from human nature; and we would therefore respectfully entreat Mr. Browne to re-consider this portion of his work, in which he certainly has not strengthened his position with his usual care.

But we cannot leave this part of the subject without a word on the manner in which this learned writer, so ready in general to do justice to the merits of others, has spoken of one to whom our age is so largely indebted as the author referred to above, Dr. Hales. "At the close of the last century," he says, “Dr. Hales followed in the same track (i. e. of Vossius and Jackson), pretending, however, to re-construct the genuine Alexandrian text from that of Josephus." What force Mr. Browne means to affix to the word pretending, we know not. That its most obvious sense, however, is one of an injurious kind, cannot be denied; and in speaking of a venerable, learned, and most candid critic, more guarded language ought to have been used. Dr. Hales' fair and elaborate argument, and ingenious attempt at the rectification of a very perplexed text (in accordance, we must say, with common sense and sound criticism), little deserves a notice which at least appears somewhat contemptuous. His work on chronology has doubtless its faults; it is far too verbose and digressive, and might well have been contracted to half its size, nor does his conjectural criticism evince much skill in that particular department of scholarship. But for profound learning, for accurate collation of facts, for fulness of information, and for sincere and guileless piety, Dr. Hales is inferior to no writer of our generation, and second to none in the science of chronology.

It is with regret that we have made these strictures, which are still quite consistent with sincere respect for the learned writer. And (although we must decline entering into the controversy in any degree whatever) it is with no less regret that we must animadvert upon the tone used by Mr. Browne towards one of our profoundest scholars, Mr. Greswell, whose labours, independently of any chronological question, have so signally enriched our theology. Mr. Browne ought by this time to have known too well the great perplexities attending the details of chronology to be so very severe upon any error real or supposed committed by others. We shall merely observe upon the controversy itself, that we do not think Mr. Greswell's general system so much affected by the point in dispute, as Mr. Browne supposes; while upon some others, as that of the associate reign of Tiberius, we think Mr. Greswell and Dr. Jarvis are right.

The second part of Mr. Browne's work contains first, "Institutes of Chronology," a compendium of the technical apparatus requisite for the study; secondly, the remarks on Mr. Greswell's scheme

alluded to above; thirdly, the chronographies of the Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Egyptians, compared with the Scriptures; then, a harmony of part of the gospels; and lastly, a beautiful and interesting essay on prophecy.

On these parts of his book but a few words can be said. As to the Egyptian chronology, Mr. Browne's remarks, advanced with great modesty and caution, are striking and valuable. He justly suspects the ancient lists of dynasties to have been corrupted by the priests, in order to invalidate the urgent claims of Scripture history. This may be one solution of the discordance observable between the lists given by Manetho, Syncellus, Eratosthenes, and Herodotus; which are clearly irreconcilable upon any ordinary hypothesis. Mr. Browne, on commencing his inquiry, says,

"Of the monuments I shall make but sparing use: I am not competent to express a critical judgment respecting their value as documents of chronology; but I cannot help suspecting that in the present state of hieroglyphical knowledge, their indications must be too precarious to be relied upon for constructive purposes."-p. 572.

In this misgiving we fully participate. Whatever degree of certainty is to be attributed to hieroglyphical knowledge, the further questions remain, how can we be assured that many of these records are not forgeries by priests of much later times? and what certain tests have we of the antiquity and genuineness of monuments? and how can it be proved (indeed, we have yet seen no proof that is demonstrative) that the phonetic system of writing was not introduced into Egypt in comparatively recent times? Indeed, we are strongly of opinion, that no real and consistent light can be thrown upon Egyptian history, till some unquestionable records of the Israelites are discovered among its monuments, a discovery of which we are far from despairing; and that, till testimony connected with the sacred annals be found, nothing certain will be known of that extraordinary people.

In his views as to the interpretation of prophecy, Mr. Browne agrees mainly with Mr. Maitland, in adhering to the literal system. Without pronouncing upon the merits of a very disputed question, it must be allowed that the masters in this school have, at least, done this great service to the cause of truth, by recalling us to more careful and exact statements and examinations of facts, and by repressing the wild and licentious interpretation of Holy Scripture.

We would beg particularly to refer our readers to the beginning of his fifth section (p. 663), and the essay on the nature, intent, and complex structure of prophecy, in which he shows the whole of Scripture to discharge a prophetical office.

It is

one of the many passages in which the author relieves the dryness of chronological inquiries by great beauty of style, justness of thought, and soundness of critical scholarship.

It is much, however, to be regretted, that the arrangement of his work is not more commodious. It is too much broken up with Appendices; and had it been diffused into two volumes with larger type, it would have been far more convenient for use and reference. But, above all, there is a sad want of a good Index, a want under which Dr. Jarvis's book also labours. A good Index is, indeed, at all times rare, but the total want of one in a work of reference like Mr. Browne's is a serious defect. Indeed, we cannot but wish that men of learning would, in pity to their less gifted disciples, condescend to bestow a little time upon an appendage which, doubtless, implies some drudgery on the part of the authors, but would be well repaid by the gratitude of their

readers.

ART. IV.-The Principles of Political Economy; with some Inquiries respecting their application, and a Sketch of the Rise and Progress of the Science. By J. R. MACCULLOCH, Esq. A New Edition, enlarged and corrected throughout. Edinburgh: W. Tait. London: Longman.

WE remember attending, several years ago, a meeting which was held for the discussion of questions of Political Economy, when, among other subjects proposed for consideration, the following was fixed upon for the evening's debate: "What progress has the Science of Political Economy made since the days of Adam Smith?

We recollect being at the time particularly struck by the sentiments which were expressed on the occasion by one of the party present, who took a leading part in the debate. The gentleman to whom we allude was himself an author of some celebrity, who had written on the subject. He was generally looked up to as an authority in such matters; and the opinion which he gave we think worth recording, not only on account of its general bearing on the nature and methods of this science, but because of the light which it throws upon the views of the school to which he evidently belonged, and of which Mr. Macculloch (whose work we are about to consider) is the most famed living disciple and expositor.

This gentleman, then, after having noticed the able and useful works of Messrs. Say, Stoich, and Sismondi, in which the subject had been treated more methodically than in the Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations, and having adverted to the more important contributions of Mr. Malthus, in his Essays on Population and Rent, concluded his survey by declaring his conviction that Mr. Ricardo, in his celebrated treatise, had completed all that, prior to his time, remained to be done, and had thoroughly exhausted the subject. In his (this gentleman's) judgment, we were now in possession of a full, satisfactory, and perfect theory of political economy. Nothing further was left us to inquire into.

It is, perhaps, needless to say that the majority of those who were present on the occasion did not much sympathize with these views. The general current of feeling ran quite the other way. Some considered that there were yet several questions which required further elucidation and development, and nearly all

seemed to agree that it was difficult to prescribe limits to a subject embracing so many topics, and extending over so wide a field of inquiry.

Notwithstanding, however, this general expression of dissent from his opinion, it cannot be supposed that one so conversant with the subject as that gentleman was judged to be had taken it up on light grounds, or that there did not exist some good reasons which might account for his having been led to entertain such views.

These reasons we have used our best endeavours to discover, and the course of our reflections has led us to what we conceive to be the true explanation of them. They appear to us to have their root and origin in the peculiar mode of investigation which has been pursued by this modern school of economists. The subject has been treated by them as one, the knowledge of which is to be acquired by reasoning from premises which are assumed as certain and incontrovertible first principles. This method of inquiry characterizes their writings, is interwoven with their system, and gives a mathematical cast to all their conclusions. The evil of this method is, that it leads to premature generalizations, and to incomplete, and therefore erroneous, views of the truths which it professes to establish.

There is, however, something so captivating in the ease and neatness with which important questions appear to be settled by this method of treating them, that it has been extolled and acted upon by other writers, who differ from this school in many important particulars, but who, in this respect, seem to have been carried away by the influence of their example. "The foundations of political economy (says the author of the article in the Encyclop. Metropol.) consist of a few general propositions deduced from observations or experience." "And again :-"This science depends more on reasoning than on observation. If economists had been aware that its principal difficulty consists, not in the ascertainment of its facts, but on the use of its terms, they would have directed their attention to the selection and consistent use of an accurate nomenclature."

Now, if it be true that the propositions of political economy are few in number, which they must needs be if they are founded on the definitions of half a dozen terms, the conclusions to be wrought out of them cannot be very many; and even if those data were more numerous than they are here represented to be, as soon as the results of them are worked out, there must be an end of the whole subject. There is nothing further to seek for. Such a system carries its own natural termination along with it; and that termination cannot be very remote. So, doubtless, VOL. VI.-NO. XI.-SEPT. 1846.