tional notice. The Lectures, as in the former series, are not expanded into their full form, and written out for the press. If, in some respects, this may be thought to render them less valuable, yet, in others, they possess a counterbalancing advantage. If every particular idea is not expressed, there is the entire mass of the Lecturer's thought on the subjects before him ; so that, if there be less of minute detail, there is, in the eminent suggestiveness of what is given, a much wider comprehension than may at first appear. If there be somewhat less to be grasped by the memory, yet, what is remembered, will be found, by its germinancy, to be in no small degree productive. It is a valuable volume for all who will read seriously; but for thinkers it is a rich prize.

Sacred Annals: or, Researches into the History and Religion of Mankind. Vol. I.-The Patriarchal Age: or, the History and Religion of Mankind, from the Creation to the Death of Isaac: deduced from the Writings of Moses and other inspired Authors; and illustrated by copious References to the ancient Records, Traditions, and Mythology of the Heathen World. By George Smith, F.S.A., &c., &c. London: Longman and Co. 1847. Crown 8vo., pp. xvi., 616.

(Concluded from page 707.)

PERHAPS the chief value of Mr. Smith's work consists in the copious and abundant illustrations of early sacred history, which he has been able to furnish from those sources of information usually denominated profane; and not less in the manner in which he has contrived to connect the two together. The principles on which he has formed this connexion are sound, and he is generally impartial in weighing the value of the evidence which is brought before him. The following paragraph conveys a just idea of the relative importance attached by Mr. Smith to the accounts which are furnished by divine revelation, and those which are derived from uninspired

Sources:

We have thus given extracts from the records of history with regard to this subject, as ample as our limits will allow; and we now call special attention to the result. It will, in the first place, be observed, that, varied as the several accounts are, there are points of resemblance common to nearly all of them. The primitive chaos is alike recognised by Sanchoniatho, Berosus, the Edda, and Hesiod. The order of creation, as exhibited in the Scriptures, is almost literally copied by Virgil,* Hesiod, Sanchoniatho, the Zendavesta, and the Hindus. The special prominence given to the creation of man in the Mosaic narrative, is echoed by the Chaldean, the Hindu, and the Roman. These and many other points of coincidence, which will be apparent to every reader, cannot be ascribed to chance. There must be some reasonable cause what is it? Those who have felt disposed to disparage the holy Scrip

tures, have laboured to point out the probability that their contents were borrowed from earlier heathen records. It will appear from the most cursory view of the subject, that this is impossible: not to dwell on the well-established fact that none of the records which have come down to us are as ancient as the Bible, it will be seen at once, that, while the narrative of Moses is a clear, simple, common-sense statement, every other is adulterated to a very large extent with fiction and fable. In such circumstances, nothing can be more absurd than to refer the origin of the intelligible consecutive historical account, to information furnished by the fabulous and poetic. Yet this is a fair specimen of the boasted reason of those who deny the authority of the Bible. It must be admitted by all who seek after truth, that there is a much more rational and obvious way of accounting for these remarkable points of

* This is without doubt a misprint for Ovid, to whom our author refers.

of public affairs is to the memoir of the statesman who conducted them, or of battles and campaigns to that of the commanding and directing General, that, to the memoir of a man like Mr. Foster, is the account of his intellectual exercises, in their method, objects, and results. In the place of stirring incidents, therefore, we have references to his studies, in the way in which they were pursued, the objects which they sought to secure, and the mental products in which they issued, and of which so many were given to the world,―sent forth to work continually upon the minds of others, and thus to contribute to other growths and products, as well as to the formation of the average public opinion of the generations in which they are at work. In the case of Mr. Foster, it is no more than common justice to say, that if he be not, in the ordinary sense of the term, as referring to the extent rather than to the value of external approval, a popular writer, read by all orders of intellect, and quoted by superficial as well as by profound, yet he will always be the study-companion of the thoughtful, and find-the number increasing with the improvement of society-"fit audience, though few." Nor does this involve an amount of influence less than it would be, even were his writings as extensively read as may be those of the steamengine manufacturers of the works of modern fiction. The wholesale dealer in reality supplies the articles procured by the public from the large number of tradesmen in retail, though, when the articles themselves are shown, they are referred to him who last sold them, the name of the first seller, who might have been likewise their producer, being seldom, and only on extraordinary occasions, mentioned. We need not, however, repeat what we have said before. When, soon after Mr. Foster's death, his "Broadmead Lectures," and a selection from the large number of his "Reviews," were published, we embraced an early opportunity of expressing our opinion both of the writer and his writings, prefixing to remarks of a more critical nature a brief sketch of his life and character. Our readers will remember, that whatever the value of our judgment might be, it was decidedly favourable, and very strongly expressed. We should have been ashamed of ourselves could we have allowed the existence of differences on certain (comparatively) subordinate points of theological opinion, to interfere with the acknowledgments due to a man so deservedly esteemed, a student so industrious and profound, an author so justly admired by all who were able to accompany him in his course of thought, as Mr. Foster. As the citizen of Athens, to whatever tribe he belonged, was still an Athenian, and as sometimes the general service done to the state made the member of one tribe the property of them all, so is it with Mr. Foster. He belonged to one section of the visible church,-that to which Fuller, Carey, Ward, Hall, likewise belonged; but such were the nature and success of his pursuits, and such their general reference, that we scarcely see the Baptist in the citizen of the undivided republic of religious literature. John Foster belongs to us all. At the time that we did this, however, we intimated, briefly and respectfully, but decidedly, our disagreement as to some of his published opinions. We thought him wrong, and we said so. Our disagreement was not captious, but it was complete. The opinions to which we objected were, we thought, mistaken as opinions, and in their influence we feared that, as to many of his admirers, especially his younger admirers, they were likely to be very injurious. We likewise thought that some of them-particularly opinions that were to be found in the "Essay" on the "Causes of the Dislike of Men of Taste to Evangelical Religion"-indicated mistakes deeper in their origin, and existing there where, most of all, we

should have wished to find the obvious evidences of clear and distinct judgment,―of truth perceived, as well as loved and acknowledged. Those misapprehensions, if such they were, and such we conscientiously believed them to be, we had long seen, and regretted with a regret that increased at every perusal of the Essay. We thought, also, after much examination,— which we endeavoured to make impartial, and which we are sure was conducted with respect to Mr. Foster himself, and even with a willingness to find ourselves mistaken in suspecting him of mistake,—that we could trace them to their source. We felt, at the same time, that for doing this satisfactorily, we did not possess sufficient evidence to guide us; and in the absence of this, the character of a man like John Foster demanded hesitancy in judging, and therefore either a judgment suspended altogether, or delivered only hypothetically. We are now placed in different circumstances. Mr. Ryland's volumes, in which it is Mr. Foster who principally speaks, will enable all who will examine them carefully and impartially, to arrive, more satisfactorily to themselves, at a definite conclusion.

For the complete correctness of his sentiments, and for the exercise of an influence that should be, in every point from which it issued, valuable, his early circumstances were remarkably unfavourable. With the native energies of his character, we only wonder that a different direction was not given to them; and we can only impute his preservation from the dangers that really threatened him, to the sincerity and strength of his early piety. We, at the same time, think that with this some mistaken notions were connected, the effects of which were developed in his subsequent life, and plainly shown in his writings when he became an author; but that it was genuine and decided, we have no doubt, and we are persuaded that, but for its existence, he would have fallen into dangerous errors.

The Dissenting Ministers of the first quarter of the last century constituted a school very different from that to which the Owens, Howes, and Baxters of a former day had belonged. The age was a frigid one, and they, as well as others, felt its power. Without entirely departing from the evangelism of their fathers, they had modified it, and become very much like what Tillotson and Atterbury were in the Church of England. Too many of them, attaching more importance to what they considered as religious freedom, than to the maintenance of sufficient security for the continuance of orthodox belief in their churches, opened the door for a wide departure from the true faith of the Gospel; and too many of them, also, had evidently begun to move in the direction taken in the Establishment by men like Bishop Hoadley. The piety and devotion of Watts, Reynolds, and we doubt not many others, moving in more obscure situations, whose names have not come down to us, under God, preserved them during this temptation to general defection; and the same causes operated in the same manner in the case of Dr. Doddridge, though not so perfectly. He sometimes trembled in the balance, and, but for his piety, error would have preponderated. The Socinian movement had commenced. And when the revival of religion through the instrumentality of Whitefield and the Wesleys began, it was not only regarded by the Church with opposing dislike, but by many Dissenters with great suspicion. Mr. Wesley's avowed Arminianism might have accounted for this suspicion, had he been exclusively its object; but it was alike shared by Mr. Whitefield. One Dissenting Board in London, in writing to Dr. Doddridge, expressed its disapprobation strongly. No one who studies the writers of the day can wonder that, before long, from among those to whom Philip and Matthew Henry had belonged, Price,

agreement. On the presumption that the scriptural account is correct, it is clear that the sons of Noah must have known the history of creation, and transmitted it to their descendants; and therefore, while the narrative of Moses, dictated by divine revelation, gives the simple truth, the other accounts, while preserving the

principal elements of primitive history, are severally found, according to the common law of all traditionary information, corrupted and disfigured, in agreement with the taste and character of the people among whom they exist.

(Pages 138, 139.)

Our author might with justice have entitled his work, "A Connexion of Sacred and Profane History, from the Creation of the World to the Death of Isaac." We have already referred to the importance of this branch of ancient historical learning, and to the insufficiency of Shuckford to supply those illustrations of the subject which are necessary, or even desirable. Mr. Smith, of course, has had the advantage of consulting works which were not known in the time of Shuckford. We especially refer to Egyptian, Persian, Hindoo, and Chinese records; translations of which, indeed, are continually multiplying, and bid fair to cast yet clearer light upon the history of the early ages. While we are on this subject, we desire to express our great satisfaction at the success of Major Rawlinson in deciphering the Persian cuneiform character; not that we would withhold the names of Grotefend, Rask, M. Burnouf, and Lassen, some of whose researches prepared the way, though not perhaps to a great extent, for those of our gallant countryman. The results of the Major's investigations into the inscriptions at Behistun, are now in course of publication by the Royal Asiatic Society, and promise us access to the antiquities of Assyria and Babylon, equally full and satisfactory with that which has been afforded in respect to Egypt by the unravelling of its hieroglyphics. It is scarcely possible to predict the full amount of corroborative evidence which will be furnished in support of what is now received as authentic history, if these investigations be extended; we have already seen enough to convince us that we may generally rely upon that outline of ancient history which we are accustomed to acknowledge as the true one, and even upon some of those details which our historical sceptics are so ready to pronounce fabulous. Major Rawlinson's researches will doubtless facilitate those of our author, when he comes to consider the history and religion of the Gentile nations.

We are anxious to cite one or two illustrations of the value of "Sacred Annals," as a work on biblical criticism. Mr. Smith, in the course of his inquiries into Scripture history, has necessarily met with many difficult and controverted passages, and in no case, we think, has shrunk from a full and candid investigation. There are some few of his deductions to which we cannot assent; and there are passages left doubtful as to their meaning, on which, perhaps, a satisfactory decision can never be obtained, because of the obscurity in which they are involved; but we are bound to add, that in most of these critical investigations our author has succeeded in removing difficulties, and in casting light upon the sense of the sacred text. Mr. Smith seems to have no love for fanciful interpretations: he possesses common sense, a qualification which we have always regarded as absolutely necessary to those who would successfully interpret the word of God. The following condensed view of a criticism on Genesis iii. 24, will give the reader some idea of the manner in which Mr. Smith has accomplished this part of his task. We first give the passage from the authorized version : "So he" (the LORD God) "drove out the man: and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life."

Our author refers, at the outset, to the different opinions which have prevailed respecting the meaning of the passage. Two are particularly noted: that which supposes that the cherubim was an angel-guard placed at the gate of Paradise, for the purpose of preventing fallen man from having access to the tree of life; the other which regards the cherubim as designed to exhibit a representation of the Trinity, in connexion with the assumption of human nature by the second Person :

If it had been intended only to prevent fallen man from having access to the tree of life, means more natural might have been suggested than an angel-guard armed with flaming fire; and it is still more extraordinary, that this should be placed "at the east of Eden," in order to protect a tree which grew in "the midst" of the garden, The second hypothesis appears to be still more unte

nable. That Jehovah, who laid it down as a primary law of revealed religion, that no likeness or resemblance of anything "in heaven or earth" should be made or exhibited in connexion with his holy and spiritual worship, should, in this striking way, present to mankind a visible representation of his Divine Majesty, seems most improbable.

In the acknowledged difficulty which the passage contains Mr. Smith marks out the only course which presents itself to the biblical expositor,that of collecting all the information on the subject to which we have access, and then of forming a careful judgment respecting it. He then proceeds,―

Of the word itself, we are told that it never appears as a verb in the Hebrew Bible, and therefore is supposed to be compounded of ke, a particle of resemblance, "like to," "like as," and

rub, "he was great, powerful," &c. It is, indeed, the formal name of magnificence, or majesty, and dominion. If we refer to the opinions of ancient authors as to the application of the term under consideration, it may be stated that Grotius says the cherubim were figures

like a calf. Bochart and Spencer think they were very nearly the figure of an ox. Josephus says, they were extraordinary creatures, of a figure unknown to mankind. Clemens of Alexandria believes that the Egyptians imitated the cherubim of the Hebrews in their sphinxes and hieroglyphical animals. The descriptions which Scripture gives of the cherubim appear to differ; but all agree in representing a figure composed of various creatures,-a man, an ox, an eagle, and a lion.

The author now refers to the various occasions on which the word ? (cherubim) is used in holy Scripture. They are five in number. The first is in the passage under consideration; the second may be found in Exodus xxv., xxvi; the third, in 1 Chronicles xxviii; (see also 1 Kings vi. and 2 Chron. iii.); the fourth, in Psalm lxxx.; the fifth, in Ezekiel x., xi., and xli. To these may be added the passage in Revelation iv. 6-11, in which, as Mr. Smith justly observes, "although the term is not used, yet the description corresponds so exactly with Ezekiel's vision, that there can be no doubt of the identity." We must request our readers to refer to these several passages for themselves, as our limited space will not allow of their quotation.

The first passage which Mr. Smith brings under review is that contained in the book of Revelation, on the general scope of which he observes, "Enough appears on the surface of the passage to warrant the opinion, that it was intended to exhibit the infinite prevalency of the vicarious sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the revelation and consummation of the great purposes of God through the redemption which is in his blood." We are then referred to the passages which occur in the prophecy of Ezekiel. "Here, too," observes our author, "we have their compounded nature exhibited,―a cherub, a man, a lion, an eagle," and adds the important remark,