remoteness of readers from the locality where a particular book first appeared to the nature of the book itself, its character, peculiarities, and scope to the subjective views of leading fathers in determining the claims of a work to be of divine origin. There is little doubt that some fathers entertained suspicion of some books which others did not share. Hence the canon was not closed at the period we speak of. The great body of it was fixed; but a few epistles had not been permanently attached.

The epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse were fully received into the collection very soon after the middle of the third century. This was done, as might be readily supposed, earlier in some places than in others. Indeed, some members of the Greek and Oriental Church had admitted the former as canonical even prior to that time; a treatment of it which speedily became general. The prevailing practice was, to place the epistle to the Hebrews among the Pauline epistles not long after the middle of the third century, throughout the Greek Church. The Apocalypse was not so favourably received in the same quarter; yet it was deemed canonical by those who decided on historical rather than doctrinal grounds. Unfortunately, however, they were the fewer in number.

When Eusebius wrote his Ecclesiastical History, the Apocalypse had not been admitted into the canon by many belonging to the Oriental and Greek Church. But he quietly puts the epistle to the Hebrews among the Pauline; indicating the prevailing sentiments respecting it. Thus, in the first half of the fourth century, the epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse were acknowledged as of equal authority with the other books of the New Testament, by the Christians of the Oriental and Greek Church, although several still rejected the latter.

In the Western and Latin Church, the case stood differently. There the Apocalypse was generally admitted as canonical. This follows from the mode in which Jerome names it. In the beginning of the fourth century, it was received as apostolic in the West. But it was otherwise there with the epistle to the Hebrews, which was not commonly ranked among the canonical books before the time of Jerome.

From these remarks on the reception of the Apocalypse and the epistle to the Hebrews among the early Christians, it appears that the collection already established in the third century had been enlarged by the addition of both in the first half of the fourth century-of the Apocalypse in the West generally, in the Oriental and Greek Church partially-of the epistle to the Hebrews in the Oriental and Greek Church universally, but very sparingly in the Latin Church.

About the middle of the fourth century, the epistles of James, Jude, second of Peter, second and third of John, which Eusebius at the beginning of it placed among the ovк ivdiálŋka (not included among the canonical), generally appear in the list. They must have obtained a sure place there by the operation of powerful but silently working causes. Slowly was their credit finally established by influences prior to the council of Nice, A.D. 325. All the present books are enume

rated as canonical in the Acts of the council of Laodicea, about A.D. 360. This was the state of opinion in the Greek Church. In the Latin Church also, all the writings had fixed themselves in the general opinion as canonical during the fourth century, as is shown by the Acts of the council of Hippo, A.D. 393. Hence, about the middle of the fourth century, or soon after, the entire collection was definitely fixed as the canon, kavwv. The canon was closed about that time. It is true that we hear of doubts and suspicions afterwards, in regard to some portions. Parts were still rejected by writers here and there in the Catholic Church. Speculative and critical men gave expression to unfavourable opinions of certain parts of the New Testament in succeeding centuries. But the scepticism of individuals does not affect the close of the canon as a historical fact.

The preceding observations show that the formation of the New Testament canon was gradual. The collection was not made by one man, one council, at one time, or in one place. The adherents of the Christian religion in different lands came to agree in the same conclusion, progressively, and by tacit consent. They did so independently to a great extent, in countries remote from one another. They judged by internal evidence, by tradition, by the fact of the writers being apostles or apostolic men. Some relied on one criterion, some on another; the majority, perhaps, on ecclesiastical tradition, but the most reflecting and critical on internal evidence. Slowly and surely did they arrive at the entire separation of the sacred Scriptures from the spurious imitations which were then current. And in the result of their judgment modern scholars commonly acquiesce.

By way of appendix to this brief statement, we remarkFirst, That when the writer of the article Canon,' in Kitto's Cyclopædia' quotes the anonymous epistle to Diognetus (where the unknown author speaks of the law, the prophets, the gospels, and the apostles), and says that the epistle is one of the earliest of the uninspired Christian writings, he conveys a false impression relative to the very early collecting of the New Testament books. The part of the epistle in which the passage cited occurs, is admitted to be spurious by all competent judges. It does not agree well with the former part.

Secondly. The mere fact of an epistle or book having been publicly read in the early churches, does not prove that it was regarded as inspired. We know that the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians was publicly read for edification in several churches, yet it forms no part of the proper canon.

Thirdly. It is possible, perhaps probable, that some of the original churches may have made a collection for themselves; but it is wholly improbable that each of them did so, as the writer on the canon already quoted says. And even if each church did make such a collection, it is contrary to many historical facts that every collection was complete, as is stated by the same perfunctory writer.

Fourthly. We are not necessarily bound by the decision or judgment of the churches who made collections at first. They may have

been mistaken. Why should we, for example, reject several epistles because they were not received in the early Syrian church, and formed no part of their church-version?

Fifthly. Nothing can be farther from the truth than the statement put forward in a recent book-"There was a clear distinction from the first maintained between the inspired documents which were deemed of authority for the establishment of doctrines, and those apocryphal writings which were used only for edification.'* One passage from Origen sufficiently refutes this:-I suppose that Hermas is the writer of that little work called the "Pastor," which Scripture (Scriptura) appears to me very useful, and, as I think, divinely inspired (divinitus inspirata).' It is well known, also, by those acquainted with the Stromata (Miscellanies) of Clement of Alexandria, that in various passages he does not definitely distinguish between the New Testament writings and those called apocryphal.

Sixthly. The writer on the canon in Kitto states, that Origen fully admits the canonicity of the epistles of James, Jude, the second epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, and the Apocalypse. This is wholly incorrect. In various parts of his works he speaks of them more or less doubtfully.

Seventhly. Another author has recently said, that the writings of the Apostolic Fathers contain plain and manifest quotations from the New Testament.'t Very few such quotations do they contain; or, indeed, quotations at all. Their references and allusions are vague and indistinct, while they also refer to apocryphal writings in much the same way as they do to the New Testament Gospels. The strong statement, therefore, which we have cited, does not at all convey a correct impression.

Lastly. It is necessary to define the word canon far more clearly than it has been yet explained. What was the idea attached to it by the early fathers? What is the idea attached to it by modern writers? Why are they not identical? But we had almost forgotten that we are not composing a treatise on the canon at present.

Au Analysis of Bengstenberg av the Book of Revelation.‡

FROM THE PRINCETON (U.S.) REVIEW, JANUARY, 1852.

A FOREIGN Work on the Apocalypse, from almost any pen whatever, would be welcome, just at present, as a grateful relief from the monotonous confusion of vernacular expounders. There are some subjects

* Discourses on Holy Scripture, by J. Kelly, p. 16.

+ Ibid. p. 18. The Book of Revelation, expounded for the use of those who search the Scriptures. By E. W. Hengstenberg, D.D., Professor of Theology at Berlin.

which the Germans have worn threadbare, so that we cannot hear them quoted or appealed to without a feeling of impatience, and a wish to hear American or English authorities in preference. But among these subjects we are not disposed to reckon that of prophecy in general, or that of apocalyptic exposition in particular. These have already been so roughly-nay, so violently-handled by interpreters and prophets of our own, with such surprising unanimity of predilection for the theme, and such distressing want of it in the result, that we are ready to give ear to almost any voice, however feeble or anonymous, that speaks upon the subject from a distance and without participation in the previous strife of tongues. To such a voice from Germany our ears may be particularly open, on account of the comparative reserve with which the learned of that country have discussed the subject, and the small extent to which what they have done is known among ourselves.

If these considerations would incline us to regard with some curiosity and interest any German work of recent date upon the subject, how much more must we be anxious to discover the discoveries of such a man as Hengstenberg, the ablest of the German exegetical writers, as well as the best known among ourselves. It is needless to enumerate the circumstances which would naturally tend to excite this expectation. He was once a rationalist, and was brought to a fixed belief in Christianity by the critical study of the Bible itself. There is no man less liable to the reproach of believing as his fathers did, simply because they did believe so. His natural inclination is to extreme independence, and, so far as human authority goes, to self-reliance. He never hesitates to throw aside the most time-honoured opinions, if he finds them to be groundless, with a decision always peremptory, often dogmatical, and sometimes arrogant. This characteristic quality of mind, while it cannot fail, in certain cases, to excite disapprobation, at the same time gives peculiar value to his testimony in behalf of old opinions, as the genuine product of his own investigations, and not a mere concession to authority.

Another striking feature in his writings is, their spirit of devotion, and the proofs which they afford of deep experimental knowledge. The great doctrines of the Trinity, atonement, and justification by faith, are evidently not held as mere speculative truths, but interwoven with his highest hopes and strongest feelings. Whatever may be his precise position with respect to the points of difference between the Lutheran and Calvinistic creeds, there can be no doubt that he holds fast to the doctrines of grace with as much tenacity as either Luther or Calvin ; and that, in reverence for Scripture, he is not a whit behind those great Reformers.

But besides the essential qualities of personal piety and general orthodoxy, there is something in the intellectual character of Hengs

Vol. I. (Die Offenbarung des heiligen Johannes für solche die in der Schrift forschen erläutert von E. W. Hengstenberg, Dr. und Professor der Theologie zu Berlin. Erster Band.) Berlin, 1849. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 8vo. Pp. 632, Vol. II., part i., 1850, pp. 405; part. ii., 1851, pp. 230,

tenberg that would naturally lead us to expect much from him upon such a subject. His turn of mind is eminently logical or rational. We know of no expositor in any language who so constantly and clearly states the reasons of his judgments. These, though sometimes erroneous, are always definite; distinctly apprehended by himself and clearly exhibited to others. At the same time, he possesses what is not always found in connexion with this attribute, a remarkable power of generalization. If called upon to characterise his writings by selecting one distinctive feature, the first that would occur to us is the rare combination of minute exactness with entire freedom from all petitesse, and a strong taste and capacity for large and comprehensive views of truth. Nor do these views, generally speaking, exhibit anything of that poetical and dreamy vagueness which the Germans will persist in calling philosophical. So far is he from this extreme that he has sometimes been accused of having an English rather than a German mind; and although in the last half of the twenty years which have elapsed since he appeared as an interpreter of Scripture, there are some indications of a wish to wipe off this reproach, the attempt, if actually made, has been but partially successful. The change, so far as any can be traced, is rather in the style than in the mode of thought, and even in the former is confined almost entirely to the terminology. He talks more in his last than in his first publications of the "idea" and of ideality in general; but he has tried in vain, if he has tried at all, to write obscurely, or to get rid of his common sense. The reproach, if such it must be called, of being an English thinker, is one which he will carry to his grave.

"Naturam expellas furcâ tamen usque recurret.'

Of Hengstenberg's learning we should not think it necessary here to speak, but for the fact that his standing as a scholar does not seem to be correctly understood by all among ourselves who are familiar with his name and his translated writings. In Germany, his philological talents and acquirements are rated at the highest value, even by some who dissent most widely from his theological opinions. His writings are peculiarly distinguished for the rare lexicographical talent incidentally displayed in his interpretations. Had he chosen to devote himself to this branch of philology, he would probably have taken rank above Gesenius, whom he equals in industry and judgment, and in several other requisites surpasses.

Besides possessing erudition in general and philological learning in particular, he is specially fitted for the task which he has here undertaken by his thorough knowledge of the Old Testament, acquired not merely by solitary study for a score of years, and public labour as a teacher in that department, but by the preparation of the works to which he owes his reputation, the Christology,' the 'Genuineness of the Pentateuch,' the book 'On Daniel,' and the Exposition of the Psalms,' with his minor but important publications on Tyre,' Egypt,' and the Prophecies of Balaam.' These tasks have forced him, as it were, to master the Old Testament completely, and have brought him

VOL. II.

Z