which our earliest impressions of Scripture lands and of Eastern customs were, and to a considerable extent still are, derived, will suffice to convince any, whose attention has not been already directed to this subject, of the justice of our remarks.

We are by no means insensible of the existence of another and far greater evil, to the growth of which many recent works on Biblical subjects have, we fear, in no inconsiderable degree, conduced. So far, however, from ascribing the recent development of scepticism to a more profound and more extensive acquaintance with the literature, the history, and the geography of the East, we regard the prevailing ignorance on such subjects, which characterised the last century, as one amongst the many causes which conspired, if not to produce so baneful a result, at least to pave the way for its production. It is almost impossible to read the first volume of Bishop Colenso's attack upon the authenticity of the Pentateuch, or a considerable portion of a book which at its first appearance achieved an equal or greater notoriety — we allude more particularly to the contributions of Dr. Williams and Mr. Goodwin to “Essays and Reviews”—and not to perceive that no inconsiderable portion of the difficulties therein alleged must have had their origin in the application to the volume of Scripture of the first principles of critical investigation on the part of men superficially enquiring, “What is truth?” but too impatient and self-sufficient to await what would in due season prove to be the answer to the enquiry.

It is but right, however, that we should anticipate a possible objection, on the part of our readers, to our expression of satisfaction in the appearance of the work before us, grounded upon the religious creed of its Authors. It is true, indeed, that there is nothing in the title or external characteristics of these volumes to proclaim the religious opinions of the writers. But independently of the associations connected with the worldrenowned name of Rothschild, and in spite not only of the professed intention of the writers to abstain from controversial subjects, but also of the candid though somewhat unusual ayowal, on the part of members of the Jewish Church, of the extent of their obligation to Christian Authors, we discern throughout the work, and more especially in those portions which treat of the ancient types and prophecies, indications which it is impossible to misinterpret, that the veil is still upon the heart of the writers.

There are two grounds, however, on which we hail with peculiar satisfaction the appearance of a work which may be regarded as indicative of the views of a considerable and influential portion of the Jewish community. The one is, that every expression of a belief in the authenticity of the contents of the Old Testament Scriptures, on the part of those who are

at least as competent, in respect both of natural ability and acquired learning, to judge of the internal evidence of their truth as the majority of their recent impugners, is entitled to as much consideration as an argument on the positive side, as the like amount of scepticism is on the negative.* The other ground for the satisfaction which we feel in the appearance of these volumes is, that, believing, as we do, that the prayerful study of the Old Testament Scriptures must, if rightly conducted, lead the inquirer to Him to whom Moses and the prophets alike bear witness, we cannot but regard it as an augury of good whenever we hear of any re-awakening of interest in the Old Testament Scriptures on the part of those to whom the Oracles of God were originally given, and to whose scrupulous fidelity, as guardians of the letter, we who have received them at their hands, owe so incalculable a debt of gratitude.

It is time that we should give our readers some idea of what the Misses De Rothschild have actually effected in these volumes.

In the first place, whilst avoiding a practice which many Christian writers have, as we think, very unadvisedly adopted, we mean that of so intermingling their own words with those of Scripture that the inexperienced reader is unable to distinguish between the two, they have judiciously introduced into a con. tinuous historical narrative copious quotations from the text, (derived, for the most part, from the Authorised English Version) in those cases in which nothing short of the reproduction of the actual words of Scripture could suffice to convey a just appreciation of the force or beauty of the Divine original.

Amongst the points which struck us in the examination of these volumes, there is one which we think entitled to special prominence at a time when the confessed defects in the characters and conduct of the Old Testament Saints is not unfrequently adduced as an argument against the inspiration of the pages in which they are recorded.

It is deserving, then, of observation, that these defects are not only perceived and acknowledged by those who have not the perfect standard of comparison which is given to Christians, but that they do not appear to suggest to some of them even that amount of difficulty which has been felt and confessed on the part of many Christian writers.

Thus, e.g., we find our Authors recording their estimate of the conduct of Jacob in obtaining from Esau the rights and privileges of his birth-right in exchange for a mess of pottage, in the following terms :

“ The Bible tells this remarkable transaction in the shortest and simplest manner. A few pithy lines suffice to show us the weary huntsman falling into the net of his crafty brother, and the sacrifice of the rights of primogeniture for the satisfaction of the moment. We cannot help condemning Jacob: yet though we pity Esau, our pity is weakened when we see his utter indifference to all the higher prerogatives of his birth; he did not possess the qualities essential to a descendant of Abraham, the destined father of a holy nation; he was as unworthy as he was unmindful of propagating the noble truths entrusted to his race; but although this was evident to the more cultivated and more aspiring Jacob, he debased himself in the eyes of God by trying to fulfil the prophecy of his birth by his own unjustifiable means. For Jacob, unlike Abraham, was insincere and ambitious; great sorrows and manifold trials were necessary to elevate his faith and purify his life.” (vol. i. p. 53.)

The following extract affords a fair illustration of the aptitude evinced by our Authors to apprehend the comparative position in which the Old Testament Saints stood with regard to their admission to a near insight into the Divine nature and attributes.

In allusion to the passage, “I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by My name Jehovah (or, as the word is rendered by the Jews, the Eternal) was I not known to them,” whilst we miss that fuller exposition of its meaning which is to be found in many Christian writers, we find a comment which presents & very favourable contrast when placed side by side with that of certain modern critics annongst ourselves :

“ Thus Moses was placed at a high spiritual pre-eminence above the patriarchs. Abraham, it is true, had been led throughout his life by the direct Word of God; in like manner, the Divine Spirit lingered around the calm and pensive Isaac; it cbeered and counselled the wanderings and trials of Jacob; and Joseph, though not so constantly favoured, had been specially watched over, and brought to a glorious destiny. But Moses was to witness the wondrous redemption of God's people ; he was to see the realization of the promises made to his forefathers by virtue of solemn covenants. His conception of the Heavenly Father was to be more complete and more sublime; he was to understand Him not only as the All-powerful' God, but as the Eternal, whose will and glory exist for ever, and whose word is unfailing."

The eventful history of King David is related in these volumes with a considerable amount of skill.*

* We observe here with regret one words, “the highly-coloured account of the many concessions with which of the First Book of Chronicles," apthese volumes abound to the prevailing pears to us unsustained by so much tone of modern criticism, in the esti- as an apparent discrepancy from that mate formed by the writers of the un- contained in the simpler narrative" of historical character of the Books of the Books of Samuel. The words are Chronicles. We may observe, further, as follows:—“Leaving aside the highly that the insinuation implied in the coloured account of the First Book of Whilst avoiding unnecessary details and comments which distract the attention of the reader, our Authors have related the deeply interesting narrative of David-his early shepherd life, his protracted trials, his hair-breadth escapes, his cruel persecutions at the hands of Saal, his widely extended and firmly established rule at the beginning of his reign, and finally the troublous and disastrous times which succeeded his great and grievous sin—with an amount of ability and perspicuity which cannot fail to secure and to sustain the interest of their readers.

The following extract conveys, in few but well-chosen words, the estimate which the Misses De Rothschild have formed of the character of David. Whilst feeling that there is a deficiency in their appreciation of the depth of David's penitential sorrow for sin and inward yearnings after holiness, we commend it to the consideration of our readers, as presenting a just estimate, op to a certain point, of the excellencies and the failings of this remarkable man :

“Good and evil were blended in David's character as they were blended in few others of whom history bears record. His whole life is a story of a violent moral struggle incessantly carried on. It presents the ever-recurring transition from sin to repentance, from inward strife to inward peace. His repentance was so prompt, his self-accusation so complete, his cry for Divine help so eager, that he invariably wins, first our sympathy for his sufferings, and then our admiration for the heroic struggle by which he strives to subdue them. His was a strong and impulsive nature, ready to succumb to temptation, yet as ready to battle with it. He was singularly clear in his perception of moral excellence, and unusually earnest in his efforts for moral improvement; yet he too often fell a victim to the delusions of ambition and passion, and to the snares of revenge and hatred. He was humble and obedient to the warnings of the prophets, and moved to submissive confession by a word of reproach. At such times he would cast aside his royal robes, sit in sackcloth and ashes, weep over the wrong he had done or intended, and repent with all the sincerity of his nature.” (vol. i. p. 411.)

We must now notice what appears to us as one of the chief defects of this work, and that is the division of its contents into three distinct heads, viz., History, Prophecy, and Poetry, each separately discussed, in the place of that continuous chronological history, illustrated alike by the writings of Psalmists and of Prophets, of which Dean Stanley's Lectures on the Jewish Church exhibit, in so striking a manner, the superior advantages.

sind the case ist among story is not in

Amongst the inconveniences arising out of this threefold division, we may notice one almost inseparable from it-viz., the necessity of traversing again much of the same ground, and the consequent danger, if not the necessity, of needless repetition; whilst amongst the incidental disadvantages, especially in the case of inexperienced writers, we may mention the considerable risk which is incurred of inconsistencies of statement, at least in matters of detail.

As an illustration of the former of these disadvantages, we may refer to the histories of Ahaz and Hezekiah in the first volume, as compared with the fuller notice of the life and times of Isaiah in the second; whilst in illustration of the latter it will suffice to adduce the following instance.

In the history of David, in the first volume, we are told that, amongst the poems contained in the Psalter, there is included "a considerable number which are undoubtedly the compositions of David” (p. 411); whilst in the second volume, under the head of “The Psalms,” we are informed that, “although the whole book is generally described as "The Psalms of David,' only a few of them are from his pen” (p. 222);* and the writers assign, in another place (p. 239), the grounds upon which, without, as it appears to us, any sufficient evidence, they assert their conviction that many of the “seventy-four”+ Psalms attributed to David by the compilers could not have been composed by him.

We would very gladly accord to the second volume of this work the same meed of praise which we have bestowed upon the first, were it in our power to do so consistently with truth.

In many of our Authors' remarks upon the prophetical office, in treating of which we observe that their obligations to Dean Stanley are not overstated in their preface, we entirely coincide. From much, however, of the contents of this second volume, in which they do but re-echo the sentiments of that modern school of theology of which Dean Stanley is the most distinguished English representative, we are constrained to express our entire dissent, and to record against it our emphatic protest.

It might seem captious were we to dwell upon minor defects and inaccuracies, as, e.g., when we are told (p. 24) that the prophet “Isaiah is familiar to us less through historical accounts than through his own writings ;' whilst in p. 61 we read that “the career of Jeremiah, unlike that of his great predecessor Isaiah, is so closely connected with his writings that the one cannot be considered apart from the other."

Our objections to that portion of our Authors' work which we are now reviewing are of a far graver and more momentous character. * The italics are ours.

Query, seventy-three.