Toulon to Corsica; accompanied him in his attempt upon the kingdom of Naples; returned, after its fatal issue, to Corsica; lived here, till he was tired of a quiet life, among the mountains; then surrendered himself to the garrison at Ajaccio; was tried by a court martial; acquitted; joined the French troops in Corsica; returned with them to France; was afterwards engaged in the French invasion of Spain; was discharged at its close, and returned to his native village. Our readers, we think, will be pleased with this book. The Serjeant's stories are told with a good grace, are amusing, and probably true.

The Canon of the Old and New Testaments ascertained; or, the Bible complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions. By ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER. Princeton.

Ir is very gratifying to the friends of biblical literature to receive such frequent evidence through the press, that those, who, at our different universities, are appointed to preside over its interests, are not negligent of their charge. Cambridge and Princeton, and more especially Andover, have each contributed, through their several professors, in an eminent degree, to the advancement of theological science. They have produced original treatises, honorable to the country, on a variety of topics, and have reprinted many of the most valued works of the modern theology of England and Germany. Since the very correct and beautiful edition of Griesbach, from the Cambridge press, there has been a succession of valuable books, soliciting the attention of the student, and aiding him in his researches. Cambridge has given us, among others, the "Theological Repository," as creditable for the learning and talent displayed in it, as any book our literature has produced; a reprint of Gerard's Institutes of Biblical Criticism; Wakefield's Translation of the New Testament; Sparks's Collection of Tracts and Essays, in six volumes; Willard's Hebrew Grammar; Everett's Evidences of Christianity; Milton's Treatise on Christian Doctrine, &c. Princeton has sent out within a year or two, Hodges's Collection of Theological Treatises, on a plan similar to Sparks's; Dr. Alexander's book on the Evidences, and his late work on the Canon of Scripture. And Andover has performed its part in giving us a Hebrew Grammar, by Stuart; a translation of

Gesenius's Hebrew Lexicon, by Gibbs; a translation of Jahn's Archæology, by Upham; Wahl's Lexicon of the New Testament, Greek and English, by Robinson, and Winer's Greek Grammar; Ernesti on Interpretation; Storr and Kett's Elementary Course of Biblical Theology; a reprint of Newcome's Harmony, &c. These and many others of a similar character, have, within a short time, been furnished to the public demand, to say nothing of a host of pamphlets and books on the controverted topics of christianity, which, whether they be regarded as able or weak, true or false, fair or sophistical, have contributed, in no small degree, to excite the public mind on the subject of religion generally, and have distributed throughout the community much valuable biblical knowledge. They will, indeed, be long remembered for the influence they have had in kindling a spirit of religious inquiry, and advancing the cause of sacred learning.

The work of Dr. Alexander on the Canon of the New Testament, appears to us to be sufficiently well adapted to answer the purpose he had in view, namely, to give a compendious summary of the whole subject, and in such a form as to be level to the capacities of all descriptions of readers. His work is, in the strictest sense, a compilation, according to his own acknowledgement, and, when he has closely followed such men as Jones, Prideaux, and Lardner, we cannot but be satisfied with his labors. Very many of the topics treated of in this book are, it is true, still open to discussion as critical questions, and with the views of our author, on many of them, we cannot coincide; but all the principal points, and which affect the truth of all the most important of the Jewish and Christian Records, are, of course, beyond dispute, and with his statements all will cordially agree. We should be inclined to say of it, however, that it seems rather intended as an introductory volume, for the use of theological students, than for the general use of the reading community. For common readers, the book is too long and minute, and abounds too much in the technical phraseology of divinity; familiar and intelligible enough to those who have begun the study of theology, and have proceeded in it some way, but repulsive to the general reader, and demanding the aid of a dictionary; an aid, too, which common dictionaries will fail to render. But, perhaps, this difficulty is not so great as we have supposed.

Dr. Alexander's subject falls into two natural divisions, which he, in common with other writers on the subject, has adopted; the first part treating of the canonical authority of the books of the Old Testament; the second, of the canonical authority of the

*

books of the New Testament. These parts are subdivided into sections. In regard to the labor and space devoted to the different subjects embraced in these divisions, we cannot but think, that too much of both has been allotted to the discussion of the Oral Traditions of the Jews and the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament; and, in particular, that too much pains has been taken to depreciate the latter, and to drive them from the humble place they are yet permitted to retain in the common Bible. For our own parts, we could wish never to have in our hands a Bible without the Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus. We have often lamented, that the modern practice of the churches has become so fixed, that we never hear, and may never hope to hear, from the pulpit, the many fine passages that are to be found in these books. Let them not be quoted as of equal authority with the canonical books; let them never be read as such, but merely for the sake of the noble moral sayings, and the many beautiful passages of religious poetry with which they abound. We can see no evil that would, at this time of the world, ensue. By the ancient Christians, they were publicly read, and they are tolerated by the articles of the English Church, and lessons are appointed to be read from them. And we must think it a pity, that our clergy, of all denominations, still refuse to do what is permitted (we believe in every instance) by the authorities they usually subscribe to, and what was done by their fathers. It is a most sound and judicious observation of Dr. Jortin, when, speaking of the Apostolical Constitutions and the other apocryphal books of the New Testament, he says, "If their authority should only appear ambiguous, it would be our duty to reject them, lest we should adopt as divine doctrines the commandments of men; for, since each Gospel contains the main facts of christianity, and might be sufficient to make men wise unto salvation, there is less danger in diminishing than in enlarging the number of canonical books; and less evil would have ensued from the loss of one of the four Gospels than from the addition of a fifth, spurious one." The course we think advisable, in regard to the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament, would not contradict the spirit of this remark. We would only have them read publicly for the edification of the people, and, in regard to

* Jerome, as quoted by Lardner, says, "The church reads, and allows to be read, Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical scriptures, and that they and the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus may be read for the edification of the people, but not as of authority for proving any doctrine."

And it should be

authority, treated precisely as they now are. considered by those who strenuously object to the reading of these books of the Old Testament, that they not only read, but quote, as of equal authority with the rest of the Bible, books and parts of books of the New Testament, of which it always has been, and probably always will be disputed, whether they are canonical, or not; namely, the Epistle to the Hebrews; Epistle of James, which Luther called "an epistle of straw;" the Second Epistle of Peter, which Joseph Scaliger calls a "a fiction of some ancient christian, misemploying his leisure time;" the Second and Third Epistles of John; the Epistle of Jude, and the book of Revelation. These books are indeed worthy of the Apostles, to whom they have been ascribed, but none can be ignorant, that their genuineness was disputed in the primitive church, and is so to this day.

The

But to return to our author. The principal object of Professor Alexander being to show, which books are canonical and which are not, he very properly introduces his work with a statement of what he considers as meant by the term, canonical. necessity of this being determined is obvious. If no book is to be received as of authority, to be regarded as belonging to the Bible, but such as is canonical, it must, first of all, be settled, what the meaning of this important term is. This the author does after the manner of Lardner, by quoting examples of the use of the word by the earliest fathers of the church. From these, it is very evident, that the words, canon and canonical, were employed to designate the books which they received, as the rule of their faith and conduct as christians; according to the original meaning of the Greek word, xavov, a rule. It was also used as signifying a catalogue of such books as were deemed of the highest authority. The canon of scripture with them, meant, that catalogue or list of books, which they received as containing a true account of the christian faith. Dr. Alexander's quotations go to show this. But he has inadvertently added an idea, which does not belong to the word in question, that of inspiration. He has used, all along, the term, canonical, as if it embraced necessarily the idea of inspiration, and were equivalent to the term, inspired. In the beginning of the third paragraph of the first section, he says, after having just defined canon to mean a rule simply, "The word, canon, however, was early used by the christian fathers to designate the inspired scriptures." This, we presume, was an oversight, for none of the quotations immediately subjoined, show, that the fathers did use the word to designate the inspired scriptures. If

we do not greatly err, the terms, canonical and inspired, are frequently used as if they were convertible terms. Dr. Alexander's idea of inspiration, we doubt not, is, in common with most christians, that, not only the sense and substance, but the very words of what the authors of the books of the Bible wrote, were inspired, that is, were communicated in a miraculous manner by the Holy Ghost. But this is a most important addition to the meaning of the word, canonical, and wholly inadmissible. A book of the Old or New Testament having been shown to be canonical, that is, to have been received as a rule of faith and conduct, from the earliest times to the present; a separate and distinct process must be gone through, to show, that that book was written by the Holy Ghost, that is, was inspired. If we could prove of any one of the Gospels, Matthew for example, that it was at the very first received as the undoubted work of Matthew, one of the twelve, and was then submitted to, as a sufficient rule of faith, we ought unhesitatingly to receive it, though, at the same time, we might not be able to show, that every word and idea contained in it had been divinely communicated to the Apostle. If it is replied, it must be thus inspired, because the scripture itself asserts, that all its books are inspired; the answer is, this is assuming the very point in question. It is disputed, whether such is the doctrine of scripture, and may still be disputed as long as it has been. These remarks we throw out, merely because we think it important, that every author should strictly adhere, in the course of his work, to the definitions of important terms, that were established in the beginning.

As to the proper method of settling the canon of the New Testament, or determining what, and how many books shall be received as of authority, Dr. Alexander has, in common with most writers on the subject, adopted the only satisfactory one, the testimony of history. "We must have recourse," he says, "to authentic history, and endeavour to learn what books were received as genuine by the primitive church and early fathers. The contemporaries and immediate successors of the Apostles are the most competent witnesses in this case. If, among them, there is found to have been a general agreement as to what books were canonical, it will go far to satisfy us respecting the true canon; for it cannot be supposed, that they could easily be deceived in a matter of this sort. A general consent of the early fathers and of the primitive church, therefore, furnishes conclusive evidence on this point, and is that species of evidence which is the least liable to fallacy or abuse. The learned Huet,