takes to initiate the student in a knowlege of the O. T. yet no Hebrew lexicon, nor Hebrew concordance, nor Lyra prophetica, is recommended. In a subsequent edition, no doubt, these. defects will be supplied; as the Bishop, with a candour that is highly honourable, has promised that he shall very readily attend to any suggestion or advice which he may receive, whether it relates to error or omission.'-We deem the study of sacred criticism not only very curious and amusing, but supereminently instructive; and we therefore highly applaud the object which Dr. P. has in view in this undertaking, namely, to give a taste for theological pursuits' to the country clergyman; who often, through ignorance of this gratification, abandons himself to the mere sports of the field, or to other trifling and inconsistent amusements. None of the Bishop's readers more ardently wish him success than we do; and we are sorry if we cannot, in every instance, speak as highly of the execution as of the object and design of the present work: to a more particular examination of which we now proceed.

The subject is divided into three parts, relating to the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the English Establishment. Part I. is divided into four chapters; in the first of which the author treats on the authenticity and inspiration of the books of the Old Testament. As the work is professedly a compilation, we need scarcely say that the arguments here brought forwards are not new: but we incline to think that the R. R. writer might, with propriety and advantage, have bestowed more attention in repelling important or insidious objections, In p. 5, we meet with the following assertion: • It appears from Deuteronomy, that the Book of the Law, that is, the whole Pentateuch, written by the hand of Moses, was by his command deposited in the tabernacle, not long before his death. -in proof of this, Deut. xxxi. 26. is quoted: but from that verse it will be difficult to shew that the law there said to be written by Moses, and placed in the ark by his order, was any other law than the Deuteronomy itself*; much more that it contained the whole Pentateuch.

The following assertions also seem to require support; that the other sacred books, which were written before the building of the temple, were consigned to the same sanctuary, as they were successively produced;-and that, when Solomon finished the temple, he directed that these books should be removed into it; and also that the future compositions of inspired men should be secured in the same holy place. Where can we find these facts in the Bible? For a part of them, the

The words are " take this book of the law.”

Bishop quotes the credulous Epiphanius: but even the credulous Epiphanius does not state such facts. He tells us, indeed, at the conclusion of the chapter here quoted, that certain books were not deposited in the ARON, or ark of the covenant: but he says nothing about Solomon, and his pretended directions. His words, speaking of two of the apocryphal books, are xai žutai ບ χρησιμοι μεν εισι και ωφελίμοι, αλλ' εις αριθμόν ρητων ουκ αναφέρονται διο δε ετε εν τω της διαθήκης κιβωτῳ. Peri metron. c. 4. Though this passage may imply that certain sacred books were deposited in the ark, by particularly excepting some that were not, it does not follow, as a necessary inference, that all and each of the books in our present canon were there; nor that the respective works of Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Joel, Nahum, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, (why is Isaiah omitted?) Habakkuk, and Obadiah, all of whom flourished before the Babylonish captivity, were regularly deposited in the temple.'-In this age of inquiry and scepticism, it is dangerous to faith to erect conclusions on insufficient premises.

We shall now make a considerable extract from the continuation of this argument; without comment or critique :

Whether these manuscripts perished in the flames, when the temple was burnt by Nebuchadnezzar, we are not informed. But as the burning of the Scriptures is not lamented by any of the contemporary or succeeding prophets, and as the other treasures of the temple were preserved and set apart as sacred by Nebuchadnezzar, it is probable that these autographs also were saved; and more especially, as it does not appear that Nebuchadnezzar had any particular enmity against the religion of the Jews. If however the original books were destroyed with the temple, it is certain that there were at that time numerous copies of them; and we cannot doubt but some of them were carried by the Jews to Babylon, and that others were left in Judea. The Holy Scriptures were too much reverenced, and too much dispersed, to make it credible that all the copies were lost or destroyed; and indeed we find Daniel, when in captivity*, referring to the book of the law as then existing; and soon after the captivity, Ezra not only read and explained the law to the people †, but he restored the public worship and the sacrifices according to the Mosaic ritual; and therefore there must have been at that time, at least á correct copy of the law; for it is impossible to believe that he would have attempted the re-establishment of a church, in which the most minute observance of the rites and ceremonies prescribed by Moses was not only absolutely necessary for the acceptable performance of divine worship, but the slightest deviation from which was considered as sacrilege or abomination, unless he had been in actual possession either of the original manuscript of the law, or of a copy so well authenticated as to leave no doubt of its accuracy in the minds of the people.

Dan. c. 9. ver. 11 and 13.'

+ Nehem. c. 8. v. I.'

• There

There is an uncontradicted tradition in the Jewish church, that about fifty years after the temple was rebuilt, Ezra, in conjunction with the great synagogue, made a collection of the sacred writings, which had been increased, since the Jews were carried into captivity, by the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and the prophecies of Ezekiel, of Daniel, Haggai, and Zechariah; and as Ezra was himself inspired, we may rest assured, that whatever received his sanction was authentic. To this genuine collection, which, according to former custom, was placed in the temple, were afterwards annexed the sacred compositions of Ezra himself, as well as those of Nehemiah and Maląchi, which were written after the death of Ezra. This addition, which vas probably made by Simon the Just, the last of the great synagogue, compleated the canon of the Old Testament; for after Malachi no prophet arose till the time of John the Baptist, who, as it were, connected the two covenants, and of whom Malachi foretold, that he should precede "the great day of the Lord," that is, the coming of the Messiah, It cannot now be ascertained, whether Ezra's copy of the Scriptures was destroyed by Antiochus Epiphanes, when he pillaged the temple; nor is it material, since we know that Judas Maccabæus repaired the temple, and replaced every thing requisite for the performance of divine worship, which included a correct, if not Ezra's own, copy of the Scriptures. This copy, whether Ezra's or not, remained in the temple till Jerusalem was taken by Titus, and it was then carried in triumph to Rome, and laid up with the purple veil in the royal palace of Vespasian †.

Thus, while the Jewish polity continued, and nearly 500 years after the time of Ezra, a complete and faultless copy of the Hebrew canon was kept in the temple at Jerusalem, with which all others might be compared. And it ought to be observed, that although Christ frequently reproved the rulers and teachers of the Jews for their erroneous and false doctrines, yet he never accused them of any corruption in their written law, or other sacred books: and St. Paul reckons among the privileges of the Jews, that to them "were committed the oracles of God," without insinuating that they had been unfaithful to their trust. After the final destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, there was no established standard of the Hebrew Scriptures; but from that time, the dispersion of the Jews into all countries, and the numerous converts to Christianity, became a double security for the preservation of a volume held equally sacred by Jews and Christians, and to which both constantly referred as to the written word of God. They differed in the interpretation of these books, but never disputed the validity of the text in any material point.'

This is a fair specimen of the R. R. author's style, and of the manner in which he usually discusses his subject,-of which we return to the summary.-After all that he has ‹ * Mal. c. 4. v. 5.'. Joseph. de Bell. Jud. lib. 7. cap. 5.' Josephus mentions the Scriptures deposited in the temple. Ant. Jud. lib. 3. cap. 1. and lib. 5. cap. 1.' ' Rom. C. 3. v. 2.'

already

already said on the authenticity and inspiration of the Old Testament, he thinks that the most decisive proof of both is derived from the New: for which he quotes Luke, i. 70. and xxiv. 44.. -Mark, vii. 13.-1 Tim. iii. 15.-2 Peter, i. 21. But, in addition to these passages, (his Lordship says,) which refer to the ancient Scriptures collectively, we may observe that there is scarcely a book in the O. T. which is not repeatedly quoted in the New as of divine authority.'

At p. 21. the R. R. author thus explains what he means by inspiration.

When it is said that Scripture is divinely inspired, it is not to be understood that God suggested every word, or dictated every expression. It appears from the different styles in which the books are written, and from the different manner in which the same events are related and predicted by different authors, that the sacred penmen were permitted to write as their several tempers, understandings, and habits of life, directed; and that the knowledge communicated to them by Inspiration was applied to the subject of their writings in the same manner as any knowledge acquired by ordinary means. Nor is it to be supposed that they were even thus inspired in every fact which they related, or in every precept which they delivered. They were left to the common use of their faculties, and did not upon every occasion stand in need of supernatural communication; but whenever, and as far as divine assistance was necessary, it was always afforded. In different parts of Scripture we perceive that there were different sorts and degrees of Inspiration: God enabled Moses to give an account of the creation of the world; he enabled Joshua to record with exactness the settlement of the Israelites in the land of Canaan; he enabled David to mingle prophetic information with the varied effusions of gratitude, coutrition, and piety; he enabled Solomon to deliver wise instructions for the regulation of human life; he enabled Isaiah to deliver predictions concerning the future Saviour of mankind, and Ezra to collect the sacred Scriptures into one authentic volume; "but all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." In some cases, Inspiration only produced correctness and accuracy in relating past occurrences, or in reciting the words of others; in other cases it communicated ideas not only new and unknown before, but infinitely beyond the reach of unassisted human intellect; and sometimes inspired prophets delivered predictions for the use of future ages, which they did not themselves comprehend, and which cannot be fully understood till they are accomplished. But whatever distinctions we may make with respect to the sorts, degrees, or modes of Inspiration, we may rest assured that there is one property which belongs to every inspired writing, namely, that it is free from error-I mean material error; and this property must be considered as extending to the whole of each of those writings, of which a part only is inspired; for we cannot suppose that God would suffer any such errors, as might tend to

mislead our faith or pervert our practice, to be mixed with those truths, which he himself has mercifully revealed to his rational creatures as the means of their eternal salvation. In this restricted sense it may be asserted, that the sacred writers always wrote under the influence, or guidance, or care of the Holy Spirit, which sufficiently establishes the truth and divine authority of all Scripture.'

Is not this a system of pure suppositions; and of suppositions that militate against the very system which they are designed to uphold? There was a time when such concessions would have been deemed formal heresy; and, indeed, were we to write on Inspiration, we should consider them as so many home argumenta ad homines, against its defenders. We suspect that the Bishop himself was sometimes sensible of their weakness. In p. 27. he puts this question: By what rule are we to distinguish the inspired from the unin spired part of these books? To which he answers, that no general rule can be presented for that purpose: nor is it necessary that we should be able to make any such discrimination. It is enough for us to know that every writer of the O. T. was inspired, and that the whole of the history it contains, without any exception or reserve, is true.'-To know all this would certainly be enough for us: but all knowlege must arise from evidence or conviction, not from hypothetical postulates, or supposed congruencies.

The Bishop proceeds to adduce the usual arguments to prove the genuineness of the Pentateuch, that is to say, that it was written by Moses: but we question whether all the external testimonies, here accumulated for that purpose, will in the judgment of unbiassed critics weigh down the internal evidence for the contrary opinion. That some parts of the Pentateuch were not written, and could not be written, by Moses, is now generally allowed; and these parts are called interpolations by some posterior inspired penman: but this is gratis dictum; and we fear that no cogent proof can be produced to support the hypothesis. If some parts were confessedly not written by Moses, why might not other parts be in the same predicament; and who will be bold enough to make the discrimination? That Moses wrote and delivered laws to the Hebrews, no one, we believe, will deny: but many have denied that he wrote the present Pentateuch; and have made objections to the contrary opinion which have not been satisfactorily answered.

The second chapter treats of the contents of the several books of the O.T.-Then follows, in ch. iii. an abridgment of the Old Testament history; with a continuation of the history of the Jews, to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.-Ch. iv. treats on the Jewish sects,, and is very short.

We