must prevent any complaint of brevity on the one hand, or of prolixity on the other. At the commencement of the books of the Old and New Testaments respectively, a history of the Jewish and Christian canons is given, with a selection of the best remarks from authors of established reputation, on the authenticity and other subjects connected with the authority of the Bible. This volume will be found particularly useful to readers who have not access to the works of the numerous authors who have written on the credibility of the Scriptures, and will materially assist them in studying the several subjects of Christian divinity.

The first chapter, on the canon of the Old Testament, includes a very concise account of the several English Translations of the Bible. Of the various editions of King James's version, that which was published at Oxford in 1769, under the care of Dr. Blayney, has been considered as the standard edition. This edition, however, now yields the palm of accuracy to the very beautiful and correct edition published by Messrs. Eyre and Strahan, his Majesty's printers, but printed by Mr. Woodfall in 1806, and again in 1812. In collating the Edition of 1806 with Dr. Blayney's, not fewer than one hundred and sixteen errors were discovered, and one of these was an omission of several words after the expression "no more" in Rev. xviii. 22, the words "at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he "be, shall be found any more," being omitted. Messrs. Eyre and Strahan's editions contain a text extremely correct, and the account which Mr. Horne has given in a note of the methods taken to ensure such accuracy, we shall lay before our readers.

Only one erratum, we believe, has been discovered in the edition of 1806. The following particulars relative to the above-mentioned London editions of the Bible may not be unacceptable to the bibliographical reader, at the same time they will shew that their claims to be considered as standard editions are not altogether unfounded.The booksellers of the metropolis, having applied to his Majesty's printers to undertake a handsome edition of the Bible, confided the execution of it to Mr. George Woodfall, in 1804. The copy printed from, was the current Cambridge edition, with which Mr. W.'s edition agrees page for page. It was afterwards read twice by the Oxford impression then in use, and the proofs were transmitted to the Rev. Lancelot Sharpe, by whom they were read with Dr. Blayney's 4to. edition of 1769. After the proofs returned by Mr. S. for press had been corrected, the forms were placed upon the press at which they were to be worked, and another proof was taken. This was read by Mr. Woodfall's superintendant, and afterwards by Mr. W. himself, with Dr. Blayney's edition, and any errors that had previously escaped, were corrected; the forms not having been removed from the press after the last proofs had been taken off. By this precaution, they avoided the danger of errors (a danger of very frequent oc

currence, and of no small magnitude,) arising from the removal of the forms from the proof press to the presses on which the sheets were finally worked off. Of this edition, which was ready for publication in 1806, five hundred copies were printed on imperial 4to., two hundred on royal, and three thousand on medium 4to. size. In the course of printing this edition from the Cambridge copy, a great number of very gross errors were discovered in the latter, and the errors in the common Oxford editions above noticed were not so few as 1200! The London edition of 1806 being exhausted, a new impression was put to press in 1910, and was completed, with equal beauty and accuracy, in 1812.' Vol. II. p. 15, note.

The authenticity of the Pentateuch is the subject of the first section of the second chapter, in which very considerable use is made of Bishop Marsh's tract on the authenticity of the Five Books of Moses. To the poetical books, a chapter is prefixed on the poetry of the Hebrews, chiefly abridged from Lowth's Prelections. On the book of Job, Mr. Horne has written very copiously, and has evidently been at pains to collect valuable information on all the topics necessary for the appreciation of its claims to antiquity and excellence. He delivers the following opinion on the author of that venerable book.

Elihu, Job, Moses, Solomon, Isaiah, an anonymous writer in the reign of Manasseh, Ezekiel, and Ezra, have all been contended for. The arguments already adduced respecting the age of Job, prove that it could not be either of the latter persons. Dr. Lightfoot, from an erroneous version of xxxii. 16, 17, has conjectured that it is the production of Elihu : but the correct rendering of that passage refutes this notion. Ilgen ascribes it probably to a descendant of Elihu. Another, and more generally received opinion, attributes this book to Moses this conjecture is founded on some apparent striking coincidences of sentiment, as well as from some marks of later date, which are supposed to be discoverable in it. But, independently of the characters of antiquity already referred to, and which place the book of Job very many centuries before the time of Moses, the total absence of every the slightest allusion to the manners, customs, ceremonies, or history of the Israelites, is a direct evidence that the great legislator of the Hebrews was not, and could not have been, the author. To which may be added, that the style of Job (as Bishop Lowth has remarked) is materially different from the poetical style of Moses: for it is much more compact, concise, or condensed, more accurate in the poetical conformation of the sentences: as may be observed also in the prophecies of Balaam the Mesopotamian, a foreigner indeed with respect to the Israelites, but not unacquainted either with their language, or with the worship of the true God.

Upon the whole then, we have sufficient ground to conclude that this book was not the production of Moses, but of some earlier age, Bishop Lowth favours the opinion of Schultens, Peters, and others, (which is also adopted by Bishop Tomline and Dr. Hales,) who sup pose Job himself, or some contemporary, to have been the author of

this

poem: and there seems to "be no good reason for supposing that it was not written by Job himself.” '

As a specimen of the manner in which the analysis of the books of Scripture is executed by the Author, we extract the whole of the brief section

On the Book of the Prophet Nahum.-I. Author and date;-II. Scope and Synopsis of its Contents ;-III. Observations on its Style. Before Christ, 720—698.

I. Nahum, the seventh of the minor prophets, is supposed to have been a native of Elkosh or Elkosha, a village in Galilee, and situate in the territory that had been apportioned to the tribe of Simeon. There is very great uncertainty concerning the precise time when he lived; some making him contemporary with Jotham, others with Manasseh, and others with Josiah. The most probable opinion is, that which places him between the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, about the year 715 before the Christian era: and, as the design of this prophet is, to denounce ruin upon Nineveh and the Assyrians, for their cruel ty ranny over the Israelites, and as the captivity of the ten tribes took place in the tenth year of Hoshea, king of Israel, (2 Kings xvii.6, &c. compared with 2 Kings xviii 9-11), it is most likely that Nahum prophesied against the Assyrians, for the comfort of the people of God, towards the close of Hezekiah's reign.

II. The inhabitants of Nineveh, like those of other great cities abounding in wealth and luxury, having become extremely corrupt in their morals, God commissioned Jonah to preach to them the necessity of repentance, as the only means of averting their imminent destruction. And such was the success of his preaching, that both the king and the people repented and turned from their evil ways; and the divine judgment was in consequence delayed for a time it appears,: however, that this repentance was of no long duration; for, the Ninevites relapsing into their former wickedness, the prophet Nahum was commissioned to denounce the final and inevitable ruin of Nineveh and the Assyrian empire by the Chaldeans, and to comfort his countrymen in the certainty of their destruction.

His prophecy is one entire poem, which opening with a sublime description of the justice and power of God, tempered with long suffering (i. 1-8), foretells the destruction of Sennacherib's forces, and the subversion of the Assyrian empire (9-12), together with the deliverance of Hezekiah, and the death of Sennacherib (13-15). The destruction of Nineveh is then predicted, and described with singular minuteness, (ii. iii.)*

III. In boldness, ardour, and sublimity, Nahum is superior to all the minor prophets. His language is pure, and the exordium of his prophecy, which forms a regular and perfect poem, is not merely magnificent, it is truly majestic. The preparation for the destruction

*The best commentary, perhaps, on this prophet, is the ninth of Bishop Newton's Dissertations (vol. i. p. 141-158), in which he has ably illustrated the predictions of Nahum and other prophets, who foretold the destruction of Nineveh.'

of Nineveh, and the description of its downfall and desolation, are expressed in the most vivid colours, and with images that are truly pathetic and sublime.'

On the authenticity of the New Testament no man has written better than Michaelis: the chapter on that subject in his Introduction, is as clear and satisfactory an exhibition of the general proof as can perhaps be selected for recommendation. It is with much pleasure that we have perused in Mr. Horne's pages an abstract of the arguments produced in that work, to which he has added others from Less, Paley, &c. and a series of testimonies of ancient writers from Lardner, forming altogether a very excellent compendium of the evidences of the Christian Scriptures. Eusebius's well known arrangements of the canonical and apocryphal books, is not however accurately stated in the following account.

• 1. Ὁμολογουμεναι γραφαι (ανωμολογημέναι; Οι αληθείς και απλαστοι) that is, writings which were universally received as the genuine works of the persons whose names they bear. In this class Eusebius reckons, 1. The four Gospels; 2. The Acts of the Apostles; 3. The Epistles of St. Paul; 4. The first Epistle of St. John; 5. The first Epistle of St. Peter. The Revelation of St. John might also, perhaps, be placed in this class, because some think its authenticity incontrovertible, yet the majority leave the matter undetermined.

II. AVTIXEYOμEva, that is, writings on whose authenticity the ancients were not unanimous; which some held to be supposititious. According to Eusebius, even these have the majority of voices among the ancients in their favour. He expressly calls them γνώριμα όμως τοις πολλοίς (writings acknowledged by most to be genuine), and παρα πλείστοις των εκκλησιαστικών γιγνωσκομένα (received by the majority). Α few doubted of their authenticity; and therefore Eusebius ranks them under the contested αντιλεγόμενα or νόθα.

In this class he enumerates, of the writings of the New Testament, 1. The Epistle of St. James; 2. The Epistle of St. Jude; 3. The second Epistle of St. Peter; 4. The second and third Epistles of St. John. The Revelation of St. John, he adds, is also by some placed in this class. And, of other writings, the Acts of St. Paul; The Shepherd of Hermas; The Revelation of St. Peter; The Epistle of Barnabas; The doctrines of the Apostles; and the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

και

III. ATOTα na dun, (absurd and impious); that is, writings which had been universally rejected as evidently spurious. In this class he includes the gospels of Peter, of Thomas, and of Matthias; the Acts of Andrew, of John, and of other Apostles.' vol. ii. pp. 355, 356.

The twenty-fifth chapter of the third book of Eusebius's Eccles. History, in which he has arranged the preceding works, is certainly not remarkably perspicuous. It is however clear enough, that Eusebius divides the books which he enumerates, into three classes, the quohoyour, including those specified by Mr. Horne, the areyou, including the Epistle of James, the Epistle

of Jude, the second Epistle of Peter, and the second and third Epistles of John, and, according to some, the Revelation of John, and the voda, which comprise the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Revelation of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Doctrines of the Apostles, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Mr. Horne's third class will therefore, should it be adopted, form a fourth class according to Eusebius's divisions. It was evidently the design of Eusebius to distinguish the books which are described in the second class, from those in the third; the from the array, meaning to attribute greater authority to the latter than to the former class.

But little satisfaction can be obtained from the most minute and careful examination of the data on which the opinions of the various authors who have endeavoured to ascertain the times when the different books of the New Testament were written. The questions of any consequence which are dependent on their being accurately fixed, are but few, nor are any of them of great importance, so that we need the less regret the uncertainty which attends the dates of the gospels and epistles. No information in which we can confide, has been left us on these points by ancient ecclesiastical writers. Their statements are exceedingly vague and discordant; and they have but too frequently copied the reports of their predecessors, and transmitted them to their followers, to be received with implicit credence. Still, the discussion of the subject is of a useful kind; it cannot be pursued without proving to be the means of leading the student into a more enlarged and precise acquaintance with the sacred writings. Mr. Horne has taken great pains to supply the reader with what is most necessary in this department, nor has he satisfied himself with collecting the opinions of authors; he has also stated his own opinion, and gives the reasons on which he has founded it. Nothing however can more strikingly shew the uncertainty of the arguments by which it is attempted to make out the dates of particular books, than the entirely opposite conclusions of the learned on the subject. To give but one example, Mr. Horne remarks (Vol. 2, p. 403) that the objections to the early date of Matthew's Gospel, 38, by no means balance the weight of evidence in its favour, while Bishop Marsh (Notes to Michaelis's Introduction, chap. iv. sec. ii. 6, vol 5, p. 98) who has most patiently and acutely investigated the entire question, remarks, that if the arguments in favour of a late date, 61, or 64, for the composition of St. Matthew's Gospel, be compared with those in favour of an early date, it will be found that the former greatly outweigh the latter.

In the statement of the inquiry, p. 403, respecting the original language of the gospel of Matthew, the Author appears to have committed an oversight which involves a contradiction. After stating the opinions of a number of writers who have taken op