied in the words of God to Samuel, when the people became solicitous to have a king. And even when the kingly sway was established among them, the