LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 
 
 tt- ttil lti -Aft"! -5 
 , Shelf 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 

MOSES AND THE PROPHETS. 
 
THE ARGUMENT 
 
 OF 
 
 THE BOOK OF JOB 
 
 UNFOLDED. 
 
 By WILLIAM HENRY GREEN, D.D. 
 i2mo. #1.75. 
 
 " If it were possible for the inspired volume to rise in our esteem through 
 scholarly efforts in its illustration and vindication, it would be accomplished 
 by means of this work." — Our Monthly. 
 
 " The entire argument is conducted with ability and great clearness of 
 style, to show the place of the Book of Job in the scheme of Holy Scrip- 
 ture, and to clear up some of the perplexing problems of God's economy with 
 men." — Lutheran Observer. 
 
 " The thanks of the Christian public are due to the scholarly and devout 
 Professor W. H. Green, of Princeton, for a modest, but as we think excep- 
 tionably valuable, little treatise on the Book of Job." — Congregdtionalist. 
 
 " That ancient composition, so marvellous in beauty and so rich in phi- 
 losophy, is here treated in a thoroughly analytical manner, and new depths 
 and grander proportions of the divine original portrayed. It is a book to 
 stimulate research, and will amply repay the student for all the time h 
 occupies in perusal." — Methodist Recorder. 
 
 " It is not a commentary, but a comprehensive exposition of the book as 
 a whole, by a ripe scholar." — Albany Evening Journal. 
 
 JUST PUBLISHED BY 
 
 ROBERT CARTER AND BROTHERS, 
 530 Broadway, New York. 
 
Moses and the Prophets: 
 
 THE 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE JEWISH CHURCH, 
 By PROF. W. ROBERTSON SMITH; 
 
 THE PROPHETS AND PROPHECY TN ISRAEL, 
 By DR. A. KUENEN; 
 
 AND 
 
 THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL, 
 By W. ROBERTSON SMITH, LL.D. 
 
 REVIEWED BY 
 
 WILLIAM HENRY 6REEN, D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR IN PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
 
 ft 
 
 12 
 
 1 v I 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 
 ROBERT CARTER AND BROTHERS, 
 530 Broadway. 
 
 1883. 
 
 

 Copyright, 1882, 
 By Robert Carter and Brothers. 
 
 University Press: 
 John Wilson and Son, Cambridge. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 This volume does not pretend to discuss all ques- 
 tions pertaining to the Books of Moses and the 
 Prophets. It is simply a reprint, with additions, of 
 articles in review of the works named in the title, 
 which appeared in the " Presbyterian Review," for 
 October, 1881, and for January, 1882, and in the 
 "Princeton Review," for July, 1878. The last is 
 published as originally written, a few pages hav- 
 ing been restored which were dropped to bring it 
 within smaller compass. The Preliminary Remarks 
 were delivered in September, 1881, as the opening 
 lecture of the session in Princeton Theological Sem- 
 inary. A few paragraphs have been added to the 
 article entitled " Professor Robertson Smith on the 
 Pentateuch," for the sake of greater fulness or clear- 
 ness in the argument. Thus attention is drawn to 
 the fact that the alleged diversity of writers in the 
 Pentateuch, if it could be proved, would not affect 
 its antiquity or authority (p. 46) ; that the Levitical 
 Law must have been written as well as enacted in 
 the Wilderness (p. 61) ; that Moses could have 
 
2 PREFACE. 
 
 spoken of his own meekness with no disparage- 
 ment to his modesty (p. 61, note) ; that the variant 
 phraseology of Leviticus and of Deuteronomy, in re- 
 lation to the priests, involves no diversity of author- 
 ship or of age ( p. 80, note 2) ; and that there is no 
 discrepancy, as is alleged, between Deuteronomy and 
 the Levitical Law in relation to the Passover (p. 118, 
 note). A separate chapter has also been devoted to 
 the Worship in High Places, about which the critics 
 hold the most extravagant opinions, and upon which 
 they found their principal arguments against the an- 
 tiquity of the Laws of the Pentateuch. 
 
 The review of Dr. Robertson Smith's recent Lec- 
 tures on the Prophets of Israel is here published for 
 the first time. 
 
 If this little book shall serve in any measure to 
 confirm the faith or to relieve the perplexities of any 
 who have been disturbed by recent critical specula- 
 tions, the author's highest wishes on its behalf will 
 be realized. With whatever learned ingenuity and 
 skill the unfounded speculations may be contrived, 
 and with whatever boastful confidence they may be 
 put forward, we may rest assured that the estab- 
 lished belief of ages will not be unsettled, nor the 
 firm foundations of God's Word be overturned. 
 
 Princeton, N. J., August 22d, 1882. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PREFACE Tage i 
 
 I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 Pages 9-32. 
 
 Novel aspects of the present agitation, 9 ; the first impulse was given 
 by English deism, 13; the method of German rationalists, 13; of 
 French infidels, 15; of the unbelieving higher criticism, 16; previ- 
 ously existing barriers are now removed, 23 ; the peril hence result- 
 ing, 27 ; the duty thus made incumbent, 28. 
 
 II. THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE JEWISH CHURCH. 
 
 Pages 33-43. 
 
 The volume characterized in general, 33 ; the text of the Old Testa- 
 ment, 34 ; the canon of the Old Testament, 39 ; the meaning of the 
 name Jehovah, 42. 
 
 III. PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH ON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Pages 44-134- 
 
 The view defended by Professor S., 44 ; history of this hypothesis, 
 44 ; its first reception, 48 ; passages in the Pentateuch affirming 
 Moses' authorship, 49 ; three groups of laws, 50; extent of the claim 
 of authorship, 51 ; this claim cannot be false, 54 ; nor a legal fiction, 
 56 and note ; it is confirmed by the language and tenor of the laws, 
 57, which shows them to have been both enacted and written in the 
 Wilderness, 61 ; Moses' use of the third person, 61 ; and self-lauda- 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 tion, note ; no analogous example of legal fiction in the Old Testa- 
 ment, 62 ; laws of Deuteronomy incompatible with the reign of 
 Josiah, 63 ; direction respecting the future king, note ; the Levitical 
 Law not post-exilic, 65 ; it is alleged that the Law cannot all have 
 come from Moses, but must be a development, 67 ; but Israel at the 
 Exodus not uncivilized nomads, 6S ; little change required in their 
 laws, 69 ; necessary changes not prevented by the Mosaic Law, 69 ; 
 the different codes are alleged to represent distinct stages in the life 
 of the people, 71; fallacy in the method of the critics, 72; no 
 discrepancy in relation to the unity of the Sanctuary, 73 ; the 
 cities of refuge, 76 note ; nor the priesthood, 76 ; Deuteronomy 
 refers to pre-existing laws, and assumes their existence, yy ; distin- 
 guishes between priests and Levites, 78 ; its peculiar phraseology 
 involves no discrepancy, 80, is found in books which recognize this 
 distinction, note 1, and is readily accounted for, note 2 ; no discrep- 
 ancy in relation to the provision for the priesthood, 82 note, 83 ; 
 other alleged discrepancies, 84 note; traces of the Mosaic Law 
 in the subsequent books of the Old Testament, 85 ; Joshua and 
 Chronicles arbitrarily excluded, 86; early portion of the period 
 of the Judges, 87; later portion of the same period, 90; the car- 
 riage of the Ark, 91 note 2 ; extraordinary sacrifices, 94 ; infrequent 
 mention of the Sanctuary, 97 ; God's help not limited to His ordi- 
 nary methods, 98 ; regularity of ritual subordinated to spiritual obe- 
 dience, 99, in the Mosaic history, 100, as in that of the Judges, 
 101 ; Samuel's sacrifices, 102 ; David's alleged infractions of the 
 Mosaic Law, 105 note ; the worship in high places, 106; the Law of 
 Moses in the Books of Kings, 107; the Davidic Psalms, 109; the 
 dilemma presented by Ps. xl., no; Hosea affirms the apostasy of 
 Israel from a purer worship, 113, and the existence of a written law, 
 114 and note ; both he and Amos speak of an elaborate ritual, 115, 
 and make numerous and even verbal allusions to the laws of the 
 Pentateuch, 116 note; the alleged depreciation of sacrifice by the 
 Prophets, 117 ; the Passover in Deuteronomy and the Levitical code, 
 118 note ; the other Prophets, 119; Elijah, 119 note 1 ; Isaiah, 119; 
 the "pillar " in the land of Egypt, 121 ; Ezekiel claimed on behalf 
 of the new hypothesis, 122; general opposing considerations, 123; 
 the degradation of the Levites, 127 ; uncircumcised foreigners in 
 the Sanctuary, 127 note; priests and Levites distinguished in the 
 previous history, 128, though not in Malachi, 128 note ; Ezekiel an 
 advance upon the Law, not vice versa, 1 29 ; provision for stated sac- 
 rifices, 131 ; purgation of the altar, 131 ; Day of Atonement, 133. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 IV. THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
 Pages 137-169. 
 
 One Sanctuary prior to Samuel and the laws of Moses observed, 137 ; 
 significance of the loss of the Ark and the slaughter of the priests, 
 139; return and subsequent privacy of the Ark, 141 ; the victory at 
 Eben-ezer, 143; plan of the Books of Samuel, 143 note; hopeful 
 symptoms destroyed by the rejection of God in asking for a king, 
 144 ; Saul disobedient and finally abandoned, 147 ; David's res- 
 toration of the Ark, 148 ; considering their estimate of the ark, Is- 
 rael's conduct, 149, and that of Samuel, 150, demand an explanation 
 which is equally consistent with their knowledge of the whole 
 Mosaic Law, 1 53 ; why the Ark was not restored to the Tabernacle of 
 Moses, 153; High Places are nowhere sanctioned after Solomon in 
 the Books of Kings, 155, in the Psalms or Prophets, 156; Hosea and 
 Amos, 157; alleged local sanctuaries, 159, shown not to have been 
 such ; no known facts of Israel's worship conflict with the Mosaic 
 origin ot the laws of the Pentateuch, 167 ; the Books of Chronicles, 
 169. 
 
 V. KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS AND PROPHECY IN 
 
 ISRAEL. 
 Pages 173-25 1. 
 
 Attitude of Dr. Kuenen, 173; premature anticipations of Mr. Muir, 
 175, and of Dr. Kuenen, 177 ; naturalistic view of prophecy not his- 
 torico-critical or organic, 178 ; classification of predictions, 181 ; 
 genuineness and date of the prophecies, 182 ; three groups of alleged 
 unfulfilled prophecies, 184 ; cities of the Philistines, 184 ; Tyre, 188 ; 
 Damascus, 197; Ammon and Moab, 197 ; Edom, 198; Egypt, 200; 
 Assyria, 213; objection first, from the slow accomplishment of 
 prophecy, and its successive stages, 216 ; objection second, the aveng- 
 ing of wrongs done to Israel should precede the loss of Israel's 
 national existence, 219 ; Babylon, 223 ; the Book of Daniel, 224 ; 
 judgments upon Israel, 230 ; the restoration of Israel, 234 ; the 
 Messiah, 236 ; prophecies respecting Israel fulfilled in the Chris- 
 tian Church, 240 ; modes of evading those prophecies whose fulfil- 
 ment is confessed, 247 ; prophecies in the historical books, 248 ; the 
 authority of the New Testament, 250; incredible assumptions 
 required by the naturalistic hypothesis, 251. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 VI. DR. W. ROBERTSON SMITH ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 OF ISRAEL. 
 
 Pages 255-353. 
 
 The disappointing character of these Lectures, 255 ; divine and human 
 elements in Scripture, 257 ; the Lecturer's views of revelation, and 
 of the inspiration of the Prophets, 260 ; alleged indifference of 
 Elijah to the golden calves, 263 ; this worship not derived from the 
 time of the Judges, 264 note ; denounced by preceding Prophets, 
 265 ; Elijah's attitude, as conceived by the author of Kings, 266 ; 
 his opposition to Baal, 267 ; its political bearings, 268 ; his silence 
 no sanction, 269 ; no positive approval of the calves, 270 ; he adores 
 the God of the Patriarchs, 270 ; maintains the exclusive godhead 
 of Jehovah, 271 ; links Baal and the calves, 271 ; predicts a penalty 
 to be inflicted on the worshippers of the calves, 272 ; his visit to 
 Horeb, 273; Dr. W. R. Smith's view of the God of Moses, 274, 
 overlooks the Ten Commandments, 277, which gave sacredness to 
 Sinai, 278, and were contained in the Ark, 280 ; Wellhausen's ob- 
 jections to the Mosaic origin of the Decalogue, 281, from (1) Ex. 
 xxxiv., 282 ; his critical analysis of Ex. xix.-xxxiv., 283 note ; (2) im- 
 age-worship, 288; Kuenen on the Second Commandment, 288, Dill- 
 mann, 291, Dr. W. R. Smith, 292, Amos and the calves, 293, Elisha, 
 295; (3) Israel's religion originally national, not moral, answered 
 by Dr. W. R. Smith, 296 ; (4) Monotheism could not be the basis of 
 a national religion, 298; the antiquity of the Ten Commandments, 
 298 ; inference respecting Elijah, 299; other deductions, 300; alleged 
 separate legal standard of different epochs, 301 ; time of the Judges 
 and Samuel, 302 ; Deuteronomy and Leviticus not unknown to the 
 narratives of Elijah and Elisha, 303 ; nor Levitical Law to the rest 
 of Kings, 306; law of Ex. xx. 24, 310; Mosaic legislation not 
 uninfiuential, 313; nor without recognition in the Northern King- 
 dom, 315; argument from Deut xxxiii. and Josh, xxiv., 316; ac- 
 cording to Hosea and Amos, the Law of Jehovah valid in both 
 kingdoms, 317, while dispensed by priests and prophets, 318, 
 existed in a permanent form independent of their occasional ut- 
 terance of it, and is traced back to the Exodus, 320 ; it enjoined 
 duties to men, 321, and to God, 323; prescribed one Sanctuary, 
 324; and, so far as appears, embraced the whole of Deuteronomy, 
 331, and the Levitical Law, 332 ; it was a written law, 338 ; by 
 
CONTENTS. 7 
 
 whom written, 341 ; the traditional view, 344; treatment of individ- 
 ual Prophets, 346 ; prophetic foresight of Amos and Hosea, 347 • 
 alleged conflict of Hosea and Elisha, 348 ; Isaiah and the Prophets 
 of Israel, 350 ; accuracy of Isaiah's predictions, 351 ; prophecies 
 emptied of their meaning, or eliminated by criticism, 352. 
 
 Page 
 Index of Scripture Texts 355 
 
 Addendum to page 149 170 
 
MOSES AND THE PROPHETS. 
 
 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 A LL the signs of the times indicate that the Ameri- 
 ^ can Church, and, in fact, the whole of Eng- 
 lish-speaking Christendom, is upon the eve of an 
 agitation upon the vital and fundamental question of 
 the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, such as it 
 has never known before. The divinity and authority 
 of the Scriptures have heretofore been defended 
 against the outside world of unbelievers, against pa- 
 gans, infidels, and sceptics ; but the question is now 
 raised, and the supreme authority of the Scriptures 
 contested, within the Church itself. In the contro- 
 versies which have agitated the churches of Great 
 Britain and of this country heretofore, the infallible 
 authority of Scripture has been admitted as the ulti- 
 mate test of doctrine by all contending parties. All 
 made their appeal to this standard. The settlement of 
 every question depended upon its interpretation, or 
 upon inferences fairly deducible from it. But now 
 the standard is itself brought into question. Utter- 
 ances which fill the air on every side, and are borne 
 to us from every quarter, — from professors' chairs, 
 
IO PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 from pulpits, from the religious press, not to speak 
 of what is incidentally woven into general literature 
 and promiscuous conversation, — show abundantly 
 that the burning question of the age is not, What 
 does the Bible teach? It is one yet more radical 
 and fundamental : What is the Bible ? In what sense 
 is it the Word of God? Is it a revelation from Him, 
 and divinely authoritative ; or is it to be left to the 
 interpreter to say what in it is from God and worthy 
 of our faith, and what is the fallible human element 
 that may be rejected? This question is approached 
 from all sides, and the most diverse and conflicting 
 answers have been given. 
 
 It is not a new thing for the Church to have con- 
 tests without and within. Our Lord himself said : 
 "I came not to send peace on earth, but a, sword/' 
 The intrusion of a new principle leads, of necessity, to 
 antagonisms, and the strife is not always nor wholly 
 an unmixed evil. It is through struggle and contest 
 that the truth has won its way, and that godliness is 
 purified and strengthened. Nothing is more fatal to 
 true progress than stagnation and quiet indifference. 
 It is something to have attention roused and interest 
 excited, and important subjects narrowly inspected 
 from different sides. Discussion results in clearer 
 apprehensions, juster views, and a more thorough 
 appreciation of all the elements entering into the 
 decision of vexed questions than could otherwise be 
 attained. 
 
 According to the sacred record, one providential 
 reason why the Canaanites were not at once destroyed 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 1 1 
 
 was to teach Israel war. By the conflicts which 
 they were obliged to maintain from generation to 
 generation, Israel was prevented from falling into 
 the supineness, effeminacy, and weakness resulting 
 from too great ease and tranquillity. The need of 
 vigilance, of self-defence and daring deeds, compelled 
 them to develop manly and heroic qualities. Our 
 Saviour said to His disciples: "When ye hear of wars 
 and rumors of wars, be ye not troubled ; for such 
 things must needs be." The outward oppressions to 
 which the Church has been subjected, and her inward 
 dissensions and conflicts, disastrous as these some- 
 times appear upon the surface, have nevertheless inva- 
 riably been overruled for good. It is in consequence 
 of the vigor with which she has been assailed on every 
 side that the defences of Zion have been made so 
 strong. The skilful and ingenious advocacy of erro- 
 neous views has forced the friends of truth to clearer 
 thinking, to more accurate definitions and more cor- 
 rect statements of the doctrines of religion. The 
 adversary who uncovers a weak point in the reason- 
 ings or in the formulated statements of orthodox men, 
 really renders them a valuable service by directing 
 attention to what is faulty in position or construction, 
 and compelling its correction. 
 
 Truth is many-sided and large, and it is by no 
 means easy to frame exhaustive statements which 
 shall be precisely coincident with the reality at every 
 point, — which shall embrace all the facts, and nothing 
 but what is fact. It is only by a series of gradual 
 approximations that absolutely correct solutions are 
 
12 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 found of complicated questions. And so long as any 
 element of truth has been overlooked, or has not been 
 assigned its due place in the system, so long will un- 
 guarded points be left open to attack, which an adver- 
 sary will be sure to find out. 
 
 This has been the function of heresies and religious 
 controversies from the beginning until now. The 
 Church has come out of each great conflict with a 
 more clearly denned creed, and a better apprehension 
 of the truth that has been brought into question; 
 and this has thenceforth been a substantial acquisi- 
 tion. The creed of evangelical Christendom of the 
 present day is made up of articles which have been 
 brought to their present accuracy and clearness by 
 just this process. From every period of Egyptian 
 oppression the Church comes forth laden with rich 
 substance. The weapons that have been employed 
 against her are converted to her use ; and the intel- 
 lectual wealth and resources, developed by her ad- 
 versaries, become her own legitimate inheritance. 
 
 The special aspect of the conflict, to which we wish 
 to direct attention as now imminent, is the application 
 of historical criticism to the Bible by Christian hands, 
 and, it may be added, by professedly orthodox Pres- 
 byterians claiming adherence to the Westminster 
 standards, — the application. of criticism to the Bible 
 in a manner to overthrow old established views of 
 the authorship of the books of Scripture, of the 
 meaning and value of the Bible, of the course and 
 character of God's revelation to men. 
 
 This is a reflex wave from German critical specula- 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 1 3 
 
 tion, which is now surging with startling effect upon 
 English shores. The first impulse to this movement, 
 however, came from England itself, and is traceable 
 to the deism of the 17th century, — the deism of 
 Hobbes and Tindal, Bolingbroke and Hume. The 
 effect of British free-thinking on the continent of 
 Europe can be distinctly traced in the writings of the 
 time. It is enough for the present to say that the 
 combat against the supernatural, which English deists 
 conducted on abstract philosophical principles, has 
 been since carried forward on three distinct lines with 
 direct application to the Bible. Three different 
 methods have been employed to eliminate the super- 
 natural from the Scriptures. 
 
 The first is that of the old German rationalists, of 
 whom Eichhorn in the Old Testament, and Paulus in 
 the New, may be mentioned as leaders and represen- 
 tatives. The genuineness and credibility of the books 
 of the Bible were not impugned ; but a method of 
 interpretation was adopted which reduced the miracu- 
 lous to the merely marvellous, and predictions to 
 vague anticipations or shrewd forecastings of the 
 future. The plagues of Egypt, upon this hypothesis, 
 were not immediate inflictions, but simply an accu- 
 mulation of extraordinary phenomena, the like of 
 which, in lower intensity, are of frequent occurrence. 
 The passage of the Red Sea was not made possible by 
 any divine intervention, but the waters were driven 
 back by a high wind which laid the shallows bare. 
 The manna was not a direct gift from Heaven, but a 
 natural product exuded from a plant still found in the 
 
14 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 Arabian Peninsula. The Prophets were men of 
 remarkable sagacity, who had a clear insight into 
 the political combinations of the period and the 
 various tendencies then at work, from which they 
 were able to divine, with singular accuracy, the 
 course of events. Much of the language of the 
 Prophets is mere poetic fancy and highly wrought 
 emblematic descriptions, whose inspiration is that of 
 genius and of the Muses ; but it is not in any special 
 sense the very Word of God. 
 
 The difficulty with this method was that it assigned 
 to interpretation an impossible task. It is beyond the 
 power of hermeneutics to expunge the supernatural 
 from the Bible, which is so firmly wrought into it at 
 every point that it cannot be separated from it. If the 
 genuineness of the sacred writings be conceded, and 
 any credit whatever for honesty and truthfulness is 
 allowed to the writers, the language which they use 
 and the facts which they record cannot be explained 
 away. No fair sense can be put upon them which 
 will make them consistent with the assumption that 
 there has been no departure from the ordinary course 
 of nature and the regular operation of its established 
 laws. No amount of forcing that can be applied to 
 their language, short of completely setting aside its 
 obvious meaning, can bring down the miracles, which 
 they relate, to the effects of natural causes, or can ac- 
 count for the predictions which have been manifestly 
 fulfilled without transcending the bounds of the merely 
 human. With the most liberal allowance for excited 
 fancy and poetical exaggeration, there will still remain 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 15 
 
 so many extraordinary occurrences and remarkable 
 coincidences, conspiring to an end previously an- 
 nounced, or taking place as was foretold by some 
 man of God, that the miracle, which an attempt is 
 made to escape in one direction, is nevertheless en- 
 countered in another. 
 
 The supernatural cannot be expunged from the 
 Bible by the method of interpretation. A second 
 method that was tried was that of denying the trust- 
 worthiness of the record and the good faith of the 
 writers. The seed sown by the English deists pro- 
 duced upon French soil a harvest of a different de- 
 scription from that which we have just considered. 
 To the frivolity and the godlessness of the period, all 
 religion was accounted a fraud practised upon the 
 masses by a designing and interested priesthood. 
 The populace were the dupes of those who imposed 
 upon their credulity to accomplish their own selfish 
 and ambitious ends. The Prophets and workers of 
 miracles were conscious impostors ; the sacred writers 
 falsified the truth of history in order to maintain and 
 perpetuate the cheat. Thus the scoffing crew of 
 Voltaire and his compeers, and the ignoble herd of 
 imitators among ourselves, from Thomas Paine to 
 Robert Ingersoll. 
 
 The trouble with this theory of deception is that it 
 accounts for nothing which it professes to explain, 
 while it shocks the moral sense of every thoughtful 
 man. In ridding itself of the supernatural in the Bible, 
 it sweeps away the supernatural altogether, and ut- 
 terly discards the religious element of our nature. It 
 
1 6 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 imputes all religion to fraud, which is not a satisfac- 
 tory explanation even of the Pagan religions ; for the 
 frauds, which have been practised in connection with 
 them, depended for their success upon a prior belief 
 in the supernatural, and could not themselves have 
 produced this belief Then the circumstances and 
 character of the miracles and the prophecies con- 
 tained in the Bible are such that the supposition of 
 fraud is preposterous. And that such purity and 
 excellence as characterize the religion of the Bible 
 could be the work of deceivers, or find its support in 
 fraud, is simply inconceivable. The denial of the 
 veracity of the record is of all modes of escaping 
 from the supernatural the most shallow, and to all 
 right-thinking and right-feeling persons it is the most 
 offensive. 
 
 The supernatural cannot be abolished by adopting 
 some different interpretation of the Bible which shall 
 bring all its contents down to a level with the opera- 
 tions of natural laws, nor by casting imputations 
 upon the honesty and truthfulness of the sacred 
 writers and thus discrediting their narrative. But 
 one resource remains. It is the method of what has 
 been denominated the higher criticism. The gen- 
 uineness of the sacred writings is called in question. 
 It is freely confessed that the writers of Scripture really 
 meant to affirm that miracles were actually wrought 
 and that prophecies were uttered. At the same time 
 no charge of dishonesty is brought against them ; 
 they doubtless believed themselves that these super- 
 natural events which they record really took place. 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. IJ 
 
 But such a length of time had intervened that legend- 
 ary stories had grown to supernatural proportions, 
 and the writers have simply transmitted to us the 
 mistaken belief of their own times. It is claimed 
 that the miracles of the Bible are not attested by eye- 
 witnesses and contemporaries, but by persons living 
 in an age long subsequent to their alleged occur- 
 rence ; and that the prophecies, so called, were not 
 committed to writing until after the events in which 
 they have been thought to be fulfilled. The age and 
 authorship traditionally ascribed to them are not cor- 
 rect ; a critical examination shows that they must be 
 referred to quite a different origin. 
 
 No objection can be made to the demand that the 
 sacred writings should be subjected to the same criti- 
 cal tests as other literary productions of antiquity. 
 When were they written, and by whom ? For whom 
 were they intended, and with what end in view ? These 
 are questions that may fairly be asked respecting the 
 several books of the Bible, as respecting other books, 
 and the same criteria that are applicable in the one case 
 are applicable likewise in the other. Every produc- 
 tion of any age bears the stamp of that age. It takes 
 its shape from influences then at work. It is part of 
 the life of the period, and can only be properly esti- 
 mated and understood from being viewed in its origi- 
 nal connections. Its language will be the language 
 of the time when it was produced. The subject, the 
 style of thought, the local and personal allusions, will 
 have relation to the circumstances of the period, to 
 which in fact the whole and every part of it must 
 
1 8 PRELIMINAR Y REMARKS. 
 
 have its adaptation, and which must have their right- 
 ful place in determining its true explanation. 
 
 Inspiration has no tendency to obliterate those dis- 
 tinctive qualities and characteristics which link men 
 to their own age. It is as true of Paul and Isaiah as 
 it is of Plato and Virgil, that their intellectual life and 
 writings received a peculiar impress from their sur- 
 roundings. It is by the application of this principle 
 that literary forgeries are detected. The attempt to 
 palm off one's own production as the work of one of a 
 different age, and subject to different conditions, is rare- 
 ly successful. In spite of every precaution, something 
 will leak out to betray the fact that the real circum- 
 stances of its origin are different from those that are 
 pretended. If now inspired writings, like others, are 
 in all their literary aspects the outgrowth of their 
 own age, then the most thorough scrutiny can but 
 confirm our faith in their real origin ; and if in any 
 instance the view commonly entertained of their ori- 
 gin or authorship is incorrect in any particular, the 
 critical study which detects the error, and assigns 
 each writing to its proper time and place, can only 
 conduce to its being better understood and more 
 accurately appreciated. 
 
 But, in applying the principles and methods of 
 literary criticism to the books of the Bible, it must 
 be borne in mind that these books have a character 
 peculiarly their own, as a revelation from God ; and 
 a criticism which denies this at the outset, and con- 
 ducts all its investigations upon this presumption, is 
 under a bias which must necessarily lead to false 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 1 9 
 
 conclusions. There is a Biblical criticism which is 
 born of unbelief, and there is a Biblical criticism 
 which has sprung from a reverent faith in the Divine 
 Word ; and it is not surprising that, proceeding from 
 such opposite principles, they arrive at totally dif- 
 ferent results. 
 
 It is not necessary, in order to vitiate its conclu- 
 sions, that the unbelieving criticism should formally 
 proclaim the principles on which it proceeds, and the 
 assumptions which lie at the basis of all its investiga- 
 tions. These are no less real, however, for not being 
 announced, and for being hidden under a show of a 
 strictly scientific procedure, by which they who 
 conduct it may be themselves deceived. The latent 
 principle which guides and controls throughout is, 
 nevertheless, the elimination of the supernatural from 
 the Bible. The problem to which it addresses itself 
 is : How can this result be most effectually secured, 
 and by the most plausible method? 
 
 That this is really the animus of the movement can 
 be sufficiently shown by a survey of the various hy- 
 potheses which have been successively broached, and 
 the arguments by which they have been defended. 
 The only thing common to them all is the end at 
 which they arrive ; but this is reached by the most 
 various and opposite routes. They universally agree 
 in so dealing with the different books of Scripture 
 that their testimony to the actual occurrence of mir- 
 acles and the utterance of real prophecies shall be 
 discredited and nullified ; but in the method by 
 which this result Is reached in individual cases there 
 
20 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 is endless discord and disagreement, so that the most 
 effectual reply to these various hypotheses often is to 
 set them over against one another and exhibit their mu- 
 tual contrariety. In every instance in which the com- 
 mon result can be attained by a diversity of method, 
 we find these different methods employed by one or 
 another of the critics. If the supernatural can be re- 
 moved in a given case by a process of interpretation 
 in the judgment of any critic, this method will be 
 adopted, and the genuineness of the writing which 
 contains it will be left unassailed ; and any arguments 
 that may have been advanced by others to set it aside 
 will be pronounced inconclusive. Other critics em- 
 ployed upon the very same passage, and deeming 
 this method ineffectual, maintain the charge of spu- 
 riousness with arguments adapted to the purpose, 
 but just to the length that to their individual judg- 
 ment seems necessary to compass their end. Where 
 some are satisfied with removing a word or a clause 
 from the text, others make bold to cast away para- 
 graphs, or the entire writing in which they are found ; 
 and the arguments for retention or rejection, while 
 apparently satisfactory to each critic's own mind, fail 
 to convince his fellows. So that it is difficult to re- 
 sist the conclusion that the validity of the arguments 
 employed rests, after all, upon the end to be effected ; 
 and that criteria of like nature and of equal weight 
 are admitted here and discredited there, according to 
 the varying exigencies of the hypothesis which the 
 critic is maintaining. 
 
 There is accordingly an unbelieving criticism which 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 2 1 
 
 may not openly avow its unbelief, or professedly make 
 this the basis of its action, but nevertheless is practi- 
 cally governed in its course and its issues by radical 
 principles that are at war with divine revelation ; and 
 there is a believing criticism framed under the oppo- 
 site principle, of the reality of the supernatural reve- 
 lation given in the Scriptures. A sense of the need 
 of a divine salvation, and a conviction that the salva- 
 tion set forth in the gospel of Christ meets this press- 
 ing necessity of the individual soul and of all men as 
 it is not and cannot be met elsewhere, produces an 
 inward persuasion of the truth and divinity of the 
 Scriptures that cannot be set aside. He who ap- 
 proaches them in this state of mind, instead of being 
 offended by the immediate divine interventions there- 
 in recorded, and being under a temptation to deny 
 their reality or to explain them away, is prepared to 
 accept them, on proper evidence, as kindred to or 
 prognostic of that supreme act of immediate divine 
 interference which achieved the world's redemption. 
 
 What the one style of criticism is thus under a con- 
 stant bias to set aside as unreal and untrue, the other 
 is prepared to accept without difficulty, whenever it 
 is properly attested. The latter consequently dis- 
 putes the legitimacy of the entire process upon which 
 the unbelieving criticism effects its work of negation 
 and destruction. The antecedent presumption that 
 all testimony which confirms the reality of miracles 
 and prophecy must necessarily be false, leads to the 
 suspicion that the records containing this testimony 
 must be spurious, and to the admission of criteria of 
 
2 2 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 spuriousness which would not have been entertained 
 but for this previous suspicion. Ingenious and appar- 
 ently formidable arguments are derived from a minute 
 and elaborate investigation of points of diction, of 
 style and language, of aim and tendency; and con- 
 clusions of the most serious nature are built on these 
 fine-spun arguments, which lie after all wholly in the 
 region of hypothesis, which have no proof from estab- 
 lished facts and no basis in known historical data, but 
 are so dexterously contrived as to avoid collision as 
 far as possible with what is indisputable ; and thus, on 
 the ground of what is purely conjectural, it is proposed 
 to revolutionize what has always been credibly be- 
 lieved and is supported by an authority which these 
 ingenious processes cannot after all invalidate. 
 
 What has, now been said casts no reflection upon 
 the motives or the honesty of individual critics. It 
 relates simply to systems and methods of criticism as 
 such. The opposite spirit of these two systems is 
 unmistakable ; but it does not follow that each individ- 
 ual critic is aware of, much less that he is invariably 
 penetrated by, the spirit of the system to which he 
 has addicted himself. Earnest believers may be 
 ensnared by the specious character of the arguments 
 employed by an unbelieving criticism, and may not be 
 able to emancipate themselves from its power and 
 hence may adopt its conclusions ; just as Christians 
 may be living under a Pagan civilization, or Pagans 
 may be living under a Christian civilization, — the sys- 
 tem to which they are attached being the outgrowth 
 of principles most opposite to those which they in- 
 
PRELIMINAR Y REMARKS. 2 3 
 
 wardly adopt, whether they are themselves sensible 
 of this contrariety or not. 
 
 The peculiarity of the present crisis, to which we 
 have already adverted, does not consist merely in the 
 fact that critical assaults are made upon the genuine- 
 ness and integrity of the books of the Bible. Such 
 assaults have been repeatedly made, and have been 
 conducted with great ingenuity and supported by 
 great learning ; but the war has hitherto been re- 
 mote from our shores, only faint echoes of the distant 
 conflict reached our ears, and it awakened little 
 interest or attention among us. The evangelical 
 churches of Great Britain and America have to a 
 great extent been secluded from these critical con- 
 tests. They have scarcely been affected by the agi- 
 tation which struggles of this nature have produced in 
 Germany, which has been their chief seat and fountain- 
 head during the present century ; and the impor- 
 tance and serious nature of these conflicts have 
 scarcely been appreciated among us. We have not 
 only been sheltered by the remoteness of our position, 
 and by the barrier which a difference of language has 
 interposed, but also, and still more, by the absence of 
 any general or widespread sympathy with the theo- 
 logical bias which these various critical hypotheses 
 betrayed. Religious thought among us was actively 
 turned in quite a different direction. Questions of 
 doctrine, of ecclesiastical organization, or of practical 
 religious life were eagerly discussed ; these absorbed 
 the energies of leading minds and engaged the atten- 
 tion of the religious public. These discussions were 
 
24 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 conducted on the acknowledged basis of the divine 
 authority of the Scriptures. Their integrity and gen- 
 uineness were regarded as settled beyond dispute. 
 
 Some knowledge was indeed maintained of the 
 critical battles which were waging in Germany ; but 
 the questions which these raised were not living prac- 
 tical issues among ourselves. They were conse- 
 quently looked upon as ingenious disputations about 
 matters with which we were but little concerned, 
 and which had little intrinsic probability as judged 
 by Anglo-Saxon common sense ; and which, more- 
 over, were urged in the interest of a disbelief in the 
 divine original of the Scriptures, which had gained 
 small lodgment in this quarter. 
 
 The various hypotheses which followed one another 
 in quick succession in Germany, each having its brief 
 day of popularity while it was in the ascendant, 
 scarcely found their way here to the public eye, 
 through the medium of translations or by transfusion 
 in our current literature, before they were already 
 antiquated in Germany itself, thrust aside by some 
 more recent and popular novelty, or thoroughly and 
 satisfactorily answered by noble champions of the 
 faith, through whose learned labors Germany was 
 constantly building up a believing Biblical criticism, 
 to match and overturn the unbelieving criticism of 
 which it was likewise the prolific hive ; and thus 
 the poison found its antidote already prepared by the 
 time it had reached our shores. 
 
 Now however, by a natural reaction perhaps, the 
 period of theological controversy among us seems to 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 25 
 
 be yielding to one of doctrinal indifTerentism. Ques- 
 tions affecting the Trinity, the atonement, human 
 ability, the parity of the ministry, the mode of bap- 
 tism, which have agitated the Christian community by 
 strifes between different denominations, or different 
 factions in the same denomination, no longer engage 
 public attention to anything like the same extent. 
 People are growing impatient of doctrinal and eccle- 
 siastical dissensions, and the tendency of the times is 
 rather toward a Broad Church liberalism, and sinking 
 the differences between hitherto discordant bodies in 
 a more catholic fellowship, if not organic union. 
 
 We do not pause here to discuss this prevalent and 
 growing tendency, nor to distinguish the elements of 
 good and evil that enter into it. We simply remark 
 upon its existence as an obvious fact, characteristic 
 of the present in contrast with the recent past. 
 
 And concurrently with this indifference to doctrinal 
 distinctions there has arisen a weakening of the strict 
 religious sentiment which has heretofore pervaded the 
 Christian community. There is not the same rever- 
 ence for the absolute authority of Scripture, nor the 
 same sense of the imperative need of the objective su- 
 pernatural salvation which it reveals. The distinctive 
 doctrines of grace are less urgently and prominently 
 set forth in the instructions of the pulpit. In various 
 prominent and influential quarters the shallow and self- 
 sufficient view of man's estate is coming to be more 
 and more distinctly formulated, which finds in men's 
 moral instincts an adequate guide, and which looks 
 to the forces of human nature to work out its own 
 salvation. 
 
26 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 We have now reached a juncture when the general 
 sense of the need of infallible guidance in the Script- 
 ures has been somewhat shaken by a growing con- 
 fidence in men's own powers, and the fact of that 
 infallible guidance has been assailed from the most 
 diverse quarters ; when students of physical science 
 claim that the facts of nature are irreconcilable with 
 the Bible account of the creation, the flood, and the 
 dispersion of the human race ; when antiquarians 
 affirm that the monumental records of Egypt or of 
 Assyria are in conflict with the alleged facts of the 
 sacred history ; when philosophers, who have made 
 a study of Comparative Religion, deny that there is 
 anything of consequence in the religion of the Bible 
 which does not find illustrative parallels elsewhere 
 and cannot be accounted for on purely natural 
 principles ; when moralists bring into question its 
 solutions of moral problems and challenge its al- 
 leged divine decisions as indefensible ; when social- 
 istic schemers oppose the Bible because it stands 
 in the way of their disorganizing theories ; and the 
 wayward heart is now as ever restive under its re- 
 straints and penalties, and ready to avail itself of 
 any pretext to escape them. The antagonism di- 
 rected against the divine infallible authority of the 
 Bible from these and other quarters, while it does not 
 shake the citadel of its strength, nevertheless has by 
 persistent repetition had its influence on the public 
 mind. Doubts and insinuations are freely uttered by 
 those who venture on no positive assertions discredit- 
 ing the Scriptures. And even professed friends of 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 2J 
 
 the Bible have said that there must be some abate- 
 ment of its claims and some modification of its 
 defences, that something must be yielded to its 
 antagonists in the hope of saving what remains. 
 
 In this condition of things, induced by the causes 
 now described, doubts and misgivings, from alleged 
 critical discoveries, find an opportunity for lodgment 
 such as has not existed in the Christian community 
 of Great Britain and America at any former period. 
 Hence the peculiar peril of the position in which the 
 Church in these lands finds itself at this moment, 
 and of which the case of Prof. Robertson Smith, in 
 the Free Church of Scotland, is one of the most 
 characteristic and illustrative incidents. The barriers 
 of distance and of language, in which we found our 
 safety from the critical battles that have raged in 
 Germany, are suddenly thrown down and the conflict 
 is at once transported to our own shores, with no 
 interposed check or hindrance, and in the very acme 
 of the struggle. 
 
 The particular critical hypothesis, which has within 
 the last few years risen to a sudden popularity and 
 just now is in the ascendant, met with no favor what- 
 ever when it was first suggested less than fifty years 
 ago. In falling in with this novel scheme the Biblical 
 critics have reversed all their previous hypotheses as 
 suddenly and completely as was done a few years 
 since by natural philosophers in their hypothesis of 
 the origin of man, — when from disputing the unity of 
 the human race and the possibility that the several 
 races of mankind could have sprung from a common 
 
28 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 source, they suddenly swung to the opposite extreme 
 of maintaining a common origin not only for men 
 but for the inferior animals as well. 
 
 The adoption of these views would be attended 
 with very far-reaching consequences. It would ren- 
 der necessary a complete reconstruction of Old Tes- 
 tament history ; it would alter our views entirely as 
 to the mode and the nature of God's revelation to 
 Israel. It would compel a revision of the question : 
 In what sense can the Scriptures be regarded as the 
 Word of God, and what measure of authority can be 
 attributed to them? 
 
 We are thus, by the necessity of the case, set to 
 grappling with the most fundamental inquiries. We 
 must dig down to the very foundations, and re-ex- 
 amine the basis upon which our Christian faith re- 
 poses. And this necessity is not laid upon us a whit 
 too soon. It is providentially ordered that at this 
 very time, when a lax theology is drifting away from 
 the strict standard of the Scriptures, and is disposed 
 to govern its faith by the moral intuitions of men 
 rather than by the positive statements of the Word of 
 God, we should be summoned to a most thorough 
 sifting of this whole matter, — that we should be 
 driven to a most minute and thorough inspection of 
 the inspired volume, and' led to employ the most 
 searching tests that can be applied to it, in order to 
 discover whether it really is what it has hitherto been 
 credited to be. 
 
 It is under the circumstances just recited that we 
 are now living, and they speak to us in tones which 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 29 
 
 should not be disregarded. The soldier is expected 
 faithfully to execute his drill and evolutions, and to 
 train himself in all the martial exercises demanded of 
 him, even in times of profound peace, in order that 
 he may gain the knowledge and practised skill which 
 properly belong to his vocation. But a new respon- 
 sibility rests upon him in time of actual war ; there is 
 a fresh demand for diligence when he may soon be 
 summoned to the field of strife, and the issue of the 
 conflict turn upon the valor and dexterity of the 
 troops engaged. 
 
 The venerable Dr. Hodge, who was for nearly 
 threescore years the glory and the strength of Prince- 
 ton Seminary, was called upon for some remarks in 
 the Week of Prayer at the beginning, I think, of the 
 last year of his life. The subject before the meeting 
 was the Conversion of the World. It was his habit on 
 such occasions to present a cheering view derived 
 from the progress which the Gospel had made or was 
 making, or from the accomplished work of redemp- 
 tion which is the assured basis of the world's salva- 
 tion, or the unfailing promises of God which make 
 the issue certain ; but at the time referred to he 
 recited, in long and formidable array, the various 
 forms of opposition which are directed against the 
 Gospel within the bounds of Christendom itself, — 
 the materialistic philosophy, the oppositions of science, 
 the socialistic excesses, and showed in what various 
 ways unsanctificd learning, power and influence in 
 irreligious hands, and unchristianized masses stand as 
 barriers to the progress of truth and holiness. His 
 
3<D PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 aim was not to discourage, but to present a truthful 
 and sober view of the actual aspect of the world, and 
 of the forces which are at war against the progress 
 of the Gospel. It was the trumpet-call of the veteran, 
 who had fought his battles and won his victories, sum- 
 moning new recruits to the Holy War, and uttering 
 loud notes of warning, that the strife was by no 
 means ended, that there are many and fierce battles 
 yet to fight, and that others must take up the weapons 
 which he was laying down. 
 
 We are coming now, as it would seem, to the cul- 
 mination of the struggle. The battle rages around 
 the citadel. No drones or cowards are wanted now. 
 It is not the incompetent and the unfaithful who can 
 serve the Church in such a crisis. She can well 
 afford to spare the idlers and stragglers and faint- 
 hearted from her ranks. The times emphatically 
 demand those who shall be prepared to acquit them- 
 selves like men. 
 
 He has a very low conception of the work of the 
 ministry, of the solemn duties and the momentous 
 responsibilities which it involves, who can suffer him- 
 self to be slack and negligent in his preparation for 
 it, or inactive and half-hearted in his discharge of it. 
 And he gives little evidence of being called of God 
 to the office, and little prospect of usefulness and 
 success in it, who does not engage, whether in his 
 preparatory studies or in the actual labors of the 
 ministry, with a holy enthusiasm, throwing himself 
 into them with all the energy of his nature, — resolved 
 by the aids of divine grace to make the most of the 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 31 
 
 powers and faculties which God has given him in the 
 special line of this high calling ; seizing with eager- 
 ness every opportunity within his reach, and training 
 himself by all available methods to the highest meas- 
 ure of fitness he can secure to be entrusted with 
 the care of souls, to be an ambassador of God to 
 men, to be a steward of the mysteries of the King- 
 dom of Heaven. If a charge so weighty and so 
 sacred as this will not stir the energies of a man to 
 the utmost, the least that can be said is, that he shows 
 that he has no appreciation of this high and holy 
 office, and no fitness for it. 
 
 But besides this general demand which is always 
 laid upon all ministers and all candidates for the 
 ministry, to use the utmost zeal in the whole round 
 of their professional or preparatory studies, there is a 
 call to special diligence and thoroughness now in the 
 circumstances which have already been recited. If 
 supineness were ever admissible, there is a loud call 
 for alertness at the present time. There is a de- 
 mand now, as never before, for high Biblical scholar- 
 ship, for well-trained exegetes and critics, — for men 
 well versed in the critical and speculative attacks made 
 upon the Word of God, and who are well prepared 
 to defend it. The present phases of critical and 
 speculative assault upon the Scriptures need create 
 no alarm, as though they were more formidable than 
 their predecessors ; but though these should be 
 repulsed and prove short-lived, that will not end the 
 strife. The assault will be renewed at some fresh 
 point, or in some other form. And now that the 
 
32 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 critical battle is brought to our own doors, it will not 
 do to wait till defenders of the faith in other lands 
 work out a solution for us. We must have an Eng- 
 lish and American scholarship that is fitted to grapple 
 with these questions as they arise. We need, in the 
 ranks of the pastorate, men who can conduct Biblical 
 researches and who can prosecute learned critical 
 inquiries ; who can do, in their own chosen field of 
 Scripture study, what German evangelical pastors 
 have done, — such as Baehr in his " Symbolism of the 
 Mosaic Cultus," and Ranke in the critical defence of 
 the genuineness of the Pentateuch, and Fuller in the 
 interpretation of the Prophet Daniel, and Keil, who 
 published his learned defence of the books of Chron- 
 icles and Ezra when he was only a licentiate. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE JEWISH 
 
 CHURCH. 1 
 
 ' I ^HESE lectures, originally prepared for popular 
 ■*■ delivery, are eminently adapted for their pur- 
 pose. Their author has a remarkable faculty for 
 presenting subjects, that are commonly regarded as 
 dry and technical, in a lucid and attractive manner, 
 — with such clearness of statement, such aptness of 
 illustration, and such a close logical connection from 
 first to last, that the interest is maintained to the end, 
 and his readers cannot fail to gain a satisfactory com- 
 prehension of the conclusions reached, and the gen- 
 eral nature of the grounds upon which they rest. No 
 one can rise from the perusal of this volume without 
 a high respect for the learning and ability of the 
 author, and a profound impression that Biblical Criti- 
 cism offers a very wide and important field for study; 
 an impression that will be deepened in most minds, 
 probably, by the startling character of some of the 
 opinions here confidently announced, as though they 
 were the undoubted results of the latest and most 
 thorough scholarship. It is exceedingly unfortunate 
 that a volume which has so many excellent points, 
 
 1 The Old Testament in the Jewish Church : twelve lectures on 
 Biblical Criticism. By W. Robertson Smith, M. A. New York : 
 D. Appleton & Co. 1881. i2mo, pp. 446. 
 
34 THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 and which, from the peculiar circumstances attending 
 its publication, naturally attracts so much attention, 
 does not discriminate between facts and theories ; but 
 — after the method of the German critics, who must 
 speak oracularly, if at all, and to whom the self-con- 
 sistency of an ingenious hypothesis sufficiently recom- 
 mends it, in the absence of any evidence to support 
 it — the purely conjectural is propounded as though 
 it were of the same unquestionable certainty with that 
 which is really known. 
 
 These lectures throughout challenge the accuracy 
 of the Jewish transmission of the Old Testament in 
 respect to its text, its canon, and the constitution of 
 its separate books. The train of investigation pur- 
 sued relative to these various points opens questions 
 of the highest consequence, both bringing to light a 
 large amount of valuable information, and suggesting 
 lines of inquiry that still remain to be explored ; 
 nevertheless, from the deplorable fault already alluded 
 to, it is so conducted as to leave an exaggerated or 
 thoroughly false impression. 
 
 It is readily conceded that, notwithstanding the 
 substantial unanimity of Hebrew manuscripts, the 
 Masoretic text is not immaculate. There are some 
 obvious mistakes, in certain books, which prove this ; 
 and the discrepancies in various parallel passages, and 
 the incompleteness of a few acrostic poems, though 
 largely explicable otherwise, may be partly due to 
 faulty transcription. But it is an immense and un- 
 warranted stride from these premises to the assump- 
 tion that — though the Hebrew text, as it existed in the 
 
IN THE JEWISH CHURCH. 35 
 
 first Christian century has been transmitted with un- 
 paralleled precision — " in earlier ages Hebrew MSS. 
 differed as much as, or more than, MSS. of the New 
 Testament " (p. 73). The allegation (p. 78), "that the 
 early guardians of the text did not hesitate to make 
 small changes in order to remove expressions which 
 they thought unedifying," is wholly unfounded. Of 
 the eighteen so-called Tikkilne SopJierim (Corrections 
 of the Scribes) which are adduced in proof, Professor 
 Smith himself admits that fifteen are irrelevant. The 
 fact is that, in the judgment of the best critics, the 
 entire series are mere rabbinical conceits, and warrant 
 no suspicion whatever of any tampering with the text. 
 Ishbosheth may be a contemptuous nickname which 
 the son of Saul " would never have consented to 
 bear ; " but who can certify us that it was not current 
 in the rival kingdom during his lifetime, or that it 
 was not so written by the author of the Books of 
 Samuel, but was an alteration by some copyist in 
 later times? The forced interpretations, which the 
 scribes confessedly put upon the Law, 1 are no evidence 
 that they wilfully changed the written text, but the 
 reverse ; if the Law could have been accommodated 
 to their usages by altering its expressions, they would 
 
 1 The censure impliedly cast on the author of the Books of Chroni- 
 cles (p. 64) is quite gratuitous. King Joash directed a temporary as- 
 sessment from year to year for the repair of the Temple, and fixed its 
 rate by the example of Moses. (Note that the italic words in the Eng- 
 lish version of 11. Chron. xxiv. 6, form no part of the text.) It is hard 
 to see what this has to do with a voluntary arrangement in the time of 
 Nehemiah for a different purpose, or how it appears that the Chroni- 
 cler was under a mistake about it. 
 
36 THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 have been under no temptation to do violence to its 
 language. It is puzzling to account for the concur- 
 rence of all existing manuscripts in obvious mistakes, 
 or in such an arbitrary notation as the extraordinary- 
 points, suspended letters, and the like ; but there is 
 nothing to require or to justify the assumption of " a 
 rigorous suppression of discordant copies " (p. 75), or 
 of a serious dissonance at any time among Hebrew 
 manuscripts. 
 
 Professor Smith complains (p. 74) that our present 
 Old Testament text cannot be traced back beyond 
 the fall of the Jewish State. This is to be regretted, 
 doubtless ; but it is simply due to the lack of any 
 adequate sources of information. If, as he says of the 
 antecedent period (p. 98), " there is not a particle of 
 evidence that there was a uniform Palestinian text," 
 and its existence is " a pure hypothesis," neither is 
 there, on the other hand, a particle of evidence of a 
 discrepant text at all approaching the " variations and 
 corruptions found in MSS. of the New Testament." 
 This too is a pure hypothesis, only with the difference 
 that all the probabilities and the inferences deducible 
 from known facts are against it, and establish beyond 
 reasonable doubt that there never was any wide di- 
 vergence of manuscripts, and that we now possess a 
 text which is not indeed absolutely faultless, but yet 
 substantially and even astonishingly accurate. 
 
 The only accessible witnesses to the state of the 
 text in the pre-Christian period, outside of the line of 
 Palestine tradition, are the Samaritan Pentateuch and 
 the Septuagint version. Gesenius's careful analysis of 
 
IN THE JEWISH CHURCH. 37 
 
 the former has put an end to all thought of correcting 
 the Hebrew text by the Samaritan ; and the variant 
 "ages assigned to the patriarchs " (p. 73) are clearly- 
 due to systematic and intentional alteration and not 
 to the errors of transcribers ; they must therefore be 
 classed with the arbitrary changes characteristic of the 
 Samaritan recension. We are very far from any dis- 
 position to undervalue the Septuagint, or to refuse 
 such critical aid as can fairly and legitimately be 
 derived from it. Let it be noted that the question 
 between the Masoretic and the Septuagint text is one 
 of form rather than substance. If the latter were to 
 be substituted for the former throughout, which Pro- 
 fessor Smith is very far from proposing, it would in- 
 volve no peril to the Christian faith. This may be 
 fairly inferred from the free use made of the Septu- 
 agint by the inspired writers of the New Testament ; 
 and it would be difficult to point out any appreciable 
 change that would have resulted in the belief of the 
 early Greek Church, had the Fathers been conversant 
 with Hebrew instead of being limited in the Old Tes- 
 tament to the use of the Septuagint. The matter in- 
 volved is simply verbal precision and minute textual 
 accuracy. 
 
 And here the Professor correctly informs us that — 
 in consequence of mistakes of the translators x (p. 87), 
 the license which they allowed themselves in various 
 
 1 Prof. W. R. Smith gratuitously links copyists with translators, as 
 though the former took the same liberties with the text as the latter; 
 but the cases are not analogous. Translation naturally led to eluci- 
 dation, while the work of the scribe was simply to reproduce word for 
 word and letter for letter. 
 
38 THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 ways (pp. 88-90), and the manifold corruptions that 
 have since crept into the text of the Septuagint 
 (p. 103), — "it is an- affair of the most delicate schol- 
 arship to make profitable use of the Alexandrian 
 version for the confirmation or emendation of the 
 Hebrew." The statement that the " readings of the 
 Septuagint offer a fair measure of the limits of varia- 
 tion in the early history of the text " must accordingly 
 be taken with very large abatement ; and the formula, 
 by which it is proposed to determine which reading is 
 to be preferred in the illustrations given (p. 90), viz. 
 "in cases of this sort the shorter text is obviously the 
 original," is by no means so settled a rule, or of so wide 
 application, as the Professor would have us believe. 
 
 In its application to the book of Jeremiah, it is par- 
 ticularly unfortunate, as the elaborate discussion of 
 Wichelhaus abundantly shows. On this point we will 
 not venture to quote Keil, whose unfavorable judg- 
 ment of the Septuagint text is so summarily set aside 
 (p. 85). But Graf, the corypliceus of the latest critical 
 speculations, will perhaps be heard with more respect. 
 After a careful comparison of the Greek and Hebrew 
 text of Jeremiah, he says, in the Introduction to his 
 Commentary (p. li.), " after what has now been shown 
 there can no longer be any doubt that the form of the 
 text yielded by the Greek translator is a mutilated 
 and corrupted one, which arose out of the text pre- 
 served to us in the Hebrew, and at a much later time." 
 This is the more noteworthy as he tells us ( Vorwort, 
 p. ix.) : " I began the work with the most favorable 
 opinion of the Septuagint, but was soon led to the 
 
IN THE JEWISH CHURCH. 39 
 
 opposite view by the convincing power of the facts," 
 which satisfied him that " the suspicion which has been 
 expressed against the genuineness of certain passages 
 in the book, particularly the prophecy respecting 
 Babylon, chaps. 1. li. [which Prof. W. R. Smith appears 
 to be prepared to surrender, pp. 112, 121], as well as 
 the hypothesis of a double recension of the book, 
 which has obtained almost universal prevalence in 
 recent times, is utterly without foundation." And 
 Delitzsch, who is certainly indulgent enough in ques- 
 tions of criticism, says of " the transpositions occur- 
 ring in the Book of Proverbs," to which our author 
 also refers (pp. 121, 122) : " These remind one of the 
 transpositions in Jeremiah, and rest, as they do, upon 
 a mistake as to the true relations of the subject- 
 matter," {SpriLchbiich, p. 39.) And Jeremiah, ch.xxvii., 
 which is adduced to exemplify the superiority of the 
 Greek text, affords a signal proof of the reverse ; for 
 ver. 7, whose presence in the Hebrew and absence 
 from the Greek is one of the points remarked upon 
 (p. 115), was certainly in the text when Chronicles 
 was written, as appears from the manifest allusion to 
 it, II Chron. xxxvi. 20. 
 
 The obscurity which overhangs the final collection 
 and arrangement of the Old Testament canon, opens 
 a fresh opportunity for theorizing, in which a modi- 
 cum of facts is mingled with a-large infusion of doubt- 
 ful conjectures. The presence of apocryphal books 
 and sections in the Septuagint is appealed to in evi- 
 dence that the extent of the canon was fluctuating and 
 uncertain, while yet Professor Smith confesses that 
 
40 THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 these books have no proper claim to be regarded as 
 canonical, and that they never were accepted as such 
 by the Jews in Alexandria or elsewhere. They were 
 valued as aids to religious edification, but not es- 
 teemed authoritative. His notion of the process by 
 which the Old Testament was gradually brought to 
 its present compass is substantially as follows. The 
 canon of Ezra was the Pentateuch alone. The divine 
 authority of the Prophets was recognized, but only 
 as books for private edification. There was no stand- 
 ard edition of individual Prophets, and no fixed col- 
 lection of the Prophets as a whole, till their use in the 
 public worship of the synagogue made it necessary 
 at a comparatively late date. It already existed " in 
 the time of Daniel" (Dan. ix. 2), that is, as may be 
 inferred from a critical opinion cited with apparent 
 approbation on p. 168, the period of the Maccabees. 
 " The Psalter, the hymn-book of the second temple," 
 did not reach its finished form till a still later date, 
 and was added subsequently, together with Job and 
 Proverbs. This is the undisputed portion of the 
 canon, whose authority has always been practically 
 acknowledged, and to which the sanction of the 
 New Testament is given. The remainder of the Ha- 
 giographa is the region of the antilegomena, books 
 whose authority was more or less contested, but 
 which gradually worked their way to canonical re- 
 cognition, though the full and final settlement in 
 their favor was not reached till the end of the first 
 Christian century. And he thinks it matter of thank- 
 fulness that the determination of the canon was 
 
IN THE JEWISH CHURCH. 41 
 
 not made sooner, or " the principles of the Scribes 
 and Pharisees " would have led to a most unsatisfac- 
 tory result. 
 
 It will not be necessary to review the whole course 
 of this discussion. It is enough to refer to one out- 
 standing fact, which cannot be set aside. The ex- 
 press testimony of Josephus assures us that the 
 twenty-two books of the Jewish canon, which are 
 universally admitted to be identical with the present 
 Hebrew Bible, constituted a determinate body of 
 writings " justly believed to be divine," and which 
 had been for ages sundered from all other books and 
 ranked above them. This statement of Josephus, 
 whatever question may be raised about its accuracy 
 in details, unquestionably represents the current be- 
 lief of his time. And this is utterly inconsistent with 
 a canon still fluctuating during the life of our Lord 
 and His Apostles. The Scriptures to which they make 
 their appeal were the Old Testament as we now have 
 it, as well defined and settled as it is at present. The 
 case is no more affected by the disputes in Jewish 
 schools, than the canonicity of the Epistle of James 
 is shaken by the doubts expressed by Luther. These 
 casuistical questionings — or, as they might rather for 
 the most part be called, these contests of rabbinical 
 subtlety — did not touch the historic basis on which 
 the canon rested ; and such as they were, they were 
 directed not merely against Esther, Canticles, and 
 Ecclesiastes, t>ut, as Prof. W. R. Smith has to allow, 
 against what he calls the undisputed portion of the 
 canon likewise, e.g., Ezekiel (p. 410) and Proverbs 
 
42 THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 (p. 170). And the omission of Esther from the cata- 
 logue of Melito in the second century, and from those 
 of Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen in the fourth, 
 certainly lends no support to the Professor's view; 
 for, on his own showing, the canon was then settled 
 and Esther was in it. 
 
 The most significant discussion in the volume be- 
 fore us, however, and that for which all that preceded 
 was designed to pave the way, is that concerning the 
 constitution and date of the Pentateuch. This cannot 
 be considered at the close of a notice already suffi- 
 ciently extended, but must be treated in a separate 
 article. 
 
 In conclusion, we are compelled to say that the 
 Professor, with all his brilliancy and learning, seems 
 to be deficient in well-balanced judgment. How 
 easily he is misled by the ignis fatuus of novel and 
 ingenious speculations, conspicuously appears from 
 his adoption of the whimsical conceit that Jehovah 
 means "He who cattses rain or lightning to fall upon 
 the earth" (p. 423). This is not only giving the 
 preference to a rare and somewhat doubtful meaning 
 of the verbal root, above that which it uniformly has 
 everywhere except in a single poetical passage (Job 
 xxxvii. 6), — and a meaning which, if allowed, con- 
 tains in itself no special reference to rain or lightning, 
 but would more naturally, when other derivations are 
 taken into the account, suggest the sense "Hewhocatises 
 to fall to destruction and ruin," i. e. y the Destroyer, — 
 but it involves an amazing lack of apprehension of 
 what is really characteristic of the religion of Israel, 
 
IN THE JEWISH CHURCH. 43 
 
 to imagine that the one name of God, in which this 
 religion reaches its highest expression of the object 
 of worship, could possibly mean nothing more than 
 the Giver of Rain. If the profound meaning sanc- 
 tioned Ex. iii. 14, and adopted by the best philolo- 
 gists, was to be discredited at all hazards, the 
 suggestion of Kuenen and others, " He who causes to 
 be" i. e. y the Creator, would have vastly more in its 
 favor. And if a crude notion of the Deity was per- 
 force to be wrung out of the Israelitish conception, 
 there would be more plausibility in the allegation, 
 baseless as it is, that light and fire, which are such 
 frequent emblems of the divine being or attributes, 
 gave shape to their earliest thoughts of the Most 
 High, than that they thought of Him simply as the 
 One who made it rain. 
 
PROFESSOR ROBERTSON SMITH ON THE 
 PENTATEUCH. 
 
 T3ROFESSOR ROBERTSON SMITH tells us, 
 •*- on p. 216 of his recently published lectures on 
 Biblical Criticism, 1 that " the discrepancy between 
 the traditional view of the Pentateuch, and the plain 
 statements of the Historical Books and the Prophets, 
 is marked and fundamental." This view is accord- 
 ingly discarded by him, and another commended to 
 us as representing " the growing conviction of an 
 overwhelming weight of the most earnest and sober 
 scholarship." He asks us to believe that Deuteron- 
 omy made its first appearance in the reign of Josiah, 
 and that the Levitical Law was not in existence until 
 the time of Ezra. 
 
 The hypothesis which the Professor has undertaken 
 to unfold and defend has only very recently attracted 
 any serious attention. Professor Rcuss of Strasburg 
 claims the credit of having given the original impulse 
 to this newest school of Pentateuch criticism, by pro- 
 pounding this view in his' lectures as early as 1833. 
 His pupil, K. H. Graf, elaborated it more fully in his 
 treatise " De Templo Silonensi " (1855), in his " Pro- 
 
 1 The Old Testament in the Jewish Church ; twelve lectures on 
 Biblical Criticism. By W. Robertson Smith, M. A. New York : 
 D. Appleton & Co. 188 1. i2mo, pp. 446. 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 45 
 
 phet Jeremiah" (1862), and in his " Geschichtliche 
 Biicher des Alten Testaments " (1866). As proposed 
 by him, however, it was burdened with fatal incon- 
 sistencies which were speedily pointed out by its 
 antagonists. The divisive critics, who parcelled out 
 the Pentateuch among different writers, had pre- 
 viously conducted their analysis and based their 
 conclusions upon literary considerations chiefly, — the 
 style and diction, and quality of thought and acquaint- 
 ance shown with other parts of the work. Graf drew 
 his arguments from legislative considerations, the 
 supposed development of laws, and the order in which 
 successive enactments may be thought to have been 
 made; and conceiving the legislation of Deuteron- 
 omy to be simpler and more primitive, and that of 
 Leviticus to be more complicated and developed, he 
 inferred, contrary to the prevailing sentiment of pre- 
 ceding critics, that Deuteronomy is of earlier date 
 than Leviticus, and belongs to a prior stage in the 
 history of the people. Meanwhile he allowed the 
 conclusions of the critics in relation to the narratives 
 of the Pentateuch to remain undisturbed, conceding 
 a higher antiquity to the Elohistic portion, which is in 
 the closest affinity with Leviticus, than to the Jehovis- 
 tic portion, to which Deuteronomy attaches itself. 
 This self-contradiction Kuenen undertook to remove 
 by reversing the relation of the Elohist and the Je- 
 hovist, thus boldly challenging the position which all 
 preceding critical investigations had been supposed 
 to settle beyond peradventure. 
 
 To disinterested spectators of these hostile critical 
 
46 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 camps, this looks very like a fresh demonstration of 
 the precarious and inconclusive nature of their entire 
 process of argument. Experiments without number 
 have been made of running the dissecting knife 
 through the Pentateuch ; and each fresh operator 
 has pronounced, with the utmost positiveness, upon 
 the age of each separate portion, and has pointed 
 out the influences under which it was written and 
 the condition of affairs when it was produced. And 
 now everything has been thrown into a fresh jumble 
 again ; the whole order of production, confidently 
 insisted upon before, is suddenly declared to be a 
 mistake ; everything must be reconstructed on a new 
 basis. In the midst of this jargon of voices, clamor- 
 ing on the one hand for the priority of the Elohist, 
 and on the other for the priority of the Jehovist, it 
 may be safe to wait awhile before attaching ourselves 
 to either party. Possibly the next critical discovery 
 may be that they were contemporaneous. 
 
 Of course we cannot here enter upon the intermin- 
 able question as to the real existence of the various 
 writers among whom the critics propose to parcel 
 the Pentateuch, and fortunately it is quite unnecessary 
 for our present purpose. So far as its decision de- 
 pends upon alleged peculiarities of style and diction 
 it is a purely literary question, which no more affects 
 the antiquity and authority of the books of Moses in 
 general, or of the laws of Moses in particular, than 
 the fact that a given law of Congress was not drafted 
 throughout by the same pen, but that certain words 
 or clauses or paragraphs can be traced to different 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 47 
 
 members of that body, detracts from its authenticity 
 or validity. The composite character of the Penta- 
 teuch, supposing it established, would not prove the 
 post-Mosaic date of the Pentateuchal legislation in 
 its present form, unless this could first be proved for 
 one or more of its constituent parts. The several dates 
 of the assumed documents, and the order of their 
 production, are alone pertinent to the matter now at 
 issue. And here the critics are confessedly at sea. 
 
 We cannot deny to the authors of this latest hy- 
 pothesis the praise of a high degree of ingenuity in 
 its construction, of consummate dexterity in adapting 
 it to the emergencies of the case and in marshalling 
 all available materials for its support, and of unflinch- 
 ing intrepidity — or rather a veritable audacity — 
 in pushing it to its last results, so that it is absolutely 
 beyond the reach of the rednctio ad absurdum argu- 
 ment; for the most preposterous conclusions are 
 accepted without hesitation, and paraded as genuine 
 discoveries. Kuenen and Wellhausen have shown us 
 by what clever tricks of legerdemain they can con- 
 struct Castles in the Air, and produce histories which 
 have positively no basis whatever but their own ex- 
 uberant fancy; while Lagarde makes the practical 
 application of their principles by demanding the over- 
 throw of the Christian Church and its institutions, as 
 the mere outgrowth of Pharisaical superstition. The 
 temporary applause which has followed upon the 
 performance of these novel feats is no augury of its 
 abiding popularity, much less of its assured success. 
 The boastful claims of its advocates will not disturb 
 
48 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 the equanimity of those who remember with what 
 rapidity hypothesis has succeeded hypothesis, and 
 one phase of criticism has grown up after another, in 
 the fruitful soil of German speculation. 
 
 It is substantially a revival of ideas which were 
 almost simultaneously suggested by Vatke, George, 
 and Von Bohlen, in 1835, but which then fell utterly 
 flat. De Wette, 1 in his review of these "three young 
 critics," dryly suggested that there was a reason for 
 this hypothesis coming to the surface, inasmuch as the 
 criticism of the Pentateuch could only thus complete 
 the entire round of possible assumptions. And he 
 said of the reconstruction of Israelitish history upon 
 the basis proposed, that " the only thing lacking to 
 make it attractive is truth ; " that " whether from a 
 dread of individualism inspired by the Hegelian philos- 
 ophy, a predilection for development and self-impelled 
 struggles upward, or a love of paradox, they have 
 linked the history of Hebraism not with the fixed 
 point of the grand creations of Moses, but have sus- 
 pended its beginnings upon airy nothing." Hupfeld 2 
 repudiated in the strongest terms the distinctive 
 principle of their hypothesis (as of Grafs and Kuen- 
 en's) that Deuteronomy is the earliest instead of the 
 latest portion of the Pentateuch, — calling it " a mon- 
 strous error that turned everything topsy-turvy, and 
 perverted and entangled the questions at issue, but 
 did not solve them." Riehm, 3 in 1854, considered it 
 
 1 " Studien und Kritiken " for 1837, pp. 955, 981. 
 
 2 "De Primitiva Festorum Ratione," 1851, p. I. 
 
 3 "Die Gesetzgebung Mosis im Lande Moab, Vorrede," p. v. 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 49 
 
 a " critical or rather uncritical view," which was already 
 " antiquated " and unworthy of attention. And there 
 is little likelihood that this hypothesis, even in its 
 most recent phase, will win its way to universal favor, 
 when critics such as Riehm, Dillmann, Kleinert, Marti, 
 Delitzsch, Klostermann, Bredenkamp, and D. Hoff- 
 mann * have pronounced against it, not to speak of 
 the assaults made upon it from the rear by those who 
 charge it with a timid conservatism and with not 
 being thorough-going enough in the work of demo- 
 lition. It is apparent that this hypothesis affords us 
 no firm footing, were we to embrace it. If all that 
 has thus far been asked were to be conceded, no 
 guarantee is or can be given against fresh demands 
 in the same direction. It is only the arbitrary pleas- 
 ure of the critics, and nothing in the nature of the 
 case, which leads them with their principles and 
 methods to stop where they do. 
 
 In five passages in the Pentateuch (Ex. xvii. 14, 
 xxiv. 4, xxxiv. 27 ; Num. xxxiii. 2 ; Deut. xxxi. 9, 
 22, 24), as Prof. Robertson Smith correctly informs 
 us, Moses is said to have written down certain things. 
 
 1 Riehm reviewed Graf's positions in the " Studien und Kritiken" 
 for 1868 and 1872; Dillmann, "Die Biicher Exodus und Leviticus," 
 1880; Kleinert, "Das Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker," 
 1872; Marti, "Traces of the so-called Grundschrift of the Hexateuch 
 in the Pre^exilic Prophets of the Old' Testament," in the Jahrbucher 
 fur Protestantische Theologie, 1880; Delitzsch, a series of articles in 
 " Luthardt's Zeitschrift fur Wissenchaft und Leben," 1880; Kloster- 
 mann, in the "Zeitschrift fur Lutherische Theologie und Kirche," 
 1877; Bredenkamp, "Gesetz und Propheten," 1881; D. Hoffmann, 
 " Magazin fur die Wissenchaft des Judenthums," 1876-80. 
 
5<D PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 The express statement of his authorship in these 
 cases does not exclude it in others, any more than 
 it follows, from Isa. viii. I and xxx. 8, that Isaiah 
 wrote nothing but what is referred to in those verses. 
 The natural presumption, on the contrary, is that if 
 he wrote those scraps of the History and those sec- 
 tions of the Law, he also wrote others which it was 
 quite as important to have recorded. These recog- 
 nitions of the fact that whatever was memorable 
 should be committed to writing for safe preservation, 
 and that Moses was the proper person to write it, 
 would rather lead us to expect that Moses would 
 record the history and the legislation in which he 
 bore so prominent a part, and incline us to believe 
 that "the book," to which reference is made (Ex. 
 xvii. 14 Hed.), is such a comprehensive work upon 
 which he was then already engaged, or which at least 
 he intended to prepare. 
 
 But we shall lay no stress upon presumptions. We 
 shall concern ourselves simply with duly certified 
 facts ; and as the discussion of Prof. W. R. Smith 
 relates merely to the laws of the Pentateuch, we shall 
 confine ourselves ~to these. And here we adopt the 
 appropriate division, which he gives us (pp. 316, ff.), 
 into " three principal groups of laws or ritual ob- 
 servances, in addition to the Ten Commandments," 
 viz: 1. The Collection, Ex. xxi.-xxiii. 2. The Deu- 
 teronomic Code, Deut. xii.-xxvi., as distinguished 
 from what is purely hortatory and historical in the 
 book. 3. The Levitical Legislation, which does not 
 form a compact code like the preceding, but is scat- 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 5 1 
 
 tered through several parts of Exodus and the books 
 of Leviticus and Numbers. Three of the passages 
 above adduced speak of Moses as writing laws. In 
 Ex. xxiv. 4 he is said to have written " all the words 
 of the LORD." This the Professor (p. 331) would re- 
 strict to the Ten Commandments. But after God had 
 uttered these by His own voice, and the terrified peo- 
 ple had asked that Moses should henceforth speak 
 with them, and not God, the Lord gave them His 
 commands through Moses (Ex. xx. 22 ff.), including 
 a body of judgments or ordinances (ch. xxi-xxiii.). 
 Then (xxiv. 3) Moses came and told the people all the 
 words of the Lord, — of course not merely the Ten 
 Words which they had themselves heard Him speak, 
 but all that God had charged him to say to them, 
 and particularly " the judgments," which are there- 
 fore separately specified. " And all the people an- 
 swered with one voice, and said, All the words which 
 the LORD hath said, will we do." Now, unless any 
 one is prepared to maintain that the people here 
 promised obedience to the Ten Commandments only, 
 and not to the judgments which Moses had just re- 
 peated to them from the mouth of God, he must ad- 
 mit that both are included in the words of the Lord, 
 which the very next verse declares that Moses wrote, 
 and which (ver. 8) entered into the covenant then 
 formed between Jehovah and Israel. It could not be 
 more explicitly stated than it is, that this first collec- 
 tion of laws dates from the time immediately fol- 
 lowing the exodus. It was then reduced to writing, 
 formally read in the audience of the people, their 
 
52 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 submission to it pledged, and the covenant of God 
 with Israel ratified on the basis of it with appropriate 
 ceremonies. It even claims priority to the tables of 
 the law deposited in the Ark, whose authenticity and 
 antiquity are vouched for in the most unimpeachable 
 manner, and are not disputed by Prof. W. R. Smith. 
 
 Again, at the renewal of the covenant after the sin 
 of the Golden Calf, Moses is directed to write certain 
 words, which are not " expressly identified with the 
 Ten Words on the tables of stone," but are, on the 
 contrary, expressly distinguished from them (Ex. 
 xxxiv. 27, 28). The ambiguity arising from the 
 omission of the' subject of the verb in the last clause 
 of verse 28 is removed by a comparison of verse 1. 
 It was the LORD, not Moses, who wrote the Ten 
 Commandments upon the tables which were carried 
 to the summit of Sinai for this purpose. Moses wrote 
 upon some material, not indicated, the words con- 
 tained in Ex. xxxiv. 10-26, which is substantially 
 repeated, from the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx. 
 23, xxiii. 12-33), being the specifications there given 
 respecting the service of God, and the pledge on His 
 part to subdue the Canaanites before them. They 
 had grossly violated their duty to God, which wrought 
 a forfeiture of His pledge, to them. Hence these 
 portions of the Covenant are singled out and enforced 
 upon the people afresh. The rewriting of these 
 extracts is an additional confirmation of the existence 
 of the Code from which they were taken, and is 
 equivalent to a new assertion of its Mosaic origin. 
 
 In Deut. xxxi. 9, we read " Moses wrote this law: " 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 53 
 
 and (vers. 24-26) " When Moses had made an end of 
 writing the words of this law in a book, until they were 
 finished, Moses commanded the Levites .... say- 
 ing, Take this Book of the Law and put it in the side 
 of the Ark." If it is possible for words to convey the 
 idea that the entire code of laws here spoken of, 
 which cannot be less than Deut. xii.-xxvi., was 
 written by Moses, this idea is here expressed ; and 
 no amount of arguing about the variety of mean- 
 ings that may be given to the term law can make 
 it different. The fact that " all the words of this 
 law" were to be written on plastered stones on Mount 
 Ebal (Deut. xxvii. 3) can create no difficulty. This 
 statement finds abundant illustration in the walls 
 of tombs and temples in Egypt, and its numerous 
 monuments written all over with hieroglyphical le- 
 gends.- And it surely requires no great effort to 
 believe it feasible to trace these laws in plaster as a 
 symbolic declaration that they were thenceforth the 
 laws of the land. Written in letters five times the size 
 of those in ordinary Hebrew Bibles, they could all 
 be embraced in the space of eight feet by three. The 
 famous Behistun inscription of Darius, in its triple 
 form, is twice as long as this entire Code, besides being 
 carved in bold characters on the solid rock, and in a 
 position difficult of access on the mountain side. 
 
 And the whole book of Deuteronomy purports to 
 be a series of discourses delivered by Moses to the 
 people in the plains of Moab, inculcating and enforc- 
 ing this Law. The Professor reminds us that these 
 were not " taken down by a shorthand reporter ; " 
 
54 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 and he queries whether it is certainly the meaning 
 of Deut. xxxi. 24 that we have this body of laws 
 " word for word " as it was written down by Moses. 
 But under cover of this regard for absolute precision, 
 it will not do to fritter away the entire record. That 
 Moses in his oral discourse uttered in every case 
 exactly the words reported to us, just those and 
 neither less nor more, we are not concerned to affirm ; 
 but that he did deliver such discourses, and that they 
 are here preserved in their substantial import, is fully 
 certified, unless the credibility of the book can be 
 impeached. And this code of laws is substantially as 
 it came from the pen of Moses, if any reliance can be 
 placed upon the record. 
 
 So, too, the Mosaic origin of the Levitical laws is 
 abundantly declared by the formulas with which they 
 are introduced, and which recur over and over again : 
 The LORD spake unto Moses, or the Lord spake unto 
 Moses and Aaron ; and the formulas, by which they 
 are often followed, e.g., Lev. vii. 37,. 38; xxiii. 44; 
 xxvi. 46; xxvii. 34. The occasion is recited upon 
 which particular laws were delivered ; and the circum- 
 stances connected with these enactments are insepar- 
 ably united with the historical narrative of the time. 
 
 Now as to the origin of these several codes of laws 
 there can be no possibility of mistake. It is not 
 merely affirmed in a credible history, of whose truth 
 we have abundant guarantee, but the nature of the 
 case precludes falsehood or error. An accepted sys- 
 tem of legislation, whose authority is confessed and 
 submitted to, has, in that fact, the strongest possible 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 55 
 
 proof of its genuineness. No forged body of laws 
 could ever be imposed upon any people. No suppo- 
 sititious code, issued in the name of Moses in a subse- 
 quent age, could have been accepted without inquiry, 
 and established as the law of the land. It is indeed 
 supposable that the current laws and usages of any 
 given period might be popularly supposed to be more 
 ancient than they really were. But this is not what 
 we are asked to believe. We are told that the first 
 that is known of the book of Deuteronomy is that it 
 was found in the Temple in the days of Josiah. It 
 claims to be the work of Moses, but it never eman- 
 ated from him. Its enactments had never been in 
 force before. No such laws were known at any time 
 during the history of the people. They were not in 
 harmony with existing customs or with prevailing 
 ideas, but were in some essential points directly an- 
 tagonistic to them. It was prepared with the view of 
 inaugurating a new departure, of carrying into effect 
 reforms which Hezekiah had made a vigorous attempt 
 to introduce, but had failed. Such was the hostility 
 of the masses, and such the influence of parties in- 
 terested in opposing them, that " a violent and bloody 
 reaction " followed under Manasseh, and " in Josiah's 
 time the whole work had to be done again from the 
 beginning" (p. 244). And yet a newly found book, 
 purporting to be the Law of Moses, but which " had no 
 external credentials " (p. 351), and which, if the facts 
 be as alleged, every one must have known was not 
 what it claimed to be, was at once accepted by Josiah, 
 " to whom it was of no consequence to know the 
 
56 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 exact date and authorship of the book" (p. 363). 
 One, at least, of its provisions was unwelcome to the 
 priests (p. 362), but they raised no question as to the 
 origin of a code so mysteriously discovered ; and 
 under its potent influence, regulations were readily 
 carried into effect, which had been so stubbornly re- 
 sisted before. And Ezra, it seems, met with similar 
 success in introducing the Levitical Code after the 
 exile. If Mr. Gladstone could but find some law- 
 book in Dublin which had never been heard of before, 
 how easily and amicably the whole Irish question 
 might be settled ! 
 
 But this use of the name of Moses, we are told, is 
 simply " a legal fiction ; " " in Israel all law was held 
 to be derived from the teaching of Moses " (p. 385). 
 Such a notion could not have arisen unless Moses 
 really was the great legislator of the nation, and some- 
 thing more than the Ten Commandments was directly 
 traceable to him. This of itself creates a presump- 
 tion in favor of the Mosaic origin of the codes as- 
 cribed to him, unless there be good reason to the 
 contrary. The instances which are adduced to show 
 that customs or statutes of a later date were imputed 
 to Moses, admit of no such interpretation, and could 
 only be distorted to this end by one intent upon mak- 
 ing out a case. 1 
 
 1 Prof. W. R. Smith says (p. 387): "A peculiarly clear case of 
 this occurs in the law of war. According to I. Sam. xxx. 24, 25, the 
 standing law of Israel as to the distribution of booty was enacted by 
 David, and goes back only to a precedent in his war with the Amale- 
 kites who burned Ziklag. In the priestly legislation the same law is 
 given as a Mosaic precedent from the war with Midian (Num. xxxi. 27)." 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 57 
 
 The style in which the laws are framed, and the 
 terms in which they are drawn up, point to the sojourn 
 
 The fact is, that- Moses gave no law upon the subject whatever. It is 
 simply related, as one of the incidents of the battle with Midian, that 
 the prey was divided into two parts between them who went out to 
 battle and all the congregation. The circumstances were peculiar, and 
 no general rule was enacted. David did not divide the booty into 
 two equal parts, but ordered that the two hundred who guarded the 
 baggage should individually have like shares with the four hundred who 
 engaged in the conflict ; and the division was not, as Moses directed, be- 
 tween the army on the one hand and the people on the other, but between 
 the two divisions of his little army, while to the people at large he simply 
 sent presents. A more exact precedent is found in Josh. xxii. 8, though 
 even in that instance no law was enacted. David made the first stat- 
 ute in relation to the matter ; though some critic may be able to dis- 
 cover that even this is only a " legal fiction," that being attributed to 
 David which was really originated by Judas Maccabeus, who gave an 
 equal share of the spoils of the enemy to the feeble and needy classes 
 (11. Mace. viii. 28, 30). In Ezra ix. 11, "where a law of the Pentateuch 
 is cited as an ordinance of the Prophets " (p. 310), the Prophets are in- 
 clusive of Moses (Deut. xviii. 18; Hos. xii. 13), not distinguished from 
 him. 
 
 It is further alleged (pp. 319, 432) that there are conflicting state- 
 ments respecting the position of the Tabernacle with respect to the 
 camp of Israel, only one of which can be true history, while the other 
 must be later law veiled in historic form ; but the apparent discrepancy 
 is due to the interpreter, not to the text. It is brought about by the 
 fashionable method of dissecting the Pentateuch, and then viewing the 
 separate paragraphs in their isolation and without regard to their con- 
 nection, or only so much regard to it as will choose variance, where 
 that is possible, in preference to harmony. We protest against the 
 entire procedure, notwithstanding the eminence and ability of those 
 who indulge in it. It opens a boundless field for the display of the 
 critic's ingenuity, but it is not rational interpretation, and would as 
 easily create the semblance of self-contradiction in any author to whom 
 it should be applied. If a meaning be given to Ex. xxxiii. 7-1 1 which 
 it cannot bear in the connection in which it is found, but which it is 
 assumed that it might have had in some other imaginable connection 
 — and especially if, with Dillman, the sense of vers. 1-6 be altered by 
 
58 
 
 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 in the wilderness, prior to the occupation of Canaan, 
 as the time when both the Levitical and the Deuter- 
 
 leaving out words or clauses ad libitum, — it may be made to appear 
 that according to this passage, and a few others, the Sacred Tent stood 
 outside of the camp ; whereas it is elsewhere spoken of as pitched in the 
 centre of the camp. But if we discard imaginary possibilities, and give 
 to these verses their obvious sense as they stand, the alleged discrep- 
 ancy disappears. Immediately after the ratification of God's covenant 
 with Israel, Moses went up into the Mount and received direction to 
 make a sanctuary in which God might dwell among His people. The 
 sin of the Golden Calf ruptured the covenant and put an end to all pro- 
 ceedings under it. Without going on to construct the Tabernacle 
 according to the specifications given him, he sets before the eves of the 
 people a visible sign of their altered relation to the Lord by pitching a 
 provisional tabernacle outside of the camp, and at a distance from it 
 to signify that God would not remain in the midst of them (Ex. xxxiii. 3). 
 It is called "the tabernacle " (ver. 7) because it is definitely conceived 
 by the writer as the one used for the purpose, and which was well re- 
 membered by him and by his readers. (Compare the use of the He- 
 brew article in Ex. ii. 15 ; Num. xi. 27 ; Hab. ii. 2.) And it is possible, 
 as the Septuagint assumes and many commentators have supposed, 
 that the tent referred to is the one which had already attained a sacred 
 character from its having been occupied by Moses in his capacity of 
 the representative of God to the people, — to which they had come to 
 inquire of God, and from which he had delivered the divine responses, 
 adjudications, and laws (Ex. xviii. 13-16). Joshua, Moses' servant, 
 though an Ephraimite, remained in the Tabernacle when Moses left it 
 (xxxiii. 11), since the Levites had not yet been set apart to the service 
 of the sanctuary. The Tabernacle is in this passage spoken of as the 
 place of divine revelation (vers. 7, 9, 11), and no mention made of sacri- 
 fice for the simple reason that the Levitical ceremonial was not insti- 
 tuted at the Tabernacle until the structure for which directions were 
 given on the Mount had first been built and set up (Ex. xl., Lev. i.). 
 In Num. xi. 24, 26, 30 ; xii. 4, 5, persons are said to go out of the camp 
 unto the Tabernacle, and out of the Tabernacle into the camp ; but this 
 does not prove the Tabernacle to have been outside of the camp. If a 
 gentleman goes out of his yard into his house, it does not follow that 
 his house is not in his yard. The camp considered as the abode of the 
 people had its limits within as well as without. An open space, such 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 59 
 
 onomic codes were produced (Lev. xviii. 3 ; Deut. 
 xii. 9). The standing designation of Canaan is, " The 
 land which the Lord giveth thee to possess it" (Deut. 
 xv. 4, 7; xxi. 1, 23). The laws look forward to the 
 time " when thou art come into the land, etc., and 
 shalt possess it" 1 (Deut. xvii. 14; Lev. xiv. 34, 
 xix. 23, xxv. 2), or "when the Lord hath cut ofif 
 these nations, and thou succeedest them and dwellest 
 in their cities" (Deut. xix. 1), as the period when 
 they are to go into full operation (Deut. xii. 1, 8, 9). 
 The place of sacrifice is not where Jehovah has fixed 
 His habitation, but " the place which Jehovah shall 
 
 as reverence required, separated the tents of the people from the Tent 
 of God ; and this must be traversed in passing from one to the other. 
 It was just as natural under the circumstances for an Israelite to dis- 
 tinguish the camp from the sacred enclosure of the Tabernacle, as it is 
 for a person in New York City to speak of driving out to Central 
 Park, which is nevertheless within the city limits. So that all that the 
 Professor tells us about early sanctuaries being outside of cities, and 
 Ezekiel paving the way for the sanctuary being located in the midst 
 of the people, is quite irrelevant. Num. x. 33 is adduced to prove 
 that the Sanctuary was outside the camp when the people were on the 
 march ; but it makes no mention of the Sanctuary ; it simply says that 
 the Ark went before them, when they left Sinai, as their guide. And 
 this is not in conflict with ver. 21. (Compare iv. 15-21.) To suppose 
 such a contradiction within the compass of a few verses is to impute 
 the most extraordinary heedlessness to the writer, or, if any prefer, 
 the compiler of the book. While the Tabernacle and the sacred ves- 
 sels had their place assigned them between the tribes as they moved 
 forward, the Ark, which was the symbol and the seat of God's pres- 
 ence, was singled out, as we are expressly told, to lead the way. 
 
 1 This is the case even in Deut. xix. 14, where the last clause of the 
 verse makes it apparent that the setting of the landmarks did not pre- 
 cede the enacting of the Law. The Hebrew for "they of old time " 
 means simply " first," and is applicable to those who originally marked 
 the boundary, at whatever date. 
 
60 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 choose to place His name there " (Deut. xii. 5, 10 ff., 
 xiv. 23 ff., xvi. 2, 6 ff.). Israel is contemplated as 
 occupying a camp (Lev. xvi. 26, 28, xxiv. 10, 14, 23 ; 
 Num. v. 2-4, xii. 14, 15), and living in tents (Lev. xiv. 8 ; 
 Deut. xvi. 7), and in the wilderness (Lev. xvi. 21, 22). 
 The bullock of the sin-offering was to be burned with- 
 out the camp (Lev. iv. 12, 21) ; the ashes from the altar 
 were to be carried without the camp (vi. 11). The leper 
 was to have his habitation without the camp (xiii. 46) ; 
 the priest was to go forth out of the camp to inspect 
 him (xiv. 3) ; ceremonies are prescribed for his ad- 
 mission to the camp (ver. 8), as well as the interval 
 which must elapse before his return to his own 
 tent. In slaying an animal for food the only possi- 
 bilities suggested are that it may be in the camp or 
 out of the camp (xvii. 3). The law of the consecra- 
 tion of priests respects by name Aaron and his sons 
 (viii. 2 ff.). Silver trumpets were made to direct the 
 calling of the assembly and the journeying of the 
 camps (Num. x. 2 ff). The ceremonies of the red 
 heifer were to be performed without the camp 
 (Num. xix. 3, 7, 9), and by Eleazar personally 
 (vers. 3, 4). The law of purification provides sim- 
 ply for death in tents and in the open fields (vers. 
 14, 16). How differently laws are worded when 
 framed specifically for a time of settled abodes may 
 be seen from (Lev. xiv. 34 ff.) " house, " " walls," 
 "stones," " plaster," ." without the city," etc. All 
 this, and much more of the same sort, we must sup- 
 pose to be " legal fiction ; " but it would be too 
 "artificial" (p. 321), in the Professor's view, to im- 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 6 1 
 
 agine that Moses could speak of himself in the third 
 person, as Isaiah (vii. 3 ff.), Jeremiah (xxxvi. 4 rT.), 
 Hosea (i. 2 ff.), and the evangelists Matthew (ix. 9) 
 and John (xiii. 23) have done. 1 
 
 This peculiarity of these laws carries with it the 
 evidence that they were not only enacted during the 
 sojourn in the wilderness, but that they were then 
 committed to writing. Had they been preserved 
 orally, the forms of expression would have been 
 changed, insensibly, to adapt them to the circum- 
 stances of later times. It is only the unvarying 
 permanence of a written code that could have per- 
 petuated these laws in a form which no longer de- 
 scribed directly and precisely the thing to be done, 
 
 1 The Professor demands proof " that Moses would write such a 
 verse " as Num. xii. 3. If Paui could say, comparing himself with 
 the other apostles, " I labored more abundantly than they all," and 
 John, without any imputation upon his modesty, could call himself 
 " the disciple whom Jesus loved," is it altogether insupposable that 
 Moses, who frankly relates his own backwardness to obey God's call 
 (Ex. iv. 10 ff.), his neglect to circumcise his child (vers. 24-26), and 
 the sin which excluded him from the Promised Land (Num. xx. 12), 
 should refer with equal impartiality and in no boastful spirit to the 
 unexampled meekness displayed by him under circumstances of extra- 
 ordinary provocation ? But if any deem it impossible that Moses 
 could have penned such a statement about himself, however necessary 
 to his own vindication and to the truth of history, it surely does not 
 follow that Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch. Least of all 
 can they, whose own theory rests on the assumption of an extended 
 series of interpolations, and of emendations and additions ad libitum, by 
 successive editors, object with any show of reason to the hypothesis 
 that, in a very few instances, a word or a clause or a paragraph may 
 have been inserted in the writings of Moses by some competent and 
 duly authorized person for the sake of explanation, or of greater com- 
 pleteness of the record. 
 
62 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 but must be mentally adapted to an altered state of 
 affairs before it could be carried into effect. 
 
 But suppose that we yield our assent to this notion 
 that the Israelites had the singular custom of issuing 
 all their laws in the name of Moses, and that they 
 continued to do so down to the time of Josiah and after 
 the Exile, still expressing them as though Israel were 
 encamped in the wilderness of Sinai or on the plains 
 of Moab. It is true that no instance of the kind is 
 recorded in any historical book of the Old Testament. 
 David and Solomon and Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah 
 issue their orders and enforce their regulations in 
 their own name and by their own authority. Ezekiel, 
 who, we are told, represents an intermediate stage 
 between Deuteronomy and Leviticus, makes no pre- 
 tence of Mosaic authority in all that he says respect- 
 ing the Temple and its worship and the Holy Land. 
 The idea of a legal fiction never dawned upon the 
 author of the Books of Kings, who records the find- 
 ing of the Law in the Temple, but has no suspicion of 
 its recent origin. Let us, however, waive all objec- 
 tion on this ground. But the further insuperable 
 difficulty remains that, by the hypothesis under con- 
 sideration, laws are attributed to a period for which 
 they have no meaning or fitness. Legislation, as 
 Prof. W. R. Smith himself insists, and this is, in 
 fact, the basis on which his whole argument profess- 
 edly rests, — legislation must be adapted to the times 
 in which it is issued. Its aim is practical ; it con- 
 cerns matters of present obligation, and its statutes 
 are enacted with the view of being enforced and 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 63 
 
 obeyed. Laws are never issued to regulate a state 
 of things which has passed away ages before, and 
 can by no possibility be revived. What are we to 
 think, then, of a hypothesis which assigns the code 
 of Deuteronomy to the reign of Josiah, or shortly 
 before it, when its injunction to exterminate the 
 Canaanites (xx. 16-18) and the Amalekites * (xxv. 
 17-19), who had long since disappeared, would be as 
 utterly out of date as a law in New Jersey at the 
 present time offering a bounty for killing wolves and 
 bears, or a royal proclamation in Great Britain order- 
 ing the expulsion of the Danes ? A law contemplat- 
 ing foreign conquests (xx. 10-15) would have been 
 absurd when the urgent question was whether Judah 
 could maintain its own existence against the en- 
 croachments of Babylon and Egypt. A law dis- 
 criminating against Ammon and Moab (xxiii. 3, 4), 
 in favor of Edom (vers. 7, 8), had its warrant in the 
 Mosaic period, but not in the time of the later kings. 
 Jeremiah discriminates precisely the other way, prom- 
 ising a future restoration to Moab (xlviii. 47) and 
 Ammon (xlix. 6), which he denies to Edom (xlix. 
 17, 18), who is also to Joel (iii. 19), Obadiah, and 
 Isaiah (lxiii. 1-6), the representative foe of the 
 people of God. The special injunction to show no 
 
 1 An insignificant remnant of this once powerful people seems to 
 have survived in the secluded fastnesses of Mount Seir (i. Chron. iv. 
 42, 43), which five hundred Simeonites were competent to destroy. The 
 date of this incident is not stated. It is mentioned in connection with 
 a fact belonging to the reign of Hezekiah (ver. 41) and is probably to 
 be referred to the same period ; but the Amalekites had ceased to be 
 formidable from the time of Saul and David. 
 
64 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 unfriendliness to Egyptians (Deut. xxiii. 7) is insup- 
 posable in a code issued under prophetic influence at 
 a time when the Prophets were doing everything in 
 their power to dissuade the people from alliance or 
 association with them (Isai. xxx. 1 ff., xxxi. 1 ; Jer. 
 ii. 18, 36). The allusions to Egypt imply familiarity 
 with and recent residence in that land ; an impres- 
 sive argument for obedience is drawn from the mem- 
 ory of bondage in Egypt (Deut. xxiv. 18, 22 ; compare 
 ver. 9), or of deliverance from it (Deut. xiii. 5, 10, 
 xx. 1 ; Lev. xix. 36, xxvi. 13 ; Num. xv, 41) ; warn- 
 ings are pointed by a reference to the diseases of 
 Egypt (Deut. vii. 15, xxviii. 60). And how can a 
 code belong to the time of Josiah, which, while it 
 contemplates the possible selection of a king in the 
 future (Deut. xvii. 14 ff.), nowhere implies an actual 
 regal government, but vests the supreme central 
 authority in a judge and the priesthood (xvii. 8-12 ; 
 xix. 17) ; which lays special stress on the require- 
 ments that the king must be a native and not a 
 foreigner (xvii. 15), when the undisputed line of 
 succession had for ages been fixed in the family of 
 David, and that he must not " cause the people to 
 return to Egypt " (ver. 16), as they seemed ready 
 to do on every grievance in the days of Moses (Num. 
 xiv. 4), but which no one ever dreamed of doing 
 after they were fairly established in Canaan? 1 
 
 1 It would not be surprising, even on natural principles, for Moses 
 to have anticipated that the people might some time desire a king, and 
 to prohibit, in that event, the display and luxurious indulgence which 
 characterize Oriental courts. That Samuel disapproved of the peo- 
 ple's hankering after a king under circumstances which implied an un- 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 65 
 
 And it is quite as incongruous to place the Levitical 
 law after the Exile. Professor Dillmann, though he 
 conceives that " the Book of the Law did not receive 
 its final form and arrangement until .after the Exile 
 and in the time of Ezra," nevertheless protests against 
 the hypothesis as " irrational " that " the priestly laws 
 and those of the cultus were first committed to writ- 
 ing, or actually first framed, in the Exile or in Baby- 
 lonia, where no cultus whatever existed." 1 And then 
 there are detailed accounts of the Mosaic Tabernacle, 
 reciting the contribution of materials for its construc- 
 tion, 2 with minute specifications of the number and 
 
 timely setting aside of himself and a want of confidence in God (1. Sam. 
 viii. 7, 8; x. 18, 19), does not imply that the law in Deuteronomy was 
 unknown to him. On the contrary, the author of the Book of Samuel 
 plainly shows that it was then in existence, or that he believed that it 
 was, by the allusions to it, or the adoption of its language, in this very 
 narrative : e. g., I. Sam. viii. 3, "took bribes and perverted judgment," 
 (compare Deut. xvi. 19); ver. 5, "make us a king . . . like all the 
 nations," (compare Deut. xvii. 14) ; x. 24, "him whom the Lord hath 
 chosen," (compare Deut. xvii. 15) ; xii. 14, " obey his voice and not rebel 
 against the commandment of the Lord" (compare Deut. ix 23; i. 43). 
 The Hebrew expressions in these several passages are identical, even 
 where the English version varies. Solomon's violation of the law only 
 shows how men may and do transgress known law under strong tempta- 
 tion. And he may have palliated his offence as not contravening the real 
 spirit and intent of the statute. His numerous alliances gave stability 
 to his kingdom, and assurance of peace with surrounding nations, and 
 he could surely avoid the snare of their idolatry. He amassed silver 
 and gold, but he spent vast sums on theTemple. He multiplied horses 
 for the sake of adding to his military strength, but he had no thought 
 of taking the people back to Egypt. Compare Isaiah's description of 
 a like state of things under Uzziah (Isai. ii. 6, 7). 
 
 1 " Die Biicher Exodus und Leviticus," Vorwort, p. viii. 
 
 2 Delitzsch, in his Pieface to Professor Curtiss's valuable treatise on 
 " The Levitical Priests," notes the interesting circumstance that the 
 
66 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 dimensions of its boards, their sockets and tenons 
 and bars, of its various coverings and the mode of 
 their preparation, and how they are to be joined by- 
 loops and taches, of its various articles of furniture, 
 and the instruments of the service, and precise direc- 
 tions as to the manner in which they should be 
 wrapped, and by whom they should be carried, and 
 what place they should have in the ranks during the 
 journeyings through the wilderness. All this is stated 
 with the utmost precision, and every particular in- 
 sisted upon as of real consequence. And we are 
 asked to believe that this is all a fiction of the time 
 of Ezra and of the Second Temple, when it could 
 serve no imaginable purpose. Prof. W. R. Smith 
 tells us (p. 357), "It is very noteworthy and, on the 
 traditional view, quite inexplicable that the Mosaic 
 sanctuary of the Ark is never mentioned in the Deu- 
 teronomic Code." It is mentioned in Deut. x. 1-8, 
 not to speak of xxxi. 9, 25, 26; and, by the common 
 consent of critics, the whole book of Deuteronomy 
 is one in its language, its character, and its aims. 
 But why any one should expect the Ark to be men- 
 tioned in a code which had no occasion to speak of 
 it, we are not informed. It is, however, much more 
 inexplicable, on the Professor's own hypothesis, that 
 the Ark is described in such detail and such promi- 
 nence given to it in the Levitical Code (Ex. xxv. 10- 
 22, etc.), if this was prepared for the guidance of 
 
 original words for "fine linen, purple, and scarlet," which reappear so 
 often in the Mosaic description of the sanctuary, are the ancient He- 
 brew terms, and not their Aramaic equivalents which are found in 
 writings after the Exile. 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 6 J 
 
 the priests and the conduct of the ritual in the days 
 of Ezra ; whereas the Ark perished in the destruction 
 of the First Temple, and was not reproduced subse- 
 quently. And why should directions be given about 
 the Urim and Thummim (Ex. xxviii. 30; Num. 
 xxvii. 21), which had ceased to be of any practical 
 account (Ezra ii 63 ; Neh. vii. 65)? 
 
 Now, what is there to hinder us from believing the 
 laws of the Pentateuch to be the production of 
 Moses, as they claim to be, and as their style and 
 contents declare them to be? Prof. W. R. Smith, 
 enlightens us upon this point (p. 333) : — 
 
 " It is a very remarkable fact, to begin with, that all the 
 sacred law of Israel is comprised in the Pentateuch, and that, 
 apart from the Levitical legislation, it is presented in codified 
 form. On the traditional view, three successive bodies of 
 law were given to Israel within forty years. Within that short 
 time many ordinances were modified, and the whole law of 
 Sinai recast on the plains of Moab. But from the days of 
 Moses there was no change. With his death the Israelites 
 entered on a new career, which transformed the nomads of 
 Goshen into the civilized inhabitants of vineyard-land and 
 cities in Canaan. But the divine laws given them beyond 
 Jordan were to remain unmodified through all the long 
 centuries of development in Canaan, an absolute and im- 
 mutable code. I say, with all reverence, that this is im- 
 possible." 
 
 The idea of development is in the air; and yet 
 it is possible that it may be applied to some things 
 that do not call for it and will not admit of it. The 
 " nomads of Goshen " had been settled for more than 
 
68 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 four centuries under the government of the most 
 highly civilized and the most thoroughly organized 
 empire in the ancient world. They were employed 
 in building treasure-cities for Pharaoh (Ex. i. u), in 
 the manufacture of brick (Ex. v. 7 ff.), in masonry, 
 and in all manner of service in the field (Ex. i. 14). 
 They were skilled in working metals, carving wood, 
 and engraving gems (Ex. xxxi. 2 ff, xxxv. 30 ff.), 
 in spinning, weaving, and embroidery (Ex. xxxv. 25, 
 26). Their familiarity with the cultivation of the 
 soil is attested not only by such statements as Num. 
 xi. 5, xx. 5 and Deut. xi. 10, but by the express pro- 
 visions of what the Professor himself regards as their 
 oldest extant code of laws (Ex. xxii. 5,6), including 
 the regulations respecting first-fruits (xxii. 29, xxiii. 
 19), the weekly Sabbath (xxiii. 12, xxxiv. 21), the 
 sabbatical year (xxiii. 10, 11), the festivals of the 
 harvest and the ingathering (xxiii. 15, 16), not to 
 speak of the requirement of the shew-bread and of 
 the meat and drink offerings. The Israel of the 
 exodus could not, therefore, have been at so great a 
 remove from " the civilized inhabitants of the vine- 
 yard-land and cities in Canaan." Even though the 
 Mosaic Tabernacle were to be remanded to the region 
 of fable, it would still be true that tradition attributed 
 the arts employed in its construction to the generation 
 that left Egypt, and the monuments of that land lend 
 this abundant corroboration. But enough besides 
 remains to rivet our conclusion, which even the 
 wildest criticism must respect, unless it would destroy 
 the whole basis on which it can rest itself, and deny 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 69 
 
 that there is any certainty as to the condition of the 
 Israelites under Moses, in which case the entire ob- 
 jection is admitted to be groundless. 
 
 And where habits and manners remain fixed, as 
 they proverbially do in the East, there could be little 
 reason for change in the laws of the simple agricul- 
 tural population of Palestine, eschewing as they did 
 all foreign trade or travel, and holding so limited 
 intercourse with other nations. Even through all 
 changes in the national government, the tribal organi- 
 zation continued at least until the time of the Exile, 
 the usages of society underwent little alteration, and 
 the affairs of each community were managed very 
 much in the same manner from age to age. 
 
 But the objection is completely neutralized when 
 we consider further that the Mosaic Code leaves 
 abundant room for all the modifications that could 
 be demanded by the progressive life of the people. 
 It is not, and was not intended to be, a complete 
 system of political institutions ; and objections have 
 been made to it on this very ground of its lack of 
 completeness, urging that it could never have been 
 put in actual operation without the supply of some 
 important gaps in the legislation. The fact is, that 
 the Mosaic regulations presuppose and were super- 
 induced upon an already existing political constitution 
 and customs that had the force of laws. The aim of 
 Moses simply was to establish and perpetuate the 
 covenant relation between Israel and Jehovah. It was 
 not to give fixity to one particular system of civil ad- 
 ministration, but to incorporate and express religious 
 
7<D PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 ideas in the national life. Hence, some of his laws 
 are purely ethical, and were not intended to be en- 
 forced by the magistrate: (Ex. xxii. 21—24, xxiii. 2, 
 3, 9; Deut. xv. 5, 6, xvi. 20, xix. 8, 9, xxiv. 13, 15). 
 The specific regulations which they contain were 
 adopted or modified, as the case might be, from pre- 
 existing usages. And all that was not expressly 
 ordained by divine sanction was left free either to 
 remain as it was, or to shape itself as circumstances 
 might require or as the principles of the Mosaic 
 religion and constitution might suggest. There was 
 abundant flexibility here, and all the opportunity for 
 development that could be desired. Thus submission 
 to rulers is inculcated (Ex. xxii. 28) without pre- 
 scribing any , definite form of government. The 
 authority of elders (Num. xi. 16), princes (Num. 
 xxxii. 2, xxxvi. 1), and other existing officials is 
 recognized, but there is nothing to require that pub- 
 lic functionaries should preserve this unvarying type. 
 A monarchy was contemplated in the future, but was 
 not enjoined ; it was left entirely to the wishes of the 
 people and the course of events ; and when the time 
 arrived, the transition was made without a jar. Moses, 
 acting under a present necessity, created judges and 
 based his appointment on a decimal division of the 
 people (Ex. xviii. 21, 22); but this particular form 
 of organization is not once mentioned in his codes of 
 laws, much less perpetuated by express divine sanc- 
 tion. In Ex. xxi. 6, xxii. 8, 9, to come before the 
 legitimate tribunal is to come before God ; but who 
 should be clothed with judicial functions, and how 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 7 1 
 
 these should be exercised, is not specified. The 
 Deuteronomic Code directs that there shall be judges 
 in every city (xvi. 18), and that the ultimate decision 
 of controversies shall lie with the priests and the 
 judge at the religious centre of the nation (xvii. 
 8-12) ; but the terms are general, and Jehoshaphat 
 was not hindered from enlarging the judiciary in ac- 
 cordance with the needs of his own time (11. Chron. 
 xix. 5, 8). 
 
 The three codes of law above mentioned belong, 
 it is claimed, to different periods in Israel's history, 
 and represent distinct grades of social culture and 
 development, and, particularly, successive stages in 
 their religious advancement. Prof. W. R. Smith tells 
 us that " in the first legislation the question of cor- 
 rect ritual has little prominence" (p. 343), and it 
 "presupposes a plurality of sanctuaries" (p. 352). 
 The Law of Deuteronomy, on the other hand, is " a 
 law for the abolition of the local sanctuaries, as they 
 are recognized by the first legislation" (p. 353). 
 " The first legislation has no law of priesthood, no 
 provision as to priestly dues." It " assumes the right 
 of laymen to offer sacrifice," and " presupposes a 
 priesthood whose business lies less with sacrifice than 
 with the divine Torah, which they administer in the 
 sanctuary as successors of Moses, — for the sanctuary 
 is the seat of judgment." This priesthood consisted 
 of the entire body of the Levites, who were " priests 
 of local sanctuaries " throughout the whole land (pp. 
 358, 359). "Deuteronomy also knows no Levites 
 who cannot be priests, and no priests who are not 
 
72 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 Levites ; " and, in abolishing the local sanctuaries, it 
 makes provision for the priests who had previously 
 ministered in them (p. 360). But " Deuteronomy 
 knows nothing of a sacrificial priestly Torah " (p. 
 371), such as the Levitical Code. According to this 
 hypothesis, then, these three codes severally repre- 
 sent three periods in the religion of Israel. The first 
 sanctions various local sanctuaries where laymen offer 
 sacrifice, and where the Levites — who are indiscrimi- 
 nately clothed with priestly prerogatives — administer 
 judgment. Deuteronomy, which belongs to a later 
 time, restricts worship to one sanctuary, whose priests 
 consequently rise to new dignity, while the Levites 
 previously ministering elsewhere are now thrown out 
 of occupation, and, in the need to which they are 
 reduced, special provision must be made for their 
 support. The fully developed ritual of Leviticus 
 belongs to a period later still. 
 
 This is about as rational as though some critic 
 were to deal with the Constitution of the United 
 States in a similar manner, erecting its several arti- 
 cles into distinct codes, assigning them to different 
 periods of the national history, and inferring from 
 them that different forms of government have suc- 
 cessively prevailed. The article upon the Executive 
 treats only of a President and Vice-President as en- 
 trusted with power, and seems to represent a sort of 
 elective monarchy in which rude tribes summon one 
 of their chieftains to the supreme command. Then 
 the article upon the Judiciary places control in a body 
 of judges, who hold office during life or good be- 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 73 
 
 havior, and thus represents a later aristocratic stage. 
 And, finally, the article which confers legislative 
 authority upon Congress must have originated at a 
 still later date, when popular ideas came into vogue, 
 and the government was lodged with representatives 
 elected by the people. This method of treating a 
 system of laws, whose different parts are mutually 
 supplementary, as though they were distinct and in- 
 dependent codes, can only lead to distortion and mis- 
 conception. 
 
 It is the fashion now to ridicule the harmonistic 
 treatment of the Mosaic laws, and the development 
 theory is all the rage. Nevertheless, every one must 
 concede that if, upon any fair interpretation of their 
 language, these laws can be shown to be mutually 
 consistent and harmonious, this is entitled to the 
 preference over any view which represents them as 
 incompatible and conflicting. And even where the 
 law has been changed in any of its provisions, and a 
 later statute abrogates or modifies another given pre- 
 viously, this may still be consistent with the Mosaic 
 record, provided it admits of a satisfactory explana- 
 tion from the different times and circumstances under 
 which the law was given, and the different ends which 
 it was intended to subserve. Unless variations should 
 be found which it is impossible to account for in 
 any other way, it is gratuitous and unwarrantable to 
 assume that any of the laws ascribed to Moses are 
 really of later date. 
 
 To prove that a plurality of sanctuaries is pre- 
 supposed in the first legislation, appeal is made to 
 
74 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 Ex. xx. 24, 25 and to xxii. 30. The former of these 
 passages can only afford an argument by putting a 
 sense upon it which the words do not require, which 
 is at variance with every other utterance of Hebrew 
 law upon the subject, and which disregards the cir- 
 cumstances under which these words were spoken. 
 It is the primary law of the Hebrew altar, given at 
 Sinai, before the Tabernacle was built, as preliminary 
 to concluding the covenant between Jehovah and 
 Israel (Ex. xxiv. 4). It directs the erection of an 
 altar of earth or stone, and promises God's presence 
 and blessing, not wherever they might choose to erect 
 such an altar, but in every place 1 where God should 
 record His name, that is, make a manifestation of His 
 being. (Compare Deut. xii. 5, etc.) This was their 
 warrant for building an altar at Sinai, where He had 
 so conspicuously manifested Himself, and at every 
 future place of supernatural revelation, including the 
 Tabernacle which they carried with them in their 
 journeyings through the wilderness ; for the wooden 
 frame described Ex. xxvii. 1 ff. took its name from 
 the altar of earth which it enclosed. It is not co- 
 existing sanctuaries in Canaan, but altars successively 
 reared at different places in the Wilderness, that are 
 contemplated by the passage under consideration. 
 Unless it can be shown that God " recorded His 
 name " in various places at once, no sanction is here 
 given to a multiplicity of altars. It was so even in 
 
 1 The plural form in the authorized version (Ex. xx. 24) "in all 
 places," which might seem to lend some color to plurality of sanc- 
 tuaries, does not accurately represent the Hebrew. 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 75 
 
 patriarchal days, in the Holy Land itself. Abraham, 
 Isaac, and Jacob built altars and offered sacrifices 
 at their successive places of abode ; but they did 
 not establish rival sanctuaries to be simultaneously 
 occupied. 
 
 And Ex. xxii. 30 is quite as little to the purpose : 
 the firstling of ox or sheep " shall be seven days with 
 his dam ; on the eighth day thou shalt give it Me." 
 This is commonly understood to mean that it was 
 sufficiently mature for sacrifice by its eighth day 
 (Lev. xxii. 27). Its presentation at the Sanctuary, 
 though admissible on that day, may have been post- 
 poned to one of the annual feasts, perhaps the Pass- 
 over, with which it is associated in Ex. xxxiv. 18-20, 
 which is universally admitted to belong to the most 
 ancient legislation. The law before us will then be 
 substantially identical with that in Deut. xv. 20, which 
 enjoins that it should be eaten at the Sanctuary year 
 by year. If, however, this very natural explanation 
 be rejected, and it be insisted that the first legisla- 
 tion differs from Deuteronomy in requiring that the 
 firstling should be sacrificed on its eighth day, still 
 there is no need of supposing a reference to local 
 sanctuaries in Palestine, accessible to every neigh- 
 borhood. The law was given at Sinai, and regulated 
 the presentation of the first-born in the wilderness, 
 where all Israel was encamped in the vicinity of the 
 Tabernacle. When they were about to enter Canaan 
 the old law was replaced by one in Deuteronomy, 
 adapted to the changed circumstances. And while 
 there is nothing in the first legislation implying a 
 
76 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 plurality of sanctuaries, the three annual pilgrimages 
 enjoined to " the House of the Lord" (Ex. xxiii, 17, 
 19), on the contrary, very decidedly imply its unity. 1 
 It is further charged that there is a serious discrep- 
 ancy between Deuteronomy and the Levitical Law in 
 respect to the priesthood : that according to the 
 former all Levites are priests, and have an equal right 
 to perform priestly functions and share the priestly 
 revenues (pp. 360, 436), while in the latter none are 
 priests but Aaron and his sons, and the Levites are 
 servants or attendants upon the priests. All that is 
 plausible in this representation arises from the as- 
 sumption that Deuteronomy is a body of laws com- 
 plete in itself; whereas it is really attached to and 
 co-ordinated with the legislation of the preceding 
 books. The mutual relations of priests and Levites 
 and the special functions of each are developed at 
 length in the Levitical Law, which made it unneces- 
 sary to repeat the same things in Deuteronomy. Prof. 
 W. R. Smith freely concedes the difference in sub- 
 ject and aim between these two bodies of legislation. 2 
 
 1 The allegation that " the asylum for the man-slayer, in Ex. xxi. 
 12-14, is Jehovah's altar," whereas "under the law of Deuteronomy, 
 there are to be three fixed Cities of Refuge," can hardly be seriously 
 meant in the face of the distinct reference to the future appointment 
 of Cities of Refuge in the passage in Exodus. 
 
 2 " The first legislation and the code of Deuteronomy take the land 
 of Canaan as their basis. They give directions for the life of Jeho- 
 vah's people in the land He gives them. The Levitical legislation 
 starts from the Sanctuary and the priesthood. Its object is to develop 
 the theory of a religious life which has its centre in the Sanctuary, and 
 is ruled by principles of holiness radiating forth from Jehovah's dwel- 
 ling-place. The first two legislations deal with Israel as a nation ; in 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 77 
 
 All that specially relates to the ordinances of worship 
 and the ministers of religion finds its place in the 
 former rather than in the latter. 
 
 In matters of this description Deuteronomy makes 
 explicit reference to pre-existing laws. In xxiv. 8, 9 
 there is direct allusion to the Law of Leprosy previously 
 given (Lev. xiii., xiv.), with an injunction to obey it, 
 and mention of the case of Miriam which had arisen 
 under it (Num. xii.). The introductory portion of 
 Deuteronomy is filled with arguments and earnest 
 exhortations based upon the antecedent history of 
 Israel, which find their only illustration in the pre- 
 ceding books. Deut. x. 8, 9; xviii. I, 2, speak of 
 duties previously assigned and support allotted to the 
 tribe of Levi, with specific reference in each case to 
 former declarations on the subject, and a verbal quo- 
 tation from Num. xviii. 20, the context of which 
 clearly defines the relative status of priests and Le- 
 vites. Deut. xi. 6 appeals to the overthrow of Dathan 
 and Abiram (Num. xvi.), which the critics have not 
 yet succeeded in disentangling from the uprising of 
 the Levite Korah against the special prerogatives of 
 the Aaronic priesthood. The removal (Deut. xii. 15) 
 of the restriction requiring every animal slain for 
 food to be presented at the Sanctuary, is a plain 
 allusion to the law (Lev. xvii.. 3 ff.) which could only 
 have been enacted in the Wilderness, as its very terms 
 imply, and was an important safeguard against idolatry 
 
 the third, Israel is a church, and as such is habitually addressed as a 
 Congregation ('edah), a word characteristic of the Levitical Law" 
 (P- 3i8). 
 
78 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 as the people were then situated. It was obviously 
 impracticable in Canaan, 1 however, and is therefore 
 formally abrogated before their entrance into the 
 promised land. The blessing of Levi (Deut. xxxiii. 
 8-1 1 ) abounds in allusions to the preceding* history 
 and enactments. Deuteronomy thus, by its own ex- 
 press statements, recognizes the existence and binding 
 authority of a more detailed antecedent legislation 
 respecting matters to which it only alludes in a brief 
 and summary manner. 
 
 It is to be observed further that Deuteronomy does 
 distinguish between priests and Levites. In xviii. I 
 " all the tribe of Levi " is a superfluous addition to 
 the standing phrase, " the priests the Levites," if it is 
 simply co-extensive in signification. (Compare Neh. 
 xi. 20: " Israel, the priests, the Levites.") The in- 
 tention manifestly is to affirm, both of the priests and 
 of the entire tribe to which they belong, that they are 
 without inheritance. Accordingly in the following 
 verses statements are made respecting first the priest 
 (vers. 3-5), then the Levite (vers. 6-8). And through- 
 out the entire book, wherever priests are spoken of, 
 the functions ascribed to them are either those as- 
 signed to the priests in the Levitical Law, or are en- 
 tirely consistent with them ; while on the contrary, 
 
 1 Even the local sanctuaries, by which the Professor seeks to ac- 
 count for it, would not render it tolerable. And a plurality of sanc- 
 tuaries is inconsistent with the express requirement of the law in 
 question (Lev. xvii. 4, 5), which recognizes but one sanctuary, "the 
 Tabernacle of the Congregation," and places offering sacrifices there in 
 contrast with offering them elsewhere. If the unity of the Sanctuary 
 is insisted upon anywhere in the Levitical Law, this is the case here. 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 79 
 
 the Levite is in repeated passages (e. g. y xiv. 29) 
 associated with needy or dependent classes as like 
 them an object of generous beneficence. The dis- 
 tinction between Levitical priests and Levites gener- 
 ally is also made in xxvii. 9, 12, 14. The priests of 
 this book, as all admit, are those of the tribe of Levi 
 who discharge priestly functions, and are distinguished 
 from those Levites who do not. But who in the tribe 
 are privileged to be priests? Deut. x. 6 tells us that 
 Aaron was priest, and his son succeeded him. The 
 Levitical Law declares that the priesthood was limited 
 to Aaron's family. The critics infer from Deut. xviii. 
 6 that any Levite, who is disposed to do so, may be- 
 come a priest by presenting himself at the Sanctuary 
 and claiming the right to exercise priestly functions. 
 We think it more reasonable to understand the verse 
 in a manner which is equally consistent with its lan- 
 guage, and is moreover in harmony with the Levitical 
 Law, viz : that any Levite, whether belonging to the 
 seed of Aaron or not, is privileged to go to the 
 Sanctuary and perform such ministrations as are al- 
 lowed to Levites of the same grade ; if of priestly 
 stock, he may act as priest; if not, he may per- 
 form those subordinate offices which are allowed to 
 Levites. 1 
 
 The characteristic expression for the priests in the 
 Book of Deuteronomy is " the priests the Levites," 
 or rather, as the words should be rendered, " the Le- 
 vitical priests" (xvii. 9, 18, xviii. 1, xxiv. 8, xxvii. 
 
 1 Ministering to the Lord was a function of the Levites as well as 
 the priests (1. Chron. xv. 2; see also 1. Sam. ii. II, 18, iii. 1). 
 
80 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 9). In Leviticus and Numbers this phrase is never 
 employed, but we find instead " the priests, the sons 
 of Aaron " (Lev. i. 5, 8, n, ii. 2, iii. 2, xiii. 2, 
 xxi. 1; Num. iii. 3, x. 8). This striking difference, 
 however, involves no real discrepancy, for the sons of 
 Aaron were of course Levites ; and " Levitical priests " 
 no more proves that priests and Levites are convert- 
 ible terms than " Egyptian priests" would imply that 
 all Egyptians were or, if they chose, might be priests. 
 This expression is, moreover, found in books where 
 the distinctions of the Levitical Law are plainly re- 
 cognized. 1 The occurrence in the preceding books of 
 the Pentateuch of the expression " the priests the 
 sons of Aaron," along with such phrases as " Aaron 
 the priest," " the sons of Aaron the priest," " Eleazar 
 the priest," etc., is altogether natural, because these 
 were the persons who filled the office at the time, and 
 to whom the divine directions were immediately given ; 
 just as we read in later times of " Eli the priest," " the 
 sons of Eli the priest," etc. (1. Sam. i. 3, 9), when 
 these are the persons intended. In Deuteronomy, 
 however, which gives no personal directions to indi- 
 viduals, but contemplates the priests of the future as 
 a body, a general designation, such as Levitical priests, 
 was more appropriate. 2 
 
 1 Thus Josh. iii. 3, viii. 33 (compare xxi. 4 ff., "the children of 
 Aaron the priest which were of the Levites"); also II. Chron. v. 5 
 (where the Professor accepts the reading, "the Levite priests," in pref- 
 erence to that in the parallel passage, I. Kings viii. 4, "the priests and 
 the Levites," p. 436), xxiii. 18, xxx. 27, where the sense plainly shows 
 the insertion of " and " to be inadmissible. 
 
 2 That there is nothing in this phraseology to warrant the conclu- 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 8 1 
 
 That priestly functions should be attributed to the 
 
 sions which the critics would have us draw from it, is apparent from a 
 simple inspection of the facts of the case. In the Book of Leviticus 
 " priest " occurs without any qualifying epithet or any name in appo- 
 sition with it 176 times, the plural " priests " four times, and " high 
 priest " once. In Lev. viii.-x., the consecration of Aaron and his sons, 
 and the penalty inflicted upon Nadab and Abihu for their transgres- 
 sion, " priest " does not occur, but we find instead " Aaron " fourteen 
 times, " Aaron's sons " seven times, " Aaron and his sons " thirteen 
 times, evidently for the reason that these are the persons whom the 
 narrative concerns. In Lev. xvi., the institution of the Day of Atone- 
 ment, after an allusion to the death of Aaron's two sons, Aaron is 
 mentioned eight times as the person charged with conducting the ser- 
 vices of the day. It is only at the close of the chapter, ver. 32, that 
 " the priest who shall be anointed, and shall be consecrated to minis- 
 ter in the priest's office in his father's stead," is spoken of as the fu- 
 ture celebrant. In Ex. xxvii.-xxxi. we read constantly of " Aaron " (fif- 
 teen times), " Aaron's sons " (twice), or " Aaron and his sons " (twenty- 
 two times) ; " Aaron and his sons shall order the lamp," " holy garments 
 for Aaron and his sons," "Aaron shall bear the names of the children 
 of Israel," etc.; only once "Aaron the priest," xxxi. 10, and once " that 
 son that is priest in his stead," xxix. 30. In Lev. i.-vii. " Aaron and his 
 sons" (ten times) and "Aaron's sons" (six times) interchange with 
 " the priest," the writer passing readily and naturally from the names 
 of those who held the office to the term descriptive of the office itself. 
 It would not have been surprising if he had combined the name and 
 the office more frequently than he has done ; but the fact is, that in 
 the entire Book of Leviticus " Aaron the priest " occurs but three 
 times, " the priests Aaron's sons " five times, " the sons of Aaron the 
 priest" once, and "his sons" (meaning Aaron's) joined with "priest" 
 or " priests " twice. The form of expression is evidently governed by 
 the fact that the persons then composing the priestly order were pres- 
 ent to the writer's thoughts. And laws drawn up in this form thereby 
 give evidence that they were both enacted and committed to writing 
 in the lifetime of Aaron and his sons. 
 
 In the Deuteronomic code "priest " or "priests " with no qualify- 
 ing epithet occurs seven times ; and " the priests the Levites " (or " the 
 sons of Levi ") five times, or (if we include xxvii. 9 and xxxi. 9, which 
 are outside of the code proper as defined above) seven times in the 
 
82 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 tribe of Levi 1 (x. 8, xxxiii. 8, io), because they were 
 entrusted to a^particular family in that tribe, is by the 
 
 entire book. In Moses' final address, which loojcs forward over the 
 entire future of Israel it would have been out of place to speak of the 
 individual priests then living. Why should he say Eleazar or Itha- 
 mar or Phinehas the priest, when the priestly order for all time was 
 meant? and he could not say Aaron the priest, for Aaron was already 
 dead. What was more natural under the circumstances than that the 
 priests should simply be referred to the sacred tribe to which they be- 
 longed? There is nothing here that requires for its explanation the 
 peculiarities of a distinct writer, nor a change in the constitution of 
 the priesthood. The character of the address of Moses, and the cir- 
 cumstances under which it was delivered, amply account for the differ- 
 ence between the language used in it and- in Leviticus. If the late 
 Emperor of the French, in his attempt to reorganize the Mexican 
 government by placing the Archduke of Austria upon the throne, had 
 drawn up a paper for his personal guidance, in which he was through- 
 out spoken of as " Maximilian " and " a descendant of Charles V.," 
 and in his convention with Mexico upon the subject had simply styled 
 him "the Emperor of Mexico," without adding his personal name, 
 what would there be in this difference of designation to cast suspicion 
 upon the authenticity of either document, or to warrant the inference 
 that they belong to different periods of time ? 
 
 1 The Professor is mistaken in saying (p. 437) that according to 
 "Deut. xviii. 1 scq. the whole tribe of Levi has a claim on the altar 
 gifts, the first fruits, and other priestly offerings." This belongs to 
 the priests, as explicitly appears from vers. 3-5 ; the Levites have a 
 share in the Lord's inheritance (ver. 1). What this embraces is not 
 defined here, but is assumed as known from the Levitical Law. When 
 the Lord promises to be their inheritance, He surely does not design 
 that the only subsistence of the entire tribe, except those who were on 
 duty at the Sanctuary, should be such occasional invitations as they 
 might receive to religious festivals (Deut. xvi. 14, xxvi. n, 12). This 
 necessarily implies the Levitical tithe, of which the Professor says 
 " Deuteronomv knows nothing ; " and " the patrimony " referred to in 
 ver. 8 implies the Levitical cities, notwithstanding the fact that at the 
 date to which he has seen fit to assign Deuteronomy they " lay outside 
 the kingdom of Judah." The list given of these cities in Josh, xxi., 
 the Professor tells us, is " really part of the Levitical Law," which on 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 8$ 
 
 same familiar use of language as, in Gen. xlix. 10, 
 the sceptre is ascribed to Judah because wielded by 
 the royal line of David ; or as we might speak of the 
 house of Hanover as reigning in England because a 
 member of that family is seated on the throne ; or of the 
 American troops at the siege of Yorktown, without 
 naming the particular colonies which were represented 
 there. 
 
 " The increased provision for the priesthood," 
 which, we are told (p. 440) is " one of the chief 
 innovations of the Ritual Law," is a sheer creation of 
 the critics. If by one section of a law a given offi- 
 cer is allowed certain fees for specific services, and 
 another section assigns him a regular salary, critics 
 of the modern school would infer that these sections 
 are separate laws which were in operation at differ- 
 
 his theory is post-exilic; only he does not explain the puzzle that 
 thirty-five cities are assigned to the Levites, and but thirteen to the 
 priests, though, as he informs us in another place (p. 383), " on the re- 
 turn from captivity very few Levites in comparison with the full priests 
 cared to attach themselves to the Temple (Neh. vii. 39, seq^P That 
 Gezer, though assigned to the Levites, was not conquered till the time 
 of Solomon (p. 441), only shows what appears equally from other 
 cases, that the entire land was divided among the tribes before all of 
 it had been wrested from the Canaanites. That citizens of other tribes 
 were joint occupants of some of these cities with the Levites, merely 
 proves that the latter were not numerous enough to fill all the places 
 allotted to them. That Abiathar could own a field in Anathoth, and 
 Jeremiah buy one, is no infraction of law (p. 428), whether a plot of 
 ground in the city is meant (Lev. xxv. 33), or a field in the suburbs, 
 which could not indeed be sold so as to be even temporarily alienated 
 from the tribe (ver. 34), but may, for all that we know, have been to 
 a greater or less extent parcelled amongst individual owners, as was 
 the case in the priestly city of Beth-shemesh, 1. Sam. vi. 14, 18 ; Josh. 
 xxi. 16. 
 
84 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 ent periods, and that the latter belongs to a time 
 when these officials were more generously dealt with 
 than they had been previously. The proper legal 
 provision for the priests and Levites is fully stated in 
 the Levitical Law. Deuteronomy does not deal 
 with this subject in any professed or formal way; it 
 only incidentally makes mention of certain perqui- 
 sites which they should receive, or attentions which 
 should be shown them. 1 And he who can find a 
 
 1 It is not surprising if we find it difficult to adjust some of the par- 
 ticulars in a system of legislation belonging to so remote a period, and 
 to a state of things so different from our own. Jurists are sometimes 
 in doubt as to the precise meaning of legislators in modern times ; but 
 in such cases they never admit a discrepancy if there is any rational 
 way of avoiding it. If critics would adopt the same rule, which is a 
 simple dictate of common sense, they would find fewer perplexities. 
 In Num. xviii. 18 the flesh of the firstlings is the priests' ; in Deut. xv. 
 19, 20 the offerer is to eat it before the Lord with his household, "the 
 priest of course receiving," as the Professor correctly suggests, " the 
 usual share of each victim." In this class of victims the priest re- 
 ceived the whole ; but why might he not return to the offerer all that 
 was needed for his sacrificial meal ? The direction to the offerer to 
 hold such a festival is an injunction to the priests to supply him with 
 what was requisite for the purpose. There is a difference, however, 
 which, in the Professor's judgment, " cannot be explained away, for 
 according to Deut. xiv. 24 the firstlings might be turned into money, 
 and materials of a feast bought with them; but in Num. xviii. 17, it 
 is forbidden to redeem any firstlings fit for sacrifice." But the thing 
 prohibited and the thing allowed are quite distinct. The owner would 
 " redeem " his firstling if he paid an estimated sum and retained the 
 animal himself ; this might be a temptation to cupidity, to cheapen the 
 estimate, and thus pay an inadequate sum. But where the distance from 
 the Sanctuary was so great as to make literal transportation of the ani- 
 mal thither impossible or onerous, its alienation by an honest sale freed 
 the owner from any selfish temptation, and the consecration of its equiva- 
 lent in money fulfilled the spirit of the statute. The alleged discrep- 
 ancy in tithes is removed by observing that the tithe spoken of in 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 85 
 
 discrepancy in this, must have a very keen critical 
 sense. 
 
 But it is alleged that there are no traces of the Pen- 
 tateuchal Law in the historical and other books of the 
 Old Testament until ages after the death of Moses ; 
 and that both the facts of the history and the state- 
 ments of the sacred writers are inconsistent with the 
 existence of Deuteronomy before Josiah, or the Levit- 
 ical Law before Ezra. Of course if this is so, the 
 Mosaic authorship of the Law must be abandoned ; 
 but, on the other hand, if that Law is distinctly trace- 
 able through all the post-Mosaic history and writings, 
 its genuineness is completely vindicated. 
 
 How, then, stands the evidence? The Professor 
 begins his investigation by summarily ruling out two 
 
 Deuteronomy is quite distinct from that in Leviticus and Numbers. It 
 was additional to it, and was appropriated to a different purpose. The 
 Jews paid both tithes, as there is abundant evidence ; a burden to 
 which they would not have submitted, if this had not been believed 
 to be the meaning of the law, whether it was enacted after the Exile 
 or was ordained by Moses. " The priest's share of a sacrifice in 
 Deuteronomy consists of inferior parts." But this, so far from con- 
 flicting with the more ample provision made for them in the Levitical 
 Law, necessarily implies the existence of that provision. The dis- 
 tinguished position assigned to priests in Deuteronomy, as the Lord's 
 ministers and the highest judicial authority in the land, forbids the 
 idea that a miserable pittance was doled out for their support. The 
 perquisite in Deut. xviii. 3 is a special allowance from every animal 
 slain for sacred purposes ; the phrase rendered " offer a sacrifice " has 
 a broader meaning than the regular sacrifices properly so called, and 
 has even been supposed by some to embrace all animals slain for food. 
 It is probably intended to indemnify the priests for the change made 
 (Deut. xii. 15) in the Law of Sacrifice, as a substitute for what they re- 
 ceived as their due when no animal was allowed to be slain even for 
 domestic purposes elsewhere than at the Sanctuary. 
 
86 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 important witnesses, (p. 21 8) : " I exclude the Book 
 of Joshua, because it, in all its parts, hangs closely 
 together with the Pentateuch." It is our only source 
 of information respecting the period immediately 
 succeeding the life of Moses ; but, as it carries 
 the " legal fiction " through another generation, it is 
 untrustworthy and must be abandoned. "And, on 
 the other hand, I exclude for the present the narra- 
 tive of Chronicles, which was written long after the 
 reformation of Ezra, and has not the character of a 
 primary source for the earlier history." It claims to 
 be based on early contemporary records, which Prof. 
 Robertson Smith admits to be the case with " the 
 historical books from Judges to Kings." " It names its 
 sources, which were still accessible to its readers, 
 and appeals to them in verification of its statements; 
 so that its acceptance under these circumstances as 
 a reliable history, and especially its admission to the 
 canon, assure us that there has been no tampering 
 with the facts. Chronicles, written after the Exile, 
 when the people were zealously engaged in restoring 
 the institutions of their fathers, concerns itself largely 
 with the history of worship. Samuel and Kings, 
 though covering the same period of the history, 
 were written with a different aim, and omit much 
 upon this subject which Chronicles records. Does 
 the silence of the former outweigh the positive decla- 
 rations of the latter, and justify their being set aside 
 as pure invention or as Levitical sermonizing 1 (p. 
 420) ? 
 
 1 We cannot here turn aside to answer the specific objections made 
 to the truth and reliability of Chronicles further than to say that they 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. &J 
 
 However, let Joshua and Chronicles be excluded ; 
 what is the testimony of the remaining books ? And 
 first let us inquire respecting the period immediately 
 succeeding Joshua — that of the Judges. In Judg. 
 xix. 1 8 the Levite says, " I am going," not to one 
 of the houses of the Lord, but " to the House of the 
 Lord," as if he knew of but one ; and this was near 
 his residence " in the recesses of Mount Ephraim." 
 From xviii. 31 we learn more definitely that "the 
 House of God was in Shiloh," where " the Tabernacle 
 of the Congregation " had been set up in the time of 
 Joshua (Josh, xviii. 1, xix. 51), and where it had ac- 
 cordingly continued since. It is not here stated with 
 exactness how much longer it remained there, — other 
 passages give information upon this point, — but that 
 it was a considerable period, appears from its meas- 
 uring the duration of the worship of Micah's graven 
 image in Dan. " The Feast of the LORD " 1 was also 
 
 all rest on the unproved assumption that the only sources accessible to 
 the writer were the books of Samuel and Kings ; so that everything 
 additional to or varying from their statements falls under the suspi- 
 cion of being inference, conjecture, or pure invention. 
 
 1 Interpreters have not been agreed whether this was the Passover 
 or the Feast of Tabernacles. Prof. W. R. Smith says of it (p. 257) : 
 " This appears to have been a vintage feast, like the Pentateuchal 
 Feast of Tabernacles, for it was accompanied by dancers in the vine- 
 yards (Judg. xxi. 21) ; and, according to the correct rendering of I. Sam. 
 i. 20, 21, it took place when the new year came in, that is, at the close 
 of the agricultural year, which ended with the ingathering of the vint- 
 age (Ex. xxxiv. 22)." If the considerations which he adduces have any 
 force, it was so very " like the Pentateuchal feast " as to be identical 
 with it. The characteristic expression borrowed from Ex. xxxiv. 22 
 implies acquaintance with that law of the three Mosaic festivals, and 
 makes it strange that the Professor should say, in the very same para- 
 
88 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 annually observed in Shiloh *(xxi. 19). The people 
 came to the Ark to inquire of the LORD (Judg. xx. 27 ; 
 compare Ex. xxv. 22). This most sacred article of 
 the Mosaic Tabernacle (Ex. xxv. 10 ff.) is called 
 by its ancient name " the Ark of the Covenant " 
 (Num. x. 33, xiv. 44), implying that it contained the 
 Tables of the Covenant' (Ex. xxxiv. 28), as Moses 
 had directed (Ex. xxv. 21 ; Deut. x. 1-5). It had 
 been taken to Bethel (wrongly translated " the House 
 of God," Judg. xx. 18, 26, 31, xxi. 2), temporarily 
 as appears from xx. 27, that it might be near the 
 scene of conflict at Gibeah (ver. 31), as was done in 
 later times in the battle with the Philistines (1. Sam. 
 
 graph, that Shiloh was visited " not three times a year according to the 
 Pentateuchal Law, but at arr annual feast." Especially as on a subse- 
 quent page (341) he affirms in evidence of the existence and opera- 
 tion of the first legislation at this very time : " The annual feasts — at 
 least that of the autumn, which seems to have been best observed — 
 are often alluded to. . . . The proof that this law was known and 
 acknowledged in all its leading provisions is as complete as the proof 
 that the Levitical Law was still unheard of." We think it is a great 
 deal more complete. But let that pass. The first legislation enjoins 
 the three annual feasts (Ex. xxiii. 14 ff.) as explicitly and emphatically 
 as the law of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Either the three festivals 
 were observed at this time, and then his suggestion of a departure from 
 Pentateuchal Law is gratuitous, or the neglect of some of the festi- 
 vals on his own admission does not disprove the existence of the law 
 requiring them. The Professor may choose either alternative. When 
 he says - of the feast at Shiloh, " It had not a strictly national charac- 
 ter, for in Judg. xxi. 19 it appears to be only locally known, and to 
 have the character of a village festival," all the seeming plausibility 
 of his remark arises from an inaccuracy in the Authorized Version. 
 " There is a feast of the Lord " should be " The feast of the Lord is," 
 etc. The idolatrous parallel in Shechem (Judg. ix. 27) is nothing to 
 the purpose. 
 
ON THE PENl^ATEUCH. 89 
 
 iv. 3), in the hope that the words of Moses (Num. x. 
 35) might be verified in their experience. The Ark 
 was in priestly custody, as the law required ; and the 
 priest who " stood before " it (Deut. x. 8) was Phine- 
 has, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron. Sacrifices 
 were freely offered in the presence of the Ark, though 
 Bethel was only a provisional place of worship pro 
 hac vice ; hence it was necessary to build an altar for 
 the purpose (Judg. xxi. 4), and as soon as the war 
 was ended the camp was removed to Shiloh (ver. 
 12). 1 
 
 The events recorded Judg. xvii.-xxi. belong, as is 
 universally allowed, to the early part of the period 
 
 1 The failure to exterminate the Canaanites, with its natural result 
 of alliances with them and the worship of their gods, to which all the 
 troubles of the period are traced in the Book of Judges, was an offence 
 against both the first legislation and the Law of Deuteronomy, to both 
 of which there are many verbal allusions. The historical references are 
 also frequent (see particularly Judg. xi. 13 ff.). Technical expressions 
 also occur, borrowed from the language of the Law. The term for the 
 "congregation" gathered for the sacred war against Gibeah (Judg. 
 xx. 1, xxi. io, 13) is the one which Prof. W. R. Smith tells us (p. 318) is 
 " characteristic of the Levitical Law." Another, equally characteristic, 
 is rendered " lewdness." (Judg. xx. 6 ; see Lev. xviii. 17, xix. 29, where 
 it is translated "wickedness.") The phrase "put away evil from 
 Israel " (Judg. xx. 13) is frequent in Deuteronomy and peculiar to it 
 (Deut. xiii. 5, xvii. 12, etc., etc.), and the punishment of Gibeah for its 
 gross crime was in obedience to Deut. xiii. 12 ff. "Wrought folly in 
 Israel " (Judg. xx. 6, 10, xix. 23, 24) is from Deut. xxii. 21. Judg. xxi. 
 17 alludes to Deut. xxv. 6, not only in thought, but with a verbal cor- 
 respondence that does not appear in the English Bible; so Judg. x. 
 14 to Deut. xxxii. 37, 38. The law of the Nazirite (Num. vi. 1-5) was 
 in force (Judg. xiii. 4, 5, 14, xvi. 17; 1. Sam. i. 11) ; the vow of irreme- 
 diable destruction (Judg. i. 17, xxi. 11 ; compare Deut. xx. 17; Lev. 
 xxvii. 29) ; the irrevocable character of a vow (Judg. xi. 35, 36 ; com- 
 pare Deut. xxiii. 21-23.) 
 
90 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 of the Judges. And then, as we have seen, there was 
 but one House of God and there was an Aaronic 
 priesthood. The opening chapters of Samuel will 
 tell us how it was at the close of that period. " The 
 House of the Lord " (i. Sam. i. 7, 24) was still in 
 Shiloh. 1 In it was the lamp of God (iii. 3), which 
 burned nightly (Ex. xxvii. 20; xxx. 8), and the Ark 
 with its cherubim (1 Sam. iv. 4). Thither Elkanah 
 
 1 But says Prof. W. R. Smith (p. 258) : " We find glaring depar- 
 tures from the very principles of the Pentateuchal Sanctuary. The Ark 
 stood, not in- the Tabernacle, but in a temple with door-posts and 
 folding-doors, which were thrown open during the day (1. Sam. i. 9, 
 iii. 15). Access to the temple was not guarded on rules of Levitical 
 sanctity." And this in the face of ii. 22, where the-Shiloh Sanctuary 
 is called "the Tabernacle of the Congregation," identifying it with the 
 old Mosaic Tent of Meeting (Ex. xxix. 4), and of 11. Sam. vii. 6, where 
 God says to David, " I have not dwelt in any house sinCe the time that 
 I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but 
 have walked in a Tent and. in a tabernacle." The Mosaic Tent had been 
 the sole Sanctuary throughout this entire period, until the Ark was 
 removed to Zion. During its long abode at Shiloh, more solid struc- 
 tures would naturally be erected in and about the court for the accom- 
 modation of the resident priests, the reception of offerings, and other 
 purposes of convenience, like the chambers subsequently in the Tem- 
 ple (1. Kings vi. 5 ; Jer. xxxv. 2, 4). The doors and door-posts were no 
 doubt those of the court or the entire sacred enclosure. To throw 
 open the innermost part of the Temple to public view would be an 
 inconceivable profanation, not only to Israelitish, but to Pagan ideas. 
 Because Samuel slept in the Temple where the Ark of God was, — 
 slept, that is, in one of the chambers already adverted to, — the Pro- 
 fessor seems to think that he made a bedroom of the Holy of Holies. 
 If he were told of some servant who blacked boots in the mansion 
 where President Garfield lay sick, we suppose he would straightway 
 infer that this menial occupation was carried on by the President's 
 bedside. And upon the basis of such perversions as this he concludes, 
 " These things strike at the root of the Levitical system of access to 
 God." 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 9 1 
 
 went up yearly to worship and sacrifice (i. 3). 
 Shiloh was visited with this view, not, as the Pro- 
 fessor tells us (p. 257), " by pilgrims from the sur- 
 rounding country of Ephraim," but by all Israel (ii. 
 14, 22, 29). This was the one prescribed place of 
 sacrifice (ii. 29 ). 1 Here there was an Aaronic priest- 
 hood, — Eli and his sons (i. 3) being descended from 
 Ithamar, the son of Aaron (i. Chron. xxiv. 3 ; I. Sam. 
 xxii. 20; I. Kin. ii. 27). And this was the only law- 
 ful priesthood; for God says (i. Sam. ii. 27, 28) of 
 his father Aaron, to whom He had appeared in 
 Egypt, in Pharaoh's house : " I chose him out of all 
 the tribes of Israel to be My priest, to offer upon 
 Mine altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before 
 Me ; and I gave unto the house of thy father all the 
 offerings made by fire of the children of Israel." 
 And no other priesthood than that of Aaron is recog- 
 nized at any subsequent time under the Old Testa- 
 ment ; not a priest is named who was not descended 
 from Aaron ; and no other can be shown to have 
 performed any priestly function at the Sanctuary. 
 The position of the Levites in the time of the Judges is 
 also that which is assigned to them by the Law. They 
 are spoken of as sojourners (Judg. xvii. 7-9, xix. 1), 
 because they had no inheritance like other tribes 
 (ch. i.). They took down the Ark of the Lord, 2 when 
 
 1 This passage flatly contradicts the extraordinary comment which 
 the Professor makes (p. 2S8) upon Jer. vii. 22, "It is impossible to give 
 a flatter contradiction to the traditional theory that the Levitical sys- 
 tem was enacted in the Wilderness." He might as well quote Luke 
 xiv. 26 in proof that the Gospel prohibits filial affection. 
 
 2 Prof. W. R. Smith (p. 427 J finds an " irregularity " in the fact 
 
92 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 sent back by the Philistines (i. Sam. vi. 15), while 
 the men who looked at the Ark were smitten by a 
 great slaughter (ver. 19), and Uzzah was smitten for 
 presuming to take hold of it (II. Sam. vi, 7 ; com- 
 pare Num. iv. 15, 20). Beth-shemesh being a priestly 
 city (Josh. xxi. 16) must have contained those who 
 could rightfully offer sacrifices on the arrival of 
 the Ark. Samuel, who was a Levite 2 (I. Chron. vi. 
 28) — notwithstanding the fact that his father is called 
 an Ephrathite (1. Sam. i. 1) in consequence of his 
 residing within the bounds of Ephraim (compare 
 Judg. xvii. 7) — performed subordinate ministries 
 
 that " according to the Levitical Law it is the function of the Le- 
 vites to carry the Ark ; in the history the Ark is borne by the priests 
 (Josh. iii. 3, vi. 6, viii. 33; I. Kings viii. 3)." But this is no "irregular- 
 ity " whatever. The priests, being themselves Levites, and of the 
 family of Kohath (Num. xxvii. 58, 59), had of course a legal right to 
 do whatever was performed by the latter (Num. iv. 15). Hence, on 
 occasions of special solemnity, priests were bearers of the Ark ; while 
 on all ordinary occasions the Levites were competent. Accordingly 
 11. Sam. xv. 24, 29 where " the Levites aid the chief priests in carrying 
 the Ark " does not need for its explanation the unfounded suggestion 
 " that before Ezekiel priests and Levites are not two separate classes." 
 Conveying the Ark in a cart (11. Sam. vi. 3) was in violation of the Law, 
 and led to a disastrous issue (vers. 6, 7 ) ; this was recognized and cor- 
 rected (ver. 13). 
 
 1 Samuel did not become a priest, as Prof. W. R. Smith affirms 
 (p. 259). The ephod which he wore is not that "which the Law con- 
 fines to the high-priest," for it was a " linen ephod " (1. Sam. ii. 18), 
 while that of the high-priest (Ex. xxviii. 6) was of more costly mate- 
 rials. Nor is it true that he wore " the high-priestly mantle." One 
 article of the high-priest's dress was a mantle (Authorized Version, 
 robe) made as is described (Ex. xxviii. 31, ff.). But others besides 
 priests wore mantles ; so that when Samuel's mother made him a lit- 
 tle one (Authorized Version, coat) year by year, she did not invade the 
 high-priest's prerogative. Thus "the startling irregularities " after all 
 amount to nothing. 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 93 
 
 at the Tabernacle (1. Sam. ii. 11; compare Num. viii. 
 22). 
 
 The alleged departures from the ritual law at 
 Shiloh were not really such. Eli's sons " made ir- 
 regular exactions, and, in particular, would not burn 
 the fat of the sacrifice till they had secured a portion 
 of uncooked meat (1. Sam. ii. 12 seq.). Under the 
 Levitical ordinance this claim was perfectly regular 
 . . . (Lev. vii. 30 seq., x. 15) ; but at Shiloh the 
 claim was viewed as illegal and highly wicked " (p. 
 258). The sin of Eli's sons, and that which so dis- 
 gusted the worshippers, was that they forcibly in- 
 sisted on having their share before the LORD had His; 
 and further, they claimed over and above what the 
 Law allowed. Their legal portion was a matter of 
 course, and is not particularly spoken of; but when 
 the servant, with his flesh-hook, seized upon what- 
 ever he could get without leave or license, this was 
 both offensive and unauthorized. And when the 
 priestly perquisite was demanded before the fat was 
 given to God upon the altar, and violence was threat- 
 ened if this was not conceded, the worship of Jeho- 
 vah was plainly subordinated to priestly gain. The 
 abominable character of the proceeding cannot be 
 glossed over by any reference to the Levitical requi- 
 sitions. 1 Resistance to such impiety and selfish greed 
 
 1 The ritual of the peace-offering, as given (Lev. iii. 1 ff), required 
 the presentation of the victim, laying on of hands, slaying the animal, 
 removing the fat and burning it upon the altar as a sweet savor unto 
 the Lord. A supplemental law (vii. 28 ff.) specifies the portion to be 
 given to the priests and the religious ceremonies to be observed 
 in connection with it ; but it affords no justification for the atrocious 
 
94 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 is not fitly spoken of as " attaching importance to 
 details." 
 
 But what is to be thought of the sacrifices offered 
 elsewhere than at the Sanctuary in the period of the 
 Judges, and by others than priests the sons of Aaron? 
 Two facts are obvious upon the surface which regu- 
 late this whole matter. The first is, that there is no 
 mention in the entire Book of Judges, from beginning 
 to end, of any legitimate sanctuary but that at Shiloh, 
 or any lawful priest not descended from Aaron. In 
 every instance of reputed irregularity, it appears by 
 the record that there was no stated or continuous 
 departure from Levitical rules, but only a ^deviation 
 strictly limited to the occasion which called it forth. 
 A second fact, equally apparent, is that these devia- 
 tions are invariably linked with immediate divine 
 manifestations. In the lamentable condition to which 
 the people were reduced, Jehovah, or the Angel of 
 Jehovah, appeared from time to time on their behalf. 
 In every such instance sacrifices were offered on the 
 spot by those to whom the Lord thus appeared ; and 
 in the absence of such a theophany, sacrifices were 
 never offered except at Shiloh, or in the presence 
 of the Ark, and by priests of the house of Aaron. 
 Wherever God appears the place becomes, for that 
 moment, holy ground (Ex. iii. 5 ; Josh. v. 15 ; II. Sam. 
 xxiv. 16, 18). It possesses, for the time, the sanctity 
 of the Tabernacle. And the law that restricts sacri- 
 
 claim that the priestly portion should have precedence over that which 
 was destined to the altar, or that these should ever be ranked on 
 a par. 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 95 
 
 ficial worship, in ordinary times, to the place where 
 God statedly manifests Himself, cannot forbid due 
 worship being paid to Him in any other place which 
 He may make the scene of an extraordinary revela- 
 tion. To this extent only Ex. xx. 24 authorizes 
 altars elsewhere than at the Sanctuary. Similarly, 
 the divinely appointed priests alone were authorized 
 ordinarily to draw near to God and officiate at His 
 altar. Other men could approach Him acceptably 
 only through their intervention. But if God Him- 
 self sees fit, in any case, to dispense with sacerdotal 
 mediation, the man to whom He comes near, by an 
 immediate gracious manifestation, is thereby war- 
 ranted to present his homage directly to Him in 
 whose presence he stands. 
 
 Thus (Judg. ii. 1-5 ) the angel of the Lord appeared 
 to the people at Bochim, and they sacrificed there 
 unto the LORD ; so to Gideon, with a like result (vi. 
 20-22) ; a second appearance to Gideon, with ex- 
 plicit directions, which he obeys (vers. 25 ff.) ; a 
 supernatural manifestation to Manoah, and a sacrifice 
 (xiii. 16 ff.). And these are positively all the in- 
 stances of irregular sacrifice in the Book of Judges 
 which are not distinctly stigmatized as idolatrous. 
 No one of these places was subsequently a place of 
 sacrifice ; and Gideon and Manoah are nowhere said 
 to have sacrificed again. The altar of Gideon, said 
 to be still remaining in Ophrah (Judg. vi. 24), was 
 in all likelihood a monumental altar, as Ex. xvii, 15 ; 
 Josh. xxii. 26 ff. It does not appear that Gideon 
 ever offered upon it. When directed to make a sac- 
 
g6 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 rifice, immediately after (ver. 25), he built another 
 altar. Much less does it appear that it was used for 
 sacrifice after his time. If a writer were to tell us 
 that the fort of Ticonderoga is there to this day, we 
 need not infer that the ancient hostilities are still con- 
 tinued. Judg. xi. 11, " Jephthah uttered all his words 
 before the LORD in Mizpeh," east of the Jordan, and 
 (xx. 1) " the congregation was gathered together 
 unto the LORD in Mizpeh," west of Jordan; these 
 statements do not imply that either Mizpeh was a 
 sanctuary. There is no allusion to sacrifices in either 
 instance. " Before the LORD " simply implies a sol- 
 emn recognition of God's presence (Gen. xxvii. 7; 
 Ex. vi. 12, 30; I. Sam. xxvi. 19; Ps. cxvi. 9). That 
 they who bring a sacrifice are said to " offer " it 
 (Judg. xxi. 4; I. Sam. ii. 13), does not imply that 
 every one could perform priestly functions ; for like 
 expressions are used in the Levitical Law itself (Lev. 
 xix. 5). We do not suppose that the Professor will 
 dispute the reality of the divine appearances recorded 
 in Judges, but if he did this would not disturb our 
 argument. For the theophanies and the sacrifices 
 are firmly linked together ; and if there is no evidence 
 that the former took place, there is none that the 
 latter were offered. 
 
 But the Professor tells us (p. 256) that 
 
 — " all God's acts of grace mentioned in the Book of Judges, 
 all His calls to repentance, and all the ways in which He 
 appears from time to time to support His people .... are 
 connected with this same local worship. The call to repent- 
 ance is never a call to put aside the local sanctuaries, and 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 97 
 
 worship only before the Ark at Shiloh If the Penta- 
 
 teuchal programme of worship, and the rules which it lays 
 down for the administration of the dispensation of grace, 
 existed in these days, they were at least absolutely suspended. 
 It was not according to the Law that Jehovah administered 
 His grace to Israel during the period of the Judges." 
 
 There were no " local sanctuaries," as we have seen, 
 except the idolatrous shrines ; and every call to for- 
 sake Baal and Ashtoreth and return to Jehovah, was 
 a summons to abandon them, and worship in Shiloh ; 
 and their cries unto the LORD (Judg. iii. 9, iv. 3, etc.) 
 doubtless found expression at the altar and the Sanct- 
 uary. The infrequent mention of the Sanctuary in 
 Shiloh in the course of this period can throw no 
 doubt upon its continuity ; for we find it at the end of 
 the period just where and as it was at the beginning, 
 and as it had been from the days of Joshua. The 
 regular operation of established institutions is taken 
 for granted by historians, and seems to demand 
 no special record. And the writer of Judges pro- 
 fessedly devotes himself to reciting the instances of 
 apostasy, punishment, and deliverance (ii. 11-19), 
 while the intervals of rest and pious obedience are 
 passed over with a simple mention of their existence 
 (iii. 1 1, 30, viii. 28, etc.). Butif Shiloh was the religious 
 centre of the true worshippers of Jehovah, why was 
 it not the fountain-head of religious power, the spring 
 of every religious movement? Why did not the 
 trumpet-call to repentance issue from its priests, and 
 each recurring revival spread from Shiloh outward? 
 Why this seeming paralysis of the regularly insti- 
 
 7 
 
98 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 tuted ordinances and means of grace, and of the duly- 
 authorized ministers of religion? The Church may 
 well ask, and hang her head in shame. With all the 
 deduction for the unrecorded influence that emanated 
 from the Sanctuary, and this was doubtless great at 
 this as at every epoch, it must be still confessed that 
 things are not altogether as on theory might have 
 been expected. Nor were they when the Redeemer 
 came to His own and His own received Him not. 
 Nor were they at the Reformation of Luther. 
 
 But how does this discredit the existence of a cen- 
 tral sanctuary and an Aaronic priesthood? The body 
 is nourished and strengthened by its ordinary food, 
 and nothing more might seem requisite when it is in 
 a healthy condition ; and yet remedies may become 
 necessary which are quite aside from the regularly 
 prescribed diet. The people had no other medium 
 of acceptable approach to God, of expressing their 
 homage or obtaining His saving help, than by the 
 established ordinances of worship. But God was not 
 limited to these in His dealings with His people. His 
 grace is broader than the channels through which it 
 ordinarily flows. Special divine influences were not 
 restricted to the Sanctuary even in the days of Moses 
 (Num. xi. 26-29). The Romish error of an external 
 Church as the sole dispenser of grace finds no sanc- 
 tion under the Old Testament more than under the 
 New. 
 
 And no exposition of the Levitical institutions, 
 which places regularity of ritual observance upon a 
 par with the spirit it was designed to express, can 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 99 
 
 make them tally with the history of Israel, the devout 
 breathings of the Psalmists, or the teachings of the 
 Prophets. The ritualism of the Law may be em- 
 phasized to such a degree as to bring Leviticus into 
 disharmony with the abundant inculcations of spiritual 
 obedience in Deuteronomy; to make it antagonistic 
 to the declarations of Isai. i. 11 ff., Amos v. 21 ff, 
 and Micah vi. 8 (p. 287) ; and to represent it as the 
 grand essential of a religious reformation under the 
 Law " to re-establish the stated burnt-offering, and 
 the due atoning ritual before the Ark in the hands of 
 the legitimate priesthood, and on the pattern of the 
 service in the Wilderness " (p. 263). And then the 
 fact may be established that no such system is trace- 
 able in Israel before the rise of post-exilic Pharisaism. 
 But the question will recur, Is it Leviticus that is at 
 fault, or the wrong interpretation which has been 
 foisted upon it? Is Leviticus post-exilic, or has Pro- 
 fessor Robertson Smith simply misconceived the spirit 
 of the Law and the method of its administration? He 
 tells us (p. 213), "The Israelite had no right to draw 
 a distinction between the spirit and the letter of the 
 Law." He was obliged to do this on numberless 
 occasions. David and his men, in danger of perish- 
 ing with hunger, ate the shew-bread. The priests in 
 the Temple profaned the Sabbath and were blameless. 
 The rites of burial were defiling. Ezekiel threatens 
 Israel that they shall be compelled to eat defiled 
 bread among the Gentiles. Aaron, in his grief, 
 burned the sin-offering instead of eating it in the Holy 
 Place, and was justified in so doing (Lev. x. 19, 20). 
 
IOO PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 Hezekiah prayed (il. Chron. xxx. 19) that the good 
 LORD would pardon every one that prepareth his 
 heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, 
 though he be not cleansed according to the purification 
 of the Sanctuary. The Law, whose fundamental tenets 
 are (Lev. xix. 2) " Ye shall be holy, for I the LORD 
 your God am holy," and (ver. 18), " Thou shalt love 
 thy neighbor as thyself," not only makes the spiritual 
 meaning the essential thing in every rite, but puts 
 that spiritual meaning above any external rite what- 
 ever. Samuel is a true interpreter of it when he says 
 (1. Sam. xv. 22) : " Hath the Lord as great delight in 
 burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice 
 of the Lord ? Behold, to obey is better than sacri- 
 fice, and to hearken, than the fat of rams." 
 
 When Israel sinned with the Golden Calf and broke 
 their covenant with God which had just been ratified, 
 the offence was not atoned nor the breach repaired 
 by any ritual. On the contrary, the ^Tabernacle 
 was removed outside of the camp (Ex. xxxiii. 7). 
 There was no demand of sacrifice or lustration, but 
 only of repentance and humiliation (vers. 4 ff.) The 
 people were sorely punished (xxxii. 27, 35), but at 
 Moses' earnest intercession they were forgiven (vers. 
 30 ff.) When they sinned at Kadesh by refusing 
 to go into the Promised Land, not a word was said 
 of sacrificial expiation or of greater zeal in the cere- 
 monial. The Tabernacle and the altar and the ritual 
 drop out of sight as completely as if they did not exist. 
 It was upon Moses' fervent intercession (Num. xiv. 1 1 
 ff.) that the people were spared from instant destruc- 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. IOI 
 
 tion, though still condemned to perish in the Wilderness; 
 and, as appears from Josh. v. 5 ff., the rite of circum- 
 cision was suspended, the breakers of the covenant 
 being deprived of its seal. According to Lev. xxvi. 
 and Deut. xxviii. the transgression of the people will 
 be visited by ever increasing judgments, culminating 
 in exile from the Lord's land ; and the return of 
 God's favor is suspended (Lev. xxvi. 40 ff. ; Deut. 
 iv. 29), not upon a punctilious observance of 
 rites and ceremonies, but upon confession of their 
 iniquity and the humbling of their uncircumcised 
 hearts. 
 
 The principles thus outlined in the Law itself govern 
 the Book of Judges. It records the inflictions by 
 which the LORD from time to time recalled the of- 
 fending people to a sense of their duty and their need 
 of divine help. These were enforced by communica- 
 tions from " the Angel of the LORD " (Judg. ii. 1 ff. 
 etc.), as promised (Ex. xxiii. 20 ff.), and by Prophets. 
 (Judg. iv. 4, vi. 8., etc. See Deut. xviii. 15 ff.) It 
 was not to be expected that the leaders raised up to 
 judge and to deliver the people would be from the 
 sacerdotal tribe. Moses' own successor was from the 
 tribe of Ephraim. That Gideon and Samson were 
 called to their extraordinary mission not by a sum- 
 mons from the Sanctuary, but by an immediate divine 
 manifestation at their homes, is in accordance with 
 the analogy of the call of Moses. And yet neither 
 these judgments nor these leaders effected a genuine 
 and thorough reformation. The people were gradu- 
 ally sinking from the days of Joshua and the elders 
 
102 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 that overlived him (Judg. ii. 7) to the time of Jephthah 
 and Samson ; and the priesthood, it must be added, 
 fell from the level of Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, 
 to that of his namesake, the son of Eli. The first 
 effective measures for a true religious reform had 
 their source in Shiloh ; they were the work of Samuel, 
 who was trained at the Sanctuary. 
 
 But the Professor tells us (p. 263): "Samuel did 
 not know of a systematic and exclusive system of 
 sacrificial ritual confined to the Sanctuary of the Ark" 
 (p. 261) ; " He continued to sacrifice at a variety of 
 shrines ; and his yearly circuit to Bethel, Gilgal, and 
 Mizpeh, returning to Ramah, involved the recognition 
 of all these altars." The LORD declares through 
 Jeremiah (vii. 12, 14, xxvi. 6), that He has aban- 
 doned Shiloh, " where He set His name at the first," 
 on account of the v/ickedness of His people Israel, 
 and He will do the same to His house in Jerusalem, 
 " which is called by His name." Ps. lxxviii. 60, 68 : 
 "He forsook the Tabernacle of Shiloh," and " chose 
 Mount Zion." The Prophet and the Psalmist know 
 of but two sanctuaries in Israel, successively sanc- 
 tioned by the LORD, — Shiloh- and Zion. As the Tab- 
 ernacle was removed from the midst of the camp in 
 consequence of the idolatry at Sinai (Ex. xxxiii. 7), 
 so, for a like reason, Israel was bereft of the Ark, 
 which was sent into captivity in the land of the Phil- 
 istines (1 Sam. iv. 11). God had no sanctuary in 
 Israel from that day forward. The Ark was restored 
 again by the discomfited Philistines ; but the slaughter 
 of the men in the priestly city of Beth-shemesh showed 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 1 03 
 
 that Israel was not prepared to have Jehovah fix His 
 residence among them ; and it was an embarrassing 
 question how to dispose of the Ark, which only spread 
 terror in Israel as it had done among the uncircum- 
 cised. It was finally placed provisionally in the ob- 
 scurity of a private house, and guarded, so far as 
 appears, by a pious layman (1. Sam. vii. 1). 
 
 Here is a novel and most extraordinary state of 
 affairs. The Ark, which as the symbol and pledge of 
 Jehovah's presence has always hitherto been the con- 
 fidence and the glory of Israel, is now a source of 
 alarm. It was not taken back to Shiloh, nor was it 
 taken to Nob, when the Tabernacle was carried thither 
 (1. Sam. xxi. 1,6). It was not put in any sanctuary. 
 It was simply sheltered in the dwelling of an ordinary 
 Israelite. No priest or Levite ministered before it. 
 No sacrifices were offered where it was. No pilgrim- 
 ages were made to it (1. Chron. xiii. 3). 1 And during 
 its long abode in Kirjath-jearim, " all the house of 
 Israel lamented after the LORD " (1. Sam. vii. 2). 
 The covenant between Jehovah and Israel was sev- 
 ered, and they knew it. The LORD no longer had a 
 dwelling-place in the midst of them. 
 
 ^Now the one purpose of Samuel's life was to bring 
 Israel back to God, and thus restore these ruptured 
 relations. And absolutely the Professor thinks (pp. 
 262, 263) that the thing for him to have done was to 
 
 1 In 1. Sam. xiv. i8, as Prof. W. R. .Smith correctly informs us 
 (p. 94), there seems to be an error in the Hebrew text; and there 
 is much to recommend the reading of the Septuagint, which sub- 
 stitutes " ephod " for " ark." 
 
104 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 have taken the Ark to Nob, — " for the distance be- 
 tween these towns is only a. forenoon's walk," — and 
 to have set up the Levitical service under the conduct 
 of the Aaronic priesthood ! And because he did not 
 do this, the Levitical Law could not have been in ex- 
 istence ! Such reasoning betrays the most astonish- 
 ing misconception of the relation between Jehovah 
 and Israel, and of the ritual institutions by which that 
 relation was expressed and maintained. Outward 
 regularity in the prescribed ceremonial had nothing 
 in it that was acceptable, so long as the hearts of the 
 people were alienated from God. Leaving the peo- 
 ple in their profound but salutary grief at the loss 
 of the Sanctuary, and of God's visible presence among 
 them, he sought " to have them return unto the Lord 
 with all their hearts," " to prepare their hearts unto 
 the LORD and serve Him only " (i. Sam. vii. 3). The 
 worship which he conducted was sacrificial, of course ; 
 that was the symbolic form by which penitence 
 and consecration were expressed. But the sacrifice 
 was without a sanctuary and without a priesthood. 
 Samuel officiated, not because he was a regular 
 priest, for he was not; nor by virtue of his being a 
 Levite, which would have given him no legal right 
 to offer sacrifice ; but in his prophetic character as 
 God's ambassador and representative. But that this 
 function was an extraordinary one appears from the 
 fact that it was limited to Samuel alone (i. Sam. ix. 
 13). There is, from the time that the Ark Avas laid 
 up at Kirjath-jearim till David removed it to Zion, 
 scarcely a recorded instance of sacrifice when Sam- 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 105 
 
 uel i was not present, — except the rash and luckless 
 act of Saul, which brought upon him Samuel's stern 
 reprobation and the loss of his kingdom, in spite of 
 his apology that he was forced to do as he did by the 
 unavoidable pressure of circumstances (1. Sam. xiii. 
 8-14). Samuel is plainly the centre of the religious 
 life of the period. The presence of God, so far as its 
 gracious manifestation to Israel is concerned, is for the 
 time linked with the Prophet, not with the Ark. 
 
 The new religious fervor awakened by the ministry 
 of Samuel found expression as it could. In the ab- 
 sence of any divinely authorized sanctuary we read 
 of men going up to God to Bethel (x. 3), where God 
 had met with Jacob ; of a high place at Gibeah (x. 
 5), visited by a company of prophets and established 
 probably on account of its proximity to their resi- 
 dence ; of a yearly sacrifice of David's family (xx. 
 6) at their home in Bethlehem. These are the only 
 instances of the sort which are mentioned, except the 
 sacrifices conducted by Samuel himself. All the ado 
 made about " local sanctuaries," prior to the reign of 
 David, dwindles down to this ; and in it there is no 
 departure even from the strict letter of the Law (1. 
 Kings, iii. 2)? 
 
 1 In 1. Sam. vii. 9, 17 ; ix. 12, 13; x. 8; xi. 14, 15; xvi. 2-5, Sam- 
 uel is distinctly named as the offerer, or at least sanctioned the sacri- 
 fice by his presence and participation. Saul built an altar (xiv. 35), 
 and he spoke (xv. 15, 21) of the people's proposing to sacrifice the 
 spoils of the Amalekites in Gilgal ; but he cannot have thought of 
 offering in the absence of Samuel after the rebuff which he had 
 already received. 
 
 2 What is said of David's "want of orthodoxy " (p. 264) seems for 
 
106 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 The worship in high places was irregular and ille- 
 gal after the Temple was built ; but the fact that they 
 were tolerated by pious princes, who contented 
 themselves with abolishing the emblems and prac- 
 tices of idolatry found there, only shows that they 
 
 the most part captious. David did not wear " the priestly ephod " 
 (il. Sam. vi. 14) but a linen ephod, which was worn by priests but was 
 no part of their prescribed dress ; and, as shown by this instance and 
 that of Samuel when a child (1. Sam. ii. 18), might be worn by others 
 on sacred occasions. " He offered sacrifices in person " (ver. 13), and 
 so Prof. W. R. Smith tells us (p. 248) : " Solomon officiated at the 
 altar in person (1. Kings, ix. 25) "; and by alike principle of interpreta- 
 tion it might have been added that he built the altar with his own 
 hands. If Solomon really "offered two and twenty thousand oxen 
 and an hundred and twenty thousand sheep " in person at one time, 
 he must have had a weary task (1. Kings, viii. 63). " He blessed the 
 people as a priest in the name of Jehovah " (ver. 18), where " as a 
 priest " is without any warrant in the text. " David's sons were priests 
 (11. Sam. viii. 18) "; but though this is the usual sense of the word, it 
 must have a different meaning here, since the priests properly so called 
 had already been named in the verse preceding. In 1. Chron. xviii. 17 
 it is paraphrased " chief about the king," which is justified by the pri- 
 mary sense of the term, and perhaps by the consideration that this high 
 and confidential office was commonly entrusted to priests. (Compare 
 eunuch, Gen. xxxix. 1, not in its proper sense, but as an official title.) 
 That he weakly allowed Absalom to visit Hebron under pretence of a 
 sacrificial vow, may be justified by I. Kings, iii. 2. His marriage with a 
 princess of Geshur (11. Sam. iii. 3) is riot a violation of the letter of 
 the Law, but offends as much against the spirit of the first legislation 
 (Ex. xxxiv. 15, 16) as against that of Deuteronomy ; and, as this was 
 Absalom's mother, the history records the dreadful penalty he incurred. 
 "Solomon, building new shrines for the gods of his wives" (p. 248), 
 could not plead ignorance of the Law, on the Professor's own theory 
 (Ex. xxii. 20, xxiii. 24). The Professor further proves that the priest re- 
 ceived his consecration not from Jehovah but from the people, by the 
 case of Micah (Judg. xvii. 5, 12), the idolater, who stole his mother's 
 money (ver. 2), and by the case of Eleazar, son of Abinadab (1. Sam. 
 vii. 1), who was not a priest at all (p. 264). 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. \OJ 
 
 did not do their whole duty, — not that the Law" which 
 had ruled ever since the days of Moses did not exist. 
 They may very easily have persuaded themselves 
 that the spirit of the Law was maintained if only the 
 abuses were rectified, that if God was sincerely and 
 piously worshipped in these local sanctuaries there 
 could not be much harm in suffering them to remain. 
 How much of the New Testament must have been 
 written after the Reformation of Luther, if the habit- 
 ual disregard of its teachings is to be accepted as 
 evidence against their existence, and especially if the 
 " popular religion " is made the measure of primitive 
 Christianity ! How plain it is, upon these principles, 
 that the doctrine of Justification by Faith could never 
 have been formulated by the Apostle Paul, if it was 
 not apprehended in its integrity by the early Fathers 
 and the theologians of the Middle Ages ! Hezekiah's 
 admitted reform (n. Kings, xviii. 4) recognized the 
 binding obligation of the Deuteronomic Law a cent- 
 ury before the book was found in the Temple. That 
 book — according to the explicit testimony of the 
 author of Kings — was no recent production of the 
 reign of Josiah. It was " The Book of the Law" (11. 
 Kings, xxii. 8), i. e. y the well known volume so desig- 
 nated (compare Josh. i. 7, 8, viii. 31, xxiv. 26), which 
 was found " in the House of the Lord," — just where 
 it might have been expected to be (Deut. xxxi. 9, 
 26). It is further characterized as "the Law of 
 Moses " (11. Kings, xxiii. 24, 25), and is, as Prof. Rob- 
 ertson Smith acknowledges, the standard of judgment 
 which the writer of the Book of Kings applies to all 
 
108 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 preceding reigns. The people and their rulers do 
 right or do evil in the sight of the LORD as they heed 
 or disregard its injunctions. This Law is expressly 
 referred to (n. Kings, xxi. 7-9), as known and diso- 
 beyed by Manasseh, and, in fact, as enjoined by the 
 Lord upon David and Solomon ; also as obeyed by 
 Hezekiah (xviii. 6) and by Joash (xiv. 6), where the 
 very words of the statute are quoted from Deut. 
 xxiv. 16. "The testimony" given to Joash at his 
 coronation. (11. Kings, xi. 12) was a copy of the 
 written Law as directed by Deut. xvii. 18 (com- 
 pare Ps. xix. 7, lxxviii. 5). It is appealed to by 
 Solomon in - his prayer at the dedication of the 
 Temple (i. Kings, viii. 53, 56), as well as implied 
 throughout in the language of his supplication ; and 
 is commended by David to Solomon for the rule of 
 his life (ii. 3). It is represented as equally binding 
 on the Ten Tribes as upon Judah ; and their trans- 
 gression of the covenant of the LORD and the com- 
 mandments of Moses led to their overthrow (11. Kings, 
 xviii. 12). The idolatrous corruptions of the North- 
 ern Kingdom, which the Professor is at great pains 
 to show (p. 230) were " not a mere innovation due to 
 the schism of Jeroboam," are expressly and in detail 
 imputed to him (1. Kings, xii. 26 ff., xiii. 33, xiv. 8, 9), 
 so that his standing designation is " Jeroboam, the 
 son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin" (11. Kings, x. 29, 
 etc.). And what the Professor persists in calling 
 " traditional worship," — under which head he heaps 
 together all the idolatries and glaring violations of 
 the Mosaic Law that are recorded at various times, — 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. IO9 
 
 the sacred historians with one voice denounce as de- 
 fections from the true worship of their Covenant God, 
 and as due to criminal association with the nations 
 around them. If they are not to be trusted in so 
 fundamental a point as this, they are not to be trusted 
 in anything. It would be better to remand the entire 
 history of Israel to the region of fable, and to confess 
 that we have no positive knowledge about it, than to 
 attempt this revolutionary process of reconstruction, 
 which is professedly based upon authorities that are 
 perpetually discredited. 
 
 But if historians may have incorporated their own 
 ideas with their narrative, and committed the mistake 
 of transferring the institutions of their own day to 
 antecedent periods, contemporaneous writings will be 
 free from this error, and represent truly the state of 
 things in which they were produced. Let us turn, 
 then, to these. The Book of Psalms, as the Professor 
 with all his distrust of their titles confesses, contains 
 some ancient songs. He admits that tradition — in 
 imputing the first portion of the Psalter (Ps. i.-xli.) 
 almost without exception to David — " doubtless ex- 
 presses the fact that these are the oldest Psalms, be- 
 longing to the early age of Hebrew psalmody, from 
 David downward " (p. 202). Now in all these Psalms, 
 as in the entire collection in fact, Zion is God's 
 earthly dwelling-place ; no other is once alluded to. 
 The Professor does not indicate which Psalms in 
 particular are to be accounted David's. Hitzig, that 
 prince of doubters, regards Pss. iii.-xix. as the genuine 
 Davidic kernel, with the exception of Pss. v., vi., xiv. 
 
HO PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 Prof. W. R. Smith excepts to Pss. ix., x. Suppose 
 that we content ourselves with the modest residuum. 
 We still find that Jehovah's abode is in His Holy 
 Hill (hi. 4), His Tabernacle (xv. 1), His Temple or 
 Palace, which applies to the Sacred Tent as the resi- 
 dence of the Great King (xi. 4, xviii. 6) ; and men- 
 tion is made of the winged cherub attached to His 
 Throne (xviii. 10), also of Jehovah's Law (xix. 
 7-10), and His Judgments and Statutes (xviii. 22), 
 with expressions in Pss. xv. and xix. borrowed from 
 legal phrases and ideas, not to speak of the historical 
 allusion in Ps. xi. 6, and the abundant references to 
 the Pentateuch in Ps. xviii., whose composition by 
 David is attested by II. Sam. xxii. 
 
 We do not know what the Professor thinks of 
 Ps. xl. It is in its title ascribed to 'David ; but 
 Smend — to whose commentary he refers us (p. 
 377) for " the detailed proof that in every point 
 Ezekiel's Torah prepares the way for the Levitical 
 Law, but represents a more elementary ritual " — 
 remarks on Ezek. xl. 39, " Sin-offerings and tres^ 
 pass-offerings are here mentioned for the first time 
 outside of the Priest-codex." If Ezekiel is the in- 
 ventor of sin-offerings, Ps. xl. 6 1 must have borrowed 
 them from him or from the Levitical Law, which he 
 pioneered. Such language, when found in Micah vi. 
 8, Jer. vii. 22, is interpreted (p. 288) as affirming that 
 "Jehovah has not enjoined sacrifice," that He has, 
 in fact, given no law upon the subject; the Levitical 
 
 1 " Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire, . . . burnt-offering 
 and sin-offering hast Thou not required." 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. m 
 
 Law was consequently still unknown. But if Ps. xl. 
 6 can speak thus after Ezekiel's Law, or the Levitical 
 Law, had been announced, Micah and Jeremiah could 
 do the same ; and then, for all that appears, the 
 Levitical Law may antedate their utterances. 1 Or if 
 
 1 This conclusion cannot be evaded by imputing to Ps. xl. 6 a sense 
 which the Professor (p. 416) follows Hitzig in attributing to Ps. li. 16, 
 17 : "At present, says the Psalmist, God desires no material sacrifice. 
 . . . But does the Psalmist then mean to say, absolutely and in gen- 
 eral, that sacrifice is a superseded thing ? No ; for he adds that when 
 Jerusalem is rebuilt the sacrifice of Israel (not merely his own sacri- 
 fice) will be pleasing to God. He lives, therefore, in a time when the 
 fall of Jerusalem has temporarily suspended the sacrificial ordinances." 
 Hitzig thinks Ps. xl. to be pre-exilic and ascribes it to Jeremiah. 
 Olshausen, who is for sweeping everything into the Maccabean period, 
 places it during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, when the 
 Temple-worship was interdicted. But these passages in the Psalms, as 
 well as Ps. 1. 8-15, are so clearly akin to Hos. vi. 6, Isai. i. 11 ff. etc., 
 that they must be interpreted on the same principles. If, as is con- 
 fessed, there is no absolute discarding of sacrifice in Ps. li., neither is 
 there in Ps. xl., nor in those passages of the Prophets which are quoted 
 to show that sacrifice, if not actually disapproved, was yet in itself a 
 matter of indifference. And the Psalmists declare, just as plainly as 
 the Prophets, God's permanent attitude toward sacrifice. There is 
 nothing in the language of Ps. li. to suggest the thought which it is 
 proposed to put into it, viz., that sacrifices are not required " at pres- 
 ent " because providentially rendered impossible. And the prayer in 
 the last two verses of the Psalm, " that God will build the walls of 
 Jerusalem," does not refer so manifestly to the period of the " cap- 
 tivity " as the Professor seems to suppose. Nebuchadnezzar could 
 speak (Dan. iv. 30) of "this great Babylon which I have built," with- 
 out its being necessary for us to suppose that it did not exist or was 
 in ruins when his reign began. To " build " a city in Scripture phrase, 
 is not merely to construct it ab initio,h\\t to strengthen or enlarge it (Josh. 
 xix. 50 ; 1. Kings, xii. 25, xv. 17 ; II. Kings, xiv. 22 ; 11. Chron. viii. 2 ; Mic. 
 iii. 10; Hab. ii. 12, etc.) Solomon built "the wall of Jerusalem round 
 about" (1. Kings, iii. I, be. 15), though his father had not left it defenceless, 
 and no victorious foe had dismantled it ; and, as Delitzsch suggests, 
 
112 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 Ps. xl. was prior to the time of Ezekiel, the sin-offer- 
 ing was not introduced by him ; though not men- 
 tioned elsewhere it was part of the pre-exilic ritual, 
 and Moses may have ordained it after all. And then 
 still further, the Psalmist speaks (ver. 7) of all this 
 as written in a book-roll, which he identifies (ver. 8) 
 with the Law of God, — a written law respecting 
 peace-offering and meat-offering, burnt-offering and 
 sin-offering, which lays its supreme stress not upon 
 the presentation of the animal required, but upon the 
 surrender to God of the person of the offerer. The 
 Professor tells us (p. 364) — and we preserve his ital- 
 ics — " The old Israelite consecrated himself before a 
 sacrifice." By an " old Israelite " he plainly means, 
 in the connection, one who lived under " the first 
 legislation " and prior to the time of Isaiah. The 
 author of this Psalm was then an " old Israelite," and 
 may have been David, as the title declares. And 
 accordingly David, or the " old Israelite," had a 
 written law, embracing precisely the forms of sacri- 
 fice included in Leviticus ; moreover, he understood 
 it in a very different sense from the rigid ritualism 
 which Prof. W. R. Smith insists upon finding there. 
 
 From the Psalms we turn to the Prophets. Hosea 
 and Amos are among the earliest from whom we 
 have any writings. They prophesied in the North- 
 
 David's prayer found in this a partial accomplishment. There is no 
 reason, therefore, for setting aside the title of this Psalm, which at 
 least represents a very ancient and credible tradition of its origin. And 
 no person, surely, who is untrammelled by a hypothesis, would ever 
 dream of dating the grateful thanksgiving for divine benefits in Ps. xl. 
 1-5 from either the Babylonish captivity or the Syrian persecution. 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 "3 
 
 ern Kingdom, which had been severed from Judah 
 for nearly 200 years. In casting off subjection to 
 the house of David, the Ten Tribes had aban- 
 doned the Temple at Jerusalem, its priesthood, and 
 its worship. The separatist worship of the calves, 
 the Professor tells us, was regarded by the people as 
 perfectly legitimate. " They still believed themselves 
 loyal to Jehovah" (p. 231). They were simply main- 
 taining their old ancestral forms. The Law, which 
 they are charged with violating, had as yet no exist- 
 ence in Judah ; and the Ten Tribes went into exile 
 long before it was enacted. The Prophets were the real 
 innovators. Leaving out of view that Israel's idol- 
 atrous worship was in open violation, not only of the 
 Deuteronomic and Levitical codes, but likewise of the 
 Ten Commandments which are admitted to be Mosaic, 
 and the basis of Jehovah's covenant with His people, 
 in violation, too, of the first legislation (Ex. xx. 23), 
 which even on the theory of Prof. W. R. Smith ante- 
 dated this period, what do the Prophets say about it? 
 
 Hosea constantly sets forth the relation between 
 Jehovah and Israel under the emblem of a marriage 
 covenant (ii. 19, 20), a form of representation bor- 
 rowed from the books of Moses (Ex. xx. 5, xxxiv. 
 15, 16; Lev. xvii. 7, xx. 5, 6; Num. xiv. 33). His 
 ever reiterated charge is that Israel is an unfaithful 
 wife, who had responded to her Lord in former days, 
 when she came up out of Egypt (ii. 15), but had 
 since abandoned Him for other lovers (i.-iii., etc.), 
 Baal and the calves (xiii. 1,2). She has broken her 
 
 covenant, has dealt treacherously (v. 7, vi. 7), has 
 
 8 
 
114 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 backslidden (iv. 16, xi. 7, xiv. 4), is repeating the 
 atrocity of Gibeah (ix. 9, x. 9). The prevalent sacri- 
 ficing on the hills and under shady trees is a shameless 
 and criminal desertion of her lawful husband for a 
 base and profligate prostitution (iv. 13). Nothing 
 certainly can be further from the Prophet's concep- 
 tion, than that this was Israel's original and hereditary 
 worship. If the Professor is right, Hosea is radically 
 mistaken. His language is not that of one who is 
 seeking to lift a people to purer and more spiritual 
 ideas, from gross and degrading superstitions in which 
 they have always been involved. His effort is to 
 reclaim those who have apostatized from God's true 
 service to the standing from which they have fallen. 
 The " knowledge of God," whose absence he deplores 
 (iv. 1), is not a theoretical apprehension of His being 
 and attributes, as though his hearers had never been 
 instructed about Him, but, as appears from its con- 
 comitants, that practical acquaintance with the Most 
 High which is synonymous with true piety, and which 
 had wellnigh vanished from the land. 
 
 It appears from Hos. viii. 12, 1 that Israel had a 
 
 1 Prof. Robertson Smith translates this verse hypothetically, as 
 is done by several critics and commentators who seek thus to evade 
 its explicit testimony. To this there are serious objections. But even 
 thus it would establish the existence of a detailed and copious law 
 embracing the subject of sacrifice, and which the Prophet held to be 
 from God, and charged both priests and people with neglecting. 
 " Though I wrote to him the ten thousand precepts of my Torah " (not 
 "my Torah in ten thousand precepts," as Professor Smith has it) by 
 the very hypothesis avers that there is such a Law to write. But the 
 past tense of the verb in the second clause stands in the way of the 
 hypothetical construction, and makes it, if not absolutely certain, yet 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 115 
 
 written law of very considerable extent. This must 
 have related in part, as the connection implies, to 
 altars and sacrifices, and no doubt embraced the 
 duties which the people are elsewhere charged with 
 violating. (Compare also Hos. iv. 6, viii. 1 ; Am. ii. 4.) 
 We learn from Hos. ii. 1 1 , ix. 5 , xii. 9 ; Am. v. 2 1 , viii. 
 5, that the annual feasts, new-moons, Sabbaths, and 
 festive assemblies were observed in Israel, and held in 
 high esteem, and that they occupied a prominent 
 place in the life of the people, so that their abolition 
 would be reckoned a serious disaster. We read also 
 (Am. v. 22; Hos. viii. 13) of burnt-offerings, meat- 
 
 highly probable on grammatical grounds alone that it is historical, and 
 that the future in the first clause is to be explained as in Ps. ciii. 7. 
 To this add the incongruities which attend the hypothetical explana- 
 tion. Why speak of imposing ten thousand requirements, as though 
 these would be more likely to secure obedience than a smaller num- 
 ber ? and why of writing instead of enjoining or declaring the Law ? 
 The very mode of putting the hypothesis implies that written law was 
 a familiar idea, that law to have its highest validity should be in writ- 
 ten form ; and such a notion could only be begotten of usage. So that 
 Smend gives up the hypothetical construction as untenable (" Moses 
 apud Prophetas," p. 13): "The words of Hosea prove that the 
 Ephraimites had many written laws in the eighth century, which, 
 whether contained in one or more books, although they were neglected 
 by a large part of the people, were yet known to all, and in the judg- 
 ment of the Prophet demanded the obedience of all, since they were 
 of divine obligation, as much so as if written by Jehovah himself." 
 Nowack, one of the most recent commentators on Hosea, confesses 
 that this verse is not hypothetical, but seeks to bend it to the views of 
 the latest critical school, by giving to the first verb a progressive sense, 
 I am writing, as implying that the legislation was not given at one time 
 in the age of Moses, but was gradually produced from that time for- 
 ward. Perhaps he infers from the creating, in Isai. xlii. 5, that in the 
 Prophet's estimation the work of creation was still progressing, and 
 that he thus anticipated the cosmical-development hypothesis. 
 
Il6 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 offerings, peace-offerings ; (Am. iv. 5) thank-offerings, 
 free-will-offerings ; (Hos. ix. 4) drink-offerings ; (Am. 
 iv. 4) the daily morning sacrifice. Hos. iv. 8 alludes to 
 the law of the sin-offering; Hos. ix. 3, 4 to the law of 
 clean and unclean meats. Instead of the simplicity of 
 worship, which the Professor finds represented in the 
 first legislation and in Deuteronomy, and which he 
 would have us believe prevailed until the Babylonish 
 exile, they must have had an elaborate ritual closely 
 corresponding to the Levitical institutions. So that 
 Smend himself says (" Moses apud Prophetas," p. 
 75): "It is sufficiently evident that the cultus of 
 Jehovah, as it existed in the time of the earlier Proph- 
 ets, and doubtless long before, is by no means at 
 variance with the character of Leviticus. Whatever 
 judgment may be formed of the age of this book, the 
 opinions hitherto entertained of the birth, growth, 
 and maturity of the religion of Israel will undergo no 
 change." 
 
 In Hos. vi. 6 (" I desired mercy and not sacrifice,") 
 the very next clause shows that the negation is not 
 absolute, (" and the knowledge of God more than 
 burnt-offerings "). 1 This affords a very simple key to 
 
 1 It is remarkable how many allusions to the Deuteronomic and 
 Levitical codes there are in Hosea and Amos, and even striking coin- 
 cidences of language. In addition to those already cited in the text, 
 the following may be mentioned as among the most obvious. The law 
 of the unity of the Sanctuary is presupposed in charging them with sin 
 for multiplying altars (Hos. yiii. n, xii. n) ; the prohibition of remov- 
 ing landmarks (Deut. xix. 14, xxvii. 17) is referred to Hos. v. 10; iv. 4, 
 the final reference of causes in dispute to the priest, refusal to hear 
 whom was a capital offence, (Deut. xvii. 12) ; viii. 13, ix. 3, penalty of 
 a return to Egypt (Deut. xxviii. 68) ; ix. 4, defilement from the dead 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 117 
 
 the passages with which the Professor confronts us on 
 page 287, and which he interprets to mean that in the 
 judgment of the Prophets " sacrifice is not necessary 
 to acceptable religion." " Amos proves God's indif- 
 ference to ritual by reminding the people that they 
 offered no sacrifice and offerings to Him in the Wilder- 
 ness during those forty years of wandering which he 
 
 (Num. xix. 14, 22 ; Deut. xxvi. 14) ; ix. 10, Baal-peor (Num. xxv. 3, 5), 
 which is a Levitical passage (p. 433); x. 11 (compare Deut. xxv. 4), 
 the ox not to be muzzled when treading out corn; vi. 11, Am. ix. 14, 
 "return the captivity," (Deut. xxx. 3). Amos though delivering his 
 message in Bethel, knows but one sanctuary, that in Zion (i. 2) ; ii. 7, 
 the law of incest (Lev. xx. 11 ; Deut. xxii. 30) ; ii. 11, 12, Nazarites, 
 (Num. vi. 2, 3), and Prophets (Deut. xviii. 15); iv. 4, triennial tithes 
 (Deut. xiv. 28, xxvi. 12), for which in their excess of zeal they may 
 substitute tithes every three days ; viii. 5, falsifying the ephah, shekel, 
 and balances (Lev. xix. 36; Deut. xxv. 13, ff.) ; ii. 7, "to profane My 
 holy name " (Lev. xx. 3) ; ii. 9, compare Num. xiii. 32, 33; v. 11, ix. 
 14, compare Deut. xxviii. 30, 39; vi. 14, "entering in of Hamath " 
 (Num. xxxiv. 8) ; ix. 13 compare, Lev. xxvi. 5. Prof. W. R. Smith de- 
 duces from Hos. iii. 4 the inference (p. 226) that "sacrifice and macceba, 
 ephod and teraphim, were recognized as the necessary forms and instru- 
 ments of the worship of Jehovah." This finds its sufficient reply in his 
 own note upon this passage (p. 423), according to which Jehovah " breaks 
 off all intercourse between Israel and the Baalim " as well as between 
 Israel and himself. That teraphim are spoken of in connection with 
 Jacob, and were found in David's house, only shows that their wives 
 were not free from superstitious practices. That Micah had them in his 
 idolatrous sanctuary (Judg. xviii. 14, ff.) can surely create no embar- 
 rassment. And if Micah's Levite, as he adds in the same connection 
 (p. 227), was really a "grandson of Moses," this is no more damaging 
 to the great legislator than it is to Luther that his descendants have 
 deserted the Protestant faith, or than it is to Isaiah that he once sum- 
 moned the priest Urijah as a witness to certify a fact (Isai. viii. 2), — 
 whence the Professor dignifies him (p. 253) with the title of Isaiah's 
 " friend," — though he had " co-operated with King Ahaz " in a change 
 of altars. ~ 
 
Il8 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 elsewhere cites as a special proof of Jehovah's cove- 
 nant grace (Am. ii. 10, v. 25). Micah declares that 
 Jehovah does not require sacrifice ; He asks nothing 
 of His people but ' to do justly, and love mercy, and 
 walk humbly with their God' (Mic. vi. 8). And 
 Jeremiah (vii. 21, seq.*) says in express words, etc., etc." 
 (Compare also Isai. i. 11, seq. ; Am. v. 21, seq.). Am. 
 v. 25 is a greatly disputed passage and has been very 
 variously understood. It is unnecessary to go into a 
 discussion 0/ its meaning here. If we accept the 
 sense which the Professor puts upon its terms, it will 
 simply mean that the Mosaic system of sacrifice did not 
 go into full and developed operation in the Wilder- 
 ness ; a fact of which we have hints elsewhere (e. g. 
 Deut. xii. 8, 9), and which is implied in the language 
 of several of the laws themselves (Ex. xii. 25, xxxiv. 
 12; Lev. xiv. 34, xxiii. 10, xxv. 2, etc. etc.) But 
 the Professor's deduction from these passages is too 
 sweeping for his own theory. If they are irreconci- 
 lable with the idea that any divine law of sacrifice 
 then existed, they will not only abolish Leviticus, as 
 he contends, but the first legislation as well (Ex. xxii. 
 30, xxiii. 14-18, xxxiv. 19, 25), and Deuteronomy 
 (xii. 6, 11, 27, xv. 19, xvi. 2, etc.), 1 of which Jere- 
 
 1 The Professor thinks that the mode of observing the Passover 
 underwent a change between the time of the Deuteronomic Law and 
 the Levitical Code as represented in Ex. xii. 3 ff. He says that under 
 the former (p. 371) " the paschal victim itself may be chosen indiffer- 
 ently from the flock or the herd (xvi. 2), and is still, according to the 
 Hebrew of xvi. 7, presumed to be boiled, not roasted, as is the case in 
 all old sacrifices of which the history speaks." The simple solution 
 of which is, that at the Passover there were sacrificed not only the 
 paschal lamb with which the feast began, but (Num. xxviii. 19, 24) 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 119 
 
 miah is the acknowledged champion, some adventu- 
 rous critics having actually claimed that he wrote it 
 himself; and even nullify the plea which the Lord 
 directed Moses to urge with Pharaoh as a reason 
 for leaving Egypt " that we may sacrifice to the LORD 
 our God" (Ex. iii. 18), which is not classed among 
 the Levitical passages (p. 432). 
 
 Our space will not permit us to trace the Mosaic 
 codes through the rest of the Prophets. But one view 
 is common to them all, — Jehovah's seat is in Zion 1 
 (Joel ii. 15, ff., iii. 21 ; Mic. iv. 1, ff.). Isaiah leaves us 
 in no doubt as to the place of Jehovah's Sanctuary. 
 
 " two young bullocks and one ram and seven lambs " day by day on 
 each of the seven days during which the festival lasted. The same 
 Hebrew word is translated " roast " (Deut. xvi. 7) and "sodden " (Ex. 
 xii. 9), being in fact a general term applicable to any style of cooking. 
 But there is no discrepancy in the statements made. According to the 
 passage in Exodus, it was not to be " cooked in water, but roast with 
 fire," not boiled, therefore, but subjected to the direct action of the 
 fire. According to Deuteronomy it was to be " cooked," i. e., not raw, 
 but the mode of preparation is not more particularly specified. That 
 the term employed includes roasting is, however, obvious from 11. 
 Chron. xxxv. 13, where "cooked with fire," i. e. roast, stands opposed 
 to " cooked in pots and in caldrons," i. e. boiled. 
 
 1 The sole prophetic utterance which bears the semblance of ap- 
 proving a plurality of sanctuaries is the complaint of Elijah, " They 
 have thrown down thine altars " (1. Kings, xix. 10). But in the anoma- 
 lous condition of the Northern Kingdom, cut off from access to the 
 Temple at Jerusalem, it is not surprising if the fearers of Jehovah 
 maintained his worship in local sanctuaries. And the hostility to 
 Jehovah's service, which overthrew these altars, was not palliated by 
 the fact that, from a strictly legal point of view, they were unauthor- 
 ized. We might be indignant at an infidel government for suppressing 
 the Roman Catholic worship, without approving of the celebration of 
 the Mass. Elijah's own sacrifice at Carmel was by immediate divine 
 direction (1. Kings, xviii. 36). 
 
120 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 Not only in the reign of Hezekiah, to whose reform he 
 doubtless contributed, but from the outset of his 
 ministry under Uzziah he declares his mind on this 
 subject in unambiguous language. Zion is the Moun- 
 tain of the LORD, which shall be so conspicuously 
 exalted, and shall be the resort of all nations, and 
 from which God's Law shall go forth (ii. 2, 3). It is 
 upon Zion that He shall create a cloud and smoke by 
 day ana a flaming fire by night, a glory and a de- 
 fence (iv. 5). In the year that King Uzziah died he 
 had the sublime vision of Jehovah, whom he saw in 
 the Temple, and his lips were purged by a coal from 
 the altar (vi. 1, ff.). It was when Sennacherib pre- 
 sumed to shake his hand against the Mount of the 
 Daughter of Zion that his doom was sealed (x. 32 ; 
 compare, II. Kings, xix. 34). Zion is " the city of our 
 solemnities " whose protection is secured by the pres- 
 ence of Jehovah (xxxiii. 20). He repudiates a plu- 
 rality of altars (xvii. 8), which with him has only 
 idolatrous associations ; such an altar has no sacred- 
 ness beyond mere chalk-stones (xxvii. 9). He pre- 
 dicts the time when there shall be " an altar to 
 Jehovah in the midst of the land of Egypt " (xix. 
 19), as a symbol that this land shall be as truly as 
 Canaan the Lord's land, and its people the Lord's 
 people. Like Mai. i. 11, it is one of the prophetic 
 intimations of the passing away of the local and 
 national restrictions of the former dispensation. But 
 that Isaiah had no thought of a separatist worship 
 appears from ii. 3, where the same truth is clothed in 
 the more strictly Old Testament form of all nations 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 12 1 
 
 making their pilgrimages to Zion. The Lord cannot 
 tolerate ritual observances as an offset to wicked lives 
 (i. ii, ff.) ; but He has the same disgust for prayer (i. 
 15) and the language of the lips (xxix. 13) similarly 
 offered. There is no depreciation of sacrificial wor- 
 ship in this, for the acceptable service that Egypt will 
 one day render unto God is described by saying, 
 " They shall do sacrifice and oblation ; they shall 
 vow a vow and perform it " (xix. 21). 
 
 But does not Isaiah in the same connection predict 
 " a pillar " (inaqqeba) in the land of Egypt, the very 
 symbol which Deut. xvi. 22 forbids? " This pas- 
 sage," says Professor Smith (p. 354), " gives a superior 
 limit for the date of the Deuteronomic Code." 
 " Isaiah could not refer to a forbidden symbol as a 
 maggeba to Jehovah." There is a slight confusion of 
 ideas here. In the first place, it proves too much. 
 This symbol was prohibited likewise by the first legis- 
 lation (Ex. xxiii. 24, xxxiv. 13, where for "images" 
 read "pillars"), which required the destruction of 
 Canaanitish altars and pillars, not their purification 
 and rededication to the service of God. Secondly, 
 the thing forbidden was the erection of pillars in the 
 neighborhood of altars with the view of worshipping 
 them (Lev. xxvi. 1 ; Deut. xvi. 21, 22). Moses him- 
 self had set up twelve pillars about the altar at the 
 ratification of the covenant with Jehovah (Ex. xxiv. 
 4), each tribe, as it were, erecting its memorial on that 
 solemn occasion. Stone monuments to commemorate 
 God's goodness or to mark signal events were repeat- 
 edly erected in post-Mosaic times. When this was 
 
122 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 done with no view to sacrifice or adoration, it was no 
 violation of the Pentateuchal statute. The monu- 
 mental pillar, of which the Prophet speaks, at the 
 border of Egypt, had no connection with the altar 
 which was to be in the midst of the land. It simply 
 marked the sacred character of Egypt, and was not 
 intended for any idolatrous purpose. 
 
 But Ezekiel is the great stronghold of the hypothesis 
 which we are considering. Here, we are told, we can 
 see the very process of the formation of the Levitical 
 Law. The Prophet is convinced, by the failure of all 
 his predecessors to reclaim the wayward people, that 
 a new departure must be made. A barrier must be 
 erected to shut out heathen influence, and to confine 
 Israel rigidly to the service of Jehovah. Acting on 
 this idea, he lays down (chs. xl.-xlviii.) a ritual to be 
 observed on the return from Exile, in which the wor- 
 ship which had hitherto been spontaneous and free 
 is reduced to a fixed and unvarying form, and all 
 the ceremonies are described in minute detail. This 
 scheme of the cultus at the Sanctuary was enlarged 
 and modified by Ezra, and thus arose the Levitical 
 Law, which he brought forward in its completed 
 form, and which thenceforth became the law of Is- 
 rael's worship. Ezekiel's projected system represents 
 a stage between the simplicity of the former cultus 
 and the greater complexity of the Levitical legisla- 
 tion. 
 
 These closing chapters of Ezekiel, where it is pro- 
 posed to find the key to the origin of the middle 
 books of the Pentateuch, have always been a puzzle 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 123 
 
 to commentators. And a hypothesis which professes 
 to relieve them of all mystery (p. 374), to accept 
 them in their most obvious sense, and to suggest a 
 sufficient reason for those various regulations and an 
 important purpose to be answered by them, thus 
 converting what has seemed like a barren waste into 
 a fruitful field, can scarcely fail to attract attention if 
 it has the slightest plausibility. Some perplexities, 
 however, force themselves upon us in advance. 
 
 I. There are items in Ezekiel's description of the 
 Sanctuary, the worship, and the Holy Land of the fu- 
 ture, which can scarcely have been intended to be 
 literally understood, but seem to have been intro- 
 duced for the sake of giving an ideal character to the 
 entire section. Zion could not possibly be called " a 
 very high mountain" (xl. 2), unless with a view 
 to the exaltation promised Isai. ii. 2, and assumed 
 Ezek. xvii. 22, 23. Its utmost extent could not 
 afford a site for a sacred enclosure measuring 500 
 reeds or 3000 cubits, i. e. y nearly a mile on each of 
 its four sides (xlii. 16 ff.). The critics have been at 
 great pains to correct" reeds" into " cubits," in order 
 to bring it within some reasonable probability; but 
 this is directly in the face of the repeated statements 
 of the text. The entrance of Jehovah's glory into 
 the House represents a spiritual fact, not an occur- 
 rence in the form exhibited in the vision (xliii. 2-4). 
 The stream flowing from the Sanctuary (xlvii. 1-12), 
 swelling as it advanced, and carrying life, fertility, 
 and healing even to the desert and the Dead Sea, is 
 manifestly symbolical, and can no more represent an 
 
1 24 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 actual river than its counterpart in Rev. xxii. 1 fif. 
 The symmetrical division of the land parcelled among 
 the tribes in parallel strips, with a holy oblation unto 
 the LORD in the centre, is as unpractical as possible, 
 and, in the case of the tribes located to the south, 
 assumes a complete reclaiming of the arid desert. 
 It is as plainly ideal as the uniform numbers of the 
 tribes in Rev. vii. 5 ff., or as the resurrection of the 
 dry bones (Ezek. xxxvii. 1 ff.) and the destruction 
 of Gog (xxxix. 9 ff.), which are preliminary to these 
 closing chapters. 
 
 2. These directions of Ezekiel were not in fact 
 obeyed by the returning exiles, which shows that 
 their intention, as understood by those immediately 
 addressed, was not to guide the present but to fore- 
 cast the future. The temple of Zerubbabel was not 
 built by Ezekiel's plan; nor did its cultus or the 
 partition of the land correspond with the model 
 sketched by him. 
 
 3. If the Levitical Law was based upon that of 
 Ezekiel, why did it not adopt the regulations given 
 by him, instead of departing from them so often and 
 so capriciously, as it would seem? Why, for exam- 
 ple, was the burnt-offering of seven bullocks and 
 seven rams, prescribed by Ezekiel (xlv. 23-25) for 
 each of the seven days of Passover, and of the Feast 
 of Tabernacles, converted into two bullocks, one ram, 
 and seven lambs daily at the Passover (Num. xxviii. 
 19, 24), and thirteen bullocks, two rams, and fourteen 
 lambs on the first day of Tabernacles, to be repeated 
 from day to day, with a gradually diminishing num- 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 125 
 
 ber of bullocks, to the end (xxix. 13 ff.)? We can 
 understand how a Prophet, speaking in the name of 
 God and presaging the Church of the future, could 
 freely modify the established Mosaic ritual for the 
 very purpose of intimating that the forms of the old 
 Law were not immutable and would one day suffer 
 change ; but this recent hypothesis is quite incompre- 
 hensible, — that, after Ezekiel had with divine author- 
 ity proclaimed a new and elaborate ritual, it should 
 have been altered and added to and subtracted from 
 by the priesthood in numberless particulars before it 
 was set in operation. 
 
 4. It is not very clear that the time when the 
 ceremonial had been for the present providentially 
 abolished was the one for doing what, by the hypoth- 
 esis, had never been done so long as the Temple stood 
 and the priests were performing its daily service, 
 viz., prepare a complete formulary for its worship. 
 One would think that there were more practical and 
 pressing needs of the exiles than this. But if Ezekiel 
 did undertake to do it, it is strange that the larger 
 part of his. scheme is occupied with an utterly abor- 
 tive, though most minute, description of a temple, 
 which did not so differ from the plan of Solomon's as 
 to further any important end. And, stranger still, 
 the Levitical Law, which was meant to be an improve- 
 ment upon Ezekiel, instead of giving the exiles intel- 
 ligible directions for the rebuilding of their temple, 
 substitutes an almost interminable account of the 
 Tabernacle in the Wilderness, which is a pure fancy 
 sketch of a structure that never existed. 
 
126 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 5. The so-called Torah of Ezekiel was issued with 
 his own name, as revealed to himself. There was no 
 " legal fiction " in the case, and no pretence of being 
 from Moses ; which is an additional warrant for believ- 
 ing that any other law published at that time or sub- 
 sequently, by competent authority, would not have 
 appeared under an assumed name, but have frankly 
 and honestly announced the authority from which it 
 proceeded, and on which it rested its claim to be 
 obeyed. 
 
 6. And we are still further puzzled to understand 
 how the new ritual could have been gotten into ope- 
 ration under the circumstances. By the hypothesis, 
 it was a totally new departure made under false pre- 
 tences. Every one knew that it was not only not 
 Mosaic, but was diametrically opposed to the Mosaic 
 system. All the prejudices that clung to the ancient 
 ritual were opposed to it. So were the class interests 
 of the priests, who, it is alleged, were now degraded 
 from their former prerogatives to the inferior role of 
 Levites ; and the attachments to local sanctuaries, 
 which it is supposed were now summarily abolished. 
 And when we remember the persistence with which 
 open idolaters faced Jeremiah, and even carried their 
 point in spite of his remonstrances (Jer. xliii. 2 ff. ; 
 xliv. 15 ff.), the opposition from these various quar- 
 ters could not have been slight. The new Law could 
 not have gained prevalence from the authority of 
 Ezekiel, for it freely deviates from the Law which he 
 had given. It ran directly counter to the instructions 
 of Jeremiah, as these are interpreted to us by the 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 1 27 
 
 advocates of the new hypothesis, for " he knew no 
 divine law of sacrifice under the First Temple " (p. 
 374) ; counter also to Isai. lxvi. 1-3, which, on the 
 Professor's critical principles, was by a Prophet of the 
 Captivity later even than Ezekiel, in which, upon 
 the same method of interpretation, Jehovah repu- 
 diates all earthly sanctuaries and sacrificial rites. 
 And yet, in spite of all these elements of a formida- 
 ble opposition, the Levitical Law was no sooner 
 brought forward by Ezra than it was at once ac- 
 cepted and submitted to as " the Law of Moses, 
 which the Lord had commanded to Israel" (Neh; 
 viii. I, 14, x. 29), and that, too, as distinguished from 
 post-Mosaic enactments (xii. 45). 
 
 But waiving these difficulties of a general nature, 
 how is it with those particulars in the Torah of Ezek- 
 k iel, which recent critics affirm must have preceded 
 the Law of Leviticus? We quote from Prof. Robert- 
 son Smith (p. 374) : — 
 
 " The first that strikes us is the degradation of the Levites. 
 The ministers of the old Temple, he (Ezekiel) tells us, were 
 uncircumcised foreigners, 1 whose presence was an insult to 
 
 1 The allegation that "uncircumcised foreigners " were employed to 
 "keep the ward of the Sanctuary" ..." as long as Solomon's Tem- 
 ple stood " (p. 250) is based on an extraordinary series of non sequiturs. 
 David's body-guard of Kerethim and Peleihim has been conjectured to 
 be " Cretans and Philistines," on the basis of a doubtful etymology, 
 which was not accepted by Gesenius, and has not been by the subse- 
 quent editors of his Lexicon. The mention of " Carians," either in 
 II. Sam. xx. 23 or 11. Kings, xi. 4, is much more doubtful and improbable 
 still. The men " who were clad in foreign garb, and leaped over the 
 threshold " (Zeph. i. 8, 9), has nothing in the world to do with " Philis- 
 tines " or "foreign janissaries." So that the inference that these imag- 
 
1 28 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 Jehovah's Sanctuary. Such men shall no more enter the 
 House, but in their places shall come the Levites not of the 
 House of Zadok, who are to be degraded from the priest- 
 hood because they officiated in old Israel before the idola- 
 trous shrines (xliv. 5, seg.). This one point is sufficient to 
 fix the date of the Levitical Law as later than Ezekiel. In 
 all the earlier history, and in the Code of Deuteronomy, a 
 Levite is a priest, or at least qualified to assume priestly 
 functions ; and even in Josiah's reformation the Levite priests 
 of the high places received a modified priestly status at 
 Jerusalem. Ezekiel knows that it has been so in the past ; 
 but he declares that it shall be otherwise in the future, as a 
 punishment for the offence of ministering at the idolatrous 
 altars. He knows nothing of an earlier Law, in which priests 
 and Levites are already distinguished, in which the office of 
 Levite is itself a high privilege." 
 
 The distinction of priests and Levites, though 
 rarely alluded to in the pre-exilic history, since there 
 was no occasion so to do, 1 is yet explicitly recognized 
 in 1. Sam. vi. 15; II. Sam. xv. 24; I. Kings, viii. 4. 
 
 inary foreign guards "are unquestionably identical with the uncircum- 
 cised foreigners whom Ezelael found in the Temple " rests merely upon 
 a series of positive but unfounded assertions. The unlawful pres- 
 ence of uncircumcised foreigners in the Temple is of a piece with the 
 open practice of idolatrous rites within those sacred precincts (Ezek. 
 viii. 3 ff. ; II. Kings, xxi. 4 ff.). This shameless violation of law is no 
 proof that the Law was not in existence. The Nethinim (Ezra viii. 20) 
 and children of Solomon's servants (ii. 58) do not fall under the same 
 condemnation (Neh. x. 28,- 29). They were, no doubt, circumcised ; 
 and performed such menial services for the Levites as were permissible 
 for proselyted foreigners (Josh. ix. 27). 
 
 1 The distinction is not even made in Malachi (see ii. 4-8, iii. 3), 
 though he could not, on any critical hypothesis, have been ignorant of 
 its existence. 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 129 
 
 Upon the first return of the exiles under Zerubbabel, 
 ninety years before the alleged date of the Levitical 
 Law, we not only find priests and Levites sharply 
 distinguished and separately enumerated, but distinc- 
 tions are made among the Levites themselves, who are 
 variously classed, as by hereditary descent, singers, 
 porters, etc. (Ezra if. 36 fT. ; Neh. vii. 39 fi\, xii. 1-9). 
 Compare also the account of the first inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem after the Exile (1. Chron. ix. 2 rT.). The 
 same thing recurs upon the going up of Ezra, four- 
 teen years before the supposed origin of the Levitical 
 Law (Ezra vii. 7, 24, viii. 15 fi\). These distinctions 
 cannot have been introduced by Ezekiel's Torah; 
 they could not have arisen in the Exile, when there * 
 was no temple service and no occasion for singers and 
 porters. They must, of necessity, have been trans- 
 mitted from the period before the Exile, and repre- 
 sent the distribution of functions then made among 
 those that were employed at the Sanctuary. Priests 
 and Levites must, therefore, have had separate duties 
 and formed distinct classes while Solomon's Temple 
 still stood. But further, the subdivisions of the Le- 
 vites above referred to are also unknown to the Levit- 
 ical Law, which apportions them in quite a different 
 manner, having no possible relation to post-exilic 
 times, but only to the wandering in the Wilderness, 
 viz., the functions which they severally performed in 
 the transportation of the Tabernacle and its furniture 
 (Num. iv.). 
 
 Again, that the Levitical Law of the priesthood 
 was prior to Ezekiel, and not vice versa, appears from 
 
 9 
 
130 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 the nature of the case. While the former limits the 
 priesthood to the family of Aaron, Ezekiel goes still 
 further, and restricts it for cause to the line of "Zadok, 
 one of his descendants. 1 While the Levitical Law 
 does not define the sanctuary duties of the Levites, 
 but leaves them, as they might naturally be left at 
 the outset, to perform such services as the priest 
 might require of them (Num. xviii. 2), long usage 
 gradually assigned to them specific tasks, as the 
 charge of the gates, slaying the sacrifices, boiling 
 their flesh, etc. (11. Chron. xxiii. 4, xxx. 17, xxxv. 13) ; 
 and this is what Ezekiel expects them to do (xliv. 
 11, xlvi. 24). Indeed, Ezekiel seems to make allu- 
 sion to the Levitical Law in the very passage under 
 discussion. He calls the employment of the uncir- 
 cumcised foreigners in the Temple a breach of God's 
 Covenant (xliv. 7). It was, therefore, in his eyes, 
 the violation of a positive divine statute, which can 
 only be Num. xviii. 4 where any " stranger," i.e., 
 non-Levite, is prohibited from doing the work as- 
 signed to Levites. And if Levite had always, prior 
 to the time of Ezekiel, been synonymous with 
 "priest," or at least denoted one who is "qualified 
 to assume priestly functions," if is remarkable that 
 
 1 It has, indeed, been denied that Zadok (1. Kings, ii. 35) was of the 
 seed of Aaron. But such a groundless denial of what is explicitly set- 
 tled by his genealogy (1. Chron. vi. 8, 53, xxiv. 3, xxvii. 17) is fitly 
 characterized by Deiitzsch as "manufacturing history." And how the 
 Levitical regulation could, in that case, have been built upon that of 
 Ezekiel, and the restriction of the priesthood to the family of Zadok 
 could have led to its restriction to another family of quite different 
 descent, becomes still more inexplicable. 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 131 
 
 he should employ it as he does without any modify- 
 ing epithet (xlviii. 1 1— 13), in contrast with priests, 
 and in the sense of those who are disqualified from 
 assuming priestly functions. 
 
 " A second point in Ezekiel's Law is a provision 
 for stated and regular sacrifices." Nehemiah en- 
 gages the people to " a voluntary charge of a third 
 of a shekel for this purpose (Neh. x. 32)." " In 
 Ex. xxx. 16 the service of the Tabernacle was de- 
 frayed by the fixed tribute of half a shekel." If this 
 " refers to the continual sacrifices," it differed from 
 Nchemiah's rate plainly enough, but it does not fol- 
 low that " this law," which bears no evidence of 
 being a permanently obligatory precept, " was still 
 unknown to Nehemiah, and must be a late addition 
 to the Pentateuch." And, on the other hand, if it 
 does not refer to them, it is a rash and unwarranted 
 conclusion on the part of the Professor that stated 
 offerings were ordained with no provision for supply- 
 ing them. 
 
 "A third point in Ezekiel's Law," and the last which 
 Prof. W. R. Smith insists upon, " is the prominence given to 
 the sin-offering and atoning ritual. The altar must be purged 
 with sin-offerings for seven consecutive days before burnt 
 sacrifices are acceptably offered on it (xliii. 18, seq.). The 
 Levitical Law (Ex. xxix. 36, 37-) prescribes a similar cere- 
 mony, but with more costly victims. At the dedication of 
 Solomon's Temple, on the contrary (1. Kings, viii. 62), the altar 
 is at once assumed to be fit for use, in accordance with Ex. 
 xx. 24, and with all the early cases of altar-building outside 
 the Pentateuch. But, besides this first expiatory ceremonial, 
 
132 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 Ezekiel appoints two atoning services yearly, at the begin- 
 ning of the first and the seventh month (xlv. 19, 20, LXX.), 
 to purge the house. This is the first appearance, outside of 
 the Levitical Code, of anything corresponding to the great 
 Day of Atonement in the seventh month, and it is plain that 
 the simple service in Ezekiel is still far short of that solemn 
 ceremony. The Day of Atonement was also a fast day. 
 Now, in Zech. vii. 5, viii. 19, the Fast of the Seventh Month 
 is alluded to as one of the four fasts commemorating the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, which had been practised for the 
 last seventy years. The Fast of the Seventh Month was not 
 yet united with the 'purging of the house,' ordained by Eze- 
 kiel. Even in the great convocation of Neh. viii.-x., where 
 we have a record of proceedings from the first day of the 
 seventh month onwards to the twenty-fourth, there is no 
 mention of the Day of Expiation on the tenth, which thus 
 appears as the very last stone in the ritual edifice." 
 
 Prof. Robertson Smith affirms that there were no 
 expiatory rites for cleansing the altar of Solomon's 
 Temple ; but the sacred historian, in explicit terms, 
 declares the very reverse. In the summary account 
 of the transaction given in Kings, the order of the 
 ceremonial is not particularly stated, except that 
 the services were continued " seven days and seven 
 days." This of itself suggests a distinction between 
 these two periods, and implies that there was a week 
 preliminary to the proper week of the annual feast ; 
 and the most obvious purpose of such a week is that 
 of sacrificial purgation. This very natural presump- 
 tion is confirmed by the express language o.f II. Chron. 
 vii. 9 : " they kept the dedication of the altar seven 
 days, and the feast seven days." 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. I 33 
 
 The Day of Atonement, it is true, is not mentioned 
 by Ezekiel, but his silence does not prove that he 
 knew nothing of it. For he likewise makes no allu- 
 sion to the Feast of Weeks, which belonged even to 
 the first legislation (Ex. xxiii. 16, xxxiv. 22), and 
 this though he speaks of Passover and Tabernacles 
 (Ezek. xlv. 21, 25). He does not allude to the daily 
 evening sacrifice (1. Kings, xviii. 29, 36; II. Kings, xvi. 
 15 ; see Ezek. xlvi. 13 ff.) ; nor to the high-priest ( II. 
 Kings, xii. 7, 10, xxii. 4, xxiii. 4) ; nor to the priestly 
 dues enjoined in Deut. xviii. 3, (see xliv. 28 ff.). It is 
 also true that no mention is made of its observance in 
 the Old Testament history, nor in fact for a long time 
 after. The earliest allusion * to it is by Josephus 
 (Ant. xiv. 16, 4), who tells us that Herod took 
 Jerusalem (b. C. 37) on the solemnity of the Fast, 
 as Pompey had done twenty-seven years before. 
 The Feast of Weeks is spoken of but once between 
 Moses and the Exile (1. Kings, ix. 25 ; II. Chron. viii. 
 13). The Sabbatical Year is not mentioned until the 
 period of the Maccabees (1. Mace. vi. 53). The Fast 
 of the Seventh Month, alluded to by Zechariah, in 
 commemoration of the murder of Gedaliah (il. Kings, 
 xxv. 25), was entirely distinct from the Annual Hu- 
 miliation for Sin. The Professor seems to think that 
 the Day of Atonement was not instituted for some 
 years after the Levitical Law was brought out by 
 Ezra. This will involve him in fresh difficulties ; 
 
 1 It is perhaps referred to, though this is not certain, in Josephus, 
 Ant. xiii. 10, 3, where the high-priest Hyrcanus is spoken of as alone 
 in the Temple, offering incense. 
 
I 34 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 for, as Delitzsch remarks, it will be necessary to 
 exclude from Ezra's Law not only Lev. xvi., where 
 the services of the day are described in detail, but 
 also all the allusions to it elsewhere, — as Ex. xxx. 
 10, which speaks of one annual atonement; Lev. 
 xxiii. 26-32, xxv. 9; Num. xviii. 7, which speaks of 
 a priestly duty within the Veil ; Num. xxix. 7-1 1 ; 
 and all passages containing the name given to the lid 
 of the Ark in consequence of the expiation effected 
 there, viz., the Mercy-Seat; and it would be very ex- 
 traordinary if the ritual of the Day of Atonement, 
 in which the Mercy-seat occupies so conspicuous a 
 place, dated from a time when the Ark and Mercy- 
 seat had ceased to exist. 
 
 It is a significant fact also that Ezekiel's Torah was 
 revealed to him (xl. 1) "in the beginning of the 
 year, in the tenth day of the month." If the tenth 
 of Tisri, the first of the civil year, be meant, this was 
 the Day of Atonement, and likewise the day on 
 which the trumpet was blown to usher in the Year 
 of Jubilee. The combination of this day with the 
 release of prisoners is clearly shown by Isai. iviii. 6; 
 and that the Prophet was acquainted with the Law 
 (Lev. xxv. 8-10) is shown by. his allusion to its 
 terms (Isai. lxi. iff.). Ezekiel was acquainted with 
 the Year of Jubilee, and speaks of it as well known, 
 which consequently involves a knowledge of the Day 
 of Atonement, with which it began. 1 
 
 1 We add some further particulars from Delitzsch's very thorough 
 and satisfactory discussion of the Day of Atonement, considered in 
 relation to this recent critical hypothesis, from which the above discus- 
 
ON THE PENTATEUCH. 135 
 
 We have now completed our task. And as we lay 
 down our pen, may we not say of this latest critical 
 attempt to roll the Pentateuch off its old foundations, 
 that it has not achieved success? It has enveloped 
 Mount Blanc in a cloud of mist, and proclaimed 
 that its giant cliffs had forever disappeared. But, lo ! 
 the mist blows away, and the everlasting hills are 
 still in place. 
 
 sion of this point has been for the most part borrowed. The word 
 d12» to fast, which is already found in the prophet Joel, is foreign to 
 the law of the Day of Atonement; the standing phrase there is 
 11553 t!35» but without using the post-exilic derivative fP^il (Ezra, 
 ix. 5). The post-exilic language and literature offer nothing for the 
 explanation of pTXT^ \ ^fi^ opportune obvhis (Lev. xvi. 21) and y~i^ 
 j-|*I73 terra obscissa (ver. 22) are expressions found nowhere else, which, 
 if they were post-exilic, might have been expected to reappear in post- 
 biblical writings. 
 
THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
 
 r I ^HE period covered by the Books of Samuel is 
 **■ so important in its bearing on the question of 
 the prior existence of the Law of Moses as to require 
 a fuller discussion than was possible within the nar- 
 row limits of an article in a quarterly review. The 
 proof was there given that the Mosaic Tabernacle 
 located at Shiloh was the one sole place of regulaf 
 sacrificial worship, from the time when it was set up 
 by Joshua until the capture of the Ark by the Philis- 
 tines. It was resorted to by all Israel ; the feasts of 
 the LORD were annually observed there ; its services 
 were conducted by a priesthood descended from 
 Aaron. So far as we have any means of ascertain- 
 ing, the Mosaic ritual was strictly observed there, 
 the contrary assumption being altogether gratuitous, 
 since all the alleged departures from that ritual ad- 
 mit of ready reconciliation with the legal require- 
 ments. There is not, from Joshua to Samuel, a 
 recorded instance of sacrifice elsewhere than at Shi- 
 loh which is not explicitly declared to have been 
 offered either in the presence of the Ark, or in con- 
 nection with an immediate manifestation of the pres- 
 
138 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
 
 ence of Jehovah or' of the Angel of Jehovah. And 
 no sacrifice was offered by any one not a descendant 
 of Aaron, except when Jehovah or the Angel of 
 Jehovah had appeared to him. The only exceptions 
 are expressly characterized by the sacred historian 
 as open and flagrant transgressions of known law, — 
 as the idolatry at Ophrah (judg. viii. 27), and that 
 of the renegade Micah (xvii. 5), not to speak of the 
 apostasy to Baal and Ashtoreth, which is reprobated 
 and chastised from the beginning to the end. The 
 Book of Judges does not contain a trace of sanc- 
 tioned, or even tolerated, worship upon high places. 
 The test applied to Israel was " to know whether they 
 would hearken unto the commandments of the LORD, 
 which He commanded their fathers by the hand of 
 Moses" (iii. 4). The hypothesis of Prof. Robertson 
 Smith would restrict these commandments to what 
 he denominates " the first legislation." But until it 
 can be shown that the remaining portions of the 
 Mosaic Code were not enacted at the time when they 
 claim to have been given, the reference must be un- 
 derstood to be to the entire Law of Moses, — a 
 meaning which is further rendered necessary by the 
 constant usage of this and of equivalent terms in the 
 historical books of Scripture (ll. Kings, xxiii. 3, 25 ; I. 
 Kings, ii. 3, vi. 12, ix. 4, 6, xi. 33, 38 ; compare Deut. 
 viii. 11, xii. 1). 
 
 We approach the life of Samuel, then, from this 
 vantage ground afforded by the entire antecedent 
 history. The unity of the Sanctuary was unbroken 
 from Moses to Eli, unless by confessed idolaters. 
 
THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 139 
 
 And the accepted Code of the nation was the Law 
 of Moses; and, so far as anything yet appears to the 
 contrary, that Law in its entire extent. This was still 
 the case in the early years of Samuel. The one Sanc- 
 tuary was at Shiloh. It had its Aaronic priesthood. 
 It was the place of commanded sacrifice (1. Sam. ii. 
 29). There Jehovah dwelt between the cherubim 
 above the Ark of the Covenant (iv. 4). To it all 
 Israel went to pay their worship (ii. 14, 29, iii. 20, 21). 
 Thither the child Samuel was brought by his parents 
 to appear before the LORD, and with the expectation 
 that he would abide there forever (i. 22). But the 
 fatal battle at Eben-ezer, in which the Ark was lost, 
 suddenly changed the whole aspect of affairs. We 
 never find Samuel, or the Tabernacle, or a priest, or 
 a sacrifice in Shiloh again from that time forward. 
 Why was this ? 
 
 Whether the Philistines extended their ravages to 
 Shiloh, as some have supposed, or not, the city was 
 thenceforth regarded as deserted of God. The fact 
 that He permitted the priests, who were entrusted 
 with the care of the Ark, to be slain, and the Ark 
 itself to be carried off by the enemy, was accepted as 
 a practical declaration that the Most High had with- 
 drawn His presence from the. place, and that He no 
 longer acknowledged it as His habitation. This re- 
 sult had been predicted to Eli as the inevitable con- 
 sequence of the atrocious conduct of his sons (I. Sam. 
 ii. 29 ff, iii. 11 ff.), and the corrupt priesthood re- 
 flected but too accurately the corruption of the peo- 
 ple. The Psalmist thus interprets the event and its 
 
140 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
 
 moral causes : " They tempted and provoked the 
 Most High God and kept not His testimonies. . . . 
 They provoked Him to anger with their high places, 
 and moved Him to jealousy with their graven im- 
 ages. When God heard this, He was wroth and 
 greatly abhorred Israel, so that He forsook the Tab- 
 ernacle of Shiloh, the tent which He placed among 
 men, and delivered His strength into captivity, and 
 His glory into the enemy's hand " (Ps. lxxviii. 56-61). 
 And the Prophet Jeremiah says (vii. 12): "Go ye 
 now unto My place which was in Shiloh, where I set 
 My name at the first, and see what I did to it for the 
 wickedness of My people Israel." (See also xxvi. 6, 
 9). Since God was provoked by the sins of the people 
 to abandon the Sanctuary which He had established 
 in the midst of them, all the sacredness of Shiloh was 
 gone. Samuel, therefore, leaves it for his paternal 
 home in Ramah (1. Sam. vii. 17) ; and the Mosaic 
 Tabernacle was transferred to Nob, which either was 
 already, or now became, a city of priests (xxii. 19). 
 This was not a different sanctuary, but the same Tab- 
 ernacle removed to another place, as appears from 
 the identity of the priestly family (xxii. 1 1 ; compare 
 xiv. 3) and the mention of the shew-bread (xxi. 6; 
 compare Ex. xxv. 30; Lev. xxiv. 8, 9). 
 
 The capture of the Ark signified the withdrawal of 
 God's presence from Israel, but it brought no lasting 
 triumph to the Philistines. It was the source of 
 humiliation to their idol and of deadly plagues upon 
 themselves, until, to escape further inflictions, they 
 sent it back to the land of Israel, with offerings in 
 
THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 14 1 
 
 reparation of their trespass. The joy of the men of 
 Beth-shemesh (1. Sam. vi. 13) was based upon the 
 premature assumption that Jehovah's gracious pres- 
 ence was to be forthwith restored to Israel. The 
 ritual requirements of the Mosaic Law were strictly 
 observed in its reception. The Levites took down 
 the Ark, and burnt-offerings and sacrifices {i.e., 
 peace-offerings) were sacrificed before it, — signifi- 
 cant of devotion and of restored fellowship with God. 
 But the act of irreverent criminality that followed 
 was swiftly and terribly punished by the death of 
 seventy men of the town and fifty thousand of the 
 people at large. 1 The inhabitants of Beth-shemesh 
 were terrified in consequence, and the presence of 
 the Ark became as intolerable to them as it had been 
 to the Philistines. " Who is able to stand before 
 Jehovah, this holy God? and to whom shall He go 
 up from us?" This language, uttered in their con- 
 sternation, betrayed that they were aware of the 
 breach existing between Jehovah and themselves ; 
 aware, too, of the fact that in suffering the Ark to be 
 removed from them they were consenting to the 
 departure of Jehovah Himself. 
 
 The Ark, which contained Israel's most sacred 
 treasure, Jehovah's Covenant with them, engraved 
 on stone by his own finger, the Ark, which was 
 
 1 This seems to be the simplest explanation of ver. 19, which has 
 given a needless amount of trouble to commentators. The offence 
 was probably not that of looking into but of looking at the Ark of the 
 Lord, which none might see divested of its sacred coverings (Num. 
 iv. 5, 20.) 
 
I42 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
 
 the symbol and seal of God's presence in the midst 
 of His people, — which had hitherto been Israel's 
 glory and defence, and which had made the Mosaic 
 Tabernacle, in a strict and special sense, Jehovah's 
 dwelling-place, — was now become an unwelcome 
 visitant, suggestive only of danger and of displeasure. 
 And it was pushed aside into the obscurity of a pri- 
 vate house. It was not taken back to Shiloh, which 
 God had deserted. No new sanctuary was provided 
 for it; no enthusiastic welcome was accorded to it; 
 no crowd of worshippers flocked to the spot to do 
 homage to Him who dwelt between the cherubim. 
 The only question was how to dispose, of what was 
 so fraught with peril to all who were in its vicinity. 
 One man was found brave enough and loyal enough 
 to open his house for its reception, and to set his son 
 apart to guard it until such time as the breach should 
 be healed. 
 
 Twenty years passed (i. Sam. vii. 2), and still Israel 
 was without the Ark and without a sanctuary. Mean- 
 while the heavy pressure of Philistine supremacy at 
 length roused in the people a sense of their need of 
 His saving help, whom they had alienated. " All 
 the house of Israel lamented after the Lord." At 
 the instance of Samuel, they put away their strange 
 gods and served the Lord only. Shiloh was a sanc- 
 tuary no longer. The degenerate priesthood were 
 false to their high office. Samuel, as God's accred- 
 ited messenger and plenipotentiary, assumed himself 
 the functions which they were unworthy to discharge. 
 He summoned the people to Mizpeh, who fasted and 
 
THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 143 
 
 poured out water before the LORD, in token of 
 penitent humiliation. He offered a sucking lamb as 
 a whole burnt-offering, in token of the thorough con- 
 secration of a new-born people unto God. He cried 
 unto the LORD for Israel, and the LORD heard him, 
 and granted them a decisive victory over their op- 
 pressors at Eben-ezer — the very spot where they 
 had previously suffered the overwhelming defeat in 
 which the Ark was lost. Hence it appears why 
 Mizpeh was selected as the place for this penitent 
 assemblage ; it was in order that God's power might 
 be signally exerted on His people's behalf upon the 
 scene of their former disaster and disgrace, thus 
 rendering the fact conspicuous that it had not oc- 
 curred through any weakening of His arm of might. 
 (Compare Hos. i. 10). The sway of the Philistines 
 was thus broken; and, though the struggle between 
 them and Israel went fiercely forward for years to 
 come, " the hand of the LORD was against the Philis- 
 tines all the days of Samuel," and they never again 
 regained their former power. 1 (Compare II. Kings 
 vi. 23, 24.) 
 
 1 Though not essential to our argument, it will lead to a clearer 
 comprehension of the narrative to observe that I. Sam. vii. 13-17 is a 
 summary view of the rest of Samuel's life, which is introduced here, 
 not because it chronologically belongs before ch. viii., but because the 
 writer here, as uniformly throughout the book, formally concludes one 
 theme before proceeding to another. With this rapid survey of the 
 judgeship and life of Samuel, which in poim of time extends down to 
 I. Sam. xxv. 1, he winds up what he has to say of it separately, and 
 then passes to the reign of Saul, detailing in ch. viii. ff. the circum- 
 stances which led to his appointment as king. In like manner I. Sam. 
 xiv. 47-52 brings to a close the first period of Saul's reign, his success- 
 ful conduct of Israel's affairs and his victories over surrounding foes. 
 
144 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
 
 And now we should expect a grateful people to 
 have made their submission afre-sh to Him who had 
 wrought this glorious deliverance, and to have re- 
 posed their unwavering trust and confidence in Him 
 as their divine and all-sufficient Helper. Thus the 
 way might have been prepared for the Most High 
 again to set up His dwelling-place in the midst of 
 them. But, instead of this, the next thing that we 
 hear (ch. viii.) is the demand of the people, " Make 
 us a king to judge us, like all the nations." In this 
 crisis of their affairs -r- though the Lord had just 
 demonstrated His power and readiness to save a 
 penitent and obedient people — they distrust His 
 help. Their invisible Sovereign can no. longer con- 
 tent them; they must have a king. This inopportune 
 request, and the spirit in which it was made, were 
 most distressing to Samuel and displeasing to God, 
 
 The writer then enters, in the next chapter, upon the narrative of Saul's 
 trespass and rejection, thus preparing the way for the anointing of David 
 to be king in his stead. So (n. Sam. viii. 15-18) the summary state- 
 ments respecting David's reign and his principal officers conclude the 
 account of the early portion of his reign, with its uninterrupted prosper- 
 ity and success. The writer is about to enter upon the next period, which 
 was marked by David's great sin, and the disturbances which followed in 
 its train. Accordingly, after mentioning an incident ( ch. ix) which was 
 not only illustrative of David's character, but had a bearing on matters 
 to be stated subsequently (xix. 24 ff.), he proceeds at once (ch. x.) with 
 the occasion of the campaign against the children of Ammon, in the 
 course of which David's crime against Uriah was committed. In like 
 manner 11. Sam. xx. 23-26 marks the termination of the next period 
 of David's life, in which he has at length succeeded in suppressing all 
 rebellion against his royal authority, and thus prepares the way for the 
 supplementary and rather miscellaneous incidents that remain to be 
 given. 
 
THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 145 
 
 who said to his aged Prophet (ver. 7), "They have 
 not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I 
 should not reign over them." It was the purpose of 
 God that the kingdom should be established in Israel. 
 It was contemplated in the Mosaic Law itself, and 
 provision made for its erection (Deut. xvii. 14). The 
 language of this law is incorporated in the narrative 
 of this transaction to an extent which plainly shows 
 that it was in the mind of Samuel and the people at 
 the time ; at least it is so conceived and represented by 
 the sacred historian. (See above, p. 65, note.) It 
 would not have been wrong for them to ask for a king 
 under circumstances and in a manner which did not 
 imply a lack of reliance upon God, or a transfer of 
 their confidence from Him to another. If they had 
 desired a king in the spirit of Pss. xx. and xxi., Samuel 
 would not have opposed it, nor would the LORD have 
 been offended by it. It was their preferring a king 
 above the LORD as their protector, and persisting in 
 their wilful choice in spite of the remonstrances of 
 the Lord's Prophet and of the plainly expressed dis- 
 approval of the LORD Himself, which gave character 
 to the whole proceeding; and this is the feature which 
 is made prominent in the history. 
 
 The Lord did not refuse the people's request, as 
 He would have done if the thing desired had been in 
 itself sinful, and the appointment of a king had been 
 at variance with the divine constitution of Israel. But 
 He granted it in such a way as to teach them that 
 while the kingdom, with God's presence and favor, 
 
 might be a great blessing, it would be the reverse if 
 
 10 
 
146 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
 
 erected and maintained in a spirit of insubordination 
 to the divine will and authority. He gave them first 
 in Saul a king without God, then in David a king 
 after God's own heart. He chose Saul in strict cor- 
 respondence with the ideal that the people had in 
 mind, a man of goodly person, brave, energetic, and 
 capable, who fought their battles valiantly, and was 
 victorious over their foes (1 Sam. viii. 19, 20). More- 
 over he was a worshipper of Jehovah, and was not 
 devoid of religious impulses and a certain measure 
 of reverent homage. But he did not place Jehovah's 
 service and his sovereignty paramount. He was not 
 concerned for the restoration of the Sanctuary. His 
 reign was not conducted on the true theocratic prin- 
 ciple that Jehovah was the real Monarch of Israel 
 and the king was but his vicegerent and deputy ; and 
 in his impetuous nature he more than once broke 
 loose from the restraints of express divine com- 
 mands. 
 
 With the people thus leaning on an arm of flesh, 
 and the king in whom they trusted ruling in his self- 
 sufficiency, of course the Ark must remain in Kirjath- 
 jearim, in the house of Abinadab. The way was not 
 prepared for the LORD to come back to his people 
 (Isai. xl. 3). He had forsaken Shiloh ; but there 
 must be a different state of things, before He could 
 properly choose a new sanctuary. This does not 
 mean that He had utterly abandoned Israel for the 
 time, and withdrawn from them every token of His 
 favor; but He had put them under a course of disci- 
 pline by giving them that for which they asked, a king 
 
THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 147 
 
 to judge them instead of God, and He withdrew 
 Himself to await the issue (Hos. v. 15). They were 
 in the condition of Absalom, whose crime was so far 
 condoned that he was permitted to return to his own 
 house, but was forbidden to see the face of the king 
 (il. Sam. xiv. 24.) 
 
 But Samuel did not at once abandon hope for the 
 people and their king, nor desist from his endeavors 
 to bring them to a better mind ; and the LORD em- 
 ployed various gracious measures for the same end. 
 Samuel anointed Saul, and gave him the kiss either 
 of allegiance or of affection. The spirit of the LORD 
 came upon him, and God gave him another heart. 
 The LORD wrought deliverance by him from the 
 Ammonites. And Samuel, in the most earnest and 
 touching manner, entreated the people to " turn not 
 aside from following the Lord, but to serve the LORD 
 with all their heart." And yet Saul's repeated acts 
 of disobedience obliged Samuel at last to give him up, 
 and to say to him (1. Sam. xv. 26), "thou hast re- 
 jected the Word of the Lord, and the LORD hath 
 rejected thee from being king over Israel ; " and the 
 strong language is used (ver. 35) that " the LORD 
 repented that He had made Saul king over Israel." 
 And the remainder of his life was filled up with a 
 bitter and relentless persecution of David, who by 
 divine direction had been anointed in his stead. It 
 was a reign without God. Saul had apparently no 
 desire to re-establish the Sanctuary of God, or to have 
 the Ark brought forth from its obscure retreat. 
 Neither the people nor the king returned unto the 
 
148 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
 
 LORD, and the LORD did not return unto them 
 (Mai. iii. 7). 
 
 But David was no sooner established in his kingdom 
 than he instituted measures to have the Ark brought 
 to his capital. Recognizing the momentous signifi- 
 cance of the act, he assembled " all the chosen men of 
 Israel, thirty thousand" (u. Sam. vi. 1), and brought it 
 up with solemn pomp and numerous sacrifices, abasing 
 himself before the Ark in a manner that drew upon 
 him the reproaches of his wife, but which he justified 
 by the fact that " it was before the LORD " (ver. 21). 
 Jehovah had returned to take up his abode amongst 
 His people. That this was the point of view from 
 which it was regarded by the sacred historian appears 
 from the emphasis with which in his mention of the 
 Ark, both as taken from Shiloh (1. Sam. iv. 4,) and as 
 reinstated in Zion (11. Sam. vi. 2), he associates with 
 it " the Lord of Hosts who dwelleth between the 
 cherubim." It was not a consecrated vessel, it was 
 God Himself, for whom this enthusiastic welcome 
 was prepared, and who now fixed His residence on 
 Zion with a magnificence that, to the eye of faith, 
 equalled His former grand descent on Sinai (Ps. lxviii. 
 
 16 ff.). 
 
 The facts then are these. Jehovah dwelt between 
 the cherubim, or sat enthroned above the cherubim, 
 that were upon the Ark. Wherever the Ark went, 
 Jehovah went. He left Shiloh, and came into the 
 camp of Israel. Dagon, in his own temple, fell pros- 
 trate and was broken in pieces before Him. His 
 hand was laid so heavily upon the Philistines as to 
 
THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 149 
 
 compel them to send the Ark back to the land of 
 Israel. The violation of its sacredness by the over- 
 curious men of Beth-shemesh and by Uzzah was 
 punished by sudden death. Jehovah went up from 
 Beth-shemesh when the Ark was taken away. He 
 came to Zion when the Ark was carried thither. The 
 place of the Ark was the place of sacrifice, and, until 
 the abandonment of Shiloh, was the only place of 
 stated legitimate sacrifice. The Ark is in the history 
 exactly what it is in the Levitical Law, with all the 
 sacredness and the sanctions and the requirements 
 governing its transportation and its custody. 
 
 Such was Israel's estimation of the Ark ; and yet 
 the Ark was suffered for more than a generation to 
 lie unnoticed and apparently forgotten in the obscur- 
 ity of a private house. No sacred tent was erected to 
 receive it. No pilgrimages were made to it as always 
 heretofore. No festivals were held in its neighbor- 
 hood. No sacrifices were offered there. No re- 
 sponses were sought or given. No homage was paid. 
 There were no attendant priests ; there was no daily 
 ceremonial. The historian plainly traces this to the 
 terror which it inspired. Israel was afraid to come 
 near to this symbol of Jehovah's presence, or to have 
 it brought near to them. They were profoundly sen- 
 sible of the disharmony that had arisen ; and even 
 though " they lamented after the LORD," they kept 
 aloof. 1 
 
 Samuel had been trained up from early childhood 
 in the Temple at Shiloh, where the Ark of God was. 
 He knew that that was the sole place of sacrifice for 
 
 1 See p. 170. 
 
150 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
 
 all Israel. He knew the meaning and the sacredness 
 of the Ark. And yet, from the time that the LORD 
 abandoned Shiloh, Samuel forsook it too, and never 
 returned. He knew the full significance of the cap- 
 ture of the Ark, and of the slaughter of its priestly 
 attendants ; and he set himself to heal the breach 
 between Jehovah and His people. The promising 
 symptoms of the penitent assemblage at Mizpeh were 
 soon destroyed by the want of faith in Jehovah, which 
 clamored for a king to save them from their enemies, 
 in spite of the urgent entreaties of Samuel himself, 
 and the disapproval of the LORD. The hope to which 
 he still clung, that the people might yet prove faith- 
 ful to the LORD after their request had been granted, 
 and that Saul might reign as a true servant of Jeho- 
 vah, was dimmed and dimmed by successive disap- 
 pointments, until it was absolutely quenched by Saul's 
 wilfulness and transgression. All that Samuel could 
 do further was to anoint David in Saul's stead, and 
 wait and pray for better times. 
 
 During all this period of sad degeneracy and earnest 
 labors for Israel's reformation, Samuel prayed for the 
 people, and pleaded with them, and led their worship. 
 He sacrificed at Mizpeh, at Gilgal, at Ramah, at Bethel 
 (possibly), and at Bethlehem, but never once at 
 Kirjath-jearim. He never assembled the people at or 
 near the house of Abinadab. He never took meas- 
 ures to have the Ark present at any assembly of the 
 people, or upon any occasion of sacrifice. The LORD 
 had not indicated His will to establish another sanc- 
 tuary, where He might record His name, in place of 
 
THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 151 
 
 Shiloh which He had forsaken. Israel was not spirit- 
 ually prepared for God's return to dwell among them 
 (Josh. xxiv. 19). Matters were not ripe for the re- 
 newal of the interrupted covenant relations. Under 
 these circumstances it was not regularity of ritual 
 which was demanded but a genuine inward reforma- 
 tion. 
 
 Jehovah was not a mere tribal god or a national 
 deity in any such sense as Dagon was of the Philis- 
 tines, Chemosh of Moab, Moloch of Ammon, and 
 Baal of the Canaanites. His service was not outward, 
 formal, and mechanical. The fundamental demand 
 of the covenant was " Ye shall be holy;, for I the 
 Lord your God am holy." The Old Testament is 
 full of the most explicit assertions that, if this was 
 disregarded, the covenant could not be maintained 
 (Ex. xxxiii. 3; Deut. iv. 23-26; Amos, iii. 2, 3). 
 Sacrifices and lustrations were no acceptable substi- 
 tutes for piety of heart and life. The principle by 
 which Samuel was actuated throughout is formulated 
 by himself (1. Sam. xv. 22, 23), " To obey is better 
 than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams ; 
 for rebellion is the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness 
 is iniquity and teraphim." The people must be 
 brought back to God in penitent submission, before 
 He can be brought back to them and own Himself 
 once more their God. Samuel was, therefore, labor- 
 ing for the re-establishment of the Sanctuary in the 
 only way in which it could be effectually brought 
 about, so as to be a divine reality and not an empty 
 and unmeaning form. 
 
152 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
 
 It is further to be observed that Samuel was God's 
 accredited messenger and representative, charged with 
 the declaration of His will to Israel; and we have the 
 right to assume that in what he did he was guided by- 
 immediate divine direction. So that when he offered 
 sacrifices elsewhere than at Shiloh, from which God 
 had withdrawn His presence, and when he assumed 
 the functions of a priesthood which was unworthy to 
 exercise them longer, this was not because every one 
 was at liberty to usurp the priestly prerogative at 
 will, as Saul found out to his cost, nor because sacri- 
 fices might be acceptably offered wherever any one 
 chose to offer them, but because the Prophet was in 
 all this only the instrument of the divine will. Doubt- 
 less Samuel might have said of each act and place of 
 sacrifice as Elijah said of his sacrifice at Carmel 
 (i. Kings, xviii. 36), "I am thy servant, and I have 
 done all these things at thy word." This is in fact 
 explicitly recorded of his sacrifice at Bethlehem 
 (I. Sam. xvi. 2); compare xiii. 8, 13, where Samuel's 
 appointment in relation to a sacrifice is called the 
 Lord's commandment. 
 
 The allegation that Samuel's conduct shows him to 
 have been ignorant of the Levitical Law, or proves 
 that this law was not then in existence, is therefore 
 wholly without foundation. He acted upon those 
 great underlying principles upon which the ritual 
 law itself was based ; and he acted under the imme- 
 diate direction of Him by whom that law was given. 
 He acted in Israel's defection precisely as the great 
 lawgiver himself acted on the occasion of the trans- 
 
THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
 
 53 
 
 gression of the Golden Calf. (See above, p. ioo.) 
 Moses and Samuel are accordingly combined by 
 Jeremiah xv. I and Ps. xcix, 6, neither the Prophet 
 nor the Psalmist conceiving that there was any vari- 
 ance between the work of Samuel and the Law of 
 Moses rightly understood. If Samuel's conduct can 
 be justified notwithstanding his acquaintance with 
 the Ark, which cannot be denied, it is equally capa- 
 ble of being reconciled and in the very same man- 
 ner with his knowledge of the whole round of Mosaic 
 institutions. 
 
 But when David removed the Ark from Kirjath- 
 jearim, why was it not at once restored to its place in 
 the Mosaic Tabernacle, which was then at Gibeon in 
 the neighborhood of Jerusalem ? or if it was to be 
 taken to Zion, why did he erect a new tent for it there, 
 when the Tabernacle of Moses might so easily have 
 been brought to Zion likewise? The reason is to be 
 sought in the fact that a transition point had now 
 been reached in the affairs of Israel. God's earthly 
 kingdom was entering upon a fresh stage of its exist- 
 ence, and a change should be made in the royal resi- 
 dence to correspond with it. " David perceived that 
 the LORD had established him king over Israel, and 
 that He had exalted his kingdom for His people 
 Israel's sake" (n. Sam. v. 12). The migratory period, 
 properly represented by the Mosaic tent, was over. 
 The unsettled state of things, which had lasted until 
 the time of David, the struggle with yet unsub- 
 dued Canaanites, and the wars with the Philistines, who 
 were lately dominant, had at length come to an end, 
 
154 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
 
 and Israel had gained complete and undisturbed pos- 
 session of the land which the LORD had given them. 
 It was fit that God's dwelling-place in Israel should 
 no longer be a movable tent, such as was constructed 
 for the march through the desert, or was adapted to 
 the troublous times which had witnessed and com- 
 pelled its transportation from Shiloh to Nob, and from 
 Nob to Gibeon. God had now given firm establish- 
 ment to His people, and His abode among them ought 
 henceforth to assume the character of a fixed and 
 permanent habitation (i. Chron. xxiii. 25, 26). He 
 had granted prosperity and rich abundance to the 
 kingdom, and this should be reflected in the royal 
 palace; "the house to be builded for the LORD 
 must be exceeding magnifical, of fame and of glory 
 throughout all countries " (1. Chron. xxii. 5). 
 
 Accordingly David did not replace the Ark in the 
 Mosaic Tabernacle, inasmuch as this was not such a 
 house as it was fitting for Jehovah to have thenceforth 
 in Israel. He set it in a tent which he had pitched 
 for its temporary accommodation (11. Sam. vi. 17). 
 And the very next record in the history is his pro- 
 posal to erect a temple (ch. vii). . This project, which 
 was carried into effect by Solomon, was the guiding 
 idea of David's reign, who made extensive prepara- 
 tions for it by the treasures amassed in his various 
 wars (11. Sam. viii. II ; I. Kings, vii. 51). Hence for 
 the remainder of David's reign there were two heads 
 of the priestly order (11. Sam. viii. 17, xv. 24-29, 35, 
 xx. 25), instead of one as at every other period before 
 and after. These represented two distinct lines of 
 
THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 155 
 
 descent from Aaron : Zadok, who was of the family 
 of Eleazar, ministered in the Mosaic Tabernacle at 
 Gibeon ; and Abiathar or his son Ahimelech, of the 
 family of Ithamar, ministered before the Ark on 
 Zion (1. Chron. xvi. 39, xxiv. 3). This duplication 
 ceased with the defection and deposition of Abiathar 
 (i. Kings, ii. 26, 27), which fixed the priesthood in the 
 line of Phinehas, as had been predicted long before 
 (Num. xxv. 11— 13 ; I. Sam. ii. 30 ff.). 
 
 From the abandonment of Shiloh to the erection of 
 the Temple of. Solomon, the worship on high places 
 was allowable (1. Kings, iii. 2), as it had not been 
 before and was not afterwards. During this interval 
 there was no " place which the LORD had chosen to 
 put His name there," so that the law of the unity of 
 the Sanctuary was necessarily in abeyance (Deut. xii. 
 5 ff.). But from the time of Solomon onward, high 
 places are nowhere sanctioned, directly or by impli- 
 cation. The idolatrous high places built by Solomon 
 for his foreign wives (i. Kings, xi. 7, 8 ; II. Kings, xxiii. 
 13) were in palpable violation of Jehovah's covenant; 
 so were those that were frequented in the reign of 
 Rehoboam and other ungodly kings (l. Kings, xiv. 
 22-24). The fact that " the high places were not re- 
 moved," even under such pious kings as Asa (1. Kings, 
 xv. 14), Jehoshaphat (xxii. 43), Joash (II. Kings, 
 xii. 3), Amaziah (xiv. 4), Uzziah (xv. 4), and Jotham 
 (ver. 35) is confessedly disapproved by the author of 
 the Books of Kings (compare also I. Kings, xiii. 32, 
 33 ; II. Kings, xvii. 9, xxi. 3) ; and it implies no sanction 
 on the part of these monarchs, but simply that they 
 
156 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
 
 were not able to effect their extirpation, and perhaps 
 were not as zealous in the matter as they should have 
 been. That they did seek to remove them, and with 
 a measure of success, is explicitly affirmed by the 
 author of Chronicles (11. Chron. xiv. 3-5, xvii. 6) ; 
 and this is not contradicted by anything in Kings. 
 Some of these high places were dedicated to the wor- 
 ship of Jehovah (11. Kings, xviii. 22 ; Isai. xxxvi. 7 ; 
 II. Chron. xxxiii. 17), and Levitical priests officiated 
 at them (11. Kings, xxiii. 9); but this does not dis- 
 prove the existence of the law forbidding them, any 
 more than the corruptions of the Middle Ages would 
 justify the assumption that the New Testament had 
 not yet been written. And if the worship on high 
 places was accounted legitimate until the reign of 
 Hezekiah, how comes it to pass that there is not a 
 trace of such a view in the Psalms or in the older 
 Prophets ? God is invoked and described as dwelling 
 in Zion ; no other habitation is' ever alluded to, no 
 other Sanctuary is ever mentioned with approval. 
 The critics tell us that it is the character of the wor- 
 ship offered on the high places, and not the high 
 places themselves, which the Prophets condemn. But 
 the fact is that no mention is made in the entire body 
 of the prophetical writings of a single high place 
 where pure and acceptable worship was offered, or 
 to which it was proper to resort. The people are 
 never told that they may sacrifice on the high hills 
 and under green trees, or at Bethel and Gilgal and 
 Beersheba, if only they sacrifice to the LORD alone 
 and in a proper manner. They are never told that 
 
THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 1 57 
 
 God will be pleased with the erection of numerous 
 altars, provided the service upon them is rightly con- 
 ducted. 
 
 It cannot be pretended that the Prophets of Judah 
 look otherwise than with disfavor upon the worship on 
 high places. This is acknowledged of Jeremiah (iii. 
 2, vii. 31, xvii. 1-3) and of all the Prophets after his 
 time. (Compare Ezek. vi. 3, 6, xvi. 16, xx. 27-29.) 
 It is equally plain in Joel (ii. 1, 15, 32, iii. 16, 17, 21), 
 Obadiah (vers. 16, 17, 21), Micah, (i. 5, iv. 1, 2, 7), 
 and Isaiah (not to repeat passages already cited, 
 p. 119, xi. 9, xii. 6, xviii. 7, xxiv. 23, xxvii. 13, 
 xxviii. 16, xxix. 1, 8, xxx. 29, xxxi. 4, 9). 
 
 But it is urged that the antithesis suggested by 
 Hosea and Amos, who prophesied in the Northern 
 Kingdom, is not between the worship on high places 
 and worship at Jerusalem, but between high places 
 and the true service of Jehovah, showing that it was 
 not the unity of the Sanctuary but purity of worship 
 which they had at heart. We not only freely admit 
 but strenuously insist that purity is above unity and 
 unity is for the sake of purity. This attitude of the 
 Prophets, however, so far from conflicting with the 
 Levitical and Deuteronomi-c codes, or showing that 
 the Prophets were unacquainted with them and with 
 their binding authority, is identical with the openly 
 professed intent of these codes themselves (Lev. xvii. 
 3-7; Deut. xii. 2-5). It would not be strange if some 
 leniency were shown to the pious among the Ten 
 Tribes in this matter, and if irregularities were consid- 
 ered excusable in their case, which the exigencies of 
 
158 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
 
 their situation rendered, if not unavoidable, yet ex- 
 tremely natural. Nevertheless even here there is not 
 a word that directly or positively sanctions worship on 
 any high place, or in any other than the one sole 
 Sanctuary. 
 
 If a pure worship, freed from idolatrous adjuncts 
 and from carnal enticements, was maintained in the 
 Sanctuary on Mount Zion alone, then Hosea's appeal 
 to his hearers to abandon Gilgal and Bethel, as in- 
 compatible with a true reverence for Jehovah (iv. 15, 
 ix. 15), his affirmation that snares are laid on Mizpeh 
 and a net spread upon Tabor (v. 1), his rebuke of 
 multiplied altars (viii. 11, x. 1, xii. 11), and his de- 
 nunciation of judgment on Bethel and its high places 
 (x. 8, 15), are equivalent to so many exhortations to 
 his hearers to frequent the one place of true worship, 
 and must have been so understood by them. Then, 
 too, when Amos opposes seeking Bethel and Dan 
 and Gilgal and Beersheba to seeking the LORD (iv. 4, 
 v. 4-6, viii. 14), or threatens desolation to the high 
 places of Isaac and the sanctuaries of Israel (iii. 14, 
 vii. 9), he is in effect recalling the transgressing peo- 
 ple to the worship at Jerusalem.' If, however, it be 
 maintained that there were other sanctuaries than 
 that on Zion where the. worship was pure, and that 
 Hosea and Amos had these in mind, we wait for the 
 proof of an assertion which Hosea and Amos cer- 
 tainly do not make, which is directly counter to the 
 testimony of other Prophets, which finds no confirma- 
 tion in the expressed views of the sacred historians 
 or in any known facts of the history, but is simply 
 
THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 159 
 
 assumed in the interest of a critical hypothesis. 
 Moreover, Amos expressly affirms that Zion is Je- 
 hovah's Seat, from which He sends forth the utter- 
 ances of His might (i. 2) ; and both he and Hosea 
 range themselves in line with the Prophets of Judah 
 by their recognition of the fact that the rightful sway 
 over Israel belonged to David's Royal House (Hos. 
 iii. 5, viii. 4; Amos, ix. 11). 
 
 We are now prepared to estimate the following 
 paragraph from Prof. Robertson Smith (p. 235): 
 " The earlier history relates scarcely one event of 
 importance that was not transacted at a holy place. 
 The local sanctuaries were the centres of all Hebrew 
 life. How little of the history would remain if She- 
 chem and Bethel, the two Mizpehs and Ophrah, Gilgal, 
 Ramah and Gibeon, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beer- 
 sheba, Kedesh and Mahanaim, Tabor and Carmel 
 were blotted out of the pages of the Old Testament." 
 
 1. Of the fifteen places thus promiscuously thrown 
 together, there are three, viz., Mizpeh (east of Jor- 
 dan), Kedesh, and Mahanaim, in which there is no 
 recorded instance of sacrifice in post-Mosaic times ; 
 and, in two of them, there is no mention of sacrifice 
 at any time, whether before the age of Moses or after 
 it. Mizpeh, where Jacob and Laban covenanted and 
 offered sacrifice (Gen. xxxi. 49, 54), and Mahanaim, 
 where the angels met Jacob (xxxii. 2), like other 
 spots memorable in the lives of the Patriarchs, and 
 like Bannockburn, Bunker Hill, and Gettysburg in 
 more modern times, were hallowed by their asso- 
 ciations, and were for that reason likely to be selected 
 
l6o THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
 
 for patriotic gatherings or for important uses. The 
 children of Israel assembled at Mizpeh to oppose the 
 Ammonites (Judg. x. 17) ; and if, as seems probable, 
 it was the same as Ramoth-gilead (Josh. xiii. 26), it 
 was one of the cities of refuge (xx. 8). Mahanaim 
 was a Levitical city (xxi. 38), the capital of Ish- 
 bosheth's kingdom (11. Sam. ii. 8), and the place to 
 which David fled from Absalom (xvii. 24) ; and Cant, 
 vi. 13 speaks somewhat obscurely of " the dance of 
 Mahanaim." But there is nothing that implies that 
 either was a sanctuary for worship. Jephthah is 
 said (Judg. xi. 11) to have "uttered all his words 
 before the Lord in Mizpeh." But so David and 
 Jonathan made a covenant " before the Lord " in 
 the wood where the former was hiding (1. Sam. xxiii. 
 18). David walked " before the LORD " in the whole 
 of his pious life (1. Kings, iii. 6), as did Jotham (ii. 
 Chron. xxvii. 6) and Hezekiah (xxxi. 20). The 
 foes of Asa were destroyed " before the Lord " in 
 battle (11. Chron. xiv. 13). Manasseh humbled him- 
 self " before the LORD " in his captivity at Babylon 
 (xxxiii. 12,23). Nehemiah (L 4) prayed "before 
 the God of Heaven " in the capital of Persia. 
 
 The Professor tells us (p. 424) that Kedesh, which 
 was a Levitical city and a city of refuge (Josh. xxi. 
 32), and where Barak marshalled his army against 
 Sisera (Judg. iv. 10), " is proved by its very name" 
 to have been a sanctuary; but he fails to inform us 
 when or by whom this name was imposed and what 
 gave occasion to its being called a consecrated place. 
 The argument is as faulty as that (p. 323) from 
 
THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. l6l 
 
 "Deut. i.i, and other similar passages, where the 
 land east of the Jordan is said to be across Jordan, 
 proving that the writer lived in Western Palestine ; " 
 as though Cisalpine Gaul and Transalpine Gaul 
 changed names to the old Roman generals as often 
 as they crossed the Alps. Or it may be "classed with 
 his inference that the use of Negcb for " south " and 
 sea for "west" " proves quite unambiguously that the 
 Pentateuch was written in Canaan ; " and by parity 
 of reasoning we may infer that September is the 
 seventh month of the year, that landlords are always 
 owners of real estate, and that lunacy is produced 
 by the influence of the moon. There is no more 
 familiar phenomenon in language than that words 
 often retain their secondary senses, even when these 
 have ceased to be in accord with their primary 
 sense. 
 
 2. Three others in the above list of alleged Israel- 
 itish sanctuaries, viz., Shechem, Beersheba, and 
 Tabor, were places of idolatrous worship only, so far 
 as we know, in post-Mosaic times. Shechem con- 
 tained a temple of Baal-berith (Judg. ix. 4, 27, 46). 
 Amos uttered his warnings against the sinful worship 
 of Beersheba (v. 5, viii. 14), and Hosea against the 
 net spread upon Tabor (v. 1). But there is no inti- 
 mation that any other style of worship was maintained 
 in these places, or in any one of them. Shechem, by 
 the oak of Moreh, was Abram's first abode in the 
 Promised Land ; there the LORD appeared to him and 
 he builded an altar (Gen. xii. 6, 7). Jacob came 
 back to Shechem on his return from Padan-aram, and 
 
 11 
 
1 62 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
 
 he erected an altar there (xxxiii. 18, 20) ; and all the 
 strange gods and idolatrous emblems of his house- 
 hold were buried under the oak by the city (xxxv. 
 4). In memory of these facts Joshua assembled the 
 people at Shechem (Josh. xxiv. 1) when he would 
 urge them to put away their strange gods (vers. 14, 
 23), and he set up a monumental stone (ver. 26) 
 under the old oak which still continued to stand — 
 not " by,"' as the English Version has it, but as it is 
 in the Hebrew — " in the sanctuary of the LORD." 
 The very form of the expression shows us that the 
 sanctuary here spoken of was not a building, and 
 there is no intimation that sacrifices were offered 
 there upon this or any subsequent occasion ; it was 
 simply a spot venerated from its ancient and sacred 
 associations. The place gained new sacredness from 
 these parting counsels of Joshua, and was hence 
 selected for the coronation of Abimelech (Judges 
 ix. 6) and of Rehoboam (1. Kings, xii. 1), and for 
 the royal residence of Jeroboam (ver. 25). It was 
 also one of the cities of refuge (Josh. xx. 7) ; but it 
 is nowhere affirmed or implied that it was a sanctuary 
 for the worship of Jehovah. 
 
 The LORD appeared to Isaac (Gen. xxvi. 23-25) 
 and subsequently to Jacob (xlvi. 1 . ) in Beersheba, both 
 of whom offered sacrifices there. It was also the scene 
 of an interesting incident in the life of Abraham, who 
 also worshipped there (xxi. 31, 33). This ancient 
 sacredness no doubt contributed to its selection as 
 one of the chief seats of idolatry in later times. The 
 lofty summit of Tabor sufficiently accounts for its 
 
THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 163 
 
 becoming a place of idolatrous sacrifice(Hos. iv. 13). 
 The suggestion (p. 424) that it is " alluded to in 
 Deut. xxxiii. 18, 19, as the Sanctuary" of Zebulun 
 and Issachar, is wholly without foundation. 
 
 3. Six of the alleged sanctuaries are places where 
 sacrifices were offered on some special occasion or 
 during some brief period, but were not, so far as there 
 is any record upon the subject, permanent places of 
 sacrifice. We read of offerings in five of these places 
 in the provisional period from Samuel to Solomon, 
 and in that exclusively; they are Mizpeh (west of 
 Jordan), Ramah, Gibeon, Hebron, and Bethlehem. 
 The one offering spoken of at Mizpeh (1. Sam. vii. 
 5, 9) was by Samuel when the place of Israel's defeat 
 was by divine help converted into one of victory (see 
 above, p. 143). It is with allusion to this event that 
 Mizpeh is said (1. Mace. iii. 46) to have been " a place 
 of prayer aforetime for Israel." In I. Sam. x. 17 this 
 same spot was significantly selected for the gathering 
 of the people " unto the LORD," when Samuel recited 
 God's gracious acts of deliverance, which in their de- 
 mand of a king they had so sinfully disregarded ; but 
 no mention is made of sacrifice. Nor was any sacri- 
 fice offered when the people were gathered " unto the 
 Lord" in Mizpeh (Judg. xx. 1), to go up to battle 
 against Benjamin. The reason why they met there 
 was not the superior sacredness of the place, but its 
 proximity to Gibeah where the crime had been com- 
 mitted. It was a convenient point for negotiations 
 with Benjamin (ver. 12), or if need be for hostilities 
 against them. When they desired to ask counsel of 
 
1 64 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
 
 God (vers. 18, 27), or to offer sacrifices (ver. 26, xxi. 
 4), they went for the purpose to Bethel, to which the 
 Ark was temporarily brought from Shiloh for the 
 occasion. Samuel judged Israel in Mizpeh from year 
 to year (I. Sam. vii. 16); but he is nowhere said to 
 have offered more than the one sacrifice there. 
 
 Ramah was another place of Samuel's judgment, 
 and there he built an altar unto the LORD (ver. 17) ; 
 this was the scene of the sacrifice spoken of, ix. 12. 
 Gibeon was "the great high place" (I. Kings, hi. 4) in 
 the early years of Solomon, because the Mosaic Tab- 
 ernaclewas there (u. Chron. i. 3, 13). Hebron, where 
 Abraham dwelt and built an altar (Gen. xiii. 18), and 
 where Jacob lived (xxxvii. 14), was a priestly city and 
 a city of refuge (Josh. xxi. 13). David went thither 
 by divine direction (11. Sam. ii. 1), and was anointed 
 king over Judah (ver. 4), and . subsequently king over 
 Israel, after making a league there with the elders of 
 the people " before the LORD" (v. 3) ; % but the only 
 thing recorded which implies a sacrificial service 
 there, is Absalom's vow (xv. 7-9). Samuel by God's 
 command offered a sacrifice in Bethlehem (1. Sam. 
 xvi. 2 ff.) ; and David's family held a yearly sacrifice 
 there (xx. 6). All the offerings now recited occur in 
 the interval between God's forsaking Shiloh and the 
 building of the Temple, which has been already suffi- 
 ciently discussed. There is no hint of post-Mosaic 
 sacrifices at any of these places before or after this 
 term of the cessation of the divinely instituted Sanc- 
 tuary. 
 
 Elijah, acting under express divine orders (1 Kings, 
 
THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 1 65 
 
 xviii. 36), offered his sacrifice at Carmel, repairing for 
 the purpose the previously existing altar of the LORD 
 which had been broken down (ver. 30). This shows, 
 as we learn further from xix. 14, that the pious in the 
 apostate Kingdom of Israel, who were cut off from 
 attendance at Jerusalem, preferred to sacrifice in an 
 irregular manner rather than be precluded from offer- 
 ing to Jehovah altogether. This neither implies igno- 
 rance of the Mosaic Law, nor a wanton disregard of it. 
 It is a breach of outward order for the sake of preserv- 
 ing God's worship from extinction. The forced con- 
 struction of Mic. vii. 14, which makes it declare that 
 God dwells in the midst of Carmel, and in which 
 Baudissin A follows Hitzig, will probably commend 
 itself to few. There is no reason to suppose that the 
 Professor adopts it. 
 
 4. But three of the alleged sanctuaries remain, viz., 
 Bethel, Ophrah, and Gilgal, in each of which sacrifices 
 were offered upon special occasions only, and for 
 assignable reasons ; and each subsequently became 
 a seat of idolatry. Gideon's present of a kid and 
 unleavened cakes was converted into a sacrifice by 
 the Angel of the Lord who appeared to him in 
 Ophrah (Judg. vi. 20, 21), whereupon he built a 
 memorial altar (ver. 24) ; afterwards by express divine 
 command he threw down the altar of Baal, erected one 
 to Jehovah in its stead, and offered a bullock upon it 
 (vers. 25 ff.). An ephod, which he set up in Ophrah, 
 was perverted to an idolatrous use (viii. 27). Bethel, 
 
 1 Article " Hohendienst," p. 183, in Herzog und Plitt's Real- 
 Encyclopaedie. 
 
1 66 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
 
 where God appeared twice to Jacob (Gen. xxviii. ioff., 
 xxxv. 9 ff.), was temporarily a place of sacrifice dur- 
 ing the presence of the Ark (Judg. xx. 18, 26, 27); 
 and, when the regular services of the Sanctuary were 
 suspended in the time of Samuel, mention is made of 
 men going up with their offerings to God to Bethel 
 (1. Sam. x. 3). These sacred associations no doubt 
 influenced Jeroboam in determining to set up one of 
 his Golden Calves at Bethel (1. Kings, xii. 29). 
 
 Gilgal, which was Israel's first encampment in the 
 Holy Land (Josh. iv. 19), and where they renewed 
 their covenant with God by circumcision and the 
 Passover after the long period of alienation and wan- 
 dering in the Wilderness (v. 2 ff.), was selected by 
 Samuel with a view to these old memories as one of 
 his places of judgment (1. Sam. vii. 16), and particu- 
 larly for the sacrifices by which the kingdom was 
 inaugurated (x. 8, xi. 14, 15), as he sought to reclaim 
 the people from their forgetfulness and rejection of 
 the LORD. And it was here that Saul's repeated acts 
 of disobedience (xiii. 9 ff., xv. 15 ff.) destroyed every 
 hope that the ancient experience of Gilgal might be 
 repeated, so long as he sat upon the throne. This 
 consecrated spot was for that very reason chosen 
 by idolaters for their worship (Judg. iii. 19, — where 
 " quarries " of the English version should be " ima- 
 ges," — Hos. iv. 15, ix. 15, xii. 11 ; Amos, iv. 4). 
 
 We have now gone with some care through the 
 entire list of what the Professor calls " local sanctua- 
 ries ; " and the facts show that apart from idolatrous 
 perversions, there was not a single sanctuary for per- 
 
THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 167 
 
 manent worship among them. Deduct the two or 
 three instances, in the period of the Judges, in which 
 Jehovah or the Angel of Jehovah appeared to men, 
 and sacrifices were offered on the spot, — deduct fur- 
 ther the sacrifices offered when Israel had no sanctu- 
 ary, after God had withdrawn from Shiloh and before 
 the Temple was built, or in the peculiar circumstances 
 of the Ten Tribes in the lifetime of Elijah, — deduct 
 these sacrifices which were due to special causes and 
 were strictly limited to the occasion that called them 
 forth, and there is not a particle of evidence that any 
 one of these places was a sanctuary for the worship 
 of Jehovah. This whole hypothesis of " local sanc- 
 tuaries " rests on absolutely unsupported conjecture. 
 With a total disregard of the considerations that rule 
 in some exceptional case, the conclusion is at once 
 drawn that it represents a permanent and habitual 
 course of action. Each instance of special sacrifice 
 is adduced as evidence of a new sanctuary. By a 
 like process of argument, some future historian of the 
 American Colonies may infer from the fact that the 
 Continental Congress met at various places during 
 the exigencies of the Revolutionary War, that Lancas- 
 ter, York, Princeton, and Annapolis were all perma- 
 nent capitals like Philadelphia, and that instead of 
 one united body of representatives from all the colo- 
 nies, there must have been several distinct bodies 
 holding their sessions simultaneously and meeting 
 continuously at these different points. 
 
 The question here recurs : Do the known facts re- 
 specting Israel's worship militate against the Mosaic 
 
1 68 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES, 
 
 origin of the Pentateuchal laws? The critics tell us 
 that the law of the unity of the Sanctuary was con- 
 stantly disobeyed until the time of Josiah, — that pre- 
 vious to his reign, both the ungodly and the godly 
 portion of the people, both wicked and pious princes, 
 act in a manner which shows that no such law was 
 known to them or heeded by them. Josiah's vigo- 
 rous reforms must accordingly mark the first serious 
 attempt to introduce this law, and Deuteronomy must 
 be dated from his reign, or shortly before it. 
 
 Now, what is the real state of the case? The Ark 
 of the covenant and the Mosaic Tabernacle constituted 
 the sole Sanctuary of Jehovah from the entrance into 
 Canaan until the capture of the Ark by the Philistines. 
 From that time until the Ark was taken to Zion it was 
 simply lodged in a private house, and no sacrifices 
 were offered before it; but Samuel and others sacri- 
 ficed in different parts of the land. A time so evi- 
 dently anomalous, however, supplies no criterion for a 
 normal state of affairs. It cannot be inferred that 
 there was no law restricting sacrificial worship to the 
 Sanctuary, because this restriction was not observed 
 when no sanctuary existed. Would any one think of 
 arguing that Washington City was not the legally es- 
 tablished seat of government in the United States, 
 because the President and Congress were dislodged 
 by the burning of the Capitol and other public build- 
 ings in 1 8 14, — or that England is not by its consti- 
 tution a hereditary monarchy, because Oliver Crom- 
 well ruled as Protector? 
 
 From the time that the Ark was lodged in Solo- 
 
THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 169 
 
 mon's Temple and the divine glory took manifest 
 possession of it, this was Israel's exclusive Sanctuary. 
 And the attempt to disprove this by urging the sub- 
 sequent existence of high places, which the sacred 
 historian condemns and which the Prophets with one 
 voice disallow, is as though some one were to infer 
 that no prohibitory law had ever been passed in 
 Maine, because liquor continues to be sold in the 
 State, and that, as is alleged, with the connivance of 
 officers elected on the temperance ticket. There was 
 but one Ark from the days of Moses to the Babylo- 
 nish captivity, and Jehovah dwelt between its cheru- 
 bim. This fact, which can neither be denied nor 
 explained away, is the impregnable stronghold of our 
 position. 
 
 And let it be remembered that the preceding argu- 
 ment has been conducted without the aid which we 
 are entitled to draw from the Books of Chronicles. 
 It is confessed by all that if their testimony is admit- 
 ted into the case, the Mosaic origin of the institutions 
 of the Pentateuch is unassailable. 
 
ADDENDUM 
 
 To Page 149, Line 4 from bottom. 
 
 And in the very midst of the glad and triumphal 
 transportation of the Ark to the city of David, the 
 whole proceeding was suddenly arrested by the mani- 
 festation of Jehovah's displeasure, in the death of 
 Uzzah. David feared to take the Ark further, and it 
 was once more deposited in a private house. There 
 it remained for three months, until the blessing be- 
 stowed upon the house of Obed-edom, because of the 
 Ark, gave assurance that the anger of the Lord was 
 turned away, and His favor was again restored to His 
 people. 
 
KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS AND 
 PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 
 
KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS AND PROPH- 
 ECY IN ISRAEL. 
 
 r I ^HE recent work by Professor Kuenen, of the 
 "*■ University of Leyden, entitled " The Prophets 
 and Prophecy in Israel," * is written from the stand- 
 point of the most ultra criticism and of absolute anti- 
 supernaturalism. The concurrent judgment of all 
 past ages has found a surprising coincidence between 
 the predictions of these Prophets and the facts of sub- 
 sequent history. The defenders of revealed religion 
 have esteemed this one of the firm bulwarks of their 
 faith, and have ranked it among the convincing evi- 
 dences of the divinity and inspiration of the Scrip- 
 tures. They, to whom the Scriptures were not in any 
 supernatural sense the Word of God, have confessed 
 the potency of this argument by the extraordinary 
 pains which they have taken to rid themselves of it 
 by every expedient of criticism and exegesis. But 
 withal they have not been, in Dr. Kuenen's opinion, 
 
 1 " The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel." An Historical and 
 Critical Enquiry, by Dr. A. Kuenen, Professor of Theology in the 
 University of Leyden. Translated from the Dutch by the Rev. Adam 
 Milroy, M.A., with an Introduction by J. Muir, Esq., D.C.L. Lon- 
 don: Longmans, Green & Co. 1877. 8vo, pp. 593. 
 
174 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 sufficiently thorough-going. " The supporters of the 
 naturalistic hypothesis themselves," he says (p. 6), 
 " do not maintain it in a thorough and consistent 
 manner, but in their description of Israelitish proph- 
 ecy introduced features which are borrowed from the 
 traditional theory, or at least find there alone their 
 proper place." 
 
 This weakness and inconsistency he proposes utterly 
 to eschew. He would relieve the hypothesis of the 
 purely human origin of the Bible from the burden by 
 which it has hitherto been pressed. With this view, 
 he denies the existence of any such correspondence 
 between prophecy and the event as has been hitherto 
 claimed by believers, and confessed to no small extent 
 even by those who dispute its supernatural inspira- 
 tion. He undertakes to point out in detail that a large 
 proportion of the prophecies have never been fulfilled 
 at all in any proper sense, and that the fulfilment of 
 many more has been but partial. And he makes this 
 the basis of his entire argument to discredit their 
 divine origin. If it be true that the major part of 
 these predictions have not been fulfilled, then they 
 are certainly not from. God, and the comparatively 
 few instances in which they have been verified in fact 
 must be otherwise accounted for. They may have 
 been shrewd conjectures, or the prophecy may have 
 wrought its own fulfilment by its influence on those 
 to whom it was addressed, or the coincidence may be 
 purely accidental. In the introduction John Muir, 
 Esq., of Edinburgh, at whose solicitation the volume 
 was prepared and to whom it is dedicated, thus ex- 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 1 75 
 
 presses his confident persuasion of the cogency of 
 the argument (p. xxxix) : " The ample and satisfac- 
 tory proofs which Professor Kuenen has adduced in 
 support of his conclusions must, I think, produce a 
 powerful effect on all candid inquirers who study them 
 with care and attention, and tend to bring about in 
 the minds of thoughtful men a great change of opin- 
 ion in regard to the authority and the character of 
 the Scriptures, whether of the Old or of the New 
 Testaments." 
 
 We do not share this judgment. We have no idea 
 that any serious revolution of opinion will result from 
 this publication. We make no pretence to under- 
 estimate the learning and ability which it displays, 
 nor the consummate art shown by Professor Kuenen 
 in the presentation of his views. But we need not 
 shrink from having the most searching test applied 
 to secure foundations. The accomplishment of the 
 predictions of the Prophets is not a question of 
 recent origin or of uncertain issue. And the con- 
 viction which the Christian world has reached upon 
 this subject is no mere prejudice blindly adopted, 
 nor a hasty judgment formed after slight considera- 
 tion and resting upon inadequate grounds, and liable 
 consequently to be set aside by more thorough and 
 searching inquiry. Every element that can possibly 
 affect the settlement of this question has long since 
 been brought forward and subjected" to the most 
 rigorous tests. The prophecies are before us. The 
 facts of history are known at least in their main 
 features. The correspondence is a palpable one, 
 
176 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 and no learned ingenuity can obliterate it. Every 
 line in ancient authors that has any possible relation 
 to this subject, near or remote, has long ago been 
 adduced and diligently scanned. Buried monuments 
 continue to be exhumed and are throwing welcome 
 light on remaining obscurities, but these cannot revo- 
 lutionize all history nor disturb well-known and well- 
 attested facts. There is not a fact nor a historical 
 testimony brought forward in this volume, as contra- 
 vening or appearing to contravene what was foretold 
 by the Prophets, that has not been elaborately dis- 
 cussed before in all its bearings and its full significance 
 ascertained. It is not likely, consequently, that their 
 fresh production now will occasion any great shock or 
 be attended by important changes in well-established 
 views. If there be anything in particular which can 
 be called novel in Professor Kuenen's line of argu- 
 ment, it is the bravery with which he carries through 
 what is known among logicians as the petitio principii, 
 or begging the question, — covertly assuming the 
 point at issue, and then working it out to an apparent 
 demonstration. The prophecies are dealt with on the 
 assumption that they are a merely human production ; 
 and then the conclusion that they are merely human 
 necessarily follows. 
 
 The question at issue is indeed, as Professor Kuenen 
 observes (p. 5), " closely connected with the deepest 
 needs and the most important interests of mankind ; 
 and these have nothing to fear from the truth." We 
 confess, however, that we see no good reason to in- 
 dulge the hope, which he cherishes, that a speedy and 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 177 
 
 decisive settlement can be reached which shall com- 
 pel the assent of all parties. " It is," he says, " an 
 historical problem. Every one knows the sources 
 which must be consulted for its solution." Neverthe- 
 less his own volume forces the conviction upon us 
 afresh that the time has not yet arrived for terminat- 
 ing the long controversy of ages. His own con- 
 clusions rest not on the historical data, but on the 
 " dogmatic presuppositions " with which these have 
 been approached, notwithstanding his repeated pro- 
 fession that he is wholly emancipated from such influ- 
 ences. Starting with the convictions that he has, he 
 could arrive at no other result than he does ; but they 
 who entertain contrary convictions will not find it nec- 
 essary to follow him. The recognition or the rejec- 
 tion of the divine and the supernatural is not a mere 
 act of the intellect freely balancing intellectual con- 
 siderations. There is an antecedent bias from each 
 man's spiritual attitude. To him who is prepared to 
 admit the reality of immediate communications from 
 God to men upon rational evidence, the facts supply 
 a convincing demonstration ; while he to whom such 
 communications are a priori inadmissible will either 
 refuse to admit the facts or put some different inter- 
 pretation upon them. It is this element of the will, 
 entering into and influencing our judgments respect- 
 ing divine and spiritual things, which gives them their 
 moral character and makes every man morally re- 
 sponsible for his belief. 
 
 According to Dr. Kuenen's view, as stated by him- 
 self, " prophecy is one of the most important and 
 
 12 
 
178 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 remarkable phenomena in the history of religion, but 
 just on that account a human phenomenon, proceed- 
 ing from Israel, directed to Israel." It is from God 
 in no other sense than as " from Him are all things." 
 It is " a testimony not as out of heaven to us, but a 
 testimony to men's need, and to Israel's peculiar des- 
 tination to ' seek the Lord, if haply they might feel 
 after Him and find Him,' " — a destination, by the 
 way, which in the Scriptures is ascribed not to Israel, 
 t>ut to the Gentiles before Christ's coming. " A 
 preparation for Christianity? Yes; but in another 
 sense than that which tradition means by these 
 words, — no prediction of facts in the life of Christ, 
 but a preparation of the soil out of which Christ- 
 ianity was to spring, the prelude to the new relig- 
 ious creation which mankind owe to Jesus of 
 Nazareth" (pp. 4, 5). 
 
 He seeks to conciliate favor for this view by calling 
 it the historico-critical, or organic, as distinguished 
 from the traditional. We cannot concede the pro- 
 priety of this designation. . The organic view of 
 prophecy is not only entirely consistent with the 
 supernatural conception of its origin and character, 
 but is held as firmly by those who maintain its divin- 
 ity and inspiration as by those who deny it. Its or- 
 ganic nature is dependent not on the question of its 
 origin, but of its structure and relations. Prophecy 
 grew directly out of the heart of the Israelitish peo- 
 ple, took its shape from their necessities, was moulded 
 by their changing circumstances age by age, and had 
 its regular and consistent unfolding from first to last. 
 
AXD PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. I 79 
 
 That all was nevertheless due to the immediate im- 
 pulses of the Divine Spirit no more disturbs its hu- 
 man adaptations than the organic structure of a tree 
 is damaged by the sunlight which produces it. It is 
 the attempted elimination of the supernatural which 
 is really at war with the organism of prophecy; for 
 this deprives it of its necessary point of departure by 
 first sweeping away the Mosaic revelation ; it annihil- 
 ates the vital force which gave it being, and, by the 
 necessity under which it is of dislocating its several 
 parts, shows them in a false juxtaposition, and sets 
 aside the evidence of the genetic process through 
 which it has passed. 
 
 And the naturalistic is so far from being the his- 
 torico-critical method that it really sets at defiance a 
 sound historical criticism, and bases itself on the 
 wildest and most unsupported vagaries instead. We 
 do not shut our eyes to the good service which 
 critics, even of the most ultra type, have rendered 
 to biblical studies by their investigations and dis- 
 cussions. They have ruthlessly run their plough- 
 share through what is venerable and sacred, yet they 
 have, after all, aided in opening up the soil for culti- 
 vation, and have brought much that is valuable to the 
 surface. And supernaturalists have not disdained to 
 learn from their antagonists. Dr. Kuenen points to 
 this with a triumphant air, and hastily infers (p. 7) : 
 " The dissolution of the traditional theory is already 
 in rapid progess. It is with it as with a beleaguered 
 fortress : it has not yet been abandoned or formally 
 surrendered, but the enemy enters unopposed, by more 
 
l8o KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 than one breach, and some of its main bulwarks are 
 either defended no' longer or defended very feebly." 
 This is altogether too fast and too sweeping when the 
 only ground alleged for it is that broader views now 
 prevail than those which limited " prophecy to pre- 
 diction, the office of the Prophet to announcing the 
 secrets of the future." The disproportionate promi- 
 nence given by some early writers, and especially 
 those engaged in the controversy with the Deists, to 
 the apologetic use of prophecy, has been moderated 
 by exalting other features of the Prophets' work in due 
 measure. . But this involves no abandonment of any 
 important principle. The predictive quality of proph- 
 ecy is affirmed as strongly as ever. It simply falls 
 into its place in the general function of the Prophets 
 as teachers sent from God. This is not to endanger 
 the citadel, but to fortify the approaches and to ex- 
 tend and strengthen the outworks. 
 
 With much more reason it might be retorted that 
 the positions of the antagonists of a supernatural reve- 
 lation have been and are in constant flux. The whole 
 field over which the battle has been waged is strewn 
 with their spiked guns and abandoned intrenchments. 
 Hypothesis has succeeded hypothesis, only to be in 
 its turn discarded. The allegation of imposture and 
 of unworthy motives* once so rife, is entirely given 
 up. Dr. Kuenen is at great pains to show that he 
 does not impugn the Prophets' integrity in any way. 
 " The charges which, more than a hundred years ago, 
 were here and there brought against the Prophets of 
 Israel are all silenced. In high estimation of their 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 181 
 
 aim and their work, all are agreed." In other matters, 
 too, there is the utmost discordance. While on the 
 one hand some are, as Mr. Muir concedes (p. xxvii.) 
 concerning Professor Reuss, " more conservative and 
 apologetic " than Dr. Kuenen, and Dr. Kuenen cen- 
 sures some of his party as not sufficiently thorough- 
 going, he is himself, on the other hand, vehemently 
 attacked by others as not sufficiently advanced in his 
 positions. As to the real nature of prophecy, the 
 age of the Prophets respectively, what are to be con- 
 sidered their genuine productions, and in what es- 
 teem they are to be held, there is no little variance in 
 the critical camp. 
 
 Professor Kuenen proposes to settle the strife be- 
 tween the supernatural and the naturalistic view of 
 prophecy by the single test of its fulfilment. To this 
 we cheerfully assent. It is a test to which the sa- 
 cred writers themselves appeal (Deut. xviii. 21, 22; 
 Isai. xliii. 9-12; Jer. xxviii. 9); it is palpable, obvi- 
 ous, and easily applied. If these predictions have 
 been fulfilled, they are from God ; if not, they cannot 
 be from him. 
 
 He divides (p. 25) the sources of our information 
 respecting the predictions in the Old Testament into 
 three classes, viz. : — 
 
 " 1st. Writings of Prophets. 
 
 "'2d. Historical accounts regarding what the Proph- 
 ets have done and spoken. 
 
 " 3d. Words of God addressed to historical person- 
 ages, and incorporated in the narratives concerning 
 them." 
 
1 82 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 There is an undoubted propriety in giving prece- 
 dence in this investigation to the prophetical books, 
 in which the utterances of the Prophets are recorded 
 by themselves ; since the predictions scattered through 
 the historical books come to us at second-hand, and 
 are, moreover, much more limited in extent. In 
 conceding this, however, we yield nothing to the 
 disadvantage of the trustworthiness of the latter. 
 The suspicions insinuated respecting their accuracy 
 are altogether groundless; they may be and are as 
 reliable as any other historical statements. 
 
 But have the books attributed to the Prophets 
 really proceeded from them, and to what dates are 
 they to be assigned? Here Dr. Kuenen finds it im- 
 possible to make out his case without availing him- 
 self of some modern critical conclusions at variance 
 with the concurrent and accredited belief of ages, and 
 at variance with statements contained in these books 
 themselves, — conclusions which are largely based on 
 an assumption of the very point at issue. A large 
 part of the Book of Isaiah, every passage in which a 
 knowledge of the Babylonish captivity is implied or is 
 supposed to be implied, is denied to him and assigned 
 to the period of the Exile ; and this notwithstanding 
 the independent testimony of the author of the Book 
 of Kings (n. Kings, xx, 16-18), that this captivity 
 was explicitly foretold by Isaiah ; notwithstanding, 
 too, the fact that it was also with like explicitness 
 predicted by his contemporary Micah (iv. 10) ; and 
 that the overthrow of Judah by distant and terri- 
 ble foes is repeatedly declared in passages of Isaiah 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 183 
 
 which even Dr. Kuenen confesses to be genuine, {e.g. 
 v. 26-30) — as it had been in fact foreshown by Moses 
 ages before (Lev. xxvi. ; Deut. xxviii.) — an over- 
 throw which he further affirms was not to be effected 
 either by Syria (vii. 5-8) or by Assyria (x. 5-34). 
 Jeremiah's prediction of Babylon's overthrow (chs. 1., 
 li.) is attributed to some nameless author of a later 
 time, notwithstanding the express statement of its 
 special title (1. 1), affirming it to be by Jeremiah, the 
 circumstantial narrative at its close (li. 59-64), and 
 the additional declaration that he did predict the 
 fall and utter desolation of Babylon (xxv. 12, 13). 
 The genuineness of the Book of Daniel is also denied, 
 and it is declared to be the product of the period of 
 the Maccabees. There are besides some other de- 
 rangements of the true order, of minor consequence ; 
 Joel and Obadiah are put a century and a half later 
 than they belong, while half of the Book of Zechariah 
 is taken from him and referred to an earlier date with 
 a motive which will appear hereafter. 
 
 It would divert us too much from our present pur- 
 pose to undertake here the defence of those books, or 
 parts of books, which Dr. Kuenen sets aside as not 
 genuine. They have been abundantly vindicated by 
 able critical scholars. We simply remark, in passing, 
 that the allegation that these predictions were written 
 after the event is equivalent to a confession of the 
 accuracy of their fulfilment which cannot otherwise be 
 evaded. But the question at issue can be settled by 
 prophecies whose genuineness no one has yet ven- 
 tured to dispute. After all that has been done in the 
 
184 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 way of attempted elimination, enough remain to estab- 
 lish unmistakably the divine origin of prophecy. If 
 this can be first settled by what Dr. Kuenen himself 
 confesses to be the genuine productions of the Proph- 
 ets, he will no longer have the same motive to deny 
 the genuineness of the rest, especially when it appears, 
 as is in truth the case, that, even on his own critical 
 hypotheses, these latter still afford evidence of divine 
 prescience ; for they contain predictions reaching 
 beyond the date at which he alleges that they were 
 written, and which have been manifestly fulfilled. 
 
 Dr. Kuenen groups what he calls the unfulfilled 
 prophecies under three heads, as they severally re- 
 late to (i)the destiny of the heathen- nations, (2) the 
 judgments pronounced upon Israel, and (3) the 
 expectations of the Prophets with regard to Israel's 
 future. It will be convenient to follow him in this 
 arrangement. 
 
 The first instance adduced is this (p. 102): "The 
 Prophets are unanimous in announcing the destruc- 
 tion of the cities of the Philistines." Whereupon he 
 confesses : " It is true, indeed, that scarcely any traces 
 remain of the very ancient glory of the five cities. 
 They have shared in the same fate that has smitten 
 the whole of Palestine. They have been laid desolate 
 or have gradually decayed ; after Jerusalem, indeed, 
 but still like her, they too have fallen." This, how- 
 ever, he refuses to accept as the proper fulfilment of 
 the predictions for two reasons. First, because " the 
 judgment contemplated is plainly one that would be 
 executed soon. When delayed for a long period it 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 185 
 
 ceased to be a judgment, especially in such cases as 
 we find in Amos (i. 6-8) and Ezekiel (xxv. 15-17), 
 where a specific sin is mentioned as the reason of 
 Jahveh's displeasure." But why the divine retribution 
 forfeits its character if it does not occur soon is not 
 very clear. There is something striking, no doubt, 
 in a penalty that follows swiftly upon the heels of 
 transgression. And yet most men would concede 
 equal impressiveness to a doom which is sure to come, 
 however long delayed. The length of the interval 
 renders it all the more certain that God does not 
 forget, and that even-handed justice will not fail 
 eventually to strike its mark. And, in particular, that 
 the Prophets, with whom we are now concerned, did 
 not judge it essential that a recompense must be 
 speedy appears both from their directly declaring the 
 reverse (Hab. ii. 3), and from their undisturbed confi- 
 dence when this very demand was made by presump- 
 tuous sinners of their own day (Isai. v. 19; Jer. xvii. 
 15; Amos, v. 18). This Dr. Kuenen seems hereto 
 have overlooked, though his memory is less treacher- 
 ous in another place when he has an end to answer 
 by it (p. 360) : " The fulfilment of their predictions 
 can be to themselves, to a certain extent, matter of 
 indifference ; that is to say, the fulfilment in this or 
 that specific form at that specific time. It is to them 
 a settled truth that Jahveh is righteous, and not less 
 that at some period his righteousness shall be revealed 
 in a dazzling and unmistakable manner ; but how and 
 when this revelation shall take place is a question of 
 subordinate importance. . . . If it is not fulfilled now, 
 
1 86 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 then it will be fulfilled at a later time." If now, by 
 Dr. Kuenen's own confession, the element of time 
 enters so little into the Prophet's expectations, by 
 what right can it be demanded that the prediction 
 must be fulfilled speedily, or it is no fulfilment at all 
 in the sense intended by the Prophet? This is surely 
 unreasonable, unless he has himself specified some 
 limit within which it must occur. 
 
 Is this done in the present instance? There is no 
 pretence of it in Amos, Joel (iii. 4-8), Ezekiel, Zeph- 
 aniah (ii. 4-7), or Zechariah (ix. 5-7); only Isaiah 
 (xiv. 31) and Jeremiah (xlvii. 2) speak of a calam- 
 ity to come upon Philistia from the north ; and 
 " whenever Isaiah and Jeremiah make mention of an 
 enemy out of the north, they intimate, in no doubtful 
 manner, that they are thinking, the former of the 
 Assyrians, the latter of the Chaldeans." Well, did 
 the Assyrians and Chaldeans bring the predicted dis- 
 tress upon Philistia? Assyrian monuments furnish 
 abundant evidence on this .point. Sargon took Ha- 
 nun, King of Gaza, prisoner and led him away into 
 Assyria. 1 The King of Ashdod made his submission 
 to Sennacherib, while the King of Ashkelon with his 
 whole family were carried captive to Assyria, and a 
 vassal placed upon the throne in his stead ; the prin- 
 ces of Ekron were slain and impaled, numbers of the 
 people sold as slaves, and a king created subject to 
 Assyria. 2 Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal include the 
 kings of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ekron, and Ashdod in their 
 
 1 Oppert, " Les Inscriptions Assyriennes des Sargonides," p. 36. 
 
 2 Ibid., pp. 44, 45. 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 187 
 
 lists of tributary monarchs. 1 And as Nebuchadnez- 
 zar subdued Phenicia and Syria, and carried his arms 
 into Egypt, 2 he must have overrun the whole Philis- 
 tine region. So far, therefore, from these prophecies 
 remaining unaccomplished, the very fulfilment that 
 Dr. Kuenen asks for did take place. The Philistines 
 were chastised by both Assyria and Babylon, and the 
 judgment predicted, instead of ceasing with these 
 preliminary fulfilments, went on until the region was 
 reduced to the desolation that it now is. 
 
 But Dr. Kuenen's second objection is that " the 
 punishment of the Philistines takes place, according 
 to the Prophets, in the interest of Israel. It is 
 against the people of Jahveh that they have trans- 
 gressed ; it is the people of Jahveh, therefore, that 
 shall reap the fruits of their destruction, take posses- 
 sion of their territory, and incorporate the remnant of 
 them with themselves. In other words, with the 
 Prophets the lot of the Philistines forms a contrast to 
 that of the Israelites. In the Prophecy of Isaiah, 
 Zion, founded by Jahveh, and a safe refuge for the 
 poor of his people, stands in opposition to Philistia, 
 whose inhabitants perish by famine and sword. The 
 same Prophet expects that the reunited tribes ' shall 
 fly upon the shoulder of the Philistines toward the 
 west,' — that is, shall extend their dominion in that 
 direction and make the Philistines subject to them." 
 We might point him to the fact that the Jews under 
 Jonathan Maccabaeus and Alexander Jannaeus did 
 
 1 Schrader, " Keilinschriften und Altes Testament," pp. 229, 230. 
 
 2 Josephus against Apion, I. 19. 
 
1 88 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 capture the Philistine cities, that the name Philistine 
 thenceforward ceased out of history, and that the 
 population of the region was subsequently absorbed 
 into or supplanted by Jewish residents. But has not 
 the ancient glory of Israel faded away as well as that 
 of the Philistines? Instead of the contrast which 
 prophecy leads us to anticipate, have they not alike 
 fallen into decline and ruin? The answer to this 
 question obviously involves the correctness of the 
 prophetic expectations regarding Israel, and, to avoid 
 needless repetition, must be reserved until the proph- 
 ecies respecting Israel come regularly before us in 
 the course of our inquiry. Meanwhile let it be noted 
 here that all that the Prophets have said concerning 
 the Philistines has been in the fullest and strictest 
 sense accomplished. The only point which, for the 
 reason stated, we leave unsettled at this stage of the 
 discussion is, Do the fortunes of Israel stand in the 
 required contrast to those of Philistia? 
 
 The next prophecies adduced are those against Tyre 
 by Isaiah (xxiii.) and Ezekiel (xxvi-xxviii.). Of 
 the latter Dr. Kuenen says (p. 107) : "What he pre- 
 dicts for Tyre is nothing less than entire destruction. 
 The many nations that march against her to battle 
 1 shall destroy her walls and break down her towers.' 
 Jahveh 'shall sweep away her dust — the layer of 
 earth on which her houses and gardens were placed 
 — and make her a bare rock.' Thus she shall be- 
 come ' a place where men spread nets in the midst of 
 the sea.' The multitude of nations that execute this 
 judgment are led by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 1 89 
 
 kings. He shall lay siege to the city, and finally 
 1 shall enter in through her gates as men enter into a 
 conquered town.' Then plundering and devastation 
 follow until Tyre has ceased to exist." 
 
 Now, Dr. Kuenen confesses that " Tyre capitu- 
 lated " to Nebuchadnezzar at the end of his long 
 siege of thirteen years, and " wholly or partially lost 
 her independence." And that this was really the 
 case is abundantly demonstrated in Movers' elaborate 
 investigation of this point, 1 an author whom none can 
 suspect of being biassed in his conclusions by a re- 
 gard for the authority of the Prophet. He further 
 admits, what is too palpable to be denied, that Tyre 
 is at present "an insignificant fishing village." Every 
 trait in the prophetic description has long since been 
 matched by the event. But he complains that this 
 desolation was not effected all at once ; the fulfilment 
 of the prophecy was not exhausted by the victory of 
 Nebuchadnezzar. The city was not laid waste by 
 him, nor its trade destroyed. It continued to be a 
 powerful and wealthy merchant city even under the 
 Persian dominion. All that the prophecy declares 
 has come to pass. The correspondence between the 
 word Of the Prophet and the condition to which this 
 mistress of the seas has been reduced is signal and 
 undeniable. But this was not brought about by 
 Nebuchadnezzar alone. It was not the issue of his 
 single siege. It was not accomplished in one age, 
 nor by the operation of any one cause. The city was 
 weakened and humbled by Nebuchadnezzar. It was 
 
 1 " Das Phcenizische Alterthum," i. 427-450. 
 
I90 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 still further humiliated by Alexander the Great. 
 Other wars and struggles followed. Other causes 
 conspired to dry up the sources of its prosperity. 
 And because the desolation described by the Prophet 
 was only fully reached after a long interval, and was 
 the result of many combined influences, it is most 
 strangely argued that this must not be regarded as 
 the fulfilment of Ezekiel's prediction. One would 
 think that the greater the lapse of time and the more 
 complicated the causes at work, the more decisive 
 and complete would be the evidence of a far-reach- 
 ing foresight, and that it was no merely human cal- 
 culation from limited and imperfect data. . The proof 
 of prophetic power is surely not diminished or de- 
 stroyed because that is foretold which only He could 
 know who sees the end from the beginning, and to 
 whom, a thousand years are as one day. 
 
 But, says Dr. Kuenen, " is it not clear as day that 
 it [the prophecy of Ezekiel] announces the over- 
 throw of the Phenicians as being close at hand?" 
 The Prophet says no such thing. On the contrary, 
 it is " clear as day " that such a limitation of the 
 prophecy to what was " close at hand " is wholly gra- 
 tuitous, and is a covert assumption of the very- ques- 
 tion at issue. If the announcement made by Ezekiel 
 were only a shrewd conjecture from the existing po- 
 litical situation, the prophetic horizon would have to 
 be narrowed accordingly, and nothing that was re- 
 mote, or that was dependent upon causes not yet 
 apparent, could be admitted to fall within its scope. 
 And after the prophecy has thus been degraded to a 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 191 
 
 merely human anticipation, it is comparatively easy 
 to show that it has failed. Eliminate or refuse to 
 recognize the stamp of its divinity, and its non-fulfil- 
 ment naturally follows ; for that is tacitly involved in 
 the primary assumption. Only it is strange, on Dr. 
 Kuenen's view of the case, if the prophecy in its true 
 intent, as understood by Ezekiel and his hearers, was 
 restricted to events " close at hand," that they could 
 themselves have retained any confidence in it as a 
 message from God ; for it was falsified before it was 
 even put on record. The siege of Tyre came to an 
 end years before the Book of Ezekiel was issued, and 
 Tyre still survived. Now, if no exactness of corres- 
 pondence in the future between the event and the 
 terms of the prediction could be a fulfilment of the 
 latter in the sense put upon it by the Prophet and his 
 contemporaries, how does it come to pass that it was 
 not utterly discredited in their esteem and refused a 
 place in this collection professing to be uttered under 
 the immediate inspiration of God? 
 
 Dr. Kuenen himself, when he would convert proph- 
 ecy into a vague presentiment, or a pious deduction 
 from the moral government of God, admits that the 
 time when Jehovah's righteousness should be revealed 
 is, to the Prophets, "a question of subordinate impor- 
 tance " (p. 360). They were convinced that the 
 haughty oppressors of His people would some time 
 be laid low by His avenging arm, but it was not in- 
 dispensable that this should be done immediately. 
 "When their anticipations were not realized, they 
 will have easily satisfied themselves with the thought 
 
192 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 that the fulfilment would doubtless occur at a later 
 period. In truth it makes a very essential difference 
 whether any event is estimated in and on account of 
 itself or as the form in which something else is re- 
 vealed. In the first case its non-realization is a bitter 
 disappointment, and for him who announced it a 
 painful humiliation ; but this bitterness and this pain 
 are not felt when recourse is at once had to the con- 
 viction : if it is not fulfilled now, then it will be ful- 
 filled at a later time; the righteousness of Jahveh 
 endures and must positively some time come to 
 light." 1 Dr. Kuenen fancies that Ezekiel himself 
 expected Nebuchadnezzar to accomplish ah that he 
 uttered in his prediction respecting Tyre. This is 
 nowhere stated in the prediction itself. It is merely 
 Dr. Kuenen's opinion. But suppose him to be cor- 
 rect; what then? We do not claim omniscience for 
 the Prophet, but simply inspiration and unerring 
 truth for his prediction. And even on the low view 
 of prophecy entertained by Dr. Kuenen, the essential 
 thing in the Prophet's mind was the vindication of 
 God's righteous judgment ; the time when this should 
 take place was of little consequence. The fact, not 
 the period of its manifestation, was what he regarded 
 as absolutely certain. Whenever this manifestation 
 should occur, it would be to him the fulfilment of his 
 prediction. How can Dr. Kuenen, therefore, on his 
 own principles, justify his assertion that the event 
 must be " close at hand " in order to verify the 
 
 1 The italics in the various quotations from Dr. Kuenen are invari- 
 ably his own. 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 193 
 
 Prophet's anticipation? Much less can it be neces- 
 sary to the accomplishment of that which is a direct 
 revelation from the omniscient God himself. In fact, 
 it looks somewhat like grasping both horns of a di- 
 lemma at once, when Dr. Kuenen, in his zeal to fasten 
 human infirmity on the prophecies, affirms with one 
 breath that a particular event " close at hand " must 
 have been intended by them, so that nothing else can 
 be a fulfilment of them, and with the next declares 
 that the manifestation of Jehovah's righteousness is 
 the one fixed conviction of the Prophets, irrespective 
 of either time or mode. 
 
 But, says Dr. Kuenen, " Ezekiel himself declares 
 that his expectations concerning the fate of Tyre were 
 not realized" (Ezek. xxix. 18-20). "Son of man, 
 Nebuchadrezzar King of Babylon caused his army to 
 serve a great service against Tyre : every head was 
 made bald, and every shoulder was peeled : yet had 
 he no wages, nor his army, for Tyre, for the service 
 that he had served against it ; " whereupon the land 
 of Egypt is promised him for his wages. Dr. Kuenen 
 very naturally apprehends that this proof will be sus- 
 pected of being so very strong as to be worth noth- 
 ing (p. no): "Plow by any possibility can Ezekiel 
 come forward as a witness against the realization of 
 his own prophecy?" The fact is that the sense put 
 upon this passage is an utter perversion of its mean- 
 ing. Nebuchadnezzar must have performed the work 
 against Tyre which the Lord had assigned to him, 
 or he would not have earned the wages which are 
 here promised him and declared to be rightfully his. 
 
 *3 
 
194 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 The Prophet revokes nothing of his former predic- 
 tion. He confesses to no failure or disappointed ex- 
 pectations. He makes no attempt to accommodate 
 the expressions which he had previously used to an 
 event which had turned out differently from his antic- 
 ipations. He simply says, Nebuchadnezzar has done 
 his work, which was an exceedingly toilsome one, 
 and has thereby earned larger wages than the spoils 
 of Tyre afforded him ; he shall have Egypt in addi- 
 tion to make up full payment. There is nothing 
 surely in this that looks as though Ezekiel regarded 
 his prophecy against Tyre as having failed in so far 
 as respects the work committed to Nebuchadnezzar, 
 but the very reverse. 
 
 Nevertheless, says Dr. Kuenen, " this much is plain, 
 that Nebuchadnezzar did not enter in through the 
 gates of Tyre as men enter into a conquered city " 
 (Ezek. xxvi. 10). How does he know? And "as 
 little did his troops carry away the wealth of Tyre 
 and plunder her merchandise" (ver. 12). Tyre was 
 open seaward during the entire siege. The wealthiest 
 citizens may have fled to distant colonies and taken 
 their goods with them (Isai. xxiii. 6, 7, 12). The 
 treasures of their sanctuaries may likewise have been 
 temporarily removed for safe-keeping. And the 
 terms of the capitulation, of which we know nothing, 
 may have limited the amount that the conqueror 
 should receive. It is very easy to understand how he 
 could have " made a spoil of its riches," and yet not 
 be adequately paid for his long and toilsome service. 
 
 In regard to Isaiah's prediction against Tyre (xxiii.), 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 
 
 195 
 
 Dr. Kuenen complains that its fulfilment is sometimes 
 sought in the siege of that city by Shalmaneser, King 
 of Assyria, and sometimes in that by Nebuchadnezzar ; 
 and he insists that a choice must be made between 
 them. But what is there to hinder its embracine 
 both? It is a declaration of God's work of judgment 
 upon Tyre, to be executed partly by one instrument 
 and partly by another, which in the actual unfoldings 
 of history met its partial accomplishment in different 
 periods successively, but is here gathered up into a 
 single picture of its future destiny. 
 
 To the general prediction of its overthrow, the 
 Prophet adds the specific statement (vers. 15-18) that 
 Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years, after which her 
 trade shall revive, and her gains, instead of being 
 treasured up for her own advantage, shall be holiness 
 to the Lord. Dr. Kuenen remarks that " facts like 
 those announced here cannot pass away without leav- 
 ing some traces." And they have not done so, even 
 though he professes that he has not been able to find 
 them. The term of her humiliation is at once ex- 
 plained by the declaration of Jeremiah (xxv. 11), that 
 the land of Judah and all contiguous nations, among 
 whom (ver. 22) Tyre is expressly included, should 
 serve the King of Babylon seventy years. This is 
 precisely the interval between the decisive victory 
 gained by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish over Pha- 
 raoh-necho King of Egypt (Jer. xlvi. 2), which opened 
 his way to Jerusalem and the neighboring kingdoms 
 that had combined against him, and the conquest of 
 Babylon by Cyrus. That Tyre continued after its 
 
196 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 siege by Nebuchadnezzar to be subject to Babylon, 
 till the latter city itself was overthrown by Cyrus, is ap- 
 parent from an extract which Josephus 1 has fortunately 
 preserved for us from Tyre's own annals. This in- 
 forms us that Hiram, who was reigning in Tyre when 
 Cyrus became king of Persia, as well as his brother 
 and predecessor, had been brought from Babylon to 
 be placed upon the throne. 
 
 But what shall be said of the predicted conversion 
 of this heathen city, with its wealth, to the service of 
 the LORD? There has been an incipient fulfilment 
 of this which should not be overlooked. Tyre had its 
 Christian disciples in the days of the apostles (Acts, 
 xxi. 3-6), and subsequently a flourishing church. It 
 was the seat of a bishop ; its cathedral was the most 
 elegant structure in Phenicia ; synods were held there. 
 It had a Christian population down to the time of the 
 Crusades, when it was erected into a Latin arch- 
 bishopric under the patriarch of Jerusalem. One of 
 the most noticeable among the ruins of ancient Tyre 
 is that of a Christian church, which was originally a 
 large and splendid structure. This, however, is but 
 the budding of a fulfilment, and by no means all that 
 the prophecy leads us to expect. The consideration 
 of what further is involved in it can best be postponed 
 to a subsequent part of this inquiry, when it shall be 
 taken up again, together with the claim made by Dr. 
 Kuenen (p. no) that the punishment of Tyre, as of 
 
 1 Against Apion, book i. § 21. A hint of Tyre's reduced condition 
 at the close of the Exile may be found in the fact that Zidon is men- 
 tioned before it (Ezra iii. 7) instead of after it, which is the usual 
 order. 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL, 1 97 
 
 the other neighbors of Israel, should precede the 
 return of Israel to their native land on the ground of 
 Ezek. xxviii. 24-26. We can only appreciate this 
 correctly when the prophecies respecting Israel shall 
 come before us. 
 
 The next prediction introduced is that of Jeremiah 
 (xlix. 23-27) against Damascus, where the whole 
 ground of cavil is based upon an ambiguous word in 
 the English version, of which advantage is taken to 
 put a sense upon it which the original will not at all 
 admit. " How is the city of praise not left ! " is thus 
 paraphrased, " Why might not Damascus have re- 
 mained? " and this affirmed to imply " its permanent 
 desolation ; " whereas the first glance at the Hebrew 
 is sufficient to show that "left" in this place means 
 not permitted to remain, but forsaken, and there is 
 no intimation whatever that it should not survive or 
 recover from the threatened blow. In the scanty ac- 
 counts that we possess of this entire period, it is not 
 surprising that the event referred to has passed with- 
 out mention. Josephus (Ant. x. II, 1) speaks of 
 captive Syrians taken to Babylon at the outset of 
 Nebuchadnezzar's reign ; and the subsequent course 
 of events makes it more than probable that this was 
 again repeated. 
 
 Of Ammon and Moab it is predicted, as Dr. 
 Kuenen states, that " the two nations shall both be 
 driven away or extirpated, and their cities shall be 
 laid waste." And he adds, " this fate has in fact 
 overtaken them." But he objects (p. 114) that " they 
 were still inhabited and flourishing up to the seventh 
 
198 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 century of the Christian era ; " whereas " the Prophets 
 do not expect (Isai. xi. 14, xxv. 10; Zeph. ii. 9, 10) 
 that Moab and Ammon shall in the course of ages 
 lose their national existence along with or even after 
 Israel, but that Israel shall be a witness of the destruc- 
 tion of their enemies ; and shall reap the fruits of that 
 destruction? " The prophecy that Israel shall appear 
 as the inheritor of Moab and Ammon of itself abso- 
 lutely forbids us to see the realization of what 
 Zephaniah expected, in the ruin of those nations six 
 centuries after the second destruction of Jerusalem." 
 But the punishment was not altogether postponed to 
 this late period. The entire region was subdued and 
 ravaged by Nebuchadnezzar. Josephus (Ant. x. 
 9, 7) specially mentions the subjugation of Ccelesyria, 
 Ammon, and Moab. That he purposed specially to 
 attack the Ammonites we learn from Ezek. xxi. 20 ; 
 and he had reasons for so doing, both in the combi- 
 nation into which they had entered against Chaldea 
 (Jer. xxvii. 3), and in their harboring and perhaps in- 
 stigating Ishmael the murderer of Gedaliah, whom 
 the King of Babylon had made governor after the 
 capture of Jerusalem (Jer. xl. 14, xli. 2,-15). 
 
 The relation of these lands to Israel when restored 
 will be postponed until that subject is considered in 
 connection with other nations. 
 
 For proof of the fulfilment of the predictions re- 
 specting the Edomites we need not go beyond that 
 furnished in Dr. Kuenen's own pages, and which he 
 vainly endeavors to set aside. In the time of Malachi, 
 as i. 3, 4 expressly states, Esau's mountains and his 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 199 
 
 heritage were lying waste. If this was effected, as 
 there is every reason to believe, by Nebuchadnezzar 
 in the expedition x five years after the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, in which he subjected the Ammonites and 
 Moabites and advanced into Egypt, then here we 
 have the evidence that " nearly a century after the end 
 of the captivity," when the Jews were restored and 
 Jerusalem was rebuilt, Edom was still a desolation, 
 and the prospect of recovery was as remote as ever. 
 This certainly is not the " very opposite " of the rep- 
 resentation in Joel iii. 19, 20, but precisely coincident 
 with it. Obad. ver. 18 and Ezek. xxv. 14 found ac- 
 complishment in the spoliation of the Edomites by 
 Judas Maccabaeus, then by John Hyrcanus, " who 
 completely subdued them about B.C. 130, compelled 
 them to adopt the rite of circumcision, and incorpo- 
 rated them into the Jewish State ; " then " by Simon, 
 son of Gioras, the head of one of the factions. The 
 nation of the Edomites is mentioned no more after 
 the destruction of Jerusalem (A. D. 70) : it was partly 
 incorporated with the Jewish nation, partly blended 
 with other Arabian tribes. Meanwhile their former 
 capital, Sela, and a great part of their ancient terri- 
 tory had already, many centuries before, passed into 
 other hands." It is now reduced to utter desolation. 
 Its interval of wealth and flourishing trade, during 
 which it is better known to us by its Greek name 
 Petra, and when it was occupied by others than 
 
 1 Josephus, Ant. x. 9, 7. This is not at variance with Ezek. xxxv., 
 or xxxvi. 5, which were first uttered after the fall of Jerusalem (xxxiii. 
 21), nor with Isai. xxxiv., which was not written in the Exile, but long 
 before it. 
 
200 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 Edomites, does not prevent this region, first wrenched 
 from the children of Esau, then wasted as at the 
 present day, from bearing its striking testimony to 
 the truth of the prophecies. 
 
 Ezekiel's prediction of the forty years' desolation 
 of Egypt (xxix. 11-16) has long proved perplexing 
 to interpreters, and is, we frankly admit, somewhat 
 difficult to reconcile with Herodotus's statement (ii. 
 177) that the reign of Amasis, a considerable portion 
 of which falls within this predicted term, " was the 
 most prosperous time that Egypt ever saw." This is 
 no new embarrassment raised by Dr. Kuenen, how- 
 ever ; the whole matter had been thoroughly sifted, 
 and everything possible to be said had been said 
 about it, before he was born, and that without shak- 
 ing the confidence of those veteran scholars in the 
 divinity of the Prophet's word. In spite of Dr. 
 Kuenen's confidence that the result which he has 
 obtained " defies all reasonable contradiction and will 
 in the end be generally received," we think it can be 
 made to appear that he is over-hasty in his conclu- 
 sions. From the time of the decisive battle of Car- 
 chemish, at all events, as Dr. Kuenen correctly states, 
 Jeremiah predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would invade 
 Egypt and subdue that country (Jer. xlvi. 13-28). 
 This he still continued to affirm years afterwards, 
 when Jerusalem had been destroyed, and Gedaliah 
 murdered, and the wretched remnant of Jews fled, 
 contrary to the Prophet's earnest remonstrance, to 
 Egypt for protection (Jer. xliii. 8-13, xliv. 12-14); 
 and the death of King Pharaoh-hophra, by the hands 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 201 
 
 of his enemies, is made the sign of its fulfilment (xliv. 
 29, 30). Ezekiel repeats, with still more particularity, 
 that Nebuchadnezzar shall invade the land of Egypt, 
 and that it shall be desolated for forty years, and the 
 Egyptians shall be scattered among the nations ; but 
 at the end of forty years they shall be regathered into 
 their own land, though Egypt shall thenceforth be a 
 base kingdom, and no more exalt itself above the 
 nations nor be any more the confidence of the House 
 of Israel. 
 
 Now, of all this Herodotus gives no account. He 
 makes no mention of the -subjugation of Egypt by 
 Nebuchadnezzar. But it is to be borne in mind that 
 Herodotus received his information from Egyptian 
 priests, and they did not scruple, as he himself de- 
 clares his belief more than once (iii. 2, 16), to falsify 
 the truth of history in their own interest. Herodotus 
 nowhere mentions Pharaoh-necho's defeat by Nebu- 
 chadnezzar at Carchemish, which put an end to Egyp- 
 tian rule in Asia, and this though he speaks of that 
 very expedition of Necho and his victory over Josiah 
 at Megiddo. He nowhere speaks of Nebuchadnezzar 
 at all, or of his coming into armed collision with 
 Egypt. And yet the silence of Herodotus does not, 
 even with Dr. Kuenen himself, discredit the battle of 
 Carchemish, or call in question its decisive character. 
 Still further, Herodotus never alludes to the conquest 
 of Egypt by any king of Assyria ; and the assertion 
 of the capture of Thebes made by Nahum (iii. 8-10) 
 was discredited by Dr. Kuenen and other similar crit- 
 ics, on the ground that no ancient historian mentions 
 
202 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 it, and the monuments existing in unbroken continuity 
 make no allusion to it and leave no room for it. But 
 an inscription of Assurbanipal was found in which he 
 relates the fact, and the critics were obliged to retract 
 The records of the Assyrians are similarly oblivious of 
 defeats suffered by themselves. Sennacherib records 
 in full his annual successes, but makes no allusion 
 to his disastrous overthrow, of which we know both 
 from the sacred historians and from Herodotus, the 
 Egyptian priests having no motive for silence in 
 this instance. 
 
 The silence of Egyptian informants is, therefore, 
 not conclusive of the non-concurrence of. what was 
 disastrous to Egypt or mortifying to its pride. Now, 
 if Dr. KuenCn will but distinguish between what the 
 Prophets actually say, and what he imputes to them as 
 their meaning but which they do not say, we do not 
 despair of convincing even himself that what the Jew- 
 ish-Prophets predict respecting Egypt is entirely con- 
 sistent with what Herodotus relates of the correspond- 
 ing period. 
 
 " Hophra," he says (p. 124), with a flourish of italics, 
 as though the Prophet were contradicted point-blank 
 by the testimony of the historian, " did not fall in the 
 war against Nebuchadnezzar." Well, no Prophet said 
 that he would. Jeremiah says (xliv. 30), speaking 
 from the mouth of God : " Behold, I will give Pharaoh- 
 hophra, King of Egypt, into the hand of his enemies, 
 and into the hand of them that seek his life." Again 
 (xlvi. 26), " I will deliver them," i. e., Pharaoh and all 
 them that trust in him, " into the hand of those that 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 203 
 
 seek their lives, and into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar, 
 King of Babylon, and into the hand of his servants." 
 Now, what is the testimony of Herodotus? It is thus 
 summed up in Dr. Kuenen's own words: "An insur- 
 rection broke out. Amasis, who was commissioned 
 by the king to suppress it, placed himself at the head 
 of the insurgents, defeated the mercenary forces, took 
 Apries (Hophra) prisoner, and after some hesitation 
 consented to his death." Is not the language of Jere- 
 miah fulfilled to the letter? Pharaoh-hophra was 
 delivered into the hand of them that sought his life. 
 
 But in his zeal to bring forth a contradiction where 
 there is entire harmony, Dr. Kuenen holds the fol- 
 lowing most extraordinary language : " The narrative 
 of Herodotus leaves no room for a temporary sub- 
 jection of the Egyptians to the Chaldeans, or even 
 for a successful invasion of their country by Nebu- 
 chadnezzar. How could Hophra have been able to 
 undertake an expedition against Cyrene in 569 B. c. 
 if in or after 570 B. c. he had been defeated by Neb- 
 uchadnezzar? For in this year, the twenty-seventh 
 of Ezekiel's captivity, the conquest of Egypt by the 
 Chaldeans had not yet, according to this Prophet 
 himself (xxix. 17-21), taken place. Is it not ab- 
 surd to suppose that it happened immediately there- 
 after, still in 570 B. C, and in the following year 
 had been already forgotten." It is astonishing that 
 Dr. Kuenen can either content himself or expect to 
 blind his readers by so transparent a trick as this. 
 He has made an absurd supposition, which no one 
 dreams of entertaining, as though it were involved in 
 
204 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 the truth of the Prophet's prediction, but he has alto- 
 gether evaded the simple and obvious explanation of 
 the case which offers itself at once upon his own 
 statement of the facts. 
 
 If Nebuchadnezzar had not yet invaded Egypt 570 
 B. C, and Hophra was involved in civil war 569 B. C, 
 what more natural, or more in accordance with the 
 usual policy of ambitious monarchs, than that these 
 domestic disturbances had either been fomented for 
 the purpose or were seized upon as the occasion of 
 foreign interference? Thus Sir Gardner Wilkinson : 1 
 " We can readily imagine that the Assyrians, having 
 extended their conquests to the extremity of Pales- 
 tine, would,- on the rumor of intestine commotions in 
 Egypt, hasten to take advantage of the opportunity 
 thus afforded them of attacking the country. . . . 
 From a comparison of all these authorities, I con- 
 clude that the civil war between Apries and Amasis 
 did not terminate in the single conflict at Momem- 
 phis, but lasted several years .; and that either Amasis 
 solicited the aid and intervention of Nebuchadnezzar, 
 or this prince, availing himself of the disordered 
 state of the country, of his own accord invaded it, 
 deposed the rightful sovereign and placed Amasis on 
 the throne, on condition of paying tribute to the 
 Assyrians. The injury done to the land and cities 
 of Egypt by this invasion, and the disgrace with 
 which the Egyptians felt themselves overwhelmed 
 
 1 " Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians," vol. ii. pp. 177— 
 179. See also notes to Rawlinson's Herodotus, ii. 177, and ch. viii. 
 of Appendix to Book ii. pp. 322 ff. 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 205 
 
 after such an event, would justify the account given 
 in the Bible of the fall of Egypt ; and to witness many 
 of their compatriots taken captive to Babylon, and to 
 become tributary to an enemy whom they held in ab- 
 horrence, would be considered by the Egyptians the 
 greatest calamity, as though they had forever lost 
 their station in the scale of nations. And this last 
 would satisfactorily account for the title of Melek, 
 given to inferior or to tributary kings, being applied 
 to Amasis in some of the hieroglyphic legends ac- 
 companying his name." 
 
 If this view of Wilkinson and others, is correct, — 
 and it is difficult to see what well-founded objection 
 can be made to it, — then it is perfectly easy to rec- 
 oncile the statement of Herodotus that Pharaoh- 
 hophra was put to death by the Egyptians, to whom 
 he was delivered over by Amasis, and that of Jose- 
 phus that he was slain by Nebuchadnezzar. The 
 Egyptians were the immediate actors, but it was at 
 the instance of the King of Babylon. 
 
 Dr. Kuenen's attempt to discredit the authority of 
 Josephus, who here expressly vouches for the fulfil- 
 ment of the Prophet's predictions, will scarcely gain 
 the approval of any who do not agree with him in 
 his foregone conclusion. Josephus * expressly ap- 
 peals to the authority of Berosus for the affirmation 
 that Nebuchadnezzar " conquered Egypt and Syria 
 and Phoenicia and Arabia, and exceeded in his ex- 
 ploits all that had reigned before him in Babylon and 
 Chaldea." The charge that Berosus is " altogether 
 
 1 " Against Apion," i. 19. 
 
206 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 unhistorical " in speaking of Egypt as subject to the 
 Chaldean empire prior to the time of Nebuchadnezzar, 
 sounds strangely since the discovery of Assurbani- 
 pal's conquest of Egypt, which, on the fall and parti- 
 tion of the Assyrian empire, would come under the 
 dominion of Babylon, or at least be claimed by it. 
 And how could Nebuchadnezzar have exceeded all 
 other monarchs of the great Asiatic empire in his 
 exploits if he failed in his attempt upon Egypt, which 
 others had subdued? The language of Megasthenes, 
 that Nebuchadnezzar " subdued the greater part of 
 Libya and Iberia," is doubtless air exaggeration ; but 
 upon what could such an exaggeration have been 
 built if he never even penetrated into Africa? 
 
 The allegation that Josephus infers his facts from 
 the predictions is utterly groundless and gratuitous. 
 That he mentions * the predictions respecting the 
 King of Babylon's conquest of Egypt, and adds 
 " which things came to pass," implies, on the con- 
 trary, that he discriminates between the prophecy 
 and its fulfilment, and had independent information 
 of the latter. That he borrows freely from the his- 
 torical statements of Jeremiah is no ground for the 
 unworthy sneer that he has been " caught in the very 
 act " of narrating as fact that for which he had no 
 historical voucher. The circumstance to which Dr. 
 Kuenen appeals (p. 128), that Josephus does not re- 
 cord " the forty years desolation of Egypt, and the 
 subsequent partial restoration which Ezekiel men- 
 tions," shows that he does not simply and without 
 
 1 " Antiquities of the Jews," x. 9, 7. 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 207 
 
 warrant convert prophecy into history, as is charged 
 upon him. The attempt to involve Josephus in chro- 
 nological conflict both with himself and with the 
 Prophet Ezekiel is based upon the following passage 
 from the section just now quoted : " On the fifth year 
 after the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the 
 twenty-third of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, he 
 made an expedition against Ccele-Syria, and when 
 he had possessed himself of it, he made war against 
 the Ammonites and Moabites ; and when he had 
 brought all those nations under subjection he fell 
 upon Egypt in order to overthrow it, and he slew the 
 king that then reigned and set up another, and he 
 took those Jews that were there captives and led them 
 away to Babylon." Upon this Dr. Kuenen comments 
 as follows : " That the Chaldeans conquered Egypt 
 in the year 581 B.C. is irreconcilable with the testi- 
 mony of Ezekiel, from which it is evident that the 
 conquest had not yet taken place in the year 570 B. C, 
 and with the account of Josephus himself, that Nebu- 
 chadnezzar besieged Tyre for thirteen years — prob- 
 ably from 585 to 572 B. c. : the invasion of Egypt 
 cannot surely be regarded as an episode of that 
 siege ! " This is merely the cavil of one who is de- 
 termined to create difficulties at all hazards : it has 
 no other foundation than the assumption, without 
 one word in Josephus to justify it, that all the 
 events grouped together in the paragraph above 
 quoted occurred in one and the same year. 
 
 And now, after all the ado made about these proph- 
 ecies respecting Egypt, and the confident assertion 
 
208 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 that nothing but' " dogmatical reasons " can lead any 
 to continue to defend them, the case stands thus: 
 The silence of Herodotus respecting a conquest of 
 Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar is no just reason for ques- 
 tioning the reality of its occurrence. The facts that 
 he does state coincide perfectly with the assumption 
 of such a conquest, and are moreover in entire har- 
 mony with the statements of Josephus, who positively 
 avers it, and the correctness of whose narrative there 
 is no sufficient reason for impugning; while it is both 
 intrinsically probable and has the explicit warrant of 
 Berosus, a native Babylonish historian. In fact, the 
 entire history of the period and the whole life of 
 Nebuchadnezzar are unintelligible without the inva- 
 sion of Egypt, which was the natural sequence of the 
 victory at Carchemish, and of the struggle for pre- 
 dominance in Western Asia between the great em- 
 pires of the east and south (see II. Chron. xxxv. 21). 
 Nebuchadnezzar, too, had steadily followed up his 
 victory by the siege of Jerusalem, by over-running 
 the contiguous lands, Moab, Ammon, and the rest, 
 and by the reduction of Tyre, which finally opened 
 the way for this long-contemplated campaign. That 
 this was the well-understood policy of the Babylonish 
 monarch from the beginning is shadowed forth by 
 constantly repeated predictions to this effect from 
 Jeremiah and Ezekiel, as Dr. Kuenen must confess ; 
 for even upon his low views of prophecy they reveal 
 the popular expectation and the convictions of shrewd 
 thinkers and the drift of events. Vitringa suggests, 
 not improbably, that it was the current expectation 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 209 
 
 of an invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar that gave 
 rise to the oracle reported by Herodotus (ii. 58), that 
 Necho, in building the canal to the Red Sea, was 
 " laboring for the barbarian." And the fact that 
 Nebuchadnezzar was occupied during the later years 
 of his life with his magnificent buildings and adorning 
 Babylon, implies the success of his invasion, and that 
 he had reached the summit of his ambition and ter- 
 minated the long strife between the empires. 
 
 But what, it may still be said, is to be thought of 
 Ezekiel's prediction of the forty years' desolation of 
 Egypt? These forty years are plainly the residue 
 of the seventy years' domination of Babylon foretold 
 by Jeremiah (xxv. 11, 12), beginning with the battle 
 of Carchemish, which broke the power of Egypt and 
 established the empire of Babylon in the west, and 
 ending with the capture of Babylon and subver- 
 sion of the Chaldean empire by Cyrus. A trifle more 
 than thirty of these predestined years had elapsed 
 when Nebuchadnezzar ended his siege of Tyre, and 
 now, the last obstacle removed, was prepared to strike 
 the final blow which he had meditated from the out- 
 set, by pushing his conquests into the very heart of 
 Egypt. Thus began that period of desolating war 
 and humiliating subjection to a foreign yoke which 
 was terminated only by Babylon's own fall, in round 
 numbers forty years, historically reckoned perhaps 
 thirty-six or thirty-seven years; though, if absolute 
 precision to the very letter be demanded in the ful- 
 filment, while in the absence of full historical data 
 of the period it cannot be rigorously demonstrated, 
 
 14 
 
2IO KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 there will be little difficulty in assuming it. The be- 
 ginning and the end of such a period of calamity 
 cannot be sharply defined. Egypt was harassed by 
 internal dissensions, and doubtless by incursions from 
 the troops of Nebuchadnezzar before his invasion was 
 made in force. And the power of Babylon in the 
 remoter parts of the empire was not instantly dissi- 
 pated upon the capture of the city. 
 
 The surprisingly strong language of the Prophet 
 (xxix. 10, n), " I will make the land of Egypt ut- 
 terly waste and desolate : ... no foot of man shall 
 pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through 
 it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years," admits of 
 a twofold vindication. I. These universal and sweep- 
 ing expressions are necessarily limited by the nature 
 of the case. It is a strong description of the desola- 
 tion which would follow in the track of war, the con- 
 sternation, pillage, massacre, which would so change 
 the face of the peaceful and populous empire that it 
 might be said to convert it into a desert. It is the 
 natural language of hyperbole, which every one un- 
 derstands, and in which it would be contrary to sound 
 interpretation and be a perversion of the real mean- 
 ing of the writer to insist on the exact literality of 
 the expressions ; as much so as when the evangelist 
 says (John xxi. 25) that if all the acts of Christ were 
 to be written, the world itself could not contain the 
 books. Compare Luke xix. 40. It might as well 
 be insisted that the language of every metaphor is 
 to be pressed in its most literal sense. This is not 
 interpretation, but perversion. 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 2 1 1 
 
 2. Again, it is to be borne in mind that prophecy 
 does not always exhaust itself in a single fulfilment. 
 This is the case here. The Prophet Ezekiel, while 
 speaking more immediately and directly of the judg- 
 ment to be inflicted on Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, 
 nevertheless has as his more general theme God's 
 whole work of judgment upon Egypt, by which its 
 hitherto colossal power and greatness were to be 
 broken, and it should cease to be the object of idol- 
 atrous trust to Israel (xxix. 16) that it then was 
 and had long been. The first and preliminary stage 
 in this process of degradation and humiliation was to 
 be effected by Nebuchadnezzar : this was the initial 
 yet decisive blow which presaged and involved all 
 the rest. In describing it, consequently, the Prophet 
 does not view it as an isolated act and apart from its 
 connections, but places it in combination with all 
 that properly appertains to it in the design of God, 
 links it with its whole train of predestined sequences, 
 and virtually gathers into one picture what God, in 
 bringing this to pass, designed to effect. The pur- 
 pose of God which sent Nebuchadnezzar into Egypt 
 was not limited to that one act, but contemplated the 
 reduction and humiliation of Egypt. This invasion 
 was but the first step of a more comprehensive plan, 
 the initiative and pledge of more to follow, an integral 
 part of an indivisible whole as viewed in the divine 
 mind and as here regarded by the Prophet. Nebu- 
 chadnezzar's invasion of Egypt, as the first member 
 of a closely concatenated series, carried with it in the 
 purpose of God all that was to come after, all that 
 
212 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 Egypt was thenceforward to suffer from subsequent 
 invasions and oppressions by Persians, Macedonians, 
 Romans, Saracens, Mamelukes, and Turks. And the 
 strength of the Prophet's expressions are graduated 
 accordingly. While primarily spoken of Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, they have a residuary meaning, that covers all 
 that has since been developed from them. In like 
 manner our Lord, in His memorable prophecy (Matt, 
 xxiv.), in which He blends together the destruction of 
 Jerusalem and the end of the world as constituent 
 parts of one grand drama of divine judgment on 
 transgression, adds, " Verily this generation shall not 
 pass till all these things be fulfilled," The first sta- 
 dium of accomplishment, the foretaste and assurance 
 of the whole, was then to be completed in the de- 
 struction of the Jewish capital, though there is a resid- 
 uary meaning in His words which shall not be fully 
 exhausted until the final judgment. 
 
 Dr. Kuenen does not disguise the contempt with 
 which he regards this mode of interpreting prophecy, 
 as though it were arbitrary in the extreme. We shall 
 not at this point of the discussion enter upon its de- 
 fence and confirmation. If prophecy is, as it claims 
 to be, a divine product, there is no reason why it 
 should not thus take its shape from the divine pur- 
 poses. Whether it. does so in actual fact we shall in- 
 quire more particularly hereafter. We only remark at 
 present that such a mode of interpretation, if feasible 
 and proper, would satisfactorily explain the Prophet's 
 language, and justify us in peremptorily and in the 
 most decided terms reversing our author's confident 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 213 
 
 conclusion (p. 128), " that the future of Egypt was 
 concealed from Ezekiel, and that the reality did not 
 even remotely correspond to his postulates." 
 
 Isaiah's prediction (xx. 4), "that the King of As- 
 syria shall carry the inhabitants of Egypt and Ethiopia 
 away ignominiously out of their land," was fulfilled to 
 the letter, as is shown both by Nahum (iii. 8-10), and 
 by an inscription of Assurbanipal, — testimonieswhich 
 are adduced by Dr. Kuenen himself (p. 121), and 
 which he vainly seeks to set aside by the quibble that 
 Isaiah " expects " this to be done by Sargon, whereas 
 it was effected by his great-grandson. The sufficient 
 reply to which is, that the meaning of the prophecy 
 is to be determined not by what Dr. Kuenen con- 
 ceives to be the " most obvious supposition" of what 
 Isaiah " expects," but by its own explicit declarations. 
 It was an expedition of Sargon which gave occasion 
 to the prophecy; the triumph over Egypt, however, 
 is ascribed not to Sargon, but to "the King of As- 
 syria." The assault made by Sargon was followed up 
 by his successors until the words of the Prophet were 
 amply verified. 
 
 It is no prejudice to the inspiration of Isaiah or of 
 Micah if " the overthrow of the Assyrian empire is 
 not predicted " by them. Such a prediction could 
 not be expected from Micah, for his prophecy is lim- 
 ited exclusively to the fortunes of the people of God. 
 Isaiah, on the other hand, does foretell Assyria's down- 
 fall, with prominent reference indeed to Sennacherib's 
 disastrous defeat (x. 24-34, xvii. 12-14, xxx. 31 ff., 
 xxxi. 8, 9), but in terms which may easily be under- 
 
214 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 stood as reaching much farther and implying a more 
 complete destruction. But at any rate the Prophet is 
 not omniscient. He has no predictive faculty by 
 which he can survey the future at will. He knows 
 barely what is revealed to him ; of all else he is as 
 ignorant as ordinary men. The fact that Isaiah de- 
 picts in the blissful future " a highway out of Egypt to 
 Assyria " (xix. 23), and that Micah (v. 5, 6) describes 
 the coming Redeemer as Isaiah's protector against 
 Assyrian invasion, may or may not warrant Dr. 
 Kuenen's inference that for aught they knew the As- 
 syrian empire would last until Messiah's days. But 
 in either case the language is as consistent with strict 
 truth as in any of those numerous instances in which 
 the Prophets set forth the future under figures bor- 
 rowed from the present or the past. How can the 
 unknown be more intelligibly and impressively repre- 
 sented than by emblems taken from what is known 
 and familiar? Thus when Isaiah would express the 
 thought that the Exiles of Israel shall be brought back 
 to their own land under immediate and evident divine 
 guidance and protection, he represents their return 
 from the land of their oppressors as a fresh exodus 
 out of Egypt, in which the miracle of the Red Sea 
 shall be repeated (xi. 15), and water again brought 
 for them from the rock (xlviii. 21). The particular 
 forms in which this almighty intervention shall be 
 exerted on their behalf are of small account compared 
 with the essential fact itself. Thus, too, when Eze- 
 kiel would make Israel sensible that they were on a 
 par with the worst offenders, and that their future 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 21 5 
 
 restoration was wholly of God's unmerited mercy, he 
 tells them that Sodom and her daughters shall like- 
 wise be restored to their former estate as well as they, 
 and be associated with them in the closest intimacy 
 and relationship (xvi. 53, 55, 61) ; not, of course, that 
 there was to be a literal resurrection of the Cities of 
 the Plain, destroyed by fire from Heaven, but that the 
 same grace which rescues Israel will reach to Sodom's 
 spiritual counterpart, and bring into restored com- 
 munion with God, and into fellowship with his people, 
 the most degraded heathen, the very dregs of the 
 human race. (Compare Isai. i. 10; Rev. xi. 8.) 
 
 It may have been of little consequence to Isaiah or 
 to Micah, or to their contemporaries, to have the 
 political changes disclosed to them by which Assyria 
 was to be superseded on the map of the world or erased 
 from the roll of nations ; but it was of vast moment 
 to them to know that, whether the ancient Assyria 
 should survive or whatever new Assyria might arise to 
 take its place, the strife between the great empires of 
 the world should hereafter give way to peaceful and 
 amicable intercourse, and instead of their present 
 animosity toward the people of God, they should be 
 heartily united with Israel in the service of Jehovah. 
 And should any future Assyria venture to molest 
 Israel or disturb his peace, his Messiah would effec- 
 tually protect him and avenge his cause. 
 
 Of Nahum's and Zephaniah's predictions of the 
 total destruction of Nineveh, Dr. Kuenen well says, 
 " History has set its seal on these anticipations." He 
 claims, however, that there was " one respect in which 
 
2l6 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 their predictions were not confirmed by the issue. 
 Nineveh was depopulated and became a desolation in 
 a comparatively brief space, but still not all at once " 
 (p. 131). But how this militates against the truth of 
 the prediction does not appear ; much less what there 
 is to justify Dr. Kuenen in speaking as he does (p. 133) 
 of " the opposition between the contents of the proph- 
 ecy and the historical reality." A summary statement 
 of an event occupying long periods of time and pass- 
 ing through various phases, which seizes on its main 
 features or depicts it in its consummation, may be 
 just as true and for some important purposes vastly 
 more effective than an account which enters into every 
 minute detail. Nahum vividly describes the assault 
 upon Nineveh, its capture and its desolation. That 
 this would all be finished at a stroke he does not say. 
 The fact is revealed to him ; the length of time that 
 it would occupy, and the successive steps through 
 which it would attain to full . accomplishment, are not 
 revealed. But the fulfilment is none the less accurate 
 on that account, now that every item in the prediction 
 has been verified ; in fact, the longer the process the 
 more far-seeing is he who can infallibly forecast its 
 termination, and the clearer the evidence that it is no 
 mere deduction of human sagacity. 
 
 To this view of the case Dr. Kuenen interposes two 
 objections: I. "It is judicial punishments which the 
 Prophets announce. But the destiny of the heathen 
 nations loses that character when slow decay takes 
 the place of sudden destruction." Unless Dr. Kuenen 
 is disposed to dispute the moral government of God 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 21 7 
 
 altogether, and to deny the reality of divine retribu- 
 tions in this world, he must mean, not that punish- 
 ment ceases to be such because tardily inflicted or 
 slowly evolved, but that men are in this case in dan- 
 ger of not recognizing it as such, and of being diverted 
 from considering it in its real nature as a judicial in- 
 fliction, to what is merely subordinate and incidental. 
 And this brings to light a prominent reason for that 
 frequent peculiarity of prophetic representation which 
 we are now considering and at which Dr. Kuenen 
 takes such offence. The Prophet not only discloses 
 but interprets the future. It is the finger of God in 
 human events which he is particularly concerned to 
 mark. Prophecy is not the random disclosure of the 
 future for the sake of gratifying curiosity, exciting 
 wonder, or even confirming a divine commission. 
 This last is an incidental end of great value, but the 
 Prophet is mainly and properly the inspired religious 
 teacher and guide of the people. The purposes of 
 God in the future, so far as these are revealed to him, 
 supply lessons of warning and instruction. He is con- 
 cerned with the future only as it manifests the grace 
 or the justice of God ; with coming calamities only as 
 judicial inflictions, with coming good only as a fruit of 
 the divine favor. The minutiae of historical detail, if 
 disclosed to him, would be nothing to his purpose ; the 
 intervals of time, the fluctuations and varying phases 
 of events, the second causes concerned in their produc- 
 tion, are all unessential to the end for which prophecy 
 is communicated, viz., that of impressing moral and 
 spiritual lessons on the minds of the people. In fact, 
 
2l8 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 they are not only of inferior consequence, but it would 
 be disturbing and distracting to introduce them. The 
 lesson of God's judgment on a guilty nation is made 
 more impressive by presenting it in its unity, by gath- 
 ering it all up into one summary, comprehensive 
 view, which shall truthfully represent and faithfully 
 depict it in the aggregate or in certain marked and 
 salient features, and direct attention to the moral se- 
 quences and the design of God in the whole from first 
 to last. . And, if this is to be done, it is of course nec- 
 essary to pass over slightly or altogether leave out of 
 sight* much that is purely accessory and contingent, 
 and which would only serve to turn away the thoughts 
 from the main point to be inculcated. 
 
 And this is important, not only for the immediate 
 hearers of the Prophet, but for those as well who live 
 when the events predicted come to pass, to give them 
 the true key for the understanding of that which they 
 behold. Dr. Kuenen says,. " surely none of those 
 who witnessed the decay of heathen nations could 
 regard it, as the Prophet wished it to be regarded, as 
 the execution of a sentence pronounced by Jahveh." 
 But, instructed by the Prophet beforehand, men can 
 do this : they can then trace in the slow evolutions 
 of history what he has foreshown in his condensed 
 picture and set in its' true divine relations. This ''de- 
 viation in details," therefore, '-between the prediction 
 and the historical fact," at which Dr. Kuenen cavils, 
 results from the divine adaptation of prophecy to its 
 proper end in the instruction and training of the 
 people of God. 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 219 
 
 Dr. Kuenen's second objection, to the view that a 
 neglect of the relations of time is consistent with the 
 truth of prophecy, is that prophecy not infrequently 
 does take cognizance of these relations. " Fixed 
 dates are not wanting in the prophecies. The Proph- 
 ets thus show that they perceive very well that dates 
 are anything but indifferent. In a number of prophe- 
 cies the cardinal thought itself stands or falls with 
 the succession of events therein announced." This 
 is certainly so. And we quite agree with Dr. Kuenen's 
 criticism upon those who speak of the " perspective " 
 character of prophecy as if it were one of its invaria- 
 ble features, or of inner intuition as the fixed form of 
 prophetical revelation, that they attribute to all proph- 
 ecies what is applicable only to a portion of them. 
 The phenomena of vision may be serviceable in illus- 
 trating that frequent peculiarity of prophetic repre- 
 sentation, to which we have before adverted ; but to 
 resolve prophecy into vision and to determine its laws 
 accordingly, is to enter the region of doubtful specu- 
 lation. The Spirit of the LORD is limited to no one 
 method in making His disclosures. The ends of His 
 revelation are better answered sometimes, as we have 
 seen, by excluding all reference to the lapse of time; 
 at others definite dates are given, and the chronologi- 
 cal order of events is distinctly indicated. And when 
 the latter is the case, the fulfilment must of course 
 conform to the statements of the prophecy in these 
 particulars. 
 
 The special application which Dr. Kuenen pro- 
 poses of this principle is the following : " Is the judg- 
 
2 20 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 ment upon one or other heathen nation promised to 
 the people of Israel, and represented as the repara- 
 tion of the wrongs which they had endured, then the 
 possibility of such a prophecy being realized ceases 
 from the moment that Israel loses its national exist- 
 ence, and thus can no longer reap the fruits of the 
 destruction of its enemies" (p. 136). The fallacy of 
 this is obvious. Israel sustained a twofold character : 
 it was both a political and a religious body ; it was 
 a nation, with its affinities of race and its hereditary 
 institutions ; and it was the people of God, in cove- 
 nant with Him, and embracing those who feared His 
 name and obeyed His will. These two aspects, though 
 historically blended in Israel, were not inseparable; 
 and even while they were united they might be and 
 they were mentally distinguished. Now, nothing can 
 be plainer than that in their promises of future good 
 the Prophets contemplate Israel, not as a nation, but 
 as the people of God. It is their constant theme that 
 the wicked must be purged out of Israel by divine 
 judgments (Isai. i. 24 ff.) before the promised bles- 
 sings can come, and that the holy seed alone shall be 
 spared (Isai. vi. 13) ; though they were as numerous 
 as the sand of the sea, only a remnant should return 
 to the LORD and stay themselves on him (Isai. x. 
 20-22). It shall be well with the righteous ; it shall 
 be ill with the wicked (Isai. iii. 10, 11). "All the sin- 
 ners of my people shall die by the sword " (Amos ix. 
 10). "There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the 
 wicked" (Isai. xlviii. 22). Their possession of the 
 Temple that was called by the Lord's name, and of 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 221 
 
 the land which he had given them (Jer. vii. 14), and 
 the promises made to their fathers (xi. 3 ff.), would 
 not save them if disobedient and unfaithful. It was 
 shown to Jeremiah (xxiv.) under the emblem of the 
 good figs and the bad figs, and to Ezekiel in the 
 vision of his eleventh chapter, that the wicked, how- 
 ever they might be outwardly connected with Israel, 
 were no real part of it (Hos. i. 9), and they had no 
 proper share in the blessings that were in reserve. 
 But, on the other hand, the sons of the stranger that 
 join themselves to the LORD shall share the privileges 
 of His people (Isai. lvi. 3-8). Egypt and Assyria, 
 when they too serve the LORD, shall occupy the 
 same relation to Him as Israel (Isai. xix. 23-25). 
 The merchandise of Tyre (Isai. xxiii. 18) shall, like 
 everything in Jerusalem (Zech. xiv. 21), be holiness 
 to the Lord. Of all the nations that have provoked 
 divine judgments, the LORD declares (Jer. xii. 16), 
 " If they will diligently learn the ways of My people, 
 to swear by My name, the LORD liveth, then shall 
 they be built in the midst of My people." " Many 
 nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and 
 shall be My people " (Zech. ii. 11). Egypt, Babylon, 
 Philistia, Tyre, and Ethiopia are to be accounted as 
 native-born in Zion (Ps. lxxxvii. 4). 
 
 On the basis of such statements, which abound 
 upon every page of the prophetic writings, we are 
 amply justified in affirming that the national exist- 
 ence of Israel was, to the Prophets, quite a distinct 
 thing from the existence of Israel as the people of 
 God. They clearly contemplated the possibility that 
 
222 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 the former might be overturned ; they over and over 
 again positively predict that it shall be ; but the lat- 
 ter abides perpetual, unaffected by the ruins of the 
 former. The national existence of Israel is no more. 
 But the people of Jehovah, who worship and fear 
 Him, who reverently receive and obey His Word 
 through Moses and the Prophets, are more numer- 
 ous than ever. They belong to every nation. They 
 are found in every land. They are sprung from every 
 race and family of mankind. These are the Israel of 
 God in the true sense of the Prophets, who regard not 
 natural lineage, but spiritual kinship. 
 
 So far, then, from the termination of Israel's " na- 
 tional existence " having set a limit to the fulfilment 
 of the prophecies under consideration, the enlarge- 
 ment of the faithful remnant of Israel by the acces- 
 sion of believing Gentiles is supplying the required 
 conditions and preparing the. way for a fulfilment in 
 a fuller and more adequate sense than ever. The ful- 
 filment began in each case with the judgment inflicted 
 upon these nations severally by Assyria or by Baby- 
 lon before Israel's political existence was extinguished, 
 and when they could behold the avenging of their 
 cause by the providence of God, and to some extent 
 reap the benefits of it before the captivity or after the 
 return. But " the meek shall inherit the earth ; " and 
 the time is yet coming when these desolated seats of 
 the ancient foes of God's people shall be occupied by 
 those who truly fear His name. 
 
 These are the two talismans on whose magical vir- 
 tue Dr. Kuenen relies to set aside what have been 
 
V 
 
 AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 223 
 
 hitherto ranked among the most signal fulfilments of 
 prophecy ; and thus easily and effectually are they dis- 
 enchanted. They cannot abide the test of a candid 
 examination. It is not essential to the accomplish- 
 ment of a prediction that it should take place speed- 
 ily or all at once, when the prediction itself makes no 
 such requirement. And the loss of Israel's national 
 existence does not put an end to the possibility of 
 fulfilling the judgments predicted on their foes. We 
 accept without hesitation the view which he imputes 
 to believers in prophecy (p. 135), that it is " fulfilled 
 exactly and literally, or in another form and at an- 
 other period, but still always fulfilled ; " though we 
 repel the latent sarcasm in his form of putting it, as 
 though their only concern were to bring out a fulfil- 
 ment by fair means or by foul. The truth is that an 
 honest interpretation of prophecy, and comparison 
 with the facts of history, uniformly carries with it the 
 evidence of a fulfilment; and this is only to be es- 
 caped by some such method as that of Dr. Kuenen, 
 imposing arbitrary conditions not authorized by the 
 prediction, and refusing to admit a fulfilment, how- 
 ever obvious, unless these are complied with. 
 
 To the predictions of Isaiah and Jeremiah respect- 
 ing Babylon, with the exception of some trivialities, 
 the bare statement of which would be a sufficient ref- 
 utation, he has nothing to object but "the lingering 
 process of decay through which the mighty city 
 passed " to its desolation so accurately foretold ages 
 before. 
 
 Dr. Kuenen confesses that all which the Book of 
 
224 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 Daniel contains respecting " Alexander the Great and 
 his successors," and especially " the fortunes of Anti- 
 ochus Epiphanes, and that prince's measures against 
 the Israelitish religion," is strictly accurate. But then 
 he alleges that the account of the latest years of An- 
 tiochus and all beyond that time is contradicted by 
 the event ; and its account of matters " before Alex- 
 ander the Great is not only incomplete, but defective, 
 and partly inaccurate." Hence he infers that this 
 book cannot have been the genuine production of the 
 Prophet Daniel, but must belong to a much later 
 date. "The writer's ignorance of these facts is at 
 once explained if we assume that he wrote in the age 
 of Epiphanes, and that in the year 165 B. c. But 
 how can that ignorance be made to agree with the 
 supposition that he was enlightened by supernatural 
 revelation with regard to all the preceding matters ? 
 Did that revelation begin to fail him at a certain 
 point ? " But how if no such ignorance exists except 
 in Dr. Kuenen's imagination, or must we even say it, 
 his misrepresentation? How, still further, if the book 
 contains clear and unambiguous prophecies, which 
 have been undeniably fulfilled, reaching far beyond 
 the date when he himself alleges it to have been 
 written? His argument against its genuineness and 
 its inspiration then falls of itself; and the admission 
 which he has made of its correctness in relation to 
 events long after Daniel's time becomes a confession 
 of a long series of predictions accurately accom- 
 plished. 
 
 This it is not difficult to show. The charge (p. 144, 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 225 
 
 note 7), that, whereas Antiochus died in Persia,- it is 
 predicted (Dan. xi. 40-45) that he should find his end 
 in Palestine, is refuted by simply reading (ver. 45), 
 "And he shall come to his end, and none shall help 
 him ; " this was to be after he had planted " the taber- 
 nacle of his palace in the glorious holy mountain," 
 but that it should be immediately after or in the same 
 locality is neither said nor implied. An error is pre- 
 tended in the 2300 days (viii. 14), and in the three 
 and a half years (xii. 7), the 1290 and the 1335 days 
 (vers. 11, 12) ; but their literal exactness is defended 
 not only by believing interpreters as Havernick, but 
 even by others who, like Bertholdt and Lengerke, 
 attach no more credit to prophecy than Dr. Kuenen 
 himself. The statement that the writer of Daniel 
 " knows only of four Persian kings " has no other 
 foundation than the circumstance that he has occasion 
 to speak of Xerxes (xi. 2) as the fourth after Cyrus 
 
 (X. I). 
 
 The assertion that " he is in error even with regard 
 to the Babylonian kings, of whom the last is, accord- 
 ing to him, Belshazzar, the son and, as it appears, the 
 successor of Nebuchadnezzar," is a very extraordinary 
 one in the present state of our knowledge on this sub- 
 ject. Until a comparatively recent time Belshazzar 
 was a puzzle, and the charge that the author of the 
 Book of Daniel had blundered here was freely made. 
 No other writer of antiquity makes mention of such a 
 prince. All who speak of the last king of Babylon 
 call him Nabonned, or by some name so nearly ap- 
 proaching this in form as to be plainly identical. 
 
 15 
 
226 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 According to Berosus, he was not of royal descent, 
 but reached the throne by a successful conspiracy; 
 and, instead of being put to death when Babylon was 
 taken (Dan. v. 30), he was at that time at Borsippa, 
 which he surrendered without a siege, and was in con- 
 sequence generously treated by Cyrus, who made him 
 Governor of Caramania, where he died. Xenophon, 
 indeed, says that the king, whose name he does not 
 give, but whom he styles " impious," was slain in the 
 capture of Babylon. But it was the fashion to discredit 
 Xenophon and Daniel, and to affirm that the native 
 historian Berosus must be right. Thus the case stood 
 until a few years since, when the whole matter was 
 cleared up and Daniel thoroughly vindicated by the 
 discovery of a cylinder 1 of Nabonned, King of Baby- 
 lon, in which he makes repeated mention of his eldest 
 son Belshazzar (Bel-sarussur). No doubt Nabonned 
 had associated his son Belshazzar with himself in the 
 sovereignty. When Nabonned was defeated by Cyrus 
 and obliged to shut himself up in Borsippa, Bel- 
 shazzar remained in Babylon and perished in the over- 
 throw of the city. If we suppose Nabonned to have 
 been married to a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, 2 who 
 would then be the queen of Dan. v. 10, Nebuchad- 
 nezzar could with as much propriety be called the 
 
 1 Menant, " Babylone et la Chaldee," pp. 254 ff. 
 
 2 This supposition is commended not only by its perfectly reconcil- 
 ing all the statements in the case, and by the analogy of Neriglissar 
 (Nergal-sharezer), the successful conspirator against his brother-in-law 
 Evil-Merodach, but likewise by the fact, attested by the Behistun in- 
 scription, that Nabonned had a son Nebuchadnezzar, who was twice 
 personated by impostors in the reign of Darius Hystaspes. 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 227 
 
 father of Belshazzar (Dan. v. 2 ff.) as David is called 
 the father of King Josiah (II. Chron. xxxiv. 2, 3). If 
 now, as Dr. Kuenen would have us believe, the Book 
 of Daniel is the production, not of a contemporary and 
 an eye-witness, but of some nameless Jew of Palestine 
 nearly four centuries after the fall of Babylon, how 
 comes it to pass that it alone of all ancient writings 
 has preserved the name of Belshazzar and the memory 
 of his existence? 
 
 Another equally unfortunate thrust at the credibility 
 of Daniel is the charge that he " thrusts in the Median 
 monarchy between the Babylonian and the Persian." 
 His mention of the brief rule of Darius the Mede, 
 which is also certified by Xenophon, and has besides 
 such intrinsic probability under the circumstances, is 
 another instance of minute accuracy where other his- 
 torians of the period have passed over in silence a 
 reign attended by no lasting consequences and eclipsed 
 by the greater glory of that of Cyrus. The idea of a 
 " Median monarchy," however, following the Baby- 
 lonian, and distinct from the Persian, is not sanctioned 
 by Daniel, but foisted upon him by Dr. Kuenen for a 
 purpose of his own. In order to bring the contents 
 of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. ii.) and of the 
 vision of the four beasts (vii.) into the period preced- 
 ing the time which he has fixed for the composition of 
 the book, he maintains (p. 141) that " the four king- 
 doms are the Babylonian, the Median, the Persian, 
 and the Grecian (that of Alexander the Great and his 
 successors)." But that the Median and the Persian 
 are not two, but one and the same kingdom, appears 
 
2 28 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 from the fact that the Medes and Persians are always 
 united, both in this book and elsewhere. It was an- 
 nounced to Belshazzar (v. 28), " Thy kingdom is 
 divided, and given to the Medes and Persians." Under 
 Darius the Mede the law is that of the Medes and Per- 
 sians (vi. 8, 12, 15). The ram with the two horns in 
 the vision of ch. viii. represents (ver. 20) the kings of 
 Media and Persia. So under Ahasuerus (Xerxes) it 
 is Persia and Media (Esth. i. 3, 14, 18), the Persians 
 and the Medes (i. 19). And in the Behistun inscrip- 
 tion of Darius Hystaspes we find repeatedly the same 
 combination, Persia and Media, the Persian and Me- 
 dian army. The same thing appears from the nature 
 of the case. The Median was not overturned by the 
 Persian kingdom, as the Babylonian by the Persian 
 and the Persian by the Grecian ; but there was simply 
 a change in the reigning monarch by peaceful legiti- 
 mate succession. The four heads of the third beast 
 (vii. 6) indicate the fourfold division of the third mon- 
 archy, which was true of the Grecian kingdom (see 
 viii. 8, 22), but inapplicable to the Persian. 
 
 If, now, the Medo-Persian is but one kingdom, the 
 second, and the Grecian the third, then the fourth 
 kingdom must be the Roman, — which best suits the 
 description, and which is the interpretation that has 
 been put upon it from the beginning. This delinea- 
 tion of the character and conquests of the Roman 
 empire, the erection of Messiah's kingdom while it 
 still lasted, its subsequent weakness and subdivision, 
 and the arising of a great persecuting power out of it, 
 are predictions which were manifestly fulfilled long 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 229 
 
 after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and which 
 require the assumption of a divine supernatural fore- 
 sight, even though the book were written at as late a 
 period as that to which Dr. Kuenen himself assigns it, 
 — not to speak of the further prophecy of the seventy 
 weeks (ix. 24-27), fulfilled in the ministry and vicarious 
 death of Jesus Christ, at the predicted time, and the 
 subsequent destruction of Jerusalem. Can such evi- 
 dence of inspiration coexist with imposture? Can 
 predictions such as these, the reality of which even 
 the most advanced critical hypothesis fails to set aside, 
 be joined in the same production with pretended pre- 
 dictions which are not really such, which are not gen- 
 uine utterances of the Prophet from whom they claim 
 to be, but falsely issued in his name after the events 
 had come to pass ? This prediction, that the Grecian 
 empire would be succeeded by the Roman, further 
 shows that Daniel did not expect the resurrection and 
 final judgment to follow immediately after the deliv- 
 erance from the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes, 
 and thus corrects the false inferences drawn from the 
 transition in xii. 1, 2. Moreover, if the Book of Dan- 
 iel were a spurious production, first written and pub- 
 lished 165 B. C, and contained the extravagant and 
 fanatical expectations imputed to it by Dr. Kuenen 
 respecting the miraculous death of Antiochus in Pales- 
 tine, to be followed at once by the coming of the 
 Messiah and the resurrection — expectations which 
 were falsified by the event within two years — must it 
 not have been discredited at once? How could it 
 ever have gained credit as the genuine work of a true 
 
23O KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 Prophet of God, who lived nearly four centuries 
 before? and especially how could it have attained 
 such speedy and acknowledged influence that the 
 Book of Maccabees, in recording the history of these 
 times, adopts its very language and borrows its forms 
 of expression? 
 
 In regard to the judgments predicted upon Israel, 
 Dr. Kuenen is at great pains to represent the Prophets 
 as at variance with one another and with the facts of 
 the case; and the methods which he employs are as 
 extraordinary as the results at which he arrives. He 
 alleges that neither Hosea nor Amos " expect the 
 destruction of the kingdom of Judah," though they 
 clearly intimate that it shall be destroyed (Hos. i. 11, 
 viii. 14; Amos ii. 5, ix. 11) ; and this is besides a sub- 
 ject foreign to their theme, in which silence cannot 
 with any propriety be construed as a denial. Amos 
 predicts the captivity of the ten tribes, but Dr. Kuenen 
 cavils because he does not explicitly mention the 
 Assyrians, nor state how long it would be before the 
 Exile, and because he exhorts the people to repent- 
 ance ; from which the inference is drawn that he could 
 not have foreseen that they would remain obdur- 
 ate, and that the judgments which he threatens 
 would really be inflicted. He endeavors to show that 
 Hosea is vacillating and self-contradictory, and finally 
 confesses that he " does not contradict himself, 
 if we regard his intention more than the words he 
 employs." 
 
 Micah iii. 12 predicts the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 which was accomplished by the Chaldeans. Isaiah 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 23 1 
 
 predicts that it shall be spared in the invasion of Sen- 
 nacherib. 1 And this is gravely represented as a con- 
 
 1 Of course Dr. Kuenen makes the most that he can out of the 
 chronological difficulty which Assyrian scholars pretty unanimously 
 agree to find in Isai. xxxvi. 1, and the parallel passage, II. Kings xviii. 
 13. While the testimony of the monuments confirms the statements 
 of these chapters in the most remarkable manner, and even in minute 
 particulars, it would appear that Sargon was still King of Assyria in 
 Hezekiah's fourteenth year, and that the invasion of Sennacherib very 
 probably did not take place till thirteen years later. " It is impossible," 
 he says (p. 288), "to imagine that we have here an error of a copy- 
 ist; but how then can a blunder so remarkable have originated with 
 regard to such an important fact ? " His solution is that an expedition 
 of Sargon has been confounded with that of Sennacherib ; and this 
 mingling of two separate events, which awakens a suspicion of other 
 inaccuracies, betrays a writer long posterior to the occurrences them- 
 selves. In his opinion this narrative was not written by Isaiah him- 
 self, but has been adopted into the volume of his prophecies from the 
 books of Kings. Consequently, " in its present form" it "is about a 
 hundred and fifty years later than the events which it records " 
 (p. 287). 
 
 Refreshing as it is to find Dr. Kuenen thus playing the unaccustomed 
 rdle of an assertor of the accuracy of the received text, we cannot help 
 thinking that, if the conclusions of Assyriologists be correct in this 
 instance, the readiest mode of reconciliation is to assume an error in 
 the number, and to suppose that "fourteenth" has been wrongly sub- 
 stituted for " twenty-seventh." It would not be difficult to account for 
 such a mistaken attempt at correction on the part of transcribers. 
 Hezekiah's sickness (Isai. xxxviii. 5 ; compare II. Kings xviii. 2) 
 occurred in the fourteenth year of his reign. Hastily assuming the 
 order of narration to be the order of time, and inferring a closer chro- 
 nological juxtaposition from the general expression " in those days " 
 ( Isai. xxxviii. 1 ) than the terms really require, transcribers may have 
 judged that consistency demanded the number "fourteenth" in xxxvi. 
 I, and have made the requisite emendation. But now if xxxviii., xxxix. 
 really precede xxxvi., xxxvii. by thirteen years — and that they are prior 
 in order of time appears from xxxviii. 6 — then a convincing argument 
 thence arises that these chapters are original in Isaiah and borrowed 
 thence in Kings. This inversion of the chronological order is unac- 
 
232 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 tradiction, though, to make it out, Micah's comment 
 on his own words (iv. 10), "thou shalt go even to 
 Babylon," must be eliminated from the text, and 
 Isaiah's prediction of the Babylonish captivity (xxxix. 
 6) is oracularly pronounced to be spurious. 
 
 Isaiah predicts (vii. 7, 8) that within threescore and 
 five years Ephraim shall be broken that it be not a 
 people, and (ver. 16) that this process of extinction shall 
 be begun by the desolation of the land of Ephraim 
 before a child could reach that age at which it could 
 know to refuse the evil and choose the good. To 
 Dr. Kuenen's mind these passages contradict one 
 another, though both are in exact accordance with 
 the event, — the one fulfilled by Tiglath-pileser, the 
 other by Esarhaddon. Of the latter he rids himself 
 in the easiest manner possible by assuming an inter- 
 polation. Allow him to expunge what he pleases, 
 and to put his own meaning on what he suffers to 
 remain, and he need not find it difficult to prove or 
 disprove anything he likes. 
 
 Isaiah further predicts (vii. 15, 16) thatjudah should 
 be relieved from the present invasion by Syria and 
 Ephraim within three or four years ; that butter and 
 honey, the subsistence of a ravaged country, should 
 
 countable in Kings, while in Isaiah the whole structure of the book 
 demands it. The entire preceding section of the book of Isaiah con- 
 sists of prophecies relating to the Assyrian invasion, which is first 
 completed by the narrative of its actual occurrence. Then the sick- 
 ness of Hezekiah, followed by the King of Babylon's message and the 
 prediction of the captivity in Babylon (xxxix. 5-7), begins a new sec- 
 tion, containing prophecies relating to that event and the deliverance 
 from it. 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 233 
 
 not be eaten beyond that time. Dr. Kuenen refers it 
 to a subject with which it has nothing in the world to 
 do, and makes it mean that the invasion by Assyria 
 and Egypt spoken of in the subsequent verses of the 
 chapter should occur within this brief interval. And 
 then he triumphantly exclaims (p. 169) : " But it did 
 not take place. In the reign of Ahaz, and also dur- 
 ing the first half of the reign of Hezekiah, Judah 
 continued to be exempt from an Assyrian inva- 
 sion." 
 
 Jeremiah's prediction, steadfastly adhered to from 
 the beginning to the end of his ministry, of the over- 
 throw of Jerusalem and the exile of the people, was 
 confessedly fulfilled. But Dr. Kuenen tries to break 
 its force by alleging that other Prophets took a con- 
 trary view. Habakkuk's brief prophecy is wholly 
 occupied with the judgment upon the Chaldeans ; we 
 cannot accordingly expect in it a statement of what 
 shall befall Jerusalem, and yet even here see i. 5-10. 
 Upon this book Dr. Kuenen makes the following most 
 extraordinary comment: " In vain do we attempt to 
 thrust in the fall of Jerusalem anywhere into his 
 prophecies. Habakkuk has not even a faint presenti- 
 ment of it ; or rather he denies distinctly that such 
 a catastrophe should be admitted into Jahveh's pur- 
 poses." Joel of the preceding period, and Zechariah 
 (xii.-xiv.) from the period after the Exile, are dis- 
 located from their true position, affirmed on the most 
 precarious critical grounds to be Jeremiah's contem- 
 poraries, their language applied to a matter of which 
 they are not treating, and they are thus made to 
 
234 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 declare that, contrary to trie allegations of Jeremiah, 
 the land would not be invaded by the Chaldeans, or 
 that the LORD would visibly interfere at the moment 
 of the capture of the city. And to cap the climax, 
 the false prophet Hananiah (Jer. xxviii.) is bolstered up 
 by being placed in such company, and represented as 
 declaring in the name of Jehovah, with as much right 
 to be considered His messenger as Jeremiah, directly 
 the opposite of what the latter asserted. And on this 
 showing it is affirmed that we have here Prophet 
 against Prophet ! 
 
 As for " the predictions which have reference to the 
 restoration of Israel," Dr. Kuenen affirms, and he 
 italicizes his affirmation, " not one of them has been 
 realized!' We admit, without a moment's hesitation, 
 that if these predictions are to be understood solely in 
 a national and local sense, they have never yet been 
 accomplished in anything like their full extent of 
 meaning. But this very fact creates a presumption 
 against such a limitation. The judgments denounced 
 against Israel and the nations have all been inflicted, 
 as we have seen, notwithstanding Dr. Kuenen's con- 
 tradiction. And it would be strange if in the prom- 
 ised blessings there is no correspondence whatever 
 between the prediction and the reality; and this 
 especially as there was in the return from the Baby- 
 lonish captivity an incipient fulfilment of these prom- 
 ises in every particular, which, as Dr. Kuenen is 
 himself forward to assure us, the subsequent Prophets 
 recognized as " the beginning of the realization" of 
 them (p. 194), and which they accepted as the pledge 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 235 
 
 of their full and final accomplishment. There was a 
 return from Exile though it was partial, not total ; 
 and there was no such vast multiplication of the peo- 
 ple as had been promised. There was an end of the 
 schism and of all hostility between Judah and Ephraim, 
 though no complete union was effected of these two 
 branches of the covenant people in one body. They 
 were led by a prince of the House of David, but no 
 son of David sat as king upon his father's throne ; and 
 Israel remained subject to the domination of the Gen- 
 tiles instead of themselves ruling the world. There 
 was not the full return of the people to God, nor the 
 abundant tokens of His favor which were promised 
 in the blissful future. 
 
 Considered as the first stage of accomplishment, 
 the restoration from Babylon might well be reckoned, 
 as was done by Zechariah and his compeers, as an 
 earnest of more to come. But in itself it plainly fell 
 far below the prophetic anticipations, and cannot be 
 regarded as a complete and satisfactory fulfilment of 
 what had been foretold in such glowing terms. And 
 Dr. Kuenen is right in insisting that these predictions 
 are no longer " capable of being realized," if this 
 budding fulfilment has proved abortive, and after the 
 lapse of two thousand years there has not only been 
 no further progress towards fulfilment, but these im- 
 agined tokens of it have themselves been falsified 
 and obliterated by the complete abolition of Israel's 
 national existence and the long dispersion of ages. 
 To urge as the only defence that can be made on 
 behalf of these predictions, that whereas they "are not 
 
236 KUENEN OX THE PROPHETS 
 
 realized as yet," they " shall be realized some time" 
 by " the return of the whole of Israel to their native 
 country, and Israel's supremacy over the nations of the 
 earth in the last days," is to " contradict the expla- 
 nation of the old prophecies which is presented in 
 the Old Testament itself" (pp. 186, 196). 
 
 But whatever may still remain to be developed in 
 the future, and in whatever form, the past has not been 
 unproductive. The promise given in the return from 
 captivity has already been succeeded by large results. 
 The remnant of Israel has become a vast multitude. 
 The Son of David is seated upon His everlasting 
 throne, and is extending His conquests among the 
 nations; and the blessings of His reign are unfolding 
 themselves in the experience of mankind. The hope 
 of Israel is realized in Christ and the Gospel. All the 
 prophetic anticipations of coming good for Israel and 
 the world were linked with the great Redeemer and 
 King who was to rise from David's line. 
 
 Strangely enough, Dr. Kuenen goes groping through 
 the whole Old Testament, and absolutely professes his 
 inability to find any prediction of a personal and indi- 
 vidual Messiah there at all. " The word ' Messiah ' is 
 not used in the Old Testament in any one instance" 
 he tells us in emphatic italics, " to denote a descend- 
 ant of David who shall reign over Israel restored" 
 (p. 202). The promise to our first parents (Gen. hi. 
 15) " has no connection " with this subject; " the ser- 
 pent is — a serpent and nothing more " (p. 377). The 
 promise to Abraham is not that all families of the 
 earth shall be blessed in him or in his seed, but that 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 237 
 
 " he shall be so prosperous, his posterity shall be so 
 numerous and fortunate, that nothing better or higher 
 can be imagined than the enjoyment of what he or his 
 race possesses." The blessing pronounced upon 
 Judah (Gen. xlix. 10) is not of the coming of Shiloh, 
 but of the coming to Shiloh, " the common sanc- 
 tuary." 
 
 Jeremiah " does not expect one single king of 
 David's family, but an unbroken succession of Davidic 
 kings " (p. 205). The same is the case with Ezekiel 
 (p. 209). So, too, Micah and Zechariah (ix.-xi.) : 
 "The king whom they announce is described as one of 
 the children of men, but therefore seems also of neces- 
 sity to partake of mortality, the lot of them all." 
 Probably in Zechariah i.-viii. " the man whose name 
 is Branch " is " regarded also by him as the first of an 
 unbroken succession of rulers like to him." " In 
 Isaiah also he is no supernatural being." " ' Mighty 
 God ' (Isai. ix. 6), viewed in itself, might have afforded 
 some ground for the conjecture that a supernatural 
 ruler was present to the mind of the Prophet, and 
 that the more because the same name is employed 
 elsewhere to denote Jahveh (x. 21). But this con- 
 jecture is not confirmed : all the other features point to 
 a king of human origin." " It is possible that Isaiah 
 attributed an endless reign to the king himself whom 
 he expected," but his meaning more probably is 
 " that nothing shall interrupt the regular succession 
 of the kings of his house." 
 
 In Isaiah xl.-lxvi. "the servant of Jehovah" is com- 
 monly understood by believing interpreters to denote 
 
238 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 the true people of God, including and culminating in 
 the Messiah, who was to spring from the midst of 
 them, and with whom they are here associated or 
 identified in their mission, character, and destiny, in 
 humiliation and in glory. This simple and obvious 
 interpretation is demanded by the reference (lv. 3) to 
 " the sure mercies of David ; " it explains what Dr. 
 Kuenen admits to be " undeniable, that the servant of 
 Jahveh is sometimes described as if he were one indi- 
 vidual ; " it also explains how he can have a work to 
 do for Israel as well as for the nations, and how his 
 sufferings can be unmerited and vicarious ; and it brings 
 Isaiah into harmony with himself and with the other 
 Prophets. But Dr. Kuenen prefers to find here a 
 diversity between the Prophets ; " The very remarkable 
 phenomenon presents itself, that the expectations con- 
 cerning the- dynasty of David become disjoined from 
 their proper object, and are transferred to the whole 
 people" (p. 220). He actually adduces the apparent 
 conflict between the death and burial of the Servant 
 of Jehovah (Isai. liii. 8, 9), and his prolonging his 
 days and enjoying a satisfying reward (vers. 10, 11), 
 in proof that " the particulars which the Prophet 
 mentions must be distributed among the different per- 
 sons who together constitute the collective number." 
 And he alleges that " what is communicated regard- 
 ing the destiny of ' the servant ' does not admit of 
 being harmonized with the description of the scion of 
 David given by Isaiah and Micah " (p. 223). 
 
 The Son of Man, who came with the clouds of 
 Heaven (Dan. vii. 13), is in his view not the Messiah, 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 239 
 
 but the Israelitish nation. And Daniel's prophecy 
 of the 70 weeks (ix. 24 ff.) has nothing to do with 
 a Messiah of the House of David. The author, who 
 is assumed to have lived under Antiochus Epiphanes, 
 is simply describing, under the veil of prophecy, what 
 had already taken place. Jeremiah, xxv. 11, 12, xxix. 
 10, had assigned the term of seventy years to the des- 
 olations of Jerusalem, and this had been strictly ful- 
 filled according to Ezra i. 1 ; II. Chron. xxxvi. 22. 
 But this imaginary author is supposed to have thought 
 otherwise, and accordingly to have conceived that 
 Jeremiah must have meant, not ordinary, but sabbati- 
 cal years, or weeks of years, and to have developed in 
 vers. 24-27, his conception of that prophecy and his 
 adjustment of it to what had taken place down to his 
 own day. " The going forth of the commandment to 
 restore and to build Jerusalem," which is (ver. 25) 
 the starting-point of the 70 weeks, is alleged to be 
 Jeremiah's prophecy already referred to, though this 
 related to an entirely different matter from the building 
 of Jerusalem, — viz., the period of Babylon's domina- 
 tion and of Israel's subjection and captivity. From 
 this prophecy in the fourth year of Jehoiakim until 
 " an anointed prince," who is not the Jewish Messiah, 
 but Cyrus, is declared to be " seven weeks," or 49 
 years ; though in actual fact, and according to the 
 biblical reckoning, it was 70 years (a computation 
 which is implied even in Dan. ix. 2), the discrepancy 
 being laid to the account of ignorance in the writer. 
 After 62 weeks more, or 434 years, " Messiah is cut 
 off," not the Jewish Messiah, nor Cyrus as before, 
 
240 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 but the high-priest Onias. In reality Onias was mur- 
 dered 365 years after the first of Cyrus, leaving an 
 error of 69 years to be accounted for as the preced- 
 ing. This is further aggravated in the present in- 
 stance by the allegation made in a different connection, 
 that the writer knew of no Persian king later than 
 Xerxes, and that he imagined him to be the antago- 
 nist of Alexander. The deficit is thus swelled to 
 200 years, and it becomes necessary to assume that 
 he assigned 362 years instead of 162 to the empire of 
 Alexander and his Syrian successors preceding the 
 death of Onias. And this enormous blunder is com- 
 mitted in a period with the details of whose history he 
 shows such familiarity in ch. xi. that mainly on this 
 ground the book is pronounced spurious and its date 
 fixed during the persecutions of Antiochus ! And all 
 this to escape the plain reference of the prophecy to 
 the advent of the Messiah. Can any one be so blind 
 as he who is determined not to see? 
 
 Two things remain to be accounted for after this 
 total abstraction from the Old Testament of the doc- 
 trine of the Messiah, and especially the disappearance 
 in the latest Prophets of any expectation even of a 
 revival of the dynasty of David. One is that proph- 
 ecies which are so destitute of any reference to the 
 Messiah should ever have given rise to the expecta- 
 tion of His coming. Another is that they all admit of 
 such ready application to Jesus Christ. 
 
 Dr. Kuenen objects that to find in Christianity the 
 fulfilment of the prophecies respecting Israel is to 
 " spiritualize " them, and thus give them another than 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 24 1 
 
 their real meaning. We reply, on the contrary, that 
 with some diversity in outward form and incidental 
 circumstances there is nevertheless the closest adher- 
 ence to the essential meaning of the Prophets. The 
 fact is, as Dr. Kuenen states it (p. 188), with the view, 
 not of recommending, but of disparaging the current 
 opinion on this subject: The prophecies of the Old 
 Testament are " more tlian fulfilled, or in other words, 
 the reality under the New Testament dispensation far 
 surpassed the expectations under the Old." 
 
 The Prophets everywhere recognize and insist upon 
 the distinction between the outward forms of the Old 
 Testament and their inward spiritual meaning. Isaiah 
 declares (i. 1 1-20) that it is not sacrifices and burnt- 
 offerings, oblations and incense, treading God's courts, 
 new moons and sabbaths, feasts and assemblies, that 
 God requires, but purity of heart and life, and obedi- 
 ence to His will. When now He speaks (ii. 2-4) of the 
 nations hereafter going up to the mountain of Jehovah, 
 to the house of the God of Jacob, it is plain that the 
 external act of pilgrimage to that locality does not 
 exhaust his thought: it is in fact a very subordinate 
 part of it. Its only value or meaning to him is as the 
 legitimate mode of expressing his essential idea that 
 these nations would pay their worship to the God of 
 Israel, would be taught by him of his ways, and would 
 walk in his paths. And if any other mode of doing 
 this is equally legitimate and acceptable to the God 
 of Israel, who will say that it does not as perfectly 
 meet Isaiah's expectation and correspond to his 
 
 thought? — especially as a figurative character is 
 
 16 
 
242 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 given to this whole representation by its opening 
 words. Dr. Kuenen himself says (p. 247): "The 
 Prophet may be understood to have meant figura- 
 tively what he says about the exaltation of Zion on 
 the top of the mountains ; " but he adds, " On the 
 other hand, the pilgrimage to the Temple on Zion 
 must be understood literally. . . . We should deprive 
 the prophecy of its meaning and force if we attempted 
 to explain it spiritually." There is nothing to justify 
 this assertion, or the arbitrary line here drawn between 
 what is figurative and what is literal, unless it be the 
 positive air with which it is done. 
 
 The same Prophet, or, according to Dr. Kuenen's 
 critical hypothesis, another Prophet in a later age, 
 declares (Isai. lxvi. 1-3) that heaven is Jehovah's 
 throne and the earth His footstool ; man can build 
 Him no fitting house ; the offering of oxen and lambs 
 and incense is a crime and an abomination to Him, 
 except as joined with and expressing inward piety; 
 He regards with favor only him that is humble and of 
 a contrite spirit, and trembleth at His word. He then 
 adds (ver. 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 Jehovah." Apart from the physical impossibil- 
 ity of weekly and monthly pilgrimages from all parts 
 of the earth, even if this be limited to lands then 
 known ; apart also from the fact that this is greatly in 
 excess of the requirements of the Law, which enjoined 
 pilgrimages to the Sanctuary but thrice in the year, 
 at the annual feasts — is it not plain that the stress is 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 243 
 
 laid upon worship before Jehovah? The sacred sea- 
 sons and the central sanctuary are simply referred to as 
 the authorized place and times of acceptable service. 
 If the same authority which had hitherto required 
 them should hereafter dispense with them, of what 
 account would they be in the Prophet's eyes? It is to 
 " worship in spirit and in truth " that his thought was 
 directed, and not to worship in Jerusalem, except as 
 the divinely prescribed place of a true and spiritual 
 adoration. 
 
 Jehovah's worship, though for the time then present 
 it had a local seat, was not, in the judgment of the 
 Prophets, bound to any one place by an indissoluble 
 tie. The worship of their father Abraham, who was 
 the friend of God (Isai. xli. 8), was untrammelled by 
 any fixed locality. The place for the Sanctuary was 
 " the place that Jehovah should choose " (Deut. xii. 
 5). Jeremiah speaks of God's doing to Jerusalem as 
 He had done to Shiloh, which He had abandoned (vii. 
 12-14, xxvi. 6). He looks forward to a time when 
 the Ark of the Covenant should not be remembered 
 nor missed (iii. 16), and God's new covenant should 
 be written in the hearts of His people (xxxi. 31 ff.). 
 Ezekiel in vision saw the glory of Jehovah forsake 
 the Temple and the city (xi. 23), and God himself 
 promised to be a Sanctuary to His exiled people in 
 the countries where they shall come (ver. 16). 
 
 And yet when a Prophet who so clearly distinguishes 
 between the shell and the kernel depicts the Temple 
 and the service and the Holy Land of the future, Dr. 
 Kuenen insists that this must all be literally under- 
 
244 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 stood because of its " copiousness and entering into 
 minute details " (p. 240). And the life-diffusing 
 stream from the Temple (Ezek. xlvii.), which forms a 
 part of the same picture, was in the intention of the 
 Prophet " an actual stream," because the description 
 is " so exact and detailed " (p. 234), though the cor- 
 responding streams spoken of by Joel (iii. 18) and 
 Zechariah (xiv. 8) are admitted to be figurative. We 
 are prepared to hear him say next, for a like reason, 
 that the cherubim so minutely described (Ezek. i.) were 
 actually existing beings, wheels and eyes and all ; and 
 the eagles of chapter xvii. were literal eagles ; and the 
 women of chapter xxiii. literal women ; and when the 
 restoration of Sodom and her daughters is promised 
 (xvi. 53-61), the Prophet expected the buried city of 
 Sodom to be brought up from the bottom of the Dead 
 Sea and restored to its former condition. He could 
 still silence all objections by the same plea that he 
 uses now (p. 242) : " What we should almost desig- 
 nate as fantastic is evidently in complete accordance 
 with his [Ezekiel's] ideals." 
 
 Dr. Kuenen himself points out (p. 191) the close 
 connection between the ideas of the return of Israel 
 to Canaan and their conversion to God. A return 
 to Palestine without conversion to God would not be 
 what was in the Prophet's mind and heart. And it is 
 only as Palestine was Jehovah's- land that returning to 
 it had any religious significance. A return to God 
 and the enjoyment of his favor and blessing is the 
 essential thought, and Canaan is but the outward 
 form in which that favor was for the time concen- 
 trated. 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 245 
 
 Moreover, descent from the Patriarchs is not with 
 the Prophets the constituent principle of the people 
 of God. Participation in the blessings promised to 
 Israel is not determined by lineage or by nationality, 
 but by inward character and spiritual relationship. 
 " Ye are not My people," said Hosea (i. 9), speaking 
 in the name of Jehovah to the ungodly Israelites, 
 "and I will not be your God." The Prophets with one 
 voice denounce the judgments of God upon the sinners 
 in Israel. The wicked mass must be purged away ; 
 they have neither part nor lot in the good things 
 to come ; it is only the pure remnant that are left for 
 whom the promises are made. Ezekiel (xi. 15) was 
 instructed to recognize " the whole house of Israel " 
 in the exiles, to the disregard of the degenerate inhab- 
 itants of Jerusalem, who were abandoned of God and 
 given over to destruction. And, on the other hand, 
 the stranger that hath joined himself to Jehovah need 
 not fear separation from the Lord's people (Isai. 
 lvi. 3). And when (Isai. xix. 25) "Jehovah of Hosts 
 shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt My people, and 
 Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel mine inher- 
 itance," what has become of national distinctions? 1 
 How can even Dr. Kuenen, with any consistency, 
 refuse to recognize in Christianity the universal wor- 
 ship of Jehovah predicted by the Prophets, when he 
 imputes to Malachi such an excess of liberalism that 
 when he speaks (Mai. i. 11) of the incense offered to 
 Jehovah's name in every place, " he is thinking of the 
 
 1 See the passages of like tenor quoted above, pp. 220 f., and nu- 
 merous others in the books of the Prophets. 
 
246 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 zeal and sincerity with which the nations served their 
 gods ; he, convinced of the unity of Jahveh, regards 
 their worship as being properly destined and intended 
 for the one true God." 
 
 We have not adduced the authority of the New 
 Testament, which is abundantly and decisively given 
 upon this point, because this has no weight with Dr. 
 Kuenen. We have interpreted the meaning of the 
 Prophets in this matter by their own utterances. And, 
 themselves being judges, no bar is interposed to the 
 recognition of the fulfilment of their prophecies by the 
 changes which have taken place in the outward forms 
 of worship, or in its local seat, or in national relations. 
 The Prophets may not have been aware of the changes 
 which Messiah's coming would introduce. There 
 were wise reasons why the temporary nature of the 
 Old Testament institutions should not be prematurely 
 disclosed. But while the temporary form in which 
 their ideas were clothed has been stripped away, the 
 ideas abide in their unchanging reality and truth. All 
 that was essential in the Prophets' own estimation, 
 and much more and better than they hoped or knew, 
 has been accomplished in Christ and the Gospel. 
 
 We have now examined seriatim every prediction 
 classed by Dr. Kuenen among the " unfulfilled proph- 
 ecies," whether relating to the Gentiles or to Israel. 
 We believe that no objection, great or small, that he 
 has brought against them has escaped attention. And 
 we are willing to submit it to the candid reader whether 
 he has made out a case in any one instance. 
 
 Upon this flimsy basis rests the entire argument 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 247 
 
 contained in the volume which we are examining, 
 everything else being subsidiary and supplemental. 
 The remainder, though offering abundant and very 
 inviting matter for comment, must be despatched in 
 a very few sentences. Dr. Kuenen seeks to rid him- 
 self of the prophecies, which he confesses to have 
 been fulfilled, in three several ways. 
 
 1st. By appealing to the non-fulfilment of others, 
 which he claims to have established, — with what jus- 
 tice we have already seen. 
 
 2d. By the legerdemain of modern criticism, which 
 peremptorily waives aside any witness that it is not 
 convenient to hear, and which is ever ready to suspect 
 the genuineness or the accuracy of the text upon 
 grounds which, in their last analysis, cover an as- 
 sumption of the very point to be proved, — viz., that 
 prophecy is impossible. 
 
 3d. By the gratuitous and unfounded allegation of 
 bad faith on the part of the Prophets themselves. He 
 distinctly charges Jeremiah and Ezekiel in particular 
 with having modified their predictions after the event, 
 so as to make it appear that they had minutely and 
 accurately foretold what they never had foretold at 
 all. Thus he says, in regard to the latter Prophet 
 (pp. 328-330) : "The passages of Ezekiel explained 
 above contain no real predictions. Whatever he may 
 have spoken to his fellow-exiles in the years preceding 
 the destruction of Jerusalem, he has written the proph- 
 ecies which we now possess after that catastrophe, 
 without troubling himself in the least about literal 
 reproduction of his oral preaching." " Though it may 
 
248 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 be impossible to reconcile such a method of procedure 
 with our notions of literary good faith, yet it was not 
 uncommon in ancient times, and specifically in Israel." 
 " They are not real predictions, but historical reminis- 
 cences in a prophetical form, vaticinia post eventum" 
 He would accordingly have us suppose that these 
 Prophets falsely claim in their writings to have uttered 
 time after time the most astonishing predictions, 
 which met in every case a literal and precise fulfil- 
 ment ; and yet their auditors, who must have known 
 the falsity of this claim, at once accepted these writ- 
 ings and handed them down as true prophecies re- 
 ceived by inspiration from the mouth of God. We 
 confess that we are of Dr. Kuenen's own opinion with 
 regard to this expedient of his (p. 328) : " Many will 
 at once be inclined to reject it as a subterfuge, by 
 the help of which I try to escape from the dogmatical 
 conclusions to which the literally-fulfilled prophecies 
 of Ezekiel ought to have led." And how does this 
 assertion, that Jeremiah and Ezekiel altered and re- 
 touched their predictions to make them correspond 
 with the event, comport with what he maintains else- 
 where, that both these Prophets have included among 
 their writings predictions (e. g.> respecting Tyre and 
 Egypt) which had been glaringly and notoriously 
 falsified in their own day, and that Ezekiel admits it 
 without being in the least disturbed thereby (p. 1 10) ? 
 
 The accounts given of the Prophets in the historical 
 books are swept away in the most summary and re- 
 lentless manner. He admits (p. 401) that the predic- 
 tions of " the Prophets of the historical books extend 
 
AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 249 
 
 far beyond their political horizon, are characterized 
 by definiteness and accuracy, enter into the more 
 minute particulars, and are all, without distinction, 
 strictly fulfilled." But the narratives containing them 
 are in his esteem utterly untrustworthy. " They are, 
 in the first place, a reflection and striking representa- 
 tion of the religious belief of their authors, and only 
 in the second place are they testimonies regarding the 
 historical reality. This reality is nowhere to be found 
 perfectly pure and unmixed in these narratives, in so 
 far as they are anything more than dry chronicles ; it 
 is always, though in a greater or less degree, colored 
 by the subjective conviction of the narrator." " The 
 representation given of the Prophets and prophecy in the 
 historical narratives of the Old Testament is no testi- 
 mony regarding, but is itself one of thefricits of the real 
 Is raelitish prophecy" (p. 436). "While the prophet- 
 ical historians sketched the past of Israel, they not 
 only felt themselves compelled to labor for the reli- 
 gious education of Israel, but they thought themselves 
 also justified in making their description of Israel's 
 fortunes subordinate and subservient to that object. 
 The considerations which would restrain us from treat- 
 ing history in such a manner, or would impede us in 
 doing so, had for them no existence " (p. 443). In 
 other words, Israelitish history is a pious fraud, con- 
 cocted by the Prophets from first to last, and this in 
 spite of the exalted respect which he professes for 
 their character and work ! — and nothing whatever in 
 it is to be credited but just what the critics tell us 
 may be credited. Here is in a nutshell the principle 
 
250 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 
 
 and the method of all Dr. Kuenen's critical processes 
 and results. He blows his subjective soap-bubble to 
 whatever size he may fancy, and dances it before his 
 readers in its variegated beauty and apparent solidity 
 and readiness to burst. 
 
 It does not embarrass Dr. Kuenen in the slightest 
 degree that the New Testament throughout " ascribes 
 divine foreknowledge to the Israelitish Prophets." He 
 very naively says (p. 448) : " Its judgment concerning 
 the origin and nature of the prophetical expectations, 
 and concerning their relation to the historical reality, 
 may be regarded as diametrically opposed to ours." 
 His elaborate attempt to show that the New Testa- 
 ment writers are guilty of inaccuracies and mistakes 
 in quoting from the Old Testament, and that they 
 misunderstand and misinterpret it, merely proves what 
 was superfluously clear beforehand, that their concep- 
 tion of its meaning and spirit is radically different 
 from his. Its chief value consists in the practical 
 demonstration which it affords, that they who reject 
 the inspiration and authority of the Old Testament, 
 or any part of it, must by inevitable logical necessity 
 reject likewise that of the New. 
 
 Dr. Kuenen sees in prophecy simply a deduction 
 from the Prophets' own religious convictions. Jeho- 
 vah's purposes are inferred by them from their thor- 
 ough persuasion of His inflexible righteousness and 
 His sovereign choice of Israel to be His people on the 
 one hand, and the judgment which they entertain of 
 Israel's existing moral state or the character and con- 
 duct of Gentile nations on the other. Hence "the 
 
AND PROrHECY IN ISRAEL. 25 I 
 
 prophetical prediction of the future " is, as he states it 
 (p. 359), the necessarily incorrect conclusion drawn 
 from premises which themselves were only half cor- 
 rect." This naturalistic hypothesis falls with the 
 failure to prove the non-accomplishment of the pre- 
 dictions of the Prophets. If, as is really the case, 
 what they have foretold has unerringly come to pass, 
 prophecy is thereby shown to be the word, not of him 
 who knows not what a day may bring forth, but of 
 Him who "declareth the end from the beginning." It 
 is the word, not of man, but of God. And it is plainly 
 futile to attempt to account for it on natural princi- 
 ples — as, for example, that Jeremiah's strong faith 
 wrought upon the exiles, and their faith wrought upon 
 Cyrus, who by a lucky chance appeared just at the 
 right time and became the conqueror of Babylon 
 (p. 315), and thus brought about the return from cap- 
 tivity after seventy years ; or Isaiah by his faith per- 
 suaded Hezekiah and his people to persevere in their 
 resistance to Sennacherib until fortunately the plague 
 swept off his army (p. 298). On this principle such a 
 chapter of accidents would be required to save the 
 credit of the Prophets as would involve that very 
 supernatural intervention that the hypothesis was in- 
 vented to escape ; and that, too, in a form far more 
 incredible than the simple faith of ages, that " proph- 
 ecy came not in old time by the will of man ; but 
 holy men of God spake as they were moved by the 
 Holy Ghost." 
 
DR. ROBERTSON SMITH ON THE 
 PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 
 
DR. W. ROBERTSON SMITH ON THE 
 PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 1 
 
 TI 7E have read this second volume of Dr. Robert- 
 ^ * son Smith with disappointment and pain. 
 The announcement of a fresh course of lectures 
 from his vigorous and graphic pen, in which the 
 Prophets of Israel were to be treated in relation to 
 their own times, naturally awakened high expec- 
 tations. It would have been unreasonable to de- 
 mand in all his productions an equal measure of the 
 literary charm that attached in such an extraor- 
 dinary degree to " The Old Testament in the Jewish 
 Church ; " in which even unprofessional readers 
 found the dry details of technical discussion invested 
 with the interest of an exciting story, as they were 
 led by a connected argument through the mazes of 
 Biblical criticism, from the state of the text to the age 
 of the Pentateuch. And it need occasion no sur- 
 prise that his conclusions respecting the Prophets 
 cannot be accepted by those who have been con- 
 strained to dissent from his views previously ex- 
 
 1 The Prophets of Israel, and their Place in History to the close 
 of the eighth century b. c. Eight Lectures by W. Robertson Smith, 
 LL. D. Edinburgh, 1882. 
 
256 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 pressed. But we confess that we were not pre- 
 pared for the extremely low estimate here put 
 upon the religion ,of Israel and the teaching of the 
 Prophets. 
 
 With the devout spirit that breathed in the former 
 work there seemed to be joined a high appreciation 
 of the Old Testament revelation and of Old Testa- 
 ment saints, and particularly the Prophets as the ad- 
 vocates of a spiritual in opposition to a ritual or 
 materialistic worship. And with this the critical 
 conclusions respecting Deuteronomy and the Levi- 
 tical law were not necessarily inconsistent. Though 
 it was alleged that the Pentateuchal Law did not pro- 
 ceed directly from Moses, it was held to be the work 
 of other servants of God/ and to have been given to 
 Israel in successive portions at later periods of time. 
 The date was altered but the contents remained the 
 same, and there was no apparent disposition to under- 
 rate their meaning or value. Tfris might seem rather 
 to be enhanced by the assumption that such laws 
 were insupposable in the infancy of the nation and 
 at the outset of God's dealings with Israel, and that 
 they must mark subsequent epochs in the divinely 
 guided history. The Prophets, however, suffer much 
 more severely at his hands. They are with some ex- 
 ceptions allowed to stand each in his own proper 
 date, but the contents of their teaching are evapo- 
 rated in the crucible of the new hypothesis until an 
 almost impalpable residuum of religious truth is all 
 that is left ; and even this was inaccurately conceived 
 by the Prophets, who are, moreover, irreconcilably 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 257 
 
 at variance with one another in their statements of it. 
 And this is commended to us as the revelation of 
 God through the Prophets. 
 
 We admit without hesitation that we can no 
 more determine a priori what a revelation from God 
 must contain as a whole, or in any of its parts, than 
 we can prescribe how the world should be made. 
 The Most High must always act worthily of Himself 
 and suitably to the end which He has in view. But 
 we learn what He judged it fit to do by ascertaining 
 what, in actual fact, He has done. It is by the direct 
 study of the Scriptures themselves, and of each sepa- 
 rate portion of them by itself, — in the declarations 
 there made and the phenomena exhibited, — not by 
 a priori reasonings, that we are to discover in what 
 sense the Scriptures are the Word of God and what 
 revelations He has therein made to us. And in in- 
 terpreting Scripture we must not make it square with 
 our notions of what it ought to be, but simply inquire 
 what it actually is. There must, we insist, be a 
 thoroughly unbiassed and candid interpretation of its 
 facts and contents. If force must not be put upon 
 it to bring forth spiritual mysteries which it does not 
 contain, or to find in its earlier sections disclosures 
 which were reserved for a later time, neither must it, 
 on the other hand, be pared down to the level of what 
 some philosophical theory of religious development 
 may be willing to allow. 
 
 The human element in Scripture, of which we hear 
 so much at the present time, is not to be discarded 
 or explained away. It has its importance and value 
 
258 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 for the proper understanding and due appreciation of 
 the sacred volume. But neither is the divine char- 
 acter of Scripture to be depreciated or set aside. 
 No theory of inspiration or of non-inspiration can be 
 accepted, as the final truth upon this subject, which 
 cannot abide the most searching examination in the 
 light of all the facts bearing on the case. Any in- 
 vestigations which enter more deeply into this ques- 
 tion or elicit any fresh data for its determination are 
 to be welcomed. Every advance made toward a 
 correct appreciation of any of the factors which have 
 contributed to the formation of the Bible, or any of 
 its books, is a positive gain, whatever may have been 
 the motive or immediate aim of those by whom it is 
 brought out. And particularly it is a hopeful sign 
 if increased, attention is directed to the persons of the 
 Prophets and the times in which they lived, the con- 
 ceptions which then prevailed, the ordinary life of 
 the people, the questions which agitated men's 
 minds, the emergencies which called for prophetic 
 interference, and what was from time to time at- 
 tempted or accomplished . by it. Assuredly we 
 shall decline no aid in these matters even from 
 Wellhausen, Kuenen, or Duhm, especially as their 
 views are interpreted for us in the lucid periods of 
 Dr. Robertson Smith or modified into more accepta- 
 ble forms by his independent reflections. 
 
 We have no quarrel with our author for the ex- 
 tent to which he is disposed to trace the person- 
 ality of the Prophets in their several messages. 
 This does not conflict in the slightest degree with the 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 259 
 
 common doctrine of inspiration. The entire person 
 of the Prophet was God's organ in making known 
 His will. His native endowments, the experiences of 
 his life, all that contributed to form his character, to 
 determine or deepen his convictions, to shape his 
 style of thought or action, in fine to make him 
 what he was, was a part of his providential training 
 for his work. The more thoroughly we know him 
 as a man, the better we can appreciate his adaptation 
 as a Prophet to his own age and to his own country- 
 men. The vexed question respecting Hosea's mar- 
 riage, which has been a fruitful source of disputation 
 from the days of Jerome, may never be settled to 
 universal satisfaction. But there is certainly much 
 that is attractive in the idea (pp. 178 ff.) that the 
 Prophet was first taught the lesson by a bitter domes- 
 tic experience, which he subsequently labored to 
 impress upon the transgressing people, and that the 
 yearnings of his- own affectionate heart, toward one 
 who had so basely wronged him, led him up to his 
 conception of the persistent love of God to idolatrous 
 Israel, and gave him a clearer insight into His provi- 
 dential dealings with His people. And we have in 
 the book of Habakkuk a remarkably clear instance of 
 the wrestling conflict of which revelations were born : 
 the inward struggle with great moral problems that 
 clamored for solution, the mental process by which the 
 strife was calmed and assured conviction attained, — 
 and distinguished from this, and additional to it, the 
 divine communication for which the mind was ante- 
 cedently prepared. 
 
260 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 Dr. Robertson Smith expresses his dissent (p. 9) 
 from the views of those who 
 
 " maintain that there was no specific difference between 
 the growth of divine truth in Israel and the growth of truth 
 among other nations. The Prophets who were the organs of 
 God's teaching in Israel appear to them to stand on the 
 same line with the other great teachers of mankind, who 
 were also searchers after truth and received it as a gift from 
 God. . . The practical point, in all controversy as to the dis- 
 tinctive character of the revelation of God to Israel, regards 
 the place of Scripture as the permanent rule of faith and the 
 sufficient and unfailing guide in all our religious life. When 
 we say that God dealt with Israel in the way of special revel- 
 ation, and crowned His dealings by personally manifesting all 
 His grace and truth in Christ Jesus the incarnate Word, we 
 mean that the Bible contains within itself a perfect picture 
 of God's gracious relations with man, and that we have no 
 need to go outside of the Bible history to learn anything of 
 God and His saving will towards us, — that the whole growth 
 of the true religion up to its perfect fulness is set before us 
 in the record of God's dealings with Israel, culminating in 
 the manifestion of Jesus Christ. There can be no question 
 that Jesus Himself held this view, and we cannot depart 
 from it without making Him an imperfect teacher and an 
 imperfect Saviour. Yet history has not taught us that there 
 is anything in true religion to add to the New Testament. 
 We still stand in the nineteenth century where He stood in 
 the first; or rather He stands as' high above us as He did 
 above his disciples — the perfect Master, the Supreme Head 
 of the fellowship of all true religion " (pp. 10, 11). 
 
 The imperfect knowledge of God reached by Gen- 
 tile nations, the lack of any solid and continuous pro- 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 26 1 
 
 gress in religious things among them, and the decay 
 of their noblest religions, as contrasted with the steady 
 progress in the knowledge of God given to Israel, 
 until it " merged in the perfect religion of Christ which 
 still satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of mankind," 
 is urged in proof that the revelation of the Old and 
 New Testaments may fairly claim to be the revelation 
 of God to men in a special and absolute sense 
 (p. 14). "It is not necessary," he adds, " to encum- 
 ber the argument by comparing the way in which 
 individual divine communications were given to Israel, 
 with the way in which the highest thinkers of other 
 nations came to grasp something of spiritual truth ; " 
 that is, as we understand him, it is undesirable to 
 raise the question whether Hebrew Prophets ascer- 
 tained the truth in any such way as made them au- 
 thoritative teachers of the will of God, and exempted 
 them from errors in its communication. 1 
 
 1 On page 82 the Doctor draws a distinction between prophets 
 and uninspired preachers, which might seem, at first sight, to be iden- 
 tical with the commonly received doctrine on this subject. "Jehovah 
 did not first give a complete theoretical knowledge of Himself and 
 then raise up prophets to enforce the application of the theoretical 
 scheme in particular circumstances. That would not have required 
 a prophet ; it would have been no more than is still done by unin- 
 spired preachers. The place of the prophet is in a religious crisis, 
 where the ordinary interpretation of acknowledged principles breaks 
 down, where it is necessary to go back, not to received doctrine, but 
 to Jehovah Himself. The word of Jehovah, through the prophet, 
 is properly a declaration of what Jehovah, as the personal King of 
 Israel, commands in this particular crisis ; and it is spoken with au- 
 thority, not as an inference from previous revelation, but as the direct 
 expression of the character and will of a personal God, who has 
 made Himself personally audible in the prophet's soul." A careful 
 
262 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 Now this may, in the connection, simply refer to 
 the place that the supernatural claims of the Prophets 
 should hold in an apologetical argument. In endeav- 
 oring to force conviction on unbelievers, it might not 
 be wise to bring the supernatural evidences of our 
 religion to the front, and engage in a disputation 
 upon inspiration and infallibility in the first instance. 
 As he says (p. 16) : " The miraculous circumstances 
 of its promulgation need not be used as the first 
 proof of its truth, but must rather be regarded as the 
 inseparable accompaniments of a revelation which 
 bears the historical stamp of reality." There is un- 
 questionably reason and sound sense is this. If the 
 measureless superiority of the religion of the Bible 
 over any Gentile system be first established by pal- 
 pable and undeniable considerations, it may be 
 hoped that the minds of opposers will thus be better 
 prepared to admit the evidence of its supernatural 
 origin. It is as the accompaniment and the attesta- 
 tion of revealed truth, and not as isolated prodigies, 
 that miracles are convincing. 
 
 But when we consider the whole drift of the Lec- 
 tures which are thus prefaced, we think that no injus- 
 
 inspection of these words, however, shows with what, care they have 
 been selected. God may "make Himself personally audible in the 
 prophet's soul " simply as He does in the divine illumination enjoyed 
 by all truly pious men. Their devout intercourse with God leads to 
 an intimate acquaintance with His character, and an instinctive appre- 
 hension of what His will must be in any given case. And thus the 
 thought will not be excluded that, along with " the word of Jehovah 
 through the prophet," there may be uttered much that savors of hu- 
 man weakness and error. And that this is his real meaning appears 
 from the entire tenor of the volume. 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 263 
 
 tice is done the distinguished lecturer by surmising 
 that he meant more than appears upon the surface. 
 If he can suggest no other reason for the sacredness 
 of Sinai than (p. 34)^ " The storm that broke on the 
 mountains of Sinai, and rolled across the desert in fer- 
 tilizing showers, made the godhead of Jehovah real, " 
 and if the teachings of the Prophets were such as he 
 in extenso represents them to be, we cannot help sus- 
 pecting that his distrust of the supernatural facts of 
 the Bible contributed to his reluctance to lay too 
 much stress upon them. 
 
 And when he proposes (p. 16) to place the defenders 
 of revelation on such vantage-ground that they " need 
 no longer be afraid to allow free discussion of the de- 
 tails of its history," — that " they can afford to meet 
 every candid inquirer on the fair field of history, and 
 to form their judgment on the actual course of revela- 
 tion by the ordinary methods of historical investi- 
 gation," — the implication seems to be that a fair 
 application of the ordinary methods of historical in- 
 vestigation would seriously alter the views commonly 
 entertained respecting the actual course of revela- 
 tion; and this it is the object of the volume before 
 us to establish in regard to the Prophets. 
 
 It informs us, for instance, that the prophet Elijah 
 was indifferent to the worship of the golden calves 
 (p. 109). It seems that Hosea was the first to dis- 
 cover that there was anything wrong in this form of 
 idolatry. 
 
 " There is no feature in Hosea's prophecy which distin- 
 guishes him from earlier Prophets so sharply as his attitude 
 
264 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 to the golden calves, the local symbols of Jehovah adored in 
 the Northern sanctuaries. Elijah and Elisha had no quarrel 
 with the traditional worship of their nation. Even Amos 
 never speaks in condemnation of the calves" (p. 175). . . . 
 " The revolution inaugurated by Elijah and Elisha appealed 
 to the conservatism of the nation. It was followed therefore 
 by no attempt to remodel the traditional forms of Jehovah's 
 worship, which continued essentially as they had been since 
 the time of the Judges. 1 The golden calves remained undis- 
 
 1 In the connection this can have no other meaning than that the 
 sanctuary of the golden calf at Dan was identical with the idolatrous 
 shrine founded there by the Danites (Judg. xviii. 30, 31). But the 
 duration of the latter is expressly limited to " the time that the house 
 of God was in Shiloh ; " this expired with the capture of the Ark by 
 the Philistines. This expression defines the phrase in ver. 30, " the 
 day of the captivity of the land," which can, therefore, only refer to 
 the overthrow which Israel then experienced, and which is spoken of 
 in similar terms (Ps. lxxviii. 61 ff.). And if the narrative received its 
 present form before the Assyrian Exile, which there is no good reason 
 to question, the Philistine domination is the only event to which it 
 can naturally be referred. There is, besides, no intimation that Mi- 
 cah's graven image (Judg. xvii. 3) was in the form of a calf. There 
 is no mention of calf-worship in Israel in the period of the Judges, or 
 thenceforward until the time of Jeroboam, and there are no known 
 facts from which its existence can be inferred. The establishment of 
 the idolatrous worship at Bethel and Dan is explicitly referred to Jero- 
 boam and the circumstances of its institution narrated in detail, I. Kings 
 xii. 28, 29. These point (ver. 2) to Egypt as its source, which was 
 likewise the case in the only previous instance of it in the whole his- 
 tory of the people — namely, the trespass of Aaron in the Wilderness 
 (Ex. xxxii. 4). The allegation (p. 38) that " in many places a priesthood, 
 claiming kinship with Moses, administered the sacred oracle as his 
 successors," is a very broad statement considering its narrow basis of 
 fact. If the conjecture be correct that HtercB suspensce form no part 
 of the text, then "Manasseh" (Judg. xviii. 30) should read 
 "Moses," and there would be proof of " a priesthood claiming kin- 
 ship with Moses," in one idolatrous sanctuary. 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 265 
 
 turbed, though they were plainly out of place in the worship 
 of a Deity who had so markedly separated Himself from the 
 gods of the nations " (p. 96). 
 
 Such statements cannot be characterized otherwise 
 than as an atrocious misrepresentation. If there is 
 any one thing of which Jehovah expresses His utter 
 abhorrence everywhere throughout the Scriptures, it 
 is the practice of idolatry in whatever form ; and that 
 a true prophet of the Lord, jealous as Elijah was for 
 His name and worship in a time of widespread apos- 
 tasy, and to whose divine commission such signal 
 attestations were given by the Lord Himself, could 
 possibly have been " indifferent " to what was so 
 grossly dishonoring to God, or, as it is mildly put in 
 the passage above cited, " plainly out of place " in His 
 worship, is absolutely beyond belief. The earlier 
 Prophets were precisely of the same mind with Hosea 
 in respect to the golden calves. Ahijah of Shiloh, in 
 the tribe of Ephraim, who had foreshown to Jero- 
 boam his elevation to the throne (i. Kings xi. 29 ff.), 
 denounced his sin in the strongest terms (xiv. 9). 
 So did the man of God who came from Judah to 
 prophesy against Jeroboam's altar (xiii. 2), and whose 
 words were reaffirmed even by the lying prophet of 
 Bethel (ver. 32). And Jehu, the son of Hanani, 
 uttered a like message of denunciation to Baasha for 
 walking in the way of Jeroboam (xvi. 1, 2). Jehosha- 
 phat's distrust of the four hundred prophets who 
 professed to declare to Ahab the will of the LORD, 
 and his insisting on a prophet of Jehovah besides, 
 shows what he thought of the worship of the calves ; 
 
266 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 and when Micaiah was summoned, he distinctly 
 charged his antagonists with speaking under the in- 
 fluence of a lying spirit (i. Kings xxii). 1 
 
 Unless therefore Dr. Robertson Smith is prepared 
 to deny with Kuenen that any dependence is to be 
 put upon predictions recorded in the historical books, 
 the Prophets did lift up their voice against the wor- 
 ship of the calves from the very beginning. And 
 even though these particular narratives be discredited 
 the fact remains ; for such stories could not have 
 arisen, and gained credence, unless they correctly 
 represented the known attitude of the LORD'S true 
 Prophets. 
 
 We are told (p. 109) that the histories of Elijah 
 and Elisha, as " every one can see," are ancient and 
 distinct documents, which represent an earlier belief 
 than the Books of Kings in which they have been 
 incorporated. 2 It is nevertheless plain that the au- 
 thor of Kings, who never lets slip an opportunity to 
 express his detestation of the worship of the calves, 
 could not have suspected Elijah or Elisha of com- 
 plicity with it, or he would hot have failed to enter 
 his dissent (11. Kings xvii. 13). If the reformation 
 
 1 According to Wellhausen (p. 251 of his edition of Bleek's Ein- 
 leitung) this account, as well as that in II. Kings iii., originated in the 
 kingdom of Samaria. We may consequently presume that it is not 
 colored to the prejudice of the national worship of the Ten Tribes. 
 
 2 And p. 116: "The story of Elijah and Elisha clearly took shape 
 in the Northern Kingdom ; it is told by a narrator, who is full of per- 
 sonal interest in the affairs of Ephraim, and has no idea of criticising 
 Elijah's work, as the Judaean editor criticises the whole history of the 
 North, by constant reference to the schismatical character of the 
 Northern sanctuaries." 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 267 
 
 undertaken by Elijah aimed at nothing more than 
 was accomplished by Jehu, it would have been spoken 
 of in similar terms (11. Kings x. 28, 29). These Lec- 
 tures, however, assert that Elijah's zeal was not directed 
 against the golden calves, which were recognized 
 symbols of Jehovah, but simply against the service of 
 Baal; though " in building and endowing a temple 
 for his wife, Ahab did no more than Solomon had 
 done without exciting much opposition on the part 
 of his people." Perhaps the Doctor forgets that on 
 this very account Solomon was threatened with the 
 loss of his kingdom (1. Kings xi. 33), and the danger 
 was sufficiently formidable to lead him to seek the 
 life of Jeroboam (ver. 40). Ahab, it seems, had no 
 idea that he was breaking the first commandment. 
 " Even if we are to suppose that practical religious 
 questions were expressly referred to the words of this 
 precept, it would not have been difficult to interpret 
 them in a sense that meant only that no other God 
 should have the pre-eminence over Israel's king." If 
 this be so, we do not see why a like latitude of inter- 
 pretation might not have been applied to Deut. xii. 5, 
 and " the place which the Lord shall choose " have 
 been understood to mean any place whatever where 
 divine worship was established. Jeroboam may not 
 have thought himself guilty of any infraction of this 
 law, nor any other adherent of the alleged " local 
 sanctuaries." What then becomes of the argument 
 for the non-existence of Deuteronomy, drawn from 
 the neglect of this fundamental statute ? It was 
 simply set aside by a mistaken exegesis. 
 
268 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 Elijah's austere opposition to "the god of a friendly 
 state " was an advance upon all previous practice. 
 
 " Hitherto all Israel's interest in Jehovah had had practical 
 reference to His contests with the gods of hostile nations, 
 and it was one thing to worship deities who were felt to be 
 Jehovah's rivals and foes, and quite another thing to allow 
 some recognition to the deity of an allied race. But Elijah 
 saw deeper into the true character of the God of Israel. 
 Where He was worshipped no other god could be acknowl- 
 edged in any sense. This was a proposition of tremendous 
 practical issues. It really involved the political isolation of 
 the nation ; for, as things then stood, it was impossible to 
 have friendship and alliance with other peoples if their gods 
 were proscribed in Israel's land. It is not strange that Ahab, 
 as a politician, fought with all his might against such a view ; 
 for it contained more than the germ of that antagonism be- 
 tween Israel and all the rest of mankind which made the Jews 
 appear to the Roman historian as the enemies of the human 
 race, and brought upon them an unbroken succession of po- 
 litical misfortunes, and the ultimate loss of all place among 
 the nations " (p. 80) . " From the point of view of national 
 politics, the fall of Ahab was a step in the downfall of Israel. 
 ... In this respect, the work of Elijah foreshadows that of 
 the Prophets of Judah, who in like manner had no small part 
 in breaking up the political life of the kingdom" (p. 78). 
 
 From all this it may be inferred that Ahab was a 
 more sagacious statesman, even if he was not a bet- 
 ter man, than Elijah ; and, while religion might have 
 suffered, the political prosperity of Israel and of Ju- 
 dah would have been greater if Elijah and the 
 Prophets had not interfered as they did. It was not 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 269 
 
 without reason, then, that Ahab accosted the Tishbite 
 as the Troubler of Israel (1. Kings xviii. 17). This 
 libel upon the Prophets, and apology for impious 
 transgressors and persecutors, which is continued 
 ad nauseam, overlooks the cardinal fact that virtue 
 and piety, and the blessing of Jehovah, are the true 
 foundations of national welfare. It was the loss of 
 these, far more than the want of foreign alliances or 
 even the encroachments of the great empires, which 
 led to Israel's downfall. 
 
 Elijah's ministry was exercised in a great crisis. 
 The idolatrous worship of Jehovah established by 
 Jeroboam was not enough for Ahab ; he openly in- 
 troduced the worship of Baal, and sought to make it 
 the religion of the state (1. Kings xvi. 31-33). It 
 may be true that he did not intend to give up the 
 service of Jehovah (p. 48) as this was represented 
 by the golden calves ; but the Lord's altars were 
 thrown down, and His true Prophets slain with the 
 sword (xix. 14), or forced to hide themselves in caves 
 (xviii. 13). In this state of things, when the alter- 
 native was between Jehovah and Baal, rather than be- 
 tween the pure and the corrupted service of Jehovah, 
 it need not surprise us if the golden calves are not 
 more directly and pointedly alluded to. If some 
 one were to place in our hands a plea for the Chris- 
 tian religion, issued when Atheism and ungodliness 
 were rampant in the French Revolution, would it ever 
 enter our minds to charge its author with " indiffer- 
 ence " to the various corruptions which have defaced 
 Christianity, because these were not discussed in the 
 
270 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 pamphlet? Elijah shows plainly enough where he 
 stood, and to what he would recall the people. He 
 never said or did anything which can be tortured into 
 approval of the golden calves. He never sacrificed 
 before them himself, nor urged others to do so. His 
 one great sacrifice, designed to demonstrate to the 
 people of the Ten Tribes the deity of Jehovah, was 
 offered, not at Bethel 1 nor at Dan, but at Carmel. 
 (See above, p. 164.) He addressed Jehovah as " the 
 God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel " (1. Kings 
 xviii. 36). Now we are told (p. 117) that the narra- 
 tives of the Patriarchs, as we possess them, are for 
 the most part, gathered about the " Northern sanc- 
 tuaries," and were there constantly rehearsed. They 
 must therefore correctly represent the ideas which 
 Elijah and his countrymen had of their ancestors, 
 and of the great object of their worship. From them 
 we learn that Jehovah was to the Patriarchs " the 
 Most High God, the possessor of heaven and earth " 
 (Gen. xiv. 22, xxiv. 3), the almighty (xvii. 1) and 
 everlasting God (xxi. 33), who has all nature under 
 His control (xlix. 25), whose dwelling is in heaven 
 (xix. 24, xxviii. 12, 13), who, when He manifested 
 
 1 We subjoin here some characteristic specimens of Wellhausen's 
 fairness in statement. He speaks (Bleek's Einleitung, p. 246) of 
 Elijah as fleeing for his life " to the ancient sanctuary of Beersheba, 
 in southern Judah, which was much frequented likewise by Israel," 
 because he left his servant at that most southern point of the coun- 
 try, on his way to Sinai (i. Kings xix. 3 ff.). Again (p. 245), " he was 
 nourished by a widow, in the very land of Baal, thus showing not 
 the least hatred to heathenism in itself." How far he sanctioned 
 heathenism by that visit appears from xvii. 12, 14, 24. 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 27 1 
 
 Himself on earth, appeared in human form (xviii. 
 1,2, xxxii. 24,30), and who was worshipped with- 
 out any idolatrous symbols (xxxv. 2 ; comp. xxxi. 
 
 19.30). 
 
 Jehovah was to Elijah not only supreme but exclu- 
 sive in his godhead (1. Kings xviii. 21, 24). It is 
 not merely that " there was no room for two gods in 
 the land" (p. 76). Elijah makes no such limitation; 
 to his mind there could be but one God in existence. 
 Such a conception of God does not consist with 
 image-worship, which is, moreover, confirmed by his 
 ridicule of the senselessness and vanity of idolatry 
 (ver. 27). The twelve stones of the altar (ver. 31) 
 show that he did not recognize the rightfulness of 
 the schism, nor, consequently, of the apostasy to the 
 worship of the calves, which was one of its direst 
 fruits. But he utters his mind in a more direct and 
 positive manner, when he declares to Ahab, in the 
 name of Jehovah, " I will make thine house like the 
 house of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, and like 
 the house of Baasha, the son of Ahijah." The 
 whole passage (xxi. 21-24) is a manifest repetition 
 of the language of preceding Prophets ( xiv. 10, n, 
 xvi. 2-4), and the reference to the crime of the golden 
 calves is unmistakable. They are classed along with 
 serving Baal, as similarly offensive to Jehovah, and 
 incurring a similar doom. It is confessed in these 
 Lectures (p. 99) that Hosea ii. 5, 8, 13 means by 
 Baalim " the local manifestations of Jehovah under 
 the form of the golden calves." Ahijah expressly 
 calls them "other gods" (I. Kings xiv. 9). We are 
 
272 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 accordingly justified in assuming, that, when Elijah 
 charges both Ahaband his father's house (xviii. 18) 
 with having " forsaken the commandments of the 
 LORD and followed Baalim," he combines Ahab's 
 service of Baal and Omri's service of the golden 
 calves (xvi. 25, 26) under a common name. 1 The 
 image worship nominally paid to Jehovah is an 
 offence of like character with the open and declared 
 worship of Baal, and finds in this its culmination. 
 To the Prophet these are different grades of the 
 same criminality, and, in standing up for Jehovah 
 against Baal, he sets the pure worship of the one 
 true God against them both alike. 
 
 In answer to Elijah's complaint against Israel the 
 LORD directs,him among other things (i. Kings xix. 15) 
 to anoint Hazael to be king over Syria, that his sword 
 may inflict deserved punishment. Elisha subse- 
 quently fulfils this commission (11. Kings viii. 12, 13) 
 and Hazael executes the appointed vengeance, but not 
 until the reigns of Jehu and Jehoahaz (x. 32, xiii. 3, 22), 
 after the worship of Baal had been abolished and that of 
 the calves re-established. Elijah therefore foretells a 
 penalty to be inflicted on the worshippers of the 
 golden calves ; and this is in direct response to his 
 arraignment of Israel for having forsaken the cove- 
 nant of Jehovah. This conclusion cannot be evaded 
 even by the desperate expedient of assuming a vati- 
 cinium ex eventu ; for the narrative, which puts this 
 
 1 This is still the case if " thou," in this verse, is restricted to Ahab 
 alone ; for his father's house, which worshipped the calves, is involved 
 with him in " forsaking the commandments of the Lord." 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 273 
 
 prophecy in the mouth of Elijah, is not from the 
 fault-finding " Judaean editor" but "clearly took 
 shape in the Northern Kingdom" (p. 116). It is 
 correctly conceived therefore in the spirit of Elijah. 
 And we are at liberty to conclude that it would have 
 been quite in character for him to regard Hazael's 
 invasion of Israel as a proper penalty for their for- 
 saking Jehovah's covenant, though their adoration 
 was paid not to Baal but to the golden calves. 
 
 The significance of Elijah's journey of forty days and 
 forty nights unto Horeb, the Mount of God (I. Kings 
 xix. 8), is acknowledged in the Lectures (p. 83). 
 
 " It is highly characteristic, for his whole standing, that in 
 the greatest danger of his life, when the victory of Jehovah 
 on Mount Carmel seemed to be all in vain, he retired to the 
 desert of Sinai, to the ancient mountain of God. It was the 
 God of the Exodus to whom he appealed, the ancient King 
 of Israel in the journeyings through the Wilderness." " The 
 God whom he declared to Israel was the God of Moses." 
 
 It might be supposed from this that some satis- 
 factory statement was about to be made respecting 
 the conception of Jehovah, which this transaction 
 involved. And we experience something like the 
 sensation of suddenly dropping down from the 
 sublime to the trivial, when we find that all this pre- 
 lude has no further meaning than that Elijah, as a 
 native of Gilead, had a proclivity for " the old no- 
 madic life of the age of Moses," and was akin to the 
 Nazarites, whose " vow to abstain from wine . . . 
 
 was undoubtedly a religious protest against Canaan- 
 
 18 
 
2 74 DR, ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 ite civilization in favor of the simple life of ancient 
 times." 
 
 We press the question, however: What notions 
 were entertained of the God of Moses, whom Elijah 
 by this significant action so plainly declares to be 
 his God likewise? A few quotations will show us the 
 point of view from which this question is regarded 
 by Dr. Robertson Smith. He tells us (p. 70) that 
 the difference between Jehovah and other gods 
 
 " was not defined once for all in a theological dogma, but 
 made itself felt in the attitude which Jehovah actually took up 
 towards Israel in historical dealings with His nation." 
 
 " The current ideas of the Hebrews about unseen things 
 were mainly the common stock of the Semitic peoples, and 
 nothing is more certain than that neither Moses nor Samuel 
 gave Israel any new system of metaphysical theology. In 
 matters of thought as well as of practice, the new revelation 
 of Jehovah's power and love, given through Moses, or rather 
 given in actual saving deeds of Jehovah which Moses taught 
 the people to understand, involved no sudden and absolute 
 break with the past, or with the traditions of the past com- 
 mon to Israel with kindred nations. Its epoch-making im- 
 portance lay in quite another direction — in the introduction 
 into Israel's historical life of a new personal factor — of 
 Jehovah Himself as the God of Israel's salvation. ... It 
 was from this personal experience of Jehovah's character, 
 read in the actual history of His dealings with His peo- 
 ple, that the great teachers of Israel learned, but learned 
 by slow degrees, to lay down general propositions about 
 divine things. To suppose that the Old Testament history 
 began with a full scheme of doctrine, which the history only 
 served to illustrate and enforce, is to invert the most general 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 275 
 
 law of God's dealings with man, whether in the way of 
 nature or of grace" (p. 58). "General propositions about 
 divine things are not the basis but the outcome of such 
 personal knowledge of Jehovah, just as in ordinary human 
 life a general view of a man's character must be formed by 
 observation of his attitude and action in a variety of special 
 circumstances " (p. 82). 
 
 There is much in all this that is true and vastly im- 
 portant. Only God's revelation is arbitrarily limited 
 to His manifestation of Himself in history, which 
 men are to interpret with more or less divine assist- 
 ance ; while His direct and positive communications 
 in matters of faith and duty are altogether over- 
 looked. The principles above stated are applied to 
 the age of Moses with the following result, — all 
 preceding revelations made to the Patriarchs being 
 peremptorily set aside : — 
 
 " It would seem that the memory of the God of the Hebrew 
 fathers was little more than a dormant tradition 1 when Moses 
 
 1 And yet the Doctor admits but a few lines before that he has 
 no certainty on this point : " It is not easy to say how far the remem- 
 brance of this God was a living power among the Hebrews." But 
 then " historical investigation " has made sad havoc of the patriarchal 
 narratives, many of which, we are told (p. 166), " there are the very 
 strongest reasons for regarding as allegories of historical events sub- 
 sequent to the settlement of the Hebrews in Canaan." So without 
 further hesitation he sets them down as on the same level with their 
 heathen neighbors of the same ancestral stock. "The Semitic nomads 
 have many superstitions, but little religion." "Among the Israelites, 
 as among the Arabs of the desert, whatever there was of habitual 
 religious practice was probably connected with tribal or family super- 
 stitions, such as the use of teraphim, a kind of household idols which 
 long continued to keep their place in Hebrew homes." No doubt idol- 
 atry was practised to some extent by Israelites in Egypt (Josh. xxiv. 
 
276 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 began his work" (p. 2>Z) • When Jehovah delivered them from 
 the oppression of Egypt, "the new circumstances of Israel 
 . . . created a multitude of new questions. On these Moses 
 had to decide, and he sought the decision from Jehovah, 
 whose Ark now led the march of Israel" (p. 36). From 
 these solitary facts the lecturer deduces (p. 40) " the essen- 
 tial difference between Jehovah and the Baalim, which had 
 to be preserved amidst all changes of circumstances if Je- 
 hovah was still to maintain his individuality. In the first 
 place . . . Jehovah represented a principle of national unity, 
 while the worship of the Baalim was split into a multitude of 
 local cults without national significance." 1 Further, "Je- 
 
 14 ; Ezek. xx, 7, 8, xxiii. 3) ; but it is an incredible assumption that 
 there was no true piety surviving among them, and that all correct 
 knowledge of God had been obliterated or lost. And as to. the con- 
 nection of the teraphim with Hebrew homes, the evidence is scanty 
 and exceptional. ' Rachel stole her father's teraphim, but without 
 Jacob's privity (Gen. xxxi. 19, 32) ; and he required his household to 
 put away everything of the kind (xxxv. 2). Michal, Saul's daughter, 
 had teraphim in her house (1. Sam. xix. 16) ; but in what esteem they 
 were held appears from Samuel's classing teraphim with witchcraft 
 and rebellion (xv. 23) ; and in every remaining passage in which 
 teraphim are spoken of, they are associated with Open and confessed 
 idolatry. Possibly there may be a few persons in Scotland who have 
 a superstitious belief in witches ; but what would be thought of a 
 man who should gravely adduce this as a fact reflecting the general 
 religious condition of that country, or as indicating the amount of 
 religious knowledge possessed by the people ? 
 
 1 If this be so we submit that, upon the Doctor's own showing, it 
 is naturally to be expected that Moses would issue just such a com- 
 mand as that in Ueut. xii. 5. Later events may have interfered with . 
 its strict observance. But if " the religion of Jehovah . . . lost the 
 best part of its original meaning when divorced from the idea of na- 
 tional unity" (p. 47), it would have been an unaccountable oversight 
 in Moses not to have enjoined the perpetuation of that unity of the 
 Sanctuary which was so essential, and which it is confessed was main- 
 tained in the Wilderness and during the Conquest. 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 2 J J 
 
 hovah represented to Israel two of the greatest blessings that 
 any people can enjoy. . . . The first of these was liberty, for 
 it was Jehovah that brought Israel forth from the house of 
 bondage ; the second was law, justice, and the moral order 
 of society, for from the days of Moses the mouth of Jeho- 
 vah was the one fountain of judgment. So in the Ten Words, 
 the fundamental document of the religion of the Old Testa- 
 ment, the claim of Jehovah to the exclusive worship of Israel 
 is based on the deliverance that made Israel a free people, 
 and issues in the great laws of social morality." 
 
 But if the Ten Words are Mosaic, and may be 
 taken into the account in estimating the knowledge of 
 God which was then possessed, they imply a concep- 
 tion of Him vastly beyond the meagre and purely 
 political ideas suggested in these Lectures. Dr. Rob- 
 ertson Smith does not tell us just what he thinks of 
 the Ten Words. From the manner in which they are 
 here referred to, it might be taken for granted that he 
 ascribed them to the period of the Exodus. 1 But the 
 
 1 " The Old Testament in the Jewish Church " (p. 331) seems to im- 
 pute the writing of the Ten Words to Moses, and (p. 334) plainly 
 fixes them in the life of the great legislator. The Doctor there says: 
 " The events of Sinai, and the establishment of the covenant on the 
 basis of the Ten Words, did not cut short this kind of Torah," i. e. 
 Moses' judging "his contemporaries by bringing individual hard 
 cases before Jehovah for decision." This can only be reconciled with 
 what he represents to be the Mosaic idea of God by assuming that 
 the Ten Words of Moses were very different from the Ten Command- 
 ments as - we now possess them. But of this he gives us no hint. 
 
 And there are other cases in which we are left in some uncertainty 
 as to the Doctor's precise meaning. Thus in the volume before us 
 (p. 34) he speaks of Jehovah as having " wrought the great deliver- 
 ance at the Red Sea ; " and he finds in the Exodus " a marvellous dis- 
 play of Jehovah's saving strength . . . when the proud waters rolled 
 
278 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 contents of the first table are strangely overlooked. 
 And he seems quite oblivious of any connection be- 
 tween Mount Sinai and the giving of the Ten Com- 
 mandments. God's " kingly seat on earth " he tells 
 us (p. 34) was by " an ancient tradition placed on 
 Mount Sinai, which still appears in the Song of Deb- 
 orah as the place from which the divine majesty goes 
 forth in thunder-storm and rain to bring victory to 
 Israel; " and (p. 43) "in the Song of Deborah, Je- 
 
 between the Hebrews and the shattered power of the Egyptians." 
 We would never have dreamed that this could mean less than the mir- 
 aculous interference which this transaction has always denoted to the 
 great mass of the readers of Scripture, were it not that in the very 
 same connection the Lord's descent upon Sinai is frittered away to a 
 thunder-storm ; and in all the discussion about Elijah the supernatural 
 events in his life are not once alluded to. The Doctor is ordinarily 
 so frank in the statement of his views, even the most startling, that 
 we can imagine no motive for concealment here, much less for the em- 
 ployment of misleading phrases. Perhaps we do him injustice by the 
 suggestion, but this unwonted reticence inclines us to suspect some 
 remaining hesitation in his own mind respecting the ultimate issue of 
 " historical investigation " into these matters, and a disinclination to 
 drift altogether away from long-cherished traditional opinions until 
 the last strand of the cable is parted. 
 
 Wellhausen, however, has no hesitation on this point. We quote 
 from his article " Israel," in the Encyclopedia Britannica, (vol. xiii. p. 
 397), in which he says of Moses and the Exodus : " It was not through 
 any merit of his that the undertaking (of which he was the soul) pros- 
 pered as it did ; his design was aided in a wholly unlooked-for way, by 
 a marvellous occurrence quite beyond his control, and which no saga- 
 city could possibly have foreseen. One whom the wind and sea obeyed 
 had given him His aid. Behind him stood One higher than he, whose 
 spirit wrought in him and whose arm wrought for him. ... It was 
 Jehovah. Alike what was done by the deliberate purpose of Moses 
 and what was done without any human contrivance by nature and by 
 accident came to be regarded in one great totality as the doing of 
 Jehovah for Israel." 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 279 
 
 hovah has not yet a fixed seat in the land of Canaan, 
 but goes forth from Sinai to help His people in their 
 distress." It might with precisely the same propriety 
 be inferred from Hab. iii. 3, that Jehovah had not a 
 fixed seat in Canaan down to the time of Habakkuk, 
 but still came forth from the desert for the succor of 
 His people. All the sacredness of Sinai is in conse- 
 quence of the revelations which Jehovah there made 
 of Himself to Moses (Ex. iii. 2) and to Israel. No 
 trace is to be found of any prior hallowing of the 
 place, or of its being hallowed for any other reason. 
 In the narrative of the first of the divine manifesta- 
 tions granted there, Horeb is called "the mountain of 
 God" (Ex. iii. 1 ; comp. iv. 27) by anticipation; just 
 as Eben-ezer is spoken of (1. Sam. iv. 1) before it re- 
 ceived that name (vii. 12), or as we might say that 
 the Indians wandered along the Hudson or over 
 Mount Washington before America was visited by 
 Europeans. 
 
 Every allusion to Sinai or to Horeb in the Old 
 Testament is linked with the marvellous occurrences 
 recorded at length in Ex. xix., xx., and is a fresh con- 
 firmation of their truth. The Song of Deborah cele- 
 brates the victory over Sisera by Him who once met 
 Israel at Sinai with cloud and tempest, while the 
 earth trembled and the mountain shook (Judg. v. 
 4, 5 ; comp. Ps. lxviii. 8, 17). The blessing of Moses 
 (Deut. xxxiii.) — though its genuineness is denied in 
 the face of the positive declaration in ver. 1, corrobo- 
 rated as this is by internal evidence — yet " shows us 
 better," we are told (p. 118), "than any other part 
 
280 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 of Scripture how thoughtful and godly men of the 
 Northern Kingdom understood the religion of Je- 
 hovah." Confessedly, then, it shows us the belief 
 entertained by Elijah that God revealed Himself to 
 Israel at Sinai, in brilliant splendor, and there gave 
 them His Law through the instrumentality of Moses 
 (vers. 2 - 5 ; comp. Hab. iii. 3, 4 ; Neh, ix. 13 ; Mai. iv. 
 4.) And the Prophet's visit to Horeb was not merely 
 to some traditional seat of the godhead, but to the 
 place where Jehovah gave His Law to Israel in awful 
 magnificence, and where He established that covenant 
 with them which the children of Israel had now so 
 basely forsaken. 
 
 Now of this Law — that in actual fact and in the 
 belief of Elijah (which is the point of especial conse- 
 quence to us just now) was given at Sinai — the 
 Decalogue must undoubtedly have been a part. It is 
 the Ten Commandments which are said to have been 
 spoken by the mouth of God amid the grand dis- 
 plays which betokened His presence on the moun- 
 tain. And the Ark, which is admitted to be as old 
 as the time of Moses 1 (pp. 36, 43), contained the 
 
 1 Even Wellhausen owns (article " Israel," Encyclopedia Britatinica, 
 vol. xiii. p. 398) that " Jehovah's chief, perhaps in the time of 
 Moses His only, sanctuary was with the so-called Ark of the Cove- 
 nant." So Kuenen (" Religion of Israel," vol. i. p. 289) : " Scarcely 
 any tradition of Hebrew antiquity is better guaranteed than that which 
 derives the Ark of Jahveh from the lawgiver himself." The atrocious 
 manner in which the latter critic is capable of perverting history may 
 be illustrated by his utterly baseless substitution of an image of the 
 Deity, or a fetich, for the tables of the law (p. 233) : " Was the Ark 
 empty, or did it contain a stone — Jahveh's real abode, of which the Ark 
 was only the repository. This we do not know, although the latter 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 28 1 
 
 tables of stone on which the Ten Words were written 
 (Ex. xxxiv. 28, xl. 20; Deut. x. 4, 5 ; 1. Kings viii. 9, 
 21), and was hence called the Ark of the Testimony 
 (Ex. xxv. 21, 22) and the Ark of the Covenant 
 (Judg. xx. 27). The existence of this Ark is a pal- 
 pable evidence, which cannot be set aside, of the an- 
 tiquity of the commandments inscribed on these 
 tables. If anything whatever is known of the Mosaic 
 age, it is certainly known that the Ten Command- 
 ments were given then. There is nothing more surely 
 accredited than this, whether by historical testimony 
 or by monumental evidence. 
 
 Wellhausen, however, is keen-sighted enough to 
 perceive that if the antiquity of the Ten Command- 
 ments is allowed, his whole critical hypothesis is un- 
 dermined. "If," he says (article " Israel" p. 399), 
 " the legislation of the Pentateuch cease as a whole to 
 be regarded as an authentic source for our knowledge 
 of what Mosaism was, it becomes a somewhat preca- 
 rious matter to make any exception in favor of the 
 Decalogue." He accordingly urges the four follow- 
 ing arguments against its authenticity. 1 
 
 opinion, in connection with the later accounts of the Pentateuch, ap- 
 pears to us to possess great probability." 
 
 1 Kuenen, on the other hand, admits the authenticity of " the Ten 
 Words as a whole," but saves himself by arbitrarily rejecting as much 
 of each individual commandment as he sees fit. " The tradition which 
 ascribes them to Moses is worthy of respect on account of its undis- 
 puted antiquity. Nevertheless, if it were contradicted by the contents 
 and form of the Words we should have to reject it. But this is not 
 the case. Therefore we accept i*. Reserving our right to subject each 
 separate commandment to special criticism, and, if necessary, to deny 
 its Mosaic origin, we acknowledge it as a fact that Moses, in the name 
 
282 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 " (1) According to Ex. xxxiv. the commandments which 
 stood upon the two tables were quite different." 
 
 The ingenious conceit was first suggested by 
 Goethe, that the laws of Ex. xxxiv. are the Ten Com- 
 mandments according to a different tradition from 
 that followed in Ex. xx. and Deut. v. It rests upon 
 the assumption that the last clause in ver. 28 re- 
 cords the fulfilment of the direction given ver. 27 
 to Moses to write the words which precede, and 
 which are alleged to be just ten laws, and hence 
 identical with the commandments written upon the 
 tables. 1 Its falsity appears from ver. 1, which shows 
 that Jehovah, and not Moses, 2 wrote upon the 
 tables, and that He wrote not the words now spoken 
 but those that were in the first tables, which Moses 
 had broken. This is a plain allusion to the preced- 
 ing narrative (Ex. xxxii. 19) of the sin of the golden 
 calf and the consequent rupture of the covenant 
 so lately formed between Jehovah and Israel, which 
 is further implied in the second pair of tables 
 (xxxiv. 4), in the divine mercy and forgiveness em- 
 phasized in vers. 6, 7, in Moses' supplication (ver. 
 
 of Jahveh, prescribed to the Israelitish tribes such a law as is con- 
 tained in the Ten Words/' " Religion of Israel," vol. i. p. 285. 
 
 1 In identifying the words which Moses is here directed to write 
 with the Ten Commandments (" The Old Testament in the Jewish 
 Church," p. 331) Dr. Robertson Smith appears to give his sanction to 
 the extraordinary hypothesis now under consideration. But he does 
 not openly avow it. See above, p. 52. 
 
 2 The change of subject in ver. 28 cannot occasion the slightest 
 embarrassment. It is of constant occurrence in Hebrew construc- 
 tion, where it would be readily understood by the reader or hearer. 
 Comp. Gen. xxiv. 32 ; II. Sam. xi. 13. 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 283 
 
 9), and in Jehovah's engaging to make the desired 
 covenant (ver. 10). The words vers. 11 -26, accord- 
 ing to the tenor of which God proposes to make this 
 covenant, and which Moses is told to write, are taken 
 substantially and in part verbatim from " the words of 
 the LORD " which Moses wrote at the original ratifi- 
 cation of the covenant (xxiii. 12 ff.). The selection is 
 made with definite reference to the great crime just 
 committed. As they had offended in the matter of 
 worship, the injunction is repeated of the service to 
 be paid to Jehovah and to Him exclusively. They 
 had forfeited all claim upon His promise to expel the 
 the Canaanites ; accordingly this is repeated likewise. 
 While Moses was to rewrite this portion of the orig- 
 inal engagement, which had been particularly in- 
 fringed, thus impliedly giving fresh sanction to the 
 whole as the representative of the people on whose 
 behalf he had been interceding, the LORD once more 
 engraved in stone the same Ten Words which he had 
 uttered from Sinai in the audience of the people, 
 thus re-enacting on His part His imperishable cove- 
 nant. 1 
 
 1 While the entire narrative in Ex. xix.-xxxiv. is continuous and 
 consistent and intimately related in all its parts, Wellhausen (" Jahr- 
 biicher fiir Deutsche Theologie," pp. 564 ff.) discovers in it three en- 
 tirely distinct and divergent accounts of the Sinaitic legislation. He 
 assigns to the first, or Elohistic account, xix. 3-19, xx. 1-20, xxiv. 12- 
 14, xxxi. 18, xxxii., xxxiii. 1-11 ; Num. x. 23- According to this writer 
 the covenant was ratified and the people pledged obedience before the 
 Law was given (Ex. xix. 3-8). In majestic grandeur God proclaims 
 the Ten Commandments, which completes the Sinaitic legislation 
 proper. The terrified people ask that Moses may speak to them in- 
 stead of God. Moses is accordingly summoned into the mountain to 
 receive the Decalogue written by God on tables of stone, and to spend 
 
284 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 And while the critics, who claim that a variant ver- 
 sion of the Decalogue is to be found in Ex. xxxiv, 
 
 forty days in intimate converse with God. This is not that He may 
 give him specific commands to report to the people as in xxi.-xxiii., 
 of which this writer knows nothing, but that Moses may be so filled 
 with divine wisdom as to be fitted to be God's oracle to the people 
 ever after. Then follows the affair of the golden calf, whereupon 
 Moses breaks the tables of the law, and the Lord refuses to suffer 
 the transgressing people to remain longer near His sacred seat on 
 Sinai. They had previously had no other idea than that they should 
 remain there forever (the last clause of xxxiii. 1 and the first clause 
 of ver. 3 are reckoned interpolations). The people are distressed by 
 the unwelcome intelligence that they must leave the holy mountain. 
 The Lord is, however, so far mollified by the people's penitence that 
 He gives them for their guidance the Tabernacle, and, though it is not 
 in the present text, the Ark likewise, containing the broken tables of 
 the law. The people then begin their march from Sinai. 
 
 To the Jehovistic account he assigns xix. 20-25, xx. 21, 24-26, xxi.- 
 xxiii., xxiv. 3-8, xxxiii. 1. In this God speaks nothing directly, but 
 Moses goes alone to the mountain and receives from God His words 
 and judgments, which he records, and the covenant is solemnly rati- 
 fied. This completes the purpose for which they had come to Sinai ; 
 and without any extraordinary event requiring it they leave for 
 Canaan. 
 
 The third account, which differs materially from both the preced- 
 ing, is found in Ex. xxxiv. The first verse of this chapter is corrected 
 by omitting all after the words " tables of stone." This, as well as 
 the words " like unto the first " (ver. 4), has been inserted for the 
 sake of linking this narrative with the preceding. Such manifest 
 allusions to previous portions of the record used to be regarded as 
 proofs of continuity in the history, if not of identity of authorship. 
 But the critics have changed all that. They are now unhesitatingly 
 traced to some editor intent upon " harmonizing " discrepant or in- 
 dependent narratives, and are summarily ejected from the text. In 
 vers. 6-9 the reference to the transgression of the people " betrays 
 the hand of the harmonist," again a conclusive argument of interpola- 
 tion, which is here fortified by the carping criticisms that " the Lord 
 passed by " (ver. 6) is inconsistent with " the Lord stood " (ver. 5), 
 that ver. 10 is not an exact response to the petition in ver. 9, and that 
 these verses mistake the meaning of ver. 5, where it is really Moses 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 285 
 
 are unanimous in affirming that this chapter contains 
 just ten commandments, they are not altogether 
 
 who proclaimed the name of the Lord. This allegation, for the sake 
 of creating a fresh inconsistency wherever that is possible, is an effect- 
 ual estoppel against all objection to assuming a like change of subject 
 in ver. 28, where consistency requires it. Verses 10-13 are traced in 
 great part to the same interpolaters, vers. 12, 13 being particularly 
 obnoxious as squinting towards the unity of the sanctuary in the 
 sense of the book of Deuteronomy. The Decalogue (vers. 14-26) "in 
 its present expanded form only shows obscurely the decenary number, 
 which once certainly was plainly to be recognized." Then the account 
 of the ratification of the covenant by Moses as the representative of 
 Israel, which the chapter must once have contained, has been omitted, 
 as well as the conclusion following ver. 28, " for vers. 29-35 are not 
 the continuation of what precedes." 
 
 With the chapter thus purged of all objectionable matter, and of 
 all that he is pleased to consider spurious, Wellhausen has no diffi- 
 culty in making of it a distinct tradition of the original promulgation 
 of the Law, with its " two tables, Ten Words, and forty days. 
 Only the tables are written not by God but by Moses, and • . • they 
 contain what Jehovah spake to Moses, not to the people." There is 
 also this marked contrast between Ex. xx. and Ex. xxxiv. : " in the 
 former the commandments are almost all moral ; in the latter they are 
 exclusively ritual." 
 
 All this is wonderfully ingenious ; and as a piece of literary jugglery 
 it shows amazing dexterity and is vastly entertaining. But if seri- 
 ously proposed as sober exposition and " historical investigation " it 
 is to the last degree preposterous and absurd. It simply shows what 
 ingenuity of a high order can effect by skilfully piecing together dis- 
 jointed paragraphs, and how the entire sense of a chapter can be 
 transformed by throwing out or putting in clauses and paragraphs at 
 the will of. the critic. 
 
 We do not object to the critics pursuing their investigations into 
 the question of the Jehovist and the Elohist, and all the rest to any 
 extent they please, if they will but use their common sense in the pro- 
 cess. We consider the problem, in its perplexity and hopelessness, 
 very much like that of squaring the circle. And while it is a matter 
 of literary interest, we believe it to be void of all significance in de- 
 termining either the age or interpretation of the Pentateuch. Never- 
 theless, we shall be thankful for all the facts that can be developed 
 
286 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 agreed where the' first of the commandments begins 
 nor how the division is to be made. 1 From the diver- 
 respecting peculiarities of style, seeming repetitions, and the like. 
 And if it can be shown that more than one writer had a hand in the 
 production of the Pentateuch, very well. We are prepared to accept 
 any conclusion upon this point that is strictly deducible from the facts, 
 fully and fairly brought out and candidly considered. 
 
 But the operation in which the critics are engaged is a very diffi- 
 cult and delicate one, in which not only ripe scholarship but a sound 
 judgment, clear head, and freedom from bias and pet theories are 
 very essential ; in which the chances of error are very great and mul- 
 tiply with every forward step, while each new complexity in the the- 
 ory burdens instead of strengthening it ; in which the evidence relied 
 upon is largely recondite, commonly ambiguous, often conflicting, and 
 frequently factitious. Certainly the case does not warrant the posi- 
 tive tone so frequently assumed, as though the critics were omniscient 
 or infallible ; nor does it justify the reckless manner in which a favor- 
 ite theory is often driven through in the face of adverse facts and at 
 all hazards, — the accredited text and obvious interpretation and estab- 
 lished history and revealed truth, all made to give way before it, as 
 though the critic's theory alone were certain, and everything must be 
 squared to correspond with it. 
 
 1 The schemes severally proposed by Hitzig (" Ostern und Pfing- 
 sten," 1838, p. 42), Bertheau ("Die sieben Gruppen Mosaischer Geset- 
 ze," p. 92), Ewald (" Geschichte des Israel," 2d edit. vol. ii. p. 217), 
 Kayser (" Vorexilische Buch," p. 58), and Wellhausen ("Die Compo- 
 sition des Hexateuchs," p. 554, in " Jahrbucher fiir Deutsche Theol- 
 ogie " for 1876) are as follows, viz. : — 
 
 Hitzig. Bertheau. Ewald. Kayser. Wellhausen. 
 
 vers. vers. vers. vers. vers. 
 
 I .... . 12-16 18 12-16 11-16 14-16 
 
 2 17 19, 20 17 17 J 7 
 
 3 18 21 18 18 18 
 
 4 19,20 22 a 19,20 a 19,20 19,20 
 
 5 21 22 b 20 b 21 21 
 
 6 22 23, 24 21 22 23, 24 
 
 7 23,24 25 a 22 23,24 25a 
 
 8 25 25 b 23, 24 25 25 b 
 
 9 26 a 26 a 25 260 26 a 
 
 10 26 b 26 b 26 26 b 26 b 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 287 
 
 sity which exists among them it is plain that they 
 could equally well have made out any other number 
 that was desired, from seven to thirteen. And if it 
 could be certainly established that there are just ten 
 laws, it would not follow that, in the intent of the 
 writer, they formed the original Decalogue. It has 
 at least been quite plausibly maintained that the de- 
 cenary structure prevails in several series of Mosaic 
 laws, which are thus framed in imitation of the funda- 
 mental law of the system. 
 
 The commandments written upon tables of stone 
 and preserved in the Ark are consequently not re- 
 corded in Ex. xxxiv. but, as has been universally 
 believed from the beginning, in Ex. xx. and Deut. 
 v. These two are manifestly copies of one and the 
 same Decalogue, the textual discrepancies being 
 purely verbal and without the slightest effect upon the 
 sense except in the reason annexed to the fourth 
 commandment. Exodus no doubt preserves the 
 exact official transcript, and Deuteronomy its sub- 
 stantial repetition and enforcement by Moses in his 
 address to the people. It is of no consequence, 
 however, so far as our present argument is concerned, 
 which of these is held to be the primitive form, or 
 whether the attempt is made to elicit a text superior 
 to either by the comparison of both. 
 
 Wellhausen throws out ver. 22 altogether, and corrects ver. 25 b 
 into accordance with xxiii. 18. Bertheau adheres to the common 
 opinion in regard to the Decalogue, but maintains the decenary divi- 
 sion of these laws, and generally of the Mosaic statutes in the three 
 middle books of the Pentateuch. Evvald finds five successive deca- 
 logues in Leviticus vii. and vi. ; (Authorized Version vi. 8-vii. 33). 
 
288 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 Wellhausen's second objection to the authenticity 
 of the Decalogue is (we quote again from the article 
 " Israel ") : — 
 
 " (2.) The prohibition of images was during the older pe- 
 riod quite unknown ; Moses himself is said to have made a 
 brazen serpent which down to Hezekiah's time continued to 
 be worshipped at Jerusalem as an image of Jehovah." 
 
 The second commandment occasions endless per- 
 plexity to this most recent school of critics. How 
 ineffectually Kuenen struggles to rid himself of it 
 appears from the following passage in his " Religion 
 of Israel" (vol. i. p. 287). 
 
 " Moses' attitude towards the worship of images is a very- 
 disputed point. The second of the Ten Words forbids it 
 without reserve, but is strongly suspected to have been re- 
 moulded and enlarged. Its great length of itself alone gives 
 rise to this presumption. If it embraced nothing more than 
 the words ' Thou shalt have none other gods before My 
 face,' 1 we should not think of calling it incomplete ; the 
 rest is superfluous and is therefore suspected. Besides this, it 
 has been remarked that the words ' thou shalt not make unto 
 
 1 Kuenen reckons the preface to the ten commandments as the 
 first of the Ten Words. The first and second commandments he 
 throws together as the Second Word, which he would then condense 
 by abolishing the second commandment entirely, or at least cutting 
 out that portion of it which is distinctive and refers to the worship of 
 images. And this arbitrary suppression of one of the fundamental 
 requirements of the Decalogue is all the ground for doubt that he can 
 extract from the Ten Words themselves. Dr. Oort, who is heartily 
 in sympathy with Kuenen and his school, lops all that he possibly 
 can from the commandments, reducing the second to the bald injunc- 
 tion, "make, no image of a God" ("The Bible for Learners," p. 18). 
 But even then the prohibition of image-worship remains. 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 289 
 
 thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in 
 heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters under 
 the earth ' — sever the connection betweenlhe preceding and 
 the following sentences, and that after these words have been 
 removed, nothing remains but the prohibition to serve other 
 gods. Thus the Ten Words themselves alone give abun- 
 dant ground for throwing doubt upon the Mosaic origin of 
 the warning against images. But history also seems dis- 
 tinctly to bear witness against it. The worship of Jahveh 
 under the form of a bull was very general in Israel in later 
 times ; and in the kingdom of Ephraim, during the two and 
 a half centuries of its existence, it was the religion of the 
 state. Is it likely then that Moses expressly declared him- 
 self opposed to it ? According to a narrative in the book of 
 Judges, a grandson of Moses, Jonathan ben Gershom, 
 served as a priest at Dan in a temple in which a graven 
 image of Jahveh was placed : would the commandment of 
 the law-giver have been broken in this way by the members 
 of his own family? Again, the author of the books of Kings 
 informs us that Hezekiah ' broke in pieces the brazen ser- 
 pent which Moses had made, for unto those days the Israel- 
 ites had burned incense in honor of that serpent, and it was 
 called Nehushtan ' (i. e. brass-god) ; surely this implies that 
 Moses was not so averse to images as the Peutateuch repre- 
 sents him to have been." 
 
 Dr. Kuenen might have pushed his argument much 
 further. Professedly Christian states grant divorces 
 for very insufficient reasons : is it likely that this can 
 be prohibited in the New Testament? The Roman 
 Catholic Church forbids its priests to marry, and com- 
 mands its* adherents to abstain from meats on Fridays 
 and other special seasons : would it do this, if I. Tim. 
 
 19 
 
29O DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 iv. 3 were in its canon of faith? The Lord Jesus 
 Christ instituted the eucharist, the bread of which is 
 held up to adoration in every celebration of the mass : 
 would even Dr. Kuenen dare to hold Him respon- 
 sible for this perversion? And yet this is all that he 
 has to say against the Mosaic origin of the second 
 conmandment; and this is taken back by himself in 
 the very next paragraph. He owns that the story of 
 the brazen serpent, as every rational man must see at 
 a glance, "signifies very little." "If it proves any- 
 thing it proves only this, that the people knew noth- 
 ing of a Mosaic prohibition so absolute as that which 
 appears in the Decalogue." Will he say the same of 
 the more modern worshippers of saintly relics? He 
 adds : " The same applies to the other two facts to 
 which we referred above. . . . The existence of the 
 bull-worship is no sufficient argument against the 
 supposition that Moses forbade any image of Jahveh. 
 But the fact that this form of Jahveh-worship contin- 
 ued to exist undisturbed is very difficult to reconcile 
 with that supposition." It " continued to exist un- 
 disturbed," only as other crimes which are perpe- 
 trated in the face of the known statute. It was not 
 sanctioned or approved by the Prophets or other 
 good men. It was openly denounced and censured, 
 and the people punished for it by being given into 
 the power of their enemies. Dr. Kuenen proceeds : 
 
 " There is one fact of which we may not lose sight in this 
 investigation. From the Mosaic times downward there 
 always existed in Israel a worship of Jahveh without an 
 image. Scarcely any tradition of Hebrew antiquity is better 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 29 1 
 
 guaranteed than that which derives the Ark of Jahveh from 
 the Law-giver himself. ... If Moses believed this (viz. that 
 the Ark was the abode of Jahveh) and accordingly offered 
 the common sacrifices before the Ark, then he himself cer- 
 tainly did not erect an image of Jahveh, much less ordained 
 the use of one." 
 
 His conclusion is that while Moses opposed the use 
 of Jahveh-images indirectly, the prohibition of them 
 " was not decreed by him but at a much later period, 
 although it was done in conformity with his spirit ; " 
 a conclusion which must be accepted, if at all, upon 
 his sole ipse-dixit. 
 
 Dr. Dillmann 1 gives the following compact state- 
 ment of the case. 
 
 " It cannot with good reason be maintained that such a 
 prohibition, involving the idea of the impossibility of making 
 any representation of God, as well as His invisibility and 
 spirituality, is too advanced for Moses' time and his stage of 
 knowledge, and therefore cannot have been given by him, 
 but must have been first introduced into the Decalogue at 
 a much later date. Apart from Ex. xxxii., where the nar- 
 rative attributes to Moses a clear perception of the unlawful- 
 ness of an image of Jehovah, it is certain in the first place 
 that in the traditions of their fathers a cultus without images 
 is ascribed to the Patriarchs ; and secondly, that in the post- 
 Mosaic period it was a recognized principle, at least at the 
 central Sanctuary of the entire people and at the Temple of 
 Solomon, that no representation was to be made of Jehovah. 2 
 
 1 " Die Biicher Exodus und Leviticus," pp. 208, 209. 
 
 2 As a specimen of the fairness of Wellhausen's statements, com- 
 pare his remark, article " Israel," p. 406 : " Images of the Deity were 
 exhibited in all three places [Jerusalem, Bethel, and Dan], and indeed 
 in every place where a house of God was found." 
 
292 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 The worship of an image of Jehovah at Sinai (Ex. xxxii.), in 
 the time of the Judges, and in the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, 
 does not prove that the prohibition of images was unknown, 
 bnt only that it was very difficult to secure its proper recog- 
 nition by the mass of the people, especially of the Northern 
 Tribes, who were more Canaanitishly disposed. Or rather, 
 it was for centuries an object of contention between the 
 stricter and the more lax party, — the latter holding that it for- 
 bade only the images of false gods, the former that it likewise 
 forbade any image of Jehovah. Prophets such as Amos and 
 Hosea, who contended against the images of the calves at 
 Bethel and at Dan, never announce the principle that no 
 representation can be made of Jehovah as anything new, 
 but simply presuppose it as known. However far we go 
 back in the post- Mosaic history, we find it already existing, 
 at least as practically carried into effect at the central Sanc- 
 tuary ; from whom then can it have proceeded but from the 
 legislator, Moses himself?" 
 
 Dr. Robertson Smith does not explicit^ deny 
 the antiquity of the Decalogue, nor the right of 
 the second commandment to a place in it, but he 
 more than once expresses himself in a manner that 
 appears to lead in that direction. 
 
 " The principle of the second commandment, that Jehovah 
 is not to be worshipped by images, which is often appealed 
 to as containing the most characteristic peculiarity of Mosa- 
 ism, cannot, in the light of history, be viewed as having had 
 so fundamental a place in the religion of early Israel " (p. 
 63). "If the prophecy of Hosea stood alone it would be 
 reasonable to think that this attack on the images of the 
 popular religion was simply based on the second command- 
 ment. But when we contrast it with the absolute silence of 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 293 
 
 earlier Prophets we can hardly accept this explanation as 
 adequate " (p. 176). " Hosea does not condemn the wor- 
 ship of the calves because idols are forbidden by the Law ; he 
 excludes the calves from the sphere of true religion because 
 the worship which they receive has no affinity to the true 
 attitude of Israel to Jehovah" (p. 177). 
 
 How he can say that " Amos never speaks of the 
 golden calves as the sin of the Northern sanctuaries " 
 (p. 140) is unaccountable, since this Prophet ex- 
 pressly groups together as objects of the divine judg- 
 ment, " they that swear by the sin of Samaria, and 
 say, Thy god, O Dan, liveth, and, The manner of 
 Beersheba liveth" (Am. viii. 14). The god of Dan 
 can be nothing but the Golden Calf; and the sin of 
 Samaria is the same thing, for they that swear by it 
 say " By the life of thy god, O Dan." It is called the 
 sin of Samaria as the object of idolatrous worship to 
 both the capital and the kingdom ; in like manner 
 Hosea calls it the Calf of Samaria (Hos. viii. 5, 6; 
 comp. also Deut. ix. 21). The Doctor, in disregard 
 of the connection, thinks that Amos alludes rather to 
 the Ashera in Samaria (n. Kings xiii. 6). But why, 
 upon his principles, Amos should inveigh against this, 
 even if it were still there in his time, is not so clear ; 
 for we are told 1 that this is one of " the old marks 
 of a sanctuary . . . which had been used by the 
 Patriarchs and continued to exist in sanctuaries of 
 Jehovah down to the eighth century," and the prohi- 
 bition of which in Deuteronomy " is one of the clear- 
 est proofs " that this book is posterior to Hosea, 
 
 1 " The Old Testament in the Jewish Church," p. 353. 
 
294 DR - ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 Isaiah, and Micah. The terms, in which Amos, with 
 distinct allusion to the second commandment (Ex. 
 xx. 4), expresses his contempt and abhorrence of the 
 objects of Israel's idolatrous worship, "which ye 
 made to yourselves" (v. 26), equally cover the 
 golden calves, and include them in the same category 
 of man-made divinities. (Comp. Hos. viii. 6.) He 
 also very plainly declares that Jehovah was not to be 
 found at Bethel (v. 5), which cannot be interpreted 
 differently from the precisely similar language of 
 Hosea iv. 15; that to worship at Bethel was to 
 transgress (Am. iv. 4) ; that its altars were specially 
 obnoxious to the divine judgment (iii. 14), while 
 Zion and Jerusalem was Jehovah's earthly abode 
 (i. 2). When these passages are viewed in con- 
 nection with those first cited, it is plain that the 
 idolatry of the calves is prominent in his thoughts 
 in these denunciations. 
 
 Elisha's attitude to the golden calves is shown by 
 the message which he sent to Jehu (11. Kings ix. 9), in 
 which he repeated the very words of Elijah (1. Kings 
 xxi. 22 ; see above, p. 271). When Jehoram, who had 
 " put away the image of Baal that his father Ahab 
 had made" and adhered simply to the worship of the 
 calves (11. Kings iii. 2, 3), sought the aid of Elisha 
 in perilous circumstances, the Prophet's response was : 
 "What have I to do with thee? Get thee to the 
 Prophets of thy father, and to the Prophets of thy 
 mother. . . As the LORD of hosts liveth, before 
 whom I stand, were it not that I regard the presence 
 of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, I would not look 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 295 
 
 toward thee nor see thee" * (vers. 13, 14). It is also 
 a significant fact that it was children of Bethel that 
 mocked Elisha, and upon whom he pronounced his 
 fatal curse (ii. 23, 24). In that seat of image-wor- 
 ship the children had caught the bitter feelings of 
 their elders towards the aged Prophet of the Lord. 
 It is further a suggestive circumstance that it is pre- 
 cisely in the kingdom of the Ten Tribes that the 
 Prophets assume such unwonted prominence, and 
 that such full and striking narratives are given of 
 their labors as these of Elijah, Elisha, and the Sons of 
 the Prophets under their superintendence. Whether 
 the record is accepted as true, or dismissed as legen- 
 dary, it nevertheless shows, in contrast with the dearth 
 of like stories in Judah, that either in the plan of God 
 or in the general sense of the people there was a 
 peculiarity in the state of affairs in Ephraim which 
 did not exist in Judah, and which demanded a meas- 
 ure of Prophetic interference and activity in the one, 
 that was not requisite in the other. 
 
 The way in which the worship of the calves was 
 regarded by other and earlier Prophets has been 
 shown already (see above, p. 265) ; so that all objec- 
 tion to the prior existence of the second command- 
 ment on that score is fully set aside. 
 
 Wellhausen's third objection to the authenticity of 
 the Decalogue is : — 
 
 K And this though the king, both in his exclamation (ver. 10) and 
 in his appeal to the Prophet (ver. 13), confessed his belief in the su- 
 preme government of Jehovah. " The Lord hath called these three 
 kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab." 
 
296 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 " (3 ) The essentially and necessarily national character 
 of the older phases of the religion of Jehovah completely dis- 
 appears in the quite universal code of morals which is given 
 in the Decalogue as the fundamental law of Israel ; but the 
 entire series of religious personalities throughout the period of 
 the Judges and the Kings — from Deborah, who praised Jael's 
 treacherous act of murder, to David, who caused his prisoners 
 of war to be sawn asunder and burnt — make it very difficult 
 to believe that the religion of Israel was from the outset one 
 of a specifically moral character. The true spirit of the old 
 religion may be gathered much more trilly from Judg. v. than 
 from Ex. xx." 
 
 Dr. Robertson Smith has relieved us from the ne- ■ 
 cessity of replying to this objection. In opposition to 
 both Wellhausen and Duhm he affirms in the most 
 positive manner that the religion of Israel was moral 
 from the beginning, and that its specific character was 
 determined by the exalted nature of Jehovah himself; 
 by which he means the living, acting personality of 
 the Most High, and not barely the conceptions formed 
 of Him by His worshippers. 
 
 " The real difference between the religion of Jehovah and 
 the religion of the nations . . . lies in the personal character 
 of Jehovah, and in the relations, corresponding to His charac- 
 ter, which He seeks to maintain with His people. Properly 
 speaking, the heathen deities have no personal character . . . 
 in the sense of a fixed and independent habit of will. The 
 attributes ascribed to them were a mere reflex of the attributes 
 of their worshippers. . . . The god always remained on the 
 same ethical level with his people. . . . Not so Jehovah. . . . 
 He had a will and purpose of His own, — a purpose rising 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 
 
 297 
 
 above the current ideas of His worshippers, and a will directed 
 with steady consistency to a moral aim. ... All His dealings 
 with Israel were directed to lead the people on to higher 
 things than their natural character inclined towards. To 
 know Jehovah and to serve Him aright involved a moral 
 effort " (pp. 66, 67). "When we speak of Jehovah as dis- 
 playing a consistent character in His sovereignty over Israel, 
 we necessarily imply that Israel's religion is a moral religion, 
 that Jehovah is a God of righteousness, whose dealings with 
 His people follow an ethical standard " (p. 71). 
 
 And the difficulty which Wellhausen deduces from 
 the low moral standard and conduct of certain Old 
 Testament worthies is dealt with in the following 
 manner: — 
 
 " The fundamental superiority of the Hebrew religion does 
 not lie in the particular system of social morality that it en- 
 forces, but in the more absolute and self-consistent righteous- 
 ness of the Divine Judge. . . . There are many things in the 
 social order of the Hebrews, such as polygamy, blood-revenge, 
 slavery, the treatment of enemies, which do not correspond 
 with the highest ideal morality, but belong to an imperfect 
 social state, or, as the gospel puts it, were tolerated for the 
 hardness of the people's hearts. But, with all this, the reli- 
 gion of Jehovah put morality on a far sounder basis than any 
 Other religion did, because in it the righteousness of Jehovah 
 as a God enforcing the known laws of morality was conceived 
 as absolute, and as showing itself absolute, not in a future 
 state, but upon earth. . . . There was no ground to ascribe 
 to Him less than absolute sovereignty and absolute righteous- 
 ness. If the masses lost sight of those great qualities, and 
 assimilated His nature to that of the Canaanite deities, the 
 Prophets were justified in reminding them that Jehovah was 
 
298 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 Israel's God before they knew the Baalim, and that He had then 
 showed Himself a God far different from these " (pp. 73, 74). 
 
 Wellhausen's fourth and last objection is : — 
 
 " (4.) It is extremely doubtful whether the actual mono- 
 theism which is undoubtedly presupposed in the universal 
 moral precepts of the Decalogue could have formed the foun- 
 dation of a national religion. It was first developed out of 
 the national religion at the downfall of the nation, and there- 
 upon kept its hold upon the people in an artificial manner by 
 means of the idea of a covenant formed by the God of the 
 universe with, in the first instance, Israel alone." 
 
 No further reply seems necessary to. an allegation 
 so purely subjective, than that Professor Wellhausen's 
 opinion is no law to other persons. 
 
 If, then, anything whatever is certainly known of 
 the Mosaic age, it is indubitably established that the 
 Mosaic Ark contained tables of stone on which were 
 engraved the Ten Commandments. These were treas- 
 ured in the most sacred apartment of the Sanctuary. 
 They formed the basis of the covenant between Jeho- 
 vah and Israel. They were the fundamental law of 
 the commonwealth of Israel, by which all further en- 
 actments were regulated, and to which they were sup- 
 plementary. They were believed to have emanated 
 directly and even verbally from Jehovah Himself, 
 and to have been by Him recorded in stone to indi- 
 cate their perpetual, binding force. This sacred Ark, 
 with its precious contents, was safely guarded until 
 the time of Solomon, when it was transferred to the 
 Temple (1. Kings viii. 6-9, 21; II. Chron. v. 7-10, vi. 1 1, 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 299 
 
 41). It is still spoken of in the time of Jeremiah (iii. 
 16), and the covenant on stone, which it contained, was 
 only to be superseded by the law written on the heart 
 (xxxi. 32, 33; see also II. Chron. xxxv. 3). Under 
 these circumstances it is impossible that these com- 
 mandments should not have been carefully and accu- 
 rately preserved and transmitted. The positive state- 
 ments in the Pentateuch itself that Moses wrote certain 
 laws, Dr. Robertson Smith * seeks to limit to the De- 
 calogue, but in so doing acknowledges that there is 
 definite and explicit testimony that he did at least 
 write it. Two copies of these commandments exist, 
 attached to different codes of laws, and, with unimport- 
 ant variations, are identical throughout. If monumen- 
 tal and historical evidence is of any worth, these are 
 the very commandments delivered to Moses. And 
 this conclusion is not to be set aside by conjectures 
 of the critics, which have not even the pretence of any 
 evidence to support them. 2 
 
 These things being so, some important consequences 
 follow. The sacredness of Horeb to Elijah sprang 
 from the giving of the Ten Commandments on its 
 
 1 " The Old Testament in the Jewish Church," p. 331. 
 
 2 Such assertions as these of Wellhausen cannot be dignified by 
 the name of proofs, unless his word is to be taken in lieu of evidence : 
 " Some passages of the Decalogue have a Deuteronomic tinge, e. g., 
 'thy stranger that is within thy gates' (Ex. xx. 10), 'out of the house 
 of bondage ' (ver. 2), and the whole of ver. 6." How does he know 
 but that, on the other hand, Deuteronomy received its tinge from the 
 Decalogue ? " The reason for the law of the Sabbath in ver. 1 1 first 
 came from the last redacteur of the Pentateuch." "Jahrbiicher fiir 
 Deutsche Theologie," xxi. p. 558. 
 
300 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 summit; and his recognition of the God of Horeb 
 is in diametrical opposition to the worship of the 
 calves. 
 
 But there are also two other deductions which have 
 a much wider reach. First, Moses had a far more 
 exalted conception of Jehovah than is allowed to him 
 in these Lectures. The God of the Ten Command- 
 ments is a being of whom no image or representation 
 can be made ; the Creator of heaven and earth and 
 sea, and all that in them is ; the exclusive object of 
 Israel's worship ; a God of truth, punishing iniquity, 
 and who lays His demands upon the affections and 
 not merely upon the outward conduct,. expecting the 
 love of His worshippers, and forbidding them to 
 covet the possessions of others. The religion of Is- 
 rael began on this high plane, so far as divine revela- 
 tion and requirements are concerned. And the 
 Prophets, instead of evolving a spiritual religion from 
 mere political ethics, or something lower still, simply 
 recalled the people to this ancient standard, and en- 
 forced upon their contemporaries what had already 
 been taught by Moses. 
 
 Secondly, the Decalogue affords palpable in- 
 stances of laws well known, and of the highest au- 
 thority, which were flagrantly disregarded. Every 
 apostasy to Baal and Ashtoreth in the period of the 
 Judges was in open violation of the first command- 
 ment. It was, as Dr. Robertson Smith concedes, a 
 falling away to the service of the gods of their ene- 
 mies, which endangered the very existence of the 
 religion of Jehovah. It was a departure from the 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 30 1 
 
 fundamental Law of Israel, even on the low ground 
 assumed by the critics themselves that Jehovah was 
 but a national deity like Chemosh or Milcom. And 
 if Ahab could persuade himself that worshipping the 
 God of a friendly state was no violation of this com- 
 mandment, this is but a fresh illustration of the point 
 in question. The second commandment was broken 
 by Aaron at the very foot of Sinai, by the idolater 
 Micah and the renegade Danites, and by the Ten 
 Tribes which followed Jeroboam in the worship of 
 the calves. If there could be these notorious viola- 
 tions of covenant laws, cut in stone and deposited in 
 the Ark, what becomes of the argument that the non- 
 existence of a statute may be inferred from the persis- 
 tent disregard of it? 
 
 These two principles, thus established, completely 
 overturn this recent critical hypothesis from its foun- 
 dations, and demolish its reconstructed history of 
 Israel's religion. The Ark of the Covenant is an 
 invincible argument of its utter falsity. 
 
 Dr. Robertson Smith undertakes (p. 109) to divide 
 the histories of the Old Testament into distinct groups 
 and to assign to each a separate legal standard accord- 
 ing to the period in which it was written. 
 
 "The latest history in the books of Chronicles presupposes 
 the whole Pentateuch \ the main thread of the books of Kings 
 accepts the standard of the book of Deuteronomy, but knows 
 nothing of the Levitical legislation ; and older narratives now 
 incorporated in the Kings — as, for example, the histories of 
 Elijah and Elisha, which every one can see to be ancient and 
 distinct documents — know nothing of the Deuteronomic 
 
302 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 law of the one altar, and, like Elijah himself, are indifferent 
 even to the worship of the golden calves. These older 
 narratives, with the greater part of the books of Samuel and 
 Judges, accept as fitting and normal a stamp of worship 
 closely modelled on the religion of the Patriarchs as it is 
 depicted in Genesis, or based on the ancient law of Ex. xx. 
 24, where Jehovah promises to meet with His people and 
 bless them at the altars of earth or unhewn stone which stand 
 in all corners of the land, on every spot where Jehovah has 
 set a memorial of His name." 
 
 The style of worship regarded as normal in Judges 
 and Samuel has been sufficiently considered in pre- 
 ceding parts of this volume, and their distinct recog- 
 nition of the law of one altar has been pointed out 
 (pp. 87 fT., pp. 137 ff.). We have also seen that the 
 histories of Elijah and Elisha are not indifferent to 
 the worship of the golden calves ; and they would not 
 have been modelled on the religion of the Patriarchs 
 if they were. In the entire lives of these two Proph- 
 ets there is but one recorded act of sacrifice, the mira- 
 culous test of Jehovah's godhead at Carmel. If a 
 sweeping conclusion is to be drawn from this single 
 fact, it would certainly be as natural to infer that they 
 chose to abstain from sacrifice on ordinary occasions, 
 inasmuch as they were debarred from the central 
 Sanctuary, as that they actually did sacrifice in various 
 parts of the land, though this is nowhere intimated in 
 the narrative. 
 
 It is plainly, however, a venturesome affirmation, 
 that Deuteronomy was unknown, or even the Levitical 
 Law, when these narratives were framed. Elijah's first 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 303 
 
 word to the idolatrous king, " There shall be no 
 rain" (i. Kings xvii. 1), is in precise conformity with 
 the threatening, Deut. xi. 16, 17. The material for 
 sacrifice and its manipulation (xviii. 23, 33), accords 
 with the requirements of the Law, even to the use of 
 its technical terms (Lev. i. 6-8, ix. 16); its time was 
 fixed by that of the daily meat-offering (xviii. 29, 36), 
 which was presented both evening and morning (11. 
 Kings iii. 20), agreeably to Ex. xxix. 38—41 ; its con- 
 sumption by fire from the LORD (xviii. 24, 38) 
 has its counterpart in Lev. ix. 24. Indeed, almost 
 all the miracles in these narratives bear a striking re- 
 semblance to those of the Pentateuch ; e. g. the super- 
 natural supply of food (xvii. 6, xix. 6 ; comp. Ex. xvi. 
 12) and of water (11. Kings iii. 17; comp. Num. xx. 
 8) ; necessary things made to last for an indefinite pe- 
 riod(l. Kings xvii. 14; comp. Deut. xxix. 5) ; fire to 
 consume the Prophet's adversaries (II. Kings i. 10, 12; 
 comp. Num. xi. 1, xvi. 35) ; the LORD'S " taking " him 
 to heaven (ii. 3 fif. ; comp. Gen. v. 24) ; dividing the Jor- 
 dan (ii. 8, 14; comp. Ex. xiv. 21 ; Josh. iv. 23) ; healing 
 the waters (ii. 21 ; comp. Ex. xv; 25) ; the promise of 
 a son to the Shunemite (iv. 16 ; comp. Gen. xviii. 10) ; 
 the infliction of leprosy on Gehazi (v. 27; comp. Num. 
 xii. 10 1 ) ; the healing of Naaman (v. 10; comp. Num. 
 xii. 13; Lev. xiv. 7, 8); guarded by angels (vi. 17; 
 comp. Gen. xxxii. 1,2); smiting with blindness (vi. 
 18 ; comp. Gen. xix. 1 1). Even if it should be charged 
 
 1 " Leprous as snow " occurs only in these passages and in Ex. iv. 6. 
 And in some other instances here adduced the identity of characteris- 
 tic expressions adds force to the similarity-of the incidents. 
 
304 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 that these are legends and not real occurrences, such 
 stones could only have originated among a people 
 familiar with the narratives of the Pentateuch. The 
 slaughter of the priests of Baal (1. Kings xviii. 40) was 
 in obedience to Deut xiii. 9, xvii. 5. Elijah's visit to 
 Horeb implies all that made this mountain sacred at 
 the time of the Exodus, and his fast of forty days and 
 forty nights (xix. 8) has its parallel in Ex. xxxiv. 28. 
 The law concerning one devoted to utter destruction 
 (xx. 42) is found Lev. xxvii. 29. Naboth's refusal 
 to part with his vineyard (xxi. 3) is based on Lev. 
 xxv. 23 ; comp. Num. xxxvi. 8, 9. The forms of law 
 were observed in the judicial murder of Naboth (xxi. 
 10). The accusation was based on Ex. xxii. 28, which 
 Dr. Robertson Smith considers ancient ; but the two 
 witnesses are in conformity with Num. xxxv. 30, Deut. 
 xvii. 6, 7, xix. 15; and the mode of inflicting the 
 sentence with Deut. xiii. 10, xvii. 5. Micaiah (xxii. 
 17) adopts the language of Moses (Num. xxvii. 17), 
 and ver. 28 declares his readiness to abide by the test 
 given of a true prophet (Deut. xviii. 22) . The double 
 portion, which Elisha asks (il. Kings ii. 9), was the 
 legal inheritance of a first-born son (Deut. xxi. 17). 
 The infliction upon the children at Bethel (ver. 24) is 
 in accordance with Lev. xxvi. 22. Persons were made 
 servants for debt (iv. I ; comp. Lev. xxv. 39, 40). The 
 Sabbath and new-moon were observed (iv. 23 ; see 
 Lev. xxiii. 3 ; Num. xxviii. 11), and presentation was 
 made of the first-fruits (iv. 42 1 ; see Num. xviii. 12, 13 ; 
 
 1 The word translated " full ears of corn " occurs nowhere else in, 
 this sense, outside of the Levitical Law (Lev. ii. 14, xxiii. 14). 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 305 
 
 Deut. xviii. 4, 5) ; but in the absence of a lawful sanc- 
 tuary the " holy convocation " assembled about the 
 Prophet, and his devout adherents brought the first- 
 fruits to him as to one who for the time " ministered in 
 the name of the LORD." II. Kings v. 7 borrows from 
 Deut. xxxii. 39. The king, no doubt, recognized in 
 the horrid transaction, vi. 28, 29,. the fulfilment of 
 Lev. xxvi. 29, Deut. xxviii. 53, and was the more ex- 
 asperated against Elisha in consequence. " Make win- 
 dows in heaven" (vii. 2, 19) alludes to Gen. vii. 11, 
 and is equivalent to saying, " Send a deluge of bread." 
 The law of leprosy was enforced even in a time of 
 siege (vii. 3 ; comp. Lev. xiii. 46; Num. v. 2). 
 
 Now, it is not here affirmed that any one of these 
 allusions, or all taken together, amount to an invincible 
 demonstration of the existence of Deuteronomy and 
 of the Levitical Law before the time of Elijah and 
 Elisha, or that they admit of no other possible ex- 
 planation ; but it is safe to say that these allusions 
 are as numerous and clear, as could reasonably be 
 expected if Deuteronomy and Leviticus were then 
 already known ; that no prejudice can possibly arise 
 against the common belief on this subject from any 
 deficiency in such allusions ; and that the presump- 
 tion which they naturally create in its favor is not to 
 be magisterially set aside, but only by the production 
 of counter evidence of a decisive nature, and this does 
 not exist. 
 
 The Doctor tells us further that " the main thread 
 of the books of Kings . . . knows nothing of the 
 
 Levitical legislation." It has always been thought 
 
 20 
 
306 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 difficult to prove a negative; but the critics do it 
 without the slightest trouble. Any witness who did 
 not see the culprit commit the deed ought, in their 
 judgment, to convince the jury of his innocence. It 
 would certainly be very stupid in any one to adduce 
 the absence of classical quotations from the volume 
 before us in proof that the Doctor knows nothing of 
 the classics. He abstained from such quotations sim- 
 ply because he found no occasion to make them in 
 the course of his discussion. If the sacred historian 
 had no reason for speaking of the distinctive require- 
 ments of the Levitical Law, the fact of his not mention- 
 ing them has no significance. His silence respecting 
 them is no argument that he was not aware of their 
 existence, or that he did not recognize their binding 
 authority. No adverse conclusion can be drawn, un- 
 less something is positively said, which is incompatible 
 with the existence of the Law or with the writer's 
 knowledge of its existence. . 
 
 But do the books of Kings, in fact, know nothing of 
 the Levitical Law? The elaborate description of Solo- 
 mon's Temple and its vessels (i. Kings vi., vii.), and the 
 entry into it of the glory of the LORD (viii. 10, n), 
 presupposes the account of the Mosaic Tabernacle and 
 its furniture (Ex. xxv. fT., xxxvi. ff.). The correspond- 
 ence, not only in general plan but in a multitude of 
 details, is so exact and pervading that one must of ne- 
 cessity have been derived from the other. The Tem- 
 ple is either an enlarged Tabernacle, built of more solid 
 materials ; or else the Tabernacle is reduced in size 
 from the Temple, so as to be capable of being trans- 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 307 
 
 ported from place to place. The most radical critics 
 do not shrink from the latter alternative. They do 
 not hesitate to assert that the account in Exodus of 
 the Mosaic Tabernacle is altogether fictitious ; that it 
 is a purely imaginary structure, to which no reality 
 ever corresponded ; that its measures and arrangements 
 are mere deductions from the Temple of Solomon. 
 But altogether apart from such a wholesale and un- 
 warrantable challenge of the truthfulness of a narrative, 
 which has every appearance of being historical, and 
 has always been so regarded, no motive has ever been 
 shown for such a fiction. It must surely have been a 
 most dreary exercise of the imagination to figure out 
 all the boards and curtains and coverings and loops 
 and taches and pillars and sockets and bars and hooks 
 and fillets and hangings, and to record them in long 
 and wearisome detail, as though each minute particu- 
 lar was of the utmost consequence, when in point of 
 fact the whole thing was utterly baseless ; and the 
 building, in regard to which so much pains was taken 
 to invent and circulate a false account, had ceased to 
 exist ages before, and was no longer of any present, 
 practical interest. But if these details are real and 
 genuine, and represent the actual Tabernacle of Moses, 
 then this portion of the Levitical Law, at least, must 
 have been in the possession not only of the author of 
 Kings, but of the architect of Solomon's Temple. 
 
 Further, the altar in use before the Temple was 
 built had horns (1. Kings i. 50, 51, ii. 28), and accord- 
 ingly was conformed to the regulation, Ex. xxvii. 2. 
 Solomon's Temple was completed in the eighth 
 
308 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 month of the year (i. Kings vi. 38) ; but in order to 
 add impressiveness to its dedication, this was fixed at 
 the time of the annual least in the seventh month 
 (viii. 2). Jeroboam changed the month in the Northern 
 Kingdom, thus fixing the feast on the fifteenth day 
 of the eighth month (1. Kings xii. 32, 33). The proper 
 time for its celebration was therefore, according to 
 the book of Kings, the fifteenth day of the seventh 
 month, as it is defined Lev. xxiii. 34; Num. xxix. 12. 
 Neither the month nor the day is named in Deuter- 
 onomy (see xvi. 13 ff.) ; and according to the critics 
 this is one of the later innovations of the Levitical 
 Law, the day of the observance having previously 
 been free, and regulated by the season. We are also 
 told that there is no indication of a priestly hierarchy 
 in Deuteronomy, that all Levites could be priests 
 and all stood upon a level. But II. Kings xii. 10, xxii. 
 4, 8, make mention of the high-priest ; xxiii. 4, xxv. 
 18, of priests of the second order; and I. Kings viii. 
 4 of priests and Levites as distinct classes. We also 
 read repeatedly of Abiathar the priest, Zadok the 
 
 priest, Jehoiada the priest, Urijah the priest, Hilkiah 
 the priest, who were successively at the head of the 
 sacerdotal body. All this is manifestly governed by 
 the Levitical Law. According to II. Kings xxiii. 9 
 the direction given in Deut. xviii. 6-8, as the 
 Doctor interprets it, 1 was disobeyed, which is a fresh 
 reason for questioning the accuracy of his interpreta- 
 tion. (See above p. 79.) But apart from this, unleav- 
 ened bread is here spoken of as the provision of 
 
 1 "The Old Testament in the Jewish Church," p. 362. 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 309 
 
 priests ; of this Deuteronomy says nothing, but we 
 find it stated over and over in Lev. ii. 10, 1 1, vi. 16- 
 18, vii. 10, x. 12. In 11. Kings xii. 16 l the trespass 
 and sin-offerings are spoken of, which are peculiar to 
 the Levitical Law; so are the meat-offerings (1. Kings 
 viii. 64), and the morning and evening daily sacrifice, 
 and the sprinkling of sacrificial blood (ii. Kings xvi. 
 13, 15). King Uzziah, when a leper, was dealt with 
 (II. Kings xv. 5) according to the law, Lev. xiii. 46, 
 which is alluded to but not given, Deut. xxiv. 8. 
 
 So far, therefore, from the books of Kings know- 
 ing nothing of the Levitical legislation, and accepting 
 only the standard of the book of Deuteronomy, they 
 follow the Law of Leviticus whenever they have occa- 
 sion to mention anything which falls within the 
 scope of that law. They show acquaintance with its 
 sanctuary, its calendar, its priesthood, and its ritual. 
 That critic must be hard to please who asks for any- 
 thing more. 
 
 When, in the paragraph already quoted, the 
 Doctor finds allusion in " the ancient law of Ex. xx. 
 
 1 This passage speaks of " trespass-offering money and sin-offering 
 money." The former admits of a ready explanation (Lev. v. 15-19; 
 Num. v. 7, 8). What is meant by sin-offering money is more doubtful. 
 It has been conjectured to be money given to the priest for the pur- 
 chase of the victim, a portion of which became his perquisite in re- 
 turn for this service, or a gift voluntarily bestowed upon the officiating 
 priest (Num. v. 10). But however this may be, the Doctor's idea, that 
 it was a money-equivalent paid by the transgressor for his sin, is pal- 
 pably false. This has no analogy in the whole Old Testament, is ab- 
 horrent to all Israelitish ideas, and is justly characterized by himself 
 as " a gross case of simony " (" The Old Testament in the Jewish 
 Church," p. 251). 
 
3IO DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 24," to " the altars of earth or unhewn stone which 
 stand in all corners of the land," he is plainly substi- 
 tuting his own interpretation of the law for the law 
 itself. That surely would not be " closely modelled 
 on the religion of the Patriarchs as it is depicted in 
 in Genesis ; " for the Patriarchal family was a unit and 
 offered its worship at a single altar. Though in their 
 wanderings altars were successively reared by them in 
 various places, each was for the time their exclusive 
 sanctuary. Nor does it correspond any better with 
 the state of things in the time of Moses. The Ark 
 of Jehovah then " led the njarch of Israel." The 
 Doctor speaks of " the first beginnings of [Israel's] 
 national organization centering in the Sanctuary of 
 the Ark." "The Sanctuary of Jehovah" was "the 
 final seat of judgment" (p. 36). And he strenuously 
 insists upon the vast importance of the national sense 
 of unity thus created in its contrast with " a multitude 
 of local cults without national significance "(p. 40). 
 If now this law was given to Moses at Sinai, as it 
 claims to have been (Ex. xx. 22 ff.), and was written 
 and acted upon by Moses himself (xxiv. 4), and spe- 
 cific injunctions were given by him in respect to it 
 (Deut. xxvii. 5, 6) which were obeyed by his suc- 
 cessor (Josh. viii. 30, 31,) and through all this pe- 
 riod, by the Doctor's own admission, the host of Israel 
 had but one central Sanctuary, the Sanctuary of the 
 Ark, and if, furthermore, the consciousness of na- 
 tional unity thus produced was of vital consequence to 
 Israel as a people, and as the people of Jehovah, — 
 we surely have a right to assume that the law is to be 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 31 1 
 
 interpreted in conformity with the circumstances in 
 which it was enacted and with the practice of Moses 
 himself under it. 
 
 If, further, the language of the statute be examined, 
 there is nothing in it to require the assumption that a 
 plurality of coexisting altars is intended. The 
 terms are in the singular number throughout — 
 an altar of earth, an altar of stone, mine altar, 
 place x (not " places " as in the Authorized Version) 
 
 1 Dr. Robertson Smith (p. 393) takes exception to the note (see 
 above, p. 74) in which this circumstance has been before remarked 
 upon. The collective use of the noun in such a construction is not 
 denied. But attention is called to the significant circumstance that 
 where the conception is that of a coexisting plurality, " all the places" 
 is expressed in Hebrew by the plural noun (e. g. Deut. xii. 2 ; 1. Sam. 
 vii. 16, xxx. 31 ; Ezra i. 4 ; Jer. viii. 3, xxiv. 9, xxix, 14, xl. 12, xlv. 5; 
 Ezek, xxxiv. 12) ; while in the other two passages, in which this phrase 
 is used with a singular noun, the reference is not to places viewed 
 jointly, but regarded successively (Gen. xx. 13 ; Deut. xi. 24). The words 
 are used in a different sense, Gen. xviii. 26. And as to the objection 
 that Ex. xxii. 30 could have no application to the desert, because ver. 
 29, with which it is associated, could only come into operation in 
 Canaan, the fourth commandment was certainly operative in the 
 Wilderness, though " the stranger that is within thy gates " looks for- 
 ward to the occupancy of cities. The legislator from the first con- 
 templated the settlement of the people in Canaan, but he did not for 
 that reason leave them without law in journeying through the desert. 
 Ex. xxi. 14 undoubtedly speaks of God's altar (in the singular number 
 again) as an asylum, while even this must not be suffered to screen 
 wilful murderers ; but ver. 13, " I will appoint thee a place whither he 
 shall flee," just as plainly anticipates the subsequent appointment of 
 cities of refuge. (See above, p. 76, note.) The use of the altar for 
 this purpose is here recognized as familiarly known ; only it is limited 
 to the unintentional manslayer, and the appointment of an additional 
 place of like intent is promised. This promise is fulfilled Num. 
 xxxv. 10 ff. ; Deut. xix. 1 ff., and the privilege of the altar is not 
 withdrawn. Where is the discrepancy ? 
 
312 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 — and are quite consistent with the view that but 
 one altar at a time was meant at each successive 
 place of encampment, or wherever God might sub- 
 sequently appoint. If a multiplicity of altars, as op- 
 posed to one common sanctuary for all Israel, is 
 denoted by this law, this cannot be inferred from the 
 language used. It can only be established by proving 
 that in actual fact Jehovah recorded His name at dif- 
 ferent places simultaneously. To what extent this 
 was done by special theophanies, or separate altars 
 were allowed in abnormal periods, has been suffi- 
 ciently discussed already. (See above pp. 94 ff., pp. 
 137 ff.) The whole matter was governed by fixed 
 principles and rigidly confined within plainly marked 
 limits. Unlimited discretion was never accorded to 
 men to build altars and establish sanctuaries at their 
 own pleasure or convenience. And, apart from 
 supernatural manifestations or extraordinary emer- 
 gencies, there was from Moses to Malachi but one 
 divinely sanctioned and permanent sanctuary, the 
 Sanctuary of the Ark, and but one legitimate altar of 
 sacrifice, the altar in its court. 
 
 But, we are told (p. 393), "the climax of absurdity 
 is reached " when this law of an altar of earth or of 
 whole stones is regarded as comprehending the brazen 
 altar of the Tabernacle and the Temple. It is not easy 
 to see wherein the absurdity lies. The construction 
 of the altar remains unchanged. It is simply encased 
 in a frame overlaid with brass, to mark it as belonging 
 to the Tabernacle Court, of which brass was the domi- 
 nant and characteristic metal ; and likewise to suggest 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 313 
 
 that the altar, renewed at each station on their march, 
 was still substantially the same altar, for it had the 
 same external covering, and stood in the same sacred 
 surroundings. That neither priests nor worshippers 
 saw any " absurdity " in this appears from the fact 
 that the altar continued to be built of " whole stones 
 according to the law" in each successive temple, 
 and as long as the Temple stood (1. Mace. iv. 47 ; 
 Josephus, Against Apion, i. 22 ; comp. also his Jew- 
 ish War, v. 5, 6). 
 
 The Doctor, however (pp. 110-112), thinks himself 
 absolved in his discussion of the work of the Prophets, 
 from any " detailed inquiry as to how much of the Pen- 
 tateuchal Law was already known." The Pentateuch, 
 even if extant, " was practically a buried book." The 
 question of its Mosaic authorship is accordingly of no 
 significance in the history and religion of Israel, and 
 may be left on one side while attention is directed to 
 things that " had practical place and recognition in 
 Israel." 
 
 " We have not found occasion to speak of Moses as the 
 author of a written code, and to inquire how much his code 
 contained, because the history itself makes it plain that his 
 central importance for early Israel did not lie in his writings, 
 but in his practical office as a judge who stood for the people 
 before God, and brought their hard cases before Him at the 
 Sanctuary" (Ex. xviii. 19, xxxiii. 9 seq.). 
 
 Can, then, the bare fact that Moses exercised the 
 office of judge, and was the medium of divine com- 
 munications to the people, be so important, and yet 
 
314 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 the judgments which he actually rendered, and the 
 messages which he delivered to the people as from 
 God, be of no account? Can the tribunal at the Sanc- 
 tuary have been so weighty an affair, and the re- 
 gulations which governed its decisions not worth 
 considering? In order to estimate the value of that 
 tribunal, and its influence in shaping the current life of 
 Israel, precisely what we most need to know is what 
 was the system of justice therein represented, what 
 sort of cases came before it, and upon what principles 
 they were settled. This will give an insight into the 
 usages and ideas of the people and the management 
 of their affairs that can be gained in no other way. 
 The civil code introduced by Moses, and the ordinances 
 of worship appointed by him, furnish the needed start- 
 ing-point in the study of the institutions and life of 
 Israel. There is just the same authority for referring 
 these to Moses as there is for believing that he acted 
 as judge and leader of Israel in their coming forth 
 from Egypt. The whole subsequent history unfolds 
 from this fixed point, is determined by it, and cannot 
 be properly understood without it. The Pentateuch 
 was not a " buried book " because some of its statutes 
 may not have been rigidly enforced in all the troub- 
 lous and degenerate periods that followed. The very 
 statutes that were temporarily obscured are needed 
 to set those periods of defection in their true light. 
 What would be thought of that historian of Roman 
 Law who should set aside all consideration of the 
 code of Justinian, because in the disorders and dis- 
 tractions of later ages some of its provisions were 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 315 
 
 temporarily overborne, and only slowly rose to full 
 recognition again in later jurisprudence? 
 
 But the Doctor presents us with an a priori argu- 
 ment, which easily disposes of the whole matter and 
 obviates the necessity of a laborious examination into 
 the facts. 
 
 " It is perfectly clear that the great mass of Levitical legis- 
 lation, with its ritual entirely constructed for the Sanctuary of 
 the Ark and the priests of the house of Aaron, cannot have 
 had practical currency and recognition in the Northern King- 
 dom. The priests could not have stultified themselves by 
 accepting the authority of a code according to which their 
 whole worship was schismatic. . . . The same argument 
 proves that the code of Deuteronomy was unknown, for it 
 also treats all the Northern sanctuaries as schismatic and 
 heathenish, acknowledging but one place of lawful pilgrim- 
 age for all the seed of Jacob." 
 
 And so it might be argued that no rogue would 
 ever stultify himself in a court of justice by admitting 
 the validity of laws which make him a criminal and 
 pronounce his doom. The Ten Tribes had undoubt- 
 edly the most powerful inducements to deny and to 
 renounce the authority of the laws of Moses, if it was 
 possible for them to do so. But if we find them living 
 under these very institutions, only modified by being 
 blended with their idolatry, if we find evidence, in their 
 departures from Mosaic requirements, that they never- 
 theless confess their divine original and their binding 
 obligation, then the strength of their motive to do 
 otherwise but renders the confession that is wrung 
 from them more significant. The question of the 
 
31 6 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 genuineness of the Mosaic legislation is all import- 
 ant in its bearing on all the subsequent stages of Israel- 
 itish history ; and it is only to be settled by a direct 
 appeal to the facts in the case. 
 
 We are referred in these Lectures (p. 117) to two 
 chapters in the Bible as authority for the state of 
 things in the Northern Kingdom, — Deut. xxxiii., " the 
 so-called blessing of Moses," and Josh. xxiv. It is 
 refreshing to find some firm footing in this dismal 
 quagmire, to which everything has been reduced 
 by the critics. And there are two points in these 
 chapters which are well worthy of L consideration. 
 The priesthood is distinctly attributed to Levi (Deut. 
 xxxiii. 8, 10), and notwithstanding this the fact is 
 that in the Ten Tribes the priests were taken indis- 
 criminately from all the people, and "were not of the 
 sons of Levi " (I. Kings xii. 31, xiii. 33). And Josh, 
 xxiv. 26 tells us of "the book of the Law of God," 
 which was already in existence in the time of Joshua, 
 for he wrote in it an account of that solemn day which 
 was passed in Shechem. So that Israel, halting be- 
 tween Jehovah and Baal in the days of Elijah, was 
 confessedly in possession of the book of the Law of 
 God and of Joshua's serious and tender admonitions. 
 
 And here we must join issue with the statement on 
 page 115: — 
 
 " In the time of Amos and Hosea the truest hearts and 
 best thinkers of Israel did not yet interpret Jehovah's dealings 
 with His people in the light of the Deuteronomic and Levitical 
 laws ; they did not judge of Israel's obedience by the princi- 
 ple of the one Sanctuary or the standard of Aaronic ritual." 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 317 
 
 This is not to be decided magisterially by one 
 flourish of the pen. Let us put together the scat- 
 tered hints which these Prophets afford us on this 
 subject, that we may obtain, as far as we can, an accu- 
 rate idea of the divine standard of duty which then 
 prevailed. According to Amos ii. 4 the great crime 
 of Judah, for which a terrible penalty awaits them that 
 the LORD will not turn away, is that " they have de- 
 spised the Law of the Lord and have not kept His 
 commandments." Hosea (viii. 1) in the name of God, 
 denounces swift vengeance upon Israel, " because they 
 have transgressed My covenant, and trespassed against 
 My Law." This " Law of Jehovah," then, to which both 
 these Prophets alike appeal, was common to both 
 kingdoms, and both were culpable and obnoxious to 
 the severest judgments for violating it. In Hos. iv. 6, 
 according to the Doctor's own understanding of the 
 verse, the priests are charged with having forgotten 
 the Law of their God ; and in ver. 5 the Prophets are 
 involved with them in a like condemnation. " Thus 
 Hosea, no less than Amos, places himself in direct 
 opposition to all the leaders of the religious life of his 
 nation " (p. 156). 
 
 And yet both priests and Prophets are spoken of as 
 charged with sacred functions, and are not the objects 
 of an indiscriminate denunciation. The priests were 
 entrusted with the administration of the Law. It was 
 theirs to declare God's Law to the people, and exercise 
 the highest judicial functions under it. Hence, when 
 Hosea would by one stroke set forth the extreme of 
 presumptuous daring and hopeless obduracy that pos- 
 
318 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 sessed the people, so that it was useless to labor lon- 
 ger for their correction, he says (iv. 4) " Thy people 
 are as they that strive with the priest." x The form of 
 expression is peculiar and highly significant. The cen- 
 sure which he passes upon the people is not that of 
 resistance to the priesthood ; for, considering the char- 
 acter of the priests, as that is described immediately 
 after, such resistance might be in many cases highly 
 commendable. But they are " as they that strive with 
 the priest ; " they are compared to bold and reckless 
 men, who resist the officers of law, and refuse submis- 
 sion to the authority of the supreme tribunal. It was 
 in fact this prerogative of the priesthood which gave 
 such fearful point to the charge already cited, that 
 they whose duty it was to teach and to enforce the 
 Law had themselves forgotten it, so that the people 
 were destroyed in consequence, and God rejected 
 these unfaithful priests from being priests to Him any 
 longer. So, too, while the Prophets are rebuked and 
 threatened, and there were those to whom prophecy 
 was a trade and whose only concern was to get their 
 bread (Am. vii. 12), — just as there were those who 
 craved the priest's office for a living (1. Sam. ii. 36), — 
 the sacred character and functions of Prophets are 
 distinctly set forth. They are immediate messengers 
 
 1 The text of this clause needs no correction, least of all any such 
 bungling emendation as those which the Doctor gravely discusses 
 (p. 406). The allusion to the priests' judicial function, coupled with 
 the thought, which at once presents itself to the Prophet's mind, of 
 their culpable unfaithfulness to this high trust, leads to the denuncia- 
 tion ver. 5, — the suppressed thought, which links vers. 4 and 5, com- 
 ing to full expression in ver. 6. 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 319 
 
 of God, to whom He makes confidential disclosures of 
 all His purposes (Am. iii. 7), and through whom He 
 declares His will and purposes to men (Hos. vi. 5, xii. 
 io). 1 Amos ii. 11, 12 includes among God's distin- 
 guishing benefits to Israel His raising up Prophets of 
 their sons, and charges them with the sin of having 
 " commanded the Prophets, saying, Prophesy not." 
 Amos, no doubt, intends to associate himself with the 
 Prophets who were thus obstructed in the perform- 
 ance of their divine commission ; for, though not by 
 regular profession a Prophet, nor one of the Sons of 
 the Prophets, he too had been sent by God to proph- 
 esy to Israel, and had been interdicted from doing it 
 (Am. vii. 15, 16). While Hosea and Amos do not 
 apply the term " law " to the utterances of the 
 Prophets, it might be, and it was so applied ; in Isa. i. 
 10, " the Law of our God " is an equivalent expression 
 to " the Word of the LORD " spoken by the Prophet 
 himself. (See also xxx. 9, 10.) But that the Law 
 was something more than the oral instructions of the 
 
 1 The Doctor tells us (p. 182) : "The possession of a single true 
 thought about Jehovah, not derived from current religious teaching, 
 but springing up in the soul as a word from Jehovah Himself, is 
 enough to constitute a prophet, and lay on him the duty of speaking 
 to Israel what he has learned of Israel's God." If he means to efface 
 the distinction between the inspiration of the Prophets and the illu- 
 mination enjoyed by all pious men who are led to clearer views of 
 truth and duty through their own devout experiences, enlightened by 
 the Holy Ghost, — and further, if he means to deny to the Prophets 
 any direct and immediate commission from God to speak in His name, 
 beyond the general obligation resting on all to impart of that which 
 they have received, — then his statement falls below the conception 
 entertained by Hosea and Amos. 
 
320 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 Prophets and the judicial decisions of the priests, deliv- 
 ered from time to time as occasion required, appears 
 from the fact that they could be charged with forget- 
 ting it. There must, therefore, have been a fixed body 
 of law, independent of and superior to those who were 
 appointed to teach or to administer it, which neither 
 priest nor Prophet could modify or set aside, and 
 which was binding on them as on the people. 
 
 The obligation of obedience resting on Israel is 
 further set forth by representing this Law in the light 
 of a covenant (Hos. vi. 7, viii. 1) or solemn engage- 
 ment between Israel and Jehovah, the breach of 
 whose stipulations is a just ground of controversy to 
 Jehovah with His people (xii. 2), and calls for the 
 exercise of His righteous judgment (v. 1, 11, vi. 5). 
 Hosea (i. 2 ff.) further presents it under the image of 
 the marriage relation, of which sacred bond their sin 
 was a gross and shameless violation. This covenant 
 union is traced back to the Exodus : " I am the LORD 
 thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know 
 no god but Me" (Hos. xiii. 4, xii. 9; see also xi. 1 ; 
 Am. iii. 1, 2, ii. 10). It is even traced beyond that 
 to God's dealings with their pious ancestor Jacob 
 (Hos. xii. 3, 4). The leader out of Egypt, to whose 
 charge the people was committed, was a Prophet 
 (ver. 13), which implies that God made known His 
 will through him. And in its infancy the nation cor- 
 dially responded (Hos. ii. 15). 1 The covenant be- 
 tween Jehovah and Israel was accordingly formed in 
 
 1 For " sing," in the Authorized Version, read " answer j " the ref- 
 erence is to Ex. xxiv. 3. 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 32 I 
 
 the days of Moses ; and of this there is, besides, mon- 
 umental evidence in the existence of the Ark of the 
 Covenant. The giving of the Law began with Moses ; 
 whether he gave the Law in full, or simply made a be- 
 ginning which was added to and developed subse- 
 quently, may be left undetermined for the present. 
 
 Of what compass was this Law in the time of Hosea 
 and Amos? and what did it contain? It is observa- 
 ble that neither of these Prophets thinks it necessary 
 to expound the requirements of the Law or to argue 
 their obligation. They assume throughout that these 
 are well known and their binding force acknowledged. 
 They deal chiefly in charges of transgression and 
 threatenings of punishment. We may take it for 
 granted that the sins with which the people are 
 charged are violations of this Law, and that the vir- 
 tues whose absence is deplored were enjoined by it. 
 One comprehensive word used several times by 
 Hosea, and variously rendered " goodness," " mercy," 
 and " kindness" (Hos. vi. 4; see margin), embraces 
 both love to God and love to man. 1 He heaps to- 
 
 1 This word is admirably expounded by Dr. Robertson Smith (p. 
 162) : " Jehovah and Israel form as it were one community, and hesed 
 is the bond by which the whole community is knit together. It is not 
 necessary to distinguish Jehovah's hesed to Israel, which we would 
 term his grace, Israel's duty of hesed to Jehovah, which we would call 
 piety, and the relation of hesed between man and man which embraces 
 the duties of love and mutual consideration. To the Hebrew mind 
 these three are essentially one, and all are comprised in the same cov- 
 enant. Loyalty and kindness between man and man are not duties 
 inferred from Israel's relation to Jehovah ; they are parts of that rela- 
 tion ; love to Jehovah and love to one's brethren in Jehovah's house 
 are identical." 
 
 21 
 
322 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 gether a number of particulars (iv. I, 2) : " There is 
 no truth, nor kindness (or piety), nor knowledge of 
 God in the land ; swearing and lying and killing 
 and stealing and committing adultery; they commit 
 violence, and blood toucheth blood." It is plain that 
 this Law must have embraced such duties of man to 
 his fellow as chastity and sobriety (Hos. iv. II, vii. 4, 
 5 ; Am. ii. 7, vi. 4-6) ; fidelity to engagements (Hos. x. 
 4) ; justice, kindness, and truth (Hos. x. 12, 13, xi. 
 12 ; Am. v. 7, 24, vi. 12) ; upright dealing as opposed 
 to fraud and heartless oppression, particularly of the 
 poor (Hos. vii. 1, xii. 6-8; Am. ii. 6-8, iii. 10, iv. 1, 
 v. 11, viii. 4-6); and judicial integrity (Am. v. 10, 
 12, 15). The Doctor concedes (p. 113) the exist- 
 ence at this time of " the Book of the Covenant " 
 (Ex. xxi.-xxiii.). " The ordinances of this code 
 closely correspond with the indications as to the an- 
 cient laws of Israel supplied by the older history 
 and the Prophets. Quite similar, except in some 
 minor details which need not now delay us, is an- 
 other ancient table of laws, preserved in Ex. xxxiv. 
 These two documents may be taken as representing 
 the general system of sacred law which had practical 
 recognition in the Northern Kingdom." 1 
 
 1 The Doctor adds in the same sentence : " The very fact that we 
 have two such documents conspires with other indications to make it 
 probable that the laws, which were certainly generally published by 
 oral decisions of the priests, were better known by oral tradition than 
 by written books." We are not now dealing with the question whether 
 the Law was oral or written, and simply remark that the history clearly 
 states the mutual relation of these two series of laws. The second is 
 not a varying tradition of the first. (See above, p. 279.) Moreover, 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 323 
 
 The Prophets, however, deal still more largely and 
 emphatically with the criminality of the people 
 against Jehovah. Duties toward God must, there- 
 fore, have had a prominent place in the Law. Israel 
 is charged with being grossly unfaithful to her conju- 
 gal relation to Jehovah (Hos. i. 2, v. 7, vi. 7) and for- 
 saking Him for other lovers (Hos. ii. 7 and passim) ; 
 and, without a figure, with idolatry (Hos. iv. 12, 17, 
 viii. 4, xi. 2, xiv. 3,8); a lack of the true knowledge 
 of God (Hos. iv. 1, 6, vi. 6) ; forgetting God (Hos. 
 ii. 13, viii. 14, xiii. 6); not seeking God (Hos. v. 15, 
 x. 12 ; Am. v. 4, 6) ; not waiting for Him (Hos. xii. 
 6) ; not hearkening to Him (Hos. ix. 17) ; rebelling 
 against Him (Hos. xiii. 16) ; profaning His holy 
 name (Am. ii. 7) ; not returning to God after the in- 
 fliction of judgments (Am. iv. 6, 8-1 1, where there is 
 distinct reference to Deut. iv. 30, xxx. 2) ; backslid- 
 ing from Him (Hos. xi. 7, xiv. 4) ; transient piety 
 (Hos. vi. 4) ; presumptuous trust in God in their 
 wickedness (Am. v. 18, vi. 1) ; mixing themselves 
 with heathen nations and becoming like them (Hos. 
 vii. 8) ; placing their dependence in a heathen mon- 
 arch instead of Jehovah (Hos. v. 13, vii. 11, viii. 9, 
 xii. 1, xiv. 3). For this they had been visited with 
 famine, drought, blasting, mildew and locusts, pesti- 
 lence after the manner of Egypt (comp. Deut. xxviii. 
 27, 60), the sword, and overthrow like that of Sodom 
 and Gomorrah (Am. iv. 6-1 1 ; comp. Deut. xxix. 
 
 does the Doctor think that Ex. xxxiv. 17 " had practical recognition 
 in the Northern Kingdom ? " What becomes, then, of his argument 
 of the legitimacy of the golden calves ? 
 
324 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 23). And still heavier judgments were in store for 
 them: the kingdom should come to an end (Hos. 
 i. 4; Am. ix. 8), the land be utterly desolated (Hos. 
 ii. 3, iv. 3; Am. iii. 11-15); their idolatrous sanctu- 
 aries destroyed (Hos. x. 2, 8; Am. iii. 14; comp. 
 Lev. xxvi. 30), and the people exiled (Hos. ix. 3; 
 Am. v. 27). See this identical catalogue of evils, Lev. 
 xxvi. 14 ff. ; Deut. xxviii. 15 ff. All this tends to 
 create the impression that in the Law, to which these 
 Prophets appeal, Israel's duty to Jehovah of worship 
 and service had a greater proportional space accorded 
 to it than is the case in Ex. xx.-xxiii. 
 
 Was " the principle of the one Sanctuary " included 
 in the Law to which Hosea and Amos appeal, and by 
 which they " judge of Israel's obedience"? The 
 Northern sanctuaries are separately and by name 
 denounced as centres of iniquity and false worship by 
 both these Prophets ; and, according to Amos i. 2 
 God's earthly seat was in Zion and Jerusalem. Hosea 
 in express terms exposes the iniquity of the golden 
 calves, as the Doctor concedes, though he maintains 
 that this had always before been regarded in the Ten 
 Tribes as a legitimate form of the worship of Jeho- 
 vah, and sanctioned by all preceding Prophets, as 
 Elijah, Elisha, and Amos. That the skirts of these 
 Prophets were clear of any complicity in this idol- 
 worship has already been abundantly shown. But it 
 is further plain, from the language of Hosea himself, 
 that he is making no innovation and announcing no 
 new doctrine. His words are not those of a man 
 proclaiming for the first time that what the people 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 325 
 
 had all along considered right was outrageously 
 wrong. He enters into no argument with these he- 
 reditary idolaters ; he refutes no objections ; he anti- 
 cipates no opposition to his most startling statements. 
 Confident of carrying the consciences and the convic- 
 tions of his hearers with him, he calls their whole 
 system of worship by the name of the grossest offence 
 known amongst men. Their service nominally paid 
 to Jehovah, he declares,^ was really rendered to 
 Baalim (ii. 13). The indignant and contemptuous 
 manner in which he speaks of the calves (viii. 5, 6, 
 x. 5) and the stupidity of their worshippers (xiii. 2), 
 and warns them of the wrath of God thus provoked 
 and the judgment that should follow, shows that 
 this is not some new light that has but recently 
 dawned on his own mind ; but that as the servant of 
 Israel's God he is confronting those who were know- 
 ingly transgressors of His holy Law, while they wil- 
 lingly walked after a human commandment (v. 11), 
 that of Jeroboam the son of Nebat. 
 
 When, now, Amos sharply contrasts seeking Jeho- 
 vah and seeking Bethel (v. 4-6), and declares in 
 the strongest terms the loathing that Jehovah feels 
 for their services professedly offered to Him (vers. 
 21-23), the Doctor takes the meaning simply to be, 
 " He is not to be found by sacrifice, for in it He 
 takes no pleasure ; what Jehovah requires of them 
 that seek Him is the practice of civil righteousness " 
 (p. 139). "The whole ritual service is to Amos a 
 thing without importance in itself" (p. 140). Amos 
 *" shows a degree of indifference to all practices of 
 
326 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 social worship which is not uncharacteristic of an in- 
 habitant of the desert" (p. 167). A worship which 
 to Hosea was basely criminal, which was an atrocity 
 to be punished by the direst judgments, — because 
 Jehovah spurned the degrading homage offered to 
 the calves, refusing to accept it as rendered to Him- 
 self, — cannot have been to Amos a matter of indiffer- 
 ence. When Amos speaks of the god of Dan as the 
 sin of Samaria (viii. 14) ; when he says of Israel's 
 multiplied services, " Come to Bethel and transgress ; 
 at Gilgal multiply transgression " (iv. 4) ; when he 
 makes the Northern sanctuaries the centres of iniquity 
 and corruption that pervaded the kingdom, so that 
 in the day that God visited the transgression of Israel 
 upon him, He would also visit the altars of Bethel 
 (iii. 14), — this is not simply because he attached no 
 importance to ritual service. The service there paid 
 was not merely of no account, inadequate as a sub- 
 stitute for the practice of virtue. It was abhorrent. 
 It was a nuisance to be abated, and which the LORD 
 would tolerate no longer. " I hate, I despise your 
 feast-days, and I v/ill not smell in your solemn assem- 
 blies. Though ye offer Me burnt-offerings and your 
 meat-offerings, I will not accept them ; neither will I 
 regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts. Take 
 thou away from Me the noise of thy songs, for I will 
 not hear the melody of thy viols." It is not feast-days 
 as such that are thus abominable. It is not disgust 
 at offerings and an outward ceremonial that is here 
 expressed. It is "your feast-days " and "your solemn 
 assemblies " that the LORD detests, because the wor- 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 327 
 
 ship itself was of a debased, idolatrous character, and 
 it was coupled with the practice of iniquity. 1 
 
 The Doctor seems at a loss to find a proper anti- 
 thesis to these denunciations of Amos. " If we ask 
 what Amos desired to set in the place of the system 
 he so utterly condemns, the answer is apparently 
 very meagre. He has no new scheme of Church 
 and State to propose — only this, that Jehovah desires 
 righteousness and not sacrifice" (p. 141). Would 
 Amos, then, abolish ritual worship altogether? and 
 not sacrifices only, but "songs" of praise as well? 
 Are there to be no acts of adoration and homage, so- 
 cial or individual? Would he have no direct inter- 
 course between Israel and his glorious King, no 
 Temple, no altar, no prayer, no thanksgiving, no out- 
 ward expression of devotion, — only " the practice 
 of civil righteousness"? This would be a nearer 
 approach to Confucianism than we can well imagine 
 in a Prophet of Israel. 
 
 If, however, he is not aiming at the abolition of all 
 forms of worship, then it must be urged again that 
 
 1 The Doctor tells us (p. 139): "When Amos represents the na- 
 tional worship of Israel as positively sinful, he does so mainly because 
 it was so conducted as to afford a positive encouragement to the in- 
 justice, the sensuality, the baibarous treatment of the poor, to which 
 he recurs again and again as the cardinal sins of the nation." This 
 statement is defective, since it does not penetrate deeply enough into 
 the source of this moral degradation. It is not merely because of 
 the manner in which the worship was conducted, but because of what 
 it was. It was not the service of the pure and holy Jehovah, the 
 giver of the moral law. It was a bestial'nature-worship, to which the 
 name of Jehovah was attached, but in which His attributes were 
 disregarded. 
 
328 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 the intense language of Amos cannot be accounted 
 for on the hypothesis of indifference. It betrays the 
 most powerfully . excited feeling. His emotion is 
 wrought up to the highest pitch. This could not 
 arise from that which he held to be of small account, 
 but only what was most precious and most dear. He 
 cannot bear with the desecration of what was so 
 sacred, the profaning of what was so holy. It is not 
 that worship is so little worth, but because it rises 
 in value and in awfulness above everything beside, 
 that he cannot look with equanimity upon Israel 
 converting the worship of Jehovah into a besotted 
 mummery, the mimicry of devotion. 1 
 
 Place now beside this that significant reference at 
 the very beginning of his prophecy (i. 2) to the fact 
 that the God whose warning message he bears, — the 
 divine Judge of Israel and the nations, — utters His 
 wrathful voice from Jerusalem and from Zion. Jeho- 
 vah speaks from the Temple on that holy mountain ; 
 from thence He thunders with a mighty roar against 
 all the wicked of the earth. If Jehovah is there, He 
 dwells in a Temple erected for sacrifice and for cere- 
 monial observance. He is there for the purpose of 
 
 1 This consideration is of itself sufficient to show that the interpre- 
 tation which the Doctor would put upon Amos v. 25 cannot possibly 
 be correct. It cannot mean that " the Israelites offered no sacrifice 
 in the Wilderness, and yet Jehovah was never nearer to them than 
 there " (p. 140), as an argument that sacrifices are of small conse- 
 quence. The real emphasis in the verse lies in the words " unto me." 
 Their apostasy from God began even in the Wilderness, in idolatries 
 perpetrated there. And this is no more inconsistent with Am. ii. 10 
 than Hos. ix. 10 is with Hos. ii. 15. 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 329 
 
 being worshipped and of receiving the adoration 
 of His subjects. His presence there is the sanction 
 of the purpose for which the house was built, and 
 for which it was resorted to by those that feared His 
 name. While Bethel and Gilgal and Beersheba are 
 denounced (v. 5), as well as the High Places of Isaac 
 and the sanctuaries of Israel generally (vii. 9), Zion 
 was the spot where Jehovah might be found. 
 
 Add now to this, that in Hosea's eyes the multipli- 
 cation of sanctuaries is of itself a sin. When Israel 
 worships on 'the tops of mountains and upon the 
 hills, and under oaks, poplars, and terebinths (iv. 13) 
 she acts the part of an unfaithful wife, who leaves her 
 lawful husband for the love of strangers. When she 
 worships at Gilgal and at Bethaven (he will' not call 
 it Bethel, for it is no longer the " house of God") she 
 does the same (iv. 15). Snares are set on Mizpah 
 and Tabor (v. 1). Gilgal is a seat of detestable 
 wickedness (ix. 15). Ephraim hath multiplied altars 
 to sin (viii. 11), — each fresh altar not only a fresh 
 occasion of sin, but its erection itself a sin. The vast 
 number of his altars is also charged against him in 
 x. 1, and perhaps in xii. 11 likewise; they are as de- 
 void of all sacredness as ordinary stone-heaps, unless 
 indeed the stone-heaps represent the state of utter 
 ruin to which they shall be reduced. Consider fur- 
 ther, that while the LORD declares that He will no 
 more have mercy upon the house of Israel, He will 
 have mercy upon the house of Judah, and save them 
 by Jehovah their God (i. 6, 7) ; that for the present 
 God refuses to recognize Israel as His people or to 
 
330 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 be Himself their God (ver. 9) ; but that hereafter 
 Judah and Israel shall be joined again (ver. 11), as 
 before the schism and apostasy of Jeroboam, and 
 then (hi. 5) the children of Israel shall return and 
 seek the LORD their God and David their king. And 
 can there be a remaining doubt as to where the true 
 place of worship was in the mind of Hosea? 
 
 With all this associate one more fact, and the chain 
 of argument will be complete. The binding obliga- 
 tion of "the principle of the one Sanctuary" was 
 recognized by Hezekiah (11. Kings xviii. 4, 22), as the 
 critics confess, shortly after the time of Hosea, or 
 perhaps even before his long ministry was ended. 
 And conclusive proof has been furnished in the pre- 
 ceding pages, as we suppose (see above, pp. 85 fT., 
 pp. 137 fT.), that its obligatory character was recog- 
 nized in all periods of the history of Israel from the 
 time of Moses downward. This was, then, we may 
 affirm without hesitation, an integral part of the Law 
 recognized by Hosea and Amos as the standard 
 authority in both Israel and Judah in their day. 
 
 But, if this point is established, some further con- 
 sequences follow. The fact that the principle of the 
 one Sanctuary was enforced by Josiah with greater 
 rigor than before is the staple argument of the critics 
 for dating the book of Deuteronomy from his reign, 
 or shortly before it. If, however, that principle, 
 instead of being a recent invention of " the prophetic 
 party" of that period, was already standard law in 
 the time of Hosea, and in fact had been law in Israel 
 ever since the days of Moses, what becomes of the 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 331 
 
 critical argument, and what of the conclusion based 
 upon it? 
 
 Much of Deuteronomy certainly was of ancient 
 date. Dr. Robertson Smith correctly says J : — 
 
 " The Deuteronomic Code is not a mere supplement to 
 the First Legislation. It is an independent reproduction 
 of its substance, sometimes merely repeating the older laws, 
 but at other times extending or modifying them. It covers 
 the whole ground of the old Law, except the law of treason 
 (Ex. xxii. 28) and the details as to compensations to be paid 
 for various injuries." 
 
 And he gives a very serviceable comparative table, 2 
 showing " how completely Deuteronomy covers the 
 same ground with the First Legislation." Now, ac- 
 cording to the Doctor's own theory, the First Legisla- 
 tion, or the Book of the Covenant, existed long before 
 the time of Hosea. All this portion of Deuteronomy, 
 then, belonged in substance, if not in form, to the Law 
 in Hosea's days. And in regard to the remaining 
 provisions of Deuteronomic Law, can the critics point 
 out one which was introduced between the age of 
 Hosea and that of Josiah? If not, what good reason 
 can they give for questioning that the whole Deuter- 
 onomic Law was in the possession of Hosea and of 
 Amos? In fact, what good reason can they give for 
 questioning that it had been in existence ever since 
 the days of Moses? The Doctor tells us (p. 35), " It 
 is difficult for us to determine with precision how far 
 Moses in person carried the work of giving to Israel 
 
 1 " The Old Testament in the Jewish Church/' p. 317. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 431. 
 
332 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 divine ordinances." Is it not in fact so difficult that 
 the safest way for us is to accept the explicit testi- 
 mony of the sacred record, that both the Book of the 
 Covenant and the Deuteronomic Law were given by 
 Moses himself, confirmed as this is by the uniform 
 belief of all post-Mosaic times and by all the tests 
 which we are capable of applying to it. The advo- 
 cates of development may be reluctant to concede 
 this. But we do not really see what they have to 
 stand upon, in refusing their assent, but their own 
 a priori theory. The facts, so far as they are capable 
 of being ascertained, are all the other way. 
 
 Had the Law, to which Hosea and Amos appeal, 
 any ritual requirements? It will not be necessary to 
 reproduce here the evidence already given (see 
 above, pp. 115, 116) that Israel in the time of these 
 Prophets had an extensive ceremonial. But was this 
 of divine obligation? The Doctor reminds us that — 
 
 " Israel, like the other nations, worshipped Jehovah at 
 certain fixed sanctuaries, where He was held to meet with 
 His people face to face. The method of worship was by 
 altar gifts, expressive of homage • for the good things of His 
 bestowal, and the chief occasions of such worship were the 
 agricultural feasts, just as among the Canaanites. The de- 
 tails of the ceremonial observed were closely parallel to those 
 still to be read on Phoenician monuments. Even the tech- 
 nical terms connected with the sacrifice were in great part 
 identical" (p. 56). 
 
 If these heathen parallels are of any significance in 
 accounting for the attitude of the Prophets toward the 
 ceremonial worship in Israel, it might be supposed 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 333 
 
 that they did so in one or the other of two ways. 
 In the first place Israel's religious rites may be con- 
 jectured to have been of heathen origin and imported 
 into the worship of Jehovah from the worship of 
 heathen divinities, and thus may have been regarded 
 as foreign to God's true worship and offensive to Him. 
 Or, in the second place, it may be imagined that these 
 rites, being common to Israel and the heathen, con- 
 tained nothing that was distinctively characteristic of 
 the religion of Jehovah in contrast with other systems, 
 and may for this reason have been considered a mat- 
 ter of indifference. It was of no account whether 
 men engaged in the ritual or not. Jehovah was to be 
 served not by sacrifice but by righteousness. Upon 
 either hypothesis the bare fact that Hosea and Amos 
 refer to these ceremonies as observed in Israel, would 
 not establish for them a place in the Law which was 
 to these Prophets the standard of divine obligation. 
 
 Now as to the first supposition, it is evident that 
 the ritual practised in their days was not regarded by 
 the Prophets as heathenish importations which were 
 in themselves criminal and offensive ; for in all their 
 censures of Israel's worship they never intimate any- 
 thing of the kind. On the contrary, Hosea represents 
 sacrifice by which pardon was obtained, and the 
 ephod by which the will of God was consulted, as 
 essential to the maintenance of Israel's intercourse 
 with Jehovah ; so that when he would depict the peo- 
 ple in the seclusion of the Exile, — awaiting a hap- 
 pier future, but their relation to God and to idols 
 both severed for the present, — he speaks of them 
 
334 DR - ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 (iii. 4) as on the one hand without a sacrifice and 
 without an ephod, and on the other hand without an 
 image and without teraphim. As the latter were in- 
 dispensable instruments and accompaniments of idola- 
 try, so were the former of the true worship of Jehovah. 
 When he says (v. 6) " They shall go with their 
 flocks and with their herds to seek the Lord, but 
 they shall not find Him," the antithesis implies that 
 there was reason to expect that going with such of- 
 ferings they would find Him. The real cause of their 
 failure is immediately added : " He hath withdrawn 
 Himself from them." When the Most High declares 
 (vi. 6) that He desired " the knowledge of God more 
 than burnt-offerings," it is implied that burnt-offer- 
 ings were desired. When their petitions, offered at 
 their sacrificial festivals, are contemptuously called 
 " howling upon their beds " (vii. 14), it was not that 
 this was a prohibited mode of entreating His favor, 
 but because of their rebellion against Him and that 
 they did not cry unto Him with their heart. The 
 threatened captivity would be aggravated by their in- 
 ability to observe the laws of ceremonial purity: 
 "They shall eat unclean things in Assyria" (ix. 3). 
 The acceptability of drink-offerings properly pre- 
 sented is taken for granted (ix. 4) ; and sacrifice 
 must have been regarded as pleasing to God, when it 
 is made the symbol of praise : " So will we render 
 calves, our lips " (xiv. 2). So that when their pre- 
 dicted shame and disappointment is attributed to 
 their sacrifices (iv. 19), it is not because sacrifices are 
 in themselves criminal, but theirs are not what sacri- 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 335 
 
 fices ought to be. Amos speaks of it as a divine 
 favor to Israel that their sons were led to take the 
 Nazarite vow (ii. 11), and reproaches the people for 
 a breach of the ceremonial in giving them wine to 
 drink (ver. 12), and in adding leaven to their thank- 
 offering (iv. 5). And if Jehovah dwells in Zion 
 (i. 2) He necessarily sanctions that form of worship, 
 for which His house on Zion was expressly built. 
 
 Sacrifice as such is not offensive to God, therefore; 
 and the warmth of the language of Amos regarding 
 it has already shown us that it is not a matter of in- 
 difference. It must, consequently, have been es- 
 teemed obligatory; and, as the intensity of the 
 Prophet's feelings with regard to it reveals, the ob- 
 ligation must have been so solemn and imperative 
 that a dereliction of duty in this particular awakened 
 the most intense indignation. There is no escape 
 from the conclusion that the developed ritual of their 
 day was enjoined in the Divine Law. 
 
 And if this Law contained all that they describe, it 
 must have contained much more ; for their allusions 
 are merely incidental, and not made with any view of 
 covering the entire round of required observance ; and 
 there is the greater reason to believe that this was the 
 case, because the scope and tenor of their teaching 
 was mainly directed to a different matter, — not so 
 much to the forms of worship, with which the people 
 were sufficiently familiar, as to the spirit of piety 
 which should animate them, and the life of upright- 
 ness which should accompany them. And, further, a 
 Law containing these particulars must have likewise 
 
336 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 included other things which they necessarily imply. 
 If there were priests and offerings and tithes and dis- 
 tinctions of clean and unclean, there must have been 
 specifications under each of these heads, to enable the 
 people to act intelligently with regard to them, and 
 the ministers of religion to decide the questions which 
 would be constantly arising about them. There must 
 have been rules regulating the support of the priests 
 and the contributions of the people. Directions must 
 have been given with some detail as to the ritual to 
 be observed in different kinds of sacrifice, and what 
 were proper occasions for their presentation. And 
 so in regard to other matters. The particulars posi- 
 tively stated by the Prophets not only justify but 
 compel the assumption of an extended ceremonial 
 Law. These few hints and allusions do not of course 
 enable us to determine all its contents in detail. But 
 all these allusions accord with the Levitical Law of the 
 Pentateuch. They are just such as might be ex- 
 pected if that Law, in its full extent, was in the hands 
 of these Prophets. There is not one statute of that 
 Law which may not have been in it then, so far as we 
 can gather from the intimations given by Hosea and 
 Amos, or so far as we can infer from contemporane- 
 ous or subsequent history. They must have pos- 
 sessed the Levitical Law as we now have it, or one so 
 closely resembling it that no critic can point out 
 a single particular in which it must have differed 
 from it. 1 
 
 1 As a further suggestion of the source of this ritual, it may be 
 observed that the usage of the Feast of Tabernacles, alluded to in 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 337 
 
 So that Prof. Rudolph Smend, 1 though an advocate 
 of Graf's hypothesis, uses the following language : — 
 
 " That purity and holiness, and the corresponding lustra- 
 tions and atoning sacrifices, must at all times have played a 
 great part in Israelitish worship, and this [worship] must, in 
 the Temple of Jerusalem, have had essentially the form which 
 is presented in Leviticus, cannot be denied, even though the 
 casual intimations of the older prophetical writings do not 
 suffice to prove it. For this reason we cannot see what es- 
 sential alterations the conceptions hitherto entertained of the 
 inner development of religion in Mosaism must undergo, 
 even if a few particulars should be shown to be post-exilic." 
 " Accordingly we do not know what objection can be made 
 to the earlier composition of Leviticus on the ground of the 
 older prophetical writings." 
 
 There is no reason in fact why the Levitical Law 
 may not have been given by Moses, except the fig- 
 ment of development. There is nothing but this 
 philosophical theory, unsupported by any Biblical 
 facts, to outweigh the positive and repeated declara- 
 tions contained in Leviticus itself — and accredited 
 to us by the testimony of all subsequent ages, 
 through which it has been handed down and by 
 
 Hos. xii. 9, finds its explanation neither in the Book of the Covenant 
 nor in Deuteronomy, but only in Lev. xxiii. 42. 
 
 1 In his elaborate and extremely able article " On the Stage of De- 
 velopment of the Religion of Israel presupposed by the Prophets of 
 the Eighth Century," in the " Studien und Kritiken " for 1876, pp. 655, 
 661. This was written shortly after the appearance of Duhm's " The- 
 ology of the Prophets," and chiefly with the view of pointing out the 
 serious errors of that work. I have been largely indebted to the sug- 
 gestions of this article in the preceding discussion. 
 
338 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 which it was esteemed most sacred — that these laws 
 were announced by Moses as divinely communicated 
 to him. That the absence of these ritual laws from 
 Deuteronomy cannot be urged in support of the the- 
 ory, as though Leviticus must be the development of 
 a later age, is also confessed by Smend : — 
 
 " If a law-book, which professedly aims to give a complete 
 order of the cultus, speaks of many things about which 
 another, which has no such design, is silent, it nevertheless 
 does not follow that the former, on account of the greater 
 copiousness of its contents, must belong to a later time, in 
 which the worship was further developed " (p. 654). 1 
 
 We inquire further, was the Law, of which Hosea 
 speaks, written or oral? The usage of the period is 
 very clearly shown by his contemporary Isaiah, who 
 speaks of it as a matter of course that enactments 
 were committed to writing. "Woe unto them that 
 decree unrighteous decrees, and to the scribes that 
 write grievousness " (Isa. x. 1). The fact that Hosea 
 and Amos wrote their prophecies not only implies an 
 already existing literature, which is besides sufficiently 
 attested in other ways ; but, inasmuch as they were 
 designed to enforce the divine Law, and were them- 
 selves regarded as a supplementary Law of the Lord 
 (Isa. i. 10), if they were reduced to writing, it must 
 have been because this was likewise the case with the 
 
 1 Dr. Robertson Smith must acknowledge the cogency of what is 
 here said by Smend, since he himself considers the aim of Deuteron- 
 omy to be different from that of Leviticus. See the passage cited 
 from " The Old Testament in the Jewish Church," in note 2, page 76, 
 above. 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 339 
 
 code to which they were virtually annexed. It was 
 customary at that time to write whatever was to be 
 carefully preserved (Isa. viii. 1, xxx. 8). Samuel 
 wrote the manner of the kingdom (I. Sam. x. 25). 
 David had a recorder and a scribe among the chief 
 officers of his court (il. Sam. viii. 16, 17, xx. 24, 25); 
 so had Solomon (1. Kings iv. 3) and subsequent kings 
 (il. Kings xii. 10, xviii. 18). The commission, appointed 
 by Joshua to divide the land, made their report in 
 writing (Josh, xviii. 9). In the song of Deborah, 
 whose antiquity is universally acknowledged, scribes 
 marshal the troops (Judg. v. 14). Writing was in 
 familiar use in ordinary matters. David wrote a let- 
 ter about Uriah (11. Sam. xi. 14, 15), Jezebel about 
 Naboth (1. Kings xxi. 8, 9), the king of Syria about 
 Naaman (11. Kings v. 5-7), Jehu about Ahab's sons 
 (il. Kings x. 1). Lots were inscribed (Num. xvii. 2; 
 Lev. xvi. 8) ; writing by the priest was part of the cere- 
 monial in the jealousy-offering (Num. v. 23) ; and an 
 old Canaanitish city bore the name of Kirjath-sepher, 
 (Book-town). The law of divorce (Deut. xxiv. 1) im- 
 plies that men generally were able to write. Gideon re- 
 quired a young man, taken at random, to write out for 
 him the princes of Succoth (Judg. viii. 14 ; see also Isa. 
 x. 19). In such a state of things it would be utterly 
 unaccountable if the Law, which was held to be of di- 
 vine authority and believed to have emanated from 
 God Himself, which lay at the foundation of public 
 justice and regulated public worship, was suffered to 
 remain unwritten and exposed to all the risks of oral 
 transmission. 
 
34-0 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 The Ten Commandments were not only written but 
 engraved in stone in the lifetime of Moses himself. In 
 Josh, xxiv., to which we are referred (p. 118) for a 
 reliable exposition of Israelitish views, it appears 
 (vers. 25, 26) that Joshua at once wrote the statute 
 and ordinance which he gave to the people in She- 
 chem ; and further that " the book of the Law of God " 
 was already in existence at that time. 1 The Doctor 
 himself concedes (p. 113) that there were "ancient 
 laws " which had " currency in a written form ; " only 
 he tells us that they must be sought not in Deuter- 
 onomy nor in Leviticus, but " in other parts of the 
 Pentateuch, particularly in the Book of the Covenant 
 (Ex. xxi-xxiii.)." And while he asserts (p. 114) that 
 " neither Hosea nor Amos alludes to an extant written 
 Law," he adds that " this fact does not prove that writ- 
 ten laws did not exist." When, therefore, Hosea (viii. 
 12), 2 speaking in the name of God, says in express 
 terms, " I write to him the ten thousand precepts of 
 My Law ; they have been counted as a strange thing," 
 
 1 The hasty inference that this chapter " speaks without offence of 
 the sacred tree and sacred stone that marked this great Northern sanc- 
 tuary, and is therefore quite ignorant of the Deuteronomic Law," is 
 shown to be invalid; p. 162, above. 
 
 2 The Doctor says, "Hos. viii. T2 is mistranslated in the Authorized 
 Version." If this is to be settled by confident assertion we may bal- 
 ance his statement by the contrary one of Professor Smend (p. 633 of 
 the article before cited), whom we may without disrespect presume 
 that the Doctor will admit to be his peer in Hebrew learning. (See 
 above, p. 114, note). Smend (p. 637) thinks that there were several 
 written collections of laws ; but of this there is no evidence. Hosea 
 and Amos speak of but one Divine Law ; and their words leave no room 
 for the supposition of various rival codes with conflicting statutes. 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 34 1 
 
 this is just such a declaration as the facts already re- 
 viewed prepare us for and warrant us in crediting. 
 The Law known to Hosea and Amos was an extensive 
 code, embracing a multitude of requirements, and it 
 was in written form ; and although transgressed as 
 though it were something foreign to the people, and 
 which had no claim upon them, it had nevertheless 
 proceeded from the LORD Himself. 
 
 One more question remains : Who wrote this Law, 
 to which Hosea and Amos attach undoubted divine 
 authority, and upon which they base all their denun- 
 ciations ? We have a right to ask, and to demand an 
 answer, for it is universally allowed to be one of the 
 great legal systems of the world. Such a body of law 
 never grew up by accident. It is not the aggregate of 
 judicial decisions rendered in the course of ages, at 
 various tribunals by successive judges. In that case 
 there would necessarily be conflicting and incoherent 
 statutes, and the bare record of such decisions would 
 be a tangled wilderness of disconnected utterances. 
 Even if resting ultimately on such decisions, it must 
 have been carefully codified. It is a systematic body 
 of law, based on great fundamental principles, which 
 are carried out to their logical results in a consistent 
 and masterly manner. 1 Every part of it evidences 
 clear thought, a high faculty of administration, and 
 comprehensive views. Who produced this body of 
 
 1 If, as has sometimes been alleged, some of these institutions — 
 as, for example, the Year of Jubilee — were merely theoretical, and 
 never came into practical operation, this but adds to the evidence that 
 the whole sprang from one constructive mind. 
 
342 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 law, or who digested it and reduced it to order? 
 Whose thought reigns in the whole? 
 
 The critics have felt the pressure of this question, 
 and sought at one time to fasten Deuteronomy upon 
 Jeremiah, as they have assigned Leviticus to Ezra. 
 But they have themselves abandoned the former as 
 untenable ; and even those who allege that Leviticus in 
 its present form was written by Ezra, must concede that 
 the chief provisions of that Law were much older. Both 
 of these codes must have been substantially, at least, 
 and in their main features, prior to Hosea and Amos, 
 — long prior, for the Law of which these Prophets 
 speak was no recent production, no modern innovation, 
 but the old, established, authoritative Law. Could its 
 author have been David? Of his reign we have a 
 full account, — of his enterprises, of the measures 
 which he carried into effect, of his schemes of govern- 
 ment and of worship. But there is no record of his 
 having prepared or introduced any such body of law ; 
 this is in fact not shaped upon the theory of a 
 kingly government; and later ages never suggest that 
 it is to be referred to him. Could it have been Samuel, 
 the great reformer, prophet, and judge? But the 
 chaotic period, in which he lived and labored, is just 
 the one in which these laws were more in abey- 
 ance than in any other. Is the great legislator of 
 Israel, then, buried in complete oblivion, his name 
 forgotten quite, and no tradition, however faint, pre- 
 served respecting him? Did the master-mind that 
 shaped these laws and institutions, which are the 
 wonder of all who study them, leave no impress of 
 himself upon his nation and his age? 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 343 
 
 One is involuntarily reminded of the story which 
 used to be told of the Englishman making his first 
 journey in France, who innocently inquired of one 
 who sat next him in the coach, " Whose are these 
 elegant grounds and buildings that we are passing?" 
 The bewildered native, ignorant of English, simply 
 replied, " Monsieur, je ne sais pas." Accepting this 
 as the real name of the owner of this magnificent es- 
 tate, the Englishman repeated his question from time 
 to time, as fresh villas came into view, receiving uni- 
 formly the same response. At length, astonished at 
 such vast possessions belonging to one proprietor, he 
 exclaimed, " Monsieur Je-ne-sais-pas must be a very 
 rich man." And the Unknown, to whom the critics 
 would introduce us, must be a man without his equal 
 in the whole history of Israel. Yet he has himself 
 completely vanished out of history, and left no trace 
 of his existence, no memory even of the age in which 
 he lived. Nay, by the strangest of all freaks of for- 
 tune, a unanimous, persistent, and unvarying tradition 
 has confounded this commanding spirit, this unique 
 legislator, with a rude chieftain who never gave any 
 laws, so far as the critics know, except in so far as he 
 decided petty disputes between his followers, and 
 whose only distinction is that of having led a horde of 
 undisciplined nomads out of bondage into a desert 
 many centuries before. 
 
 Is it the whole history of Israel that is at fault, or is it 
 only that the critics have been dreaming? Possibly 
 the real Moses of history may after all have been quite 
 different from the fictitious personage substituted for 
 
344 DR - ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 him by the critics. And in the adopted son of Pha- 
 raoh's daughter, who intermarried with the Egyptian 
 priesthood and was learned in all the wisdom of Egypt, 
 who was fired with an enthusiastic attachment to his 
 people and their God and was inspired by the Holy 
 Ghost, — the great commander and organizer who 
 shaped the institutions of his nation and impressed his 
 own ideas ineradicably upon their entire subsequent 
 history, — we may find a rational and sober answer to 
 our question, which else must remain unanswered or 
 land us in the most incredible of paradoxes. 
 
 The critics will smile incredulously at the suggestion 
 of what they are pleased to call the traditional view, 
 as though it were some unfounded opinion, which has 
 come to be believed merely by dint of constant repe- 
 tition, and which accordingly has no claim upon the 
 faith of candid and honest inquirers in comparison 
 with the so-called critical or scientific view, and is now 
 only held in ignorance or defiance of advancing light. 
 But let us understand the sort of tradition on which it 
 rests. The Pentateuchal Law claims in the most un- 
 ambiguous manner to have been given and recorded 
 by Moses. The general character of the legislation, 
 and the terms in which it is couched, accord with this 
 claim. Its truth is further vouched for in the most 
 direct and positive manner in the history of his trusted 
 attendant and successor Joshua (i. 7, 8, viii. 31-34, xxii. 
 5, xxiii. 6) ; also by xxiv. 26, which the critics with un- 
 wonted clemency suffer to stand ; further by Judg. iii. 4 ; 
 I.Kings ii. 3 ; II. Kings x. 31, xiv. 6, xvii. 37, xviii. 6, 12, 
 xxi. 8, xxii. 8, xxiii. 24, 25, not to speak of numerous 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 345 
 
 testimonies of later date. The history and legislation 
 of the Pentateuch lies at the basis of all the subsequent 
 history of the Old Testament. It is presupposed in 
 the Psalms. 1 It is presupposed in the Prophets. 
 Moses' authorship has the explicit sanction of our 
 blessed Lord Himself. The prior existence of the 
 Pentateuch is shown by its being so interwoven with all 
 subsequent portions of the history and literature of 
 Israel that it cannot be torn from it without the de- 
 struction of the whole. It is upon this immovable 
 foundation that the traditional view securely reposes. 
 The tradition is imbedded in the Scriptures from first 
 to last, and can only be surrendered when the inspired 
 
 1 No prominence has been given in any of the preceding discus- 
 sions to the testimony rendered by the Book of Psalms to the truth of 
 the Pentateuch, and to the divine authority as well as the Mosaic origin 
 of its institutions, for the simple reason that the critics exercise the 
 same right of peremptory challenge in regard to unwelcome witnesses 
 that Anglo-Saxon law allows in the case of jurors deemed unfriendly. 
 The titles of the Psalms are set aside without ceremony ; and each 
 individual Psalm is arbitrarily assigned to whatever date best suits the 
 critical theory which chances to be in vogue at the time. Under the 
 operation of this rule the Psalter becomes merely the hymn-book of 
 the Second Temple ; the great mass of the Psalms are reckoned post- 
 exilic, if not Maccabean ; and nothing is allowed to be Davidic until 
 the critics have first satisfied themselves by a thorough search that it 
 contains nothing capable of being used against them. In fact it has 
 been discovered that the safest course is to exclude David from the 
 Psalter altogether, and to deny to him any devotional composition in 
 the proper sense, allowing to him only " sportful forms of uncon- 
 strained mirth." "Melodies of the Temple service were borrowed 
 from the joyous songs of the vintage, and so it was possible that 
 David should give the pattern alike for the songs of the Sanctuary and 
 for the worldly airs of the nobles of Samaria." ("The Old Testament 
 in the Jewish Church," p. 205). Accordingly, any argument ex concessis 
 from the Psalms is out of the question. 
 
346 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 volume itself is abandoned as untrustworthy, and Jesus 
 ceases to be trusted as an infallible teacher. When 
 progress means marching over such a precipice as 
 this, sensible men will be apt to call a halt, and prefer 
 to abide on the terra fir ma of tradition a little longer, 
 rather than adventure themselves upon the cloudland 
 which lies beyond. 
 
 Besides Elijah and Elisha, who have already been 
 spoken of, the Prophets whose work is particularly 
 discussed in these Lectures are Hosea and Amos in 
 the Ten Tribes, Isaiah and Micah in Judah. The aim 
 of the whole is to exhibit them in their individual 
 character and their mutual relations, and in their rela- 
 tions to the times in which they lived. What is known 
 of each Prophet is briefly sketched, and the specific 
 character of his times depicted, and the bearing of 
 this upon his ministry is shown; special traits are 
 pointed out, which distinguish the teaching or mode 
 of thought of each of these Prophets ; and the differ- 
 ent aspects, under which they severally set forth the 
 proximate or the ultimate future as they conceive it, 
 are indicated and contrasted with one another. In 
 all this there is much that is valuable and suggestive. 
 The chief occasion of regret is that the bias derived 
 from his critical prepossessions inclines him at every 
 point to reduce the religious meaning of the Prophets 
 to a minimum, to foist upon them inaccuracies with 
 which they are not chargeable, and to represent them 
 as in irreconcilable conflict, because of those differ- 
 ences in their portraiture by which they really supple- 
 ment and complete each other. 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 347 
 
 1 
 
 It illustrates the facility with which the drift of 
 events can be comprehended after they have actually 
 taken place, that Dr. Robertson Smith can see no evi- 
 dence of prophetic foresight in the disclosures of 
 Amos. " The most ordinary political insight, " he 
 tells us (p. 131), could have seen the danger which 
 threatened Israel from Assyria; " and what requires 
 explanation is not so much that Amos was aware of it 
 as that the rulers and people of Israel were so utterly 
 blind to the impending doom." But it is obvious 
 that Amos claims no political shrewdness above 
 those whom he addresses. He points to no political 
 causes that are at work; he makes no political de- 
 ductions. It is not from this quarter that his inspira- 
 tion proceeds. The one thought, that possesses his 
 mind, is that of the moral causes which are at work. 
 Israel has sinned and Jehovah has sent him to 
 announce the penalty. The Doctor says, (p. 129,) : 
 " It is not Israel's sin that brings him forward as a 
 preacher of repentance; but the sound of near de- 
 struction encircling the land constrains him to blow 
 the alarm." Precisely the reverse is true, as appears 
 from the whole tenor of the prophecy. The en- 
 croachments of Assyria had not yet affected Israel. 
 The Northern Kingdom had never been more pros- 
 perous, and there seemed to be no reason to question 
 the stability of this prosperity. Even after Assyria 
 had pushed its conquests westward, until Damascus 
 was overthrown, Israel's ancient rival and enemy, 
 politicians still thought that Israel might be secure 
 and prosperous in alliance with or in nominal subjec- 
 
348 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 tion to the Great King. They were chiefly divided 
 upon the question which of the rival empires, Assyria 
 or Egypt, was the safer ground of dependence. But 
 through all the fluctuating schemes of politicians, and 
 their alternate hopes and fears, the steadfast word of 
 the Prophet went on to sure accomplishment. And 
 so did the prediction of Hosea (i. 6, 7), which no 
 degree of political insight could have dictated, that 
 while Assyria should overthrow the Northern King- 
 dom, its weaker sister, Judah, should be miraculously 
 delivered. Their prediction can only be discredited 
 by imputing to them what they do not say and what 
 their language cannot be fairly interpreted to mean. 
 Thus (p. 183), " To Hosea, as to Amos, the fall of 
 the house of Jehu and the fall of the nation appear as 
 one thing ; , both Prophets, indeed, appear to have 
 looked for the overthrow of the reigning dynasty, 
 not by intestine conspiracy, as actually happened, but 
 at the hand of the destroying invader." 
 
 According to the Doctor's view of the matter (p. 
 184), the comparison of Hosea i. 4, with II. Kings x. 
 30 " places in the strongest light the limitations that 
 characterize all Old Testament revelation. It shows 
 that we can look for no mechanical uniformity in the 
 teaching of successive Prophets." Hosea speaks of 
 " a revolution accomplished with the active participa- 
 tion of older Prophets," as " the bloodshed of Jezreel, 
 the treacherous slaughter of the house of Ahab." 
 " Elisha saw and approved one side of Jehu's revolu- 
 tion. He looked on it only as the death-blow to 
 Baal-worship ; but Hosea sees another side and con- 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 349 
 
 demns as emphatically as Elisha approved." There 
 is, however, no real discrepancy between these 
 Prophets, as the Doctor himself suggests in the very 
 act of urging it. What Elisha approves and what 
 Hosea condemns are distinct things. By divine di- 
 rection Jehu executed the just judgment of God 
 upon the house of Ahab ; so far he did right and was 
 approved. There was, however, a converse to this, 
 which is immediately added by the sacred historian 
 (II. Kings x. 31), " But Jehu took no heed to walk in 
 the Law of the LORD God of Israel with all his heart ; 
 for he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, which 
 made Israel to sin," Jehu had been explicitly told 
 (11. Kings ix. 9), by the Prophet who gave him his 
 commission, that the house of Ahab was to be made 
 11 like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and 
 like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah," who 
 were punished for the criminality of the golden 
 calves. This very criminality was subsequently per- 
 petuated by Jehu. From an executioner of God's 
 righteous sentence he thus became an accomplice 
 and participant in the crime ; and in judging the 
 house of Ahab he pronounced a like doom upon 
 himself. A slaughter, which found its justification 
 only in its being inflicted in obedience to the declared 
 will of God, ceased to be justifiable as performed by 
 one who set that will at defiance (1. Kings xvi. 7; 
 Deut. viii. 20). We have tacitly assumed that 
 " blood " in this passage means " bloodshed " as the 
 Doctor paraphrases it. It may, however, signify 
 blood-guiltiness, and the sense -of the passage be that 
 
350 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 a guilt equivalent to that contracted by Ahab in 
 Jezreel should be avenged upon the house of Jehu, 
 which by following in a like course of sin justified, 
 and as it were assumed, the crimes of their pred- 
 ecessors. 
 
 In order to give a more precise idea of the method 
 and aim of these Lectures, we quote a summary state- 
 ment (p. 229) of the relation between Isaiah and the 
 Prophets of Israel, as the author conceives it. The 
 errors of the passage are too obvious to require fur- 
 ther correction. 
 
 " Isaiah builds on the foundations laid by his predecessors, 
 Amos and Hosea. But his treatment of the problem is more 
 comprehensive and all-sided. The preaching of Amos was 
 directed only to breaches of civil righteousness, and supplied 
 no standard for the reformation of national worship ; it left 
 even the golden calves untouched. Hosea, on the other 
 hand, has a clear insight into the right moral attitude of the 
 religious subject to God ; but that subject is to him the per- 
 sonified nation, sinning and repenting as one man, and there- 
 fore he has no practical suggestions applicable to the actual 
 mixed state of society ; his prophecy leaves an unexplained 
 hiatus between Israel's present sin and its future return to 
 Jehovah. Isaiah, on the contrary, finds in Jehovah's holiness 
 a principle equally applicable to the amendment of the state 
 and the elevation of religious praxis, an ideal which supplies 
 an immediate impulse to reformation, and which, though it 
 cannot be fully attained without the intervention of purging 
 judgments, may at least become the practical guide of those 
 within Israel who are striving after better things." 
 
 The allegation (p. 268) that Isaiah's prophecy to 
 Ahaz (chs. vii., viii.) was "of the nature of a shrewd 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 351 
 
 political forecast rather than of exceptional predic- 
 tion, and, as the future actually shaped itself, his worst 
 anticipations were not realized," is based on two un- 
 founded assumptions, viz. : that viii. 4 describes the 
 ultimate overthrow of Samaria, and that the pictured 
 desolation of Judah belonged to a single campaign. 
 The prediction in ch. xx. is allowed to have been 
 accomplished; but he says (p. 282), "this result had 
 not come about in the way that Isaiah anticipated"; 
 which anticipation we learn not from the Prophet, 
 but from his critic, who tells us that Isaiah had ex- 
 pected the Assyrian king to press forward against 
 Egypt on the fall of Ashdod. In regard to Isaiah's 
 predictions of the blissful future under the forms of 
 the old dispensation, we are told (p. 337) that they 
 have not only " received no literal fulfilment, but it 
 is impossible that the evolution of the divine purpose 
 can ever again be narrowed within the limits of the 
 petty world of which Judah was the centre and Egypt 
 and Assyria the extremes." He objects (p. 339) to 
 a figurative interpretation of such prophecies, but 
 nevertheless admits (p. 342): "It is plain from the 
 very freedom with which Isaiah recasts the details of 
 his predictions from time to time, — adapting them 
 to new circumstances, introducing fresh historical or 
 poetical motives, and cancelling obsolete features in 
 his older imagery, — that he himself drew a clear dis- 
 tinction between mere accidental and dramatic details, 
 which he knew might be modified or wholly super- 
 seded by the march of history, and the unchanging 
 principles of faith, which he received as a direct reve- 
 
352 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 lation from Jehovah Himself and knew to be eternal 
 and invariable truth." 
 
 Now, if the meaning of all this is simply that Isaiah 
 did not understand, nor was it given to him to reveal, 
 the divine plans in all their extent and fulness, this 
 is readily conceded. And it is a very proper subject 
 of investigation, What were the limitations of the reve- 
 lation granted to him, and what is the exact concep- 
 tion expressed in his words? But if " the lion which 
 eats straw like the ox, the seas and rivers dried up 
 to facilitate the return of the exiles to Judah," are 
 " plainly figurative" (p. 303), and if the Prophet 
 clearly distinguishes substance and form in employ- 
 ing the symbolic institutions of the Old Testament to 
 body forth the future, no correct exegesis can fasten 
 upon the prophecy the inaccuracy of declaring, nor 
 upon the Prophet the narrowness of supposing, that 
 his picture was to be realized in the particular forms 
 in which he has drawn it. These were more or less 
 consciously used and accepted as figures of a reality 
 more glorious, but as yet only partially disclosed and 
 dimly understood ; just as the vision of the New Jeru- 
 salem is to us the picture of a future whose magnifi- 
 cence impresses us, but in what precise form it shall 
 be realized we cannot tell. 
 
 The " Branch of the LORD" (Isa. iv. 2) is referred 
 (p. 248) to a the simple blessings of agricultural life." 
 Immanuel (vii. 14 ff,, p. 271) was simply an ordinary 
 child, born at the time, and gave no such pledge to 
 Ahaz of the stability of his royal house as an allusion 
 to the promised and expected Son of David might 
 
ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 353 
 
 have done. " It is by no means clear" (p. 306) 
 whether the child with the remarkable names (ix. 6) 
 is " one person or a race of sovereigns." At any rate 
 no divine person is intended, for " there is no reason 
 to think that they denote anything metaphysical." 
 And Isa. ii. 2-4 " is far from implying a world-wide 
 sovereignty of Israel" (p. 309). Micah, it seems 
 (p. 290), did not predict the captivity; " thou shalt 
 come even to Babylon" (iv. 10) is a gloss. So, while 
 Isaiah is represented (pp. 259, 260) as declaring " the 
 inviolability of Jerusalem," and Jeremiah the " cap- 
 tivity of Jerusalem," Micah is made to affirm, in con- 
 tradistinction from both, and contrary to what actually 
 occurred, that the city shall be taken, and its popula- 
 tion driven forth into the open field ; " there, and not 
 within her proud ramparts, Jehovah will grant her 
 deliverance from her enemies." " Jehovah's right- 
 eousness," as declared by the Prophets, is limited 
 (p. 245) to " kingly righteousness," which "aims 
 at, not the transformation of the hearts of men, but 
 the removal of injustice in the state." 
 
 And thus by emptying words of their meaning, 
 by attributing to the Prophets ideas which they never 
 entertained, by representing them as in collision 
 where there is nevertheless entire harmony, and by 
 the application of the potent wand of criticism in a 
 few obstinate cases where less summary measures 
 would not avail, the revelation of God through the 
 Prophets is made out to be a very different thing 
 from that which it actually is. 
 
 2 3 
 
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS 
 
 QUOTED OR REFERRED TO. 
 
 genesis. Page 
 
 iii. 15 236 
 
 v. 24 303 
 
 vii. 11 305 
 
 xii. 6, 7 161 
 
 xiii. 18 164 
 
 xiv. 22 270 
 
 xvii. 1 270 
 
 xviii. 1, 2 271 
 
 xviii. 10 303 
 
 xviii. 26 311 note 
 
 xix. 11 303 
 
 xix. 24 270 
 
 xx. 13 311 note 
 
 xxi. 31, 33 162 
 
 xxi. 33 270 
 
 xxiv. 3 270 
 
 xxiv. 32 282 note 
 
 xxvi. 23-25 162 
 
 xxvii. 7 96 
 
 xxviii. 10 ff 165 
 
 xxviii. 12, 13 270 
 
 xxxi. 19, 30 271 
 
 xxxi. 19, 32 21^ note 
 
 xxxi. 49, 54 159 
 
 xxxii. 1, 2 303 
 
 xxxii. 2 159 
 
 xxxii. 24. 30 271 
 
 xxxiii. 18, 20 162 
 
 xxxv. 2 271, 276 note 
 
 xxxv. 4 162 
 
 xxxv. 9 ff 166 
 
 xxxvii. 14 164 
 
 xxxix. 1 106 note 
 
 xlix. 10 83, 237 
 
 xlix. 25 270 
 
 EXODUS. 
 
 i. 11 68 
 
 i. 14 68 
 
 ii. 15 58 note 
 
 iii. 1 279 
 
 exodus {continued). Page 
 
 iii 2 279 
 
 iii. 5 94 
 
 iii. 14 43 
 
 iii. 18 119 
 
 iv. 6 303 note 
 
 iv. 10 ff 61 note 
 
 iv. 24-26 61 note 
 
 iv. 27 279 
 
 v. 7 ff 68 
 
 vi. 12, 30 96 
 
 xii. 3 ff 118 note 
 
 xii. 9 119 note 
 
 xii. 25 118 
 
 xiv. 21 303 
 
 xv. 25 303 
 
 xvi. 12 303 
 
 xvii. 14 49, 50 
 
 xvii 15 95 
 
 xviii. 13-16 58 note 
 
 xviii. 19 313 
 
 xviii. 21, 22 70 
 
 xix., xx 279 
 
 xix. 3-8 283 note 
 
 xix. 3-19 283 note 
 
 xix. 20-25 284 note 
 
 xx. ... 282, 285 note, 287, 296 
 
 xx.-xxiii 324 
 
 xx. 1-20 283 note 
 
 xx. 2 299 note 
 
 xx. 4 294 
 
 xx. 5 113 
 
 xx. 6 299 note 
 
 xx. 10 299 note 
 
 xx. 11 2:)9 note 
 
 xx. 21, 24-26 284 note 
 
 xx. 22 ff 61, 310 
 
 xx. 23 52, 113 
 
 xx. 24 . 74 note, 95, 131, 302, 310 
 
 xx. 24, 25 74 
 
 xxi.-xxiii. . . .50, 51, 284 note 
 (bis), 322, 340 
 
35^ 
 
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 
 
 exodus {continued). Page 
 
 xxi. 6 . 70 
 
 xxi. 12-14 76 note 
 
 xxi. 13 , . 311 note 
 
 xxi. 14 311 note 
 
 xxii. 5, 6 68 
 
 xxii. 8, 9 70 
 
 xxii. 20 106 note 
 
 xxii. 21-24 70 
 
 xxii. 28 70, 304, 331 
 
 xxii. 29 68 
 
 xxii. 30 74, 75, 118 
 
 xxiii. 2, 3, 9 70 
 
 xxiii. 10, 11 68 
 
 xxiii. 12 68 
 
 xxiii. 12 if 283 
 
 xxiii. 12-33 52 
 
 xxiii. 14 ff 88 note 
 
 xxiii. 14-18 118 
 
 xxiii. 15, 16 68 
 
 xxiii. 16 133 
 
 xxiii. 17, 19 76 
 
 xxiii. 18 . 287 note 
 
 xxiii. 19 . 68 
 
 xxiii. 20 ff 101 
 
 xxiii. 24 106 note, 121 
 
 xxiv. 3 51, 320 note 
 
 xxiv. 3-8 . . ' . . . .284 note 
 xxiv. 4 . . .49, 51, 74, 121, 310 
 
 xxiv. 8 51 
 
 xxiv. 12-14 .283 note 
 
 xxv. ff 306 
 
 xxv. 10 ff 88 
 
 xxv. 10-22 66 
 
 xxv. 21 88 
 
 xxv. 21, 22 . . . -. . . . 281 
 
 xxv. 22 88 
 
 xxv. 30 140 
 
 xxvii.-xxxi 81 note 
 
 xxvii. Iff 74 
 
 xxvii.2 307 
 
 xxvii. 20 90 
 
 xxviii. 6 92 note 
 
 xxviii. 30 67 
 
 xxviii. 31 ff 92 note 
 
 xxix. 4 90 note 
 
 xxix. 30 81 note 
 
 xxix. 36, 37 131 
 
 xxix. 38-41 303 
 
 xxx. 8 90 
 
 xxx. 10 .134 
 
 xxx. 16 131 
 
 xxxi. 2ff ....... 68 
 
 xxxi. 10 81 note 
 
 xxxi. 18 283 note 
 
 exodus (contimted). Page 
 
 xxxii. . . . 283 note, 291, 292 
 
 xxxii. 4 264 note 
 
 xxxii. 19 282 
 
 xxxii. 27, 35 . 100 
 
 xxxii. 30 ff 100 
 
 xxxiii. 1 .... 284 note (bis) 
 
 xxxiii. 1-6 57 note 
 
 xxxiii. 1-11 283 note 
 
 xxxiii. 3 . 58 note, 151, 284 note 
 xxxiii. 4 ff ....... 100 
 
 xxxiii. 7 ... 58 note, 100, 102 
 
 xxxiii. 7, 9, 11 58 note 
 
 xxxiii. 7-11 57 note 
 
 xxxiii. 9 ff 313 
 
 xxxiii. 11 58 note 
 
 xxxiv. . 282 (bis), 284 and note, 
 285 note, 287, 322 
 
 xxxiv. 1 52, 282 
 
 xxxiv. 4 282, 284 note 
 
 xxxiv. 5 284 note (bis) 
 
 xxxiv. 6 284 note 
 
 xxxiv. 6, 7 282 
 
 xxxiv. 6-9 284 note 
 
 xxxiv. 9 .... 282, 284 note 
 xxxiv. 10 ... . 283, 284 note 
 xxxiv. 10-13 -. . .' . .285 note 
 
 xxxiv. 10-26 52 
 
 xxxiv. 11-26 283 
 
 xxxiv. 12 118 
 
 xxxiv. 12, 13 285 note 
 
 xxxiv. 13 121 
 
 xxxiv. 14-26 285 note 
 
 xxxiv. 15, 16 . . . 106 note, 113 
 
 xxxiv. 17 323 note 
 
 xxxiv. 18-20 75 
 
 xxxiv. 19, 25 . . . . . . 118 
 
 xxxiv. 21 . . 68 
 
 xxxiv. 22 . . 87 note (bis), 133, 
 
 287 note 
 
 xxxiv. 25 287 note 
 
 xxxiv. 27 ...... 49, 282 
 
 xxxiv. 27, 28 52 
 
 xxxiv. 28 . 88, 281, 282 and note, 
 
 285 note (bis), 304 
 
 xxxiv. 29-35 . . . . . 285 note 
 
 xxxv. 25, 26 68 
 
 xxxv. 30 ff 68 
 
 xxxvi. ff 306 
 
 xl 58 note 
 
 xl. 20 281 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 i 58 note 
 
 i.-vii 81 note 
 
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 
 
 357 
 
 leviticus (continued). Page 
 
 i. 5, 8, 11 80 
 
 i. 6-8 303 
 
 ii. 2 80 
 
 ii. 10, 11 309 
 
 ii. 14 . . . 304 note 
 
 iii. 1 ff 93 note 
 
 iii. 2 . ■ 80 
 
 iv. 12, 21 60 
 
 v. 15-19 309 note 
 
 vi., vii 287 note 
 
 vi. 11 60 
 
 vi. 16-18 309 
 
 vii. 10 309 
 
 vii. 28 ff 93 note 
 
 vii. 30 ff 93 
 
 vii. 37. 38 54 
 
 viii.-x 81 note 
 
 viii. 2 ff 60 
 
 ix. 16 303 
 
 ix. 24 . . . . 303 
 
 x. 12 309 
 
 x. 15 93 
 
 x. 19, 20 ....... . 99 
 
 xiii., xiv. ....... 77 
 
 xiii. 2 80 
 
 xiii. 46 60, 305, 309 
 
 xiv. 3 60 
 
 xiv. 7, 8 303 
 
 xiv. 8 60 (bis) 
 
 xiv. 34 59, 118 
 
 xiv. 34 ff GO 
 
 xvi 81 note, 134 
 
 xvi. 8 339 
 
 xvi. 21, 22 . . . . 60, 135 note 
 
 xvi. 26, 28 60 
 
 xvi. 32 81 note 
 
 xvii. 3 60 
 
 xvii. 3 ff 77 
 
 xvii. 3-7 157 
 
 xvii. 4, 5 78 note 
 
 xvii. 7 113 
 
 xviii. 3 59 
 
 xviii. 17 89 note 
 
 xix. 2 100 
 
 xix. 5 96 
 
 xix. 18 100 
 
 xix. 23 59 
 
 xix. 29 . • 89 note 
 
 xix. 36 64, 117 note 
 
 xx. 3 117 note 
 
 xx. 5, 6 113 
 
 xx. 11 117 note 
 
 xxi. 1 80 
 
 xxii. 27 V5 
 
 leviticus (continued). Page 
 
 xxiii. 3 304 
 
 xxiii. 10 118 
 
 xxiii. 14 304 note 
 
 xxiii. 26-32 134 
 
 xxiii. 34 308 
 
 xxiii. 42 337 note 
 
 xxiii. 44 54 
 
 xxiv. 8, 9 140 
 
 xxiv. 10, 14, 23 60 
 
 xxv. 2 59, 118 
 
 xxv. 8-10 134 
 
 xxv. 9 134 
 
 xxv. 23 304 
 
 xxv. 33, 34 83 note 
 
 xxv. 39, 40 304 
 
 xxvi 101, 183 
 
 xxvi. 1 121 
 
 xxvi. 5 117 note 
 
 xxvi. 13 64 
 
 xxvi. 14 ff 324 
 
 xxvi. 22 304 
 
 xxvi. 29 305 
 
 xxvi. 30 324 
 
 xxvi. 40 ff 101 
 
 xxvi. 46 54 
 
 xxvii. 29 .... 89 note, 304 
 xxvii. 34 54 
 
 NUMBERS. 
 
 iii. 3 80 
 
 iv 129 
 
 iv. 5, 20 141 note 
 
 iv. 15 92 note 
 
 iv. 15, 20 92 
 
 iv. 15-21 59 note 
 
 v. 2 305 
 
 v. 2-4 60 
 
 v. 7, 8 309 note 
 
 v. 10 309 note 
 
 v. 23 339 
 
 vi. 1-5 89 note 
 
 vi. 2, 3 117 note 
 
 viii. 22 93 
 
 x. 2 ff 60 
 
 x. 8 80 
 
 x. 21 59 note 
 
 x. 33 . . . 59 note, 88, 283 note 
 
 x. 35 89 
 
 xi. 1 303 
 
 xi. 5 68 
 
 xi. 16 70 
 
 xi. 24, 26, 30 58 note 
 
 xi. 26-29 98 
 
 xi. 27 58 note 
 
358 
 
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 
 
 numbers {continued). Page 
 
 xii 77 
 
 xii. 3 61 note 
 
 xii. 4, 5 58 note 
 
 xii. 10 ' . . 303 
 
 xii. 13 303 
 
 xii. 14, 15 60 
 
 xiii. 32, 33 117 note 
 
 xiv. 4 64 
 
 xiv. 11 if 100 
 
 xiv. 33 113 
 
 xiv. 44 88 
 
 xv. 41 64 
 
 xvi 77 
 
 xvi. 35 303 
 
 xvii. 2 339 
 
 xviii. 2 130 
 
 xviii. 4 130 
 
 xviii. 7 134 
 
 xviii. 12, 13 304 
 
 xviii. 17 84 note 
 
 xviii. 18 84 note 
 
 xviii. 20 . < 77 
 
 xix. 3, 4 60 
 
 xix. 3, 7, 9 .60 
 
 xix. 14, 16 60 
 
 xix. 14, 22 117 note 
 
 xx. 5 ........ 68 
 
 xx 8 303 
 
 xx. 12 61 note 
 
 xxv. 3, 5 ...... 117 note 
 
 xxv. 11-13 155 
 
 xxvii. 17 304 
 
 xxvii. 21 67 
 
 xxvii. 58, 59 92 note 
 
 xxviii. 11 304 
 
 xxviii. 19, 24 . . . 118 note, 124 
 
 xxix. 7-11 134 
 
 xxix. 12 308 
 
 xxix. 13 ff 125 
 
 xxxi. 27 56 note 
 
 xxxii. 2 70 
 
 xxxiii. 2 49 
 
 xxxiv. 8 117 note 
 
 xxxv. 10 ff 311 note 
 
 xxxv. 30 304 
 
 xxxvi. 1 70 
 
 xxxvi. 8, 9 304 
 
 DEUTERONOMY. 
 1. 1 161 
 
 i. 43 . 65 note 
 
 iv. 23-26 151 
 
 iv. 29 .... . .... 104 
 
 Deuteronomy {continued). Page 
 
 iv. 30 323 
 
 v 282, 287 
 
 vii. 15 64 
 
 viii.ll . .138 
 
 viii. 20 ... 349 
 
 ix. 21 293 
 
 ix. 23 65 note 
 
 x. 1-5 88 
 
 x. 1-8 66 
 
 x. 4, 5 . . . 281 
 
 x. 6 79 
 
 x. 8 82, 89 
 
 x. 8, 9 77 
 
 xi. 6 77 
 
 xi. 10 68 
 
 xi. 16, 17 303 
 
 xi. 24 . . 311 note 
 
 xii.-xxvi 50, 53 
 
 xii. 1 138 
 
 xii. 1, 8, 9 59 
 
 xii. 2 ...... . 311 note 
 
 xii. 2-5 157 
 
 xii. 5 . . . 74, 243, 267, 276 note 
 
 xii. 5 ff 155 
 
 xii. 5, 10 ff ...... . 60 
 
 xii. 6, 11 . .^ . . \ . . . 118 
 
 xii. 8, 9 .118 
 
 xii. 9 59 
 
 xii. 15 77, 85 note 
 
 xii 27 118 
 
 xiii. 5 89 note 
 
 xiii. 5, 10 64 
 
 xiii. 9 304 
 
 xiii. 10 304 
 
 xiii. 12 ff. , 89 note 
 
 xiv. 23 ff 60 
 
 xiv. 24 ....... 84 note 
 
 xiv. 28 117 note 
 
 xiv. 29 79 
 
 xv. 4, 7 59 
 
 xv. 5, 6 . 70 
 
 xv. 19 118 
 
 xv. 19, 20 .:.... 84 note 
 
 xv. 20 . 75 
 
 xvi. 2 118 and note 
 
 xvi. 2, 6 ff 60 
 
 xvi. 7 . . .60, 118 note, 119 note 
 
 xvi. 13 ff 308 
 
 xvi. 14 82 note 
 
 xvi. 18 71 
 
 xvi. 19 65 note 
 
 xvi. 20 70 
 
 xvi. 21, 22 121 
 
 xvi. 22 121 
 
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 
 
 359 
 
 Deuteronomy (continued). Page 
 
 xvii. 5 304 (bis) 
 
 xvii. 6, 7 304 
 
 xvii. 8-12 64, 71 
 
 xvii. 9, 18 79 
 
 xvii. 12 . . . .89 note, 116 note 
 xvii. 14 .... 59, 65 note, 145 
 
 xvii. 14 ff 64 
 
 xvii. 15 65 note 
 
 xvii. 15, 16 64 
 
 xvii. 18 108 
 
 xviii. 1 . . . . 78, 79, 82 note 
 
 xviii. Iff 82 note 
 
 xviii. 1, 2 77 
 
 xviii. 3 85 note, 133 
 
 xviii. 3-5 78, 82 note 
 
 xviii. 4, 5 305 
 
 xviii. 6 79 
 
 xviii. 6-8 78, 308 
 
 xviii. 8 . . 82 note 
 
 xviii. 15 117 note 
 
 xviii. 15 ff 101 
 
 xviii. 18 57 note 
 
 xviii. 21, 22 . . .. . . . . 181 
 
 xviii. 22 304 
 
 xix. 1 59 
 
 xix. Iff 311 note 
 
 xix. 8, 9 70 
 
 xix. 14 .... 59 note, 116 note 
 
 xix. 15 304 
 
 xix. 17 ....... . 64 
 
 xx. 1 64 
 
 xx. 10-15 63 
 
 xx. 16-18 63 
 
 xx. 17 89 note 
 
 xxi. 1, 23 59 
 
 xxi. 17 304 
 
 xxii. 21 89 note 
 
 xxii. 30 117 note 
 
 xxiii. 3, 4, 7, 8 63 
 
 xxiii. 7 64 
 
 xxiii. 21-23 89 note 
 
 xxiv. 1 339 
 
 xxiv. 8 79, 309 
 
 xxiv. 8, 9 77 
 
 xxiv. 9, 18, 22 . 64 
 
 xxiv. 13, 15 70 
 
 xxiv. 16 108 
 
 xxv. 4 '. 117 note 
 
 xxv. 6 89 note 
 
 xxv. 13 ff 117 note 
 
 xxv. 17-19 63 
 
 xxvi. 11, 12 82 note 
 
 xxvi. 12 117 note 
 
 xxvi. 14 117 note 
 
 Deuteronomy (continued). Page 
 
 xxvii. 3 53 
 
 xxvii. 5, 6 310 
 
 xxvii. 9 79, 81 note 
 
 xxvii. 9, 12, 14 79 
 
 xxvii. 17 116 note 
 
 xxviii 101, 183 
 
 xxviii. 15 ff 324 
 
 xxviii. 27, 60 323 
 
 xxviii. 30, 39 . . . . 117 note 
 
 xxviii. 53 305 
 
 xxviii. 60 64 
 
 xxviii. 68 116 note 
 
 xxix. 5 303 
 
 xxix. 23 324 
 
 xxx. 2 323 
 
 xxx. 3 117 note 
 
 xxxi. 9 52, 81 note 
 
 xxxi. 9, 22, 24 49 
 
 xxxi. 9, 25, 26 66 
 
 xxxi. 9, 26 107 
 
 xxxi. 24 54 
 
 xxxi. 24-26 53 
 
 xxxii. 37, 38 89 note 
 
 xxxii. 39 305 
 
 xxxiii 279, 316 
 
 xxxiii. 1 279 
 
 xxxiii. 2-5 280 
 
 xxxiii. 8, 10 82, 316 
 
 xxxiii. 8-11 78 
 
 xxxiii. 18, 19 163 
 
 JOSHUA. 
 
 i. 7, 8 107, 344 
 
 iii. 3 80 note, 92 note 
 
 iv. 19 166 
 
 iv. 23 303 
 
 v. 2 ff 166 
 
 v. 5 ff 101 
 
 v. 15 94 
 
 vi. 6 92 note 
 
 viii. 30. 31 310 
 
 viii. 31 107 
 
 viii. 31-34 344 
 
 viii. 33 .... 80 note, 92 note 
 
 ix. 27 128 note 
 
 xiii. 26 160 
 
 xviii. 1 87 
 
 xviii. 9 339 
 
 xix. 50 Ill note 
 
 xix. 51 87 
 
 xx. 7 162 
 
 xx. 8 160 
 
 xxi 82 note 
 
360 
 
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 
 
 XX 
 XX 
 XX 
 XX 
 XX 
 XX 
 XX 
 XX 
 XX 
 XX 
 XX 
 XX 
 XX 
 XX 
 XX 
 XX 
 
 joshua (continued). Page 
 
 . 4 ff 80 note 
 
 .13 164 
 
 .16 83' note, 92 
 
 .32 160 
 
 .38 160 
 
 i. 5 344 
 
 i. 8 57 note 
 
 i. 26 ff 95 
 
 ii. 6 344 
 
 v. ....... 316, 340 
 
 v. 1 162 
 
 v. 14 276 note 
 
 v. 14, 23, 26 162 
 
 v. 19 151 
 
 v. 25, 26 340 
 
 v. 26 . . . . . 107, 316, 344 
 
 JUDGES. 
 91 
 
 .17 89 note 
 
 i. 1 ff . 101 
 
 i. 1-5 95 
 
 i. 7 . 102 
 
 i. 11-19 ......... 97 
 
 4 138, 344 
 
 ... 97 
 
 ... 97 
 
 ... 166 
 
 ... 97 
 
 ... 101 
 
 . . . 160 
 
 ... 296 
 
 ... 279 
 
 ... 339 
 
 ... 101 
 
 . . . 165 
 
 ... 95 
 
 ... 95 
 
 ... 96 
 
 ... 95 
 
 ... 339 
 
 ii. 9 
 
 ii. 11, 30 . . . 
 
 ii. 19 . . . . 
 
 v. 3 
 
 v. 4 
 
 v. 10 
 
 v 
 
 v. 4, 5 .... 
 
 v. 14 
 
 vi. 8 
 
 vi. 20, 21, 24, 25 ff 
 vi. 20-22 . . . 
 vi. 24 . . . . 
 vi. 25 . . . . 
 vi. 25 ff . . . . 
 viii. 14 . . . . 
 
 viii. 27 138,165 
 
 viii. 28 97 
 
 ix. 4, 27, 46 161 
 
 ix. 6 162 
 
 ix. 27 • .88 note 
 
 x. 14 89 note 
 
 x. 17 . 160 
 
 xi. 11 96, 160 
 
 xi. 13 ff 89 note 
 
 xi. 35, 36 ...... 89 note 
 
 xiii. 4, 5, 14 89 note 
 
 xiii. 16 ff ....... 95 
 
 xvi. 17 89 note 
 
 XV11.-XX1. 
 
 xvii. 2 
 xvii. 3 
 xvii. 5 
 xvii. 5, 12 
 xvii. 7 
 xvii. 7-9 . 
 xviii. 14 ff 
 xviii. 30 . 
 
 judges (continued). Page 
 
 . 89 
 106 note 
 264 note 
 
 . 138 
 106 note 
 
 . 92 
 
 . 91 
 
 117 note 
 
 . 264 note (bis) 
 
 xviii. 30, 31 . . . . . 264 note 
 
 xviii. 31 87 
 
 xix. 1 91 
 
 xix. 18 87 
 
 xix. 23, 24 89 note 
 
 xx. 1 .... 89 note, 96, 163 
 
 xx. 6 89 note 
 
 xx. 6, 10 89 note 
 
 xx. 12 163 
 
 xx. 13 89 note 
 
 xx. 18, 26, 27 ... . 164, 166 
 
 xx. 18, 26, 31 88 
 
 xx. 27 88 (bis), 281 
 
 xx. 31 88 
 
 xxi. 2 . 88 
 
 xxi. 4 ( . 89, 96, 164 
 
 xxi. 10, 13 ..... . 89 note 
 
 xxi. 11 89 note 
 
 xxi. 12 89 
 
 xxi. 17 89 note 
 
 xxi. 19 88 and note 
 
 xxi. 21 87 note 
 
 I. SAMUEL. 
 
 1 92 
 
 3 .' .' .' .' .' .' .' '. 91 (bis) 
 
 3, 9 . 80 
 
 7 90 
 
 9 90 note 
 
 11 89 note 
 
 20, 21 87 note 
 
 22 ... 139 
 
 24 ... 90 
 
 93 
 
 11 
 
 11, 18 . . . . . . .79 note 
 
 12 ff . 93 
 
 13 96 
 
 14,22,29 91 
 
 14,29 139 
 
 18 92 note, 106 note 
 
 22 90 note 
 
 27, 28 91 
 
 29 91, 139 
 
 29 ff 139 
 
 30 ff 155 
 
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 
 
 361 
 
 I. samuel, (continued). Page 
 
 ii. 36 318 
 
 iii. 1 79 note 
 
 iii. 3 90 
 
 iii. 11 ft 139 
 
 iii. 15 90 note 
 
 iii. 20, 21 139 
 
 iv. 1 279 
 
 iv. 3 89 
 
 iv. 4 90, 139, 148 
 
 iv. 11 102 
 
 vi. 13 141 
 
 vi. 14, 18 S3 note 
 
 vi. 15 92, 128 
 
 vi. 19 92, 141 note 
 
 vii. 1 103, 106 note 
 
 vii. 2 103, 142 
 
 vii. 3 104 
 
 vii. 5, 9 163 
 
 vii. 6 164 
 
 vii. 9, 17 105 note 
 
 vii. 12 279 
 
 vii. 13-17 143 note 
 
 vii. 16 166, 311 note 
 
 vii. 17 140, 164 
 
 viii 143 note, 144 
 
 viii. ff 143 note 
 
 viii. 3 65 note 
 
 viii. 5 6b note 
 
 viii. 7 145 
 
 viii. 7, 8 65 note 
 
 viii. 19, 20 146 
 
 ix. 12 164 
 
 ix. 12, 13 105 note 
 
 ix. 13 104 
 
 x. 3 105, 166 
 
 x. 5 105 
 
 x. 8 ...... 105 note, 166 
 
 x. 17 163 
 
 x. 18, 19 65 note 
 
 x. 24 65 note 
 
 x. 25 339 
 
 xi. 14, 15 .... 105 note, 166 
 
 xii. 14 65 note 
 
 xiii. 8, 13 152 
 
 xiii. 8-14 105 
 
 xiii. 9 ft 166 
 
 xiv. 3 140 
 
 xiv. 18 103 note 
 
 xiv. 35 105 note 
 
 xiv. 47-52 . . • . . 143 note 
 
 xv. 15 ft 166 
 
 xv. 15, 21 .... . 105 note 
 
 xv. 22 100 
 
 xv. 22, 23 151 
 
 I. samuel (continued). Page 
 
 xv. 23 276 note 
 
 xv. 26 147 
 
 xv. 35 147 
 
 xvi. 2 152 
 
 xvi. 2 ft 164 
 
 xvi. 2-5 105 note 
 
 xix. 16 276 note 
 
 xx. 6 105, 164 
 
 xxi. 1, 6 103 
 
 xxi. 6 140 
 
 xxii. 11 140 
 
 xxii. 19 140 
 
 xxii. 20 91 
 
 xxiii. 18 160 
 
 xxv. 1 143 note 
 
 xxvi. 19 96 
 
 xxx. 24, 25 56 note 
 
 xxx. 31 311 note 
 
 II. SAMUEL. 
 
 ii. 1 164 
 
 ii. 4 164 
 
 ii. 8 160 
 
 iii. 3 106 note 
 
 v. 3 164 
 
 v. 12 153 
 
 vi. 1 148 
 
 vi. 2 148 
 
 vi. 3 92 note 
 
 vi. 6, 7, 13 92 note 
 
 vi. 7 92 
 
 vi. 13 106 note 
 
 vi. 14 106 note 
 
 vi. 17 154 
 
 vi. 18 106 note 
 
 vi. 21 148 
 
 vii 154 
 
 vii. 6 90 note 
 
 viii. 11 154 
 
 viii. 15-18 144 note 
 
 viii. 16, 17 339 
 
 viii. 17 154 
 
 viii. 18 106 note 
 
 ix 144 note 
 
 x 144 »<><«? 
 
 xi. 13 282 note 
 
 xi. 14, 15 339 
 
 xiv. 24 147 
 
 xv. 7-9 164 
 
 xv. 24 128 
 
 xv. 24, 29 92 note 
 
 xv. 24-29, 35 154 
 
 xvii. 24 160 
 
 xix. 24 ff 144 note 
 
[62 
 
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS, 
 
 ii. SAMUEii (continued). Page 
 
 xx. 23 127 note 
 
 xx. 23-26 lte note 
 
 xx. 24, 25 339 
 
 xx. 25 . . 154 
 
 xxii 110 
 
 xxiv. 16-18 94 
 
 I. KINGS. 
 
 i. 50, 51 307 
 
 ii. 3 108, 138, 344 
 
 ii. 26, 27 155 
 
 ii. 27 91 
 
 ii. 28 . 307 
 
 ii. 35 ' . 130 note 
 
 iii. 1 . Ill note 
 
 iii. 2 . . . . 105, 106 note, 155 
 
 iii. 4 164 
 
 iii. 6 160 
 
 iv. 3 339 
 
 vi., vii 306 
 
 vi. 5 90 note 
 
 vi. 12 138 
 
 vi. 38 . . 308 
 
 vii. 51 154 
 
 viii. 2 308 
 
 viii. 3 92 note 
 
 viii. 4 ... '. SO note, 128, 308 
 
 viii. 6-9, 21 298 
 
 viii. 9, 21 281 
 
 viii. 10, 11 306 
 
 viii. 53, 56 108 
 
 viii. 62 . 131 
 
 viii. 63 ..... . 106 note 
 
 viii. 64 309 
 
 ix. 4, 6 138 
 
 ix. 15 lllnote 
 
 ix. 25 106 note, 133 
 
 xi. 7, 8 . 155 
 
 xi. 29 ff 265 
 
 xi. 33 267 
 
 xi. 33, 38 ....... 138 
 
 xi. 40 . . . . 267 
 
 xii. 1, 25 162 
 
 xii. 2 264 note 
 
 xii. 25 Ill note 
 
 xii. 26 ff ........ 108 
 
 xii. 28, 29 264 note 
 
 xii. 29 166 
 
 xii. 31 316 
 
 xii. 32, 33 .308 
 
 xiii. 2 265 
 
 xiii. 32 265 
 
 xiii. 32,33 155 
 
 i. kings (continued). Page 
 
 xiii. 33 108, 316 
 
 xiv. 8, 9 108 
 
 xiv. 9 265, 271 
 
 xiv. 10, 11 271 
 
 xiv. 22-24 ....... 155 
 
 xv. 14 155 
 
 xv. 17 ...... Ill note 
 
 xvi. 1, 2 265 
 
 xvi. 2-4 271 
 
 xvi. 7 349 
 
 xvi. 25, 26 ....... 272 
 
 xvi. 31-33 269 
 
 xvii. 1 303 
 
 xvii. 6 303 
 
 xvii. 12, 14, 24 . . . 270 note 
 xvii. 14 . . ... . . . 303 
 
 xviii. 13 269 
 
 xviii. 17 269 
 
 xviii. 18 272 
 
 xviii. 21, 24 271 
 
 xviii. 23, 33 303 
 
 xviii. 24, 38 303 
 
 xviii. 27 271 
 
 xviii. 29, 36 .... 133, 303 
 
 xviii. 30 165 
 
 xviii. 31 .271 
 
 xviii. 36 . . 119 note, 152, 164, 270 
 
 xviii. 40 304 
 
 xix. 3 ff 270 note 
 
 xix. 6 303 
 
 xix. 8 273,304 
 
 xix. 10 119 note 
 
 xix. 14 165, 269 
 
 xix. 15 272 
 
 xx. 42 ........ 304 
 
 xxi. 3 ........ 304 
 
 xxi. 8, 9 339 
 
 xxi. 10 ........ 304 
 
 xxi. 21-24 271 
 
 xxi. 22 294 
 
 xxii 266 
 
 xxii. 17 . . 304 
 
 xxii. 28 . 304 
 
 xxii. 43 155 
 
 If. KINGS. 
 
 . 10, 12 303 
 
 i. 3 ff 303 
 
 i. 8, 14 303 
 
 i. 9 304 
 
 i. 21 . . 303 
 
 i. 23, 24 . . . . . . . . 295 
 
 i. 24 304 
 
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 
 
 363 
 
 II. kings (continued). Page 
 
 iii 266 note 
 
 ii. 2, 3 294 
 
 ii. 10, 13 295 note 
 
 ii. 13, 14 295 
 
 ii. 17 303 
 
 ii. 20 303 
 
 v. 1 304 
 
 v. 16 303 
 
 v. 23 304 
 
 v. 42 304 
 
 v. 5-7 339 
 
 v. 7 305 
 
 v. 10 303 
 
 v. 27 303 
 
 vi. 17 303 
 
 vi. 18 303 
 
 vi. 23, 24 143 
 
 vi. 28, 29 305 
 
 vii. 2, 19 305 
 
 vii. 3 305 
 
 viii. 12, 13 272 
 
 ix. 9 294,349 
 
 x. 1 339 
 
 x. 28, 29 267 
 
 x. 29 . . . 108 
 
 x. 30 348 
 
 x. 31 344, 349 
 
 x. 32 272 
 
 xi. 4 127 note 
 
 xi. 12 108 
 
 xii. 3 . . 155 
 
 xii. 7, 10 133 
 
 xii. 10 308, 339 
 
 xii. 16 309 
 
 xiii. 3, 22 272 
 
 xiii. 6 293 
 
 xiv. 4 155 
 
 xiv. 6 108, 344 
 
 xiv. 22 Ill note 
 
 xv. 4 155 
 
 xv. 5 309 
 
 xv. 35 155 
 
 xvi. 13, 15 309 
 
 xvi. 15 133 
 
 xvii. 9 155 
 
 xvii. 13 266 
 
 xvii. 37 344 
 
 xviii. 2 231 note 
 
 xviii. 4 107 
 
 xviii. 4, 22 330 
 
 xviii. 6 108 
 
 xviii. 6, 12 344 
 
 xviii. 12 108 
 
 xviii. 13 231 note 
 
 11. kings (continued). Page 
 
 xviii. 18 339 
 
 xviii. 22 156 
 
 xix. 34 120 
 
 xx. 16-18 182 
 
 xxi. 3 155 
 
 xxi. 4 ff 128 note 
 
 xxi. 7-9 108 
 
 xxi. 8 344 
 
 xxii. 4 133 
 
 xxii. 4, 8 308 
 
 xxii. 8 107, 344 
 
 xxiii. 3, 25 138 
 
 xxiii. 4 133, 308 
 
 xxiii. 9 156, 308 
 
 xxiii. 13 155 
 
 xxiii. 24, 25 107, 344 
 
 xxv. 18 308 
 
 xxv. 25 133 
 
 I. CHRONICLES. 
 
 iv. 41 42, 43 .... 63 note 
 
 vi. 8 130 note 
 
 vi. 28 92 
 
 vi. 53 130 note 
 
 ix. 2 ff 129 
 
 xiii. 3 103 
 
 xv. 2 79 note 
 
 xvi. 39 155 
 
 xviii. 17 106 note 
 
 xxii. 5 154 
 
 xxiii. 25, 26 154 
 
 xxiv. 3 . . . 91, 130 note, 155 
 xxvii. 17 130 note 
 
 n. CHRONICLES. 
 
 i. 3, 13 164 
 
 v. 5 80 note 
 
 v. 7-10 298 
 
 vi. 11, 41 298 
 
 vii. 9 132 
 
 viii. 2 Ill note 
 
 viii. 13 133 
 
 xiv. 3-5 156 
 
 xiv. 13 160 
 
 xvii. 6 156 
 
 xix. 5, 8 71 
 
 xxiii. 4 130 
 
 xxiii. 18 80 note 
 
 xxiv. 6 35 note 
 
 xxvii. 6 160 
 
 xxx. 17 130 
 
 xxx. 19 100 
 
 xxx. 27 80 note 
 
 xxxi. 20 160 
 
3<H 
 
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 
 
 ii. chronicles {continued). Page 
 
 xxxiii. 12, 23 160 
 
 xxxiii. 17 ...... . 156 
 
 xxxiv. 2, 3 227 
 
 xxxv. 3 299 
 
 xxxv. 13 .... 119 note, 130 
 
 xxxv. 21 208 
 
 xxxvi. 20 39 
 
 xxxvi.22 239 
 
 EZRA. 
 
 i. 1 239 
 
 i. 4 311 note 
 
 ii. 36 ff 129 
 
 ii. 58 128 note 
 
 ii. 63 . . . 67 
 
 iii. 7 196 note 
 
 vii. 7, 24 129 
 
 viii. 15 ff 129 
 
 viii. 20 128 note 
 
 ix. 5 135 note 
 
 ix. 11 57 note 
 
 NEHEMIAH. 
 
 i. 4 160 
 
 vii. 39 ff 83 note, 129 
 
 vii. 65 . . . ,. .... 67 
 
 viii.-x 132 
 
 viii. 1-14 1,14 
 
 ix. 13 280 
 
 x. 28, 29 128 note 
 
 x. 29 . 127 
 
 x. 32 131 
 
 xi. 20 . 78 
 
 xii. 1-9 129 
 
 xii.45 ........ 127 
 
 ESTHER. 
 
 i. 3,14, 18 228 
 
 i. 19 228 
 
 JOB. 
 
 xxxvii. 6 42 
 
 PSALMS. 
 
 i.-xli. . . 109 
 
 iii. 4 . 110 
 
 v ,109 
 
 vi 109 
 
 ix 110 
 
 x 110 
 
 psalms {continued). Page 
 
 xi. 4 110 
 
 xi. 6 . 110 
 
 xiv 109 
 
 xv 110 
 
 xv. 1 . . . 110 
 
 xviii 110 
 
 xviii. 6 110 
 
 xviii. 10 110 
 
 xviii. 22 . . . . . - . . . 110 
 
 xix. . .110 
 
 xix. 7 108 
 
 xix. 7-10 ........ 110 
 
 xx. 145 
 
 xxi . 145 
 
 xl 110, 111 note, 112 
 
 xl. 1, 5 112 note 
 
 xl. 6 .... 110, 111 and note 
 
 xl. 7, 8 112 
 
 1. 8-15 Ill note 
 
 li. . . . . . . . . . Ill note 
 
 li. 16, 17 . . . . . . Ill note 
 
 lxviii. 8, 17 279 
 
 lxviii. 16 ff 148 
 
 lxxviii. 5 ....... 108 
 
 lxxviii. 56-61 140 
 
 lxxviii. 60, 68 . . . . . . 102 
 
 lxxviii. 61 ff . . . . 264 note 
 
 lxxxvii. 4 221 
 
 xcix. 6 153 
 
 ciii. 7 115 note 
 
 cxvi. 9 96 
 
 canticles. 
 vi. 13 . . . 160 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 i. 10 215, 319, 338 
 
 i. 11 ff . . 99, 111 note, 118, 121 
 
 i. 11-20 241 
 
 i. 15 121 
 
 i. 24 ff ........ 220 
 
 ii. 2 . . . 123 
 
 ii. 2, 3 120 
 
 ii. 2-4 ...... 241, 353 
 
 ii. 3 120 
 
 ii. 6, 7 65 note 
 
 iii. 10, 11 220 
 
 iv. 2 .352 
 
 iv. 5 120 
 
 v. 19 .185 
 
 v. 26-30 183 
 
 vi. Iff 1-0 
 
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 
 
 365 
 
 Isaiah (continued). Page 
 
 vi. 13 220 
 
 vii. 3 ff 61 
 
 vii. 5-8 183 
 
 vii. 7, 8 232 
 
 vii. 14 if 352 
 
 vii. 15, 16 232 
 
 vii. 16 232 
 
 viii. 1 50, 339 
 
 viii. 2 117 note 
 
 viii. 4 351 
 
 vii., viii 350 
 
 ix. 6 237 
 
 x. 1 338 
 
 x. 5-34 183 
 
 x. 19 339 
 
 x. 20-22 220 
 
 x. 21 237 
 
 x. 24-34 213 
 
 x. 32 120 
 
 xi. 9 157 
 
 xi. 14 198 
 
 xi. 15 214 
 
 xii. 6 157 
 
 xiv. 31 186 
 
 xvii. 8 ........ 120 
 
 xvii. 12-14 .213 
 
 xviii. 7 157 
 
 xix. 19 120 
 
 xix. 21 121 
 
 xix. 23 . 214 
 
 xix. 23-25 221 
 
 xix. 25 245 
 
 xx .351 
 
 xx. 4 213 
 
 xxiii 188, 194 
 
 xxiii. 6, 7, 12 194 
 
 xxiii. 15-18 195 
 
 xxiii. 18 221 
 
 xxiv. 23 157 
 
 xxv. 10 198 
 
 xxvii. 9 120 
 
 xxvii. 13 157 
 
 xxviii. 16 157 
 
 xxix. 1, 8 157 
 
 xxix. 13 121 
 
 xxx. Iff 64 
 
 xxx. 8 50, 339 
 
 xxx. 9, 10 319 
 
 xxx. 29 157 
 
 xxx. 31 ff 213 
 
 xxxi. 1 64 
 
 xxxi. 4, 9 157 
 
 xxxi. 8, 9 213 
 
 xxxiii. 20 120 
 
 ISAIAH (continued). Page 
 
 xxxiv 199 note 
 
 xxxvi., xxxvii. . . . 231 note 
 
 xxxvi. 1 231 note 
 
 xxxvi. 7 156 
 
 xxxviii., xxxix. . . . 231 note 
 
 xxxviii. 1 231 note 
 
 xxxviii. 5 231 note 
 
 xxxviii. 6 231 note 
 
 xxxix. 5-7 232 note 
 
 xxxix. 6 232 
 
 xl.-lxvi 237 
 
 xl. 3 146 
 
 xli. 8 243 
 
 xlii. 5 115 note 
 
 xliii. 9-12 181 
 
 xlviii. 21 214 
 
 xlviii. 22 220 
 
 liii. 8, 9, 10, 11 238 
 
 lv. 3 238 
 
 lvi. 3 245 
 
 lvi. 3-8 221 
 
 lviii. 6 134 
 
 lxi. Iff 134 
 
 lxiii. 1-6 63 
 
 lxvi. 1-3 127, 242 
 
 lxvi. 23 242 
 
 JEREMIAH. 
 
 ii. 18, 36 64 
 
 iii. 2 157 
 
 iii. 16 243, 299 
 
 vii. 12 140 
 
 vii. 12, 14 102 
 
 vii. 12-14 243 
 
 vii. 14 221 
 
 vii. 21 ff 118 
 
 vii. 22 91 note, 110 
 
 vii. 31 157 
 
 viii. 3 311 note 
 
 xi. 3 ff 221 
 
 xii. 16 221 
 
 xv. 1 153 
 
 xvii. 1-3 157 
 
 xvii. 15 185 
 
 xxiv 221 
 
 xxiv. 9 311 note 
 
 xxv. 11 195 
 
 xxv. 11, 12 209, 239 
 
 xxv. 12, 13 183 
 
 xxv. 22 195 
 
 xxvi. 6 102, 243 
 
 xxvi. 6, 9 140 
 
 xxvii. 3 198 
 
366 
 
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 
 
 jeremiah (continued). Page 
 
 xxvii. 7 ....... . 39 
 
 xxviii. ... * ... . 234 
 
 xxviii. 9 181 
 
 xxix. 10 . . 239 
 
 xxix. 14 311 note 
 
 xxxi. 31 ff ....... 243 
 
 xxxi. 32, 33 299 
 
 xxxv. 2, 4 90 note 
 
 xxxvi. 4 ff 61 
 
 xl. 12 311 note 
 
 xl. 14 198 
 
 xli. 2, 15 198 
 
 xliii. 2 ff 126 
 
 xliii. 8-13 200 
 
 xliv. 12-14 ....... 200 
 
 xliv. 15 ff 126 
 
 xliv. 29, 30 201, 202 
 
 xlv. 5 311 note 
 
 xlvi. 2 195 
 
 xlvi. 13-28 200 
 
 xlvi. 26 202 
 
 xlvii. 2 . * 186 
 
 xlviii. 47 63 
 
 xlix. 6 63 
 
 xlix. 17, 18 63 
 
 xlix. 23-27 197 
 
 1., li . . .39, 183 
 
 1.1 183 
 
 li. 59-64 183 
 
 EZEKIEL. 
 
 i 244 
 
 vi. 3, 6 . 157 
 
 viii. 3 ff ...... . 128 note 
 
 xi 221 
 
 xi. 15 245 
 
 xi. 16 . 243 
 
 xi. 23 243 
 
 xvi. 16 157 
 
 xvi. 53, 55, 61 215 
 
 xvi. 53-61 244 
 
 xvii 244 
 
 xvii. 22, 23 123 
 
 xx. 7, 8 ..... . 276 note 
 
 xx. 27-29 157 
 
 xxi. 20 198 
 
 xxiii 244 
 
 xxiii. 3 276 note 
 
 xxv. 14 .199 
 
 xxv. 15-17 185 
 
 xxvi-xxviii 188 
 
 xxvi. 10 194 
 
 xxvi. 12 194 
 
 ezekiel (continued). Page 
 
 xxviii. 24-26 197 
 
 xxix. 10, 11 210 
 
 xxix. 11-16 . 200 
 
 xxix. 16 211 
 
 xxix. 17-21 203 
 
 xxix. 18-20 193 
 
 xxxiii. 21 199 note 
 
 xxxiv. 12 311 note 
 
 xxxv 199 note 
 
 xxxvi. 5 199 note 
 
 xxxvii. Iff 124 
 
 xxxix. 9 ff ....... 124 
 
 xl.-xlviii 122 
 
 xl. 1 134 
 
 xl. 2 123 
 
 xl. 39 110 
 
 xlii. 16 ff . 123 
 
 xliii. 2-4 123 
 
 xliii. 18 ff 131 
 
 xliv. 5 ff 128 
 
 xliv. 7 130 
 
 xliv. 11 130 
 
 xliv. 28 ff ....... 133 
 
 xlv. 19, 20 132 
 
 xlv. 21, 25 133 
 
 xlv. 23-25 124 
 
 xlvi. 13 ff 133 
 
 xlvi. 24 130 
 
 xlvii 244 
 
 xlvii. 1-12 123 
 
 xlviii. 11-13 131 
 
 DANIEL. 
 
 ii. . . 227 
 
 iv. 30 ...... . Ill note 
 
 v. 2ff 227 
 
 v. 10 226 
 
 v. 28 228 
 
 v. 30 ......... 226 
 
 vi. 8, 12. 15 228 
 
 vii 227 
 
 vii. 6 . . . i 228 
 
 vii. 13 238 
 
 viii. 8, 22 228 
 
 viii. 14 225 
 
 viii. 20 228 
 
 ix. 2 40, 239 
 
 ix. 24 ff 239 
 
 ix. 24-27 229, 239 
 
 x. 1 225 
 
 xi 240 
 
 xi. 2 225 
 
 xi. 40-45 225 
 
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 
 
 367 
 
 DANIEL, (continued). Page 
 
 xii. 1,2 229 
 
 xii. 7 225 
 
 xii. 11, 12 225 
 
 HOSEA. 
 
 i.-iii 113 
 
 i. 2 323 
 
 i. 2 ff 61, 320 
 
 i. 4 324, 348 
 
 i. 6, 7 329, 348 
 
 i. 9 221, 245, 330 
 
 i. 10 143 
 
 i. 11 230, 330 
 
 ii. 3 . . . . 324 
 
 ii. 5, 8, 13 271 
 
 ii. 7 323 
 
 ii. 11 115 
 
 ii. 13 323, 325 
 
 ii. 15 . . . . 113, 320, 328 note 
 
 ii. 19, 20 113 
 
 iii. 4 117 note, 334 
 
 iii. 5 159, 330 
 
 iv. 1 114 
 
 iv. 1, 2 ........ 322 
 
 iv. 1, 6 323 
 
 iv. 3 324 
 
 iv. 4 116 note, 318 
 
 iv. 4, 5, 6 318 note 
 
 iv. 5 317 
 
 iv. 6 115, 317 
 
 iv. 8 . . • 116 
 
 iv. 11 322 
 
 iv. 12, 17 323 
 
 iv. 13 114, 163, 329 
 
 iv. 15 ... . 158, 166, 294, 329 
 
 iv. 16 114 
 
 iv. 19 334 
 
 v. 1 158, 161, 329 
 
 v. 1, 11 320 
 
 v. 6 334 
 
 v. 7 113, 323 
 
 v. 10 116 note 
 
 v. 11 325 
 
 v. 13 323 
 
 v. 15 147, 323 
 
 vi. 4 321, 323 
 
 vi. 5 319, 320 
 
 vi. 6 . .. .111 note, 116, 323, 334 
 
 vi. 7 113, 320, 323 
 
 vi. 11 117 note 
 
 vii. 1 322 
 
 vii. 4, 5 322 
 
 vii. 8 323 
 
 vii. 11 323 
 
 hosea (continued). Page 
 
 vii. 14 334 
 
 viii. 1 115, 317, 320 
 
 viii. 4 159, 323 
 
 viii. 5, 6 293, 325 
 
 viii. 6 294 
 
 viii. 9 323 
 
 viii. 11 . . . 116 note, 158, 329 
 viii. 12 . . . 114, 340 and note 
 
 viii. 13 115, 116 note 
 
 viii. 14 230, 323 
 
 x. 3 . . . . 116 note, 324, 334 
 
 x. 3, 4 116 
 
 x. 4 ... . 116 and note, 334 
 
 x. 5 115 
 
 x. 9 114 
 
 x. 10 . . . . 117 note, 328 note 
 
 x. 15 158, 166, 329 
 
 x. 17 323 
 
 x. 1 158, 329 
 
 x. 2, 8 324 
 
 x. 4 . 322 
 
 x. 5 325 
 
 x. 8, 15 158 
 
 x. 9 114 
 
 x. 11 117 note 
 
 x. 12 323 
 
 x. 12, 13 322 
 
 xi. 1 320 
 
 xi. 2 323 
 
 xi. 7 114, 323 
 
 xi. 12 322 
 
 xii. 1 323 
 
 xii. 2 320 
 
 xii. 3, 4 320 
 
 xii. 6 323 
 
 xii. 6-8 . 322 
 
 xii. 9 ... 115, 320, 337 note 
 
 xii. 10 319 
 
 xii. 11 . . 116 note, 158, 166, 329 
 
 xii. 13 57 note, 320 
 
 xiii. 1, 2 113 
 
 xiii. 2 325 
 
 xiii. 4 320 
 
 xiii. 6 323 
 
 xiii. 16 323 
 
 xiv. 2 334 
 
 xiv. 3 323 
 
 xiv. 3, 8 323 
 
 xiv. 4 114, 323 
 
 JOEL. 
 
 ii. 1, 15, 32 157 
 
 ii. 15 ff 119 
 
368 
 
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 
 
 joel (continued). Page 
 
 iii. 4-8 186 
 
 iii. 16, 17, 21 .157 
 
 iii. 18 244 
 
 iii. 19 63 
 
 iii. 19, 20 199 
 
 iii. 21 119 
 
 AMOS. 
 
 i. 2 . . 117 note, 159, 294, 324, 
 
 328, 335 
 
 i. 6-8 185 
 
 ii. 4 115, 317 
 
 ii. 5 230 
 
 ii. 6-8 322 
 
 ii. 7 . . 117 note (bis), 322, 323 
 
 ii. 9 117 note 
 
 ii. 10 . . . . 118, 320, 328 note 
 
 ii. 11 335 
 
 ii. 11, 12 117 note, 319 
 
 ii. 12 335 
 
 iii. 1, 2 320 
 
 iii. 2, 3 151 
 
 iii. 7 319 
 
 iii. 10 322 
 
 iii. 11-15 324 
 
 iii. 14 . . . . 158, 294, 324, 326 
 
 iv. 1 . . . 322 
 
 iv. 4 . 116, 117 note, 158, 166, 294, 
 
 326 
 
 iv. 5 116, 335 
 
 iv. 6, 8-11 . 323 
 
 iv.-6-ll 323 
 
 v. 4, 6 323 
 
 v. 4-6 158, 325 
 
 v. 5 161, 294, 329 
 
 v. 7, 24 322 
 
 v. 10, 12, 15 322 
 
 v. 11 .117 note, 322 
 
 v. 18 185, 323 
 
 v. 21 115 
 
 v. 21 if 99, 118 
 
 v. 21-23 325 
 
 v. 22 115 
 
 v. 25 . . . . 118 (bis), 328 note 
 
 v. 26 294 
 
 v. 27 324 
 
 vi. 1 323 
 
 vi. 4-6 322 
 
 vi. 12 .322 
 
 vi. 14 117 note 
 
 vii. 9 158, 329 
 
 vii. 12 318 
 
 vii. 15, 16 319 
 
 amos (continued). Page 
 
 viii. 4-6 ... ' 322 
 
 viii. 5 115, 117 note 
 
 viii. 14 . . . 158, 161, 293, 326 
 
 ix. 8 324 
 
 ix. 10 .220 
 
 ix. 11 159, 230 
 
 ix. 13 H7 note 
 
 ix. 14 .... 117 note (bis) 
 
 OBADIAH. 
 
 vers. 16, 17, 21 157 
 
 ver. 18 199 
 
 MICAH. 
 
 i- 5 • • 157 
 
 Hi. 10 Ill note 
 
 iii. 12 230 
 
 iv. 1 ff 119 
 
 iv. 1, 2, 7 . 157 
 
 iv. 10 182, 232, 353 
 
 v. 5, 6 213 
 
 vi. 8 99, 110, 118 
 
 vii. 14 165 
 
 NAHUM. 
 
 iii. 8-10 201, 213 
 
 HABAKKUK. 
 
 i. 5-10 233 
 
 ii. 2 58 note 
 
 ii- 3 185 
 
 ii. 12 ...... . Ill note 
 
 iii. 3 279 
 
 iii. 3, 4 . . 280 
 
 ZEPHANIAH. 
 
 i. 8, 9 ...... 127 note 
 
 ii. 4-7 , . , 186 
 
 ii. 9, 10 198 
 
 ZECHARIAH. 
 
 i.-viii 237 
 
 ii. 11 221 
 
 vii. 5 132 
 
 viii. 19 132 
 
 ix.-xi 237 
 
 ix. 5-7 186 
 
 xii.-xiv 233 
 
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 
 
 369 
 
 zechariah (continued). Page 
 
 xiv. 8 244 
 
 xiv. 21 221 
 
 MALACHI. 
 
 i. 3, 4 . . . 198 
 
 i. 11 120, 245 
 
 ii. 4-8 128 note 
 
 iii. 3 128 note 
 
 iii. 7 148 
 
 iv. 4 280 
 
 MATTHEW. 
 IX. 9 61 
 
 xxiv 212 
 
 LUKE. 
 
 xiv. 26 91 note 
 
 xix. 40 ....... 210 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 xiii. 23 ....... . 61 
 
 xxi. 25 210 
 
 ACTS. 
 
 xxi. 3-6 196 
 
 I. TIMOTHY. 
 
 iv. 3 290 
 
 revelation. Page 
 
 vii. 5 ff 124 
 
 xi. 8 215 
 
 xxii. 1 ff 124 
 
 I. MACCABEES. 
 
 iii. 46 163 
 
 iv. 47 313 
 
 vi. 53 133 
 
 II. MACCABEES. 
 
 viii. 28, 30 57 note 
 
 JOSEPHUS. 
 
 Antiq., x. 9. 7 . . 
 Antiq., x. 11. 1 
 Antiq., xiii. 10. 3 . 
 Antiq., xiv. 16. 4 . 
 Against Apion, i. 19 
 Against Apion, i. 21 
 Against Apion, i. 22 
 Jewish War, v. 5. 6 
 
 198, 199, 206 
 ... 197 
 ... 133 
 . . . 133 
 . 187, 205 
 ... 196 
 ... 313 
 ... 313 
 
 HERODOTUS. 
 
 ii. 58 209 
 
 ii. 177 200 
 
 ii. 177 (Rawlinson's Notes) . 204 
 
 iii. 2, 16 201 
 
 University Press: John Wilson and Son, Cambridge. 
 
530 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, 
 
 October, 1880. 
 
 NEW BOOKS 
 
 AND NEW EDITIONS OF IMPORTANT BOOKS, 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS. 
 
 k * Any Book in this Catalogue, not too large to go by mail, will be sent postage 
 prepaid, on receipt of the price. 
 
 The End of a Coil. A Story. By the author of the " Wide Wide 
 World." 717 pp. $1.75. 
 
 My Desire. A Tale. By the author of the " Wide Wide World." 
 $1.75. 
 
 Christie's Old Organ, Saved at Sea, and Little Faith. 
 
 In one volume. $1.00. 
 
 Christ and His Religion. By Rev. John Reid, author of 
 " Voices of the Soul," &c. $1.50. 
 
 The Sim, Moon, and Stars. By Agnes Gilberne. Miistrated. 
 12rao. $1.50. 
 
 The Gentle Heart. By Rev. Alex. Macleod, D.D., author of 
 " Wonderful Lamp," &c. $1.25. 
 
 The Clip of Consolation ; or, Bright Messages for the Sick- 
 Bed. $1.25. 
 
 In ChristO. By J. R. Macduff, D.D. 
 
 Family Prayers. By J. Oswald Dykes, D.D. 
 
 Voices of Hope and Gladness. By Ray Palmer, D.D $1.50. 
 
 Modern Scottish Pnlpit. Sermons by Scottish Ministers. 
 8vo. $1.50. 
 
 * Murdock*s Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History. A cheap 
 edition. Three volumes in one. 1,461 pp. $o.00. 
 
BOOKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Nora Crena. By L. T. Meade. $1.25. 
 
 Andrew Harvey's Wife. By L. T. Meade. $1.25. 
 
 * Pool's Annotations. 3 vols. Royal 8vo. 3,077 pages. In cloth. 
 
 Price, $7.50. (Half the former price.) 
 
 " Pool's Annotations are sound, clear, and sensible; and, taking for all in all, I 
 place him at tbe bead of Englisb commentators on tbe wbole Bible." — Rev. J. C. Ryle. 
 
 * Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Bible. 5 vols., 
 
 quarto. (Sheep, $20.00.) Cloth, $15.00. Another edition in 9 vols., 
 octavo. Cloth, $20.00. 
 
 Rev. C. H. Spurgeon says: "First among tbe mighty for general usefulness wo 
 are bound to mention the man whose name is a household word,— Mattbew Henry. 
 He is most pious and pitby, sound and sensible, suggestive and sober, terse and 
 trustworthy. ... I venture to say that no better investment can be made by a 
 minister than that peerless exposition." 
 
 * Dr. McCosh's Works. New and neat edition (reduced from 
 
 $15.00). 5 vols., 8vo., uniform, $10.00. Comprising: — 
 
 1. Divine Government. 3. The Intuitions op the Mind. 
 
 2. Typical Forms. 4. Defence of Fundamental Truth. 
 
 5. The Scottish Philosophy. 
 
 Any volume sold separately at $2.00. 
 
 " Thousands of earnest, thoughtful men have found treasures of argument, illus- 
 tration, and learning in these pages, with which their minds and hearts have been 
 enriched and fortified for better work and wider influences." — N. Y. Observer. 
 
 Dr. McCosh's Logic. 12mo $1.50 
 
 Christianity and Positivism. 12mo . . 1.75 
 
 *Dr. Merle D'Aubigne's History. 13 vols., uniform f 12.50, 
 viz. : — 
 
 * History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century. 
 
 5 vols. Brown cloth. In a box. $4.50. 
 
 * History of the Reformation in the Time of Calvin 8 vols. 
 
 Brown cloth. In a box. Reduced from S16.00 to $8.00. 
 
 "The work is now complete; and these later volumes, together with Ibe original 
 five, form a library relating to the Reformation of incalculable value and of intense 
 interest. The pen of this master of history gave a charm to every thing that he 
 touched. — N. Y. Observer. 
 
ROBERT CARTER &> BROTHERS. 
 
 Guide to Family Devotion. By the Rev. Alexander Fletcher, 
 D.D. Royal quarto, with 10 steel plates (half morocco, $7.50; Tur- 
 key morocco, $12.00), cloth, gilt, and gilt edges, $5.00. 
 
 "The more we look over the volume the more we admire it, and the more 
 heartily feel to commend it to families and devout Christians. It is emphatically a 
 book of devotion, from the standpoint of an intelligent, broad-minded Christian 
 minister, who has here expressed many of the deepest emotions and wants of the 
 soul. The selections of Scripture and the hymns are all admirably adapted to in- 
 crease devotion ; and the prayers are such as can but aid the suppliant, even when 
 not uttered from his precise standpoint, and are especially valuable to many heads 
 of families who find it difficult to frame words for themselves in conducting family 
 Worship." — Journal and Messenger. 
 
 The A. Ij. O. E. Library. In 55 vols., 18mo, in a neat wooden 
 case, $40.00. 
 
 " All these stories have the charm and pure Christian character which have 
 made the name of A. L. O. E. dear to thousands of homes." — Lutheran. 
 
 " The writings of this author have become a standard, and the mystic imprint, 
 A. L. O. E., is ample assurance that the truth of the Gospel is beneath." — 
 Episcopalian. 
 
 Bickersteth (Rev. E. H.). Yesterday, To-day, and Forever. 
 A Poem. Pocket edition, .50 ; 16mo, $1.00 ; 12mo, $1.50. 
 
 "If any poem is destined to endure in the companionship of Milton's hitherto 
 matchless epic, we believe it will be 'Yesterday, To-day, and Forever.' " — Lor 
 don Globe. 
 
 Butler (Rev. William Archer). Sermons. 2 vols., $2.50. 
 Lectures on Ancient Philosophy. 2 vols., $2.50. 
 
 " A few weeks ago we spoke of the reprinting, by Carter & Brothers, of the Ser- 
 mons of Archer Butler, a body of preaching so strong and massive as to be really 
 wonderful. The 'Lectures on Ancient Philosophy' that are now added, were de- 
 livered at the University of Dublin, about the year 1840, when the author was 
 scarcely thirty years old." — Watchman. 
 
 The Book and Its Story. 12mo. $1.50. 
 
 Fresh Leaves from the Book and Its Story. 12mo. 
 $1.50. 
 
 " Let any one who is inclined to think the bare Scriptures ' dry ' reading, peruse 
 them in connection with a volume like this, and they will be clothed to him with a 
 new life. He will learn how the separate books of the Bible were, as it were, built 
 into one another, and made to form a glorious whole : he will read intelligently 
 and with deep interest." — Keystone. 
 
4 BOOKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Bonar (Horatius, D.D.). Hymns of Faith and Hope. 3 vols., 
 18mo. $2.25. 
 
 Bible Thoughts and Themes. 6 vols. 12mo, viz. : — 
 
 Genesis $2.00 Acts, &c $2.00 
 
 Old Testament . . . 2.00 Lesser Epistles . . . 2.00 
 
 Gospels 2.00 Revelation 2.00 
 
 " With no attempt at exposition, except what is found in comparing Scripture 
 with Scripture, and drawing illustrations and means of impressing rich gospel 
 truth from almost every source, the author proceeds with theme upon theme, giv- 
 ing floods of edifying and comforting light from beginning to end. It is a good 
 book for the private Christian to have on his table for frequent use, and ministers 
 will often find in it that which will be suggestive and useful." — Christian In- 
 structor. 
 
 Way of Peace . . $0.50 The Rent Veil $1.25 
 
 Way of Holiness . . .60 My Old Letters .... 2.00 
 
 Night of Weeping . .50 Hymns of the Nativity, gilt, 1.00 
 
 vIorning of Joy . . .60 The Christ of God . . . 1.25 
 
 Follow the Lamb . . .40 Truth and Error .... .60 
 
 The Everlasting Righteousness .... $0.60 
 
 Chalmers (Thomas, D.I>.). Sermons. 2 vols, in one. $3.00. 
 
 Cowper (Wm.). The Task. Illustrated by Birket Foster. $3.50. 
 
 Cuyler (Rev. T. Lu). 
 
 Pointed Papers $1.50 
 
 Thought Hives 1.50 
 
 Empty Crib 1.00 
 
 V Dr. Cuyler holds steadily the position which he reached years ago, as the best 
 writer of pointed, racy, religious articles in our country." — Presbyterian. 
 
 Dick (John, D.D.). Lectures on Theology. 8vo. $3.00. 
 
 " It is, as a whole, superior to any other system of theology in our language." ' 
 Christian Journal. 
 
 Dickson (Rev. Alexander, D.D.). 
 
 All About Jesus $2.00 
 
 Beauty for Ashes 2.00 
 
 "His book is a ' bundle of myrrh,' and will be specially enjoyed by those who 
 are in trouble." —Rev. Dr. W. M. Taylor. 
 
 "Luscious as a honeycomb with sweetness drawn from God's word." — Rev. 
 Dr. Cuyler. 
 
ROBERT CARTER &» BROTHERS. 5 
 
 Dykes (Oswald, D.D.), on the Sermon on the Mount. 
 
 3 vols., $3.00. 
 
 Abraham, the Friend of God ....... $1.50 
 
 " We are ever and anon surprised by some new view or fresh thought that 
 never had occurred to us in this connection. The book (Abraham) is a thoughtful, 
 scholarly production, in vigorous English." — N. Christian Advocate. 
 
 * Edwards (Jonathan). Works. In 4 vols., octavo. $6.00. 
 
 " I consider Jonathan Edwards the greatest of the sons of men." — Robert Hall. 
 
 Fraser (Rev. Donald). Synoptical Lectures on the Books of the 
 Bible. 3 vols., $6.00. 
 
 " Dr. Fraser has observed, like many others of us, the mischief which results 
 from cutting the Bible into fragments, and using it piecemeal. In these volumes 
 he discourses of the Bible at large, indicates the scope of each book, and furnishes 
 a brief digest of its contents. The design was in itself most laudable, and it has 
 been well carried out." — Spurgeon. 
 
 Green (Prof. Wm. Henry, D.D.). The Argument of the Book 
 of Job Unfolded. 12ino. $1.75. 
 
 " That ancient composition so marvellous in beauty, and so rich in philosophy^ 
 is here treated in a thoroughly analytical manner, and new depths and grander 
 proportions of the divine original portrayed. It is a book to stimulate research " 
 — Methodist Recorder. 
 
 Guthrie (Thomas, D.D.). Life and Works. 11 vols. $15.00. 
 
 " His pages glow with the deep piety, the Scriptural beauty, the rich imagery, 
 and the tender pathos which breathed from his lips." — N. Y. Observer. 
 
 Hamilton (James, D.D.). Select Works. 4 vols. $5.00. Con- 
 taining The Royal Preacher ; Mount of Olives ; Pearl of Parables •, 
 Lamp and Lantern ; Great Biography ; Harp on the Willows ; Lake 
 of Galilee ; Emblems from Eden ; Life in Earnest. 
 
 "Those familiar with the works of Dr. Hamilton will perceive that this set of 
 volumes contains the choice gold from the author's mine. They are put up in a 
 neat box, and sold at the low price of $5 for the set." — Interior. 
 
 Hamlin (Cyrus). Among the Turks. 12mo. $1.50. 
 Hanna (Rev. William, D.D.). Life of Christ. 3 vols. 12mo, 
 $4.50. 
 
 " We can heartily commend the ' Life of our Lord,' by Dr. Hanna."— Congre- 
 gational Quarterly. 
 
 " Besides the beauty of the style and the careful scholarship which mark these 
 volumes, we cannot too warmly commend them for their deep piety and hearty 
 enforcement of the doctrines of Christianity." — N. Y. Observer. 
 
BOOKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Hill (George). Lectures on Divinity. 8vo. $2.50. 
 
 " The candor and fairness of this author are remarkable, an unfailing indica- 
 tion of real greatness." — Christian Mirror. 
 
 Hodge (Charles, D.D.). Commentaries. 
 
 On Romans. 12mo $1.75 
 
 On Ephesians. 12mo , . 1.75 
 
 On Corinthians. 2 vols. 12mo 3.50 
 
 Rev. C. H. Spurgeon says: "Most valuable. With no writer do we more fully 
 agree. The more we use Hodge, the more we value him. This applies to all his 
 Commentaries." 
 
 Hodge (Rev. A. A., D.D.). Outlines of Theology. Revised and 
 Enlarged Edition. 8vo. $3.00. 
 
 "At its first publication in 1860, this work attracted much attention, and ever 
 since it has had a large sale, and been carefully studied both in this country and in 
 Great Britain. It has been translated into Welsh and modern Greek, and has 
 been used as a text-book in several theological schools. Prepared originally in 
 good part from notes taken by the author from his distinguished father's lectures, 
 with the assistance of standard theological writers, after fourteen years of service 
 as a theological instructor, he has, with increased knowledge and experience as a 
 teacher, embodied in this new and enlarged edition not only the treasures of the 
 volume as it first appeared, but the rich results of his additional studies and inves- 
 tigations. This new edition contains fifty per cent more of matter than the former 
 one. Two chapters have been dropped, and five new ones have been added." — 
 Presbyterian Banner. 
 
 Holt (Emily Sarah). Historical Tales. 
 
 Isoult Barry. 12mo $1.50 
 
 Robin Tremayne. 12mo .......... 1.50 
 
 The Well in the Desert. 16mo ...... 1.25 
 
 Ashcliffe Hall. 16mo .......... 1.25 
 
 Verena ; A Tale. 12mo . 1.50 
 
 The White Rose of Langley. 12mo .... 1.50 
 
 Imogen. 12mo 1.50 
 
 Clare Avery. 12mo 1.50 
 
 Lettice Eden. 12mo . 1.50 
 
 For the Master's Sake. 16mo 1.00 
 
 Margery's Son. 12mo 1.50 
 
 Lady Sybil's Choice. 12mo 1.50 
 
 The Maiden's Lodge. 12mo 1.25 
 
 •* Whether it is regarded in its historical or its religious aspect, ' Isoult Barry of 
 Wynscote ' is the finest contribution to English literature, of its peculiar class, 
 which has been made in the present century." — American Baptist. 
 
ROBERT CARTER 6- BROTHERS. J 
 
 *Horiie (Thomas Hartwell). Introduction to the Study of the 
 Bible. Royal 8vo. 2 vols, in one. Sheep. $5.00. 
 
 "It Is a work of gigantic labor. The results of the research and erudition of 
 Biblical scholars, of all countries and in all times, are faithfully garnered." — N. I • 
 Evangelist. 
 
 * Howe (John). Complete Works. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. $5.00. 
 
 "Possessed of the learning ofj Cud worth, the evangelical piety of Owen, and the 
 fervor of Baxter, with a mind of larger dimensions than what belonged to any of 
 those distinguished individuals, every thing which fell from his pen is worthy 
 of immortality." — Orme^s Bib. Bib. 
 
 Jacobus (Melancthon W., D.D.). Notes, Critical and Ex* 
 planatory. 
 
 Genesis. 12mo $1.50 
 
 Matthew and Mark. 12rao 1 50 
 
 Luke and John. 12mo 1.50 
 
 Acts. 12mo 1.50 
 
 Drs. Hodge, Green, and others of Princeton, say: " The excellent Commentaries 
 of Dr. Jacobus have deservedly attained a high reputation, and their wide circula- 
 tion proves how well they are adapted to the wants of both ministers and laymen. 
 They present, in a brief compass, the results of extensive erudition, abound in judi- 
 cious exposition and pertinent illustration, and are, moreover, distinguished by 
 doctrinal soundness, evangelical character, and an eminently devout spirit." 
 
 Jay (Rev. William). Morning and Evening Exercises. 2 vols. 
 $2.00. The same in 4 vols., larger type, $5.00. 
 
 " We know of nothing more pure and Scriptural in sentiment, nothing more 
 elevated and devotional in spirit, nothing more simple and beautiful than these 
 reflections on the lessons from the Bible." — Christian Observer. 
 
 Job (The Book of). Illustrated with Fifty Engravings after 
 Drawings by John Gilbert. With Introduction, various Readings 
 and Notes, by James Hamilton, D.D. Beautifully printed and 
 bound. $4.50. 
 
 "The Book of Job, the 'oldest poem in the world,' has been illustrated with 
 fifty engravings from drawings by John Gilbert, with variety and fancy which he 
 nas rarely, if ever, excelled, more especially in the Eastern character of the scenery, 
 and the characteristics of its animal life, the supernatural incidents, and locality s 
 of the Patriarch's life, its vivid pictures of the husbandman, the warrior, the 
 traveller, the sportsman, the stately magnate, and the starving outcast of that 
 departed era." — Illustrated London News. 
 
8 BOOKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 KittO (John). Bible Illustrations. 4 vols., thick 12mo. $7.00. 
 
 " They are not exactly commentaries, but what marvellous expositions you 
 have there! You have reading more interesting than any novel that was ever writ- 
 ten, and as instructive as the heaviest theology. The matter is quite attractive 
 and fascinating, and yet so weighty, that the man who shall study those volumes 
 thuroughly will not fail to read his Bible intelligently and with growing interest." 
 — Spur g eon. 
 
 *L<ee (William). The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures: Its 
 Nature and Proof. 8vo. $2.50. 
 
 "We consider 'Lee on Inspiration' as beyond all comparison superior to any 
 work on the subject yet issued in our language." — Church Journal. 
 
 Leightoil (Bishop). Complete Works. 8vo. $3.00. 
 
 " Archbishop Leighton stands in the front rank of English theological writers. 
 His deep piety, meek Christian spirit, clear perception, and metaphysical acumen, 
 give him a place in which he stands alone without a rival. There is no English 
 edition that equals this in fulness, or in the indexes, and in fact this leaves nothing 
 more to be desired." —Zion's Herald. 
 
 Lewis (Prof. Tayler). The Six Days of Creation. 12mo. $1.50. 
 A professor in one of our colleges writes : " Prof. Lewis's penetrating insight into 
 the conceptions of that remote age in which the Book of Genesis was written, the 
 thorough scholarship with which he has elucidated these conceptions, and the vigor 
 of reasoning with which he has shown the relation of the Biblical narrative to the 
 mythology of the classical ages — these things all combine to stamp upon the book 
 a character of originality and profoundness in which it stands alone. There is no 
 other like it. It is worth all else that has been written on the subject. Some ot 
 the passages, too, in which he describes the moral dignity and glory of the inspired 
 narrative of the Bible, are among the finest in our literature." 
 
 Lord ("Willis, D.D.). Christian Theology tor the People. 8vo. 
 $2.50. 
 
 "I do not hesitate in expressing the opinion that this work is, so far as I know, 
 the best book in existence for the purpose of popular instruction in theology." — 
 Dr. E. P. Humphreys. 
 
 *Murdock (James, D.D.). Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History. 
 Translated. 3 vols. 8vo. $5.00. 
 
 " As a text-book it is needed by all our theological students, and should be in 
 every well-furnished library. We are glad to see a new edition of it, in three hand- 
 some volumes, on good paper, and neatly bound in cloth, at the very low price of 
 $5." — American Presbyterian. 
 
 Translation of Syriac Peshito Version or the New Testa- 
 
 ment. $2.50. 
 
 " It is a book not only for the learned, but for all who wish to read and under- 
 stand the Scriptures." — K. Y. Observer 
 
Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: June 2005 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township, PA 1 6066 
 (724)779-2111 
 
,rtl