thirty years. And in Genesis xv. 13, a prophecy is stated to have been made, during the lifetime of Abraham, and to that patriarch, announcing that period as the time that such sojourn would last, the only difference being that in the prophecy the round number of four centuries is given, in the historical relation, the specific number of four hundred and thirty years. Now this period of four hundred and thirty years does not suit the Chevalier Bunsen's chronological system, as gathered by him from the Egyptian hieroglyphics. Accordingly, he treats it as a mistake of the inspired writer. In the absence of eminent names during the sojourn in Egypt, and consequently of a genealogical basis on which to determine the length of this sojourn, the inspired writer is supposed to have adopted the summary method of doubling the patriarchal period. The patriarchal period, including the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was 215 years: the historian knew that the period of the sojourn in Egypt was longer than that, but he did not know how much longer. As a convenient mode, therefore, of settling the point, he supposed it to be twice as long; that is to say, 430 years. Such is the treatment of the sacred narrative; that of the prophecy corresponds. The prophecy is supposed to have been made somewhat earlier or later, for this is doubtful,' than the event to which it related, viz. the termination of the sojourn in Egypt.' That is to say, the statement which the Bible says was prophetical, the Chevalier Bunsen says was not.

The other instance of the Chevalier Bunsen's treatment of the historical Scriptures is a more important one, involving, as it does, a whole set of facts, intimately connected with the scheme of man's redemption, its promise, its type, the family selected as the instrument of its fulfilment, and appealed to constantly throughout the New Testament, with such reference. The sacrifice of Isaac was the significant type of that higher sacrifice which God the Father made in sending His only Son into the world to suffer death upon the cross for man's redemption. Messiah is declared throughout Scripture to be the veritable seed of Abraham. The relation, then, in which the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob stand to one another and to the Jewish nation, is an important fact in Scripture history. Nevertheless, the Chevalier Bunser destroys it, coming, as it does, into collision with is ch

The

ical system. To Abraham, nal existence, but without a gy of the chosen friend of g great and

of Asia; it

represents the relation of tribes to each other, not personal ' relations of father and son.' And the genealogy of Abraham, as M. Bunsen uses the term, includes his posterity as well as his forefathers, for he includes in it Abraham's posterity by Keturah; adding, that any one who still wishes not to see ⚫ with regard to these names, that they are the names of tribes not of persons, will here, through the plural form of the names, 'be compelled to acknowledge that he is in the presence of traditions as to the connexion of tribes of people.' In the midst of this great province of names, representing tribes, he makes, indeed, an exception in favour of the three patriarchs, so far as to suppose that they were not tribes but persons; an exception of which, while we admire the spirit, we must confess an entire inability to understand the rationale. But their personality is all which is allowed; their relationship, and with it the whole affecting narrative of facts supposing it, as well as their bearing upon the scheme of the gospel, falls to the ground. Indeed it has been observed, that of the whole history of Abraham, upon M. Bunsen's plan, only one chapter is retained as true, viz. that in which he fights with four kings of Canaan for the delivery of Lot. And by a strange coincidence, that remarkable German critic, M. Ewald, selects the same chapter for unqualified approval, as an account of inestimable value;' the value apparently lying mainly in the circumstance that it is considered wholly at variance with all other accounts.' Thus Abraham appears like Eshkol and Mamre, with whom he stands in a mutual defensive alliance, as the head of a mighty house of Canaan-he wages war, an act not even distantly hinted at in the older Mosaic documents, as not being suitable to a prophet and holy man in the Mosaic 'view.'

6

But M. Bunsen's responsibility extends beyond his own particular written opinions and conclusions. We do not say that for a man to praise those who go all lengths on any question, is exactly the same thing as going those lengths himself. But we do say that it is a very grave additional responsibility which he undertakes. And when such praise is given with warmth and earnestness, when it is applied not to any general talents or endowments of mind which the other may show, but to his services on the particular subject, it is difficult to believe that the commender can object heartily even to the very lengths to which the other carries his speculation, and that he does not agree fundamentally with him. We have just mentioned a remarkable German theological critic, M. Ewald, the author of a book called a History of the People of Israel.' Of the principles on which M. Ewald deals with Scripture, his general view of inspiration, we may form some idea when we

learn that he has adopted it as an axiom that 'a passage seemingly containing prophecy' is of the date of the event of 'which it speaks.' Thus the authors of the prophecy of Jacob, of the prophecy of Moses, and of the prophecy of Balaam, are placed respectively in the time of the Judges, in the reign of Josiah, and in the reign of Uzziah or Jotham. These writers are called 'prophetic relators of history,' and their predictions are considered to belong to a peculiar style of authorship. On a similar principle of criticism the author of the book of Deuteronomy is placed very late, viz. in the second half of the reign of king Manasseh,' the reason for the assignment of so late a date being that the book of Deuteronomy itself states that it was written by Moses' own hand. M. Ewald sees in such an assertion a boldness of historical assumption' which only belongs to the later ages of history. Such an assump'tion,' he remarks, is certainly one of the many signs of the ' later date of this writer, who, on the very ground that he felt 'himself to be at such a distance from the time of Moses, gave 'the freest play to the mode of looking upon and treating his'tory.' Such a mode of treating history is indeed a very free one, being no less than the assertion that something took place which never did.

It can be no wonder if on such principles of criticism the whole of the early Bible history melts into mist and darkness; if the prevailing character of the Bible relations is declared to be unhistorical; if the patriarchs are supposed to stand at the head of a series of ideal pictures, analogous to the heroes as distinct from the gods of heathen antiquity; the juxtaposition of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob being compared to the triad of Agamemnon Achilles and Ulysses, on which the Iliad, and that of Anchises Eneas and Ascanius, on which the old tale of Troy, the basis of the Eneid, turns. Nor can it be any matter of surprise if from the age of heroes we ascend to that of gods, and on passing from patriarchal into antediluvian times, meet with two demigoddesses in the wives of Lamech, Ada and Zillah, with Janus, or the modern Yanacea, in the person of Enoch, with Mars in the person of Methuselah, with Apollo in that of Mahalaleel, with the river-god, or the Indian Varuna, in that of Jared. The critic does not indeed impose these analogies dictatorially upon his readers, but only as the most reasonable conjectures he can form, considering the great difficulties under which his inquiry is conducted. Our inquiry,' he says, into this period is rendered the more difficult, because 'with very slight exceptions our only source is the Bible.' Abandoned, however, to so poor (as he imagines) an authority or guide, he has made the most of his resources; for no sagacity less than that of an acute German critic could, by the light of

Scripture principally, have discovered such remarkable analogies. Moreover he considers that however obscure the source, some truths, even of an historical kind, may be drawn from Scripture. Although,' says M. Ewald, we cannot here own very much so securely as we could wish, as pure history, yet at least some 'strictly historical truths of importance do come up, the more welcome out of that distant sea of fog, so soon as we are 'adequately qualified to see them right.'

1

After settling who the patriarchs themselves were, M. Ewald settles their religion; which was, according to him, polytheistic in its bias. It had, indeed, a monotheistic element, which 'Mosaism' afterwards took up and developed, but the element was then but a partial one. The monotheism of the patriarchs was a local and a domestic monotheism; there was no more than one god for one place, or for one family; but another place and another family might have another god. The god of the three patriarchs was one god in relation to their rule, which was simply domestic,' he was essentially a single family-god.' He was conceived of indeed with strict morality, and in contrast with any degraded conceptions.' But such a domestic 'god, however elevated were the conceptions of him, admitted of other gods together with himself, for other houses or other 6 men, and accordingly was in no way a security against poly'theism.' Indeed that God in the time before Moses was ' conceived of with this idea of indefinite extension and possible divisiblitiy, the standing use of the plural elohim proves (especially as compared with the corresponding teraphim, 'penates). The oldest tale itself proves this, in that in an oath it makes Jacob and Laban call upon the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor as two different gods.' The two altars built respectively to the God of Bethel,' and 'God, the God of Israel,' prove the same. Thus together with the chief god, the house-god of the chief, a hero-pantheon was formed;' and there was wanting to the One God of the patriarchs all the more precise definiteness and sharp severance of the 'Mosaic God.'2

6

Such is the critic of whose labours the Chevalier Bunsen' thus speaks: The first part of Ewald's History of the People of Israel has appeared; a work which we look upon as the beginning of a truly historical corrected research into this ever-memorable portion of the history and its sources, and hail with glowing thankfulness as an honourable memorial of "German learning and historical science.' 'Oh for the earnest and sifting eye of Ewald!'

So much for the opinions of M. Bunsen himself, and the

1 Christian Remembrancer, vol. xii. p. 311.

2 Ibid. p. 415.

opinions of those whom he admires. We may add, on the authority of a correspondent in the Record, that these opinions of his have already excluded him from the platform of two societies, of whose impartial estimate of him, and strong reluctance to take such a step, nobody can doubt the London Missionary Society, and the Religious Tract Society.

Can Lord Shaftesbury then show cause why the rebuke which we quoted from the Gospel of S. Matthew should not be addressed to him- Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?' If Lord Shaftesbury has not placed himself within the legitimate compass of that rebuke, no one ever has, and no one ever will do so. With a writer who openly knocks down the inspiration of Scripture whenever it suits his own theories, with a most distinguished sceptic, by his side, he dares to accuse another party of an alliance with scepticism. It is not we, but the very letter of Scripture which rebukes him, and which proceeds to rebuke him further, and to combine with its rebuke advice:- Thou hypocrite! first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, 'then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy 'brother's eye.'

and

But we have not yet done. The Tractarian party,' which Lord Shaftesbury accuses of an alliance with scepticism, has one eminent member, who is so far, to the popular eye, in the position of a leader, that his name has been given to it. Now it so happens, that just six years ago an elaborate letter appeared in this very Review, with the initials of that eminent person appended to it, warning the religious world of the opinions of M. Bunsen, their contradiction to the Inspiration of Scripture, and so to the very foundation of Christian belief. We have referred to it throughout this article. That letter must have caused no small pain to its writer, for, if we mistake not, it was written at the cost of many private friendly recollections of the distinguished person whom he thought it a public religious duty to oppose. It was a letter marked with all the care and earnestness for which its writer is so remarkable, with all his fulness of proof, reference, and quotation. The work of M. Bunsen, Egypt's Position in the History of the World,' which had then recently become known in this country, was regularly entered into, examined and laid bare; all that portion of it, that is, which related to the Bible history, and its inspiration. Society was solemnly warned against audacious speculation upon sacred ground, against all tampering with the Bible, against the inroads of Scepticism and Infidelity. So far, then, as that writer represents Tractarians,' and we may add, so far as