tutions, a succeeueu in persuaug, not only themselves, but whole communities besides, to receive them as true. Nor, indeed, can it be shown that they ever did thus receive, or impose upon others the reception of these fabulous stories, as actual matters of fact. The notion is, in our opinion, altogether improbable. Such a belief could have grown up only in later times, when the true meaning of these stories, and the true key to that meaning, were no longer known. This is abundantly proved, we think, from the writings of many ancient authors— among whom may be mentioned in particular, Proclus, Varro and Iamblichus (in his life of Pythagoras)-living in those later times, yet retaining, from their acquaintance with the philosophy, and the writings or sayings of their ancestors, and the traditions handed down from a more ancient age, some knowledge of the manner in which the religious legends of their country were wont to be understood and interpreted in the days of their forefathers. In like manner the history of the Creation, the Fall, the Deluge and the Tower of Babel, in the Old Testament, which, as we have remarked in a former chapter, bears obvious tokens of affinity with similar stories in the heathen mythologies, could not, in our view, have been received, in the age in which it was first recorded, as an account of actual occurrences, or yet as an attempt to explain, in a popular or poetical style, cosmogonical, philological and religious conceptions existing in that age. Not only is there no proof in this instance, any more than in that of the pagan mythologies, that such was the origin of these narratives; but we find, in the case of the Bibli

1 See especially Proclus's Apology for the fables of Homer against the aspersions of Scerates in the Republic of Plato, lib. ii. and iii.

in that which follows, from the time of Abraham onds, a complete absence of those grotesque and extra ant details which form so prominent a feature in the hen stories of the Creation, the Deluge, &c., and a er, serious and reverent style of narration, which nly distinguishes them from these latter, and stamps n at once with a higher character as literary producs, and a deeper religious tone and significance. But must reserve for another chapter a more detailed ement of our views as to the character and origin of e histories, as well as of those of the Old Testament eneral. We have said only so much upon the subject as seemed necessary to show the untenableness of Mythical view, as it has been attempted by recent cs to apply it to the primeval records of the Hebrew tures; an object which we have, as we trust, in some sure, and so far as the limits of the present work will nit, accomplished.

regards the subsequent history, not only does it, as have already more than once remarked, and as has frequently been observed by other writers,1 exhibit, still greater extent, a similar sobriety of style and lage, and bear upon its face the strongest evidences uthfulness and historical credibility, notwithstanding wonderful events and transactions which it narrates, even the extreme critics of the Mythical school find selves, as we have seen, forced to acknowledge in it a of historical fact, and to confess that it is, in the an authentic history of the Jewish people. And it is, as we have also seen, upon the marvellous miraculous narrations which it contains that they

e, in particular, Kitto, Art. 'Genesis'; Rawlinson, Bampton Lec

&c.

elemenUS OI vis кта cannot satery ve rened upon as a criterion of the historical or unhistorical character of ancient writings, hence it follows that the application of the Mythical theory to the later Jewish history is altogether mistaken and inappropriate. As Prof. Rawlinson well observes, "That history stands firm against all the assaults made upon it; and the more light that is thrown by research and discovery upon the times and countries with which it deals, the more apparent becomes its authentic and matter-of-fact character. Instead of ranging parallel with the mythical traditions of Greece and Rome (with which some delight to compare it,) it stands, at the least, on a par with the ancient histories of Egypt, Babylon, Phoenicia, and Assyria; which, like it, were recorded from a remote antiquity by national historiographers. Sound criticism," he adds, "finds in the sacred writings of the Jews documents belonging to the times of which they profess to treat, and in a calm investigation, classes them, not with romantic poems or mythological fables, but with the sober narratives of those other ancient writers, who have sought to hand down to posterity a true account of the facts which their eyes have witnessed."'1

3. (1) The Orthodox view next demands our attention. This view, which is the one commonly received in the various Christian denominations, and among Roman Catholics as well as among Protestants, while it strongly contends, as we have seen, for the inspiration of the sacred penmen, still holds that this inspiration was of such a kind as not to supersede the use of their ordinary faculties; merely directing them in the employment of these, and in the choice of their materials, and preserving them from fall

1 Rawlinson, ut supra, Lect. v., ad fin.

asked, do those who hold to this view of the origin and racter of the sacred oracles, account for the many diffities, such as discrepancies in facts and statements, it of chronological accuracy, unnatural arrangement . confusion in the order of the narrative,-which are nowledged on all hands to exist in the Old Testament ory? With some, the method is to deny their existe altogether, in the face of all the proofs, and the adsions of the more candid and more reasonable class, to insist upon the entire historical accuracy of every and statement in the Old Testament. This position us ably exposed by a late author: "There can be no r in the Word of God': therefore the discrepancies in books of Kings and Chronicles are only apparent, or be attributed to differences in the copies. 'It is a isand times more likely that the interpreter should han the inspired writer.'" "The accuracy of the Old ament is measured," he remarks again, "not by the dard of primeval history, but of a modern critical one, th, contrary to all probability, is supposed to be ated: this arbitrary standard once assumed, it becomes int of honour or of faith, to defend every name, date, e which occurs."1 Others, again, adopt the Docutary theory as sufficient to harmonize all differences compose all difficulties; while a third class, especiin England and America, combine the two methods, esolving such discrepancies and other difficulties as cannot deny or explain away into corruptions of the errors of copyists, diversities of sources or docuts, or by explaining them in other similar ways.3 nd what difficulties in general attend the application

ssays and Reviews, The Interpretation of Scripture, § 1. 2 Vide . vol. i., passim. 3 Vide Smith. Kitto, Rawlinson, and English American Orthodox writers generally.

of Inspiration, as the word is commonly understood), he remarks, "embraces [or, must embrace] writings of very different kinds,—the Book of Esther, for example, or the Song of Solomon, as well as the Gospel of St. John [or the Pentateuch]. It is [or must be] reconcilable with the mixed good and evil of the characters of the Old Testament, which nevertheless does not exclude them from the favour of God, with the attribution to the Divine Being of actions at variance with that higher revelation which he has given of himself in the Gospel. It is not [or must not be] inconsistent with imperfect or opposite aspects of the truth, as in the Book of Job or Ecclesiastes; with variations of fact in the Gospels, or the Books of Kings and Chronicles; with inaccuracies of language in the Epistles of St. Paul. For these,” adds this writer, are all found in Scripture."1 And, as he and other writers of the same school, as we think, conclusively :hew, the manner in which these difficulties are met by the orthodox view of inspiration, is far from satisfactory. "Good men," observes one of these writers, "—and they cannot be good without the Spirit of God,—may err in facts, be weak in memory, be feeble in inferences, confound illustration with argument, be varying in judgment and opinion; but the Spirit of absolute Truth cannot err or con. tradict Himself, if he speak immediately, even in small things, accessories, or accidents. Still less can we suppose him to suggest contradictory accounts, or accounts only to be reconciled in the way of hypothesis and conjec ture." "To suppose," adds this writer, "a supernatural influence to cause the record of that which can only issue

1 Essays and Reviews, ut supra, § 2.