of in his physical and not his religious capacity; or that in transcribing the names, or marking the lines, of annual superintendents, during the course of 243 years, the short note of an eclipse of the sun has not been misplaced by-whom shall we say-the Median, the Persian, the Babylonian, the Assyrian, or the Scythic scribe? We put these questions, which we deem natural; and we do so in the spirit of deferential inquiry and respect. We now quote the words of Dr Hincks, a man in those studies certainly of no mean authority: "Is there any rectification," says Dr Hincks, "of the received Hebrew numbers rendered necessary by any recent discovery? I do not think that there is. What requires rectification is, it appears to me, the canon of which Sir Henry Rawlinson has given an account; or, perhaps I should rather say, it is Sir Henry Rawlinson's edition of the canon. It is my decided opinion that he has not placed a single one of the Eponymes [or superintendents] in connection with his proper year. He has assumed a wrong year for the Eponymy [or superintendency] of Sargon, and his error as to this affects every Eponymy in the whole canon. He has also omitted to allow for an interval of some fifty years, during which the appointment of Eponymes [or superintendents] was suspended, after the conquest of Assyria by Arbaces and Belesis." Again, "The mean difference, therefore, between the accession of Shalmaneser II. and the Eponymy [or superintendency] of Tiglath Pileser, according to the second book of Kings, and according to the Assyrian canon, is 44 years, with a possible error, more or less, of 14 years. The difference cannot be made less than 30 years, without disturbing numbers that are linked together in an unexceptionable manner; and I do say that, taking the Hebrew book, entitled the Second Book of Kings, as a merely human composition, building nothing on its forming part of the Bible, or its having any claim to inspiration, it is far more worthy of credit than this Assyrian canon. Every principle of sound criticism requires us to suppose that the compiler of the canon has passed over a period of upwards of 30 years, during which either n Eponymes were appointed, or he was unable to discover their names. We allow those words to speak for themselves. It is, however, but justice to add, that Mr Bosanquet has, in opposition to Dr Hincks and M. Oppert, come to the support of the Rawlinsonian view of the Assyrian canon, in a long and elaborate paper in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,† in which, if he does not accomplish his object, it is not certainly from the lack of either learning or research. See Dr Hinck's communication to Athenæum of July 5. 1862, entitled "Bible History and the Rawlinson Canon." + New Series, Vol. I., part 1st, pp 145-180. VOL. XVII-NO. LXVI. 3 E But the Rev. George Rawlinson, Camden Professor of Ancient History in the University of Oxford, tells us in a note in the fourth volume of his "Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World,' "* that "there can be little doubt that this eclipse," viz., June 15. B.C. 763, "is the one of which Amos prophesied" (Amos viii. 9). Let us quote the words of the prophet at length, "And it shall come to pass in that day, said the Lord God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day." It may be that these words predict a literal eclipse of the sun; although, we are convinced, that is the least thing here, if at all intended; for the context points to something darker than a mere solar eclipse; "there shall be many dead bodies in every place" (v. 3); the Lord "will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord" (v. 11). It is not usually the province of a prophet to predict what any astronomer may calculate. Under the emblem of the going down of the sun, a revolution in the state is indicated. Besides, if, as the Rawlinson canon demands, forty years are to be elided between the first year of Ahab and the first year of Hezekiah; and, as Amos prophesied within that period, viz, in the reigns of Uzziah, king of Judah, and Jeroboam II,, king of Israel, the elision of the forty years, according as it is placed before the days of Uzziah and Jeroboam II. or after them, will make the prediction of Amos precede the eclipse, or the eclipse precede the prediction. The fulfilment of the prediction has, therefore, by interpreters of high repute, been referred to the temporary prosperity of Israel under Jeroboam II., suddenly clouded by the murder of his son Zachariah, after a short reign of six months, and quickly followed by the invasion of Pul, king of Assyria, and many evils (compare 2 Kings xiv. 24-29, with 2 Kings xv. 8-37). That was the sun's eclipse. In fact, as Rosenmuller rightly judgeth, "just as the darkening of the sun denotes very heavy calamities, so the heaviest of all are usually indicated by its setting, whence it is altogether withdrawn from the earth." In making these remarks, we do not profess to be either discoverers or inventors, we simply endeavour to mark the *See page 573. † Munster, Vatablus, Castalio, Clarius, Drusius, Grotius, Pool, Gill, Henderson. In relation to the subject of a total eclipse of the sun, Hitzig sums up the matter characteristically thus, "Dass aber gerade in Jerobeams Todesjahr eine solche gefallen, dass einige Ausleger diese hier geweissagt sein lassen, und dass ein Grieche sie vorausberechnet habe (Justi), dafür vermisse ich jeglichen Beweis." I "Uti autem obscuratio solis graviores calamitates indicat (vid. e. c. Ezech. xxxii. 7, 8), ita gravissimae per occasum, quo penitus tervis subducitur, innui solent."-Rosenmüller, in Amos viii. 9. "The Five Great Monarchies." 775 footsteps of those eminent men who have invented and discovered, and we desire it to be distinctly understood, that whatever on some points may be our opinion, as to the results drawn from some Assyrian inscriptions, we regard the four volumes of Professor Rawlinson on "The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World," as a work of rare learning and labour, full of antiquarian lore and recondite detail, and the fruits of modern travel and discovery; and if some of the conclusions must be considered as only provisional, awaiting the judicial adjustment of further light, he must still be regarded as having purposed and accomplished a task of no small magnificence, and vindicated, as his own, the words of another great historian, "prorsus rem magni et animi et corporis aggressus. In perusing his luminous and massy tomes, we feel as though the angel Michael had reassumed the kind offices that the poet tells us that he performed, on the ruin of our race, to our first father, and had wafted us to some Or, "Hill Of Paradise the highest, from whose top Stretch'd out to the amplest reach of prospect, lay." ... "Like stout Cortez, when with eagle eyes And if one single word of ours could, amidst the utilitarian predilections of this iron age, have the effect of encouraging and cheering on, in the path of studious research, those noble spirits that have done so much already for the decipherment of cuneiform writing, to proceed with their laudable zeal and generous aspirations, we would call upon men with such names and accomplishments as those of Grotefend, and Lassen, and Burnouf, and Hincks, and Rawlinson, and Oppert, and Talbot,or, whilst some of those veterans fall in the field,-on spirits fired with an ambition similar to theirs, to advance in the high walk of ancient history and oriental literature, to shed the light of knowledge on the nations and languages, the countries and migrations of the human race,-to unroll secrets that have been kept hid in the archives of oldest and mightiest monarchies, to disclose the primitive origin, and close connection, and early brotherhood of nations, to elucidate the historic truth and heavenly purity and grandeur of the Hebrew scriptures; and, from war and bloodshed, from sanctioned uncleanness, and the worship of Bel, and Nebo, and Merodach, * Justini in "Trogi Pompeii historias exordium." and Ashtarte, to teach the children of men to mark the very spot,-Ur of the Chaldees,-whence Abram, the son of Terah, was called, and, like him, to embrace the gracious promise given to the Chaldean wanderer by the living God,-"In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." ART. VI. The Christian Doctrine of Sin. The Christian Doctrine of Sin. By Dr JULIUS MÜLLER, Professor of Theology in the University of Halle. Translated from the German of the Fifth Edition. By the Rev. WILLIAM URWICK, M.A. In Two Volumes. Edinburgh T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street. London: Hamilton, Adams, & Co. Dublin: J. Robertson & Co. 1868. : DR is a R MÜLLER is a man of distinguished ability, and he is ranked amongst the sounder class of German theologians. This work, on which his high reputation, at least in Britain and America, mainly rests, is worthy of being carefully read and studied. The subjects to which it relates-the nature of sin, the freedom of the will, the universal inherent depravity of human nature, and the source whence it is derived, are amongst the most profound and important that can occupy the mind of man. Written with much fulness and elaboration, it presents us with the varied phases of modern thought on problems debated especially in Germany, whose theological literature now exerts an influence so powerful on the theological mind of Britain. It illustrates, vindicates, and sometimes presents in a new and more interesting light, many important truths, while it successfully combats many errors which lie at the foundation. of all religion; and it brings to bear on every question handled, no common metaphysical and logical power. Though to a large extent controversial, it is pervaded throughout with philosophical calmness and candour of spirit, combined with a tone of deep religious earnestness. Its style is perspicuous, elegant, and vigorous, such as is exceedingly well adapted for philosophical discussion, though, of course, the reasonings often require close attention. So popular has it become in Germany, that a fifth edition has been published, and that it has been adopted as a text-book in many of the universities of the Fatherland. But while paying willing tribute to the literary and theological merits of this performance, we do not accept all the sentiments which it propounds, nor admit the soundness of all its interpretations of Scripture. On some points the author Freedom of the Will. 777 displays more subtilty of mind than solidity of judgment; a greater tendency to indulge in fanciful speculations than to rest his conclusions on the basis of well ascertained premises. When he deviates from the old paths, and strikes out new ones, by altering, modifying, or supplanting what has been long received, he is more remarkable for placing, in a strong light, the difficulties or objections which have been started against the old doctrines, than for his power and success in establishing his own opinions, or in meeting and answering the still more formidable objections by which they may be assailed. On some of these opinions, we propose briefly to animadvert; and passing over the first volume, which treats chiefly of the nature of sin, we shall limit ourselves to the second, in which the great subjects are the freedom of the will, the universality of inborn depravity, and the source whence it is derived. The author divides freedom of the will into real and formal. Real freedom of the will is what belongs to a moral intelligent being in its most perfect state. Then only is man in the highest sense free, when, without hesitation, he wills only what is good, and carries out in act that inner necessity of his nature, which excludes even the thought of the possibility of sin. But this view of freedom of the will, which the author holds to be just, does not answer the object which he proposes, which is to discover, in beings possessed of personality, some condition of sufficient strength and independence to enable them to make an entirely new beginning in action-in fact to originate sin—and thus to exempt evil from the divine causation. 'In order to solve this difficulty, there must," he observes, "it would seem, be in the freedom of the will some power whereby evil as well as good can be produced. Such a power does exist; the power of choosing between good and evil essentially belongs to human nature;" and this the author designates formal freedom. "But real freedom and formal freeedom," he observes, " are so related and harmonised, that, correctly speaking, they are not two conceptions of freedom, but different stages of the same, the first being only a stage which is intended to pass on towards the full realisation of freedom." Applying this formal freedom to man in his primitive state, and excluding the idea of the self-determining power of the will, as involved in it, the will being determined by motives, we have an explanation of how sin entered into the world without the divine causation. But applying it to man in his present fallen condition, it must be observed, that from the depravity of his moral nature, he has no power to choose or to do what is really good in the sight of God, for the will always acts according to the impulse of the moral disposition of the |