Page images


either that this event was a 'terrible judgment,' or that it was ever "dangling over the latter days of ancient Rome. Certainly history is very much indebted to the study of the internal evidence of the Old Testament Scriptures.

It is one of our author's favourite arguments for the modern character, and Latin origin, of the Old Testament writings, that they are not in keeping with Oriental manners. Here, for example, is one of his notes:

As I do not remember, in the whole course of my life, to have ever read one single word of Persian literature or history, it would very ill become me to say that such a scene as the following could not have been enacted in an Eastern monarch's court. However, I may be permitted to observe, that such a supposition is utterly at variance with all popular impression of Eastern customs and

It is pre-eminently Gothic and German in its every tone and cast. How strongly does it not recall the tenson of the troubadour, as it may have existed in its best days? Did ever subject address an Eastern potentate as one of these young men is represented to have done? hoever saw him fondling with his mistress? When were women there almost deified as it seems they were at this time? How eminently feudal and chivalric is the whole scene from beginning to end. My own impression is, that the recovery of German literature and history, manners and customs, as they existed, say, from the 600th year of Rome to the second or third century of the Christian era, would be found to throw a greater light upon the sacred writings than all the literature of all the East together, perished or preserved. In the very justest proportions, they may be said to be impregnate of three most famous schools--the heroic, or Greek ; the classic, or Latin; and the romantic, or Saxon: none doth predominate; and nonc doth want. That their authors had heard of such countries as Egypt, Babylon, Juden, Tyre, &c., is evident, but farther acquaintance it is hardly possible to concede to them.'-P.466,

No one, however familiar with the Old Testament, would find himself able to recollect a passage to which the earlier part of this note could be applied; and, accordingly, on looking to the portion on which the note itself is founded, the reader finds that it is not in the Old Testament at all, but in the Apocrypha, taken from the book of Esdras, chaps. iii., iv. Now, by the best critics, the apocryphal books

are regarded as originally not of an earlier date than the second century, with interpolations which belong to the fourth or fifth.'* With respect to the passage on which he animadverts, therefore, the author's strictures may be just enough, but this proves nothing respecting the canonical books. Does this confounding of the canonical and the uncanonical books betray ignorance, or artifice ? It seems to us that it must be ascribed to the one or the other; and, in either case, the author's claim to confidence is forfeited.

That the canonical writings of the Old Testament had their origin in the first or second century of the Christian era, is a conceit utterly at variance with historical evidence, and directly contradicted by it. Tried by all the critical rules by which other literary remains of antiquity are tested, they were in existence long before that period, as the author himself, had he condescended to study the historical evi

* Kitto's • Biblical Cyclopædia,' art. Apocrypha.


[ocr errors]

dence, could not have doubted. But even on the supposition that there was no evidence of this kind, what explanation can the author give of the utter silence which succeeding ages have maintained concerning so extraordinary a fact as the generation of such a literature in the second century of the Christian era, until he himself has extorted from internal evidence alone? Of the date which he ascribes to the Hebrew Scriptures, and of the immediately following centuries, many writings are extant, and writings containing frequent references to the Hebrew Scriptures ; but in not a single one of these is the theory broached of either the recent origin, or the non-historical character, of the canonical books, although the writers lived at a time when such things, if they had been true, must have been far more easily known and demonstrated than now.

We have said enough, we think, to satisfy our readers of the character of the work before us; but, before closing our notice of it, we will give one more specimen of the manner in which the author proceeds :

• To demonstrate that to the aspect of but one period, or rather of one character of period only, were for ever directed the unvarying, the unwearied burden of the sacred, historic, and prophetic page, were hard indeed; it is a theory which can be but sustained suggestively, and it is one upon which the opinions of the learned must ever be divided. Addressing myself, rather, to the curious, the piercing and dispassionate, than to the ponderous, alarmed, argumentative, and grave, I shall attempt to sketch the train of thought which conducted me to such a conclusion.

* Firstly, it was perceived, that " as in Adam all died, so in Christ all were to rise again.” From whence it was concluded that Adam, previous to his fall, and types of the one age; as also, that Adam, after his fall, and Christ, previous to his Christ, subsequently to his resurrection, were the one personification, and, as such, resurrection, were equally the one character of type. Adam, after his fall, pertained to the family of "sin" and of “death." Christ, till his death (as having taken on himself the sins of the world), was also of the family of "sin" and of " death." He rose from Adam's fall; which mystery was finely penetrated of the apostle Paul. Again: “A prophet,” says Moses, “shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like unto me; him shall ye serve.” Hence, if Moses were to resemble unto Christ so must he unto Adam. These considerations afforded me a precedent for presuming that such parallels might, even yet, be farther pushed. Aware that“ from Adam to Christ death reigned in the world;" conceiving, again, the “ kingdom" of the “ Lord's Prayer" to be one with that from which our first fathers fell, or were expatriated; I then concluded that Christ had proposed to himself the re-establishment of the pre-Adamite world; that is, of a world before the "fall,and that that world was no other than the one to which it was forbidden to Moses to conduct the chosen race; the time was not yet. If this be once conceded, then must it necessarily follow, Christ's kingdom being the kingdom of the “stone,” that the kingdom of the “stone” were pre- Adamite in its general character. Again: Solomon was the “son of David;" Christ was the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

son of David;" hence were Solomon and Christ the one or parallel characters, for things which are equal to the same are cqual to one another. If the " last days” were to be the days of Christ, and if those were to be as the “ days of Noah," then must the “ days of Noah” have been as the days of Christ, as the days of Moses, as the days of Solomon. If the times of Christ were the times of which "all the prophets did write ;" then, not only did all the prophets write of one time, but, further, may their writings, in their character, be naturally presumed to portray the times of Moses, the times of Noah, the times of Solomon,



us, he

which, we have already seen, severally to answer to the times of Christ. Some by one link, some by another, every portion of the Scriptures may be shown, more or less distinctly, to refer, as I have already advanced, to one common epoch, or to one common character of epoch.'-Pp. vi. vii.

We are quite willing to leave this passage without remark; its extravagant license will be its own antidote. We may note the inconsistency of the author, however, in availing himself here of an argument which he elsewhere repudiates. Here he establishes a likeness between Moses and Christ on the ground of the declaration, 'A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you like unto me;' while in a note to which this

very passage

says• How sadly this simple statement of Moses, here dignified to the rank of a prophecy, were misinterpreted of the authors of the New Testament, it is hardly necessary to say. Moses clearly meant, that after his decease, God would have a care to continue unto them a ruler, or a succession of rulers; and, accordingly, we are told that he did.-P. 450.

A writer who will thus in the first instance condemn an interpretation as false, and immediately make use of it in argument as true, is either intolerably careless, or wilfully dishonest. In neither case is he trustworthy.

We shall now take our leave of this book, with the simple observation that its appearance is a suggestive sign of the times, as it regards the party from which it emanates. It has long been the fashion of the infidel school_we use the term infidel as descriptive merely—to cast reproach on the Bible; but it is their policy now to do it honour. It is now the grand old English Bible," a literature glorious and unique ;' imperfect, indeed, but, with all its imperfections, worth recovering at any cost. We take this as an acceptable confession that hitherto they have laboured in vain; and we shall see whether their insidious praise will do more to wean the hearts of men from the Bible, as containing the 'oracles of God' and the word of salvation, than has been done by nearly a century of cavil and abuse.

[blocks in formation]


Poor soul! The Sin against the Holy Ghost! How many times am I to listen to the same melancholy tale !

I think the great mistake in dealing with these cases lies in what I may

call topical applications,' or a treatment purely surgical. To meet them chiefly with direct arguments is like cauterizing a tumour or hacking away at it with the knife, instead of treating it as what it probably is-symptomatic, and aiming to corroborate the patient's system in general. It is a great point to withdraw the attention from the subject. My poor brother is like Mr. John Rhubarb, in the Spectator, who, whenever anything is to be said, done, or thought, humbly requests “ That Your Petitioner may have time allowed him to find how he does.' No, my brother, we refuse your petition point-blank; not a minute shall you have to call your own, if we can help it. We'll find out how you do by what you do. And, now, to provide you occupation! :: What an infinite help it would be in these cases of spiritual morbidity if there were a more genial Christian manliness and womanliness abroad; more heart-life and less creedism; more trust and less whim. People take their stand on propositions, and try to project brotherly love from that stand-point. I ought to love brother Smith, and l'il begin to-morrow, soon after breakfast.' Brother Smith rather wonders what is up, and nothing comes of it

"So barren sands imbibe the shower,
But render neither fruit nor flower,

Unpleasant and ungrateful.' And besides the formalism, there is often a muddle-headed asceticism puzzling the sentiments, and leaking out subtly in the intercourse, to such a degree that it is palpably dashed with insincerity, and spoilt by consciousness. Two or three friends laugh at a quaint story—but mingling with the healthy music of honest mirthfulness is the sound of a drag-chain in their thoughts, every clank of which seems to say, • Be sure you do not laugh too heartily. I have seen, more than once seen, a young brother or sister, leading a pure and gracious life, walking worthily, in the purple brightness of youth,' of the holy Name, challenged and confounded in the midst of some quite innocent unconscious enjoyment, with the question, 'Could you ask the blessing of the Lord upon this ?'—or, Would you wish the Lord to appear in the clouds and surprise you doing this ?' I have seen this, in cases where I myself should have confounded the questioner by simply replying “Yes, I should'-or adding (if anything), my Lord would justly be wroth with me if he found me thinking at all upon such an occasion. Take back your question, my brother, carry it fairly round the four-and-twenty hours of your life, and you will see how false is your present application of it. The death's head at the feast is a pagan, and by no means a Christian idea. It says, “You have eaten of the tree, and now there is an unredeemed taint in every other fruit of the garden.” But my Lord gives me back the promise of the life that now is, folded up in that of the life which is to come, and by my obedience makes me free.'

Well, this is not going so far astray from what I began this note with as it seems. Poor J is harassed with doubts about the sin unto death ; I feel satisfied that true, warm, unhampered social intercourse would be the very tonic he most requires, next to active employment; and when I look around my people I scarcely know three circles in which I think he would be likely to get it. To be taken clean out of

[ocr errors]




himself is what he wants, and the half-life which is lived by those about him will only serve to quicken his wretched self-consciousness.

[ocr errors]

How very unsatisfactorily is the question between written and unwritten sermons generally conducted. There is evidently a vague, uncatechized impression on the vulgar mind that there is more reliance upon the Spirit of God, and therefore more probability of being helped by Him, in a spoken than in a written discourse. Yet if those who think thus would push their notion as far as it will go they would of course be compelled to make very destructive alterations in their customary belief on the subject of miraculous divine influence. Next, we have the equally vague, uncatechized idea that there must be more freedom and sincerity of soul in an extempore than in a precomposed discourse. It all depends. It is a fact that some men can think and feel most freely in the closet, and, having there given their thoughts and feelings a body, can fill it with more than the breath of its original life under the stimulus of a large number of listeners. Then, such people should not preach. It all depends, again, on who are the listeners. All things are double one against another; and if there are those to whom prepared speaking (or reading) is the true extempore process, there will also be those who will find their account in being hearers. In point of fact there are; and it is no more opposed to genuine spontaneity that a preacher should write down his thoughts, than that a composer should write down his music, beforehand. Sydney Smith's sneer about warmed-up enthusiasm a week old' is natural enough from a man who was never lifted off his feet by an emotion in all his life-but life consists of a series of warmings-up. People talk of the dead past,' but there is no such thing. This reminds me of a logomachy between two of my members concerning the question whether a sermon can be considered profitable which does not affect the mind beyond the hour. I was actually present while this was debated, and found it hard to get in a word of common sense, and to put the question—How can you tell, my friend, whether the effect of a sermon (or anything else) is permanent or not? When I was a child (said I) I used to have a very vivid, terrible vision of the Angel over against the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite, counting up the last slain with his sword of fire. It had passed away from me, utterly. I had read the chapter in Chronicles often since, and again in my study the other day, without recalling the image. Suddenly, in the pulpit, last Lord's-dny, while I was reading it aloud to my people, it had flashed up into my face, as fresh as if of yesterday. How foolish (said 1) a man must feel who, having made up his mind that a particular discourse cannot influence his mind beyond the hour, finds out some day that it has stayed with him for years, and puts into his hand a clue of thought in the very hour of his need!

To come back to sermons considered from another point of view. If the preacher is only master of his matter, so that

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »