of Jerusalem (Josephus, Jewish War, VII. 1. 1), and the prediction of Jesus, "Thine enemies shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee: and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another." (Luke xix. 44.) In the parallel to which (Luke xxiv. and Matt. xxiv.) Tholuck finds no reference to a second coming (lezte Parusie).

He adopts the common theory, that the prophets foresaw correctly the destruction of the various heathen nations, but mistook the time when it was to take place. What they expected was evidently a destruction in their own time, and it might be said that any later destruction was simply a coincidence. At all events, these predictions against foreign nations seem to lose all their eloquence, originality, and individuality if reduced to mere repetitions of the general law, that all cities and nationalities are sooner or later destroyed. Yet this is all that this theory of ultimate fulfilment seems to us to leave. Tholuck, indeed, tries to show that this ultimate destruction was only predicted and accomplished of some single cities and nationalities. "While other primeval cities, Rome and Athens, Damascus and Ecbatana (Hamadan), still stand, and in some respects flourish, those cities and nations whose complete ruin was predicted, Nineveh and Babylon, Tyre and Edom, have become wastes." Damascus does flourish, but Isaiah predicted (xvii. 1): “Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap." Rome and Athens are in Europe, and their time is not yet come, though there is some difference between the size and site of the ancient and modern Romes. No one can tell with certainty where the ruins of Ecbatana now lie.. We assert, again, that it cannot be proved that the prophets saw beyond their political horizon. They predicted the ruin of all known cities and peoples, in their own age, and were mistaken. In succeeding centuries the destruction they expected has indeed come, but as the result of new developments of civilization among distant races, not as the punishment of the wars and idolatries of the age of the Hebrew theocracy. We cannot believe that, when Turkish tyranny destroyed Tyre and Edom, the inhabitants were suffering merely the punishment of sins committed one thousand years before. We cannot believe

that the present desolation of Southwestern Asia is simply the result of the depravity of the ancient Asiatics.

The last section of the book, on the Messianic predictions, occupies about sixty pages with the discussion of "Their Temporary Form and their Eternal Substance," "The Person of the Messiah," "The Work of the Messiah." This last head is further subdivided into "The Teaching Word," "The Atoning Deed," "The Complete Dominion," on the old "Prophet, Priest, and King" plan. "Jesus is the Messiah only for those who recognize in Judaism the pre-formation or germ of Christianity. We must recognize the wide difference between the Jewish form and the Christian substance of the Messianic prophecies on the one hand, but on the other we must not suppose that any such difference was known to the prophets themselves. Single events in the life of Jesus were not predicted. Micah v. 2 denotes only his descent from David; the word translated virgin' in Isaiah vii. 14, means the wife of the prophet. Isaiah liii. 8 and 9 is full of mistranslations, yet there are Messianic predictions in the later Isaiah. This author speaks of the true Israel which is to regenerate the whole nation. This must mean the prophets and their adherents. Hence the inference is natural to the great prophet." The inference is a natural one, but it remains to be proved that the author of Isaiah xl. to lx. made it. We think Tholuck rather too ready to take it for granted, that what seem to him natural inferences from the language both of the rationalists and of the prophets, were in fact made by them. The person of the Messiah he of course thinks superhuman; he argues that the prophets must have believed in his pre-existence, and seems to intimate that they had some conception of his Deity. God may be conceived of "either as he is in himself, as transcendental, or as he is for the world, as mundane." In the latter sense he is called "the angel of the Lord." This divine title is applied to the Messiah in Zech. xii. 8, and also, it may be said, in Malachi iii. 1. Perhaps we should here quote Exodus vii. 1: "And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh"; and Psalm lxxxii. 6: "I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High." We cannot find any proof that the prophets exVOL. LXXI. 5TH S. VOL. IX. NO. III.

32

peeted in the Messiah anything but a holy and pious king. Tholuck's discussion of the Messiah as prophet and priest is occupied mainly with what are called theocratic predictions, which represent Jehovah himself as working for his people and his religion, immediately, and not through any subordinate instrumentality. He finds the idea of expiation, substitution, and atonement in the later Isaiah, wherein the best critics see no Messianic prophecy. It may be here noted, that he admits that the later Isaiah, like all the other prophets, expected the Messiah in his own age. The last subdivision, on the Messiah as king, is very meagre. It is occupied mainly with the proof that the description of the New Jerusalem in Ezekiel and Revelations is merely "the contemplation of the eternal idea of the Messianic kingdom in temporal and theocratic form." Here we find very frank acknowledgments of the impossibility of the realization of the immense dimensions of the new city and temple, and of such predictions as Isaiah lxvi. 23: "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord."

Severely as we must blame the inaccuracies of this book, arising, we suppose, partly from the haste and partly from the earnestness of the author, we nevertheless recommend it, not only as bright, fresh, and interesting, but as thoroughly devout and reverent, and calculated to give needed knowledge of the way in which the spirit of the Heavenly Father has ever worked in the souls of his children.

ART. IV.-BUCKLE'S HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION.

History of Civilization in England. By HENRY THOMAS BUCKLE. Vols. I. and II. From the Second London Edition. To which is added an Alphabetical Index. New York: D. Appleton and Company. 1860, 1861.

WHEN the first volume of Mr. Buckle's History appeared, in 1857, it was noticed at length in this journal, by one of our

most able collaborateurs, whose loss to science and study is yet lamented by scholars both in Europe and America. We feel on the present occasion a renewed sense of our own loss, knowing how much we should be gratified to offer a review of the present volume from the same hand. But his work of criticising and being criticised is over, since we may hope that in the higher worlds criticism and critics no longer exist. Meantime, for us, still denizens of this lower sphere, remains the hard necessity of looking at new products of the intellect in the sharp, dissecting way. Synthetic views belong to heaven, but analysis and criticism are still the doom of earth.

Especially is it necessary to examine anew Mr. Buckle and his theory, as we now receive his second volume. We welcomed kindly the first instalment of this work, giving a cursory account of it, and hinting, rather than urging, the objections which readily suggested themselves against his theories concerning Man, History, Civilization, and Human Progress. But now it seems a proper time to discuss with a little more deliberation the themes opened before us by this intrepid writer, this latest champion of that theory of the mind which in the last century was called Materialism and Necessity, and which in the present has been re-baptized as Positivism.

The doctrines of which Mr. Buckle is the ardent advocate seem to us, the more thoroughly we consider them, to be essentially theoretical, superficial, and narrow. They are destitute of any broad basis of reality. In their application by Mr. Buckle, they utterly fail to solve the historic problems upon which he tries their power. With a show of science, they are very unscientific, being a mere collection of unverified hypotheses. And if Mr. Buckle should succeed, which, however, is impossible, in introducing his principles and methods into the study of history, it would be equivalent to putting backward for about a century this whole department of thought.

Yet, while we state this as our opinion, and one which we shall presently endeavor to substantiate by ample proof, we do not deny to Mr. Buckle's volumes the interest arising from vigorous and independent thinking, faithful study of details,

and a strong, believing purpose. They are interesting and valuable contributions to our literature. But this is not on account of their purpose, but in spite of it; notwithstanding their doctrines, not because of them. The interest of these books, as of all good history, derives itself from their picturesque reproduction of life. Whatever of value belongs to Mr. Buckle's work is the same as that of the writings of Macaulay, Motley, and Carlyle. Whoever has the power of plunging like a diver into the spirit of another period, sympathizing with its tone, imbuing himself with its instincts, sharing its loves and hates, its faith and its scepticism, will write its history so as to interest us. For whoever will really show to us the breathing essence of any age, any state of society, or any course of human events, cannot fail of exciting that element of the soul which causes man everywhere to rejoice in meeting with man. He who will write the history of Arabians, Kelts, or Chinese, of the Middle Ages, the Norman Seakings, or the Roman Plebs, so that we can see ourselves beneath these diverse surroundings of race, country, and period, and see that these also are really MEN,- this writer instantly awakens our interest, whether he call himself poet, novelist, or historian. In all cases, the secret of success is to write so as to enable us to identify ourselves with the characters of another age. Great authors all enable us to look at actions, not from without, but from within. When we read the historic plays of Shakespeare, or the historic novels of Scott, we are charmed by finding that kings and queens are, after all, our poor human fellow-creatures, sharing all our old, familiar struggles, pains, and joys. When we read that great historic masterpiece, the "French Revolution" of Carlyle, the magic touch of the artist introduces us into the heart of every character in the motley, shifting scene. We are the poor king escaping to Varennes under the dewy night and solemn stars. We are tumultuous Mirabeau, with his demonic but generous soul. We are devoted Charlotte Corday; we are the Gironde; we the poor prisoners of Terror, waiting in our prison for the slow morning to bring the inevitable doom. This is the one indispensable faculty for the historian; and this faculty Mr. Buckle so far possesses as to make his page