Aristotle, who, we all agree, was a man of great sense, tells us, that if one should fear nothing, εἰ μηθὲν φοβοῖτο, εἴη δ' ἄν τις μavóμevosáváλynτos, "he must be either mad or past feeling." Moreover, good taste and respect, to say the least, if nothing more, would make a man wish to approach GOD and whatever relates to Him, "acceptably," and that is, "with reverence and godly fear." For, if ever, it is assuredly in the case of purblind, ignorant, and fallen human beings, attempting to look into the mysteries of God's attributes, or even into the burden of His Word, that these words are true: "Happy is the man that feareth alway: but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief." But, perhaps, Dr. Stanley does not really mean all that his words imply. Even he must see, that to enter upon such a study otherwise than with awe and in a devout spirit, is to act the part of rash and inconsiderate men; for Aristotle warns us agains that ὁ δὲ θαρρεῖν ὑπερβάλλων περὶ τὰ φοβερὰ, θρασύς· δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ ἀλαζὼν εἶναι ὁ θρασύς, “ the man who is overconfident where he ought to fear, is rash; and that such a character looks very much like a braggart."

XI. Then follows the just praise of Ewald, Dr. Stanley's 'Magnus Apollo," for his profound scholarship and extensive learning,

"who has," it appears, "fulfilled the desire expressed twenty-seven (now twenty-nine) years ago by 'Arnold and Bunsen,' in writing his 'History of the people of Israel.'”

We all know that Dr. Arnold was, and is yet, the "grande decus" of the school of which he was Master; but he too, made a mistake in logic if he classed "Judea," the land of the Bible, with Rome or with Greece. And if he wished that Niebuhr's wholesale dealing with Roman history should be followed towards the contents of the Old Testament, he too, seemed in this instance at least, to care but little for T Tov, and not much for his categories. Ewald is, indeed, a very remarkable scholar; but so was Gesenius, and so are other Germans, who seem to

unto me, that will I speak ;"" and Micaiah said, If thou return at all in peace, the LORD hath not spoken by me." (1 Kings xxii. 14, 28.) Even prophets like Balaam, knew themselves to be used at times as instruments in the hands of GOD. "And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." 1 Cor. xiv. 32. 1 Eth. Nicom. iii. 7, 7. ? Prov. xxviii. 14. 3 Eth. Nicom. ibid.

come into the world already knowing what others have to learn during the first half of their life. But Ewald has, of course, his own peculiar views, which make him, like Ch. Bunsen, a guide no one dares to follow, without looking well to his going. Although Ewald's star is no longer in the ascendant in his own country, his writings are a mine of learning, which, however, must, like every other ore, be examined and tested with Truth, ere it is passed off as current coin. But great, and greatly learned as he is, it is very possible he might differ from Dr. Stanley, and think "the constant reference to his writings throughout the new Dictionary of the Bible," " a very doubtful compliment; and himself sometimes little honoured by the "intellect, ability, and learning," of some of his companions.1

XII. Dr. Stanley, however, very properly says, (p. xv.) —

"But, in fact, my aim has been not to recommend the teaching or the researches of any theologian however eminent, but to point the way to the treasures themselves of that History."

For, in fact, no study is worth anything that is not first-hand; and no writer should be taken wholly upon trust; leastways those to whom Dean Stanley alludes

"excellent men who disparage the Old Testament, as the best means of saving the New ;" and "others who think that it can only be maintained by discouraging all inquiry into its authority and contents."

We cannot say much for their discernment. But, "rightly dividing the Word of Truth," we find that the Old Testament was a dispensation of types, and "a shadow of good things to come;" in which even prophecy glimmered only "as a light in a dark place, until the day dawned and the Day-star arose." And we also do, what many do not, we distinguish between a shadow and shade; and however little we may succeed, we seek

1 I do not wish to speak disparagingly of a work I do not possess, and which I have not examined. But knowing, as I do, how and by whom some of the articles were written, I can feel no great confidence in it. I have consulted it three times at a friend's house, but never without finding one or more mistakes. It seemed to me to be as Ovid says

nevertheless, to trace the objects themselves in the definite outline of their shadows, which the coming Light did cast before them. The men who lived in those shadows had to gather the outline of the objects that cast the shadows from the shadows themselves; at best a difficult task. But we, who have the Light, see the objects themselves; and albeit we may be less careful of the shadows than of the light; yet these finish the picture of God's dispensation which, like the finest picture ever drawn, has both light, lights and shadows. For as there is no light without a shadow, and no shadow without light; so also there would be no New Covenant if there were not also the Old one, neither could this be "old and done away," unless another was made to take its place; or, rather, to fulfil it. Thus then, however much we may rejoice in the Revealed Light of the Gospel, we, nevertheless, value the shadows of the Law as a set off to the Light, with which they make up a whole well-arranged ; we embrace the New Testament to which the Law was meant to bring us; and we keep the Law with gratitude for having brought us to it; for had there been no Old Covenant there would assuredly be no New one.

With regard to the Old Testament then, Josephus says rightly,1 that in it, "all things are well arranged according to the nature of its several parts, τὰ μὲν αἰνιττομένου τοῦ νομοθέτου δεξιῶς, τὰ δὲ ἀλληγοροῦντος μετὰ σεμνότητος, our Lawgiver cleverly implying certain things, and adopting dignified allegories to mention others : τοῖς μέντοι βουλομένοις καὶ τὰς αἰτίας ἑκάστων σκοπεῖν, πολλὴ γένοιτ' ἂν ἡ θεωρία καὶ λίαν φιλόσοφος ; so then, he who will look into the causes of each, will derive from his study a contemplation alike varied and most philosophical."

INTRODUCTION.

Dean Stanley divides the History of the Jewish Church into three periods: (1) from Abraham to Samuel; (2) from Samuel to the Captivity of Babylon; and (3) from that to the destruc

1 Antiq. Lib. i. proem,

tion of the Temple by Titus, and of the independence of the nation by Hadrian. The first of these periods, he tells us, is "often called, though somewhat inaccurately, Theocracy," though he does not say why it is thus "inaccurately" described. He refers to other Lectures; but in these I fail to find the reason; so that he leaves his readers, as he probably left his hearers, without a distinct idea on the subject.

1

Theocracy, soxpatía, is a term apparently first introduced by Josephus, when saying that-whereas the rule of government had been by some made to consist either in monarchy, in oligarchy, or in democracy, uéтepos voμobéτns, our lawgiver (Moses) he adds, εἰς μὲν τούτων οὐδοτιοῦν ἀπεῖδεν, had regard to none of these forms ; ὡς δ ̓ ἄν τις εἴποι βιασάμενος τὸν λόγον, θεοκρατίαν ἀπέδειξε τὸ πολίτευμα, but, as some might say, straining the term, instituted Theocracy as a form of government; whence it appears that Josephus looked upon Moses as the founder of the Theocracy.

Yet, looking as we ought, at the whole of God's dealings with His people, that was to be an emblem of His Church called out of the world, while living therein, until it be perfected in Heaven, we find that (1) the call of Abraham was a more complete example of God's free grace, of His will and of His power, in making this one man, through his firm faith in objective Truth and implicit obedience to it, the pattern of those that should believe; than would have been the call, say, out of Egypt, of the nation which repeatedly turned aside, disobeyed and murmured, and even worshipped a molten calf, while the Law was being given to Moses on Mount Sinai. Therefore did GOD first call His Church in the person of Abraham, and not in his posterity, in order to make him the father and pattern not only of His Church under the Law but also of His Church under the Gospel; therefore did GoD make the promise to him first, and therefore did He bring about the Exodus of Abraham's posterity from Egypt in ratification of that very promise. But (2) in order that God's people should be brought out of Egypt according to His purpose, it was ordered that the seventy children of Abraham that went down to Egypt, should there and then settle and multiply into a people, to be rescued from the Contra Ap. ii. 16.

bondage to which they were to be reduced, with signs, wonders, types and miracles, meant as figures of what should follow. And when (3) we consider the various stages through which the children of Israel were made to pass after leaving Egypt, their baptism in the Red Sea as death unto Egypt and a new birth unto God's government of them as His people; the desert, the law, manna, their many warnings and punishments, even through types, as that of the brazen serpent; the crossing of the Jordan under Joshua or Jesus the son of Nun; then the taking possession of the promised Land, and the period of the Judges during which "the LORD ruled over the people;" after that, their having a king so far of God's appointment, that God had foretold him, and that his successors were called "the LORD's anointed," to show that GoD still held supreme Rule over the nation: then the idolatry, the captivity, and the sceptre not departing from Judah until the coming of Shiloh,3-we may be right in agreeing with Bishop Warburton,5 when he says: "Most writers suppose Theocracy to have ended with the Judges; but scarce any bring it lower than the Captivity. On the contrary, I hold that in strict truth and propriety, it ended not until the coming of CHRIST." Then follow proofs given by that learned and plain spoken6 divine, to show that Theocracy ended not with the Judges, but continued during the Monarchy, and until the destruction of the national independence of the Jewish people. With him agrees Jahn,7 and apparently Gesenius, who says that "prophets were but heralds of Theocracy; and oracles only declarations of Theocratic sentiments towards nations not their own."8

It seems proved by one institution, that of the Jubilee, when

1 Judg. viii. 23.

2 Deut. xvii. 14, 15.

3 NITRO NATO I 19 1"Until the time when the King Messiah shall come." (Targ. J. B. Uzziel, in Gen. xlix. 10, 11.) TT"For of Him is the

kingdom." (Targ. Hieros. Ibid.)

4 "Sed cautè," as Carpzov says of him, Appar. Histor. criticus, p. 7.

5 Divine Leg. of Moses, vol. ii. p. 280, sq.

6 "I believe it will not be easy to find, even in the dirtiest sink of freethinking, so much falsehood, absurdity, and malice, heaped together in so few words," speaking of Voltaire's Opinion of the Jews. Div. Leg. vol. ii. p. 239. 7 Archæol. Bibl. par. 221, Engl. Transl.

s Comm. in Is. Einleit. p. 27, sq.