all these passages, referred to, as the word of Godwithout such a perversion of speech, and such a violation of the whole context, as must destroy the very use and import of language. Let none, then, have a scruple in calling the Scriptures what they so frequently call themselves.

You have heard that the reason why the Scriptures are called the word of God is, that they were given by divine inspiration-"holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." To the nature and evidence of this divine inspiration I propose to call your attention distinctly, in the next lecture. The remainder of the present must be employed in saying something in answer to a previous inquiry, which it is natural to make, namely, whether the writings of the Old and New Testaments, as we now have them, may fairly be considered as containing a faithful record of what was originally the inspired word of God? Without pretending to enter fully into this subject, I will endeavour to give you a summary of the most important facts, and of other information in relation to it.

There are, you know, some writings, mentioned and referred to in the Old Testament-such as, "The book of the wars of the Lord, the book of Jasher, the book of Nathan the prophet, the book of Gad the seer"—and several others, which have not come down to us. It is not certain, and I think not probable, that these books were ever considered by the ancient Jews as of equal authority with those which have been preserved, and which are now acknowledged, both by Jews and Christians, as canonical Scripture. Perhaps they were considered as good historical records, but not as possessing divine authority. This, however, is a doubtful point. But it is not doubtful, that since they have not been transmitted to us, they have not been judged by Him who has so wonderfully watched over the preservation of his revealed truth, to contain any thing important to be known in the church of Christ-From that church we cannot believe that her divine Head has permitted

any information to be withheld, which her edification and comfort demand.

In regard to the books which compose what is called The Apocrypha, it may be sufficient to remark, that although the most of them appear to have been written by Jews, yet that none of them were written in the Hebrew language; that they were certainly written after the days of Malachi, with whom, according to the universal testimony of the Jews, the spirit of prophecy ceased; that they never have been acknowledged by the Jews as canonical Scripture; that the writers of them do not themselves lay claim to inspiration; that they certainly contain some things which are fabulous and contradictory; that they are never quoted or referred to by the writers of the New Testament; that they are manifestly devoid of that majesty and simplicity in the composition, which characterize the prophetic and historical writings of the Old Testament; and that they were not received as canonical, in the first three centuries of the Christian Church. Although, therefore, the Romish Church receives these books as canonical, they are, as such, rejected by all Protestant churches. The Church of England directs them to be read "for example of life and instruction of manners;" but other reformed Churches regard them merely as they regard other human compositions-as containing some true history and some excellent maxims of wisdom, but still mingled with much error and imperfection.

There seems to be satisfactory evidence that the Canon of the Old Testament was settled by Ezra, down to his time, about 450 years before Christ. Ezra was himself an inspired writer; and therefore may be considered as giving authenticity to the whole which he reviewed. He probably added the last chapter of Deuteronomy, in which, if it were supposed to be written by Moses, he would be exhibited as giving an account of his own death and burial. Several other additions, in the opinion of the learned Dean Prideaux, were made by Ezra, which infidel writers have cavilled at, as affording ground for charging the

Bible with forgeries and falsehoods. But if these additions-very useful to give us some important information-were made under the same infallible guidance with which the other parts of the sacred volume were written, and by a confessedly inspired writer, you perceive that this charge is utterly futile and groundless.

The books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther and Malachi, were probably placed in the sacred canon, by Simon the Just, the last of the men who composed what has been denominated the great Synagogue.*

*

The Jews, it is known, have ever been, in the highest degree, jealous of their sacred writings. They counted the words, and even the letters, of which these writings consisted, that they might be able to know with certainty that nothing had been added to, or subtracted from them. There is indeed, I think, some reason to believe, that since the time of our Saviour, they have attempted to corrupt a few passages, which went to prove most plainly that Jesus was the Christ. But the attempt was made too late to be successful. They could not corrupt all the copies. And even if they could, the whole of their sacred books had, before this time, been faithfully translated into other languages. The first version, that of the Septuagint-so called from its being supposed to be the work of seventy-two Jews-was made into Greek,

"What the Jews called the great Synagogue, were a number of elders amounting to 120, who succeeding, some after others, in a continued series, from the return of the Jews again into Judea after the Babylonish captivity, to the time of Simon the Just, laboured in the restoring of the Jewish Church and state in that country; in order whereunto the Holy Scriptures being the rule they were to go by, their chief care and study was, to make a true collection of those Scriptures, and publish them accurately to the people. Ezra, and the men of the great Synagogue that lived in his time, completed this work as far as I have said. And as to what remained further to be done in it, where can we better place the performing of it, and the ending and finishing of the whole thereby, than in that time, where those men of the great Synagogue ended that were employed therein, that is, in the time of Simon the Just, who was the last of them?”— Prideaux's Con. vol. i. pages 573, 574.

VOL. I.-5

a considerable time before the coming of Christ; and is that which is generally quoted by our Lord and his apostles in the New Testament.

The New Testament, you are aware, was written in Greek. Some think that Matthew was written in Syro-Chaldaic, the language of the Jews in the time of Christ, and for their particular benefit. This, however, is questionable. It seems most probable, that the whole of this part of the Bible, was originally penned in the Greek language-then the most universally known of any in the world, and into which, as you have heard, the Old Testament had already been translated, and with such fidelity as to have been quoted, and thereby sanctioned by our Lord himself. If the gospel of Matthew was first written in the Jews' language, it might also, in the time of the apostles, have been rendered into Greek.

It seems probable that before the death of the apostle John, who lived till about the commencement of the second century, the most of the Scriptures were translated into the Latin, if not also into the Syriac tongue. The Syrians of India, it appears, still maintain that their New Testament is not a translation, but a copy of the original. In this there is reason to believe they err; but their translation, it is certain, was made very early as well as the Ethiopic, Armenian, and several others. Now, if there had ever been a wish to corrupt the New Testament-which it does not appear that there was in the two first centuries, except by a few heretics-the thing could not be done; because copies had been so multiplied, and faithful translations so fully made, that the true reading could be easily ascertained.

It seems proper that I should here take some notice of the various readings of the Old and New Testaments, in the original languages; as this is a subject in regard to which erroneous notions are often entertained and propagated. These various readings were, indeed, a fruitful theme of infidel declamation, for a long time. But it led eventually, as other infidel objections have always led, to a more full and

satisfactory establishment of sacred truth. Dr. KENNICOTT, of England, who took the lead in this important undertaking, and a most learned Italian by the name of DE ROSSI since, have collated, or compared, all the manuscript copies of the Hebrew Scriptures, which they could find in the whole world, as well as some of the earliest printed copies, and have given a fair exhibition of the various readings in all. The same has been most laboriously done, in regard to the New Testament, by a considerable number of learned men. And what has been the result? Truly the number of various readings is great, and at first sight might appear formidable. But examine them. carefully and candidly, and not only does the fear of a corrupted Bible vanish, but the integrity of the sacred text, is most wonderfully established. Ninetynine hundredths of them-I think I may safely say -are manifest slips of the pen, mistakes or oversights of transcribers, or errors of the press-exactly like what you may see in a collection of the same kind, made by Mr. Carey, in his first edition of our translation of the Bible, printed in this city; and like what you may now find, in almost all the Bibles that you daily read. But do any of you think that you are in danger of mistaking the truths of your Bible, because of these errors of the press? You know you do not. And competent judges have given it as their opinion, that the most corrupt copy of the Greek New Testament that can be found, if taken altogether, would not change one important truth of the sacred volume.

You will not understand, however, that among these various readings there are not some of very considerable importance-for ascertaining the true sense of particular passages, and with a view to determine whether certain clauses or periods, ought to be retained or rejected. But when the whole are brought together and compared, the true reading is, in general, not difficult to be judged of; and the mind of the bibli cal scholar is satisfied, and even delighted, to find that his faith in Scripture is not shaken, but greatly confirmed. To find, that although a perpetual miracle