point of language is adduced as an argument. The fact is indisputable. The language of the Gospel is pure Greek, smooth and accurate; that of the Revelation, on the contrary, is harsh, rugged, full of inaccuracies of expression, and real grammatical mistakes. But it is not true that all difference in phraseology indicates different writers. Compare, e. g., the earliest writings of Göthe, Schiller, Herder, with the latest productions of the same authors. Especially take an author who attempts to write in a foreign language; must not his first essays be of a totally different character from his later ones? He has not complete mastery of the language; he struggles not only with the sense, but with the form; and this must necessarily make the phraseology even of the most practised intellect somewhat cumbrous. This is exactly the case with John's Revelation. It was his earliest production in the Greek language, occasioned by the fearful occurrences during Nero's persecution. These cast the sympathizing mind of the beloved disciple of Jesus into deep meditation, during which the spirit of prophecy showed him the future fortunes of the church, and its final conquest over Judaism and heathenism. It was, therefore, composed some twenty years earlier than the Gospel and Epistles seem to have been written, and in a language which to John, a native of Palestine, must have been a foreign one. Now, the Revelation appears exactly like the production of a man who had not yet acquired the requisite skill in the Greek language, and as its internal characteristics, likewise, show that it was written in the early part of John's life, before Jerusalem was destroyed, it is in fact impossible to see how one can ascribe importance to this circumstance of the difference of style, in opposition to the tradition that the Evangelist John was the author of the production; the rather as there is undeniably very much in the language which bears close affinity to those writings that are admitted to be John's.

The same may be said of the third observation, that the style of the Revelation is in the following respect very unlike that which we find in the Gospel and Epistles, viz. that the former exhibits a lively creative fancy, while, in the latter, quiet, deep feeling predominates. In regard to this remark, which likewise is correct, we are to consider, first, that the same individual in different stages of mental development will make use of different styles of expression. The earlier works of the same writer are accordingly more ardent, more imaginative than his later. More

over, the imagery in the Revelation is not by any means to be regarded as the arbitrary production of a rich fancy, but rather as actual appearances to John's mind from the operation of the divine Spirit within him. I admit that John would not have been selected as the medium of these communications of the Spirit, had there not been in his whole organization a special adaptation for such impressions; but still, susceptibility to them is not the same as positive productive fancy. Finally, it is not to be forgotten in this view, that John's other writings are of a more historical or else purely didactic nature; while, on the other hand, the Revelation is a prophetic production. It would therefore be totally unnatural that the same style should be observable in the Apocalypse as in John's other writings.

The only remaining point alleged in confirmation of the difference between the Revelation and other writings of John is, that they exhibit a totally different doctrinal aspect. In particular, stress is laid on this circumstance, that in the Gospel nothing at all is found of what forms the main topic of the Apocalypse, viz. the expectation of a visible coming of our Lord, and the establishment of his kingdom upon earth. Moreover, all that is said in the Revelation respecting good and bad angels is of a more Jewish cast, we are told, than we should expect John's views to have been, from examining his other writings. It would appear that, if this be really so, it is a reason of some weight against the genuineness of the book; for we cannot suppose the apostles to have altered their doctrinal views, and, plainly, difference in the character of the writings could not affect the doctrine, as both in historical and prophetical productions there must exist the same fundamental views on the part of the writer. Now, the remark is indisputably correct, but the true reason of the fact has been misapprehended. For, first, the same difference which is exhibited between the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse, also appears, on comparison, between the Gospel of John and the first three Gospels. These latter, like the Revelation, present many doctrines and views agreeable to the Jews, particularly the visible coming of our Lord to assume his kingdom upon earth; while nothing of all this is touched. upon by the Gospel of John, notwithstanding there was ample occasion for doing so. It does not thence follow, however, that either John or the others err in representing the discourses of Jesus Christ, since the same person may have spoken sometimes

spiritually, as in John's discourses, and sometimes in a Judaizing manner, as according to the other Evangelists. The correct solution of this difficulty is to be sought solely in the special purpose of the Gospel of John, with which the first Epistle stands in such intimate connection that it is not strange it should partake of the same character. The two other Epistles are too short to be here taken into consideration For above (in the third chapter in speaking of the Gospel of John,) it was observed, that this Evangelist had a particular class of persons in view in his work, viz. men similar to the later Gnostics, and who in certain views coincided with them perfectly. In particular, they, like the Gnostics, speculated on divine things in a peculiar manner, and sought to idealize the real facts in the history of Jesus, more than the true apostolic doctrine permitted. These men, among whom were many very sensible and well-meaning persons, were those whom John had particularly in view in the composition of his Gospel. With apostolic wisdom he avoided in this work every thing which could offend the prejudices of these persons. Many Jewish ideas, which had a very good and genuine foundation, and, according to the first Gospels, were expressed by the Saviour himself, he kept back, becoming in a manner a Gnostic to the Gnostics, without doing the least injury, however, to the cause of truth. He depicted Christianity, therefore, to their minds, just as they could most easily comprehend it, convinced that when once they had seized this idea, they would gradually learn to understand it thoroughly.

If, now, we adhere stedfastly to this point of view, it will appear perfectly intelligible, how the same ohn Jwho wrote thus in the Gospel, should appear to express himself so differently in the Revelation, in the composition of which no such reference existed; though still he was always governed by the same doctrinal views at every period of his life. And thus we must declare, that no one of these reasons is calculated to disturb us in regard to the correctness and truth of the tradition of the. first centuries after Christ. If the repugnance which is felt towards the contents of the Apocalypse be only conquered, men will soon cease to rate so highly the reasons which are adduced against its apostolic origin, and to think so little of the importance of the unanimous tradition of antiquity. And that this may soon happen is the more to be wished, as the progressive development of the church makes the Revelation more and more

important in testing what is now occurring among Christians, and what awaits them in the immediate future!

CONCLUSION.

HAVING thus passed through the entire series of the writings of the New Testament, taking notice of the critical questions in regard to them, we will now, for the sake of convenience, present a compendious view of the results at which we have arrived.

We find then most, and the most important, of the writings in the canon of the New Testament, so unanimously acknowledged in ancient times, and so universally made use of as apostolical in later days, that there cannot be the least doubt in regard to them. They are on this account denominated Homologoumena, universally acknowledged writings, and form the main sources of the doctrine and history of the Christian church. Among these Homologoumena, as is stated by Eusebius so early as the commencement of the fourth century, were the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Pauline Epistles, the first Epistle of Peter, and the first of John. If we attend only to the voice of Christian antiquity, as Eusebius correctly observes, the Apocalypse also does in reality belong among the Homologoumena. But the fortune of this book has been so peculiar, that some have not even been willing to class it among the Antilegomena, but have ranked it with the writings which are of a profane character, and are to be utterly rejected. Eusebius was therefore in great perplexity to what class he could properly assign the Revelation. As to the Epistle to the Hebrews, its author is unknown, merely; its genuineness is not disputed. It belongs, therefore, to the class of the Antilegomena only so far as this, that its position in the canon was disputed; the relation of the author to the Apostle Paul not being unanimously acknowledged in the church.

Properly, the class of the Antilegomena among the New Testament writings comprehends the two smaller Epistles of John, the Epistles of James and Jude, and the second Epistle of Peter. These five books were never universally acknowledged and used in the ancient church. More recent investigation has decided in favour of the first three. The two smaller Epistles of John

are certainly apostolical, and from the author of the Gospel of John; that of James was not, indeed, written by one of the twelve, but by a brother of our Lord, who held such a prominent rank in the ancient church as placed him, like Paul, fully on a level with the apostles. As to the two writings last in the list, however, it appears justly somewhat doubtful whether they are productions of the days of the apostles. The Epistle of Jude is, indeed, certainly genuine, but as certainly not apostolical; and, as history attributes to this brother of our Lord no very prominent station or agency, the Epistle seems not properly to belong to the canon. It can be supported only by the second Epistle of Peter, which is not itself certainly of apostolical origin. For, in regard to the latter, a consideration of the circumstances makes it impossible to establish its genuineness objectively on valid grounds, although it may be made subjectively probable.

These results of the most careful critical investigation of the New Testament are very satisfactory. For, if we could wish that the genuineness and canonical character of the Antilegomena might be established by as valid arguments as we can adduce in behalf of the Homologoumena, still it must be admitted that those books upon which some suspicion rests, are the very books, of all the New Testament writings, with which we can most easily dispense. The chief and best of these writings are the very ones whose genuineness and apostolic authority are certified as strongly as possible.

If, now, we inquire into the relation between the external historical genuineness of the books of the New Testament, and their internal efficacy and determinate power over the faith and life of the individual, and of the whole community of Christians, it is certainly undeniable, that the former by itself decides nothing in favour of the latter; but still, on account of the circumstances of the church, demonstration of such genuineness is by no means unimportant or indifferent. It is clear that we may regard the writings of another religious system, the ZendAvesta of the Parsees, or the Koran of the Mahometans, as genuine, and as having proceeded from the immediate circle of adherents which the founder of that system of religion possessed, without thereby attributing to it any internal efficacy and determining power over the heart and life. But it cannot be said that a conviction of the genuineness of the apostolic origin of