Изображения страниц

the elevation of the independent nations in that region, and not merely endeavouring to cripple and impair the power of Russia. But the truth is, that it is impossible for those nations to be really independent, so long as what is, in comparison with them, an omnipotent power holds the Crimea. Whatever may be the strength of Russia as respects France and England, there can be no doubt but that over Asiatic nations she has, and from her position must have, the greatest influence. This arises from her wealth, from her magnitude, from her resources; it is quite enough without a vantage ground. If you give to the most powerful nation on the shores of the Black Sea the sovereignty of a peninsula which, from its natural position and evident features, certainly must command the whole of that sea, it is absurd to fancy that anything like independence can arise in any of those nations. A recent writer denies that we can judge of the instinct of animals, because it is kept down and utterly depressed by the preponderating influence of man. We are not responsible for this idea; but are certain that, exactly in the manner supposed, it is idle to expect original energy or free development in small and half-formed nations, which are under the influence of a meddling and enormous power.

The Crimea, therefore, we are clear, ought to be taken from Russia, and should never be given back to Russia. Every other means—especially, we are inclined to think, the conquest of Bessarabia--ought to be taken to free the coasts of the Black Sea from the overweening supremacy of Russia. The thorough opening of the commerce of the Danube, a proper treaty with the Circassian tribes, a complete introduction of Western influence into that part of the world, seem among the most necessary steps. But we are not at present concerned to enter into details, which would require much discussion, and will receive the anxious attention of those practically familiar with Eastern Europe. One thing is certain, that the complete independence of the Euxine is essential to the security of civilization, and that no such independence is possible so long as the Crimea is held and ruled by Russian garrisons.

We turn again to the consideration of the great event which has given rise to these considerations. Such a victory is among the greatest of the gifts of Providence. Independently of its remote effects, and putting out of view the protection which it has afforded us from the menaces of Barbarism and the pride of Despotism, such moments are the life of a country. They send a thrill through the heart of a people. We feel our companionship in great trials, our common posses


sion of deep feelings. There is little that is truer in human sentiment than the Te Deum for a great victory.

In some sense this is peculiarly the nation's victory. The mens æqua in arduis has seldom been exhibited by more per

The war was begun in a manner upon the testimony of Statesmen. All those whom the English people had been wont to trust and honour told them, nearly with unanimity, that a war was necessary. The scene lay out of the line of our customary reflections. It was some time, especially amid the nice perplexities of diplomacy, ere we could estimate the force of different arguments and the value of various considerations. But when the real nature of the subject was thoroughly explained, the strong conviction of the nation became more clear, more true, more persistent than that of the Statesmen from whom it was first derived. In opposition to the questiunculæ of negotiation, we felt at once that we had commenced a great war for a great object. Most of our Statesmen were chargeable with Mr. Gladstone's reproach of making war for “small, secondary, petty objects;" and, not least, the advocates of a war for the four points, of whom the speaker was one. The nation felt that we were “making war in a just and sufficient cause, that will bear examining in our hearts and consciences, in the face of man and in the eye of God.” Lord Palmerston is the only man the whole House of Commons who has, with strong ability and manly energy, worthily expressed and steadily displayed a high and noble daring. It is not too much to

a hope that we must make peace as we have made war, on just and sufficient terms; not upon “small, secondary, petty” concessions; but on sure guarantees; with realized intentions ; upon a lasting basis; on conditions " that will bear examining in our hearts and consciences, in the face of man and in the

eye of God."



When the zealous reformer of the higher education, who represents North Lancashire, has sufficiently remodelled the ancient Universities, he will probably resign to them the care of English theological studies. But meanwhile he seeks to repair their deficiency in courage or learned activity by naturalizing the results of recent German researches in illustration of the Hebrew literature. Under his editorial auspices, and with preface and additions from his pen, appears

well-executed translation of Professor Von Bohlen's Genesis.* In many respects, the book is happily adapted to Mr. Heywood's purpose, of familiarizing English readers with a less uncritical and unhistorical treatment of Scripture than tenacity of dogma allows to prevail at home. The first eleven chapters of Genesis (which is the limit of the commentary) have the charm of a very various interest, carrying wonder and curiosity in every direction, -ethnological, scientific, linguistic, historical, religious. The critic brings the stores of extensive Oriental reading to the elucidation of his text. He possesses whatever art of style or arrangement is needful to an attractive book; and his work is avowedly written, not chiefly to advance Biblical knowledge among the learned, but to distribute it among the schools and families of the educated classes. On the other hand, it is perhaps unfortunate that a treatise intended to procure favour for the mythic criticism should be deeply pledged to a very questionable opinion respecting the origin and date of the book with which it deals. Von Bohlen assigns the composition of Genesis to a time unsteadily described as almost as late as the exile (I. 311), and elsewhere (II. 161) as subsequent to the exile ; and, with equal critical paradox, considers the Book of Deuteronomy (which he supposes to have been Hil. kiah's forgery in order to work upon Josiah) as the oldest part of the Pentateuch. Could this relative order be proved-nay, were it ascertained that the first book did not precede the fifth by a vast interval—we should never trust the indications of language again. The author's main evidence of so late an origin for Genesis is found in the narrative of the Flood; in the assigned duration of which he detects an acquaintance with the solar year. The beginning of the crisis being referred to the seventeenth day of the second month, and its close to the twenty-seventh day of the corresponding month in the next year, the interval exceeded the com.

Introduction to the Book of Genesis, with a Commentary on the opening portion. From the German of Dr. Peter Von Bohlen, late Professor of Oriental Languages and Literature in the University of Königsberg." Edited by James Heywood, M.P., F.R.S. London. Chapman, 1855.

plete lunar year (which the Hebrews used) by eleven days, or nearly so. This, however, exactly makes the solar year of 365 days, with which, therefore, the duration of the event was intended in the original myth to coincide. Confirmation of the conjecture is found in the mention of “150 ys" and of “five months” (Genesis viii. 3, 4) as equivalent terms, betraying an acquaintance with the month of thirty days, characteristic of the solar reckoning, instead of the proper lunar cycle of twenty-eight days. How, then, could a Hebrew compiler have stumbled upon these vestiges of a reckoning other than his own? The locality of the legend supplies the answer. The legend is evidently Mesopotamian, shown to be so by the refer. ences to Shinar and Ararat, by the cypress-wood and bitumen of the ark, and other indications. Now it is precisely here that Nabonassar introduced the use of the solar year, B.c. 747. Not, therefore, till after that time could a narrative with this feature in it have arisen. It is further argued, that, in order to assign the rains to the right months for such a phenomenon, the year must be understood as beginning in the autumn, which was the Babylonian method, and was first adopted by the Jews after the captivity. Neither of these arguments has any real base ; and Mr. Heywood has very properly corrected their statements by inserting a critique of Professor Tuch's. The round numbers in Genesis viii. fail to establish any reference to the solar year; and if they did, Egypt supplied an older source of familiarity with this reckoning. There is every reason to suppose that, in the narrative of the Flood (if founded on Mesopotamian physical phenomena), the year is meant to be commenced in the Hebrew way, from the spring equinox. And if it were otherwise, we know nothing of the Babylonian year, or of any change of the Jewish reckoning after the captivity, except in the adoption for the months of new names, which, moreover, are not of Chaldean but of Persian origin. In general, Von Bohlen's acumen appears to us more ethnological than chronological; and his tracing of the myths of Genesis to Central Asia is skilful and probable. His appreciation of the interior spirit of the Jewish literature is less conspicuous than his perception of its exterior affinities and analogies; and his book is the production of an Orientalist, to whom Hebrew studies were incidental, rather than of a Hebraist (like Ewald), drawing to his own centre the illustrative treasures of cognate languages and civilizations.

It cannot be exactly said that Christian literature, like Jewish, has its pre-historical period, opening the same boundless field for conjectural combinations that is presented by the antecedents of the Hebrew nation; and yet, though the formation of the church falls wholly within an age of authentic records and intellectual culture, it is surprising how many undetermined, and probably irresolvable, problems lie around the incunabula of Christendom. No one, we suppose, unless previously habituated to the dim light of theological criticism, has ever risen from the study of Lardner's “Credibility,” or Jeremiah Jones' “ New and Full Method,"—to say nothing of De Wette or Credner,--without painfully feeling the disproportion between the expenditure of learning and the gain in positive result. The assemblage of probabilities, shaded off from full certainty to free conjecture, respecting the precise age and origin of the New Testament writings, is very far from sustaining the sense of secure authority with which, prior to such study, the mind is accustomed to repose on Scripture. How much too high is the tone of ecclesiastical assumption and teaching upon this subject, becomes strikingly evident the moment an attempt is deliberately made to exhibit its warrant in historical evidence. Such an attempt-made, too, in a spirit of candour, and with sufficient apparatus of learning-is Mr. Westcott's “ History of the Canon of the New Testament,'* one of the new Cambridge Theological manuals. The author's purpose is to trace to the sub-apostolic age the idea and use of a written rule of faith; to identify that written rule with our present New Testament; and to show how, after the time of Hegesippus, the books, previously in separate circulation or process of gradual collection, were detached as a whole from the mass of ecclesiastical literature, till, in the period after Diocletian's persecution, the usage of the church was defined and ratified by councils. It does not fall within the scope of the treatise to compare the books inter se, or touch upon their separate history and claims, but only to treat of them as a collection, and under the assumption of their unity. Mr. Westcott, in short, writes the history, not either of living persons or of tangible products, but of that shadowy thing, church authority; and, taking for granted that it must always have existed somewhere, he embodies it, first, in the apostles themselves ; next, in apostolical tradition; and finally, as the immediate disciples of the apostles passed away, in the New Testament. The author carries into the execution of this design a careful and painstaking scholarship; and in the course of his work checks, by the exercise of good critical judgment, some of the more hasty of Schwegler's decisions. But the design itself appears

to us unhappily conceived, and incapable of successful execution. The idea of “a canon," or authoritative rule, being of later date than the writings to which the term is applied, and arising only as an after-thought, fixed upon them when their place had been settled, is no proper clue to their earliest relations, much less to their genesis. The History of the Canon ” must either commence with the date when the group of writings existed as an authoritative whole, and tell us its travels and adventures afterwards ; in which case no light is thrown on the ulterior period and process of growth; or it must go beyond the limits of its title, and investigate the formation of the canon; and, in this case, it is quite impossible to take the New Testament as a whole, and shun the inquiry into the separate origin of the particular books. Mr. Westcott's book is neither the one nor the other. If you want to know what became of the New Testament after it had assumed a recog

“A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament during the first four Centuries." By Brooke Foss Westcott, M.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge." Cambridge. Macmillan, 1855.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »