majority, thus constitutionally expressed. And although, according to the new organization, the General Assembly will have no appellate jurisdiction from the judgment of the synods, nor any controlling power over these bodies, yet in the business of proposing standing rules or alterations, in the adopted standards, this body can act as the organ of the whole, in sending down proposals, and in receiving the opinions of the presbyteries, and declaring to the Churches what is determined by the vote of the majority.

If it be inquired, how can this new plan be brought into operation? the answer is, that it must be done constitutionally, as the original plan of government was adopted, and as all constitutional changes have been made since. Let a committee be appointed by the next General Assembly to propose an overture to the presbyteries, requiring them to send up their opinions on the subject, by the next meeting, and thus, if the plan should be acceptable to the presbyteries and the Churches, within a year from next spring, the whole matter may be adjusted, and a large proportion of the existing causes of heart-burning, contention, and confusion, be for ever removed.

But whether the plan for a new organization of the Church, which we have proposed, meet with acceptance or not, something must be done to alleviate or remove some of the inconveniences which at present attend the meetings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. The evil begins to be felt so seriously by many, that an effort will undoubtedly. be made, at the next meeting of the General Assembly, to have some proposition sent down to the presbyteries, to effect such an alteration in the constitution of the Church, as will diminish the number of members in the Assembly. Some presbyteries have already had the subject under consideration, and at least one synod has directed that a memorial be laid before the next meeting of the Assembly, the object of which is to request, that measures be taken to reduce the number of members in that body. Different methods of effecting this object have been proposed. It is evident, that it will not do to increase the ratio of representation from the presbyteries, for this would be to allow the small presbyteries an undue advantage over the same number of members in the large presbyteries, unless it should be so ordered, that two small presbyteries should unite in sending delegates. Another method of attaining the object which has been repeatedly

proposed, is to alter the constitution so that the commissioners to the Assembly should be appointed by the synods, instead of the presbyteries, according to a ratio which would limit the number of members within moderate bounds; and provision might be made in the rule, which should be adopted, that the delegates should be chosen from the presbyteries. composing the synod, so that each should have the privilege of furnishing its just proportion. Although we prefer a more radical reform, and are of opinion, that all other measures will prove mere palliations, and that the difficulty will recur, and the pressure be felt hereafter as sensibly as at present; yet we are so deeply convinced of the necessity of adopting speedy measures to reduce the Assembly to a convenient size, that we will concur in either of the plans yet mentioned, if this should be found agreeable to a large majority of the Church. Certainly, there ought to be no objection to sending down some one of these plans to the presbyteries. And we see no evil as likely to arise, from sending down all of them, and letting the presbyteries choose the one which, in their judgment, is the best; or, if they should, after all that has happened, be of opinion that nothing ought to be done, be it so. They have the natural and constitutional right to determine this matter.

We have been induced to bring this subject before the Churches, that there may be an opportunity of giving it an impartial examination; and that the delegates to the next General Assembly may come up to that body prepared to act on the subject. And if the Presbyteries, generally, would consider the subject, and instruct their commissioners in regard to this matter, it would probably prevent a great deal of unnecessary discussion in the Assembly. We should be gratified also, if what we have written should invite free and temperate discussion in the periodical papers, between this time and the meeting of the supreme judicatory of the Church. If a plan better than any which has been thought of or proposed by us shall be brought forward, we shall be ready to adopt it in the place of our own, and will promote it as cordially as if it had been devised by ourselves.

ART. III.-HENGSTENBERG'S VINDICATION OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL*.

THE principles and tendency of German criticism, as applied to sacred subjects, have been so long, and so justly, objects of suspicion with the religious public, that we are glad of an opportunity to bring before our readers something better from that quarter. We take pleasure, even in announcing the existence of such works as the Christologie of which we have already given specimens, and the volume now before us, from the same pen. It is as pleasing as it is novel, to read books so strongly marked with all that learning and acuteness which constitute the glory of the German literati, yet having for their object the defence of revelation, and savouring throughout of evangelical religion. The present publication may, indeed, be regarded as a direct attack upon that form of infidelity which arrogates the lofty name of rationalism, or rational religion, and instead of rejecting the Scriptures in a mass, chooses rather to destroy their divine authority and practical effect by the plausible refinements of a subtle criticism. The author, who is known to some of our readers, we presume, as the conductor of an evangelical religious newspaper, and to others as a young but very learned and devout professor in the Berlin University, informs us in his preface, that he had determined to compose a compendious introduction to the Old Testament, for the express purpose of counteracting a work of the same kind by the learned neologist de Wette. As such a work, with such a design, however, was a new thing under the sun, he soon found that it would be necessary to go into large details, and pursue minute inquiries, for the purpose of detecting falsehood and establishing the truth. This led him to project a larger work upon the same general plan, but in filling up the outline, he discovered that some single branches of the subject furnished matter for as many volumes, and were too important to be hurried over slightly. He finally determined to discuss these topics seriatim, publishing the results of his research from time to time. Of this series we have here the first volume, intended to demonstrate the genuineness

* Die Authentie des Daniel und die Integritet des Sacharjah, erwiesen von Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Dr. der Phil. & der Theol. der letzt. ord. Prof. Berlin, 1831, 8vo.

of the book of Daniel, and the integrity of the book of Zechariah. The latter subject occupies a small part of the volume. It is the former only that we shall advert to, in the present article.

Having called the attention of our readers to this work, we may perhaps be expected to furnish a particular account of its contents. We have mentioned it, indeed, chiefly because we think it worthy of a more emphatic notice than could well be given to it in a catalogue of recent publications, and because we wish to let the public know what the signs of the times are in the great officina of the learned world. Still we are not unwilling to present an outline of the author's argument. Let it be premised, however, that it is impossible, in such a sketch, to exhibit those qualities which give the work its distinctive. excellence. Those qualities are learning, ingenuity, and judgment, displayed for the most part in the detection of plausible fallacies and covert falsehood. Those who would estimate the author's powers, therefore, must read his arguments at length and in detail. We shall attempt no more than to give the substance of such parts as will admit of condensation, without servile adherence to the order or terms of the original.

To destroy the credit of the book of Daniel, has been all along a favourite object with the foes of revelation, whether open or disguised; pagans, deists, or neologists. All the attacks upon it have, indeed, proceeded from that quarter. The Jewish Synagogue and the Orthodox Church, have, with one consent, received it as a part of revelation. Bertholdt has attempted, it is true, to show, by quotations from the Talmud and from Origen, that the book was of old rejected, both by Jews and Christians. That no such conclusion can be fairly drawn from the expressions cited, Dr. Hengstenberg has clearly shown, (pp. 2, 3.)

In the early part of the 18th century, Edward Wells asserted that the first chapter was written after Daniel's death. Sir Isaac Newton and Beausobre went still further, and denied the genuineness of the first six chapters, asserting, however, in the strongest terms, the divine authority of the whole. These we believe, are the only exceptions to the striking unanimity which has prevailed among the friends of revelation. We must look elsewhere, then, for the desperate attempts which have been made to overthrow this strong prophetic pillar. Porphyry, who wrote in the third century, VOL. IV. No. I.-G

filled one of his fifteen books against Christianity, with an attempt to prove that the pretended book of Daniel was written in Greek, in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. He was answered by Eusebius, Methodius, Apollinarius, and Jerome. To the latter we owe the preservation of such fragments as continue extant, the work itself having been burnt by order of the Emperor.

The English deist, Collins, was the first in modern times, who undertook to overthrow the credit of this book; for Hobbes and Spinoza went no further than to intimate their doubts. Collins, however, had not learning for the task. The age of learned skepticism had not yet arrived. Even Sember, who stands next upon the list of adversaries, argues altogether from the singular position, that the book was wholly void of moral and religious value!

John David Michalis was the first who made it a learned controversy. He was very far, however, from adopting Sember's sentiments. He questions the genuineness of four chapters only (iii.—vi.) and candidly confesses, with respect to them, that the further he examined, the less he felt disposed to doubt. The divine authority of the other chapters he explicitly admits.

Eichhorn went further; yet even he, in the earlier, editions of his introduction, rejects the first six chapters only. Hezel maintains the same opinion, and distinctly grants, that as a witness in behalf of revelation, Daniel may be called the most important of the prophets.

The first assailant of the book of Daniel who boldly took his stand upon the ground of rationalism, was Corrodi; and on that same ground stand all who have succeeded him-Bertholdt, Griesinger, Gesenius, Bleek, de Wette, Kirms. It deserves to be recorded, too, that no sooner did Corrodi take this step, than Eichhorn doffed his mask, and went to all lengths with the rest. Facilis descensus Averni!

These enemies of the truth differed among themselves (as might have been expected) in relation to two points, the design of the book, and the number of its authors. To the former we shall have occasion to allude anon. The latter we may spare ourselves the trouble of discussing. No writer since Bertholdt, (who, with true German sagacity, detected the indicia of NINE different authors) has been absurd or bold enough to follow in his train. Gesenius, de Wette, Bleek, and Kirms, not only admit the unity of the book, but prove