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 critick, 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 criticks 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 Mosaick 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 publick 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 publick 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 a manner, as that it might best answer the purpose of an engine of govern ment. The religion of such nations, therefore, can be consi dered 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 preservation of their religion, and of their code of laws, contained in the Pentateuch, (for they had no other) effectually prevented this change from being a subversion of their polity. The king himself was considered (though in a way somewhat dif ferent) as a minister of religion. His office was holy, and he was inaugurated with the like religious ceremony of unction, with which the high-priest was separated for the discharge of the duties of his sacred function; and the king's person, in consequence of this rite, was accounted holy as well as the priest's. A strong evidence of the influence of this circumstance we have in the behaviour of David to king Saul, his

enemy, who sought his life. David found him asleep and unattended in the cave of Engeddi; and when desired by some of his followers to kill him, answered, "The Lord forbid that "I should do this thing unto my master, the Lord's anointed, "to stretch forth my hand against him, seeing he is the anoint"ed of the Lord: so David stayed his servants with these "words." Nevertheless the legislative power was not in the monarch. God was the sole legislator; for, as was observed, they had no permanent body of laws other than the books of Moses: besides, on every emergency of importance, the Deity was consulted by Urim and Thummin.

It must be acknowledged, that this original constitution was gradually corrupted by them. Having found means, in prejudice to the divine commandments, to foist in rules and precepts of their own devising, under the specious name of oral traditions, they rendered them equivalent to laws; but still, as appears from the name they gave them, under the pretended sanction of divine authority. Thus their religious and civil rights were so blended, as not to admit a separation: the same judges indiscriminately took cognizance of both. These were the elders of the city in smaller matters, and in the first instance; and the great sanhedrim, senate, or council of the nation, composed of seventy senators and a president, commonly called the elders of the people, in greater matters, and in the last resort. And in this body there was generally a considerable number, though not any fixed proportion, of priests, levites, and scribes. I mention, in conformity to our modes of thinking, the religious and the civil as different kinds of rights. Their customs and modes of thinking, on the contrary, prevented their making this distinction; all being alike comprehended in the same code, established by the same authority, and under the jurisdiction of the same magistrates. An attention to this is necessary, in order to make us understand the import of some expressions used in the New Testament. Thus the terms νομικο, and νομοδιδαςκαλοι, which our translators render lawyers and doctors of law, are precisely equivalent to what would be termed by us theologists and doctors of divinity. Not that the words are mistranslated in our version: it was even proper in this case, by paying a regard to the etymology of the names, in rendering them into English, to suggest to the unlearned reader the coincidence of the two professions, divinity and law, among the Hebrews. With them, therefore, the divine and the jurist, the lawyer and the scribe, were terms which denoted nearly the same character; inasmuch as they had no other law of nations, or municipal law, but their religion, and no other religion but their law. Of any of the Pagan nations we may say with justice, that their religion was a po

litical religion; but of the Jews we should say more properly; that their polity was a religious polity.

What may serve to give us an idea of such a constitution is the present state of the Mahometan world. Though Mahometism, in regard to its doctrine and its rites, borrows somewhat both from Judaism and from Christianity, it is, as an es tablishment, raised more on the Jewish model than on the Christian. With them the Alcoran is the only standing or statute law of the country; and as it is conceived by them to be of divine authority, and therefore unrepealable, it is both the only rule in all judiciary proceedings, and the only check upon the despotism of their princes. Hence it has happened, that though there never arose such a conception among the Jews, as what I may call the history of the synagogue, or among the Mahometans, as the history of the mosque, distinct from the histories of their different nations; the christian church and christian empires, or commonwealths, form histories, which, though connected as those of neighbouring republicks or kingdoms may be, are in their nature perfectly distinct. It is worth while to inquire, what has given rise to this peculiarity in the religion of Jesus. An inquiry of this kind is a proper introduction to the study of ecclesiastical history. It will serve to throw light on the spirit and genius of our religion, and may lead to the detection of the latent springs, whence originally flowed that amazing torrent of corruption, by which, in process of time, this most amiable religion has been so miserably defaced.

The moral precepts of our Lord Jesus Christ are remarkably sublime and pure. They are admirably calculated for regulating the passions and affections of the heart, out of which, as Solomon has observed, are the issues of life. The doctrines he taught, which are the motives whereby an observance of the precepts is enforced, are all purely spiritual, arising from considerations of the divine nature, and of our own; especially of God's placability and favour, of the testimony of conscience, of the blessedness which the principles of true religion, faith, and hope, love to God, and love to man, infuse into the heart; and from considerations regarding the future retribution both of the righteous and of the wicked. The positive institutions or ceremonies he appointed, are both few and simple, serving as the expressions of the love and grati tude of his disciples to God, their common parent, and to Jesus their master, the oracle of God; of their engagements to the christian life, and their perfect union among themselves. And that whilst these institutions were suffered to remain in their native simplicity, which constituted their true beauty and

excellence, it was impossible they should be misunderstood. With regard to the founding of what might be called a polity or state, it is manifest that nothing could be farther from his intention. "His kingdom," he acquaints us," is not of this world." It is not of a secular nature, to be either propagated or defended by the arm of flesh, or to have its laws enforced by human sanctions, or any such temporal punishments as merely human authority can inflict.

As to

It is impossible to conceive a greater contrast between the spirit which his instructions breathe, and that spirit of pride and domination, which not many centuries afterwards became the predominant spirit of what then came to be denomi nated the church. Again and again did Christ admonish his apostles, and other followers, to live as brethren and equals, not to affect a superiority over their fellow-disciples, or over one another; inasmuch as in this, his kingdom would differ in its fundamental maxims from all the kingdoms of the world; that that person alone would there be deemed the greatest, whose deportment should be the humblest, and he alone superiour, who should prove most serviceable to the rest. worldly monarchies or commonwealths, of whatever kind, he taught them to regard it as their duty, to submit to such pow ers as providence should set over them; cheerfully paying tribute, and yielding obedience to every human ordinance and command that should not be found to contradict the law of God. "Render to Cæsar," said he, "the things which are "Cæsar's, and to God the things which are God's." Far from affecting any secular power himself, he refused a royalty. of this sort, when the people would have conferred it, and would not take upon him to decide in a matter of civil right and property, though desired. "Man," said he to the person who applied to him," who made me a judge or a divider over "you?" Then he said to the people, "take heed and beware "of covetousness :"-supporting his admonition as usual by an affecting parable. It was the end of his institution to purify the heart, and his lessons were ever calculated for extirpating the seeds of evil that remained there. In a similar man-, ner, when the disciples privately contended among themselves who should be greatest, he took occasion to warn them against, ambition. Jesus calling to him a child, placed him in the, midst of them, and said, " Verily I say unto you; unless ye be converted," quite changed in your notions and conceptions of things, "and become as children, ye shall never enter the "kingdom of heaven. Whosoever, therefore, shall become "humble as this child, shall be the greatest there." The same maxims were warmly inculcated by his apostles; and

D