most trustworthy sources, and showing a considerable number of at least approximate synchronisms. But as there is every reason to anticipate that the Assyrian records will ere long yield very considerable aid in such inquiries, we shall delay for a time till the results of those researches be laid before the public, and furnish us with a more suitable opportunity to resume the subject. It would amuse, if it did not seriously grieve us, to peruse the curious theories and reasonings of those writers who are anxious to support the lengthened chronology which Egyptian monuments seem to require. The Chevalier Bunsen, for example, in his elaborate work, "Egypt's Place in Univeral History," strives to prove that we must adopt the date of above 3500 B.C. as that of the most flourishing period of the Egyptian empire, when the genius of the people had already acquired, in their written language, in their acquaintance with the arts, and, above all, in their "wonderful religious system, the inheritance of primeval Asia." But he has not proved, nor even attempted to prove, that primeval Asia had any thing so very wonderful to bequeath. He relies greatly on the inscriptions of the monuments, and says, "One of the most important branches of contemporary monuments for antiquarian research are the stelé, stone tablets, with the statement of the year of the government of the kings under whom they were erected." Well, and what is the historical value of these stone tablets? "They do not supply us," he says, "with history, nor even with chronology." "As these monuments (annals of the priests) are destitute of the living traditions with which they were connected, the lists of kings and series of years are mere skeletons without life and living connection,-names without events, dates without history, and without chronology such as history requires." When speaking of their sacred books he says, "These contain no history of the Egyptian people, as do the books of the Old Testament. The idea of the people, and still more that of the people's God, the Creator of heaven and earth, is wanting." From such statements plain people would be very apt to conclude that Bunsen meant them to understand that he could not give chronological dates to the monumental records of ancient Egypt, and was stating the reason why he did not intend to attempt it. But they would soon find that they had greatly misapprehended his design. He has succeeded in making Egyptian records sufficiently dateless, and may theorise at pleasure, so far as they are concerned. But the Scripture history stands in his way; for whether it was the design of God to furnish man with a complete canon of chronology or not, it cannot be denied that a very full series of dates is given, from Adam to the deluge, and from Noah to the Babylonian captivity, so that if the

dates themselves be correctly stated, it requires but a very easy arrangement and computation of them to supply a chronology of the world. In the earlier period of the world's history these dates stand alone, no ancient nation having any thing at all corresponding to them; but in a later period they can be compared with the era of Nabonassar, with the Olympiads, and with the year of the building of Rome. All these secular eras only confirm the sacred chronology within the period over which they extend. We might naturally conclude that since the accuracy of Bible chronology was confirmed by all contemporary evidence, so far as that reached, we might safely enough place confidence in it, even where it stood alone; but, however rational this may be, it would sadly hamper the magnificent speculations of philosophical and philological theorists. Dr Bunsen accordingly institutes an examination of Bible chronology, in relation chiefly to the period of the Judges, and seems to imagine that he has thrown so much darkness over that period that nothing beyond it can be clearly descried. Having thus succeeded, as he seems to suppose, in throwing equal obscurity over all history and chronology, secular and sacred, he feels himself at liberty to take a position in the regions beyond that palpable obscure, and from his loftiest transcendental idealism construct a system of Universal History all his own, in which he may give what place he pleases to hoary and mysterious Egypt.

This attempt has not succeeded, and cannot succeed. Even Lepsius has already furnished some important refutations of Bunsen's theories. Nay, Bunsen himself has inadvertently, in several instances, contradicted his own conclusions, and in more, has furnished data from which may be drawn still further contradictions. As we have already seen, he has declared that the stone tablets supply neither history nor chronology,—a declaration which destroys the basis of his theory. Again, in several instances, he has proved that some of Manetho's dynasties and reigns must have been contemporaneous, yet his theory requires that they should be consecutive. And many other instances of similar contradictory statements, direct or inadvertent, might be produced, did our space permit, or were it consistent with our present design to prosecute our inquiries in that direction. One point, however, must still be mentioned. The recent discoveries at Nineveh have proved that in several instances the great monarchies of Assyria and Egypt came into contact. So far as the dates of those instances of contact have been ascertained, they strongly contradict Bunsen's extravagantly lengthened chronology of Egypt. It is, therefore, in vain for him and his followers to prosecute their endeavours to set aside Scripture chronology,

till they shall have fairly met and answered the contemporary testimony of disinterred Assyria. It would have been interesting, had space allowed, or had a fair opportunity been presented by our present subject, to have discussed with Bunsen, on his own grounds, some of the questions which he has raised. We should like to inquire, how a philosophical historian can determine Egypt's place in universal history, when he can find no other nation to place beside or near itwhen there is literally no other history, and its own monuments "supply neither history nor chronology?" We should like also to ask, how, since the history of Egypt is divided into three great epochs, as he asserts, of which the middle is historically and chronologically an entire, impassable chasm-how a commencing date can be given to the first human empire, not only as unapproachably beyond that chasm, but as resting on no firmer basis than astronomical cycles, and fabulous reigns and dynasties of gods and demigods? Further, we should earnestly inquire, in what manner philological criticism, even as learned German scholars use it, can positively determine the history of the most remote and dateless antiquity, whether in the absence of other languages, or in opposition to the information which they afford? And we venture to say, that not a few of the assertions made by that boasted higher criticism could be shown to be alike unphilosophical, unphilological, and unhistorical, the gorgeous visions of halfdreaming theorists.

We must, however, hasten to a close, as we have already gone beyond our intended limits, though we have little more than touched a number of points which would have deserved a much ampler treatment. In concluding, we may be permitted to recall the attention of our readers to the view suggested at the outset. From the time when the Assyrian discoveries were laid before the public, we have watched their progress with intense and increasing interest. It was easy to perceive that they would have an important bearing on Scripture truth; and though we never entertained a doubt that the result would ultimately be entirely in favour of the Bible, yet we were anxious about its more immediate effect. Our anxiety was increased when we thought of the very loose state of public opinion regarding the inspiration and authenticity of the historical books of the Old Testament, and how readily men would adopt any theory that ancient inscriptions seemed to give, in preference to what is contained in that divinely inspired record. To this was added our deep conviction that the characteristics of the present age are those of rapidly advancing change, vast, farreaching, and fraught with inestimable good, or unutterable evil, to futurity. These changes will come; their elements are

NO. VI.

2Z

already working; but we think we can now descry the introduction of influences destined to mould and guide them to a happy issue. Let the reader again mark attentively and thoughtfully the peculiarity of the juncture in which these discoveries have taken place, in connection with the nature of the discoveries themselves, as we have endeavoured to state them.

For some time past the opponents of Scripture have directed their attacks generally against the authenticity of the books of Moses, and the other historical portions of the Bible, being persuaded, doubtless, that if they could destroy the authority of the Word of God as history, and thereby get quit of its facts, it would not be difficult, in a secular-minded and materialistic age like the present, to depreciate all its doctrinal statements, when thus bereft of any basis of facts to rest upon. In this they seem to have thought they had succeeded,—so far, at least, as to be at liberty to deal with it as they pleased, and to treat all its records as a series of mythic legends. Having thus resolved the religious system of the Bible into the merely temporary forms assumed by the "religious consciousness" of a past age, to which it was suitable enough, though now worn out and useless, they began to put on an air of great importance, and to talk about the necessity of constructing a new religion, which should be suited to the demands and exigencies of this enlightened age. Were it possible that such an attempt should succeed, the consequence would be, that it would infuse into the heart of an age of transition a false and deadly principle, which could issue in nothing but increased evil, and utter ruin. But Divine Providence appears to have determined otherwise. In spite of historical and philological criticism of the high a priori order, and in spite of myths and metaphysical mysticism, the historical basis of the Old Testament Scriptures has been confirmed in a manner and to a degree which may bid defiance to all the attempts of all present and future advocates of infidelity or scepticism. Evidence, at least disinterested, and actually contemporaneous, has unexpectedly appeared. On a sudden the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt have rolled off their hieroglyph-encrusted swathes, and the Assyrian monarchs have reappeared in serenely majestic sternness, attesting by their visible presence, and the indelible records of their times, the terrible reality of the events recorded in Scripture, and proclaiming from their long-silent tombs that Moses and Isaiah had spoken nothing but the truth. By such testimony the dreamy theories of speculative mysticism must needs be dispelled, and the Bible maintained in its rightful supremacy, as a divinely recorded, and, therefore, divinely true history of the world; given to man, not for the gratification of antiquarian curiosity, but for the infinitely higher pur

pose of revealing to him the principles by which alone human conduct, private or public, individual or national, can be regulated in accordance with the moral government of God. Thus it is, as we believe, that God is infusing into the heart of this transition age, by the confirmed authority of the Bible, those principles of eternal truth which will not only outlive all the convulsions that may occur, but will also reconstruct society on a firmer and more extended basis than has ever hitherto been known, preparatory for a full development and prolonged duration of the royal law of liberty, civil and religious, guided and sanctioned by the word and will of the King Eternal.

ART. VI.-Augustus Neander, his Influence, System, and various Writings.

NEANDER'S greatness, notwithstanding the large space he fills in the eyes of mankind, is not justly entitled to be called a rounded or well-proportioned greatness. With many excellencies, he has his faults. Nor are those faults so slight or unimportant, as to be merged in the splendour of his pre-eminent services. When errors, and especially the errors of great and good men, impinge on Scriptural doctrines of importance, we cannot say, and indeed it would be full of dangerous consequence to say, that we accept their spiritual excellence as a balance of their faults. In two different spheres, Neander's eminence is very unequal. He is so deficient in full-orbed completeness, when viewed from two different and dissimilar points, that it will be necessary, if we would discriminate his merits with perfect justice, to distinguish between the same man as the theologian, and as the historian of the church. In his capacity of theologian, it is impossible to assign Neander a commanding, or even a high place. And his admirers in this and in other lands, who defer to him as an authority in this respect, do a real injury to his memory, as well as involve themselves in a mistake, which those who belong to churches of the German tongue, and who have the means of correcting their mistakes upon the spot, instinctively avoid. It will be incumbent on us in the sequel to review his general principle. But whether we have to exhibit his opinions in detail, or to delineate the dangers of that unregulated subjectivity to which he attached himself as a general tendency, it is impossible, we think, for any one not to take grave exception, and that