the valuable work of the learned Jeremiah Jones, on the Canon of the New Testament.

On the subject of the Oral Law of the Jews, the Author has freely availed himself of the labours of that great polemic Hornbeek, in his learned work, Contra Judæos. On that of Unwritten Traditions, he found no writer more satisfactory than Chemnius, in his Examen Con. Trid. By the introduction of a discussion on these points into a treatise on the Canon of Scripture, he acknowledges that he has departed from the usual method of treating the subject; but he is persuaded, that a little consideration will convince every candid reader, that the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures cannot be demonstrated, unless it be shewn that no part of Divine Revelation was left to be handed down by unwritten tradition.'

The English Editor, Dr. Morison, expresses his regret, that Dr. Alexander did not deem it necessary to furnish the reader with references to the authorities he cites. It was doubtless his wish to avoid the parade of borrowed learning; but we should have been glad if he had more distinctly specified the amount of his obligations to the learned labours of Chamier, Buddeus, and Hottinger, since, for any thing that appears, the assistance derived from them has been inconsiderable, and all the principal testimonies bearing on the Canon will be found in Lardner. The subject of the Canon of the Old Testament is despatched in a very few pages, we must confess not quite to our satisfaction. In establishing this part of the Canon, we 'might labour,' Dr. A. says, under considerable uncertainty ' and embarrassment in regard to several books, were it not, 'that the whole of what were called the Scriptures, and which 'were included in the threefold division mentioned above,' (the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa,) received the 'explicit sanction of Our Lord.'. But Dr. A. should have explained, we think, the nature and the grounds of the uncertainty and embarrassment to which he refers; whether the difficulty would have related to the authenticity and genuineness, or to the primary inspiration of those particular books; whether such books are of a purely historical or of a prophetical character, and coming, as such, under the description of the Scriptures which testify of Christ. For, after all, it may be thought a startling admission, that the internal evidence in favour of any books of the Old Testament, would, apart from the sanction of Our Lord, have led to their rejection, or to hesitation respecting them. That the volume of Scripture which existed in the time of Christ and his Apostles, was ' uncorrupted, and was esteemed by them an inspired and in'fallible rule';-that these books, which have, ever since the Apostolic age, been in the keeping of both Jews and Christians, who have been arrayed in perpetual opposition to each other,

can have undergone no alteration from either party;-that the Hebrew Bible of the Jew is the Old Testament Canon of the Christian Church;-that the external evidence of the integrity and authority of that Canon is therefore complete ;-are points which admit of no dispute, and which forbid all attempt to disturb the Canon so authoritatively sanctioned.

But there remains a question, relating to the nature or degree of the inspiration originally attaching to the several books of the Hebrew Scriptures, which cannot, in our judgement, be quite so easily set at rest. 'Our Lord was not backward', Dr. A. remarks, 'to reprove the Jews for disobeying, misinter'preting, and adding their traditions to the Scriptures; but he 'never drops a hint that they had been unfaithful or careless in the preservation of the sacred books. So far from this, he ' refers to the Scriptures as an infallible rule, which "must be fulfilled," and "could not be broken." This is both true and to the purpose of establishing the integrity and genuineness of the Hebrew Scriptures. But is this argument sufficient to establish the equal and plenary inspiration of all the sacred writings of the Old Testament? Does it prove that there could be no legitimate reason for laying up, together with the Law and the Prophets, the authentic records of God's dealings with his chosen people, other than their being written by inspired men? Must we infer that, when the prophecy of Malachi was added to the Book of the Prophets, and the books of Nehemiah and Esther placed among the hagiographa, it was alike on the ground of their being equally the word of God,—the word testifying of the coming Messiah? Does our Lord's sanction of the Canon imply as much as this? The Jews, we know, made a distinction between the different classes into which the sacred books were distributed. Does our Lord ever drop a 'hint' that they were blameable or erroneous in so discriminating them? Is all examination of the internal evidence of these several writings peremptorily precluded by the sanction which attests their canonicity? These are questions to which it might reasonably be expected that some reply should be given in such a work as the present; and Dr. Morison would have performed a most acceptable service, had he supplied the deficiency.

Dr. Alexander admits, with Prideaux, that the Canon of the Old Testament appears not to have been fully completed till about the time of Simon the Just; that Malachi seems to have lived after the time of Ezra; that, in the book of Nehemiah, mention is made of the high-priest Jaddua, and of Darius Codomannus, both of whom lived at least a hundred years after the time of Ezra; and that the genealogy of the sons of Zerubbabel, in the third chapter of the first book of Chronicles, is

carried down to the time of Alexander the Great. After making these statements, we are utterly at a loss to understand what Dr. A. can possibly intend by adding :

'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 opinion seems to be the safest, and is no how incredible in itself.'

Would Dr. A. wish, then, to exclude from the Canon the books which could not have been put into the Canon by 'Ezra'? Or does he mean to say that the marks of a later date in the writings referred to, are inconclusive? If so, he was bound to shew this: he ought to have given his reasons for thinking that Ezra and Malachi were the same individual, as some of the Jews maintain; or that Ezra outlived Malachi. Or he should have explained the credibility of the opinion, which implies that books written after the death of Ezra, were collected and inserted in the sacred volume, by this same Ezra himself. He ought also to have assigned his reason for rejecting the more probable statement of the Jewish writers, that the present Canon of the Old Testament was settled, not by the personal authority of Ezra, or any other individual, but by the high ecclesiastical authority of the Great Synagogue; and that that Synagogue continued to discharge its functions down to the time of Simon the Just, who was made high-priest about five and twenty years after the death of Alexander the Great. That after Malachi, there arose no prophet,' and that after Ezra, no sacred book was added to the Canon, are two propositions, which seem to us far from identical, or from involving each other. The former is unquestionable: the latter appears to us an opinion neither safe nor credible. The more correct statement is that which is subsequently cited from St. Augustine.

In that whole period, after the return from the Babylonish captivity, after Malachi, Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra, they had no prophets, even until the time of the advent of our Saviour. As our Lord says, "The Law and the Prophets were until John." And even the reprobate Jews hold, that Haggai, Zechariah, Ezra, and Malachi were the last books received into Canonical authority.'

The evidence collected by Dr. A. to prove that the Apocryphal books have no pretensions to Canonical authority, is ample and in the highest degree conclusive. As this subject meets us at the very threshold' of the controversy with the Romanist, it is of no small importance, that the Protestant should be well provided with the requisite information; and Dr. A. has supplied all that can be desired by any candid in

VOL. VI.-N.S.

quirer. He concludes this portion of his work with the following remarks.

Notwithstanding that we have taken so much pains to shew that the books called Apocrypha, are not Canonical, we wish to avoid the opposite extreme of regarding them as useless or injurious. Some of these books are important for the historical information which they contain; and, especially, as the facts recorded in them are, in some instances, the fulfilment of remarkable prophecies.

Others of them are replete with sacred, moral, and prudential maxims, very useful to aid in the regulation of life and manners; but even with these, are interspersed sentiments which are not perfectly accordant with the Word of God. In short, these books are of very different value; but in the best of them, there is so much error and imperfection, as to convince us that they are human productions, and should be used as such; not as an infallible rule, but as useful helps in the attainment of knowledge, and in the practice of virtue. Therefore, when we would exclude them from a place in the Bible, we would not proscribe them as unfit to be read; but we would have them published in a separate volume, and studied much more carefully than they commonly have been.

And while we would dissent from the practice of reading lessons from these books, as Scriptural Lessons are read in the church, we would cordially recommend the frequent perusal, in private, of the first of Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and, above all, Ecclesiasticus.

It is a dishonour to God, and a disparagement of his word, to place other books, in any respect, on a level with the Divine Oracles; but it is a privilege to be permitted to have access to the writings of men eminent for their wisdom and piety. And it is also a matter of curious instruction, to learn what were the opinions of men in ages long past, and in countries far remote.' pp. 86, 87.

In the second part of the Work, there is a valuable section, refuting the objections raised by Michaelis against the canonical authority of the Gospels of Mark and Luke. Dr. A. also adverts to the attempt of the same erudite but rash critic, to 'lessen the authority' of the Epistle to the Hebrews: but he does not seem to be aware of the real state of the question; and it is singular that he should make no reference to the excellent work of his learned countryman, Professor Stuart. Upon the whole, we can cordially unite with the much-respected Editor of this Volume, and with the Rev. Mr. Horne, in recommending it as a well-timed effort in defence of the truth', -an able and most useful compendium, for which every theological student with scanty resources, ought to be sincerely grateful. We cannot, however, forbear to add, that it reflects no credit on English theology, that this every way respectable performance of the New Jersey Professor, should be the best, or at least the most complete work upon the subject, in our literature. With regard to the Canon of the New Testament,

a masterly outline of the argument, supported by a vast quantity of learned and curious information, will be found in Dr. Pye Smith's 'Answer' and 'Rejoinder' to Robert Taylor, published by the Society for promoting Christian Instruction. (8vo, pp. 92, price 1s. 6d.) This tract ought to be in the hands of all our readers; and we most earnestly recommend it to their attention. It deserves the widest possible circulation, as a triumphant exposure of the ignorance and dishonesty of Deistical assailants.

Art. VIII. 1. Principles of Geology, being an Attempt to explain the former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by Reference to Causes now in Operation. By Charles Lyell, Esq., F.R.S. Vol. I. 8vo. 526. Price 15s. London, 1830.

pp.

2. A new System of Geology, in which the great Revolutions of the Earth and animated Nature, are reconciled at once to modern Science and Sacred History. By Andrew Ure, M.D. F.R.S. 8vo. pp. 676. London, 1829.

3. Geological Notes. By Henry Thomas de la Beche, F.R.S. F.G.S. 8vo. pp. 111. Price 6s. London, 1830.

4. Sections and Views, illustrative of Geological

Phænomena, by H.

T. de la Beche. 4to. pp. 79. Price 21. 2s. London, 1830.

5. Outlines of Oryctology. An Introduction to the Study of Fossil Organic Remains; especially of those found in the British Strata. Second Edition, with the Author's latest Corrections. By James Parkinson. sm. 8vo. pp. 360. Price 12s. London, 1830.

GE

EOLOGY is, comparatively, a new science; and, if we mistake not, its professors are still, as was the case in its mere infancy, eagerly distancing, in their deductions and inferences, the slow advance of genuine discovery. Something, however, has been learned from the precipitancy of the earlier makers of systems. The science of facts has made much progress of late, and the necessity for a range of inspection at once extensive and minutely investigated, is distinctly acknowledged. It will no longer be tolerated, that a theorist shall build up a world on the circumstances of a district; nor that he shall frame a cosmogony from casual contortions or accidental supra-positions. A large induction, or complicated system of collation and comparison, is now required as an indispensable preliminary to all attempts at generalization; and if Werner were to revisit earth, he would find himself no longer permitted to establish the law of geological relations, on an imperfect survey of the localities of Freyberg. In this matter, as in other pursuits, men have to surmount so much of prejudice and impulse,