copies; but probably, the smaller, would not be so much spoken of, nor would there be so strong a desire to obtain them without delay. Considering how difficult it is now, with all our improvements in the typographical art, to multiply copies of the scriptures with sufficient rapidity, it is truly wonderful, how so many churches as were founded during the first century, to say nothing of individuals, could all be supplied with copies of the New Testament, when there was no speedier method of producing them, than by writing every letter with the pen! The pen of a ready writer must then, indeed, have been of immense value. The idea entertained by some, especially by DODWELL, that these books lay for a long time locked up in the coffers of the churches to which they were addressed, and totally unknown to the rest of the world, is in itself most improbable; and is repugnant to all the testimony which exists on the subject. Even as early as the time when Peter wrote his second Epistle, the writings of Paul were in the hands of the churches, and were classed with the other Scriptures. And the citation from these books by the earliest Christian writers, living in different countries, demonstrates, that from the time of their publication, they were sought after with avidity, and were widely dispersed. How intense the interest was which the first Christians felt in the writings of the apostles, can scarcely be conceived by us, who have been familiar with these books from our earliest years. How solicitous would they be, for example, who had never seen Paul, but had heard of his wonderful conversion, and extraordinary labours and gifts, to read his writings? and probably they who had enjoyed the high privilege of hearing this apostle preach, would not be less desirous of reading his Epistles! As we know, from the nature of the case, as well as from testimony, that many uncertain accounts of Christ's discourses and miracles had obtained circulation, how greatly would the primitive Christians rejoice, to obtain an authentick history, from the pen of an apostle, or from one who wrote precisely what was dictated by an apostle? We need no longer wonder, therefore, that every church should wish to possess a collection of the writings of the apostles; and knowing them to be the productions of inspired men, they would want no further sanction of their authority. All that was requisite was to be certain, that the book was indeed written by the apos tle, whose name it bore. And this leads

*2 Pet. iii. 14, 15.

me to observe, that some things in Paul's Epistles, which seem to common readers to be of no importance, were of the utmost consequence. Such as, I Tertius who wrote this epistle, &c.-The salutation with mine own hand.—So I write in every epistle.-Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.— The salutation by the hand of me Paul.— The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle. This apostle commonly employed an amanuensis; but that the churches to which he wrote, might have the assurance of the genuineness of his epistles, from seeing his own hand writing, he constantly wrote the salutation, himself. So much care was taken to have these sacred writings well authenticated, on their first publication. And on the same account it was, that he and the other apostles, were so particular in giving the names, and the characters, of those who were the bearers of their epistles. And it seems, that they were always committed to the care of men of high estimation in the church; and commonly, more than one appears to have been intrusted with this important commission.

"If it be inquired, what became of the autographs of these sacred books, and why they were not preserved; since this would have prevented all uncertainty respecting the true reading, and would have relieved the biblical critic, from a large share of labour? It is sufficient to answer, that nothing different has occurred, in relation to these autographs, from that which has happened to all other ancient writings. No man can produce the autograph of any book as old as the New Testament, unless it has been preserved in some extraordinary way, as in the case of the manuscripts of Herculaneum; neither could it be supposed, that in the midst of such vicissitudes, revolutions, and persecutions, as the Christian church endured, this object could have been se cured, by any thing short of a miracle. And God knew, that by a superintending Providence over the sacred scriptures, they could be transmitted with sufficient accuracy, by means of apographs, to the most distant generations. Indeed, there is reason to believe, that the Christians of early times were so absorbed and impressed with the glory of the truths revealed, that they gave themselves little concern about the mere vehicle by which they were communicated. They had mat ters of such deep interest, and so novel, before their eyes, that they had neither

* Rom. xvi. 22. 1 Cor. xvi, 21. Gal. vi. 11. 2 Thes. iii. 17.

time, nor inclination, for the minutiae of criticism. It may be, therefore, that they did not set so high a value on the possession of the autograph of an inspired book, as we should, but considered a copy, made with scrupulous fidelity, as equally valuable with the original. And God may have suffered these autographs of the sacred writings to perish, lest in process of time, they should have become idolized, like the brazen serpent; or lest men should be led superstitiously to venerate the mere parchment and ink, and form and letters, employed by an apostle. Certainly, the history of the church is such, as to render such an idea far from being improbable.

"But, although little is said about the originals of the apostles' writings, we have a testimony in Tertullian, that the

authentick letters of the apostles, might be seen by any that would take the pains to go to the churches, to which they were addressed. Some, indeed, think, that Tertullian does not mean to refer to the autographs, but to authentick copies; but why then send the inquirer to the churches to which the epistles were addressed? Had not other churches, all over the world, authentick copies of these epistles also? There seems to be good reason therefore, for believing, that the autographs, or original letters of the apostles, were preserved by the churches to which they were addressed, in the time of Tertullian."

We have already intimated that we should notice some slight imperfections, or oversights, in the volume under review. One of these we observe in the 25th page, where the author is treating of "the early use and import of the word canon." He says

"When other books were added to the CANON, no doubt, the inspired men who were moved by the Holy Spirit to write them, would be careful to deposit copies in the sanctuary, and to have other copies put into circulation. But on this subject we have no precise information. We know not with what degree of care the sacred books were guarded, or to what extent copies were multiplied."

When we first read this passage, in a cursory way, it struck us as containing all but a contradiction in terms; because it first says that "no doubt the inspired men-would be careful to deposite copies in the sanctuary, and to have other copies

put into circulation;" and afterwards adds, in reference to this matter of which there is "no doubt,” that "we know not with what degree of care the sacred books were guarded, or to what extent copies were multiplied." But we discovered, on reading more attentively, that the first part of the quotation contained the author's opinion only

what, from the circumstances of the case, he thought probable, or rather certain; and that the latter part contained a statement of the want of "precise information" on the subject: and between these two things there is manifestly no inconsistency. But the scope of the passage is not obvious, and we still think the last sentence would better have been omitted altogether, or the whole construction of the quoted paragraph altered.

In the next page, and onward, we find the following statement:

"It seems to be agreed by all, that the forming of the present canon of the Old Testament, should be attributed to Ezra. To assist him in this work, the Jewish writers inform us, that there existed in his time, A GREAT SYNAGOGUE, consisting of one hundred and twenty men, including Daniel and his three friends, Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego; the prophets Haggai and Zechariah; and also Simon the Just. But it is very absurd to suppose that all these lived at one time, and formed one synagogue, as they are pleased to represent it: for, from the time of Daniel to that of Simon the Just, no less than two hundred and fifty years must have intervened.

"It is, however, no how improbable, that Ezra was assisted in this great work by many learned and pious men, who were contemporary with him; and as prophets had always been the superintendents, as well as writers of the sacred volume, it is likely that the inspired men who lived at the same time as Ezra, would give attention to this work. But in regard probable is, that the men, who are said to this great synagogue, the only thing to have belonged to it, did not live in one age, but successively, until the time of Simon the Just, who was made high priest twenty-five years after the death of Alexander the Great. This opinion has its probability increased, by the consideration, that the canon of the Old Testa

ment appears not to have been fully completed, until about the time of Simon the Just. Malachi seems to have lived after the time of Ezra, and therefore his prophecy could not have been added to the canon by this eminent scribe; unless we adopt the opinion of the Jews, who will have Malachi to be no other than Ezra himself; maintaining, that while Ezra was his proper name, he received that of Malachi, from the circumstance of his having been sent to superintend the religious concerns of the Jews; for the import of that name is, a messenger, or one sent.

"But this is not all, in the book of Nehemiah, mention is made of the high priest Jaddua, and of Darius Codomannus, king of Persia, both of whom lived at least a hundred years after the time of Ezra. In the third chapter of the 1st book of Chronicles, the genealogy of the sons of Zerubbabel is carried down, at least to the time of Alexander the Great. This book, therefore, could not have been put into the canon by Ezra; nor much earlier than the time of Simon the Just. The book of

Esther also was probably added during

this interval.

"The probable conclusion, therefore, is, that Ezra began this work, and collected and arranged all the sacred books which belonged to the canon before his time, and that a succession of pious and learned men continued to pay attention to the canon, until the whole was completed, about the time of Simon the Just. After which, nothing was ever added to the canon of the Old Testament.

"Most, however, are of opinion that nothing was added after the book of Malachi was written, except a few names, and notes; and that all the books belonging to the canon of the Old Testament, were collected and inserted in the sacred

volume by Ezra himself. And this opi

nion seems to be the safest, and is no how incredible in itself. It accords also with the uniform tradition of the Jews, that Ezra completed the canon of the Old Testament; and that after Malachi there arose

no prophet, who added any thing to the

sacred volume."

Our author's usual perspicuity seems to us to desert him here. We confess that we have not been able to reconcile one part of this statement with another; nor to discover whether, on the whole, Dr. A. believes that the canon of the Old Testament was completed by Ezra, or by Simon the Just. For our selves, we have no hesitation in adopting conclusively, the opinion

of Prideaux, that it was the last mentioned distinguished man, who put into the canon certain books which were not written, or at least not completed, till after the death of Ezra; and in reference to one of which Dr. A. himself expressly says that it "could not have been put into the canon by Ezra." Yet he seems to unsay this, in the last quoted paragraph; and to favour the opinion, "that all the books belonging to the canon of the Old Testament, were collected and inserted in the sacred volume by Ezra," with the exception of "a few names and notes." He even adds, "This opinion seems to be the safest, and is no how incredible in itself,” and adduces in its support "the uniform tradition of the Jews."

is "much greater difficulty" in es In assigning the reason why there tablishing the canonical authority of the books of the New Testament than of the Old, our author, among other causes, mentions, as the second in order, (page 130) the following-"The canon of the Old Testament received the sanction of Christ and his apostles; but when the canon of the New Testament was completed, all the apostles were dead." The latter part of this remark we consider as an entire oversight; because the assertion it contains is elaborately disproved by the author himself. We suppose that in making the assertion, he must have intended to affirm no more, than that the canonical books of the New Testament were not collected together into one volume, before the death of the apostles. It is certainly one thing to collect into a volume the various publications of any particular writer; and quite another thing to discriminate between his genuine writings, and others that falsely pretend to be his-to sanction the true and condemn the false. So in regard to the inspired writers of the New Testament, their writings might not have been collected together into a vo

lume, till some time after the death of all the apostles; and yet the apostle John, who long outlived the rest, might have determined, under the guidance of inspiration, what writings were of divine authority, and what were false or spurious. Horne seems, on the whole, to favour the opinion, that the sacred writings of the New Testament were originally even collected by the apostle John. He says expressly, (vol. i. p. 71,) "It is sufficient for us to know that the principal parts of the New Testament were collected, before the death of the apostle John, or at least not long after that event." And in a note he adds, "Of all the various opinions that have been maintained, concerning the person who first collected the canon of the New Testament, the most general seems to be, that the several books were originally collected by St. John-an opinion for which the testimony of Eusebius is very confidently quoted, as an indisputable authority." He then adds some remarks from Mosheim, which go to show that Eusebius affirms nothing more, than that "St. John approved of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and added his own to them, by way of supplement." But, if we understand Horne, he finally approves of the opinion of the learned Storck, which, he says, "in substance corresponds with that above given."

But whether St. John first collected the canon of the New Testament or not, we think there is little reason to doubt that he saw and sanctioned every book, which forms that canon, as we now have it. Why should we doubt of this? We have good reason to believe that he survived all the other inspired writers for a length of time; and for ourselves we cannot but think that one purpose for which he was so long spared to the church was, that he might do this very thing that he might seal the authenticity of the canon of the New Testament by his

apostolick authority. It is stated in the work before us (page 313), on the authority of Tertullian and Jerome, that the detection of the forgery of the apocryphal book, entitled, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, "was made by the apostle John." If he detected this forgery, why not detect others? Peter, it appears from his second epistle, had seen all the epistles of Paul; and why might not John, who so long outlived him, and who certainly wrote the last of all the inspired penmen, have seen and approved of all that had been written by those who preceded him? We firmly believe that he did.

We have almost insensibly fallen into this strain of arguing. But it is by no means to be understood, that we are at issue with Dr. A. in what we have said-farther than the single passage is concerned, which, as we have already intimated, we regard as an oversight. If we mistake not, his sentiments and our own are very nearly the same. In the quotation which we have selected as a specimen of his manner, not only is the whole drift of his reasoning of much the same tenor as ours, but he says expressly, "The question when was the canon constituted, admits of no other proper answer than this, that as soon as the last book of the New Testament was written and published, the canon was completed"-Then surely, we remark, it cannot be true, that "when the canon of the New Testament was completed, all the apostles were dead;" for, according to the showing of our author, and of every other author of reputation, the last book of the New Testament was written by an apostle-the apostle John. But in reality the whole evidence which our author most pertinently and satisfactorily adduces in relation to the genuineness of the books of the New Testament, as well as the impressive remarks with which he every where accompanies this evidence, and the