9. Jerome, 382.

He agrees with our catalogue, except that he speaks dubiously of the Epistle to the Hebrews, though he quotes it elsewhere as canonical.

10. Ruffinus, 390.

His catalogue perfectly agrees with ours.

11. Austin, 394.

His perfectly agrees with ours.

12. Council of Carthage, 394.

All agreed in a list accordant with ours.

13. Dionysius, 390.

An anonymous author, under the assumed name of Dionysius the Areopagite, without giving a formal list, has described all the books so as to show, that he received exactly the same number as we possess.

We think, therefore, every candid mind must be prepared to acknowledge that there remains to us ample evidence of the integrity of those sacred books which form our sacred canon. No book of human origin can show such a mass of evidence in favor of its alleged authorship.

We fear that our readers will by this time begin to think that we have overlooked the work which stands at the head of this article, and that we mean to treat it with indifference and silence. But we beg to assure them that such is not the case. We should rather wish our sense of its importance and value to be estimated by the length of the introduction, which we have deemed desirable before offering any opinion upon the work itself. Its nature is indeed such as can scarcely be judged of by any specimens that might be presented. We shall therefore be less anxious to offer extracts than to put the reader in possession of our deliberate and critical judgment upon the entire work, offering not more than a single short passage in illustration of the ability with which the whole is executed.

The volume is strictly confined to the means used for the ascertainment of the genuine text of both testaments. The department of Hermeneutics or interpretations, which is, strictly speaking, sacred criticism, is left, for the most part, wholly untouched. It was to present a fair and solid basis for such interpretation, that the author deemed it first of all desirable to traverse the entire field of the literal history of the Bible. He has therefore brought under review the canon of both testaments, the MSS. and versions, the quotations and opinions of the fathers, with every thing else that

text.

can contribute to throw light upon the true reading of the sacred His object is to put it in the power of every scholar to judge for himself of the various readings which have been collected, and then to adopt or reject, as may seem most accordant with the rules of sound criticism, whatever alterations or amendments have been proposed. In the execution of this important undertaking, the author has spared no pains which consummate learning and eminent talent could devote to it. It is not possible, nor will it be desirable, that we should follow him through the several parts of his comprehensive plan. It must suffice that we should say, he has performed a service to the cause of sacred literature the most important and invaluable, a service which was at the present time most desirable, and for which every student of the sacred originals of God's word will render to him cordial and hearty gratitude. He has produced a work of sound and comprehensive criticism worthy of the age, not of a would-be rational theology, but of the truly rational and devout theology of our British churches, from which neither the shallow philosophism of our own unitarian school, nor the bolder neologism of Germany, has been able either to force or seduce us. There is no attempt in this truly great and learned work to serve any favorite theory, or promote any sinister purpose, by parading various readings that are valueless, or concealing the predominating authority of others, that might be less acceptable. But the simple, uniform, and constant pursuit of the writer seems to be the integrity of the text, as it proceeded from the pen of inspiration. The execution of such a work demanded a combination of natural abilities, and acquired qualifications, but rarely united in the same individual. It is no slight or equivocal praise to say, that Dr. Davidson has manifested most, if not all, the rare accomplishments desirable in the individual who enterprises a historical, critical, and literary history of the text of scripture, and of the chief controversies to which it has given rise through the successive ages of its transmission. When we say that our language contains, to our knowledge, no work so complete, so full, so uniformly judicious, and imbued with so profound a veneration for the words of inspired wisdom, we shall have said enough to recommend the work to the careful perusal of every zealous student of scripture. But we shall even then have scarcely said enough to satisfy our own sense of the author's merits, and our high estimate of the work he has produced. Every part of it shows deep and indefatigable research, a thorough acquaintedness with all the sources of information bearing upon his subject, consummate caution, acuteness, and impartiality, with an independence of mind which has released him from all the shackles of favorite masters and dominant schools. He displays no bias but to discover the truth, to perfect the text, and to give preponderance to the best arguments and purest authorities.

We shall not attempt to verify the judgment we have pronounced, by citations which could scarcely be intelligible when taken from the course of argument to which they belong. We shall not do this, because we feel confident that the work will be eagerly perused by all who are anxious to obtain correct and comprehensive information upon the subjects of which it treats, and because we are quite satisfied that the perusal of the book will fully substantiate all we have stated. We shall merely present to our readers a short passage from the Lectures on the nature of the Hebrew language, premising that it is only an introductory paragraph, and must appear imperfect by being separated from the copious and learned illustration that follows.

In entering upon this subject I might occupy myself with a preliminary inquiry concerning the antiquity of the Hebrew language. Whether it was the original language of mankind is a question that has been frequently discussed at considerable length. There was a time when the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech;' and it is an instructing inquiry to trace the relation between this universal language and that dialect which was afterward spoken by Abraham and his posterity. That there was an intimate connexion between the original language of men, and that afterwards called the Hebrew, is supported by all the evidence that can be obtained on such a question. From all the considerations we are able to bring together, we are led to believe that the dialect of the Israelites was substantially the same with that of the original parents of mankind. As far as we are able to judge from historical data, there was only one language spoken in western Asia, among the different dialects of which the Hebrew claims the pre-eminence in point of antiquity. It is not my present design to detail the various presumptions which appear to establish, with tolerable certainty, the truth of the opinion just stated. I pass on to consider the nature of the language itself, as a written dialect; and the various aspects which it presented at different times.

In thus attempting to develop the nature of the Hebrew, we must compare it with its kindred dialects, to perceive the points of resemblance existing between them. Its features are to be traced in the alterations it has successively undergone, or as they still bear the impress of its early origin; and by contrasting them with those of the Shemitish languages, we will (shall) better perceive the peculiarities of the Hebrew no less than its high claims to great antiquity. It must be evident to all that this dialect is limited in forms, not only in reference to its grammatical structure and diction, but also to its entire range. Its forms are not developed in the greatest perfection. But this deficiency may be attributed in part to the character of the oriental mind, which regarded the substance itself rather than the form in which it should be presented. Another consideration should be kept in view as also influencing the genius of the Hebrew language. The tendency of the Jewish literature was exclusively religious. The language must therefore have been, in a great measure, confined to a par

ticular circle of ideas, to which its modes of expression were necessarily adapted. The Hebrews attended rather to the idea than to its dress— to the essence of that with which the mind was occupied, more than to the garb in which it was clothed. Hence the form does not seem to be so ductile, or willing to follow the ideas, as in other languages; neither is the thought so definitely expressed. But, although the cultivation and development of this dialect was regarded as a matter of minor importance, yet we are not to suppose that it was destitute of scope for such expansion. On the contrary, it was possessed of the finest facilities for full and copious development. The Arabic shows how such germs as are contained in the Hebrew might have been nurtured and expanded, so as to exhibit a rich variety of forms, though the latter never reached that high degree of perfection, for which it was so well adapted by its internal character. The roots, or primitives of the language, were augmented and modified in various ways. When the naked idea contained in the root is coupled in conception with certain minute modifications, the root assumes a certain form suited to each of these shades or variations of signification. Hence arises what is denominated the stem, consisting of the root in a state of flexion, as adapted to the delicate distinctions connected with the original simple idea it before implied. In the further progress of the language, the words, as they now actually exist, proceeded as branches from the stem. Originally, all roots were monosyllabic. This was the most ancient mode of writing. Afterwards they became triliteral. As soon as the language began to proceed beyond its rudest and simplest elements, its roots must have been lengthened, and they gradually became triliteral. A few have extended to four firm sounds, and even to five, but the compass of three sounds was the regular fixed limit of augmentation. Hence the roots are almost all triliteral; and it is now impossible to trace them up to their monosyllabic state.'-pp. 260, 261.

The

We trust all our readers who are interested in the subjects of the present volume will gratify themselves by its perusal; and that wherever it may be yet unknown among our dissenting colleges or students, it may forthwith be made a vade-mecum to the theological class. The contents of innumerable volumes, and the cream of numberless controversies, will be found admirably compressed within the compass of this moderate-sized octavo. only defect, and that not of much importance certainly, but still a disfigurement to a book of such admirable skill and learning, in the recurrence of those Scotticisms which we suppose our northern neighbors think it beneath them to correct. We cannot presume that Dr. Davidson is one of that class, otherwise we should recommend him to let one of the commonest of English correctors of the press read over the work before it goes to another edition. But we feel quite sure that a very small share of his attention, devoted to English grammar and idiom, would set this matter right.

291

Art. III. The Ecclesiastical and Political History of the Popes of Rome, during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. By LEOPOLD RANKE, Professor in the University of Berlin. Translated from the German by SARAH AUSTIN. 3 vols. London: Murray, 1840.

THIS highly important and interesting book undertakes to

develop the changing fortunes of the Papacy during two critical centuries, the sixteenth and the seventeenth. It opens with a rapid sketch of the rise and establishment of the papal power, in the first fifteen centuries; and it terminates with a brief outline of its history down to the present day. We have no work in our language expressly devoted to the same task, nor have our historians had access to a large number of important manuscripts, which were submitted to the inspection of Professor Ranke; in Berlin, Vienna, Venice, and in the great libraries (but not the papal library) at Rome. It would indeed be requisite to toil through many separate histories of the different countries of Europe, in order to collect and continue the outward history of European religion, as it is here presented to us. Nor is it the lowest recommendation of Ranke's work, that its reputation for learning and impartiality has seemed to make it worth while to execute a perverted French translation of it, in favor of the Romish side; an unfairness which the author feels painfully. The English version, by Mrs. Sarah Austin, has been perused and approved by him. An English lady,' says he, 'must redress 'the wrong which has been done to me in France.'

Most of us are better acquainted with the early history of the Reformation in Germany, than with its after progress; and when we consider that the human mind in Europe cannot have gone back since the sixteenth century, and how much harder it seems to take the first step as a reformer than to follow in the track of others, it is a natural subject of wonder to many that the Reformation stopped where it did. This book explains the causes of it; which are not indeed by any means profound and hidden, contrary as the fact is to what we might have expected. It is indeed a tale which makes the heart bleed; bitter, bitter instruction. Our forefathers have eaten the sour grape, to gain for us palatable and wholesome food. How plainly does the whole history set forth, that the love of power will shrink at no cruelties, and will never want religious justifications; and that there is no cure for these atrocities, but by yielding to every man the full, entire liberty of conscience, which we ask for ourselves. Yes, to every man; we repeat it; we must not except those who seem to us blasphemers, atheists, or whatever is worse. Constitute the civil power a judge of blasphemy, and the measures of the Inquisition become justifiable.