1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4167df897e3d0a833a9effd6a9ec672e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Ls8SOkV57IdZcBRosqdJMfW7xKmZ2DLQKtv30JpvAeuqFz1mOjMo9302EFfONQF6GuMo9tATBigbO6JOJaWG2JFG-Kd5CG3u1%7EZRFLcESyal7K17hjV9HCXsWMSN-i1QZ02Fe-zTLUXl0bhSPQNSBCABHYRTgO8F6aNRLEtwF-0NpVr4-o65Rzt%7Elenxb%7E0-SBYl2Bi8tVI5s2NyuSfix14TfEV1Mj2oEEthIDABqttjndpcsMzofSV0bbSlyaY5CGDRoaJLA0hSWjFIzzmEA%7E7eNVL881tYtX9soRUv9nHS6i97kEj2eP07-iE2fQ1XtxNjsavBgk6NhI9E5jJPSg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4d9d63a3a632046cf6fdadfbed1b4fd1
PDF Text
Text
THE
FINDING OF THE BOOK;
AN ESSAY
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE DOGMA OF INFALLIBILITY,
BY
JOHN ROBERTSON,
COUFAB ANGUS.
“ It is better to speak honest error, than to suppress conscious truth."
“ I know of but one thing safe in the universe, and that is truth; and I know of
but one way to truth for an individual mind, and that is unfettered thought; and I
know but one path for the multitude to truth, and that is thought freely expressed."
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
1870.
�' KIMJI iihwoc
�TO
f
S^taiib
Wllta
of
Whom I honour and esteem as foremost among modern
Apostles and Prophets of Divine Truth, and whom I
regard with gratitude and love, as one of those Leaders,
to whose guidance, under God, I am largely indebted
for the enlightenment of my mind, and for my estab
lishment in the Christian Faith, by my deliverance from
the darkness of that superstitious bondage to the letter,
in which I was brought up, and in which I for many
years vainly struggled to find fight, this rude essay—a first
attempt—is, without his knowledge or permission, very
humbly dedicated by
THE AUTHOR.
��PREFACE.
The Brahmins, the Parsees, the Budhists, the Jews,
the Christians, the Mohammedans, and several other
denominations, have their canonical books of revela
tion, which are in each case regarded as a supreme
external authority dictated or communicated to man
by God.
Thus, for example, the “Bana,” signifying the Word,
is the sacred book of the Budhists, containing the dis
courses of their great original, Gotama Budha, who was
born, as appears to be historically ascertained, at least
624 years before the Christian era, so that he was pro
bably a contemporary of king Josiah and of the prophet
Jeremiah. These discourses, however, were not written
down in a collected form, till about three hundred
years after the death of the great teacher, and critics
have questioned the purity and genuineness of their
previous transmission, but the vast multitude of ortho
dox Budhists have never for a moment entertained
any such doubt. The degree of authority ascribed to
this revelation may be judged of from the very high
estimation in which its author is held. “ Gotama
Budha is worshipped as a divine incarnation, a god
man, who came into this world to enlighten men, to
redeem them, and to point out to them the way to
eternal bliss.”* The favourite theme of the very
numerous Budhist authors is accordingly said to be
the praise of the Bana, in the expression of which the
* “Faiths of the World,” vol. i., p. 399.
�VI
Preface.
most exalted and devout figures of speech are employed,
such, for instance, as these:—“ The discourses of
Budha are as a divine charm to cure the poison of
evil desire; a divine medicine to heal the disease of
anger; a lamp in the midst of the darkness of igno
rance ; a ship in which to sail to the opposite shore
of the ocean of existence; a collyrium for taking away
the eye-film of heresy; a succession of trees bearing
immortal fruit, placed here and there, by which the
traveller may be enabled to cross the desert of exis
tence ; a straight highway by which to pass to the in
comparable wisdom; a flavour more exquisite than any
other in the three worlds; a treasury of the best things
which it is possible to obtain; and a power by which
may be appeased the sorrow of every sentient being.’"
*
It is computed that adherence to this system of
religion is professed by no fewer than 369,000,000
of human beings in India, China, Tartary, Thibet, and
Burmah; while nominal Christians, of all countries and
all creeds, are reckoned tonumber about 256,000,000,
of whom about 60,000,000 are called Protestants.
But Budhism, though now nearly twenty-five cen
turies old, was the Protestantism of a reformation
from Brahminism, the antiquity of which is much
greater; and no less than 150,000,000 of the Hindoos
still adhere to the old religion, believing in the infal
libility of the four “ Vedas,” or sacred books, of which
it appears to be undisputed that one is at least as old
as the time of Moses, while all the four are very
ancient. “The language in which the Vedas are
written is the Sanskrit, which the Hindoos seriously
believe to be the language of the gods, and to have
been communicated to men by a voice from heaven,
while the Vedas themselves have proceeded from the
mouth of the Creator.” t
An intelligent Hindoo thus expresses his views of
* “Faiths of the World,” vol. i., p. 279.
f “ Faiths of the World,” vol. ii., p, 54.
�Preface.
vii
theology :-“We really lament the ignorance or un
charitableness of those who confound our representa
tive worship with the Phoenician, Grecian, or Roman
idolatry, as represented by European writers, and then
charge us with polytheism, in the teeth of thousands
of texts in the Puranas”—(sacred poems of the Vedas)
__ “declaring in clear and unmistakable terms that
there is but one God, who manifests himself as
Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, in his functions of creation,
preservation, and destruction.”*
■ All his conceptions of God are thus moulded and
regulated by the Vedas, which contain for him the
authoritative and infallible revelation of trinity. in
unity, to doubt or deny which is for him infidelity.
He finds God in the book, and must believe that God
is exactly as there represented, or not believe at all;
for the book is to him God’s revelation of Himself.
So also the Parsee catechism teaches the doctrine
of plenary inspiration, in terms remarkably similar to
those which our most orthodox Churchmen are wont
to employ:—
“ Q. What religion has our prophet (Zoroaster or Zurthost) brought to us from God ?
“A. The disciples of our prophet have recorded m several
books that religion . . .We consider these books as
heavenly books (the ct Zendavesta ”) because God sent the
tidings of these books to us through the holy Zurthost.
“ Q. What commands has God sent us through his pro
phet, the exalted Zurthost ?
11 A. To know God as one; to know the prophet, the
exalted Zurthost, as the true prophet; to believe the religion
and the Avesta brought by him as true beyond all manner
of doubt; to believe in the goodness of God; not to disobey
any of the commands of the Mazdiashna religion ; to avoid
evil deeds ; to exert for good deeds; to pray five times in
the day; to believe in the reckoning and justice on the
* From an English lecture by a Hindoo, quoted in “ Chips
from a German Workshop,” by Prof. Max Muller, p. xvu.
(preface) ; quoted also by Dr. Norman Macleod, in “Good
Words,” February 1869, p. 100.
,
�viii
Preface.
fourth morning after death ; to hope for heaven and to fear
hell; to consider doubtless the day of general destruction
and resurrection; to remember always that God has done
what he willed, and shall do what he wills; to face some
luminous object while worshipping God,” &c.
*
If the Parsee cannot or dare not doubt nor dispute
the dogma, that the message which contains these tid
ings was communicated by God to Zoroaster, who
lived, according to the best authorities, about eight
hundred years before Moses;—if he must, per force
of religious training and tradition, believe that this
revelation comes to him through Zoroaster from God;
—then it is clear that he must accept whatever this
revelation tells him as the word of God, and, there
fore, “beyond all manner of doubt,” authoritatively
true, in the strictest and fullest sense, in every parti
cular of its contents, and in every expression which it
uses. The Parsee, accordingly, regards the Zendavesta
as the revealed will of God for his conduct in this
life, and for his salvation here and hereafter; and
he adheres to its doctrines and precepts, however un
intelligible these may be, because he submits his rea
son to the authority of the book, in which he believes
that God speaks to him. He, therefore, closes his
mind against all argument of error or imperfection in
the book; and when told of historical or other diffi
culties which stand in the way of his belief, he boldly
argues, to the complete satisfaction of those who hold
the same opinion, that faith must overcome the difficulties of reason, and that sceptical criticism is a
temptation and a snare. A confirmed belief of this
kind is proof against all the attempts of the Christian
missionary to convince the Parsee that his rites and
ceremonies and superstitious beliefs are doctrines and
commandments of men. For him they have the same
authority and certainty as the revelation of God’s
existence. He is under mental bondage to the Zen* “Chips from a German Workshop,” vol. i.,pp. 174, 175.
�Preface.
ix
dayesta in every word and letter of its contents, and
all its doctrines and laws alike command his unwav
ering acceptance and profound submission. He has
nothing else on which to trust for welfare and for
happiness, but on the doctrines and laws which are
written in that book. To deny or to cast off these, is
to him atheism and infidelity. To believe and obey
them is religion. Every ceremony and observance of
his sacred law is, therefore, to him a sacred duty. He
believes all these things, not because he discerns or
perceives their inherent truthfulness and reality, but
because they are written in God’s book. He holds
that this revelation is the authority which warrants
and enables him to believe in the existence and good
ness of God, and in the duty or privilege of worship,
and obedience to be rendered by men. If he be a
strictly orthodox Parsee, he will hold that the Zendavesta is the only true revelation, and that God can
be truly and acceptably worshipped in no other way
but according to the doctrines and observances which
it makes known. If, however, he be somewhat latitudinarian in his views, as most of the young Parsees
now are, he may, as many of them do, admit that the
Brahmins, Christians, Mohammedans, and Jews,
‘among whom he lives, may have their several revela
tions, good enough for those to whom they have been
given, and all in some sort making known the One
Great Ormuzd, but none of them intended nor suit
able for the Parsee, none of them at all approaching
in excellence to the incomparable Avesta, and none
of them possessing any merit except in so far as they
all more or less distantly resemble it.
If his mind has been still further enlightened by
education and reading, or by intercourse with edu
cated and intelligent men, of whom there are said to
be now a good many among the Parsees, he may per
haps be able to comprehend that Zoroaster must have
been a wise man, who meditated much upon God as
�X
Preface.
revealed in his own reasoning soul, and in all those
other scarcely less wonderful manifestations of creative
wisdom and power, with which God had enabled that
soul to become acquainted, especially as revealed in
the Sun, which was to him the visible and sensible
source of light, heat, motion, life, and happiness; and
he may thus see that the grand distinction of the
Prophet was only his ability to discern and to know,
more clearly than his contemporaries, those things
which every enlightened mind may and ought to infer
from its own perceptions. While profiting much by
all that is pure and good and true in the pages of the
ancient sage, he may thus feel himself perfectly at
liberty to reject any or all of those doctrines, laws, or
ceremonies which to his modern mind appear false,
foolish, evil, or unjust, however reasonable, right, and
true these may have been thought in the days of Zoro
aster, and during all the long ages of the ancient Per
sian empire. For the Parsees of our day are the descen
dants of the faithful remnant of the ancient Persian
people, who refused to be converted by the conquering
sword of Islam, and who chose rather to suffer exile from
the country than to forsake the religion of their ancestors.
We may well suppose, I think we may be sure,
that Zoroaster wrote because he believed, and in
tended thereby merely to assist or enable his disciples
and followers to discern for themselves, as he did, the
goodness and the truth of what he taught them; but
the religion of the Parsees, resting on the authority of
a book, has, like every other such religion, largely
degenerated towards a worship of the letter—bibliolatry—a faith in the book, and has served as a veil
to hinder and obscure the revelation of God in the
soul. If we have to argue with a bigoted adherent of
the conservative orthodox school, which is still the
most numerous among the Parsees, including nearly
all their priests, we may expect to find him main
taining that, apart from his book of revelation, there
�Preface.
X1
can be no sufficient evidence nor true knowledge of
the existence of God, of His character, nor of His will
concerning man’s duty.
This religion has unquestionably been useful in
preserving its votaries, through many generations,
from falling into the grosser forms of image worship,
from the extreme moral degradation with which these
are generally associated, from atheism on the one
hand, and from polytheism on the other. The Zendavesta has thus been the vehicle of light and instruc
tion to the minds of countless millions through thou
sands of years; but, however beneficial its influence
may in these respects have been, it now stands to many
as a barrier in the way of intellectual development and
mental progress, because the infallibility ascribrd to it
renders them blind to the immediate present fact that
God is in and around them, and that He their Creator
has endowed them with faculties, capable of indefi
nitely great cultivation and improvement, and exactly
adapted for the reception and interpretation of the
great revelation of Himself, which with His own
hand He hath written on man, and on every other
thing which He hath created and made. The Zendavesta is indeed a revelation in a way, for, along
with much error, it teaches great truths; but the
belief of these truths on its authority, being insepar
able from the belief of much else that it contains,
necessarily implies ignorance of that which alone
deserves the name of revelation, the realising dis
cernment that the things are true.
It is a most pregnant and wise remark, and may be
appropriately quoted here, that “ the real problem is,
not how a revelation was possible, but how a veil
could ever have been drawn between the creature
and the Creator, intercepting from the human mind
the rays of Divine truth.”* Even a belief in the
* From a lecture on the “ Science of Religion,” by Prof. M.
Muller, at the Royal Institution, as briefly reported in the
Scotsman newspaper of 1st March 1870.
�existence of God, when that belief rests on the autho
rity ascribed to prophet, priest, church, or book,
becomes a veil to obscure more or less that revelation
which may be read, in God’s own handwriting, on
every page of the great volume of Nature with which
we are surrounded, and the authentic transcript of
which is “ written not with ink, but with the spirit of
the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy
tables of the heart,"—the tablets or faculties of the
mind (2 Cor. iii. 3).
Precisely such a veil was thick upon the minds of
the Jews, at the time when Jesus of Nazareth lived
and died as a witness for the truth, denouncing and
rending the veil which concealed it, that God dealeth
with us as with sons, and that He hath abundantly
revealed Himself as our wise, holy, and loving Father.
It was precisely the adherence of the Jews to the
letter of their written revelation, which had blinded
the eyes of their minds to the spiritual light of the
truth which that revelation contained; and thus
those who were converted to Christianity are, most
suggestively, said to have had their eyes opened—to
have had their sight restored—to have been turned
from darkness to light, that they should serve God in
newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter,
for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life and
light to discern our Father’s will, that we should be
merciful as He is merciful, that we should love truth,
and peace, and justice, and all our fellow-men, and
that we should do good, as knowing that we are
•“ children of the Highest, who is kind even unto the
unthankful and to the evil.”—(Luke vi. 35, 36.)
The superstitious reverence in which such veils are
held by those whose minds are obscured thereby, and
the many fond prejudices which are invariably fos
tered in the shade thereof, constitute the most stub
born and insurmountable of all obstacles to the reception of the Gospel of light. It is well known, and
�Preface.
xiii
might, if necessary, be abundantly proved, that it is
more difficult and more expensive to convert one
Brahmin, Budhist, or Parsee, to Christianity, than it
is to convert ten of the far mote degraded fetish
worshippers of Africa, or savages aind cannibals of the
Pacific; and need I say how few and far between are
the trophies of success, resulting from our missions to
the Jews and Mohammedans'?
There may be some among my readers whose minds
are blinded by such a veil, remaining, for them as for
the Jews, “ untaken away in the reading of the Old Testa
ment,'” (2 Cor. iii, 14-18); so that they regard it as
their duty to God to submit their reason to the autho
rity of that book, and to believe that its legendary
and miraculous stories, that its incongruous, inaccu
rate, and even contradictory histories, and that the
idolatrous and superstitious rites and beliefs, of which
in many passages it expresses approval, are all alike
no less certainly and infallibly true than are its decla
rations that God is good to all men, righteous in all
His ways, and holy in all His works; feeling as if
there could be no religious peace nor comfort for them,
unless they by faith be able to surmount the difficul
ties of reason, and to believe everything, which the
Book says is true, as they believe its most indubitable
verities; for, as it is written that by faith the walls
of Jericho fell down, so it is said that by faith must
all such intellectual difficulties be overcome, though
to reason they may appear insurmountable as walls
built up to heaven.
It is my solemn conviction that this notion of
Scriptural infallibility or supreme authority is essen
tially anti-christian; and that those whose minds are
fettered or blinded by any of its various modifications,
are excluded thereby from that liberating and en
lightening influence, which is again and again declared
to be the most essential and distinguishing feature of
�xiv
Preface.
spiritual Christianity (Matt. vi. 22, 23; John viii.
32, 33, 36; Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. v. 1, 13, 14.)
My chief purpose and earnest desire is to show to
such persons that the veil, on which they look with so
much veneration, is utterly devoid of the clearness,
the certainty, and the harmony of truth, which they
persuade themselves that it infallibly presents to their
view, even in those portions of it where their fallible
vision can discern nothing but mystification, error,
injustice, or sin; that its texture, when closely
examined, is found in many parts to consist of the
most unreasonable and irreconcilable products of
human ignorance, error, and time-serving policy; and
that it is, therefore, when viewed as a whole, notwith
standing the majesty, truth, and beauty of very many
passages, entirely destitute of anything like that in
fallibility or supreme authority, which it nowhere claims
for itself, but which has been, through ignorance or
superstition, or both, erroneously ascribed to it, and
by the ascription of which it retains its false dominion
over their minds, as if it were the Word of God.
I hope, by an examination of the structure of the
veil, in the earliest stages of its development, to show
that a belief in its divine origin, authority, and per
fection, is as unreasonable and false as any supersti
tion to which the human mind has ever been in sub
jection.
Whatever opinion my readers may form, I can and
do say for myself that I have studied what I have
written with profound reverence and love for the
truth, with much earnestness of thought and purpose,
and with a feeling which I cannot better describe than
by calling it a delightful sense of spiritual guidance
and enlightenment as I proceeded with my work.
The essay was commenced without the slightest idea
of publication in February last year, for the purpose
of sifting, maturing, and linking together in my own
�Preface.
XV
mind numerous detached notes and queries, which I
had jotted down during a previous course of biblical
reading and study.
I have been encouraged to publish it by the opinion
of some friends, and by my own hope that it may be
useful and helpful to some who, like myself, are earnest
inquirers after truth.
Forfar Road, Coupar Angus,
lsi June, 1870.
�TRUTH is the “Supreme Authority,” or “ Standard”
to which, as to “ the Word of God,” an appeal is made
in this essay. The enduring power, efficacy, and
sufficiency of this standard are well described by the
poet Milton in the following extract from “the
noblest of his prose works.”
“ Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play
upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously,
by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength.
Let her and falsehood grapple ; who ever knew Truth put
to the worse in a free and open encounter ? Her refuting
is the best and surest suppressing. He who hears what
praying there is for light and clear knowledge to be sent
down among us, would think of other matters to be con
stituted beyond the discipline of Geneva, framed and fabricked already to our hands. Yet when the new light which
we beg for shines in upon us, there be who envy and oppose,
if it come not first in at their casements. What a collusion
is this, whenas we are exhorted by the wise man to use
diligence, ‘ to seek for wisdom as for hidden treasures,’ early
and late, that another shall enjoin us to know nothing but
by statute! When a man hath beeh labouring the hardest
labour in the deep mines of knowledge, hath furnished out
his findings in all their equipage, drawn forth his reasons,
as it were a battle, ranged, scattered, and defeated all objec
tions in his way, calls out his adversary into the plain,
offers him the advantage of wind and sun if he please, only
that he may try the matter by dint of argument; for his
opponent then, to skulk, to lay ambushments, to keep a
narrow bridge of licensing where the challenger should pass,
though it be valour enough in soldiership, is but weakness
and cowardice in the wars of Truth. For who knows not
that Truth is strong, next to the Almighty ? She needs
no policies, nor stratagems, nor licensings, to make her
victorious ; those are the shifts and the defences that error
uses against her power ; give her but room, and do not bind
her when she sleeps.”
�CHAPTER I.
THE FINDING OF THE BOOK—INTRODUCTION.
b.c. 623.
*
,
2 Kings xxii. 8,10, 11.—“ And Hilkiah the high priest
said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the
law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah gave the book
to Shaphan, and he read it. . . . And Shaphan the
scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath
delivered me a book, and Shaphan read it before the king.
And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of
the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.”
2 Cheon. xxxiv. 14, 15, 18, 19. — “ And when they
brought out the money that was brought into the house of
the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the
Lord given by Moses. And Hilkiah answered and said to
Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the
house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to
Shaphan. . . . Then Shaphan the scribe told the king,
saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And
Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass,
when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent
his clothes.”
The discovery here recorded was a most momen
tous event, and the account of its occurrence, and of
its attending circumstances, is one of the most in
teresting and suggestive passages in the early history
of the Bible. Its happening seems to have been so
fortuitous and unexpected, and its import so over
whelming and amazing, that the king in his penitent
* The dates and periods of time, when not specially ex
plained, are all taken from or founded on the generally
accepted chronology, as given in “Bagster’s Polyglot Bible.”
B
�18
Introduction.
terror rent his clothes, and in his perplexity com
manded some of the chief priests and scribes,
saying:—
2 Kings xxii. 13.—“ Go ye, enquire of the Lord for
me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the
words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of
the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers
have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do
according unto all that which is written concerning us.”
The light of such a lamp, thus suddenly rekindled,
must have immediately thrown, as the contemplation
of it still does throw, a most peculiar and instructive
reflection upon the previous history of the nation. It
was found that God had given to their ancestors,
eight centuries before then, a miraculous, infallible
code of laws, of which no distinct trace, recollection,
nor tradition had come down to them, and of which
the true character and record had remained for ages
lost, unknown, and forgotten, until this single copy
happened at last to be turned up from under the
accumulated dust of centuries in the temple.
We should, therefore, expect to find in the writings
and histories of those preceding centuries, clear evi
dence, if not distinct record, of the sudden disappear
ance or gradual neglect of the book, and of the
consequent tendency of the priests and people, with
each succeeding wave of change, to diverge further
and further from the laws, ceremonies, and institu
tions of that Levitical code, which had now so
strangely come up as a witness against a generation
of men, to whom, and to whose fathers, it had been
unknown (Deut. xxxi. 26). We should expect to
find, in each receding period before the reign of
Josiah, clearer and clearer traces of its observance,
more and more complete conformity to its ceremonies
and arrangements, and more and more accurate de
tails regarding the classification, duties, privileges,
and provision of its elaborate hierarchy. We should
�Finding of the Book.
J9
expect to find the distinctness of this recognition
increasing with each step backwards, until we should
arrive at a point where we should discern, by the
notices and instances of its observance, or of its guilty
and known neglect, that the old law in its complete
form was then in the hands of the priests and in the
minds of the people.
If we shall find, on the contrary, that in each
receding period, prior to the alleged discovery, there
was less and less recognition of the law; if we find
that, instead of being gradually disused and lost
sight of, the law, through a series of reformations
and changes, became gradually more and more de
veloped, so that in each earlier reformation the code
of religious observances and of ecclesiastical enact
ments was notably further from being complete than
it was in each later reformation ; if we find that the
historical period which approaches nearest to the
date of Moses, to whom the authorship and promul
gation of the entire law is ascribed, is precisely the
period in which there appears no trace whatever of
the Levitical law, no record of its observance, nor re
proof for its neglect; and if we can thus trace the law
in its growth, from rude and primitive times of be
ginning, through several clearly marked stages of
progressive development, we may in that case find
ourselves shut up to the conclusion that Hilkiah’s
production was only a new, or final, phase of the long
continued growth, and that, whatever may be the
merit or the demerit of the Levitical code, it must in
its complete form stand or fall, apart from the sanction
of Mosaic authorship, and of divine inspiration through
Moses.
In order to guard against this inference, and to
evade the difficulties which to their minds it suggests,
some commentators have thought of lessening the
importance of the discovery, by assuming that the
book which was found was only that version or com-
�20
Introduction.
pendium of the law which is given in the book of
Deuteronomy; but this hypothesis cannot be recon
ciled with the account given of the celebration of the
passover in Josiah’s time.
2 Kings xxiii. 21, 22.—“And the king commanded all
the people, saying, keep the passover unto the Lord your
God, as it is written in the book of this covenant. Surely
there was not holden such a passover, from the days of the
judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of
Israel, nor of the kings of Judah.'1'
Now the laws relating to the passover in Deuter
onomy are very brief and incomplete (Deut. xvi. 1-8);
while the full instructions regarding this observance
are to be found in other portions of the Pentateuch
(Exod. xii. 1-20 : Num. xxviii. 16-25); so that the
discovery of Deuteronomy alone would certainly not
have incited nor enabled Josiah to celebrate the
passover better than the pious and zealous reformers
and kings of earlier date might and would have done,
if they had possessed the other books.
The historian in Kings makes the discovery of the
book antecedent to the reforms instituted by Josiah;
while, in Chronicles, it is represented as subsequent
thereto.
2 Chron. xxxiv. 8.—“Now in the eighteenth year of
his reign, when he had purged the land and the house, he
sent Shaphan the Scribe, &c.”
If it were necessary to decide which of these is the
true account of the matter, probability would favour
the narrative in Kings; because it is more reason
able to suppose, that Josiah became acquainted with
the law, before he obeyed it, than that he so far ful
filled it first, and then discovered it afterwards.
Having been sent to “ inquire of the Lordf
2 Kings xxii. 14.—“ Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam,
and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asaiah, went unto Huldah
the prophetess, the wife of Shallum, the son of Tikvah, the
�Finding of the Book
2I
son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe ; (now she dwelt in
Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her.”
And she commenced her reply by announcing
dreadful judgment on the people and on the place,
because of their idolatry,—even “ all the curses that
are written ip the book,” says the record, according
to which Josiah had just made an end of purging the
land from idolatry. But, as for Josiah himself, the
prophetess concluded,—
2 Kings xxii. 18, 20; and 2 Chron. xxxiv. 26, 28.—
“Thus saith the Lord God of Israel. . . . Behold I will
gather thee to thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered to
thy grave in peace.”
This is the only original prediction by Huldah, which
has come down to us ; and it will not stand the test,
which the Pentateuch instructs us to apply to all such
prophetical utterances.
Deut. xviii. 21, 22.—“And if thou say in thine heart,
How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not
spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the
Lord, if the thing follow not nor come to pass, that is the
thing which the Lord hath not spoken; but the prophet
hath spoken it presumptuously ; thou shalt not be afraid of
him.”
Instead of being gathered to his grave in peace, the
next chapter of each narrative contains the account
of Josiah's death,-—killed in battle with Pharaoh
Necho, king of Egypt. (2 Kings xxiii. 29 ; 2 Chron.
xxxv. 23, 24.)
Huldah’s reply seems, however, to have been re
ceived as a valid and sufficient confirmation of the
authenticity of the book which had been found ; and
it was accordingly publicly acknowledged as that con
cerning which—
Deut. xxxi. 25, 26.—“ Moses commanded the Levites
which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,
Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark
�22
Introduction.
of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there
for a witness against thee.”
The consultation with Huldah appears to have been
the only form of inquiry which was considered neces
sary for testing the claims of the book. No one seems
to have thought of employing the outward and ordi
nary means for ascertaining whether or not it was
what it professed to be, or rather what its promul
gators declared that it was. We have no record of
any kind of critical examination, comparison or re
search ; and, so far as we can learn from the two his
tories, there was not even a doubt nor a question of
this kind suggested by king, priests, prophets, or
people. If any one conceived a doubt about the
genuineness of the book, prudence would seem to have
counseled such a one to keep his doubts to himself;
for, if any were disposed to ask troublesome questions
instead of promptly assenting and submitting to the
new confession of faith, and to the new claims of the
ruling hierarchy, means certainly would not be want
ing to silence such presumptuous scepticism; and so.
we read that “ all the people stood to the covenant.'”
In my opinion, there is here a subject for enquiry,
too much neglected by the biblical commentators
with whom I am acquainted; and it appears to me
strange that, while so much has been written, and so
much ingenuity employed, both in the attack and in
the defence of the Pentateuch itself, so very little
attention seems to have been bestowed upon this
most suggestive and important episode in its trans
mission to us. This book, which was found, was and
is the only link, through which, at that point in its
history, the Pentateuch stands connected with our
modern systems of theology. Well might good old
Matthew Henry exclaim, in his Commentary on this
incident—“ If this was the only authentic copy of
the Pentateuch then in being, which had, as I may
say, so narrow a turn for its life, and was so near
�Finding of the Book.
perishing, I wonder the hearts of all good people did
not tremble for that sacred treasure, as Eli’s for the
ark; and am sure we now have reason to thank God
upon our knees for that happy providence, by which
Hilkiah found this book at this time; found it when
he sought it not ! ”
We are told very particularly when the book was
found-, but this immediately suggests another most
important and interesting question, when was it lost ?
and unless the clue, which this question supplies, can
be successfully followed up, the history of the book
must remain incomplete and unsatisfactory. I pro
pose, therefore, in the following chapters, to pursue
this line of enquiry, directing attention chiefly to
the Scriptural narratives, of the times preceding
the discovery. Taking the discovery itself as my
starting point, I shall endeavour to prosecute a search
backwards, so far as may be found necessary or pos
sible, for any traces in the history which may throw
light upon the question as to the time when the book
was lost; or which may seem to account for its pro
duction at the time when it is said to have been found.
In endeavouring to present a clear and connected
view of the events and characters bearing upon the
subject of inquiry, it will suit best to examine the
history of Judah alone, hoping that much of the per
plexity and confusion may thus be avoided,. which
must arise from the mixing up of two histories and
of two dynasties, (those of Judah and of Israel), and
from the alternate introduction of scraps from the one
and from the other.
It is superfluous to say, that I have no new dis
coveries to boast of; and that my desire and aim is
only to arrange and present those materials, with which
every reader of the Bible is or ought to be acquainted,
in such a manner, as to throw the greatest amount of
light upon that event which is the subject of this essay.
�24
When was the Book Lost ?
CHAPTER II.
SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE OF THE PREVIOUS EXISTENCE,
OR OF THE LOSS OF THE BOOK.
HEZEKIAH TO JOSIAH.—B.C. 726 TO 641.
In accordance with the plan which has been indicated,
our search, for such traces as may be found of the Book
which had been lost, is first to be directed to the period
which immediately preceded its alleged discovery;
commencing with the accession of King Hezekiah,
who had been the last predecessor of Josiah in the
work of reformation.
Hezekiah’s reign began eighty-five years earlier
than that of Josiah, or one hundred and three years
before the finding of the Book; and he reigned
twenty-nine years; so that, between his death and
the discovery, there intervened only seventy-four
years; and, as that was a long-living time, we may
presume that old men heard the reading of the new
found book, who in their youth had witnessed the
reforming zeal of Hezekiah. Many, at least, must
have been present on the later occasion, who had
heard from their fathers all that was most interesting
about the good old times. From this consideration,
and from the words of King Josiah—
2 Chron. xxxiv. 21—“Great is the wrath of the Lord
that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not
kept the word of the Lord, to do after all that is written in
this book”—
as also from the surprise and dismay with which the
very unexpected announcement was received by the
king, insomuch that he rent his clothes; there seems
to be a primfr facie probability that, within the com
paratively brief and recent period which we are now
�Hezekiah to Josiah.
25
considering, we shall fail to find any traces of the
Book’s previous existence; because, if it had been
known and obeyed in the time of Hezekiah, it seems
impossible that king, priest, and people should so
entirely have lost all knowledge of it in the interval;
and Josiah’s exclamation implies that, so far as he
knew, the fathers of his generation, at least, had
known nothing of the Book. It is, however, none
the less necessary to examine this period as much as
any other; and, even should we fail to find clear
traces of the Book, we may fairly expect to notice
various things which may be useful in the further
prosecution of this inquiry.
It is interesting to observe the difference of tone
between the earlier and the later narratives, in the
accounts which they respectively give of the reign of
Hezekiah; although there is no contradiction, nor
■any discrepancy, which cannot be easily explained or
reconciled.
According to the earlier Book, which, in this part,
has much internal evidence of being written by the
prophet Isaiah, this was the very first monarch
who ventured to remove the high places.
2 Kings xviii. 4.—“ He removed the high places, and
brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in
pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto
those days, the children of Israel did burn incense to it:
and he called it Nehushtan (a piece of brass).”
It is rather startling to learn from this passage that
Hezekiah was also the first king who entirely put
down the worship of images, which would seem to
have been only partially accomplished by the reformers
of earlier times, who must, at least, have spared the
brazen serpent. But he was, notwithstanding his
piety and faithfulness, exposed to misfortune; for we
learn that he was forced to pay a humiliating tribute
to the king of Assyria.
�26
When was the Book Lost ?
2 Kings xviii. 13-15.—“Now, in the fourteenth year of
King Hezekiah, did Sennacherib, king of Assyria, come up
against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them. And
Hezekiah, king of Judah, sent to the king of Assyria, to
Lachish, saying, I have offended: return from me: that
which thou puttest on me I will bear. And the king of
Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah, king of Judah, three
hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. And
Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the
house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s
house.”
In this narrative, the celebration of the Passover is
not mentioned; and, indeed, we have nothing at all
about priests or Levites; but many things said and
done by the Prophet Isaiah (chap, xix.)
In the later account, the picture has a totally
different appearance. Now we find only one in
cidental notice of Isaiah :—
2 Chron. xxxii. 20.—“And for this cause Hezekiah, the
king, and the Prophet Isaiah, the son of Amoz, prayed and
cried to heaven.”
But we have three chapters (xxix., xxx., xxxi.) of
purely Levitical matter, with a detailed account of
the Passover, which is here mentioned for the first
time in the whole history.
2 Chron. xxx. 21, 23, 26.—“ And the children of
Israel that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of un
leaven bread seven days with great gladness: and the
Levites and the priests praised the Lord day by day, singing
with loud instruments unto the Lord .... And the whole
assembly took counsel to keep other seven days; and, they
kept other seven days with gladness .... So there was
great joy in Jerusalem ; for, since the time of Solomon, the
son of David, King of Israel, there was not the like in
Jerusalem.”
We have detailed lists of priests and Levites, with
many particular ceremonial observances; and, most
notably, we have here a distinct mention of tithes,
�Hezekiah to Josiah.
which we cannot find in the history of any of the
earlier kings :—•
2 Chron. xxxi. 4-6—“Moreover he commanded the
people that dwelt in Jerusalem to give the portion of the
priests and the Levites, that they might be encouraged in
the law of the Lord. And as soon as the commandment
came abroad, the children of Israel brought in abundance
the first fruits of corn, wine, and oil, and honey, and of all
the increase of the field, and the tithe of all things brought
they in abundantly : and concerning the children of Israel
and Judah, that dwelt in the cities of Judah, they also
brought in the tithe, &c.”
In the history of the earlier reigns, we find no
mention made of tithes \ from which it would appear
that the wealth and bounty of the kings, with the
abundance of the sacrifices, had then sufficed for the
support of the priesthood; and the only collections
from the people, which are recorded, were for the
purpose of building and decorating the temple, and
were not for the priests. In the Book of Chronicles
the humiliation of Hezekiah is not related, perhaps
because such a calamity, to such a pious king, would
not harmonize with the historian’s idea of the divine
government; but it is very interesting to _ observe
that this more recent history has a modernized ver
sion of the miraculous discomfiture of Sennacherib,
when that king came a second time against Heze
kiah, modified apparently by the information which
the scribes of Ezra’s time, to whom the authorship of
the Books of Chronicles is generally attributed, had
derived from Babylon:—
2 Chron. xxxii. 21.—“ And the Lord sent an angel, which
cut off all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders and
captains in the camp of the King of Assyria: so he returned,
with shame of face, to his own land.”
This is one of very few and similar cases in
which the later historian seems to be more credible
�28
When was the Book Lost?
than the early narrators, when the two authorities
differ:—
2 Kings xix. 35.—“ And it came to pass that night that
the Angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of
the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand, and
when they arose, early in the morning, behold they were all
dead corpses! ”
In Chronicles, it is not stated, but seems to be
assumed and implied that Hezekiah destroyed the
images, and removed the high places, as, according to
this Book, two former kings had, in their respective
times, done; namely, Asa and Jehoshaphat.
We cannot learn from either of the narratives, nor from
the prophecy of the earlier Isaiah (Isa. i.-xxxix.),
that the Sabbath-day was known or observed at this
time; nor the Sabbatical year; nor the jubilee; nor
the commandment to write and read the law.
Deut. xvii. 18—“ And it shall be when he sitteth upon
the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of
this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests
the Levites.”
Deut. xxxi. 10, 11.—“And Moses commanded them,
saying, at the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of
the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all
Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God, in the
place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before
all Israel, in their hearing.”
The negative proof of this ignorance is as complete
■as it could possibly be; and positive evidence of such
a negation can scarcely be expected. But, with re
gard to the Sabbath-day, we find something nearly
approaching to positive proof, that it was unknown.
2 Chron. xxix. 16,17.—“ And the priests went into the
inner part of the house of the Lord, to cleanse it, and
brought out all the uncleanness that they found. . . . And
the Levites took it to carry it out abroad into the brook
Kidron.
“ Now, they began on the first day of the month to
sanctify (cleanse), and on the eighth day of the month came
�Hezekiah to Josiah.
29
they to the porch of the Lord: so they sanctified (cleansed)
the house of the Lord in eight days; and, in the sixteenth
day of the first month, they made an end.”
And there is also some positive evidence, of an in
direct kind, that the Sabbatical year was not at this
time observed, which in the reign of such a zealous
and reforming king implies that the law regarding it
was not known.
2 Chron. xxxvi. 20,21.—“ And them thatescaped from the
sword carried he away into Babylon, where they were ser
vants to him and his sons, until the reign of the kingdom
of Persia.
“ To fulfil the Word of the Lord by the mouth of Jere
miah, until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths : for as long
as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfil threescore and
ten years.
Exod. xxiii. 10, 11.—“ And six years thou shalt sow
thy land, and gather in the fruits thereof: but the seventh
year thou shalt let it rest and lie still.”
The land had to lie desolate for seventy years, to
make up for the number of neglected Sabbatical years,
so that this neglect is computed by the prophet Jere
miah, as quoted in Chronicles, (in the book of
Jeremiah the prediction seems to have no relation to
the Sabbatical year, Jer. xxv. 12,) to have lasted for
four hundred and ninety years before the time of the
captivity, which leads us back to the reign of Saul,
the earliest period whence the continuous history is
traced : and we must infer that all the good kings,
whose piety and zeal are so much extolled, knew
■nothing about this law, or they could not have so
entirely neglected it. (Compare Nehem. viii. 14
and 17.)
1 Kings xv. 5—“ Because David did that which was
right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from
anything, that he commanded him all the days of his life,
save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”
The computation of Jeremiah receives confirmation
�30
When was the Book Lost?
from the fact, that there is not to be found in the
whole history of the monarchy any trace of the observ
ance. of the Sabbatical year, nor of the reading of the
law in that year, which proves, almost to demonstra
tion, that the existence of this law was unknown.
Hezekiah was the third of the four great reformers,
of whom Asa had been the first, and Jehoiada the
second. Each of the four arose immediately after a
period of gross declension; and, in each case, the heat
and brightness of the rising sun seems to have been
in proportion to the length and darkness of the pre
ceding night. Hezekiah succeeded Ahaz, who had
reigned sixteen years; and who had been not only an
idolater, but a warlike and vigorous king, and zealous
in his heathenish worship.
2 Kings xvi. 3 — “ Yea, and made his son to pass
through the fire, according to the abominations of the
heathen.”
And the long suppressed zeal of the orthodox party
was most vigorously displayed in the very first year
of the new king, who threw himself into the work of
reformation with all the ardour of youth.
2 Chron. xxix. 3—“ He, in the first year of his reign,
in the first month, opened the doors of the house of the
Lord and repaired them,” &c.
Not content with merely returning to the standards
of the old reformers, which .King Ahaz had set aside,
he proceeded to establish innovations, which must
have been rather startling in their time ; and thus,
while the more recent narrative attributes to him the
first celebration of the Passover, the earlier emphati
cally extols him as the first who destroyed all the
images, and took away the high places.
These two measures would naturally go together,
or at least the one must soon have followed as the
complement of the other; for, when it was forbidden
to worship anywhere except at Jerusalem, it would be
�Hezekiah to Josiah.
3l
expedient or necessary that some great festival should
be instituted, at which the worshippers from all parts
of the country might be invited to meet. Let us not
forget, as we are apt to do, that the removal of the
high places was no mild measure, but one that must
have been felt and regarded as harsh in the extreme
by those who, residing in places distant from Jerusalem, had never before been thus interdicted from
worshipping at the altar which they found in their
neighbourhood, as their forefathers had done; and
as they might plead that they were justified in doing,
by the examples of Samuel, David, and Solomon.
1 Sam. ix. 12—“ Behold he (Samuel) is before you:
make haste now, for he came to-day to the city ; for there
is a sacrifice of the people to-day in the high place,” &c.
1 Chron. xxi. 25, 26, 29—“ So David gave to Oman for
the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight, and David
built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burntofferings. . . . For the tabernacle of the Lord, which
Moses made in the wilderness, and the altar of burnt-offering,
were at that season in the high place at Gibeon.”
1 Kings iii. 3—“And Solomon loved the Lord, walking
in the statutes of David his father: only he sacrificed and
burnt incense in high places.”
If we only reflect on some of the hardships which
are implied in the total abolition of local worship by
the strong arm of the civil power; or, if we try to
realise the compulsory operation of such a measure
among ourselves, we shall cease to wonder that the
worshipping in high places was a sin, if sin we are to
call it, into which the people were constantly prone
to fall back. The new law most probably proceeded,
in some degree, from a real desire to maintain purity
and uniformity of worship ; but was unquestionably
also designed to magnify the office, and to increase
the emoluments of the temple priesthood.
This reign, we may rest assured, was not a time
when the book of the law could in any sense be lost;
and, if Hezekiah had such a book, it must, under his
�32
When was the Book Lost?
administration, have assumed or resumed such import
ance in the minds of the people and of the favoured
priesthood, that we cannot conceive it possible for all
trace and recollection of it to have been lost in the
two generations which intervened between his death
and the time of the discovery.
Some commentators, however, have tried to solve
the difficulty, by assuming that the wicked Manasseh,
who succeeded Hezekiah, may probably have caused
the suppression of the book ■, and, to many superficial
readers, this explanation has, doubtless, appeared
satisfactory. But Manasseh had seers (probably
Nahum and Joel) who seem to have spoken to him
fearlessly in the name of God (2 Kings xxi. 10-15);
and some considerable time before his death, Manasseh
repented, turned from his idolatry, prayed to God,
and was forgiven.
2 Chron. xxxiii. 15-17.—“ And he took away the strange
gods, and the idol out of the house of the Lord, and all the
altars that he had built in the mount of the house of the
Lord, and in Jerusalem, and cast them out of the city. And
he repaired the altar of the Lord, and sacrificed thereon
peace-offerings and thank-offerings, and commanded Judah
to serve the Lord God of Israel.
“ Nevertheless the people did sacrifice still in the high
places, yet unto the Lord their God only.”
If Manasseh had been guilty of destroying or of
suppressing the book, such guilt must have been
known to the outspoken prophets, and to the ortho
dox priests of his time; and must have been indig
nantly denounced, and certainly recorded, as his other
crimes, some or all of which were of minor import
ance, have been. Restitution also would, in that
case, have been the first fruits of his repentance, and
it cannot be supposed that restitution was impossible,
or even that it would be attended with any serious
difficulty.
Twenty-three years before the commencement of
�Hezekiah to Josiah.
33
Manasseh’s reign, Samaria had been taken, after a
siege of three years, by Shalmanezer, king of Assyria,
who carried the Israelites away into Assyria, and, in
stead of them, placed foreigners in the cities of Israel.
He did not, however, prevent the Israelites from wor
shipping according to their conscience, but, . on the
contrary, sent back a priest from the captivity to
Samaria, that he might teach the foreigners located
there how to worship the true God.
2 Kings xvii. 27, 28.—“Then the king of Assyria com
manded, saying, Carry thither one of the priests, whom
ye brought from thence", and let them go and dwell
there, and let him teach the manner of the God of the land.
Then one of the priests, whom they had carried away from
Samaria, came and dwelt in Beth-el, and taught them
how they should fear the Lord.”—(Compare Ezra iv. 2.)
Even supposing, therefore, that Manasseh had
destroyed every copy of the book of the law, on
which he could lay his hands, there would still have
remained others in Samaria, and among the captive
Israelites, which must have been entirely beyond his
control; and this would have made restitution easy,
when the days of repentance and reaction came.
But of any such suppression or restoration—of any
such duty, desire, or intention to restore;—of any such
law in the hands of the captives—of the supposed or
possible existence of any other copy, besides that which
Hilkiah discovered, there is not, in the whole narra
tive, the remotest hint, nor any trace to be found.
Between the death of the repentant Manasseh, who
had reigned fifty-five years, and the accession of Josiah,
there intervened only the two years’ reign of Amon.
2 Chron. xxxiii. 22-24.—“ But he did that which was
evil in the sight of the Lord as did Manasseh his father; for
Amon sacrificed unto all the carved images which Manasseh
his father had made, and served them; and humbled not
himself before the Lord, as Manasseh his father had humbled
himself; but Amon trespassed more and more. And his
C
�34
When was the Book Lost ?
servants conspired against him, and slew him in his own
house.”
The warnings and exhortations addressed to Man
asseh ; the influence which at length brought about
his conversion, and his actions which followed thereon;
the fate of Amon, and the training of Josiah, are all
proofs that the orthodox priesthood, the true pro
phets, and the faithful worshippers of Jehovah,
though oppressed and persecuted, had not been rooted
out; nay, the result soon showed that persecution
had produced its usual results : had deepened their
former convictions, and intensified their former zeal.
Was it in such a time that they, or their children,
were likely to lose all knowledge and all memory of
the book which they would so highly have prized and
revered ? Nay, is it not rather certain that, if they
had possessed, or had even known of the existence of,
such a book, it would in such times as these have been
their chief care to treasure and to preserve it, or, if
lost, promptly to set about recovering or restoring it
among themselves? Would it not have been be
queathed as a sacred trust to their children, as a pre
cious inheritance for the comfort, direction, and
encouragement of all the true persecuted Church ?
And would not Josiah have been from his youth
initiated therein by his pious teachers, instead of
being left to find it, as if by accident, in the twenty-,
sixth year of his age and the eighteenth of his reign?
And, even supposing that Manasseh had actually
destroyed every copy in all Judea, would not the first
righteous impulse of the young Josiah, and of those
who trained him in the knowledge of God, and who
were his advisers, have been to seek by every means
in their power to repair such a serious loss, which, as
we have already shown, could not have been very
difficult ?
In Hezekiah’s reign, several things may be noticed,
which seem to indicate that he must have been ac-
�Hezekiah to ’ osiah.
J
35
quainted with the book ; but there are also many
other circumstances and indications which are opposed
to that conclusion. If, however, Hezekiah had the
book, it must have been left by him in dignity and
safety; and we have seen that, between his reign and
that of Josiah, it could not have been lost. We are,
therefore, forced to conclude that the loss of the
book, if loss there were, did not happen during this
period, which we have been examining, but must, at
least, have taken place before the time of Hezekiah.
The reformation accomplished by Josiah, like all
the three preceding reformations of Asa, Jehoiada,
and Hezekiah, thus immediately succeeded, and may
perhaps be said to have resulted from, a reign of
■mixed worship and of heresy, which had, in this case
been both more gloomy and more lasting, than any of
the former dark intervals had been; and, as we have
seen that the reforming zeal of young Hezekiah led
him to the adoption of bolder measures than those of
the old and cautious Jehoiada had been; so also now,
when, by the accession of the pious and youthful
Josiah, the orthodox priesthood found the pressure
removed, and free scope allowed for the recoil of the
spring, that recoil was in proportion to what the pres
sure had been; their zeal went far beyond the zeal
of Hezekiah; and, instead of being satisfied with
merely restoring what had been gained in the former
reformations, they, in a few years, produced and en
acted, as derived from heaven, a code of infallible and
immutable laws, so very comprehensive and minute,
including so very much of everything which, to their
sacerdotal minds, appeared most desirable, so hedged
round with inviolable sacredness, and with such claims
to the sanction of remote antiquity, as to preclude, so
far, at least, as priestly foresight could, the desire or
the possibility of any further advance in the same
direction for all future time. The priesthood which
�36
When was the Book Lost ?
was typified in Eli and in Samuel, and which was
established by Solomon at the opening of the temple,
had now developed the wonderful extent of its arro
gance and of its claims. The tithes, of which no trace
can be found in the history of David, Solomon, or
Asa, were, in Jehoiada s tune, two hundred and fifty
years before the finding of the book, dimly fore
shadowed by a contrivance, which has often since
then been imitated with more or less success :
2 Kings xii. 9.—“ Jehoiada the priest took a chest, and
bored a hole in the lid of it, and set it beside the altar, on
the right side, as one cometh into the house of the Lord.”
The temple at that time stood in need of repairs,
which the king was desirous should be done without
delay:
2 Kings xii. 4-8.—“ And Jehoash said to the priests:
All the money of the dedicated things that is brought into
the house of the Lord, even the money of every one that
passeth the account, the money that every man is set at,
and all the money that cometh into any man’s heart to bring
into the house of the Lord, let the priests take it to them,
every man of his acquaintance; and let them repair the
breaches of the house, wheresoever any breach shall be
found. But it was so that, in the three and twentieth year
of king Jehoash, the priests had not repaired the breaches
of.the house. Then king Jehoash called for Jehoiada the
priest, and the other priests, and said unto them, Why re
pair ye not the breaches of the house ? Now, therefore,
receive no more money of your acquaintance, but deliver it
(what they had already received) for the breaches of the
house. And the priests consented to receive no more money
of the people, neither to repair the breaches of the house.”
So that the priests would seem to have claimed and
kept all that, during many years, had been contri
buted ; and yet were not to do the work for which it
had been given; but they were to receive no more,
except
2 Kings xii. 16.—“ The trespass-money and the sinmoney was not brought into the house of the Lord: it was
the priests’.”
�Hezekiah to Josiah.
$7
-Here it is evident that the contributions of the
people were chiefly voluntary, and not at all in. the
form of tithes; and it also appears that the priests
were at that time dissatisfied with their allowances,
which they sought to increase by questionable means.
In Hezekiah’s time, as we have seen (p. 27), accord
ing to the narrative in Chronicles, the provision for
the priests is called the tithes; but the language em
ployed seems to indicate rather a discretional and
semi-voluntary contribution, than a regular impost of
the tenth part; and this view is supported by the
subsequent context:
2 Chron. xxxi. 14, 15.—“And Kore the son of Imnah the Levite, the porter toward the east, was over the
free-will offerings of God, to distribute the oblations of the
Lord, and the most holy things. And next him were Eden
(and six others named) in the cities of the priests, in their
set office, to give to their brethren by courses, as well to
the great as to the small.”
That these contributions were voluntary, is further
confirmed by the silence of the earlier historian
(2 Kings xviii.), who, though not caring to write
about Levitical matters, would certainly not have
omitted to notice the institution, or the restoration,
of such an important tax as the tithe. We may there
fore, with tolerable certainty, infer that, while Heze
kiah made some provision for the priesthood, more
liberal and more regular than that which had been
made in Jehoiada’s time, it was left for Hilkiah and
Josiah, at the time of their great discovery, to place
the matter on a thoroughly satisfactory and perma
nent footing, by what would, in our days, be called
the “ Tithes Consolidation Bill.”
Lev. xxvii. 30-33. —“And all the tithe.of the land,
whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree,
is the Lord’s; it is holy unto the Lord. And if a man will
at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the
fifth part thereof. And, concerning the tithe of the herd,
or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod,
�38
When was the Book Lost ?
the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord. He shall not search
whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it; and
if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof
shall be holy: it shall not be redeemed.”
Num. xviii. 21.—“And, behold, 1 have given the child
ren of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for the
service which they serve.”
The violent innovations of Hezekiah for the abolition
of all local worship, heresy, and nonconformity, were
restored by Josiah with far more than their original
force.
Deut. xii. 13, 14.—“Take heed to thyself that thou
offer not thy burnt-offerings in every place that thou seest:
but in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy
tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, and there
thou shalt do all that I command thee.”
Lev. xvii. 8, 9.—“Whatsoever man there be of the
house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among
you, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice, and bringeth
it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to
offer it unto the Lord, even that man shall be cut off from
among his people.”
And instead of the one great festival which was
celebrated in Hezekiah’s time, the law was now to
be—
Deut. xvi. 16, 17.—“ Three times in a year shall all
thy males appear before the Lord thy God in the place
which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread,
and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles:
and they shall not appear before the Lord empty: every
man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of
the Lord thy God, which he hath given thee.”
So absolutely unfettered by any restraint were the
sacerdotal party under Josiah, that, not content with
the enforcement of such practical measures as these,
they felt themselves at liberty to enact a thousand and
one other things of a vexatious and oppressive kind,
some of which were so absurd and unpractical, that
we may wonder whether they ever were observed at
�Hezekiah to Josiah.
39
nil: as, for example, the Sabbatical year? which has
already been noticed in this chapter. Of this intoler
able legislation, no words can convey a more concise
and pithy denunciation than those of the Apostle
Peter :—
Acts xv. 10.—“Now, therefore, why tempt ye God, to
put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our
fathers nor we were able to bear ? ”
We need not wonder so very much at the reception of
the book. When the priests and the king had resolved
on its enactment, the matter was settled. Of course
it contained much which the people already knew or
believed to be correct. Most of its leading features
must have had some sort of foundation, or at least of
germ, in the customs and traditions of the.nation;
and for the rest, we must remember that in those
days, and for ages afterwards, both priests, and people
were very innocent in the matter of criticism, as now
understood, and that the people had not, as we have,
the book in their hands, but only had it. read m
their hearing. Nor must we forget to consider how
very vague and superstitious were the notions of
Divine inspiration which prevailed in those early
days, when we find the more recent historian writing
: as follows:—
2 Chron. xxxv. 20-22.—“After all this, when Josiah
had prepared the temple, Necho king of Egypt came up to
fight against Charchemish by Euphrates: and Josiah went
out against him. But he sent ambassadors to him, saying,
What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah ? I come
-not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith
I have war; for God commanded me to make haste; forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he
destroy thee not. Nevertheless, Josiah would not turn his
face from him, but disguised himself that he might fight with
him, and hearkened not unto the words of Necho from the
mouth of God.”
If Josiah’s death, and the non-fulfilment of Huldah’s
�40
When was the Book Lost?
prophecy regarding his peaceful end are thus regarded
as a judgment on him, for refusing to listen to the
words of a heathen king 11 from the mouth of God:” how
shall we wonder that the “ book of the law of the
Eord, which Hilkiah the priest produced, which was
vouched for by Huldah the prophetess, and then
acknowledged by the king, was received by the
people with entire submission to the high authority
which its authors assumed for it ?
J
CHAPTER III.
SEARCH CONTINUED.
JEHOIADA TO HEZEKIAH.—B.C. 878 TO 726.
Continuing our search backwards, the next period
which we come to examine is that which immediately
preceded the accession of Hezekiah, and which we
shall regard as commencing with the reformation
efiected under the powerful, zealous, and orthodox
priest-regent,. Jehoiada, in whose hands the civil
and ecclesiastical authorities were united, for the first
time since the days of Samuel, having been seized by
him, after a successful conspiracy, and the assassination
of Queen Athaliah; thus clearing the way for young
Joash (or Jehoash), the rightful surviving heir, then
only seven years of age, who had been reared secretly
m the temple, and who now ascended the throne under
the tutelage of his guardian, the great priest.
2 Kings xi. 17.—“And Jehoiada made a covenant ber 6 ,Lo*d and the kLn^ and the people, that they
should be the Lord’s people: between the king also and thepeople.”
. 2 Chron. xxiv. 2, 3.—And Joash did that which was
right in the sight of the Lord, all the days of Jehoiada the-
�Jehoiada to Hezekiah.
41
priest. And Jehoiada took for him two wives; and he
begat sons and daughters.”
. , , ,,
2 Chron. xxiii. 18.—“ Also Jehoiada appointed the offices
of the house of the Lord, by the hand of the priests the
Levites, whom David had distributed m the house of the
Lord, to offer the burnt-offerings of the Lord, as it is
written in the law of Moses, with rejoicing and with singing,
as it was ordained by David. ’
Here we find several things which seem to imply
that Jehoiada must have had the book of the law, if
the language does not directly assert that he had,
but, then, how can we reconcile this with the state
ment of the earlier historian ?
2 Kings xii. 2, 3—“And Jehoash did that which
was right in the sight of the Lord, all his days, wherein
Jehoiada the priest instructed him. But the Ingh places
were not taken away: the people still sacrificed and burnt
incense in the high places.”
Did the zealous Jehoiada knowingly and wilfully
transgress, or suffer others openly to transgress, the
laws regarding high places, which we have quoted
in the foregoing chapter (p. 38), the observance of
which was afterwards to be regarded as one of the
chief tests of orthodoxy, and the neglect of which was
to be recorded as a grave reproach against him and
others ? Had he never read, in the book of Joshua,
the story of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of
Manasseh, in whom the mere appearance or sus
picion of transgressing this great law was, according
to the narrative, sufficient to rouse the pious indigna
tion of all Judah f
Josh. xxii. 29.—“God forbid that we should rebel against
the Lord, and turn this day from following the Lord, to
build an altar for burnt-offerings, for meat-offerings, or for
sacrifices, beside the altar of the Lord our God, that is be
fore his tabernacle.”
Deliberate transgression, and wilful neglect of God s
law in this particular, would be quite opposed to the
�42
When was the Book Lost ?
piety and zeal which are ascribed to this reformer •
and thus we are forced to conclude that he had no
knowledge of such a law.
Jehoiada, or his pupil-king, repaired the temple
reorganized the priesthood, and renewed the covenant
to worship God alone ; but his reformation fell short
of Hezekiah’s in two most important respects, the
removal of the high places, and the institution of the
Passover; of which latter we find no trace at this
nor at any earlier historic time; and the same may
be said of the observance of the Sabbath-day, the
Sabbatical year, the public reading of the law. &c.
. We learn very clearly, from both narratives, that
m Jehoiadas time the power of the priesthood was
greatly increased or restored, and that he did his
part wisely and well, living to a very great age, and
thus contributing his full share to the elevation and
establishment of his own order, while probably adding
not a little to the fabric of Levitical law.
&
2 Chron. xxiv. 15, 16.—“But Jehoiada waxed old,
and was full of days when he died; an hundred and thirty
years old was he when he died. And they buried him in
the city of David among the kings, because he had done
good m Israel, both toward God, and toward his house.”
But, being an old man before he came to power,
he seems to have ventured on no such startling
innovations as those which were afterwards intro
duced by Hezekiah and Josiah. From the narrative
in Kings, we may infer that he was desirous to secure
a larger and more regular provision for the priesthood;
in which, however, he seems to have been only partially
successful; and, certainly, fell far short of establishing
anything like the tithe-law (p. 36).
King Joash reigned forty years, living twenty
years after the death of Jehoiada.
2 Chron. xxiv. 17,18.—“Now after the death of Jehoiada,
came the princes of Judah and made obeisance to the king;
then the king hearkened unto them. And they left the house
�Jehoiada to Hezekiah.
43
of the Lord God of their fathers and served^groves and
idols: and wrath came upon Judah and Jeiusalem fo this
their trespass.”
The earlier narrative relates the calamity, but not
the sin; and, on the death of Joash, we read :
2 Kings xii. 21.—“ And they buried him with his fathers
in the city of David.”
Whereas the later historian says :—
2 Chron. xxiv. 25.—“And they buried him in the city
of David; but they buried him not in the sepulchre of the
kings.”
Although the law of Moses is mentioned by the
later authority as the rule which guided Jehoiada
and Jehoash in their restoration of the orthodox
worship, we have found, on the other hand, muci
evidence that they did not possess the book of the
law as it afterwards came to be known; but, at all
events, if they did possess it, we are not at liberty to
suppose that it was suppressed or destroyed m their
time, whatever the sins of Jehoash may have been;
because we find it again referred to as a rule of con
duct in connection with his successor, Amaziah, m a
■passage which is nearly the same in both narratives.
“2 Kings xiv. 5, 6; 2 Chron. xxv. 3, 4.—And it came
to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand,
that he slew his servants, which had slam the king his
father: but the children of the murderers he slew not; ac
cording unto that which is written in the book of the law
of Moses, wherein the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers
shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children
be put to death for the fathers ; but every man shall be put
to death for his own sin (Deut. xxiv. 16).”
In Chronicles, this passage may be regarded as
containing a moral reflection or paraphrase, by the
comparatively recent historian; and, in Kings, as an
interpolation from the later narrative. That it is an
-anachronism, as applied to Amaziah, can easily be
�44
When was the Book Lost?
sh°wn, inasmuch as it attributes to him a higher
standard of morality than was known in his days ■
and, for which at that period, we look in vain, even
where we should most expect to find it fully displayed.
lhe account of the divine appointment of Jehu, to
destroy the family of Ahab, may be taken as a good
illustration of the real lowness of moral sentiment
which prevailed m those days.
W®, read (2 Kings ix.), that Elisha the prophet sent
one of the sons of the prophets to go to Jehu, who
was one of the chief captains of the army of Joram,
son of Ahab king of Israel, and the young prophet
delivered his message thus :—
1
Kl^GS,ixPoured the oil on his head, and
said unto him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I have
anointed thee king oyer the people of the Lord, even over
Israel. And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy
Master that I may avenge the blood of my servants the
prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the Lord.”
In the following chapter we have some details of
the manner m which Jehu proceeded to carry out the
prophet s instructions :—
? ^I?GS X'
And Ahab had seventy sons in Samaria,
and Jehu wrote letters and sent to Samaria, unto the rulers
children” t0
elderS’ and to them that brought UP Ahab’s
^eMers were not explicit; but, when
obedience had been promised, his further instructions
were plain enough, and were promptly carried out
2 Kings x. 6, 7.—“ Now the king’s sons, being seventy
persons, were with the great men of the city, which brouqht
them up. And it came to pass when the letters came to
them, tha,t they took the king’s sons and slew seventy perJezreef”^
^eads
baskets, and sent them to
. The first idea suggested by this is one of indigna
tion against Jehu, for so horribly misinterpreting and
�Jeboiada to Hezekiah.
45
exceeding the instructions which he had received;
but we are compelled to abandon this view :—
2 Kings x. 30.—“ And the Lord said unto Jehu, Because
thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine
eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab, according to
all that was in mine heart, thy children of the fourth gene
ration shall sit on the throne of Israel.”
While the massacre of so many young persons and
children, for the sins of others, was thus regarded as
right in the eyes of God; it is impossible to believe
that the more humane law was known, by which
Amaziah is said to have been guided.
If he had really merited praise for the respect
shown by him to the law, we should certainly have
had some further and fuller proof of it:—
2 Kings xiv. 4.—“ Howbeit the high places were not taken
away; as yet the people did sacrifice and burn incense on
the high places.”
The very special importance assigned by the his
torians to this matter of the high places, and the
scarcity or absence of other criteria, force us to
regard it as the great comparative test of orthodoxy ;
and Amaziah’s failure on this point, with the negative
proof of silence that he knew nothing of the passover,
of the Sabbath-day, nor of the tithe-law, must be
sufficient to make us doubt whether he really had the
book of the law of Moses; even although we are told
that his leniency in punishing crime was dictated
by his obedience to that book. But, though we can
not be sure that Amaziah had the book, we may be
quite sure that it was not lost in his time; and that,
if he possessed it, it was by him safely bequeathed,
after he had reigned twenty-nine years, to his son
Uzziah or Azariah, who succeeded him :—
2 Kings xv. 3, 4.—“ And he did that which was right in
the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father
Amaziah had done; save that the high places were not re-
�46
When was the Book Lost?
moved: the people sacrificed and burnt incense still on the
high places.”
Uzziah’s wealth and prosperity and success in war,
are described in fulsome terms by the historian in
Chronicles (xxvi.); but only serve to magnify the
humiliation to which he had to submit, when he pre
sumed to usurp the priests’ office by entering the
temple, himself to offer sacrifice :—
2 Chron. xxvi. 16-18.—“But when he was strong his
heart was lifted up to his destruction: for he transgressed
against the Lord his God, and went into the temple of
the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense. And
Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore
priests of the Lord, that were valiant men. And they with
stood Uzziah the king and said unto him, It appertaineth not
unto thee Uzziah to burn incense unto the Lord; but to
the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn
incense: go out of the sanctuary, for thou hast trespassed.”
Uzziah was wroth, and persisted in his purpose;
but was humbled and set aside, being miraculously
smitten with leprosy. So great had the power and
arrogance of the priests become under the fostering
influence of royal favour, which they had now for a
century enjoyed.
What would have become of the priest who should
have ventured so to oppose David when he assumed
the priest’s dress and the priest’s office ?
2 Sam. vi. 13, 14.—“And it was so that, when they
that bare the ark of the Lord had gone six paces, he (David)
sacrificed oxen and fatlings. And David danced before the
Lord with all his might; and David was girded with a
linen ephod.”
If any one, at that time, had said, ‘ It appertaineth
not unto thee, David,’ there can be little doubt that
his blood would have been upon his own head.
The good priest-ridden king Uzziah, after a long
reign of fifty-two years, was succeeded by his son
Jotham.
�Jehoida to Hezekiah.
47
2 Chron. xxvii. 2.—“ And he did that which was right
in the. sight of the Lord, according to all that his father
Uzziah did: howbeit he entered not into the temple of the
Lord. And the people did yet corruptly.”
It is clear
lesson which
and that in
trifled with ;
that Jotham
that he was not allowed to forget the .
had been so firmly taught to his father,
his days the hierarchy were not to be
but we are not, on this account, to infer
was a weak prince.
2 Chron. xxvii. 6.—“ So Jotham became mighty, because
he prepared his ways before the Lord his God.”
Strange, that up to Jotham’s time, and even then,
when the priesthood had so long been in possession
of power, and when the kings did that which was
right, at least so far as they knew, there is not any
recorded celebration of the Passover, but, on the con
trary, we read :—
2 Kings xv. 34 and 35.—“ And he (Jotham) did that
which was right in the sight of the Lord : he did according
to all that his father Uzziah had done. Howbeit the high
places were not removed; the people sacrificed and burnt
incense still in the high places.”
Jotham is the last of the good or orthodox kings,
against whom this reproach is recorded, under which
all his predecessors, without exception, lie; and when
we consider the amount of reforming zeal, and of
priestly power, often manifested in Jotham’s and in
earlier reigns, we are forced to conclude that the wor
ship in high places which had all along been prac
tised and tolerated, was not known to be sinful, and
that those kings and priests were not acquainted with
the law, by which all local worship was afterwards
suppressed as intolerable heresy.
• After reigning sixteen years Jotham died, leaving
the priesthood, we cannot doubt, in a condition of
power and of prosperity, which, for a time at least, must
have ensured for them toleration under the new king
Ahaz, who is represented as an idolater.
�48
When was the Book Lost?
2 Kings xvi. 3.—“ But he walked in the way of the
kings of Israel, yea and made his son to pass through
the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen.”
2 Chron. xxviii. 25.—“ And in every several city of
Judah, he made high places to burn incense unto other gods;
and provoked to anger the Lord God of his fathers.”
Isaiah, his contemporary and survivor, accuses him
only of want of faith in God, which the prophet
sought to stimulate.
Isaiah vii. 10-12.—“ Moreover the Lord spake again unto
Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God ; ask it
either in the depth or in the height above. But Ahaz an
swered, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord.”
And, though noticing many prevailing sins, Isaiah
nowhere mentions nor alludes to the sacrifice of chil
dren, as a crime existing in his days,
But however much Ahaz himself may have sinned,
there is nothing recorded either by the historians or
by the prophet which can warrant us in supposing
him guilty of persecuting the orthodox worshippers,
or of suppressing or destroying the book of the law.
We learn that some of the priests were willing to
share in his irregular worship.
2 Kings xvi. 11, 12.—“ And Urijah the priest built
an altar, according to all that king Ahaz had sent from
Damascus. . . . And, when the king was come from Dam
ascus, the king saw the altar : and the king approached to
the altar, and offered thereon.”
But this incident, being a reproach against the priest
hood, is not noticed in the Book of Chronicles, while
for Ahaz himself the chronicler has no such tenderness,
exhibiting him in a much worse light than does the
historian in Kings.
2 Kings xvi. 7-9.—“ Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglathpilezer, king of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy
son: come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of
Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise
up against me. And Ahaz took the silver and gold that
was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of
�"Jehoiada to Hezekiah.
49
the king’s house, and sent it for a present to the king of
Assyria. And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him :
for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took
it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew
Bezin.”
whereas, in the later narrative, we read
2 Ciiron. xxviii. 20, 21. — “ And Tilgath-pilnezer, king
of Assyria, came unto him, and distressed him, but strength
ened him not. Foi’ Ahaz took away a portion out of the
house of the Lord, and out of the house of the king and of
the princes, and gave it unto the king of Assyria: but he
helped him not.'''
And the discrepancy between the two reports of his
burial exhibits the same bias on the part of the
Chronicler.
2 Kings xvi. 20.—“ And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and
was buried with his fathers in the city of David.”
2 Chron. xxviii. 27.—“ And Ahaz slept with his fathers
and they buried him in the city, even in Jerusalem: but they
brought him not into the sepulchres of the kings of Israeli
After reigning sixteen years, Ahaz was succeeded
by his son Hezekiah, who, in his very first year, pro
ceeded to inaugurate the third great reformation of
the Jewish worship, so that he must have been pre
viously educated thereto by orthodox instructors;
and this consideration, taken along with the absence
of intolerance, persecution, or suppression, either im
plied or recorded during the preceding reign, com
pletely excludes the idea that the loss of the book of
the law may be attributed to King Ahaz; and we
may therefore be certain that it was not lost during
the period which in this chapter we have examined.
We have, however, discerned somewhat of the
growth of the claims, the arrogance, and the intoler
ance of the temple priests, ripening for the notable
and definite advance -which they were now about to
achieve under Hezekiah, and only the more stimulated
D
k
�5°
When was the Book Lost ?
by their sixteen years’ exclusion from the favour and
support of the civil power during the reign of the
idolatrous Ahaz; stimulated both by their zeal for the
worship of Jehovah, and by their jealousy for the
sacred privileges and the prosperity of their own order;
—which two strangely mingled motives may, and
ought to, be recognised in every step of their history.
CHAPTER IV.
SEARCH CONTINUED.
ASA TO JEHOIADA.—B.C. 955 TO 878.
As the two periods of time, which we have already
examined, commenced each with a national reforma
tion and a renewal of the national covenant; so the
third period, which in the course of our search for
traces of the existence, or of the loss, of the book, we
now come to consider, shall be regarded as commencing with the first reformation and the first covenant,
of which we have any account in the historic books.
King Asa succeeded Abijah, the grandson of
Solomon, and, like all the other reformers, he came
after a period of heresy and idolatry. It does notappear
that, in the preceding reigns, the worship of Jehovah
had ever been suppressed or abandoned; but the
laxity of mixed worship, which Solomon in his old
age had encouraged, had been continued by his suc
cessors. Yet, though latitudinarianism and general
toleration had prevailed, there is no evidence that the
temple itself, or the temple priesthood, had up to this
time been polluted with the worship of other gods ;
as they afterwards were, in the reigns of Ahaz and of
Manasseh. The high places and altars which Solomon
had built for various heathen gods, (1 Kings xi. 6-8),
were allowed to stand, and whoso would might wor
|
�Asa to Jehoiada.
51
ship there ; but such heathen worship was not allowed
to usurp the altars of Jehovah, for, in the time of
Rehoboam, we read that, when the idolatrous king of
Israel, Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, had cast off the
Levites in his dominions from their office of priests
unto the Lord, they left their possessions, and came
to Jerusalem.
2 Ciiron. xi. 16—“And, after them, out of all the
tribes of Israel, such as set their hearts to seek the Lord
God of Israel, came to Jerusalem to sacrifice unto the Lord
-God of their fathers.
So that the liberty of worshipping according to con
science, which, in the neighbouring kingdom of Israel
was denied, seems to have been extended, in the
kingdom of Judah, to all religions alike ; and this was
the state of matters, so far as can be known, up to
the time of King Asa.
1 Kings xv. 11, 12, 14 — “ And Asa did that which
was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father.
And he took away the Sodomites out of the land, and
removed all the idols that his fathers had made. . . .
But the high places were not removed; nevertheless Asa’s
heart was perfect with the Lord all his days.”
Regarding the high places, we must in this case
accept the testimony of the earlier historian in pre
ference to that of the writer of the Chronicles, because
the latter contradicts himself.
2 Chron. xiv. 2 and 3—“ And Asa did that which was
good and right in the eyes of the Lord his God: for he took
away the altars of the strange gods, and the high places, and
brake down the images, and cut down the groves.”
2 Chron. xv. 17—“ But the high places were not taken
away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was per
fect all his days.”
Although the authorities thus differ as to Asa’s
removal of the high places, and although we can,
almost with certainty, discern that they were not
removed till the reign of Hezekiah, when, for the first
�52
When was the Book Lost 2
time, the earlier book relates their removal ■ yet it is
here very worthy of notice, that both our authorities
agree in attributing to Asa the destruction of images,
and the abolition of idol-worship ; and that Asa is the
first king to whom this merit is ascribed. But we must
remember that there was at least one image, which
even Asa spared, and whose worship still continued.
2 Kings xviii. 4.—“ Hezekiah brake in pieces the brazen
serpent, which Moses had made: for, unto those days, the
children of Israel did burn incense to it.”
The worship of the serpent, being in some way or
other, connected with the worship of Jehovah, was not
interfered with, while the altars and images of other
gods were destroyed. From the brief narratives of
Asa’s long reign, we learn that he was a warlike, and,
on the whole, a prosperous king; who ruled his
subjects with a vigorous and somewhat despotic sway.
So far as can be ascertained from either history, there
had hitherto, all along been some degree of toleration
for the differences of religion; but Asa seems to have
despised such weakness; and to have resolved that
all his subjects should be converted, whether they
would or not.
2 Chron. xiv. 4, 5.—“ And he (Asa) commanded Judah
to seek the Lord God of their fathers, and to do the
law and the commandment. Also he took away out of all
the cities of Judah, the high places and the images ; and
the kingdom was quiet before him.”
And, being not only strong in purpose, but filled with
energy and zeal for the orthodox worship,
2 Chron. xv. 12-14.—“ They entered into a covenant to
seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart, and
with all their soul; that whosoever would not seek the Lord
God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great,
whether man or woman. And they sware unto the Lord
with a loud voice, and with shouting, and with trumpets,
and with cornets.”
This is the first National Covenant of which we read
�Asa to 'Jehoiada.
53
in either of the histories. There may have been
covenants in the wilderness five hundred years earlier,
as we are told in the Pentateuch ; but it may also be
that covenants are so often described in the book of
the law, just because that book was composed, or
compiled, in the later covenanting times ; and this
view is strongly confirmed by the terms of some of
those Mosaic covenants; in Jacob’s, for example, one
great feature is:—
Gen. xxviii. 22.—“ And of all that thou shalt give me, I
will surely give the tenth unto thee.”
Here we have, apparently, a very ancient sanction
for the institution of tithes, of which, however, we
have been able to trace the germ and the growth
under Jehoiada, Hezekiah, and Josiah; and of
which, in the time of Asa or his predecessors, no
trace is to be found.
At all events, this is the first time, -sincr the tribes
became a nation, that we have any record of the people
entering into a covenant with the Lord—-of the
nation becoming a church : and it is strangely in
teresting to observe, that the national covenant of
those ancient Jews produced, (or was produced by ?)
the same spirit of intolerance and notion of infalli
bility, as the national covenants of our own Scottish
reformers. Of this, it would be easy to find ample
historical illustration, but it is not even necessary to
refer to history, for we have the illustration as clear
and full, in the present day, as it was in the days of
Asa, only that happily the modern Asas cannot
enforce their doctrines with pains and penalties, as
the ancient Asas did.
The “ Original Secession Church ” is a small, but
very zealous body of Scotch Presbyterians; still
maintaining the permanent obligation of the national
covenants, which they from time to time renew; and
rigidly adhering to the doctrinal standards of the old
Covenanters.
�54
When was the Book Lost ?
From the Original Secession Magazine for January
1869, page 37, I quote the following extract of an
address delivered by a professor of theology, to the
students preparing for the ministry, and attending
the “Divinity Hall,” in connection with that Church.
“ By our profession of faith in His Word, we solemnly
declare to the world that God himself is a participa
tor in our views and sentiments, that these are de
rived from Him, and express His mind, and that He
is of the same judgment with ourselves, in attaching
importance to what we adhere to, and in lightly
esteeming what we regard with indifference.' In a
word, our profession of faith must be regarded, not
only as our declaration of our own sentiments, but also
of the mind of God.”
The only recorded fruit of Asa's religious zeal,
being the inauguration of intolerance, and the sum
mary extirpation of all heresy by the civil power, we
are very doubtful, whether such a change ought to be
styled a reformation ; and it has only been after much
hesitation, that we have felt constrained to rank Asa
as the first great reformer of the Jewish faith;—con
strained by the reflection, that so many great refor
mers, to whom the title cannot be denied, have un
happily been intolerant and persecutors.
Asa is the earliest persecutor, on account of either
true or false religion, with whom we become acquaint
ed in the historic books of the Bible. Perhaps he
had a clearer and more intense conviction of God's
unity and omnipresence, than any of his predecessors
had enjoyed ; and he acted according to his light, he
put forth all his strength in furtherance of the cause
of truth. Perhaps his own mind was so filled with
the great truth that God is One,—he had so thoroughly
cast out the idea that there could be any other gods,
that he could not admit, and would not tolerate, the
�Asa to 'Jehoida.
55
right of any other mind to entertain that idea, or to
recognise either more or other gods than Jehovah.
Psalm lxv. 2.—“ 0 thou that hearest prayer ! unto thee
shall all flesh come.”
Or was it only that he was so penetrated and pos
sessed with the conviction, that Jehovah far excelled
all other gods in majesty and power, that it was better
to worship him than any other ?
Psalm lxxxii. 1.—“ God standeth in the congregation of
the mighty : he judgeth among the gods.”
Or was it only that Jehovah was the God, whom
his chosen people, the Jews, ought to worship, while
the other nations, whose God he was not, might do
well to worship the gods whom they knew 1
Judges xi. 24.—“ Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy God giveth thee to possess ? So, whomsoever the
Lord our God shall drive from out before us, them we will
possess.”
Whatever may have been the measure of truth,
which Asa was enabled to discern, it is clear that he
discerned it as the truth; and so forcibly, that he felt
constrained to exert all his energy and zeal, in the
destruction of the opposite falsehood. In Asa’s days,
the sword of the civil power was the most handy and
efficacious instrument of conversion, its arguments
not being easily resisted; and so Asa employed the
sword, probably with as good a conscience, and in as
good a cause, as it ever has been employed by any
teacher of religion; but can it be, that the interests
of true religion have ever been really and truly pro
moted by the use of persecuting power? Must we
not rather believe that, in all cases, judging of what
might have been, by comparison with what has in later
times been witnessed, the immediate gain, however
great apparently it was, could not fail to be far more
than counterbalanced by the deeper and more perma
nent loss; and that the weapons of truth alone, if left
and employed to do their own work, would, in Asa’s,
�When was the Book Lost?
and m every time, have sufficed to achieve conquests
tar more glorious, than the conversion of nations bv
the sword ?
J
In the earlier part of the history, we read of con
tentions between a proud priest and a king, in the
persons of Samuel and Saul; but, in those days, though
there were priests, there was no established priesthwd
and there is no trace of intolerance. The right to
differ, being a natural right, seems to have been gene-,
rally respected, though perhaps not formally recognised.
Saul, David, and Solomon were not over-scrupulous
a out putting men to death. All their enemies were
regarded as enemies of their God, and were to be ex
terminated without mercy; but we cannot learn, that
they ever thought of killing their friends and fellowcountrymen, merely because their religious beliefs
were wrong ■ much less did they ever make a cove
nant or law, to the effect that all heretics should
surely be put to death. But, when Asa reigned, the
temple had been open for fifty yearSj and the priests
of the temple, being an established hierarchy, had, in
that time, already developed somewhat of the doc
trine of the infallibility of the Church, which, in allits varied, forms, and everywhere, and always, has
produced intolerance and persecutions great or small;
and, while, in Asa’s reign, this notion of infallibility
already produced the covenant of intolerance, it is
three hundred years later, in the production of Hil
kiah the priest, in the book which he read to king
Josiah, that we find the legitimate outcome of the
growth of this priestly doctrine, whose influence and
power have never, from that time to this, ceased to be
felt; whether for good or evil,—who shall say ?
Who can tell, how much further or more rapidly
the progressive development of spiritual truth and
the freedom and power of individual thought might
have advanced, if their progress, which seems to have
been so far true, had not been thus early checked, by
�Asa to 'Jehoiada.
57
the counter-progress of intolerance and of submission to
authority,—had not been, so very soon, arrested in its
promising career, by the haste of the priesthood to
re-cast all that they discerned, or believed, or desired
to be truth, in the iron mould of infallibility; from
which, by the device and authority of Asas, Hilkiahs,
and Josiahs, the strange mixture issued, and strangely
has continued to issue, stamped as the word of God ?
Eabbinism, phariseeism, and worship of the letter,
dogmatism, formality, intolerance, and fanaticism
have, in various times, and in many different forms,
been the direct and immediate fruit of that same iron
mould, of which also irreligion, hatred and indiffer
ence to all truth have been the secondary, but no less
certain and natural consequences.
Without that iron mould, God alone knows what
might have been ! I dare not attempt to paint in
words the bright picture which rises before my im
agination. Perhaps those who dwell here a thousand
years hence may see it realised !
But then,—perhaps the way by which we have
been led may also have been the best or only way, by
which mankind could ultimately be brought to the
knowledge and discernment of good and evil. So
many evil things have been made the sources of good,
so altogether incapable are we of reckoning a distant
result, the means are often so very different, unlike
and remote from the ends, that we can only again ex
claim—Who can tell1? God alone knows what might
have been ; but let us beware of knowingly and wil
fully continuing in evil, even in order that good may
come.
Asa, the first orthodox persecutor, after reigning
forty-one years, was succeeded by his son Jehosha
phat, the first missionary king.
2 Chron. xvii. 7-9.—“ In the third year of his reign he
sent to his princes (five names) to teach in the cities of
Judah ; and with them he sent Levites (nine names) ; and
�58
When was the Book Lost ?
with them Eli-sliama and Jehoram, priests. And they
taught in Judah, and had the book of the law of the Lord
with them, and went about throughout all the cities of
Judah, and taught the people.”
After being converted by the sword, the people had
to be taught by the Levites and the book. Here at
length we seem to have found it; but then, what of
the brazen serpent and the second commandment I
what of the passover, the Sabbath day, the Sabbatical
year, the public reading of the law in that year, and
the tithes ? Not a word about any of these in the
reign of Jehoshaphat! And what of the high places ?
2 Chron. xvii. 6.—“And his (Jehoshaphat’s) heart was
lifted up in the ways of the Lord: moreover, he took away
the high places and groves out of Judah.”
But, alas! the same book again contradicts itself, and
is contradicted by the more trustworthy history.
2 Chron. xx. 32, 33.—“And he (Jehoshaphat) walked
in. the way of Asa his father, and departed not from it,
doing that which was right in the sight of the Lord: how
beit the high places were not taken away; for as yet the
people had not prepared their hearts unto the God of their
fathers.”
1 Kings xxii. 43.—“ And he walked in all the ways of
Asa his father; he turned not aside from it, doing that
which was right in the eyes of the Lord: nevertheless the
high places were not taken away; for the people offered and
burnt incense yet in the high places.”
It is impossible to believe the later narrative in
preference to that earlier authority, which consistently
and uniformly declares that the high places were not
removed until the reign of Hezekiah; whereas, ac
cording to the Chronicles, they were removed by
nearly every orthodox king. But, though the prac
tise of local worship was still tolerated in the days of
Asa and Jehoshaphat, and was not prohibited till
two hundred years later; we may be sure that in
those very orthodox and intolerant times the wor
�Asa to 'Jehoiada.
59
ship in the high places was the worship of Jehovah
alone, as it was in the days of Manasseh after his
repentance.
2 Chron. xxxiii. 17.—“The people did sacrifice still in
the high places, yet unto the Lord their God only.”
We cannot suppose that such irregularities would
have been tolerated by these zealous ancl covenanted
reformers, or that so many great ordinances of the
law would by them have been ignored, if they had
been in possession of the Pentateuch, as Josiah has
transmitted it to us. It would, therefore, appear that
the book which the missionaries of Jehoshaphat aresaid to have had, must have been, in these points at
least, and probably in many others, different from,
that which was produced by Hilkiah.
In connection with Jehoshaphat, an incident is re
corded which, whether or not intended to be received
as a literal fact, curiously displays the then prevailing,
notions of the moral character of God.
1 Kings xxii. 10, 12, 19-22.—“ The king of Israel and
Jehoshaphat king of Judah sat each on his throne ... at
the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before
them . . . saying, Go up to Ramoth Gilead and prosper,
for the Lord shall deliver it into the king’s hand. . . .
Micaiah said : I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all
the host of heaven standing by him, on his right hand and
on his left. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab,
that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead ? . . . And
there came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord, and
said, I will persuade him : and the Lord said unto him,
Wherewith ? And he said, I will go forth and be a lying
spirit in the mouth of all his prophets : And he said, Thou
shalt persuade him, and prevail also; go forth and do so.”
Jehoshaphat reigned well and prosperously for
twenty-five years, and then lived four years after
giving up the kingdom to Joram (or Jehoram) his
son, with whom commenced that period of idolatrous
�6o
When was the Book Lost ?
backsliding which preceded and rendered necessary
the second reformation under Jehoiada,
2 Kings viii. 18.—“And he walked in the way of the
kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab, for the daughter
of Ahab (Athaliah) was his wife: and he did evil in the
sight of the Lord.”
He reigned only eight years, during the two last of
which he laboured under a severe and incurable
disease.
2 Kings viii. 24.—“And Joram slept with his fathers,
and was buried with his fathers in the city of David ; and
Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.”
In the other account of his burial, there is a dis
crepancy, similar to that which we have in last chapter,
observed in the accounts of the burials of Ahaz and of
Joash.
2 Chron. xxi. 20.—“ Howbeit they buried him (Joram)
in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings.”
Joram was succeeded by his youngest son, Ahaziah,
who also preferred his mother’s religion. When he
had reigned only one year, he went to visit his near
relative, the king of Israel, at Samaria, and, while
there, was overtaken and included in the vengeance
which Jehu was commissioned to inflict on all the
house of Ahab.
2 Kings ix. 27, 28.—“But when Ahaziah the king of
Judah saw this, he fled by the way of the garden-house:
and Jehu followed after him, and said, Smite him also in the
chariot. And they did so, at the going up to Gur, which
is by Ibleam. And he fled to Megiddo, and died there.
And his servants carried him in a chariot to Jerusalem, and
buried him in his sepulchre with. his fathers in the city of
David."
But again the chronicler refuses to assign such
honour to the remains of an idolatrous king, and
gives a different account of the circumstances of his
death.
�Asa to Jeboiada.
6i
2 Chron. xxii. 9.—“And Jehu sought Ahaziah: and
they caught him, for he was hid in Samaria, and brought
him to Jehu : and, when they had slain him, they buried
him: because, said they, He is the son of Jehoshaphat,
who sought the Lord with all his heart.”
So that the heretic king is not only denied his own
place in the sepulchre of his fathers, but is represented
as indebted for even a grave in Samaria to the memory
of his grandfather, the orthodox Jehoshaphat.
It is very observable and worthy of notice, that in
such discrepancies between the twro authorities the
same orthodox or sacerdotal bias may always be re
marked in the book of Chronicles, and may be traced
in every page of that book; so much so, that we may
see in the constant manifestation of it a record, and
a very specimen of the bigotry of the Levitical mind,
with which our consideration of this subject thus
brings us literally into converse and contact.
2 .Chron. xxii. 10-12,—“ But when Athaliah the mother
of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and
destroyed all the seed royal of the house of Judali; but
Jehoshabeath, the daughter of the king, took Joash the son
of Ahaziah, and stole him from among the king’s sons that
were slain, and put him and his nurse in a bed-chamber.
So Jehoshabeath, the daughter of king Jehoram, the wife
of Jehoiada, the priest (for she w’as the sister of Ahaziah),
hid him from Athaliah, so that she slew him not. And he
was with them hid in the house of God six years.
Athaliah thought she had obtained secure posses
sion of the throne; but she reckoned without the
wise old man who had for many years been at the
head of the priesthood, who had grown with its
growth, and who could remember the glorious days
of Solomon, before the kingdom was divided; who
had lived in the covenanting times of King Asa, and
in whose heart the faithful zeal of that covenant still
burned.
The only things recorded about Queen Athaliah, are
her bloody usurpation, and its sudden end, after six
�61
When was the Book Lost?
years,when she was assassinated by conspirators, who
were instigated and directed by Jehoiada the priest.
2 Chron. xxiii. 14, 15.—“ The priest said, Slay her
not in the house of God. So they laid hands on her ; and
when she was come to the entering of the horse-gate by
the king’s house, they slew her there.”
J
True to his old covenant, Jehoiada’s first care, on
finding himself at the head of the government, was
to have it then forthwith renewed by king, priests,
and people.
’
2 Chron. xxiii. 16, 17.—“And Jehoiada made a
covenant between him, and between all the people, and be
tween the king, that they should be the Lord’s people.
Then all the people went to the house of Baal, and brake
it down, and brake his altars and his images in pieces
and slew Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars.”
Here we have plainly the same old covenant of in
tolerance and persecution, which seems to have been
again renewed by Hezekiah, and yet again by Josiah.
2 Chron. xxix. 10.—“(Hezekiah said), Now it is in mine
heart to make a covenant with the Lord God of Israel, that
his fierce wrath may turn away from us.”
2 Chron. xxxiv. 81, 32.—“And the king (Josiah)
stood in his place, and made a covenant before the Lord, to
walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and
his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his heart; and,
with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant
which are written in this book: and he caused all that
were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to it;
and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did according to the
covenant of God, the God of their fathers.”
Jehoiada’s zeal for the covenant, and the fidelity
and prudence which he displayed in preserving alive
and concealing the young king, and in finally restoring
him to the throne of his fathers, are sure pledges that
he had not suffered the lamp of truth to be extinguished
in his hands, and that the book of the law of the Lord
was not lost in his time; but we have, on the other
hand, seen that such germs of the book as may then
�Solomon to Asa.
63
have existed did', in this period, first receive the stamp
of infallibility, the whole nation having been com
pelled, ostensibly at least, to surrender the right of
private judgment, and to submit their understandings
and their consciences to the predominant power and
authority of the orthodox covenanters. Under such
sovereigns as Asa and Jehoshaphat, the reign of
absolute intolerance would, of course, give to the
whole nation an outward semblance of religious con
formity ; but that same intolerance most probably was
the principal cause of the subsequent backslidings.
Tending ever to become more stringent and more
arrogant the longer it was cherished, it resulted in
provoking multitudes to throw off the restraints
which they could no longer bear, as Joram the son of
Jehoshaphat did, and as did Jehoiada’s pupil-king so
soon as his preceptor was dead.
CHAPTER V.
SEARCH CONTINUED.
SOLOMON TO ASA.—B.C. 1015 TO 955.
Having now considered the three periods of time,
which respectively followed the three reformations
under Asa, Jehoiada, and Hezekiah, taking, in each
chapter, a step further back from the finding of the
book, whose loss we seek to trace, or whose produc
tion we must endeavour to explain ; we find that the
next preceding period, which presents itself for exa
mination, is that which reaches from the building of
the temple, or from the accession of Solomon, till the
first reformation under Asa.
The earlier narrative records the opposition, which
�64
When was the Book Lost ?
the succession of Solomon to the throne encountered
from his elder brother Adonijah (1 Kings i., ii.),
whom Abiathar the priest, and Joab, the veteran
commander of the forces to David, supported as the
rightful heir; but Solomon, being the son of the
favourite Bathsheba, was preferred.
1 Kings i. 30, 31.—. . Assuredly Solomon thy son shall
reign after me. . . . Then Bathsheba bowed with her face
to the earth, and did reverence to the king, and said, Let
my lord king David live for ever.” (Compare Deut. xxi.
15,16.)
And Solomon was no sooner established in power
than, notwithstanding his promised protection, he put
to death Adonijah, with Abiathar and Joab, who had
been the two most tried and faithful friends of his
father David.
1 Kings ii. 35.—“ And the king put Benaiah, the son of
Jehoiada in his (Joab’s) room over the host; and Zadok
the priest did the king put in the room of Abiathar.”
Thus asserting his ecclesiastical supremacy in the
most unmistakable way.
All the priests, Levites, and musicians, had been,
according to the later narrative, arranged and ap
pointed to their several offices in the temple-service
by David (1 Chron. xxiv.—xxvii.), while the book of
Kings gives no account of these appointments at all;
but, from it, we learn that all this multitude of nomi
nations for the temple-service, if made by David, must
have preceded the opening of the temple by cd least
eleven years.
1 Kings vi. 38.—“In the eleventh year, in the month
Bui, which is the eighth month, was the house finished
throughout all the parts thereof, and according to all the
fashion of it. So was he seven years in building it.”
We may therefore regard these Levitical lists, as
apocryphal, such minute attention to ecclesiastical
details being quite opposed to the character of David,
as we shall have occasion to see in our next chapter.
�Solomon to Asa.
65
The absence from these lists of all notice of provision
for the support of the extensive sacerdotal establish
ment, is perhaps another argument against their trust
worthiness, such provision being, by the same his
torian, specially noted for the comparatively small
number of priests in the time of Hezekiah (2 Chron.
xxxi. 10-19). It is indeed very remarkable that we
have not a hint nor a trace of the tithe-law in connec
tion with Solomon's reign. Probably the numbers and
arrangements of the priesthood were nothing like so
great nor so complete as the chronicler represents them
to have been; but, whatever their real numbers were, it
would appear that the multitude of sacrifices and the
vast revenues of the king, from tribute, commerce, and
accumulated wealth, were at this time sufficient to
preclude the necessity of tithes for the priests.
1 Kings x. 14, 15.—“ Now the weight of gold that came
to Solomon in one year was six hundred threescore and six
talents of gold (equal to £3,646,350 sterling) ; beside that
he had of the merchantmen, and of the traffic of the spice
merchants, and of all the kings of Arabia, and of the gover
nors of the country.” (Read also 1 Chron. xxvi. 26-28.)
When at length the building of the temple was
completed, the ark was brought up from the city of
David, and set in its place.
2 Chron. v. 7.—“And the priests brought in the ark of
the covenant of the Lord unto his place, to the oracle of
the house, into the most holy place, even under the wings
of the cherubims.”
If we assume that the book had a previous existence, we must surely expect to find here, if anywhere,
unmistakable evidence of it. Now was the time
when the book should have been found, which Moses
wrote, and concerning which he commanded the
Levites saying:—
Deut. xxxi. 26.—“ Take this book of the law, and put it
in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God,
that it may be there for a witness against thee.”
E
�66
When was the Book Lost ?
But, for this great discovery the times were not
yet ripe: and so we have to read:—1 Kings viii. 9.—“ There was nothing in the ark, save the
two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when
the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, when
they came out of the land of Egypt.” (Deut. x. 3-5.)
If the reader will compare Exod. xxxiv. and Exod.
xxiii. 10-19, he will find reason to doubt whether the
commandments on these tables were the same as our
decalogue; and this doubt is confirmed by the fact
that not until the reign of Asa, the third king after
Solomon, is there any record of idol-worship being
abolished, or of images being destroyed; and that
even Asa seems to have gone no further than the
destruction of the idols and images pertaining to the
worship of other gods, while the brazen serpent at
least, but probably also other Jehovistic symbols,
continued to be worshipped till the time of Hezekiah.
2 Kings xviii. 4, 5.—“ He (Hezekiah) removed the high
places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and
brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made:
for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense
to it: and he called it Nehushtan (a piece of brass!) He
trusted in the Lord God of Israel; so that after him was
none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that
were before him.'''
From which the unavoidable inference is, in the
absence of all evidence to the contrary, that Solomon,
even while worshipping Jehovah alone, saw no reason
why he should not be worshipped by images, whether
these were the ark, the cherubim, or the serpent.
1 Kings viii. 7.—“ For the cherubims spread forth their
two wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubims
covered the ark and the staves thereof above.” (See page
87.)
Clearly the second commandment was, in those
�67
days, either different or differently understood, from
what it afterwards became.
Having thus not taken, or not fully achieved, the
first great step towards purity of worship, it is not
surprising to find that, even while his intentions were
good, he failed in many points of the law, as in later
times it came to be known.
1 Kings iii. 1, 3, 4.—“And Solomon made affinity with
Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh’s daughter.
(Comp. Dent. vii. 3.) And Solomon loved the Lord, walk
ing in the statutes of David his father: only he sacrificed
and burnt incense in high places. And the king went to
Gibeon to sacrifice there; for that was the great high place.”
But it has already been abundantly proved that the
sin of worshipping God, anywhere in his great
temple of the universe, was a sin not then known;—not
invented till, in the course of centuries, the priest
hood which Solomon established had developed much
of the dogmatism, intolerance, selfishness, and arro
gance which, unhappily, seem to have been the snares,
the misfortunes, and the sins of every priesthood
from that time to this. Nor need it be very surpris
ing to discover that, as his ideas of spiritual worship
were so imperfect, his notions of the unity of God
were equally so.
2 Chron. ii. 5.—“The house which I build is great: for
great is our God above all gods.”
These words are addressed to Hiram, King of
Tyre, and clearly acknowledge that the gods of Tyre
were real divinities, though inferior to the God of
Solomon; whereas Jephthah, at an earlier time, seems
to have recognized some degree of equality in the
God of the Ammonites.
Judges xi. 24.—“Wilt not thou possess that which
Chemosh thy God giveth thee to possess ? So whomsoever
the Lord our God shall drive out from before us, them will
we possess.”
And this enables us to understand, what must
nsaann
Solomon to Asa.
�68
When was the Book Lost ?
otherwise be quite incomprehensible, how that Solo
mon in his old age, when the temple-service was no
longer new, and when the ardour of his youthful
zeal had abated, thought it necessary to propitiate
other gods, though he never abandoned the worship
of Jehovah.
1 Kings xi. 6, 7.—“ And Solomon did evil in the sight of
the Lord, and went not fully after the Lord, as did David
his father. Then did Solomon build an high place for
Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is
before Jerusalem; and for Molech, the abomination of the
children of Ammon.”
Concerning which sad declension on the part of
Solomon, as well as concerning his disputed succession,
the later narrative is, consistently, altogether silent.
The prowess of David had conquered and united
the kingdom, and had bequeathed it to Solomon
in the highest state of wealth, strength, and pros
perity; one natural consequence of which was the
erection of a temple in the new capital, more or
less resembling those which neighbouring kingdoms
had long before possessed in honour of the gods
whom they acknowledged. The royal temple implied
an established hierarchy of priests and attendants;
.and it is here that we find the origin of that priest
hood, of whose organization in earlier times no trace
is to be found in the historic records, excepting some
very apocryphal genealogies of comparatively recent
date (1 Chron. i.) The people who had but recently
■become a nation were as yet only commencing their
-progress from barbarism to civilization, and from
polytheism to gradually more and more spiritual
motions of the Divine Unity; and as one strong mind
.after another was led by inspiration to see and to
utter something of the higher truth, in the office of
prophet, priest, or king; the wheat that was among
the chaff, like the handful of corn on the top of a
mountain, took root here and there, and brought
�Solomon to Asa.
69
forth fruit for future harvests, and thus the whole
nation was slowly led on, towards higher and higher
conceptions of the oneness and spirituality of God.
It seems to have been among the priesthood, in a
great measure, that these doctrines had their growth.
Their jealousy for the dignity and glory of their
God, above all other gods, ripened by degrees into
faith in Him, as the one God over all.
In all the prayers and orations of Solomon at the
opening of the temple, and in the direct verbal replies
which he is said to have received from God, there is
not a single reference to Moses nor to his law; nor
do we find that there was any reading of the book of
the law on this great occasion, nor throughout the
whole of Solomon’s reign. We cannot even find that
the priests and Levites had anything wherein to
instruct the people, nor that they gave them any
instruction at all, as is first said to have been done
in the reign of Jehoshaphat, and afterwards in the
reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah.
We have indeed mention made of statutes, judg
ments, and commandments:—
2 Chron. vii. 19.—“ But if ye turn away and forsake my
statutes and my commandments, which I have set before
you, and shall go and serve other gods and worship
them.” . . .
But such expressions may, most probably, refer to
the laws which Samuel and David had instituted, at
and after the foundation of the monarchy.
1 Kings iii. 3.—“And Solomon loved the Lord, walking
in the statutes of David his father.”
Which, being divinely inspired, were of course re
garded as divine laws. The statutes referred to may
also be those which were engraved on the tables of
stone •, but that these references do not apply to the
book of the law, can be shown by evident proofs.
We learn from the earlier narrative, that Solomon
offered sacrifice three times a year.
�When was the Book Lost ?
1 Kings ix. 25.—“ And three times in a year did Solomon
offer burnt-offerings and peace-offerings upon the altar
which he built unto the Lord, and he burnt incense upon
the altar that was before the Lord.”
The later historian greatly increases the number of
times for sacrifice, but gives names to the three great
occasions.
2 Chron. viii. 12, 13.—“ Then Solomon offered burntofferings unto the Lord, on the altar of the Lord which he
had built before the porch ; even after a certain rate every
day, offering according to the commandment of Moses on the
Sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts
three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread,
and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles.”
The simpler and more trustworthy account would
suggest that these three festivals were the same as
those which most heathen nations, and which our own
Scandinavian ancestors observed.
Exod. xxiii. 14-16.—“Three times thou shalt keep a
feast unto me in the year. Thou shalt keep the feast of
unleavened bread, and the feast of harvest, the first-fruits
of thy labours which thou hast sown in thy field ; and the
feast of ingathering, which is in the end of the year, when
thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field.”
But, of the observance of the Passover and other
feasts, as enjoined by the law, we have not in either
narrative the slightest trace.
Deut. xvi. 16.—“ Three times in a year shall all thy males
appear before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall
choose ; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast
of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles ; and they shall not
appear before the Lord empty.”
In like manner the Sabbath is named in the later
narrative, but only named, as in the passage quoted
above (2 Chron. viii. 13); and it may well be that the
Sabbath, as a day of rest, had come down from the
earliest time.
�Solomon to Asa.
Exod. xxiii. 12.—“ Six days shalt thou do thy work, and
on the seventh thou shalt rest; that thine ox and thine ass
may rest, and the son of thy handmaid and the stranger
may be refreshed.”
But the negative evidence is complete, that Solomon
knew nothing of the Sabbath as a day 11 holy to the
Lord,” and as enforced in the law.
Exod. xxxv. 2, 3.—“ Six days shall work be done, but on
the seventh there shall be to you an holy day, a Sabbath of
rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be
put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your
habitations upon the Sabbath day.” (Compare Num. xv.
32 and 36.)
If Solomon had observed the Sabbath day thus,—
if those who gathered sticks on Sabbath had been, in
his days, stoned to death, it would assuredly have
been noticed in the detailed and particular accounts,
which are given of his building operations, and of the
king’s daily provision (1 Kings iv. 22-28).
We have also the fullest negative proof that the law
concerning the Sabbatical year was unknown in
Solomon’s time.
Lev. xxv. 3, 4.—“Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and
six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the
fruit thereof; but, in the seventh year shall be a Sabbath
of rest unto the land, a Sabbath for the Lord : thou shalt
neither sow thy field nor prune thy vineyard.”
Such a practice as this, and the reading of the
law in the year of release, would surely have been
recorded in the history of Solomon’s time, if any
such observance had been then known; but the
positive evidence, which in a former chapter (p. 29)
we have adduced to prove that this law was not ob
served in the time of Hezekiah, serves equally to show,
that it was neglected or ignored, at any time, from
the commencement of the monarchy, to the Babylonish
captivity. Even during the earlier part of his reign,
while Solomon himself may have been free from the
�Jt
When was the Book Lost ?
sin of idolatry, there is not any evidence, that
it had ever, in his or in David’s times, been re
garded as a punishable offence, to worship idols, or
other gods besides Jehovah; or that the altars
and high places of other gods had ever been
destroyed, as being illegal; much less have we
any grounds for supposing, that the priests or wor
shippers of other gods, who, in those early and
tolerant times, were probably more numerous than
afterwards, had ever been put to death by David or
by Solomon on account of their religious errors; as
was done by the later reformers in the covenant
ing times.
All the evidence on record goes to prove, that not
only the worship in high places, but the worship also
of images and of other gods, was practised and toler
ated, until long after Solomon’s reign; and we may
be very sure that, if there had been any destruction
of images, or removal of high places by David or by
Solomon, it would have been recorded to their praise,
with the same jealous, and somewhat exaggerated
care, as in the histories of Asa, Hezekiah, and Josiah.
From all this the inference appears to be inevitable,
that Solomon did not know the second commandment;
and that, if he knew the first, “Thou shalt have
no other gods before me,'1 he must have understood these
words “ before me ” in a different sense from that in
which we are taught to understand them.
We are not at liberty to attribute the indifference
of Solomon to stupidity, for we are told :
1 Kings iv. 29, 30.—“ God gave Solomon wisdom and
understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even
as the sand that is on the sea-shore; and Solomon’s wisdom
excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country,
and all the wisdom of Egypt.”
Solomon’s ignorance of the law, because it was not
in existence, is the only rational, and indeed the only
possible explanation.
�Solomon to Asa.
73
Exod. xxii. 20.—“ He that sacrificeth unto any god, save
unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.”
Lev. xvii. 8, 9.—“ Whatsoever man there be of the house
of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that
offereth a burnt-offering or sacrifice ; and bringeth it not
unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer
it unto the Lord, even that man shall be cut off from among
his people.”
That such kings as David and Solomon should
know these to be Divine laws, and should yet
openly violate them, and constantly tolerate their
violation, is utterly inconceivable. The very intoler
ance of the law, in these and in numerous other
passages, marks it as the product of a later time than
the age of toleration, which continued up to, and
some time after the reign of Solomon.
Thus, instead of finding, as we might reasonably
have expected, clear and abundant evidence of the
knowledge of the book of the law, at the time when
the temple was dedicated, and when the priesthood
was established; we have found, instead, in this as in
each of our former steps backwards, from the finding
of the book, that we are only the further removed
from its influence, and that the traces of its existence
become gradually less;—in other words, we find the
law in each of these periods, at an earlier stage of
its growth, and therefore, in each case, notably less
and less developed.
According to the earlier narrative, the prosperity of
the kingdom was on the wane, before the death of
Solomon. Jeroboam, the future king of Israel, was a
high officer in the service of Solomon, “Ruler over
all the charge of the house of Joseph •” and we read that
“ even he lifted up his hand against the king,” being
instigated to this rebellion by the prophet Ahijah.
1 Kings xi. 30, 31, and 40.—“ And Abijah caught th
new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces
and he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces; for thus-
�74
When was the Book Lost ?
saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the
kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten
tribes to thee. . . . Solomon sought therefore to kill Jero
boam ; and Jeroboam arose and fled into Egypt, unto
Shishak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death
of Solomon.”
But, on this subject, again the later historian is
quite consistently silent; and makes the close of
Solomon’s reign even to surpass its commencement, in
wisdom, righteousness, and triumphant prosperity
(2 Chron. ix.), reserving all the guilt and responsi
bility, as well as all the misfortune and calamity of
the approaching evil time, for his son Rehoboam, by
whom, after reigning forty years, he was succeeded.
Rehoboam was unfortunate in war, both foreign
and domestic, and in his days, the prediction of
Ahijah was fulfilled, by the separation of the ten
tribes of Israel, viewed in the earlier book as the
punishment merited by the idolatries of Solomon’s
old age.
1 Kings xi. 31, 33.—“Behold I will rend the kingdom
out of the hand of Solomon: . . . . because that they have
forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of
the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites,” &c.
Whereas the later narrative, though referring to
Ahijah’s prophecy, still throws a veil over Solomon’s
guilt.
2 Chron. x. 15.—“ For the cause was of God, that the
Lord might perform his word, which he spake by the hand
of Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat.”
According to the earlier narrative, Rehoboam seems
from the first to have continued the same system of
general toleration which had prevailed under his
predecessors, and which continued till the time of Asa.
1 Kings xiv. 21 and 22.—“ And Rehoboam the son of
Solomon reigned in Judah .... and his mother’s name
was Naamah, an Ammonitess. And Judah did evil in the
�Solomon to Asa.
75
sight of the Lord, and they provoked him to jealousy with
their sins which they had committed, above all that their
fathers had done : for they also built them high places, and
images and groves, on every high hill and under every green
tree.”
Whereas, according to the later narrative, as
Solomon had continued to the last in the path of
orthodoxy, so Rehoboam, during his first three years,
followed the same good example.
2 Chron. xi. 17.—“ So they strengthened the kingdom of
Judah, and made Rehoboam the son of Solomon strong
three years, for three years they walked in the way of
David and Solomon.”
2 Chron. xii. 1.—“ And it came to pass, when Rehoboam
had established the kingdom, and had strengthened himself,
he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him.”
From both narratives it thus appears that the great
sin, chargeable against Rehoboam, was that he was
not intolerant; that he acknowledged and protected
the right of his people to worship according to their
conscience, a right which, up to his time, seems never
to have been called in question by the civil power,
though it does appear to have already been challenged
by priests and prophets. Rehoboam did not compel
all his subjects, by a covenant of intolerance, to
worship Jehovah alone; but, that he was not hostile
to the orthodox worship, is abundantly manifest, from
the politic fears of his rival.
1 Kings xii. 26 and 27.—“ And Jeroboam said in his
heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David:
if this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord
at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again
unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and
they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah.”
Rehoboam’s good disposition may also be inferred
from the statement, that multitudes of the priests,
Levites, and devout persons, from the dominions of
Jeroboam, sought and found, at Jerusalem, that
�7&
When was the Book Lost ?
security and liberty of worship, which, in the neigh
bouring kingdom, they could no longer enjoy. (See
p. 51.)
Perhaps the political intolerance of Jeroboam,,
directed against these orthodox worshippers, may
have been the root and parent of that fiercer religious
intolerance, which, among the refugees and their
sympathizers, speedily grew so strong.
1 Kings xiv. 30.—“ And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all their days.”
It does not appear that Rehoboam’s reign was
wholly disastrous, or wholly wicked, for we read that:
2 Chron. xii. 12.—“ When he humbled himself, the
wrath of the Lord turned from him, that he would not
destroy him altogether: and also in Judah things went well."
After reigning seventeen years :—
1 Kings xiv. 31.—“ Rehoboam slept with his fathers,,
and was buried with, his fathers, in the city of David.”
In relating which, the more rigid Chronicler shows
the same strict discrimination, as in his accounts of
the burials of all the heretic kings : but, in this case,
so mildly that it would scarcely be noticed, if not
illustrated, by the same partiality, more strongly
marked in other instances. (See pp. 60, 61.)
2 Chron. xii. 16.—“And Rehoboam slept with hisfathers, and was buried in the city of David: and Abijah his.
son reigned in his stead.”
Abijah (or Abijam) is the only king who is repre
sented as idolatrous by the earlier authority, but
whose fame is untarnished and whose piety is recorded
by the later historian doubtless because he was a
friend and patron of the priests.
1 Kings xv. 3.—“ And he walked in all the sins of his
father, which he had done before him: and his heart was
�Solomon to Asa.
77
not perfect with the Lord his God, as the heart of David his
father.”
In Chronicles the chief thing recorded is a battle
with Jeroboam, in which Judah was victorious; and
a speech which, before the battle, Abijah addressed to
the opposing army, of which the key-note is :—
2 Chron. xiii. 12.—“ Behold God himself is with us
our captain, and his priests with sounding trumpets to
alarm against you. 0 children of Israel, fight ye
against the Lord God of your fathers, for you shall
prosper.”
for
cry
not
not
And, as the result of such faith, we read :
2 Chron. xiii. 18.—“ Thus the children of Israel were
brought under at that time,"and the children of Judah pre
vailed, because they relied upon the Lord God of their
fathers.”
From all which, two inferences may fairly be
drawn, first,—that in this, as in the former reigns,
there was no legal intolerance, nor violent suppression
of the mixed worship, which hitherto had prevailed ;
and second,—that the orthodox priesthood enjoyed
the royal favour, and had already attained to con
siderable power and influence; which, as usual, only
served to encourage them to hope and strive for
something more than they had yet achieved : even
for the entire extinction of heresy by the sword of
the law, and for the establishment of absolute intoler
ance, instead of that freedom of worship, and that
right to differ, with which no king hitherto had
interfered.
After reigning only three years, Abijah was suc
ceeded by his son Asa, under whom the priestly
doctrines of infallibility and intolerance, at length
obtained full sway.
In the period, to which this chapter has been
devoted, there has been unmistakably less ritualism,
less sacerdotalism, and less conformity to the Mosaic
law, than in any of the more recent periods, which we
�78
When was the Book Lost?
have examined ; but we have here seen the origin of
the established priesthood, consequent on the institu
tion of the temple service ; and we have seen a large
number of zealous priests, and of religious persons,
assembled at Jerusalem, in consequence of their ex
pulsion by Jeroboam. We have also already heard
the spirit of persecution, and of arrogant infallibility,
sounding in the blast of their trumpets ;—the same
spirit, the same trumpets, the same priests as those,
who, shortly afterwards, inspired and responded to Asa’s
covenanted law, that all heretics should surely be put
to death.
CHAPTER VI.
SEARCH CONTINUED.
THE JUDGES TO SOLOMON.—B.C. 1425 TO 1015.
Having traced the history of Judah through four
periods, extending from the finding of the book back
to the accession of Solomon and the building of the
temple; we now find that another step backwards
brings us to the very commencement of the continuous
history, in the time of Samuel; beyond which, the
records evidently cease to be historical in their
character, the book of Judges being undisguisedly
legendary and fragmentary ; while the assumed
authenticity and antiquity of the book of Joshua must
evidently and admittedly either stand or fall along
with that of the Pentateuch; so that, for our present
purpose, the book of Judges is the earliest source
whereto we can appeal for evidence; unless critical
and learned discrimination be employed, in which,
though I might perhaps follow, I cannot pretend to
lead.
Our earliest period must therefore be regarded as
commencing with the era of the Judges, which era is
�The Judges to Solomon.
79
variously estimated to extend from three hundred to
four hundred years, reaching from the death of
Joshua to the accession of Saul. The book of Judges
consists of a number of detached narratives of events,
to which none but the most arbitrary and uncertain
chronological arrangement can be applied. During
all this time there are only two instances, in which
priests or Levites are mentioned, and, in neither of
these, does the narrative afford the slightest support,
to the later doctrine of tribal distinction. In the
first of these cases, Micah, a man of Mount Ephraim
(Judges xvii. and xviii.), made for himself a “ house
of gods ” and images; and consecrated one of his
sons, who became his priest; but was glad, when he
afterwards had the opportunity, to secure a young
man of the family of Judah, who was a Levite, and
who, for a stipulated remuneration, continued to be
Micah’s priest, until the Danites violently carried off
both priest and images, to their new possessions in
the north; and founded there some kind of religious
institution, in which the priest-Levite, of the tribe of
Judah, was succeeded by a priestly family of whose
tribe there is no certain trace, for it is not clear that
Manasseh was their tribe.
Judges xviii. 30.—“ And the children of Dan set up
the graven image ; and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the
son of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of
Dan, until the day of the captivity of the land.”
The only other passage, in which a Levite is men
tioned, is the story (Judges xix. and xx.) of the
barbarous outrage committed by the men of Gibeah,
on the Levite’s wife; and the bloody revenge exacted
for their crime; but the narrative throws no light
at all upon the worship, office, or tribe of this Levite.
In all this book there are only three sacrifices
described, at none of which, either priest or Levite
seems to have officiated.
�So
When was the Book Lost ?
Manoah, the father of Samson, of the tribe of Dan,
offered a sacrifice, which was visibly accepted.
Judges xiii. 20.—“ For it came to pass, when the flame
went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of
the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar.”
Gideon, an Abi-ezrite, and a mighty man of valour,
belonging to a heathen, or Baal-worshipping family,
but whose tribe is not named, was specially com
manded to offer sacrifice:
Judges vi. 26.—“ And build an altar unto the Lord thy
God upon the top of this rock, in the ordered place, and
take the second bullock, and offer a burnt sacrifice with the
wood of the grove, which thou shalt cut down.”
And Jephtha the Gileadite in fulfilment of his
horrid vow, said to have been made under the
influence of the Spirit of the Lord, (Judges xi.
29), offered up his daughter, as a burnt-offering to
the Lord; a deed recorded without a shadow of
disapproval, and which the Jews were taught to
regard with entire approbation; if we may judge
from the reference to it in the New Testament (Heb.
xi. 32).
When we compare the sacrifice offered by Jephtha
with that intended by Abraham (Gen. xxii. 10); and
when we consider the awe with which a similar
sacrifice, though offered by a heathen king, inspired
a victorious Jewish army:—
2 Kings iii. 26, 27.—“And when the king of Moab saw
that the battle was too sore for him. . . . Then he
took his eldest son, that should have reigned in his stead,
and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And
there was great indignation against Israel: and tl 2y
departed from him, and returned to their own land.”—
we are forced to conclude, that human sacrifices
were not so singular, nor even so uncommon among
the Jews, as we are apt to think; and they seem even
to be recognised by the law :—
�The Judges to Solomon.
81
Lev. xxvii. 28, 29.—“ No devoted thing, •which a man
shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, both of man
and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or
redeemed : every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord.
None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be
redeemed ; but shall surely be put to death.'"
Num. xviii. 15.—“Everything that openeth the matrix in
all flesh, which they bring unto the Lord, whether it be of
men or beasts, shall be thine : nevertheless the first born of
man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean
beasts shalt thou redeem.”
Exod. xxxiv. 20—“ But the firstling of an ass thou shalt
redeem with a lamb : and, if thou redeem him not, then
shalt thou break his neck. All the first born of thy sons
thou shalt redeem; and none shall appear before me empty.”
From all which, it seems much more than probable
that, in Jephthah’s, and even in later times, the
sacrifice of children was not very extraordinary; but
was regarded as the most acceptable orthodox worship,
and as the best evidence of sincere piety.
No candid reader will deny, that these passages in
the law, and other similar passages, must either be
founded on ancient customs, well-known before, and
only sanctioned and regulated by the promulgation of
the law; or else must be regarded as introducing, and
commanding, the practice of human sacrifice; and as
we find that such sacrifices were offered, at a time
when the Levitism of the law was wholly unknown;
and that these sacrifices were condemned and abol
ished when the Levitical law became fully developed,
it may be concluded that, in this case, the law was
founded on the custom, and not the custom on the
law. This does not, however, at all exclude the idea
that there may have been ancient laws instituting or
authorizing even the most ancient customs, and after
wards embodied, with too little discrimination, by
the compilers of the more recent code.
There is no description in the book of Judges of
any other sacrifice; and, while neither Manoah,
�82
When was the Book Lost ?
Gideon, nor Jephthah required the intervention of a
priest, it is no way attributed to them, as a sin, that
they usurped the priest’s office ; but on the contrary,
there are, in each case, manifest tokens of acceptance
and approval. Nor does there appear, either in the
parties themselves or in the narrator, the slightest
consciousness of irregularity in the circumstance, that
these sacrifices were offered at the three different
residences of the parties ; implying a total ignorance
of the law which was in later times enacted for the
suppression of the high places (Lev. xvii. 8, 9). In
the times which we are now considering, it is manifest
that no one had ever begun to think that there was
only one place in which God could be worshipped;
nor did this idea take the form of law, until the time
of Hezekiah, four hundred years after the last of the
judges.
Manoah, Gideon, Jephthah, and others are said to
have been favoured with direct guidance and instruc
tion from God; yet their manifest ignorance and
neglect of the ordinances of the Levitical law, and
the wholly unlevitical worship which they practised,
are never at all reproved. And while there is one
solitary voice raised against the worship oiother gods ;—
Judges vi. 8, 10.—“The Lord sent a prophet unto the
children of Israel, which said unto them, Thus saith the
Lord God of Israel, I brought you up from Egypt, and
brought you forth out of the house of bondage. . . . and
I said unto you, I am the Lord your God; fear not the
gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but ye have
not obeyed my voice ”—
yet the worship of God by images, though a pre
vailing custom, is not once rebuked, nor was it known
to be sinful, so far as we can learn from the narrative.
Gideon, whose piety is extolled both during his life
and after his death, while fully acknowledging the
Lord, and with the best intention, made a golden
image or ephod whereby to worship him (Judges viii.
�The Judges to Solomon.
83
22-35): and we have seen that Micah, with his Levite,
worshipped also by images: and that the Danites, who
robbed him, did the same.
As might be expected, in these rude and unsettled
times, there is abundance of evidence, that the pre
vailing notions of morality, and of the moral character
of "God, were extremely low; of which the story of
Jael and Sisera (Judges iv., v.) is a good illustration.
Sisera, whose army had been defeated by the Jews,
fled from the field, and sought refuge in the tent of
Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, a neutral, with
whom Sisera was at peace, Jael met him with offers
of hospitable concealment, and assurances of safety;
and, when she had lulled him to security and sleep,
for he was weary, she killed him by driving a nail
through his temples, and fastening it into the ground.
Deborah was a prophetess and judge over Israel; and,
in her song, inspired by the ‘Angel of the Lord,’ Jael
is praised in the highest terms, and 1 blessed above
women,’ for her cold-blooded treachery, and her mur
derous deed; on the horrible details of which, the
prophetess gloatingly dwells :—
Judges v. 24-26.—“ Blessed above women shall Jael the
wife of Heber the Kenite be; blessed shall she be above
women in the tent. He asked water and she gave him milk ;
she brought forth butter in a lordly dish. She put her hand
to the nail, and her right hand to the workman’s hammer ;
and with the hammer she smote Sisera ; she smote off his
head, when she had pierced and stricken through his
temples,” &c., &c.
These sentiments were uttered in a song of praise to
God, and were evidently regarded as acceptable to Him.
Judges v. 31.—“ So let all thine enemies perish, 0 Lord ;
but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth
in his might.”
The God, whom Deborah worshipped, is thus seen
to be one, whom for us to worship would be impos
sible ; his name might be the same as that of Him
�84
When was the Book Lost?
whom we adore; but God is not in a name, even as
God is not in an image.
Before leaving the book of Judges, let us pause to
reflect that the people, of whom this book is the onlyrecord, lived about six hundred years nearer to the
time of Moses, the great lawgiver, than did Hezekiah
and Josiah; and that we might therefore fairly ex
pect to trace, in their customs and in their worship,
fresh, continual, and indubitable proofs, of the exis
tence and recognition of the ‘Mosaic law;’ the pro
mulgation of which would to them have been a recent
tradition, as their fathers or grandfathers might have
been with Moses at Sinai. And let us then consider,
whether we have been, in the course of this inquiry,
approaching to, or receding from, the real date of the
law.
The book of Ruth relates to the time of the judges,
and the chief purpose of its writer seems to have been
to record and to honour the ancestry of David, whose
great-grandmother was Ruth (iv. 22).
In this book, there is nothing either prophetic or
Levitical; and, while marked by a fine religious sen
timent, it contains no allusion to priests, to sacrifice,
nor to any act of worship.
The ‘ custom,’ in accordance with which Boaz took
Ruth to be his wife, is akin to, but is quite distinct
from, that sanctioned by the law of Moses, (compare
Ruth iii. 13, iv. 5 & 8, with the precepts in Deut.
xxv. 5-10).
Neither Boaz nor the writer of the book seems to
have had the slightest idea that the marriage was
sinful or illegal; being a transgression of the law,
which forbade the Hebrews to intermarry with the
surrounding heathen nations.
Exod. xxxiv. 15 and 16.—“ Lest thou make a covenant
with the inhabitants of the land : . . . . and thou take of
their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a
�The Judges to Solomon.
85
whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring
after their gods.”
Deut. vii. 3.—“Neither shalt thou make marriages with
them ; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor
his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.”
But the conduct of Boaz, in marrying Ruth the
Moabitess, is recorded as if it were pious and unim
peachable, and as an incident honouring to the mem
ory of David’s ancestors; and the same ignorance of
this law may be traced through every stage of the
history, till after the finding of the book. David had
heathen wives, (2 Sam. iii. 3), and so had Solomon,
even while he was building the temple (1 Kings iii. 1).
Solomon’s mother was a Hittite; and Rehoboam’s was
an Ammonitess (2 Chron. xii. 13). But, in Ezra’s
times, the law was rigorously enforced; and such
mixed marriages were declared null and void, because
known to be illegal,
Ezra ix. 2.—“ They have taken of their daughters for
themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed have
mingled themselves with the people of these lands: yea, the
hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this tres
pass.”
Ezra x. 10, 11, 19.—“ And Ezra the priest stood up, and
said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken
strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. Now
therefore make confession unto the Lord God of your
fathers, and do his pleasure ; and separate yourselves from
the people of the land and from the strange wives.............
And they gave their hands that they would put away their
wives; and, being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for
their trespass.”
Surely here the inference is unavoidable, that Ezra
was acquainted with a portion of the 1 Mosaic law,’
which, in the times of Boaz, David, and Solomon, did
not exist; and which was unknown to the author of
the book of Ruth.
In the book of Samuel, we have the earliest portion
�86
When was the Book Lost ?
of the continuous history of the Jewish nation ; and,
at its opening, we find the civil power in the hands
of a priest, Eli, who judged Israel forty years (1 Sam.
iv. 18.) Eli was succeeded in both his offices by the
great Samuel; in whose person the priesthood attained
to a degree of authority and influence, which seems
to have been always regarded by the later priests as
an example and a model, after which they ought to
strive whenever it was safe or possible to do so. For
us it must therefore be peculiarly interesting to note
the main features of Samuel’s career.
Samuel was a priest from his youth, having been
educated by Eli almost from his infancy, in the
Sanctuary at Shiloh, which is one of several places
mentioned in Samuel’s time as being Sanctuaries, or
houses of God; such as Mizpeh, Judges, xxi., 4, 5,
and 1 Sam. vii., 9, 11; Beth-el, (meaning house of
God) 1 Sam. vii. 16; Gilgal, 1 Sam. xi. 15 ; and
Gibeah, 2 Sam. vi. 2, 3 : all of which were most
probably included among those places of local worship,
which Hezekiah suppressed. Besides worshipping in
these, afterwards forbidden places, Samuel built an
altar at his own residence.
1 Sam. vii. 17.—“ And his return was to Ramah; for
there was his house ; and there he judged Israel, and there
he built an altar unto the Lord.”
Samuel had evidently no idea that, in thus
worshipping at various altars, he was guilty of violat
ing God’s law. (Lev. xvii. 8, 9; Josh. xxii. 29.)
In connection with Eli’s death, an incident is
recorded, which shows, in our opinion very clearly,
that the worship of Jehovah was, at that time,
scarcely, if at all, less idolatrous, than the worship of
other Gods. The Israelites had been defeated in a
battle with the Philistines, with the loss of four
thousand men; and before renewing the combat, they
said :—
�The Judges to Solomon.
87
1 Sam. iv. 8.—“ Let us fetch the ark of the covenant of
the Lord out of Shiloh unto us, that, when it cometh
among us, it may save us out of the hand of our enemies.”
This is the very earliest historic mention of the
ark, if we except a parenthetic clause (Judges xx. 27)
to which no importance can be attached, being man
ifestly an interpolation by some comparatively recent
hand.
Both Israelites and Philistines regarded the ark as
an idol; or, in other words, as a symbol of the Divine
presence ; for what is any idol or image, more than a
symbol of God ? The veriest idolater does not believe,
that his bit of wood or stone is God ; but that it is an
emblem, a sign, or a dwelling place of the Deity; and
that God is somehow represented by it, or present in
it. Hear what the Hindoo has to say for himself, and
it would be easy to multiply evidence of this kind,
“It is not the image that we worship as the Supreme
Being, but the Omnipresent Spirit that pervades the
image as He pervades the whole universe. If, firmly
believing as we do, in the omnipresence of God, we
behold, by the aid of our imagination, in the form of
an image, any of His glorious manifestations ; ought
we to be charged with identifying Him with the
matter of the image?” * In like manner, we suppose,
but only in like manner, neither did Jews nor
Philistines imagine, that the ark was God; though
both parties evidently regarded it as the visible eidolon
—symbol or idol, of God's invisible presence.
1 Sam. iv. 4, 5, 7.—“ So the people sent to Shiloh,
that they might bring from thence the ark of the covenant
of the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth between the cherubims.
.... and when the ark of the covenant of the Lord came
into the camp, all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that
the earth rang again............... And the Philistines were
afraid; for they said God is come into the camp. And they
* Prom an English lecture by a Hindoo, in defence of his
religion ; quoted in “ Good Words,” February 1869, p. 100.
�88
When was the Book Lost?
said, Woe unto us! for there hath not been such a thing
heretofore.”
But the Philistines were again victorious; the ark
was taken; the two sons of Eli were slain; the old
priest himself, when hearing the sad news, fell back
wards and broke his neck; and his daughter-in-law
died, in premature labour, naming her child Ichabod:
1 Sam. iv. 22.—“ And she said, the glory is departed
from Israel; for the ark of God is taken.”
The Philistines, however, suffered various miraculous
afflictions while they retained the ark ; and were glad
to send it back with a trespass offering (vi. 3.) It
was brought to Beth-shemesh, where, for looking into
the ark, fifty thousand people were slain !
1 Sam. vi. 19, 20.—“ And the people lamented, be
cause the Lord had smitten many of the people with a
great slaughter. And the men of Beth-Shemesh said, Who
is able to stand before this holy Lord God ? and to whom
shall he go up from us ? ”
Surely it is only prejudice, confirmed by, so-called,
orthodox training, that hinders so generally the
readers of the Bible, from here discerning the merest
idolatry and ignorance of the ever-present power of
Him who dwelleth not in temples made with hands.
Samuel had not a word to say against this image
worship, nor against the worship in high places ; but
he denounced the sin of worshipping other gods.
This was the great message of all the early prophets,
that the Jews ought to worship Jehovah alone—the
first step towards the higher truth, that God is One
by whatever name he may be called.
1 Sam. vii. 3.—“ And Samuel spake unto all the house of
Israel, saying, If ye do return unto the Lord with all your
hearts, then put away the strange gods and Ashtaroth from
among you, and prepare your hearts unto the Lord, and
serve him only ; and he will deliver you out of the hand of
the Philistines.”
�The Judges to Solomon.
89
Amos iii. 2.—“ You only have I known of all the families
of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your
iniquities.”
We apprehend that these two quotations throw
light upon each other : and that, together, they afford
a fair criterion, by which to judge of the standard
religious sentiment of the Jews at the commencement
of the monarchy (compare Ezra iv. 2, 3, and 2
Kings xvii. 27, 28); the sentiment which Samuel,
David, Amos, and others strove to inculcate; but
which, for a long time, the people were slow to learn.
In the time of the earlier judges, the Jews were
far from being a united people; on the contrary, they
were a number of separate and independent tribes,
one or more of which, generally in a time of pressing
danger, appointed some one to govern them and to
lead their armies. Sometimes the tribes under the
judges fought against other tribes, and sometimes
against foreigners. The so-called judges were in fact
chieftains, generally selected or acknowledged on
account of their warlike prowess; and were, in some
cases, such men as would now be called freebooters or
brigands (Judges x. 18.)
Judges xi. 3, 5, 6.—“ Then Jephthah fled from his
brethren, and dwelt in the land of Tob; and there were
gathered vain men to Jephthah, and went out with him.
And it was so that when the children of Ammon made war
against Israel, the elders of Gilead went to fetch Jephthah
out of the land of Tob ; and they said unto Jephthah, come
and be our captain, that we may fight with the children of
Ammon.”
And so Jephthah became “judge,” and ruled for six
years. Samson was the last of these old judges, and
• _ in his days, the Jews were subject to the Philistines.
Judges xv. 11.—“ Knowest thou not that the Philistines
are rulers over us? ”
And Samson judged Israel twenty years (Judges xvi.
�90
When was the Book Lost?
31), frequently astonishing the Philistines, with his
feats of strength and prowess, but never effecting the
independence of his people. The spirit of freedom
seems to have been quenched, and the neck of Israel
was bowed to the yoke; as shown in the passage
from which the above quotation is taken. Probably
the Philistines would not allow a warlike judge to
succeed Samson; or, perhaps, there was no such man
to be found. The people were so subdued and servile,
that they submitted, for the first time, to be governed
by a priest.
The Bible narrrative does not show the connection
between the books of Judges and of Samuel, but, ac
cording to Josephus, Eli succeeded Samson (Ant. v.,
ix. 1). From the tenor of the three first chapters of
Samuel, we may gather, that till near the close of Eli’s
long life, there had been some thirty or forty years of
peaceful subjection, during which, perhaps through the
over-confident security of their rulers, the tribes seem
to have become more united, and to have developed
somewhat of a national spirit, and of a desire for
independence.
At last they made an effort to throw off the op
pressor’s sway, their disastrous failure in which was
the occasion of Eli’s death; but the attempt was re
newed and was finally successful under the rule of his
successor Samuel.
1 Sam. vii. 3-14.—“Prepare your hearts unto the Lord
and serve him only; and he will deliver you out of the hand
of the Philistines...............And Samuel said, Gather all
Israel to Mizpeh, and I will pray for you unto the Lord.
And they gathered together to Mizpeh, and drew water,
and poured it out before the Lord, and fasted on that day,
and said there, We have sinned against the Lord.............
And the children of Israel said to Samuel, Cease not to cry
unto the Lord our God for us, that he will save us out of
the land of the Philistines............... And Samuel took a
sucking lamb, and offered it for a burnt-offering wholly
unto the Lord, and Samuel cried unto the Lord for Israel;
�The Judges to Solomon.
91
and the Lord heard him............. So the Philistines were
subdued, and they came no more into the coast of Israel.
.... And the cities which the Philistines had taken from
Israel were restored to Israel.”
Here, we have probably the very earliest distinct view
of the priest making intercession for the people—a
mediator between God and man. In the times of
Gideon, Jephthah, and Manoah, the prayer of the
suppliant was addressed directly to Jehovah; every
man was his own priest, and might build his own
altar where he chose. But, now, we have the people
confessing their sins, and expressing their penitence
to the priest, and begging him to cry unto the Lord
for them. This notion had doubtless been growing in
Eli's time, and may perhaps be traced in his inter
course with Hannah (1 Sam. i. 17), but this is the
first clear expression of it that we have on record;
and thus we first become acquainted with that veil of
separation, which has served so long to obscure and
to discolour the light of divine truth, and which has
done so much to hinder the approach of man to God.
This is the real veil of the temple, about whose rend
ing, by the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth, there
can be no manner of doubt; and whether any veil ot
cloth was then rent or not is a question of small im
portance. But, though rent at that time, even from
the top throughout, and never since then thoroughly
repaired, it has been often, and in many places, won
derfully patched and mended up, and much, very
much of it, though decayed and decaying, still hangs
together, even at the present day.
I am greatly mistaken if the foregoing portion of
this chapter has not placed us in a position to discern
with clearness, that, according to our authorities, it is
in Samuel's time that we have the very first trace,
record, or evidence of the idea of a theocracy,—of
Jehovah’s direct government of the nation, in temporal
affairs, through the ministry of his vicegerent, the
�92
* When was the Book Lost?
priest. Samuel seems to have been the man who
originated also this great idea, closely akin to the
other one, that the priest was the appointed mediator
between God and man. We have seen evidence
enough, that, in the time of the early judges, no such
idea was known, but that the priest then occupied a
very subordinate position. If the theocracy had
really been established in the time of Moses and
Joshua, with the completely organized hierarchy of
priests and Levites, as described in the Pentateuch;
it must be marvellous, to say the least of it, that all
trace or record of such institutions should have, so
soon and so entirely, disappeared; and that it had
to be all reconstructed, from the very foundation bv
Eli and Samuel.
’
Samuel, combining in himself the power of the
supreme magistrate, with the office of the priesthood,
and with all the prestige of success in war, though
the first to teach this doctrine, was in a position to
assert for it a higher claim than any of his successors.
He had a great advantage over Jehoiada, in whose
days the people were accustomed to a dynasty of
kings; and had far more independent power than
Ezra and his successors, who ruled only by permission
of the Persian monarch.
Ezra vii. 12,13.—“ Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra
the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect
peace, and at such a time. I make a decree, that all they
of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites in my
realm, which are minded of their own free will to go up to
Jerusalem, go with thee. (Read also ver. 25 and 26.)
In Ezra’s time the people were again humbled and
broken in spirit, by their long captivity and by their
continued subjection to foreign power; and were
again prepared to acknowledge the supremacy of the
priesthood, by the restoration of the theocracy. In
these later times, accordingly, they endeavoured to
realize the great beau-ideal of which Samuel’s primi
�The Judges to Solomon.
93
tive example had been the prototype and germ;
growing and developing itself, in the minds of the
priesthood, through six intervening centuries, and
asserting itself, meanwhile, in various degrees, wher
ever circumstances would permit.
1 Sam. viii. 1, 4-7.—“ And it came to pass, when Samuel
was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.............
Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together,
and came to Samuel unto Ramah. And said unto him,
Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways:
now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But
the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king
to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the
Lord said unto Samuel............. They have not rejected thee,
but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over
them.”
1 Samuel x. 19.—“Ye have this day rejected your God
who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your
tribulations; and ye have said unto him, Nay, but set a
king over us.”
Samuel took the highest possible ground, by thus
declaring, in the name of God, that the desire of the
people to have an earthly king, instead of being ruled
by a succession of priests, was high treason, not
merely against the priest, as God’s vicegerent, but
against Jehovah himself. Manifestly Samuel was
not aware, that the people, in desiring to have a king,
were only following out the directions of the Mosaic
law; but indeed we may perhaps be justified, in re
garding this portion of the law, as written retrospect
ively, with a view to the events recorded in the book
of Samuel.
**
Deut. xvii. 14, 15.—“ When thou art come unto the land
which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it,
and shalt dwell therein, and thou shalt say, I will set
a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me ;
thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the
Lord thy God shall choose : one from among thy brethren
shalt thou set king over thee.”
�94
When was the Book Lost?
The people, however, seem to have been somewhat
sceptical about Samuel’s doctrine on this subject,
whether it was that they knew the law better than he
did, or that they were influenced only by a shrewd and
jealous regard for their natural rights and liberties.
1 Samuel viii. 19-22.—“ Nevertheless the people refused
to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay, but we
will have a king over us ; that we also may be like all the
nations ; and that our king may judge us, and go out before
us, and fight our battles. And Samuel heard all the words
of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord.
And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice and
make them a king.”—(Comp. 1 Sam. xii. 17.)
Samuel, after often repeated protests and protesting
to the very last, at length yielded to the unanimous
wish of the people; but still sought to terrify them
from their purpose, by telling them “ the manner of
the king ” that should reign over them.
1 Sam. viii. 14, 15.—“ He will take your fields and your
vineyards, even the best of them, and give them to his
servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of
your vineyards, and give to his officers and to his servants.”
This passage contains the only expression which
can be construed as an allusion to the tithe law in
the whole of Samuel’s history; which circumstance,
as well as the manner and purpose of its introduction
here, may suffice to prove that the tithe was a tax
which Samuel had never presumed to impose, and
which,' as the birth-right of the priests, was then
unknown.
By wisely yielding, before it was too late, Samuel
preserved to himself the power of choosing the new
king, and much other power; which in all probability
he would have lost entirely, if the nation had been
driven, by his obstinate resistance, to the adoption of
violent measures. Accordingly, we find that Saul
was, in the first instance, privately anointed as king
by Samuel.
�The Judges to Solomon.
95
1 Sam. ix. 27.—“And as they were going down to the
end of the city, Samuel said to Saul, Bid thy servant pass
on before us (and he passed on), but stand thou still a
while, that I may show thee the word of God.”
1 Sam. x. 1.—“ Then Samuel took a vial of oil and poured
it on his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because
the Lord hath anointed thee to be captain over his inherit
ance ? ”
And the formal election, ostensibly by God, but
practically by the mediation of the priest, took place
afterwards in public.
1 Sam. x. 19-22.—“ Now therefore present yourselves
before the Lord, by your tribes and by your thousands.
And when Samuel had caused all the tribes of Israel to
come near, the tribe of Benjamin was taken. When he had
caused the tribe of Benjamin to come near by their families,
the family of Matri was taken, and Saul the son of Kish
was taken: and when they sought him he could not be
found. Therefore they enquired of the Lord further, if the
man should yet come thither. And the Lord answered,
Behold, he hath hid himself among the stuff.”
Matthew Henry’s Commentary on this transaction
is a fine specimen of orthodox interpretation, its
quaint simplicity being truly admirable :—“ He puts
them upon choosing their king by lot. He knew
whom God had chosen, and had already anointed
him; but he knew also the peevishness of that people,
and that there were those among them who would
not acquiesce in the choice, if it depended upon his
single testimony; and therefore that every tribe,
and every family of the chosen tribe, might please
themselves withjiaving a throw for it, he calls them
to the lot. Benjamin is taken out of all the tribes,
and out of that tribe Saul the son of Kish. By this
method, it would appear to the people, as it already
appeared to Samuel, that Saul was appointed of God
to be king, for the disposal of the lot is of the Lord.
When the tribe of Benjamin was taken, they might
easily foresee that they were setting up a family
�96
When was the Book Lost?
that would soon be put down again; for dying Jacob
had by the spirit of prophecy entailed the dominion
upon Judah (Gen. xlix. 10, 27). Those, therefore,
that knew the scriptures, could not be very fond of
doing that which they foresaw must ere long be
undone.” As we learn from the narrative, that
Samuel had previous and private knowledge of the
man who would, in this public and ceremonious
fashion, be chosen; so it is at least very natural
to suppose that Samuel may also have had information
as to where the man was to be found when he was
wanted. How very real and natural all this appears
if we would only read it aright!
1 Sam. x. 24, 25.—“ And all the people shouted and
said, God save the king.
Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom,
and wrote it in a took, and laid it up before the Lord. And
Samuel sent all the people away, every man to his house.”
Samuel wrote, in a book that which he had told the
people. Does this mean that he made a copy of the
book, which he had read in their hearing ?
Deut. xvii. 18.—“ And it shall be, when he sitteth upon
the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of
this law in a book out of that which is before the priests,
the Levites.”
Was the book of Moses that which Samuel told and
wrote ? And did he do so in obedience to this law ?
But this law is one of those relating to the conduct
of the king, when he should be chosen to rule the
people; and, as we have seen a few pages back, that
Samuel ignored the lawfulness of the people choosing
a king, and was not guided by Jacob’s prediction
that the king should be of the tribe of Judah; so we
must infer that he was also ignorant of this law, re
lating to the king’s special duties. Thus the natural
sense of the words told and wrote, in the absence of
any reference or allusion to Moses or to his law, is
�Tbe Judges to Solomon.
gy
certainly the true sense, signifying that Samuel spoke
and wrote of his own wisdom and wit, with whatever
measure of inspiration he may have, enjoyed. The
law which he wrote for Saul, was most probably the
first national foundation upon which all the subse
quent Jewish law-making was built; this very law
for the conduct of a new king, being evidently con
structed on the example set by Samuel at the com
mencement of the monarchy.
Every particular in the history of Saul brings
forcibly to view the very primitive and rude state of
the people at that time. As an illustration let us
look at the first incident recorded in his reign. When
messengers came to tell him that one of his cities was
attacked by the Ammonites, and its inhabitants
threatened with having all their right eyes thrust out.
1 Sam. xi. 5, 6, 7.—“Behold Saul came after the herd
out of the field; and Saul said, What aileth the people that
they weep ? And they told him the tidings of the men of
Jabesh. And the Spirit of God came upon Saul when he
heard those tidings, and his anger was kindled greatly; and
he took a yoke of oxen and hewed them in pieces, and sent
them throughout all the coasts of Israel, by the hands of
messengers, saying, Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul
and after Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen. And
the fear of the Lord fell on the people, and they came out
with one consent.”
And so Jabesh was relieved, the Ammonites were
defeated, and Saul was confirmed in his kingdom. It
is clear, however, that Samuel still regarded the office
of the king,. as entirely subordinate to that of the
priest; for, in connection with Sauls next enterprise,
against the Philistines, we read, that the king himself
offered sacrifice, after waiting seven days for Samuel,
who did not come at the time appointed; and, though
the king condescended to plead with the priest, and
to state what appear to be genuine reasons, for what
he had done, yet the priest was not to be appeased.
G
�98
When was the Book Lost?
1 Sam. xiii. 11-14.—“ And Samuel said, What hast thou
done ? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were
scattered from me, and that thou earnest not within the
days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves
together at Michmash ; therefore said I, The Philistines will
come down now upon me to Gilgal and I have not made sup
plication to the Lord : I forced myself therefore, and offered
a burnt-offering. And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast
done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of
the Lord thy God which he commanded thee............... Thy
kingdom shall not continue ; the Lord hath sought him a
man after his own heart; and the Lord hath commanded
him to be captain over his people.”
Saul was not now at liberty, to suppose that he
could worship or make supplication to God, excepting
through the mediation of a priest. That, which the
old judges had piously done, with clear tokens and
full consciousness of the divine approval, was now to
be regarded as a heinous transgression of God’s law.
There can be little doubt, that the exclusive rights
and privileges of the priesthood, as Samuel conceived
that these ought to be, had been, much more than the
royal prerogative, strictly guarded and provided for,
in the book which Samuel had written : and, there
fore, the king was held inexcusable.
Unconsecrated men might no longer presume to
approach within the sacerdotal veil, which had now
been drawn between them and God; and any disre
gard of the barrier thus set up, was, by the priest,
denounced as sacrilege, and unpardonable sin.
Upon another occasion, the poor king had to submit
to a similar humiliating rebuke. By Samuel’s di
rection, Saul undertook an expedition against the
A malekites.
1 Sam. xv. 3, 8, 9.—“ Now go and smite Amalek, and
utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but
slay both man and woman, infant and suckling (!) ox and
sheep, camel and ass............... And he took Agag the king of
the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people
�The Judges to Solomon.
99
with the edge of the sword. But Saul and the people
spared Agag, and the best of the sheep and of the oxen.”
Clemency is the noblest prerogative of the crown;
but even this was denied, and trampled in the dust,
by the haughty priest.
1 Sam. xv. 23, 28, 33.—“Because thou hast rejected the
word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being
king............... The Lord hath rent the kingdom from thee
this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine that is
better than thou............ And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces
before the Lord in Gilgal.”
These are the only two faults or offences which are
recorded against Saul; unless we are to regard as
such his subsequent hostility to David and his sup
porters. He is not at all accused of worshipping
other gods, nor of any kind of immorality or excess.
He seems to have been even entirely innocent of any
such oppression and extortion as those which Samuel,
to serve his own selfish purpose, had predicted of him:
and when, in the time of his distress, at the very
close of his forty years’ reign, he once more humbled
himself to the shade of the old priest, whom he had
recalled from beyond the tomb; even then, when he
had lived his life, and when all his sins had been
committed, the ghost of Samuel, whatever or wher
ever that may have been, whether in the house of the
witch or in the mind of the historian, had none but
the same unforgiven offence, to allege as a reason for
the judgment, which was about to fall on the head of
the unfortunate king.
1 Sam. xxviii. 18.—“Because thou obeyedst not the voice
of the Lord, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek,
therefore hath the Lord done this thing unto thee this day.”
Saul appears to have had a superstitious dread of
Samuel; but yet he must in some way have asserted
his rights,.in opposition to Samuel’s interference, more
contumaciously than in either of these two cases, or
�IOO
When was the Book Lost ?
else we may be sure, that even Samuel would not
have deemed him unpardonable. So far as can be
inferred from the record, the honesty and moral char
acter of Saul was not only equal, but very far superior,
to that of either Samuel or David; and his exclusive
worship of Jehovah is never called in question. But,
for whatever reason, it appears that Samuel very soon
■discovered that he had been mistaken in his choice;
and that he already contemplated the overthrow of
Saul; to make way for another more hopeful nominee,
whom he thereafter proceeded privately to anoint.
1 Sam. xvi. 1.—“ And the Lord said unto Samuel, How
long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him
from reigning over Israel ? Fill thy horn with oil, and go;
I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have pro
vided me a king among his sons.”
This purpose or prediction, however, was not ful
filled in Samuel’s time ; though he thus did his best
to secure its fulfilment by stirring up David’s ambi
tion, and though he lived eighteen years after Saul
became king, and much of that time after anointing
his successor. Saul must have given great offence, for—■
1 Sam. xv. 35.—“ Samuel came no more to see Saul until
the day of his death; nevertheless Samuel mourned for
Saul; and the Lord repented that he had made Saul king
•over Israel.”
I believe it is very important clearly to understand
the leading incidents in the history of Samuel, be
cause there is manifestly much more simplicity and
reality, and therefore much more vivid representation,
in this most ancient portionof the narrative, than in the
more artificial writings of the later historians ; and
because there is reason to regard Samuel, and the
book of laws which he wrote, as, in spirit, purpose,
and action, the very prototypes and models of the
whole Jewish priesthood, and of the far more elaborate
book of the law, which they in course of time pro
�The Judges to Solomon.
IOI
duced. The sanctimonious pride, the political
shrewdness, the strict ritualism, the grasping ambi
tion and, doubtless, also, the genuine religious zeal
of Samuel may be recognized as the most prominent
characteristics of the priests in every stage of their
history; and may be read in almost every line of the
Mosaic law. In like manner, also, the superstitious
credulity and simplicity of Saul, alternating with his
times of wilfulness and self-assertion, may fairly be
regarded as typical in a very high degree, of the
natural character of the whole Jewish people.
At the time when Saul was anointed we read :
1 Sam. x. 9 and 10.—“ And it was so, that when he
turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him (Saul)
another heart; . . . . and the Spirit of God came upon
him, and he prophesied.”
So now, regarding the anointment of his successor:
1 Sam. xvi. 13 and 14.—“ Samuel took the horn of oil,
and annointed him in the midst of his brethren : and the
Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward:
.... but the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and
an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.”
There is no trace until a much later period of the
history of the notion of a personal devil, or ruling
spirit of evil; but good and bad spirits are alike
represented as directly executing the will of Jehovah,
to whom the immediate authorship of both good and
evil is unhesitatingly ascribed.
Isaiah xiv. 7.—“ I form the light and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil. I the Lord do all these
things.”
Isaiah xix. 14.—“ The Lord hath mingled a perverse
spirit in the midst thereof : and they have caused Egypt to
err in every work thereof.”
Amos iii. 6.—“ Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and
the people not be afraid ? Shall there be evil in a city, and
the Lord hath not done it ? ”
Exod. xiv. 17.—“ And I, behold, I will harden the hearts
�102
When was the Book Lost ?
of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them; and I will
get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host.”
Judges ix. 23.—“Then God sent an evil spirit between
Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of
Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech.
1 Kings xxii. 23.—“Now therefore, behold, the Lord
hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets,
and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.”
It would be easy to multiply such illustrations; but
these, and others which we have previously noticed,
are amply sufficient to teach us, how very low was
the highest standard of morality among the ancient
Jews; and how grossly dark and heathenish were
their notions of the character of God. We must
observe that such sentiments as these not only show
a very low and somewhat devilish conception of God;
but that they are also indicative of a religious belief,
in which the terrors of superstition and the powers of
darkness (whatever these may be) count for more
than their share. It is not at all so difficult, as at
first sight appears, to realize how Saul, when he had
listened to the humiliating rebukes, and to the public
anathemas of the great Samuel, and when he found
that the back of his holiness was sternly turned on
him, should very thoroughly feel that an evil. spirit
from God had come to trouble him; much in the
same way as we may suppose that an ignorant but
sincere Roman Catholic might feel, if he had been
publicly cursed by his priest at the altar, and the
curses confirmed by the bishop and the pope.
When Saul was troubled with this evil spirit, he
was advised to try the soothing influence of music,
and his servants were commanded to provide a
musician.
1 Sam- xvi. 18.—“Then answered one of the servants,
and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man,
and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely
person, and the Lord is with him.”
�The Judges to Solomon. .
103
It is not easy to reconcile this description with the
account given in the following chapter of the same
book, of David's encounter with the Philistine giant.
1 Sam. xvii. 83, 42, 55, 56.—“ And Saul said to David,
Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight
with him: for thou art but a youth............. And when the
Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him ;
for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair counte
nance............And when Saul saw David go forth against the
Philistine, he said unto Abner, the captain of the host,
Abner, whose son is this youth ? And Abner said, As thy
soul liveth, 0 king, I cannot tell. And the king said, Enquire
thou, whose son this stripling is.”
It is very remarkable that David, the musician, was
a mighty valiant warrior and prudent in matters;
while David the champion was at a later time a
youthful stripling. We may also notice, that on each
of these occasions, we seem to have the account of a
first introduction of David as a stranger to Saul; and
that, on the later of the two, he was not recognized
as David, who had been musician and armour-bearer
to the king; but was designated David, the son of
Jesse the Bethlehemite (1 Sam. xvii. 58.)
David was, after his victory, received with favour
by the king, and promoted to the command of the
army.
1 Sam. xviii. 5.—“And David went out whithersoever
Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set
him over the men of war ; and he was accepted in the sight
of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul’s servants.”
But this pleasant state of matters did not long con
tinue. The jealousy of Saul was aroused by the fame,
which David’s prowess had gained for him, and which
seemed to eclipse the renown of Saul’s own achieve
ments.
1 Sam. xviii. 8, 9.—“ And Saul was very wroth, and
the saying displeased him ; and he said, They have ascribed
unto David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed
�104
When was the Book Lost ?
but thousands: and what can he have more but the kingdom ? And Saul eyed David from that day and forward.”
It soon became necessary for David to escape for
his life; Saul having, on several occasions, tried to
kill him, when under the influence of the evil spirit;
and, from this violence, as well as from the language
of Saul, it is manifest that some rumours of David’s
anointment, and of the ambitious views which he had
thus been led to entertain, had reached the ears of
the king.
1 Sam. xx. 30, 31.—Then Saul's anger was kindled
against Jonathan ; and he said unto him .... As long as
the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be
established nor thy kingdom; wherefore now send and fetch
him unto me, for he shall surely die.”
It would also appear that, in consequence of these
rumours, and of David’s popularity, Saul had soon
reason to suspect the loyalty even of some of his
immediate attendants.
1 Sam. xxii. 7, 8.—'“Then Saul said unto his servants
that stood about him, Hear now, ye Benjamites; will the
son of Jesse give every one of you fields and vineyards, and
make you all captains of thousands and captains of hundreds;
that all of you have conspired against me, and there is none
that sheweth me that my son hath made a league with the
son of Jesse?”
Even before his flight, David had a number of per
sonal adherents ; for, when Saul, in order to procure
his death, had proposed to give him his daughter in
marriage, on condition that he should slay one hundred
Philistines :—
1 Sam. xviii. 27.—“ David arose and went, he and his men,
and slew of the Philistines two hundred men .... And
Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.”
In the account of the first incident in David’s
flight, we learn that he had young men with him
(1 Sam. xxi. 4, 5), for whom and for himself, by
�The Judges to Solomon.
105
false pretences, he procured food, from Ahimelech
the priest of Nob.
1 Sam. xxi. 2.—“ And David said unto Ahimelech the
priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath
said unto me, Let no man know anything of the business
whereabout T send thee, and what I have commanded thee ;
and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place.”
Saul regarded the conduct of Ahimelech and the
other priests at Nob, as evidence of their treasonable
inclination to support the cause of David. The evil
spirit made him feel or fancy, that the whole influence
of the priesthood was turned against him.
1 Sam. xxii. 13.—“And Saul said unto Ahimelech, Why
have ye conspired against me, thou and the son of Jesse, in
that thou hast given him bread and a sword, and hast en
quired of God for him, that he should rise against me to lie
in wait as at this day.”
And all Ahimelech’s protestations of innocence did
not save him, and eighty of his family or friends,
from being put to death at the command of Saul;
of which crime, the responsibility, in a great degree,
rests upon David, his deceit having caused Ahimelee,h’s
destruction, as was indeed clearly acknowledged by
himself.
1 Sam. xxii. 22.—“ And David said unto Abiathar, I
knew it that day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that
he would surely tell Saul: I have occasioned the death of all
the persons of thy father’s house.”
This seems to have been the turning point in the
history of Saul. The evil spirit of superstitious dread
had driven him to the opposite extreme. The threats
and curses, uttered against him by Samuel, would
naturally make him too ready to magnify the favour
shown to his rival by the priest of Nob; and, re
garding them as all combined to overturn his throne,
he now felt himself driven to bay. He must either
defy them, or else surrender the kingdom: and, having
�106
When ’was the Book Lost ?
once struck the decisive blow, his course was fixed.
We do not read of any more slaughtering, nor even
persecution, of priests; but neither do we read of
priests having, any longer, power to terrify Saul;
until, after many years, when trouble overwhelmed
him, and his spirit was again plunged in darkness.
May not this slaughter of the priests be the true
reason, why the comparatively slight offences, of
which Saul had been formerly accused, are recorded
as if they had been unpardonable 1
After David’s flight, the number of his followers
speedily increased.
1 Sam. xxii. 2.—“And everyone that was in distress, and
every one that was in debt, and every one that was discon
tented, gathered themselves unto him; and he became a
captain over them: and there were with him about four
hundred men,”
who, in the subsequent narrative, are frequently
referred to, as ‘David and his men: and they con
tinued to receive accessions to their number.
1 Sam. xxiii. 13.—“ Then David and his men, which were
about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and
went whithersoever they could go.”
They were outlaws, wanderers, and rebels; and it
does not appear that there were any legitimate re
sources for the support of such a company; but there
is much reason to suppose, both from the nature of
the case, and from the story of Nabal (1 Sam. xxv.),
that they subsisted, as similar parties have often done,
on the booty of their enemies, and on the black-mail
of their friends; acting on the principle, that might
makes right. To suppress and to punish such a
rebellion as this, Saul was bound, both by duty and
by interest, to exert his utmost vigour.
It would not illustrate the subject of our inquiry,
were we to follow David through the manifold adven
tures which are recorded of him, while he fled from
�The Judges to Solomon.
107
place to place, as a fugitive from Saul: nor can we
state the duration of his outlawry; because the nar
rative furnishes no exact data for such a calculation :
but it must have continued for a good many years,
terminating only after Saul’s death. Latterly, David
found it necessary to seek refuge with Achish, the
Philistine king, at Gath; who received him with
kindness and hospitality, and gave him the town of
Ziklag, for him and his men to dwell in. (1 Sam. xxvii.)
As he had deceived the priests at Nob, so now he
deceived Achish; for, having made a raid upon the
Amalekites and other friends of the Philistines, he
falsely told Achish, that his expedition had been
against Judah; and thus he succeeded in lulling the
suspicions and the fears, which the presence of so
many traditional enemies could not fail to awaken in
the minds of the Philistines.
1 Sam. xxvii. 11, 12.—“And David saved neither man
nor woman alive, to bring tidings to Gath, saying, Lest
they should tell on us, saying, So did David, and so will be
his manner all the while he dwelleth in the country of the
Philistines. And Achish believed David, saying, He hath
made his people Israel utterly to abhor him; therefore he
shall be my servant for ever.”
At this point the book of Chronicles takes up the
tale; and we have thenceforth, and throughout the
whole subsequent history, two very different narratives
to compare, and to contrast. We learn from the
Chronicles that David received great reinforcements
while he dwelt in Ziklag.
1 Chron. xii. 22.-—For, at that time, day by day, there
came to David to help him, until it was a great host, like
the host of God.”
While David was a fugitive, probably soon after his
flight, Samuel died. The Bible narrative does not
tell us exactly when this took place: but, in Josephus
we read, (Ant. vi. xiii. 5): “Samuel governed and
�108
When was the Book Lost ?
presided over the people alone, after the death of
Eli the High Priest, twelve years: and eighteen
years together with Saul the king.”
For a long time he had abstained from taking, or
trying to take, any prominent share in public affairs.
Finding that he could not be supreme, he had scorned
to accept a subordinate station; and, therefore, he
had held himself aloof. Saul and David, however
much, they differed, seem at least to have agreed, in
alike ignoring any such arrogant and ambitious claims,
as those which Samuel had put forward, on behalf of
the priesthood; and Samuel’s successor, if successor
he had, never had the chance of asserting such claims,
so far as we can learn. The example, which had been
set, was never lost sight of, and its influence may be
traced through the whole history of the priesthood;
but, while the monarchy lasted, these high Sacerdotal
pretensions had to remain more or less in abeyance;
none of their kings having ever been sufficiently
pious, to lay his crown absolutely at the feet of the
priests. During all the years of David’s exile,-—during all the time which intervened between the
death of Samuel and the death of Saul, there is only
one instance on record, in which the services of a
priest were employed; and this happened while David
was at Ziklag, not for sacrifice, but for divination, and
is recorded in terms, which clearly indicate the sub
ordinate position of the priest.
1 Sam. xxx. 7, 8.—“ And David said to Abiathar the
priest, Ahimelech’s son, I pray thee bring me hither the
ephod. And Abiathar brought thither the ephod to David.
And David enquired at the Lord, saying, Shall I pursue
after this troop ? shall I overtake them ? And he answered
him, Pursue : for thou shalt surely overtake them.”
Chronologers seem all to agree that Saul reigned
forty years, thus living twenty-two years after the
death of Samuel.
�The "Judges to Solomon.
109
Acts xiii. 21.—“ And afterward they desired a king: and
God gave them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of
Benjamin, by the space of forty years."
But of the latter portion of this long reign, there is
absolutely nothing recorded, except a few incidents of
David's history; until we come to the circumstances
which were immediately connected with the death of
Saul. From this silence, and from the fact that
David was all this time never more than a fugitive
and a refugee, we may fairly infer that Saul’s reign
was, on the whole, prosperous; and that, during all
these years, he had not been very much troubled with
the evil spirit. He seems, during these twenty-two
years, to have been endeavouring to free himself from
the dark terrors of superstition.
1 Sam. xxviii. 3.—“Now Samuel was dead............... and
Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the
wizards, out of the land.”
Upon which passage Matthew Henry’s Commentary is again well worth quoting :—“Perhaps, when
Saul was himself troubled with an evil spirit, he
suspected that he was bewitched; and for that reason,
cut off all that had familiar spirits.”
But, at length, the day of calamity came. The
possession of Ziklag had given David a fixed habita
tion, and a centre of power; and, according to the
chronicler, many of Saul’s best captains, and even some
of his kindred had gone there to bask in the rays of the
rising sun, and were now with David in' the enemy’s
country, and on the enemy’s side (1 Chrorn xii.
1-22). When, therefore, the Philistine army came
up against Saul, he found himself weakened by the
defection of those who ought to have been his most
reliable supporters; and, instead of his old warlike
spirit being roused, he felt only the sad forebodings
of defeat.
1 Sam. xxviii. 5, 6.—“And, when Saul saw the host of
�I IO
When was the Book Lost ?
the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart greatly trembled.
And when Saul enquired of the Lord, the Lord answered
him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.”
By the visible approach of ruinous disaster, the
door was again opened for the return of superstition.
He beheld in the dangers with which he was threatened
the probable fulfilment of the curses uttered against
him by Samuel, about thirty years before; and, as
Samuel had wrought the spell, he seems to have
thought that if he could, even then, propitiate the
shade of the departed priest, perhaps the spell might
still be broken. But how should he find access to
the world of spirits, having long before renounced the
devil, and all his agents and works ! Like those
who, in much later days, doomed witches to the
stake, he had not been able to banish the belief from
his mind; although he had banished or destroyed
its professors from his kingdom : and so, in the time
of his sore distress, he managed, not without search
and difficulty, to find a witch; and, through her
intervention, he seems to have obtained the interview,
which he desired, with the ghost of Samuel. But,
by this time, no supernatural wisdom was needed to
discern the certainty of the coming destruction, as
Saul himself had already discerned it; and so the
interview only served to confirm his despair, (1 Sam.
xxviii. 7-20). On the following day, the army of
Israel was defeated, and Saul and his sons were slain,
—the victims of priestcraft and superstition ; for was
it not Samuel who had balefully instigated the am
bitious rivalry of David 1 and was it not Samuel who
had woven the mantle of gloom around the whole
life and spirit of Saul ?
1 Sam. xxxi. 6.—“ So Saul died, and his three sons, and
his armour-bearer, and all his men, that same day together.”
2 Sam. i. 19, 23, 27.—“ The beauty of Israel is slain upon
thy high places: how are the mighty fallen I . . . . Saul
and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and
�The Judges to Solomon.
111
in their death they were not divided: they were swifter
than eagles, they were stronger than lions. . . . How are
the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished 1 ”
As the result of their victory, the Philistines took
possession of some cities (1 Sam. xxxi 7); but did
not render their conquest complete : for we find that
Saul was succeeded in his kingdom by his surviving
son.
2 Sam. ii. 10, 11.—“ Ish-bosheth, Saul’s son, was forty
years old when he began to reign over Israel, and reigned
two years. But the house of Judah followed David. And
the time that David was king in Hebron, over the house of
Judah, was seven years and six months.”
2 Sam. v. 4, 5.—“ David was thirty years old when he
began to reign, and he reigned forty years. In Hebron he
reigned over Judah, seven years and six months; and in
Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years, over all Israel
and Judah.”
2 Sam. iii. 1.—“Now there was long war between the
house of Saul and the house of David: but David waxed
stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker
and weaker.”
It is here that we come upon the first glaring
example of that bias and one-sidedness, which may
be clearly traced through the whole of the later
narrative in Chronicles; according to which, David
was at once unanimously chosen and accepted, as
king over all Israel. Immediately after the account
of Saul’s death, we read :—
1 Chron. xi. 1, 3.—“ Then all Israel gathered themselves
to David unto Hebron, saying, Behold we are thy bone and
thy flesh. . . . And David made a covenant with them in
Hebron before the Lord: and they anointed David king over
Israel, according to the word of the Lord by Samuel.”
1 Chron. xii. 38.—“ All these men of war, that could
keep rank, came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make
David king over all Israel; and all the rest also of Israel
were of one heart to make David king.”
1 Chron. xxix. 26, 27.—Thus David the son of Jesse
reigned over all Israel. And the time that he reigned over
�112
When was the Book Lost ?
Israel was forty years ; seven years reigned he in Hebron,
and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem.”
In this book, we accordingly find not a word about
the long war between David and the house of Saul,
(2 Sam. ii. iii); for the same reason that it tells us
nothing about the murder and the adultery of which
David was. guilty in the case of Uriah the Hittite
(2 Sam. xi.); nor about the rebellion of Absalom
(2 Sam, xv. 14); in these points, and in very many
others, studiously hiding whatever might tarnish or
injure; and magnifying whatever might exalt the
glory and the sacerdotalism of David and of his
reign.
At length, after a long and undecisive struggle, in
the course of which Abner, the chief captain and
mainstay of the house of Saul, had been treacherously
murdered by Joab (2 Sam. iii. 23-27), who stood in
the same relation to David, the question was finally
and suddenly settled by men who, presuming on
Joab’s example, contrived to assassinate Ish-bosheth,
the reigning son of Saul.
2 Sam. iv. 6, 7.—“ And they came thither into the midst
of the house, as though they would have fetched wheat;
and they smote him under the fifth rib. . . . and slew him,
and beheaded him, and took his head, and gat them away
through the plain all night.”
They expected that David would acknowledge and
reward the service, which they considered had thus
been rendered to his cause; and, therefore, they
brought their own report, and Ish-bosheth’s head, to
David, but their high hopes were grievously disap
pointed.
2 Sam. iv. 10, 11.—“ When one told me, saying, Behold
Saul is dead (thinking to have brought good tidings) I took
hold of him, and slew him in Ziklag, who thought that I
would have given him a reward for his tidings. How much
more when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his
own house upon his bed,” &c.
�The Judges to Solomon.
113
The tribes of Israel being thus deprived, both of
their general and of their king, were now willing to
recognize the government of David, and to make him
king over them all.
2 Sam. v. 1, 3—“Then came all the tribes of Israel to
David unto Hebron, and spake, saying, Behold we are thy
bone and thy flesh. . . . And king David made a league
with them in Hebron before the Lord: and they anointed
David king over Israel.”
David was now firmly established on the throne of
a united nation; and his career was henceforth one
of conquest and of consolidation. His first success was
the taking of Jerusalem, which had hitherto been
occupied by the Jebusites.
2 Sam. v. 9, 10-—So David dwelt in the fort, and called
it the city of David. . . . And David went on, and grew
great: and the Lord God of hosts was with him.”
Up to this point in the history of David, we can
not find any trace of his worship, nor of his offering
sacrifice. On one or two occasions, he is said to have
enquired at God; and, in one or two cases priests
are mentioned, but that is all. David’s life had been
too restless, and too wild, for attending to Levitical
matters. But after he had fixed his residence in his
new capital; and after building for himself a house
there, with the assistance of Hiram king of Tyre;
after two successful wars with the Philistines; and
apparently after a series of marriages and births in
Jerusalem, (2 Sam. v. 11, 13, 17, 22); then David
thought of bringing up the ark of God from Gibeah,
where Saul had dwelt, (2 Sam. xxi. 6); and where,
therefore, the symbols of divinity, employed in Saul’s
worship, had their place.
2 Sam. vi. 4—“And they brought it out of the house of
Abinadab, which was at Gibeah, accompanying the ark of
God : and Ahio went before the ark.”
The ark was placed on a cart drawn by oxen, and
H
�114
When was the Book Lost ?
driven by Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab,
but when they had gone some distance, the oxen
stumbled, and Uzzah the driver took hold of the ark,
for the oxen shook it; for which presumption, Uzzah
was struck dead.
2 Sam. vi. 9—“And David was afraid of the Lord that
day ; and said, How shall the ark of God come to me ? ”
So he left it there, in the house of Obed-edom the
Gittite (man of Gath, 2 Sam. xxi. 19, 22) three
months; but, as no further harm came of it, he finally
brought it home, to the city of David.
2 Sam. vi. 13, 14—“And it was so, that when they that
bare the ark of the Lord had gone six paces, he sacrificed
oxen and fatlings. And David danced before the Lord
with all his might: and David was girded with a linen
ephod.”
In all this account, there is not a word of priests
or Levites, nor of anything at all Levitical; David
offered his own sacrifices, and is the only person said
to have worn the dress of a priest; but, in the book
of Chronicles, written six hundred years after the
event, we read —1 Chron. xv. 2—“Then David said, None ought to bear
the ark of God but the Levites: for them hath the Lord
chosen to carry the ark of God, and to minister unto him
for ever.”
And we have, accordingly, the whole chapter full
of Levitical arrangements; with classified lists of
about a thousand official personages, priests, Levites,
musicians, porters and doorkeepers, as these were
employed in the bringing up of the ark; and a remark
able reason for all this array is assigned.
1 Chron. xv. 13—“ For, because ye did it not at the first,
the Lord our God made a breach upon us, for that we
sought him not after the due order.”
By the 1 due order,’ which, according to this account
�The Judges to Solomon.
115
was so tardily remembered and observed by David,
is of course to be understood that which is described
in the Pentateuch.
Num. iv. 15—“ The sons of Kohath shall come to bear it
(the ark): but they shall not touch any holy thing lest
they die.”
Deut. x. 8—“ At that time, the Lord separated the tribe
of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to
stand before the Lord, to minister unto him, and to bless in
his name, unto this day.”
Of which ‘due order,’ it is certainly remarkable
that we can neither trace the observance nor the
conscious neglect, nor any recognition at all, in the
older narrative.
2 Sam. vi. 17—“And they brought in the ark of the
Lord, and set it in his place, in the midst of the tabernacle,
that David had pitched for it: and David offered burntofferings and peace-offerings before the Lord.”
1 Chron. xvi. 1—“So they brought the ark of God, and
set it in the midst of the tent that David had pitched for it:
and they offered burnt-sacrifices and peace-offerings before
God.”
This is the earliest notice, to be found in the
historic books, of a tabernacle for the ark. When the
ark had been returned, after its capture by the
Philistines, and after it had remained a short time at
Beth-shemesh, where fifty thousand men were slain
for looking into it, we read
1 Sam. vii. 1, 2—“Andthe men of Kirjath-jearim came,
and fetched up the ark of the Lord, and brought it into
the house of Abinadab, in the hill, and sanctified Eleazer
his son to keep the ark of the Lord. And it came to pass,
while the ark abode in Kirjath-jearim, that the time was
long : for it was twenty years: and all the house of Israel
lamented after the Lord.”
But what practical result their lamentations had,
we are nowhere directly informed; the ark being
never again referred to, until the present occasion,
�116
When was the Book Lost ?
when David fetches it out of the house of Abinaddb.
If our maps of Palestine are correct, the house of
Abinadab at Gibeah could not be the same place, as
the house of Abinadab at Kirjath-jearim; otherwise
the ark would appear to have rested in that house
for about fifty years, having been brought thither,
before Saul was made king, and having remained
during his reign of forty years, and during the seven
years of David’s reign in Hebron ; but, as we are
told that the ark remained only twenty years at
Kirjath-jearim, and that the people then ‘lamented
after the Lord; ’ it appears almost certain, that the
ark and Abinadab had been removed together, at the
end of the twenty years, from that place to Gibeah
of Saul, in order that they might be near the royal
residence; just as David, in his turn, now brought
up the ark, from Gibeah of Saul, (2 Sam. xxi. 6), to
the city of David ; and placed it in the new taber
nacle, which he had made for it there. It thus
clearly appears, that the ark had not dwelt in a
tabernacle for fifty years ; and the building in which
the ark was kept, before its capture by the Philistines,
was not called a tabernacle, but a house or a temple.
1 Sam. i. 24—“And when she (Hannah) had weaned
him (Samuel) she brought him unto the bouse of the Lord
in Shiloh.”
1 Sam. i. 9.—“ Eli the priest sat upon a seat by a post of
the temple of the Lord.”
1 Sam. iii. 3.—“ And ere the lamp of God went out in the
temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was, and Samuel
was laid down to sleep.”
It is not to be supposed that such a man as Samuel
would, in the days of his power, have permitted the
ark to remain in an improper building, either at Kirjath-Jearim or at Shiloh, if he had viewed the
matter as the writers of the Pentateuch and of the
Chronicles did, and it cannot surely be argued that a
man who enjoyed such direct divine guidance and in
�The Judges to Solomon.
117
spiration could be ignorant of the laws regarding the
ark and the tabernacle, if these laws had previously
been given. (Num. xviii. 2, 3, &c.) We must, there
fore, conclude that neither the tabernacle nor the
laws relating to it were in existence in Samuel’s
time, and that the tabernacle which David made for
the ark was really the first of which we have any
authentic record. Having thus recalled all that can
be known regarding the previous history of the ark,
we can perhaps appreciate the significance of the fol
lowing quotation :—
1 Chron. ix. 22-24.—“All these, which were chosen to be
porters in the gates, were two hundred and twelve. These
were reckoned by their genealogy in their villages, whom
David, and Samuel the seer, did ordain in their set office.
So they and their children had the oversight of the gates of
the house of the Lord, namely, the house of the tabernacle, by
wards. In four quarters were the porters, toward the
east, west, north, and south, &c.”
A right understanding of this passage is the key to
the purpose and spirit of the whole of the Book of
Chronicles, and we trust that our readers can now
discern its true value.
According to the older narrative, the later portion
of David’s life was in all respects conformable to what
his earlier history had been—a continued series of
wars and vicissitudes, crimes and adventures, amidst
which we cannot find a single instance in which a
priest was at all employed by David, as the instru
ment or medium of his sacrifices or of his prayers.
David’s prayers and psalms were addressed by him
self direct to God, without the intervention of a
priest.
2 Sam. xxii. 1.—“ And David spake unto the Lord the
words of this song in the day the Lord had delivered him,
&c.”
In all respects David, according to this book, claimed
and exercised the right of being his own priest, as we
�11 8
When was the Book Lost ?
have seen that the old judges did, but which poor
Saul was condemned for doing; and in the old primi
tive fashion David offered his own sacrifices :—
2 Sam, xxiv. 18, 24, 25.—“ And Gad came that day to
David, and said unto him, Go up, rear an altar unto the
Lord, in the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. . . .
So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty
shekels of silver (compare 1 Chron. xxi. 25). And David
built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered, burnt-offer
ings and peace-offerings.”
Priests, indeed, are only mentioned in two or three
passages, in all of which their position is clearly seen
to be subordinate, and their influence very small in
deed, as compared with that to which Samuel had laid
claim, and it would appear that the priests of those
days were very few, perhaps not more than two at a
time.
2 Sam. xx. 25.—“ And Sheva was scribe; and Zadok
and Abiathar were the priests.”
In a word, there is nothing at all L&vitical in the
older narrative, not a word in the whole of it about
Levites, nor about anything Levitical, but a natural
continuation of the old, simple, and personal worship
of Jehovah, as we have seen it under the judges; a
continuation also of the semi-barbarous and unsettled
state of the tribes, who were but slowly becoming
united as a nation. David’s reign was on the whole
victorious and prosperous; but as it was long dis
turbed by civil war at its commencement, so it was
afterwards rudely shaken by two other civil wars;
the first caused by the formidable and deep-laid rebel
lion of Absalom (2 Sam. xv. 10-14), and the second by
the revolt of the ten tribes under Sheba (2 Sam. xx.
1, 2, 22).
In this narrative we have also the account of a
famine, which seems to have immediately followed
these disturbances.
2 Sam. xxi. 1.—“ Then there was a famine in the days of
�The Judges to Solomon.
ii9
David three years, year after year; and David enquired of
the Lord. And the Lord answered, It is for Saul, and for
his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.”
In order to atone for this old crime, which is no
where else recorded, seven grandsons of Saul were put
to death.
2 Sam. xxi. 9.—“ And he (David) delivered them into
the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them up in
the hill before, the Lord: and they fell all seven together,
and were put to death in the days of harvest.”
We must remark how nearly this resembles a human
sacrifice, the indication of the victims by divination,
the motive of the sacrifice as an “atonement” for
crime (ver. 3), to avert a great national evil, and the
“hanging up” (vulgate, “crucifying”) “before the
Lord,” in the hill or high place at G-ibeon, of which
we elsewhere read :—1 Kings iii. 4.—“And the king (Solomon) went to Gibeon
to sacrifice there, for that was the great high place.”
Strange that David’s recent crime, in the matter of
Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam. xi. 15, 27), is not regarded
as the cause of the calamity, nor David’s inhuman
cruelty to the conquered Ammonites (2 Sam. xii. 31).
Strange that the famine was not attributed to the sin
or folly of the people in the two civil wars which im
mediately preceded it, and which may have even been
its natural producing cause. Strange that the nation
should now be punished with famine for the sin com
mitted many years before by Saul; but strangest of
all, that the innocent grandsons should be sacrificed
thus as an atonement for the crime of their ancestor.
We would rather not more particularly notice how
dishonouring to God was such a sacrifice; but we
must observe that in this matter David’s standard of
morality was far below that which is afterwards attrib
uted to his descendant Amaziah.
2 Kings xiv. 6.—“ But the children of the murderers he
�120
When was the Book Lost ?
slew not: according unto that which is written in the book
of the law of Moses, wherein the Lord commanded saying,
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor
the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man
shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deut. xxiv. 16.)
It would appear that these seven were all the sur
viving descendants of Saul except one.
2 Sam. xxi. 7.—“ But the king spared Mephibosheth, the
son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the Lord’s oath
that was between them, between David and Jonathan the
son of Saul.”
2 Sam. ix. 13.—“ So Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem,
for he did eat continually at the king’s table; and was lame
on both his feet."
There is ample ground for supposing, that Mephi
bosheth may have been as much indebted to his lame
ness, as to the oath of David, for the clemency extended
to him; seeing that David’s oath to Saul was insuf
ficient to protect those who might have become David’s
rivals.
1 Sam. xxiv. 21,22.—“Swear now therefore unto me
by the Lord, that thou wilt not cut off my seed after me,
and that thou wilt not destroy my name out of my father’s
house. And David sware unto Saul.”
According to the earlier narrative, every incident
of David’s history only serves to fill up the picture of
him, as a rude, warlike, and cruel king ; whose grand
merit was that he was at length victorious over all his
enemies, and that he worshipped no other god but
Jehovah. His last dying words to Solomon, his suc
cessor, bear witness to the spirit that was in him
stronger than death.
1 Kings ii, 8-10.—“ And, behold thou hast with thee
Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of Bahurim, which
cursed me with a grievous curse, in the day when I went to
Mahanaim : but he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I
sware to him by the Lord, saying, I will not put thee to
death with the sword (2 Sam. xix. 16-23). Now therefore
�The Judges to Solomon.
12 1
hold him not guiltless; for thou art a wise man, and kuowest what thou oughtest to do unto him ; but his hoar head
bring thou down to the grave with blood. So David slept
with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David.”
As represented by this authority, David’s worship
was as unlevitical, and his character at least as im
moral, as those of any wicked king in the whole
history ; but it does not appear that his irregularities
were known to be defects by the historian :
1 Kings xv. 5.—“ Because David did that which was
right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from
anything that he commanded him all the days of his life,
save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”
So that, with the exception of this one great sin,
David’s life and worship, as portrayed in the books
of Samuel and Kings, must be regarded as fairly ex
hibiting the standard of religion and of morality in
his time, and in the time of the writer, or writers,
of this history. But, if we now turn to the book of
Chronicles, we find that, both with regard to worship
and to manners, the standard has become very different,
and that David’s piety and prosperity are alike greatly
magnified. Here there is no record of the civil wars
and rebellions, nor of the murders of Ishbosheth and
of Abner, nor of the sacrifice of the grandsons of Saul,
nor of the legacy of treacherous revenge which was
bequeathed to Solomon ; but the last words recorded
of David are pious and devotional (1 Chron. xxix.
19, 20), and Bathsheba is only once mentioned, not
as the adulterous wife of Urijah, but as the mother
of Solomon and the daughter ofAmmiel (1 Chron. iii. 5).
David is here represented, as reigning over all Israel,
in uninterrupted triumph, without domestic strife, or
taint of immorality, all the time from the death of
Saul to the accession of Solomon. In this account
David no longer appears ignorant or indifferent about
Levitical matters. Besides the appointment of nearly
a thousand Levites for the service of the ark, when it
�122
When was the Book Lost ?
was first brought up to the City of David, we read of
extensive preparations for the building of the temple
(1 Chron. xxii., xxix.); and of a vast multitude of
Levitical arrangements for the future temple service.
1 Chron. xxiii. 1-5.—“ So, when David was old and full
of days, he made Solomon his son king over Israel, and he
gathered together all the princes of Israel, with the priests
and the Levites. Now the Levites were numbered from the
age of thirty years and upwards; and their number by their
polls, man by man, was thirty and eight thousand. Of
which, twenty and four thousand were to set forward the
work of the house of the Lord; and six thousand were
officers and judges. Moreover, four thousand were porters ;
and four thousand praised the Lord, with the instruments
which I made (said David) to praise therewith, &c., &c.”
Tbe contrast between the two pictures, when thus
compared, is so very glaring, that it is absolutely
impossible to give both writers credit for accurate
information and fidelity to truth; especially when
we find, that their statements not only differ, but
even contradict each other. If we remember that
David was emphatically an early king ; and, if we
consider the rude material out of which the nation
was growing, as that material is shown to us in the
books of Judges and of Samuel; we cannot fail to
conclude that the earlier narrative, being nearer in
point of time, as well as simpler and more primitive
in its description, has a much greater semblance and
probability of truth, than the later one—in which we
have constantly present, a manifest partiality; and,
constantly reflected, the full-blown Levitism or Sacer
dotalism of a much later age. There is internal
evidence, that the books of Chronicles were written
after the Babylonish Captivity.
1 Chron. ix. 1.—“ So all Israel were reckoned by gene
alogies ; and, behold, they were written in the book of the
kings of Israel and Judah, who were carried away to Babylon
for their transgression.”
�The Judges to Solomon.
123
And so far as we know, commentators are agreed
in regarding these books as written under the direction,
if not by the hand, of Ezra the scribe ; who ruled in
Jerusalem just six hundred years after David.
Ezra vii. 10, 12.—“For Ezra had prepared his heart
to seek the law of the Lord and to do it, and to teach in
Israel statutes and judgments............... Ezra the priest, a
scribe of the law of the God of heaven............ ”
On the other hand, there is both internal and ex
ternal evidence that the earlier narrative has been
compiled, not without some editorial touches, from
the successive records of contemporary prophets,
Samuel, Nathan, Gad, (1 Chron. xxix. 29), Ahijah,
Iddo, (2 Chron. ix. 29), Shemaiah, (2 Chron. xii. 15),
Jehu, (2 Chron. xx. 34), and Isaiah, (2 Chron. xxvi. 22).
Seeing that it is impossible to believe two entirely
different, and often contradictory, histories, we are
compelled either to reject them both, or to make a
selection, and to prefer that which appears to be the
more genuine ; being written nearer, in point of time,
to the events recorded, and possessing the more in
herent probability. It seems to be indubitable that the
earlier narrative contains, throughout, a much more
truthful representation than the later. But can we not
also discern the motive and purpose of the difference 1
The early writers appear to have recorded their own
impressions of events which they witnessed, or which
happened in their own time; while the later historian
had a more complicated task. He had before him a
code of laws, purporting to have come down from
remote antiquity ; with which, therefore, the ancient
history of his nation, and especially of its pious kings,
must be made to harmonize, and this is just the task
which the Chronicler, according to his lights, and to
the best of his ability, has endeavoured to accomplish.
These very discrepancies, therefore, and the uniform
sacerdotal bias, which is manifest in them all, are in
themselves proofs, that the author of Chronicles was
�124
When was the Book Lost 1
acquainted with the Mosaic law, which to the authors
of the earlier books was unknown; and if so, the law
must have been produced, or greatly developed,
between the dates of the two writings.
Neither David nor his prophets knew that it was
unlawful for the king to have many wives; or the
prophet Nathan, speaking in God's name, would not
have ignored this law.
2 Sam. xii. 7, 8.—“ Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,
I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out
of the hand of Saul; and I gave thee thy master’s house,
Ind thy master’s wives into thy bosom.”
2 Sam. v. 13.—“ And David took him more concubines
and wives, out of Jerusalem, after he was come from
Hebron.”
Deut. xvii. 17.—“ Neither shall he multiply wives unto
himself, that his heart turn not away.”
David must have been ignorant also of the law
that, for any one but a priest of the family of Aaron,
to presume to offer sacrifice was a crime to be
punished with death.
Num. xviii. 7.—“ Therefore thou and thy sons with thee
shall keep your priest’s office for everything of the altar, and
within the veil, and ye shall serve ; I have given your
priest’s office unto you as a service of gift: and the stranger
that cometh nigh shall be put to death.”
We have direct proof that neither Samuel, David,
nor any of the kings ever observed the feast of taber
nacles, and we cannot attribute this neglect to ignor
ance of an existing law on the part of men who were
led and taught by direct communications from heaven;
nor to the wilful disobedience of those whose piety
is recorded with unqualified approbation.
Nehem. viii. 14, 17, 18.—“ And they found written in
the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the
children of Israel should dwell in booths, in the feast of the
seventh month (Lev. xxiii. 34 and 42). And all the congre
gation, of them that were come again out of the captivity,
�The 'Judges to Solomon.
125
made booths, and sat under the booths: for, since the days
of Jeshua, the son of Nun, unto that day, had not the
children of Israel done so. And there was very great glad
ness. Also, day by day, from the first day unto the last,
he read in the book of the law of God.”
We have seen that David did not know the law,
that children should not be put to death for the sin
of their fathers; and, according to the history, he
must have been a worshipper, or at least must have
allowed the worship, of the brazen serpent, to which
incense was burned, until it was destroyed by king
Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii. 4). So far we have positive
proof that David was ignorant of the law ; but, as
might be expected from the nature of the case, the
negative evidence of his ignorance is more abundant,
and must be regarded as equally conclusive. We find
in David’s history not a single trace of the passover,
of the tithes, of the jubilee, of the Sabbatical year,
nor of the reading of the law to the people every
seventh year, as Ezra did in the feast of tabernacles,
(Deut. xxxi. 10, 11). Strangest of all, we find no
recognition of the Sabbath day, save only once, when
the word ‘ Sabbaths ’ occurs in the later book.
1 Chron. xxiii. 81.—“And to offer all burnt-sacrifices
unto the Lord, in the Sabbaths, in the new moons, and on
the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded
unto them.”
From all this we think it clearly appears that
David, the ‘ man after God’s own heart/ so far as can
be judged from his history, was not guided by the
Mosaic Law.
There is a great difficulty in the way of adducing
evidence from the Psalms, because there is so much
uncertainty and difference of opinion, as to the various
authorship and dates of these poetical writings. It is
manifest that some of them were written after the
return from Babylon (Psalm cxxxvii. 1); so that the
times of their production must have extended over at
�126
When was the Book Lost ?
least six hundred years; and it is well known that
the titles prefixed to some of them, are in many cases
of doubtful authority; there being even internal
evidence that psalms inscribed with the name of
David were written at a much later time (Psalm xiv.
7). It is, on this account, all the more remarkable,
that in none, of the Psalms is there any allusion to
the Sabbath day; and that in none which can, on
any grounds, be ascribed to David or to his time,
is there anything at all Levitical; nor any allusion to
the manifold observances of the ceremonial law. In
a few of the psalms, to which an early date is
attributed, laws, precepts, and commandments are
referred to (Psalm xix. 8 and 9); but, when we con
sider how very indefinite these expressions are, and
how uncertain is the authorship or date of any
particular psalm, it must be felt that such instances
have no weight at all against the mass of historical
evidence which we have reviewed. We are informed
that Samuel wrote a book of laws, which David would
doubtless regard as divine. We may assume that
David also had the two tables of stone, which Solomon
afterwards found in the ark. We cannot doubt that
David himself felt or believed that he enjoyed direct
guidance and instruction from God; and these con
siderations may sufficiently explain his devotional
admiration for God’s law; but we think it is clear,
beyond the possibility of doubt, that David had not
that book of the law which Hilkiah discovered, which
Ezra obeyed, and which has been transmitted to us.
It is, however, abundantly evident, both from the
history and from the psalms, that David worshipped
and promoted the worship of Jehovah alone; and
that by his example and influence in this respect; by
his bringing the ark to a temporary building in his
new capital; and by leaving his son Solomon in wealth
and prosperity; he prepared the way for the building
of the temple, for the institution of the temple service,
�Summary and Conclusion.
127
and for the establishment of the hierarchy of priests
and. Levites; who, to magnify their office, to increase
their emoluments, to extend their power, and, in a
word, to imitate Samuel, began immediately to build
that edifice of sacerdotalism, which we now have
before us in the ‘ Mosaic Law.’
I trust that I have been able to lay before my readers
such a view of the history of Samuel and of David, as
is fitted to throw no small amount of light on the ques
tion as to the alleged early date and Mosaic authorship
of the book which Hilkiah discovered or produced.
CHAPTER VII.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.
Having now passed in review the history of Judah
anterior to the finding of the book, through all its
stages, extending back to the pre-historic and legend
ary beginnings of the national existence, we have
only briefly to retrace and summarize the argument,
in order that we may the more clearly discern the
conclusion to which it points. In the earliest period
which preceded the opening of the continuous history,
and which lay very near to the ostensible date of the
great lawgiver, we should naturally expect the book
of the law to have occupied a prominent place, and to
be recognised by the notice of its observance, or else
of its guilty neglect, in every incident recorded; in
stead of which, it is precisely in this period that no
trace whatever of the law can be found, not even in
its germ. There is in this long time not the slightest
suggestion of the exclusive right of the family of
Aaron to minister at the altar, nor any trace of such
a right having ever before been asserted. The wor-
�128
Summary and Conclusion.
ship which the religious men of that age offered to
God with manifest and conscious acceptance was the
very same as that which the law afterwards de
nounced as impious, and as meriting the punishment
of death.
So far as we can judge, this primitive worship seems
to have been purer and more spiritual than that by
which it was succeeded. The judges did not dance
before the ark, nor offer their sacrifices to it; images
or symbols were not always employed ; no special
worthiness was ascribed to any one particular image,
nor was it considered necessary to bring the sacrifice
before any image, nor to any particular place.
What the distinctive office of the priest was in
those early times, the history does not show, and
therefore it can only be surmised. Clearly it was not
strictly peculiar nor exclusive, but probably consisted
in offering combined sacrifices for people who were
too poor, or too ignorant, or who otherwise felt them
selves unworthy or unfit to approach God on their
own account; but certainly it did not at all exclude
nor supersede the right of every man to be his own
priest, and to worship God when, where, and how he
chose, without the intervention of any mediator.
In all probability, however, the exercise of this
natural right was generally confined to the chieftains
or leading men, or to a few of the bolder or more en
lightened minds, while the common people would, as
a rule, resort to the ministry of the priests. Both
priests and people in such a case would almost
inevitably regard the independent worship of the
few, with some degree of jealousy, as savouring of
presumption. Now, what changes might naturally be
expected to follow when the priest’s office became
combined with that of the supreme magistrate?
Exactly those which the history records. The ex
clusive rights and privileges of the priesthood were
then asserted and vindicated, and the superstitious
�Summary and Conclusion.
129
veneration for the particular symbols or images
employed by the priest in his worship was greatly
increased.
When the monarchy was instituted a conflict was
unavoidable. It was simply impossible for Saul to be
king, and to submit to the insolent arrogance of
Samuel; but the people were determined to be
governed by a king, and so the proud priest was
compelled to submit, but submitted under a solemn
and vigorous protest; and though the high aims and
claims which had been asserted for the priesthood
had long to remain in various degrees of abeyance,
they were never abandoned nor lost sight of by
Samuel’s successors in office. Neither David nor
Solomon yielded anything like the same degree of
submission to the priesthood, as that which had been
yielded by Saul and rejected as insufficient by Samuel;
but the building of the temple and the establishment
of its regular priesthood laid the foundation of a new
power, whose progress and growth through many
vicissitudes coincided exactly with the gradual de
velopment of the Levitical law, as may be clearly
traced through the several stages of the history.
We are far from supposing that the policy of the
priests was instigated only by their desire for the
aggrandizement of their own order. Doubtless they
had also a zeal towards God, and believed sincerely
that His honour and glory were bound up with their
own dignity and prosperity as a church, and that He
could be truly and acceptably worshipped only through
their ordained ministry, and only by the rites and
ceremonies of the temple service at Jerusalem.
Strange as seems the combination of human pride
with religious zeal, it has been far too common to be
surprising. So far, indeed, from being extraordinary,
it has been exemplified in every age, and in every
country, varying only in degree, according to the
ignorance or enlightenment of the people, and accordI
�i jo
Summary and Conclusion.
ing to the various predominance of independent
thought or of superstitious credulity.
We are thus restrained from utterly condemning,
and even from greatly wondering at the course taken
by the temple priesthood, in teaching first, that God
could be worshipped under no other name, and by no
other symbols than those which they employed;
second, that they, the priests, were the mediators
through whom alone God could be approached with
acceptance; and third, that their temple at Jerusalem
was the only place in all the world where acceptable
worship could be offered to God.
These doctrines were not of simultaneous growth.
The first was undoubtedly believed by David, while
the other two were unknown or disregarded. Al
though the second had been held and maintained by
Samuel, it was manifestly set aside by all the early
kings, and the first clear instance of its resuscitation
is not found till the reign of Uzziah, when the priest
again rebuked the king for presuming to offer sacri
fice. The third must have been entirely unknown
even to Samuel, by whom it was habitually trans
gressed. It seems to have been very long a matter of
zealous and jealous ambition to the priesthood, be
cause in each successive reign we are told that even
when the king was pious and orthodox in other
things, “ Nevertheless, the high places were not
taken away;” and as this occurs chiefly in the earlier
narrative, we may, perhaps, infer that the advocates
of this new doctrine had very long tried to obtain for
it the sanction and authority of the civil power before
they were able to succeed. It was not till the third
reformation under Hezekiah that this doctrine became
law. When local worship was prohibited the high
places were destroyed, and the people were compelled
to bring all their sacrifices and offerings to the temple
at Jerusalem. These three doctrines may be regarded
as the heads under which nearly all the minor provi-
�Summary and Conclusion.
131
sions of the Levitical law may be distributed. From
the first it followed, as a matter of course, that to
worship or acknowledge the God or gods of any other
nation in the world was rank heresy and idolatry.
From the second, it necessarily resulted that as the
numbers and needs of the priesthood increased, a per
manent and liberal provision must be made for their
support in dignity and independence. The third led,
in the first place, to the legal institution of the great
national festivals at Jerusalem, and afterwards to the
enactment of a multiplicity of sacrifices, ceremonies,
and observances, in order that each of the many
priests employed about the one temple might have
some appointed duty or position, that their sacred
office might in all respects be magnified, and that
they might have as frequently as possible occasion to
receive contributions from the people, no rule being
more frequently insisted on than that none should
appear before the Lord empty. Whatever the priests
taught, it was, of course, condemnable heresy to
doubt; but it does not at all follow that they formed
either for themselves or for others any such theories
of plenary inspiration as those which have been
applied to their writings by modern divines, nor can
we suppose that their infallibility was at any time
during the monarchy undoubted, though it may at
times have appeared irresistible. Absolute intolerance
seems to have produced submission and external con
formity, and must have also tended to weaken the
very faculty of private judgment in the people. But
the fact that so many were always eager to throw off
the yoke of orthodoxy, whenever the liberty to do so
was accorded them, proves undeniably that, though all
open heresy or dissent might be effectually smothered
or crushed by intolerance, yet private scepticism and
differences of opinion must always have been very
widespread and lively.
Historical accuracy and critical analysis are entirely
�I 32
Summary and Conclusion.
modern acquirements; and are still, with very rare
exceptions, only beginning to be understood. That
a historian is guilty of dishonesty, in colouring, or
concealing, or adding to the ascertained facts, is an
idea, such as would probably never be conceived, by
priests or by people, among the ancient Jews, nor
among the ancient Britons. We suppose that the
priestly historian would not only consider himself to
be at liberty, but would even regard it as his duty,
so to write, as to magnify the goodness and the glory
of the orthodox kings, priests, and heroes, to confirm
and illustrate the doctrines taught by himself and by
his order; and to exhibit all that might be unfavour
able to these worthy ends, in the smallest or most
adverse light.
It would be difficult to find, anywhere, a clearer
example, or a more conclusive proof of this want
of the notion of accuracy, than is to be seen in the
placing of the books of Chronicles, side by side
with those of Samuel and of Kings, in the sacred
canon; and in the fact that both narratives have
been read by millions, and read many times, without
any discernment of their incongruities and contra
dictions ; either by the Jewish Priests and Babbis
who included them both in their Bible; or by the
vast majority of readers, ancient and modem. These
considerations may help us, in some measure, to
understand how it was, that, when Hilkiah announced
his discovery of the book, containing, as it did, many
old and well known laws, legends, customs, and
religious rites, combined with many new additions
and enlargements, a critical examination was not the
test, which, even ostensibly, it was thought necessary
to apply to his production; and how the oracular
deliverance of Huldah the prophetess, being declared
sufficient, by the king and by the priests, was
by the people received as infallible and conclusive
proof, when backed by such authority, that the book
�Summary and Conclusion.
133
which had been found was indeed what it professed
to be, “ the book of the law of the Lord given by
Moses.”
I have a strong conviction that the arguments deduc
ible from the historic books, which I have endeavoured
to lay before my readers, are amply and alone
sufficient to prove that the so-called Mosaic law had
its growth under the monarchy; and that it was
not completed before the reign of Josiah.
*
If my
exhibition of these arguments has failed to produce
conviction; the fault, I believe, must lie in the weak
ness and inefficiency of my statement, of which I am
deeply conscious. It may, however, be necessary to
remind some of my readers, that, in the testimony of
the prophets, and in the contents of the Pentateuch, other
fields lie open, yielding, even without the aid of
Hebrew scholarship, evidence, at least as strong and
as abundant, as that which has been here considered,
and all pointing to the same inevitable conclusion,
that the belief, hitherto regarded as orthodox, in the
Mosaic authorship, and early date of the Levitical
law, has been, after all, a popular delusion.
The immediate effect, and much of the purpose
of Hilkiah’s discovery, was greatly to increase
and to confirm the power of the priests; and to
multiply their exactions from the people. Tithes,
first-fruits, trespass-offerings, thank-offerings, and
others, were now enforced by the law. The first
born son, and the first-born of all cattle, were either
* I have not at all entered upon the question, as to whether
not the finding of the book was the final and complete de
velopment of the Levitical law, as it has been transmitted
to us. The dogma of infallibility may not even then have
been so clearly conceived and defined, as to prevent the possi
bility of later alterations and additions. Some of the evidence
here adduced, (for instance the quotation from Nehemiah on
page 124), seems to suggest this; but at present I express no
opinion on the subject, further than that the Pentateuch as we
have it was not completed before the reign of Josiah ; and this
is what I hope that I have demonstrated.
or
�134
Summary and Conclusion.
to be given up, or else to be redeemed with money,
according to fixed rules and rates (Lev. xxvii. 3); and
innumerable ceremonial observances and purifications
were made legally binding, in most of which the
services of the priesthood were indispensable. Life
would thus be rendered intolerable to any man who
should forfeit the favour of the priests; and we can
understand how the apostle Peter appealed only to
the well-known and universal sentiment of his hearers,
when he described the whole system as an intolerable
yoke, which neither they nor their fathers had been
able to bear (Acts xv. 10); and how the apostle Paul
referred to the same as a “ yoke of bondage ” (Gal.
v. 1-3).
Doubtless there would be sceptics when this law
was promulgated; but we should scarcely expect
their scepticism to be recorded by the orthodox
historians, or motives of prudence may have sufficed
entirely to prevent them from uttering their doubts.
Those were not the times for asserting with im
punity the rights of private judgment, and of
religious equality. Small chance for dissenters when
the priests were in power, and when the covenant of
intolerance was to be renewed !
Yet we may hear the voice of at least one bold
Protestant sounding still, over the long intervening
ages, if we will but listen to distinguish what he says.
Jeremiah was a prophet in Judea, if not in Jeru
salem, at the very time of Hilkiah’s great discovery.
Jerem. i. 1-8.—“ The words of Jeremiah, ... to whom
the word of the Lord came, in the days of Josiah, the son
of Amon, in the thirteenth year of his reign. It came also
in the days of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah.”
And, surely, lie was no enemy of the truth; but,
in Jeremiah’s prophecies, we find not the slightest
recognition, much less any triumphant proclamation,
of the sacred treasure, the book of the law, which
was in his days brought to light. On the contrary,
�Summary and Conclusion.
135
we may learn, from the scorn and indignation with
which he
speaks of the priests, his contem
poraries, that he was utterly opposed to the policy
of ambition and selfish aggrandizement, which seems
to have been a large ingredient in their religious zeal.
In other words, Jeremiah was a Protestant.
Jerem. i. 18.—“Behold, I have made thee this day a
defenced city, and an iron pillar, and brazen walls, against
the whole land, against the kings of Judah, against the princes
thereof, against the priests thereof, and against the people
of the land.”
Jerem. iii. 15, 16.—“ I will give you pastors according
to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and
understanding. And it shall come to pass, when ye be
multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith
the Lord, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant
of the Lord; neither shall it come to mind, neither shall
they remember it, neither shall they visit it, neither shall
that be done any more. {Marginal reading, Neither shall
it be magnified any more.)”
Jerem. vi. 13.—“ From the least of them even unto the
greatest of them, every one is given to covetousness ; and
from the prophet even unto the priest, every one dealeth
falsely.”
Jerem. vii. 4,11, 21, 22.—“ Trust ye not in lying words,
saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The
temple of the Lord are these.
“ Is this house, which is called by my name, become a
den of robbers in your eyes? Behold even I have seen it,
saith the Lord.
“ Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Put
your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. For
I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the
day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concern
ing burnt-offerings or sacrifices.”
Jerem. viii. 8.—“How do ye say, We are wise, and the
law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly the false pen of
the scribes worketh for falsehood." {Marginal reading.')
Jerem. xviii. 18.—“Then said they, Come, and let us
devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish
from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from
the prophet; come, and let us smite him with the tongue,
and let us not give heed to any of his words.”
�136
Reflections and Inferences.
Jerem. xx. 1, 2.—“Now Pashur the son. of Immer the
priest, who was also chief governor in the house of the Lord,
heard that Jeremiah prophesied these things. Then Pashur
smote Jeremiah the prophet, and put him in the stocks that
were in the high gate of Benjamin, which was by the house
of the Lord.”
Jerem. xxiii. 11.—“For both prophet and priest are
profane ; yea, in my house, have I found their wickedness,
saith the Lord.”
Lam. iv. 13.—“ For the sins of her prophets, and the
iniquities of her priests, that have shed the blood of the just
in the midst of her.”
From this constant antagonism it is clear that Jere
miah would not expect himself to be regarded as be
longing to the party of the priesthood; and we can well
understand the reason why he was not so regarded by
them, and why they did not think of asking for his
opinion or suggestions on the subject of their great dis
covery. Or perhaps Jeremiah was not then at Jerusa
lem, and his absence would be most opportune; but
with Huldah the case was different, and her counsel
might be relied upon. With Huldah the prophetess
they communed, when sent by the king to inquire of
God. Jeremiah, however, gave his opinion unsought;
and happily it remains on record, to open our eyes,
even at the present day !—
Jerem. v. 30, 31.—“A wonderful and horrible thing is
committed in the land ; the prophets prophesy falsely, and
the priests bear rule
their means; and my people love
to have it so : and what will ye do in the end thereof ? ”
CHAPTER VIII.
REFLECTIONS AND INFERENCES.
The evidence from the historical books of the Bible,
which in the foregoing chapters has been collected
�Reflections and Inferences.
137
and compared, exhibits, unless I have greatly failed
in my presentation of it, how utterly false and
unworthy of an enlightened people is the superstition,
that the entire Bible is the Holy, Authoritative,
Infallible Word of God.
Training, tradition, custom, and prejudice are
powerful influences, and the sentiments which are
nourished and appealed to by these are proverbially
difficult to overcome; but no one can doubt or refuse
to admit that the love of truth is infinitely nobler and
purer than any of these, and that this ought to be
our supreme rule and guide, never outrivalled nor
controlled by any other sentiment, in moulding our
intellectual conclusions. The vast majority of men, how
ever, seem to have been so trained as to make the love
of truth entirely subordinate, in their minds, to various
other sentiments. Multitudes are thus so blinded
with the veil of emotional attachment or traditional
submission to a standard of supreme external
authority, as to put darkness for light and light for
darkness,—calling evil good, and good evil,—false
hood truth, and truth falsehood; being all the time
wise in their eyes and prudent in their own sight.
(Isaiah v. 20, 21.)
The possibility of honestly and sincerely yielding
this submission of the intellect is not easily realized
by those whose minds are free, but, having long
experienced it, I know that it is a reality ; and there
fore I am very far from thinking that all who still
acknowledge the veil are dishonest or insincere in
doing so.
Micah vi. 8—“ Godhath shewed thee, 0 man, what is good:
and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly,
and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God ? ”
All real instruction, in the Bible and out of it,
proceeds on the assumption that we have the faculty
given us by God, but like all our other faculties
�138
Reflections and Inferences.
requiring cultivation, of judging for ourselves what
things are honest, just, pure, lovely, virtuous, and
of good report; else it would be useless and absurd
to bid us think on these things, (Phil. iv. 8). It
must, therefore, be either hypocrisy or delusion to
profess a belief that God is infinitely perfect in power,
wisdom, justice, goodness, holiness, and truth, while at
the same time, or even in the same breath, thoughts,
words, and actions are attributed to Him, which, if
we dare to weigh them in the balance of our reason,
God’s gift for our guidance, are necessarily judged to
be of an entirely opposite character.
To believe the written or spoken assertion of
prophet, priest, or layman, ancient or modern, that
God has willed or said or done anything which to
our reason appears false, evil, or capricious, is to
believe man rather than God,—it is to put darkness
for light, and light for darkness,—and it is directly
opposed to the spirit of the Gospel, even when it may
seem to be in accordance with its letter-, for it upholds
bondage, and darkness, and fear, instead of liberty,
light, and love; and renders impossible the worship
of Our Father in spirit and in truth.
God is not a man that He should lie. He abideth
faithful, and cannot deny Himself. It must be
instructive, it can do no harm, and cannot be wrong,
to search out, to consider, and to compare whatever
men, in any age, have seriously thought or said or
written concerning God and His dealings with our
race. But to believe that God has left us to grope for
all our knowledge of Him among the Biblical records,
various, incongruous, and often contradictory, of
ancient oriental opinions and superstitions, savours
quite as much of anti-christian infidelity as does the
creed of the Parsee, the Brahmin, or the Budhist;
because all these alike involve ignorance or disbelief
of the direct and immediate revelation, which God
is ever making to and in ourselves, of His constant
�Reflections and Inferences.
139
presence, power, goodness, and truth, in and over all
His works.
The Roman Catholic is required, and professes to
make an entire surrender of his private judgment to
the authority of the church or of the Pope. For him,
the question, What is truth ? is only another form of
expression for, What does the Pope teach ?
The very orthodox, among those who call them
selves Protestants, yield the same submission to the
doctrines of the Bible; and, with them, the question,
What is truth 1 is reverently made subordinate to
the enquiry, What does the Bible teach ? If the
utterance of the Bible is regarded as clear and
indisputable; then, beyond controversy, and without
further search, that is the truth. But, when the
teaching is obscure, or variously interpreted; when
conflicting views of the same passage have to be
compared; or when apparently conflicting passages
have to be weighed against each other; to what
tribunal must we appeal ? Let us take for example
the teaching of the Bible on the subject of slavery.
Lev. xxv. 44, 46.—“ Both thy bondmen, and thy bond
maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that
are round about you ; of them shall ye buy bondmen and
bondmaids. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for
your children after you, to inherit them for a possession :
they shall be your bondmen for ever ; but over your breth
ren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one another
with rigour.”
So far from being repealed in the New Testament,
this law receives everywhere confirmation.
1 Tim. vi. 1—“ Let as many servants (slaves) as are
under the yoke, count their own masters worthy of all
honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not
blasphemed.”
Recognizing the right of Philemon as a slave-owner,
Paul sent the converted fugitive Onesimus back to
his master; and, in accordance with the law, thus
�140
Reflections and Inferences.
confirmed and illustrated, the whole Christian church
continued, for many centuries, not only to tolerate,
but to practise and to encourage slavery as a divine
institution. The church all along read, just as we
do, that other law :—
Mat. vii. 12.—“ All things, whatsoever ye would that
men should do to you, do ye even so to them : for this is
the law and the prophets.”
But no difficulty was experienced in so explaining
this precept that it should not interfere with the old
law. Until modern times, the church had no conscience
of the sin of enslaving the heathen. What, then,
enables us to say that the church was wrong ? Upon
what authority have we condemned and abolished
slavery, notwithstanding the express terms of the
old law, the apostolic sanction, and the example of
the early church 1 *
Again let us consider those passages, where it is said
that evil spirits, or lying spirits, were sent forth by
God, with the direct commission to lead men into sin
and misery, (see pp. 101, 102) as compared with the
New Testament doctrine :—
James i. 13, 14—“ Let no man say, when he is tempted,
* A venerable and learned friend, to whom the manuscript
of this essay has been submitted, says in his remarks on this
concluding chapter :—“ The only view which I do not quite
accept, is that of St. Paul’s dealing with slavery. Slavery is
primarily a political institution, as much as despotism. Both
are infringements on the rights of man, and contrary to pure
morality. But it was not St. Paul’s duty, and it would have
been very wrong of him, to have inculcated a doctrine which
would have led to a civil war, or one that would have excited
a rebellion against Casar. His office led him to implant and
foster those moral principles, which in time would undermine
both slavery and tyranny. The kidnapper av^pairo^urT^ is
classed by him amongst the vilest of the vile.” (1 Tim. i. 10.)
The truth and justice of these observations I most cordially
admit, assuming, as I suppose my friend does, that the
Apostle was merely a wise, good, earnest discerner and
teacher of the truth as applicable to his own generation;
�Reflections and Inferences.
141
am tempted of God : for God cannot be tempted with
neither tempteth he any man ; but every man is
tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and
enticed.”
I
evil,
And let us ask ourselves what guide we follow in
determining that the older views are dishonouring to
God, and must therefore be rejected, explained away,
or ignored as much as possible.
How is it that Christians can contemplate with
credulity the frequent commands said to have been
given by God to his ancient people, to massacre and
destroy, without mercy, man and woman, young and
old, infant and suckling, while they would not only
regard it as heathenish and blasphemous to attribute
such doings, at the present day, to the command of
God, but would denounce the spirit of such deeds as
diabolical and inhuman 1 (1 Sam. xv. 2, 3; Josh. x.
28-40, &c.)
Is there any reason why the song of Deborah, or
the 109th Psalm, can be read with a kind of mistily
explanative approval, having been written three
thousand years ago; while the same sentiments,
uttered by a poet of to-day, would be condemned
with horror and disgust ? In such cases—and they
or as he describes himself,—“ an able minister of the New
Testament, not of the letter but of the. spirit, for the letter
killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” (2 Cor. iii. 6.) But if the
letter of his writings be regarded as, in every word and
sentence, infallibly expressing the mind and will of God,
then it appears to me that the apostolic sanction and example
may, till the end of the world, be logically quoted, as in fact
they have long and largely been, in support of the sinful and
accursed institution, and against those who labour for its
overthrow, or who encourage and aid the escape of run-away
slaves.
My controversy is not with Paul, but with those who
place him and other writers of the Bible in a false light, by
erroneously ascribing to the language of their writings
attributes of infallibility and enduring authority, which
they do not claim for themselves, and which belong to God
alone.
�142
Reflections and Inferences.
are very numerous—what is it that enables us to
decide that this is right, and that that is wrong?
When two opposite standards thus seem to be set
up; or when the doctrines of the Bible are explained
in two or more contradictory senses, by different
ages, by different churches, or by different men;
what is it that enables us to make our choice ?
Many there are, as has been said, who have never
made any such choice at all, who have never felt
themselves called upon to choose, for whom the
choice has been made by others, and who are content
to receive their faith at second or third hand from
those who happen to be their parents, pastors, or
teachers, without any question or doubt. In such
persons the faculty of private judgment has either
never been aroused, or else has been deliberately
surrendered at the feet of those believed to have
authority. That this submission is not yielded to
authority, but only to superior knowledge, is no real
distinction, but one which only serves to blind the
mind to the fact of submission. The submission of
the Roman Catholic, so far as it is genuine, and not
merely external, is also rendered to superior know
ledge—to that combination of divine and human
wisdom, which he is taught to recognize in the
Church, or in its Head. The infallibility of the
Pope may be a delusion; but then so may be the
superior enlightenment ascribed to other teachers or
churches by those Protestants who are content to
hold fast that which they are taught, without caring
to prove all things for themselves. Even supposing
that all Protestant Churches were united into one
church of uniform doctrine, such passive submission
to its teaching would not, on that account, be the
less foolish and injurious; but, when we consider how
many and various are the sects and denominations in
this country and elsewhere, all calling themselves
Protestant, and all professing to derive their doctrines
�Reflections and Inferences.
143
only from the Bible; when we reflect that there is
not one, even the most fundamental doctrine of the
Christian faith, about which earnest and learned
Protestant men have not greatly differed; it becomes
indeed amazing, to behold with what assured com
placency the adherents of each particular creed,
church, or party, cherish the conviction that the
teaching of their teachers alone is right; and that
all others are wrong; or only right in so far as
agreement or resemblance to their own can be traced.
When a man leaves the duty of proving all things
to his church, or to his teachers, and rests satisfied,
for his own part, with holding fast those things
which they tell him are good, then we have the very
spirit and essence of Popery; and, though far from
being confined to the Roman Catholic Church, those
who are thus described are, in no degree, entitled to
the noble name of Protestant. To such men this
argument is not addressed.
But to Protestants, to men who admit and assert
the right of private judgment, we repeat the question,
When the doctrines or statements of the Bible seem
doubtful, incongruous, or contradictory, or when its
sentiments appear to be unworthy, what is it that, in
such cases, enables you to decide that one idea is to
be cherished, and that another is to be rejected; that
when the most obvious interpretation is dishonouring
to God, it must be set aside for another more worthy,
and therefore more true; that the law of mercy ig a guide
which we should never cease to follow, while treachery
and cruelty are examples to be shunned; that there
must be some mode of explaining away the evil
spirits whom God is said to have sent forth to deceive;
and that nothing inconsistent with perfect goodness
and holiness can, with truth or propriety, be attributed
to God 1 Those who regard the Bible as entirely
infallible, must look in vain to it for a settlement of
these points. No part of it can reasonably be em-
�144
Reflections and Inferences.
ployed by such persons to cancel another part. No
higher authority can consistently be ascribed by them
to one passage than to another. Everything contained
in it must be alike true; and a true representation of
the mind or will of God, must remain for ever true of
Him who is unchangeable.
How, then, does the Bible-Protestant deliver him
self from the necessity of believing that God is likely
to send forth lying spirits, specially commissioned, to
lure us to destruction ; that Deborah’s inspired song
should be our standard of morality, being a picture
of such conduct as God looks on with approval; and
that slavery of the heathen is a divine institution ?
These doctrines are not rejected on the authority of
the Bible ; but are brought by the Protestant before
an independent tribunal, where, being weighed in
the balance, they are found wanting. What tribunal
is that ? Where is the court of appeal ? The ques
tions are settled: they do not remain open: the
replies are not given doubtfully, but are very decided,
and are felt to be true. Whence do they cornel
Where does this authority reside, whose teaching is
so clearly beyond all dispute ? Beyond all controversy,
this revelation of God’s eternal unchangeable law
can only be read in the moral sentiment of each
individual Protestant, in that consciousness of the
Divine to which his mind has attained, in his faculty
of discernment, sharpened and quickened by the love
of truth, or blunted and crippled by its neglect—enlightened by knowledge, or darkened by ignorance.
James i. 16, 17.—“Do not err, my beloved brethren.
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and
cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no
variableness, neither shadow of turning.”
What dark superstitions, what innumerable deeds
of horrid cruelty, done by sincerely pious Christians,
have had for their voucher and warrant the law,
“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live!” (Ex. xxii.
�Reflections and Inferences.
145
18.) Why do we not still burn witches ? Why have
they become so rare among us? Why do we no
longer believe in the reality of their power ? The
answer is not to be found in the Bible; and the Bible
did not produce the change of opinion. The answer
is, Because superstition is the sister of ignorance; and
the change has been produced by the diffusion of
knowledge, elevating so far the faculty of discernment,
that men have seen, and do see, clear over the top of
the old law, “Put them to death.”
I have referred only to a few of those old errors,
from which the veil of authority, which sheltered and
maintained them, has already been removed, and to
the corresponding truths which, by this removal of
the veil, have been clearly revealed to us as a
nation, so that about them there is now among us
scarcely any doubt or difference of opinion; although
the agreement was formerly at least as unanimous on
the wrong side, the errors having been taught as
truth by the clergy and the Church, because appar
ently sanctioned by the Bible. I think, however,
that a little self-examination will convince every
Bible-Protestant that his own conscience or moral
sense must sit in judgment on every doctrine of the
Bible, before that doctrine can be truly and intelli
gently believed; and that, when the verdict is
adverse, as it sometimes is, the doctrine in question
must be rejected, reduced, or turned aside, by some
more or lfess convenient explanation. This is the
test which everything, to be believed, must pass,
before it can be accepted as true. The sharpness
and completeness of the test must, of course, depend
upon the degree of enlightened discernment which is
exercised by each individual. The faculty of dis
cerning what we may, and what we may not believe,
like all our other faculties, may be cultivated or
neglected; and we cannot think that it was ever
K
�146
Reflections and Inferences.
possessed by any man in such a perfect degree as to
be incapable of further cultivation.
This, then, is the final tribunal, to which the BibleProtestant must constantly, though perhaps uncon
sciously, appeal; and surely the integrity and accuracy
of its jurisdiction ought ever to be jealously guarded
and cultivated, with a view to its further improve
ment and extension. We believe it is fair and correct
to say that the Bible-Protestant considers it his duty
to believe any doctrine or statement so soon as he
believes that it is taught in the Bible, except those
which he may discern to be in themselves false or
unworthy, or to involve contradictions, and which
must therefore be set aside or explained away.
From this degree of submission, it would seem to
result that, while the doctrine or doctrines, the faith
of which constitutes the religion of the soul, are really
discerned to be true, the Spirit of God, bearing wit
ness with the human spirit, so that the truth is not
only believed but felt and realized, there are, at the
same time, many other doctrines, laws, and historical
statements, which lie remote from the centre of reli
gious life, and which, being more or less consciously
regarded as non-essential, receive at best a hazy and
passive assent, very different indeed from discerning
belief. While some have, doubtless, fully realized
this distinction for themselves, and while we may be
sure that in the faith of very many pious and simple
believers, who have been awakened to spiritual life,
this distinction is unconsciously drawn, it cannot be
doubted that, for multitudes far more numerous, no
such distinction exists. In their case the haze of
uncertainty, which encompasses the manifold outlying
stories, doctrines, mysteries, and explanations, com
pletely envelopes and obscures the brightness of the
central truths, which might be the sources of light
and life, but from which the soul is thus excluded
and cut off.
�Reflections and Inferences.
147
This I take to be the commonest of all cases,
among nominal Christians of the age in which we
live ; persons who acknowledge the authority of the
Bible, and who assent to its doctrines, because they
are its doctrines, without ever having felt the truth in
their hearts; without knowing what it is to be led by
the Spirit to the discernment of spiritual truth. Such
are the persons who suppose they believe, who hope
they believe, who wish to believe, who struggle to
believe, who pray for grace to believe, and who some
times even believe that they believe, while all the time
there is no light, no shining of the truth in its bright
ness and power, to regenerate, while it subdues the
soul. The numerous and complicated mass of nonessentials, claiming to rest on the same authority as
the one or two essential truths, become woven to
gether with these into a tangled web, where the
threads of gold are inextricably lost, while, but for
the multitude of cloudy twisted threads, they would
shine with unmistakable clearness.
It is difficult to imagine that any sane man believes
absolutely nothing about God, or about our relations
to Him; and yet, unless I am greatly mistaken,
there are very many who will experience a strange
and surprising difficulty, if they will set themselves,
earnestly, to find an answer to the question, which
I beg every reader to put to himself, who has not
already done so: What do I truly believe, exclusive of
all that I merely wish or hope to believe ?
So many things, of equal authority, have all along
been assented to, that, in all probability, no such dis
tinction has ever been drawn; and, in the case of
thousands, the one general belief, which is really
something more than a passive assent, on the subject
of religion, is, that all its doctrines and histories are
entirely beyond human comprehension, and that, there
fore, their truth cannot, without Divine assistance, be
discerned, but that we are, nevertheless, bound to
�148
Reflections and Inferences.
believe them all because they are in the Bible, so that
we are guilty of sin if we fail or refuse to do so.
I am greatly mistaken if I have not fairly de
scribed the most common of all experiences, at the
present time, among those whom, as defined above,
I have designated Bible-Protestants. These are
Protestants with a limitation, semi-Protestants, Pro
testants subject to authority—the authority of the
Bible. They understand the precept, “Prove all
things,” to mean, “ Prove all things according to the
Bible,” or, “ Prove all things except the Bible; ” or
“ Prove all things for yourselves, except those things
which the Bible has proved.”
True Protestantism, however, being a wide and
noble sentiment, cannot long rest satisfied with the
mere exchange of one standard of authority for another.
Protesting, against all recognition of authority in
matters of faith, it must proceed to declare the impos
sibility of faith being rendered as an act of obedience,
and to condemn the apparent or attempted degrada
tion of it as such. Proclaiming the sacred right, and
the solemn duty, of every man to prove all things for
himself, it must vindicate this right, in matters of
religion, against all limitation, by any authority what
soever. Kelying on the Spirit of Truth alone for
guidance and enlightenment, while nourishing himself
with the best available instruction or spiritual food, the
true Protestant refuses to believe, because it is abso
lutely impossible for him to believe, any doctrine or
statement of religion, except those which he, for him
self, discerns to be true, and, for all the rest, he answers,
“I do not know,” or otherwise, according to his lights.
If any man, even a truly pious man, who has not
already tried it, will earnestly set himself to ascertain
how much of his religious belief will bear this test,
how much of it he really discerns and feels to be true,
he will probably find it, at first, to be a rather puzzl
ing question, and, if he does succeed in giving to him
�Reflections and Inferences.
149
self a clear and definite answer, he will most likely be
surprised at the simplicity and brevity of the result.
This result, whether it be anything or nothing, is all
that to him is religion. The man who does not know
what it is to discern the truth, and to feel its power
in his heart, has no religious faith, and is still blind
to spiritual light, although he may be all the time
assenting to the most orthodox creed in Christendom.
The man who has religious faith, who does discern
the truth, and who feels its power in his soul, to
whatever Church or creed he may belong, will find,
if he succeeds in drawing the distinction which I
have indicated, that the truths, which he has thus
made his own, for the support of his spiritual life, are
few, grand, simple, and quite apart from the mani
fold outlying narratives and opinions of his creed;
about which, at the same time, perhaps he has no
active doubts; or, perhaps, though he may have such
doubts, they do not disturb his faith.
The creed of the true Protestant is limited to that
which he, for himself, can discern to be true, inform
ing and improving himself by the use of guides and
instructors, but allowing no kind of authority to be
interposed between his spirit and the Spirit of God,
whose teaching he recognises in the very power with
which the truth, when discerned, is brought home
to his soul, and whose sympathy he realizes in that
strong love of truth which he thenceforth cherishes
and enjoys.
It is truly lamentable to reflect that such multi
tudes on all sides are shut out from the knowledge of
God and of truth, by those very formulas and stand
ards of religion, which profess to be the vehicles, or
even the only vehicles of truth; but which carry their
precious cargo, so mixed and concealed, amidst a mass
of confused incongruities, that only one here and
there can discover and experience its regenerating
power. To the dogmatism of theology, which has
�150
Reflections and Inferences.
always been excessive, I unhesitatingly attribute the
appalling and unnatural prevalence of indifference
and hatred to all religious truth. The discernment
of truth is to the, soul what sight is to the eye.
Neither faculty can be exercised without light, of
which God has provided everywhere abundance; but
the highest capabilities of either faculty cannot be
developed,—its finest perceptions, and most exact
discriminations cannot be realized, unless each faculty
be trained and strengthened by suitable culture and
information, and unless each faculty be kept in con
stant and vigorous exercise. Either faculty may be
perverted, discoloured, or obscured by clouds, veils, or
obstacles interposed to modify or to exclude the light.
The mode in which God reveals himself to the
human soul has been well described by a recent com
mentator as follows :—“ The great and eternal One reveals himself through
and by man, in conformity with the gradual develop
ment of the human mind. The growth of man’s ap
prehension of God marks the progress of revelation.
The divine in man,—that which allies him to the om
niscient—unfolds itself in harmony with the law of
its nature, giving expression to itself in sensuous
forms. God speaks to man, or man speaks of God,
agreeably to the era described or the idiosyncracy of
the writer. A knowledge of the Supreme more or
less imperfect characterises such communications. The
communications are human ; but they are also divine,
as being the utterances of the divine in man at the
time. They are, in short, a divine revelation. . . .
When it is taught and received for orthodox, that
God only revealed himself to men in former times, by
certain occasional and external miracles, and that our
knowledge of Him is limited to what has been written
down of such communications, we have reason to fear
that we have too little sense that God is always actively
�Reflections and Inferences.
151
present with us now, and to suspect that our belief is
mechanical, sceptical, and superstitious at once.”*
When rationally considered, it is nothing short of
an absurdity and a contradiction of terms, to say that
faith can be rendered as an act of obedience to any
authority whatever. Faith is the free exercise of the
mind, resting only on the discernment of the truth;
just as sight is the free exercise of the eye, resting
only on the discernment of light; and no man can
possibly believe, in submission to authority, that
which he does not discern to be true, any more than
he can behold the sun at midnight in obedience to
an external command. A man may, indeed, be taught
to keep his eyes shut, and by discipline and training
may be brought not only to say, but even to fancy
that he sees whatever he is told ought to be seen,
distrusting his own natural perceptions. A man may
also be trained to look only and always through lenses
of a prescribed colour and form; ancl so to disuse and
to supersede his unassisted vision. So also may men,
yea nations and generations of men, be kept in more
or less of ignorance, distrust, and neglect of their own
faculty of discerning what is true ; and thus be made
to surrender, or never to know the right of private
judgment; so that even those things which are most
thoroughly believed by such men, are believed not
because they are conscious of their truth, but because
they have the sanction of authority.
This way of regarding faith or belief as an act of
obedience, or of submission to authority, is utterly
and entirely opposed to the spirit of the Gospel and
of Protestantism. The authority of the Church or
of the Pope may be denied ; but another authority
has been set up instead. No living standard of in
fallibility is recognised; but infallibility is ascribed
to a book. The teaching of the Church is no longer
s “Introduction to the Old Testament,” by Samuel David
son, D.D., vol. i., pp. 234, 239.
�152
Reflections and Inferences.
received, as the end of all truth; but only as a useful
aid toward the knowledge and understanding of that
which the Bible teaches. The Bible has for three
hundred years been the Pope of those who have
called themselves Protestants.
All our knowledge is built upon the foundation of
all past ages, its elements having been transmitted to
us by history, tradition, and records of all kinds.
Without this instruction, derived from our fathers,
none of us could for ourselves have attained the
knowledge of any kind which we now possess; but,
though our knowledge comes to us, in great measure,
by transmission, it never rests alone, nor even chiefly,
on the authority by which it is transmitted to us.
We might never have discovered the laws of gravita
tion, or the principles of astronomy, if we had not
been taught them ; but so far as any one really knows
these things, he believes them, not because he has
been taught them, not in submission to the authority
of his teachers, but because, and in proportion as, he
discerns that they must be true.
So is it also with religion and morality. Our con
ceptions of God, and our notions of right and wrong,
are probably very different from what they would
have been, if we had been left to discover, and to
evolve them for ourselves, from a state of blank ignor
ance ; but, in so far as these can be called our own,
in so far as we feel that they must be true, they do
not rest upon the authority which has transmitted
them to us, but upon our own discernment of their
truth.
We have said that knowledge never rests alone, nor
even chiefly on the testimony of those from whom we
receive it; but there is here an apparent exception
or rather a class of apparent exceptions, in which our
knowledge seems at first sight to have no other founda
tion on which to rest but the testimony of our in
structors. This is the case, for example, with history,
�Reflections and Inferences.
153
and especially with ancient history, for our know
ledge of which we must often depend entirely upon
the writings of historians. Yet even here, the in
quirer after truth must use instruction with discern
ment ; must make allowances for party spirit, for po
pular delusions, for national or peculiar habits of
thought, or forms of expression. He must, moreover,
be acquainted with all the histories in any degree re
lating to the subject of enquiry; and must scrutinise,
test, and compare these authorities with each other,
in order that he may, from a comprehensive view of
the whole evidence, form an impartial judgment.
The judgments, so formed, vary from total uncer
tainty or mere probability, to a strong presumption
or absolute conviction, according to the nature, cha
racter, and amount of the evidence.
The result is at best a judicial decision, and must
in every case be consciously held subject to modifica
tion or reversal by the always possible discovery of
further evidence. So far as the decision becomes
knowledge to the inquirer, it rests upon his discern
ment of its truth. He believes not in obedient sub
mission to any nor to all of his authorities, but in
accordance with the independent judgment of his own
mind, and may very often have good reasons for re
maining doubtful and incredulous, even when there
is no conflict of authority. All history remains con
stantly open to revision and correction, so that it has
of late become a proverb, that history requires, from
time to time, to be re-written. Hence there are, and
always have been, great diversities of opinion regard
ing it; the same evidence being very variously esti
mated or interpreted by different minds.
It seems like a mere truism to say that history
cannot be religion; that even the history of religion
cannot be spiritual truth, and that spiritual truth
cannot be proved in the same way that historical
facts can, just as the reverse would be equally true.
�154
Reflections and Inferences.
No amount of historical evidence would now suffice
to prove that witches rode through the air on broom
sticks ; that they and all heretics ought to be burned;
that finger-bones or napkins from the body of a saint
had the power of working miracles (Acts xix. 12); or
that the earth is a flat extended fixture, over which
the sun daily moves;—for all of which, and for many
other such things, there was abundant evidence to
satisfy our forefathers.
All our sentiments and faculties may be crippled,
or largely developed, according as they are neglected
or cultivated. The sentiments of liberty, of beauty,
and of music, have varied much in strength and
character from age to age, and their growth or
decline may be traced, not only in persons at differ
ent times, but through the history of nations and of
centuries. The enlightened views of justice, and
the refinements of taste and skill, which one age
may attain to, are ever owing, in a large degree, to
the culture, knowledge, and many other circumstan
ces, inherited from the preceding ages. So is it with
the sentiment of truth. For its cultivation instruc
tion is required, and can only be derived, as in other
matters, from teachers of various kinds, or in other
words, from the transmitted wisdom and attainments
of the past.
Our knowledge of religious truth comes to us partly
by transmission, as does our knowledge of scientific
truth; but in the one case, as in the other, it does not
become knowledge by virtue of the authority which
transmits it, but only by our own discernment of its
inherent truth. The faculty of discernment in art,
science, and religion, alike, may be sharpened and
strengthened, perhaps without limit, certainly without
known limit, by diligent exercise, and by the cultiva
tion of the corresponding sentiments, which, again,
are nourished and increased by each new acquisition
of knowledge.
�Reflections and Inferences.
155
There is nothing so well fitted to stimulate and
elevate the artist’s ideas and conceptions of the beau
tiful and the excellent in his art, as an intelligent
acquaintance with its history, and a correct apprecia
tion of the various stages of progress or of decline
through which it has had to pass before reaching its
present condition. The comparative estimate which
this historical knowledge enables him to form of the
merits and influences of different ages and of different
schools, will, more than anything else, assist him to
discern the elements of perfection after which he
strives. He derives inspiration from history.
The statesmen, who has made politics the study of
his life, and who seeks to discover the wisest and best
measures of legislation, must be very ill prepared for his
work, unless he is able to scan, with intelligence and
discrimination, a wide horizon of the history of nations.
The sentiments of beauty in the artist, and of jus
tice in the statesman, must either be formed on older
models, or else be rude and primitive; but it does not
at all follow that any one model, nor that all of them
put together, should be regarded as a standard of
perfection. Their light and assistance, as guides and
instructors, may be invaluable, or even indispensable,
while they are never thought of at all as infallible
authorities, even though, perhaps, their excellence may
defy imitation.
Such lessons from the past are the groundwork and
the spring of all our present attainments, of all that
distinguishes an educated man from an untutored
savage; but every one must be conscious that all the
knowledge which he can truly call his own, rests not
upon the authority of any teacher or teachers, but
upon his own discernment of its truth, being always
arrived at by a comparison of different teachers, and
of his own observations and experience, whose lessons
must be sifted and weighed against each other before
the bar of his own private judgment.
�156
Reflections and Inferences.
It cannot be otherwise in the matter of religion.
Spiritual truth, much more than any other kind of
knowledge, must be discerned before it can be believed.
Our knowledge of spiritual truth is, in a great measure,
founded on. the Bible, because it has been the teacher
of our teachers for eighteen hundred years, and its
doctrines are those which have been transmitted to
us, variously modified by ancient and modern inter
pretations. To the Bible, in the first instance, and
chiefly, we owe the vantage ground on which we
stand. The Bible, and its history, are the history of
our religion, from which we can best learn the various
stages through which it has passed, in its progress
from the rudest idolatry among the ancient Jews
down to these days of enlightenment.
If our conceptions of God and of truth are nobler
or clearer than those of the heathen, we are indebted
for that to the Bible, because it is the vehicle by
which the light of other days has been transmitted
to us. Our lamps have had almost no other kindling.
When viewed as the vehicle and history of religion,
the Bible is invaluable, and never can cease to be
studied with interest and with advantage; but to set
up the history as an infallible standard, and as an
authority commanding absolute submission, is a mon
strous absurdity, which Protestants are now rather
generally beginning to perceive, and which cannot
much longer be continued.
Protestantism must at length be consistent, and
the necessity of this becomes daily more felt. A
house divided against itself cannot stand. Of two
antagonistic principles, one must be false. Freedom
of opinion and submission to authority cannot be re
conciled. One or the other must prevail.
Protestantism ! What does it mean ? A protest
against the shackles of authority in matters of religion.
It must become, and is rapidly becoming, a protest
against all such authority, a vindication of man’s
�Reflections and Inferences.
157
inalienable right, and of his most sacred duty, to dis
cern spiritual truth for himself, and to believe only
that which he has so discerned.
A new reformation is needed, and has already
begun; another reformation from Popery—the Popery
of the Bible. The Bible has been made to us what
Samuel was to Saul, has been set up to supply the
place of the old temple-veil, separating between man
and God, mystifying and obscuring the Divine light,
instead of preparing us for its direct reception; and if
it has in many cases also done the latter, there can,
on the other hand, be no manner of doubt that the
preposterous claims made on its behalf have repelled,
and are repelling, many thousands from the search
after truth, and driven them to indifference or in
fidelity. This we believe to be the principal, if not
the only cause of the wide-spread aversion and hos
tility to religion, which is the most melancholy
characteristic of the age in which we live. Hence
the universal complaint that the churches are para
lysed by the rarity of faith, or of spiritual life, even
among their members and adherents. Hence the
reason why the so-called revivals of religion, whether
among ritualists, methodists, or others, have become
so far an offence and a reproach in the opinion of
most men of judgment and understanding; and why
they are almost entirely confined to the weak, the
simple, and the superstitious, whose emotional senti
ments are not directed nor controlled by their intel
lectual discernments.
I look forward to a genuine spiritual awakening,
greater than any which the world has yet seen, of
which all past reformations and revivals have been
but the harbingers and pioneers. The barriers are
already crumbling, and must ere long be swept away.
The veil has long been rent, and must soon be entirely
and for ever torn down. The usurping claims of
authority shall not for ever, nor for long, continue to
�158
Reflections and Inferences.
darken the souls of men. Protestantism shall assuredly
accomplish the triumph of its work, which meantime
remains incomplete, and must so remain, until it is
universally proclaimed that all religious books and
teachers are of use to men only in so far as they serve
to develope and to cultivate the sentiment of truth,
and to awaken the desire for the knowledge of God,
and for communion with Him,—a sentiment and a
desire which the Spirit of God alone can satisfy, by
that quickening and enlightening influence and sym
pathy, for which the earnest inquiring soul never yet
has thirsted nor prayed in vain. No real benefit can
accrue to us from the inspiration of ancient priests,
prophets, and apostles, until we have each of us some
measure of inspiration for ourselves; and, having that,
all questions regarding the various measures in which
the gift has been bestowed on others must be of small
importance. For my part, I am firmly persuaded
that inspiration has never been withheld, and that,
like all other divine gifts, its nature is unchangeable,
while its degrees are infinitely various, depending,
under God’s providence, upon many circumstances,
foremost among which are the presence or absence of
intervening obstacles, and the true or false preparation
on our part for its reception.
1 Cor. ii. 14, 15.—“ The natural man receiveth not the
things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto
him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet
he himself is judged of no man.”
Verily God is not far from any one of us, and He
does guide with His counsel now, as truly and as
surely as in the days of Samuel and David, every soul
of man that seeks in earnestness and simplicity to
know what it is to know God. This is the one great
source and spring of all true religion or spiritual life
-—the sympathy of the pure and perfect God with the
soul of every faithful worshipper. The record of this
�Reflections and Inferences.
159
may be read in the Bible, or in the experience of any
man whose spiritual life has been awakened. This
doctrine is the grand good thing which beyond all
else it behoves us to hold fast. This, we believe, is to
be the living principle of the new reformation, which
shall extend and apply to every creed and to every
nation under heaven.
The Bible is indeed our teacher, when cross-examined,
sifted, and compared, as all our teachers ought and
need to be; but it has been foolishly set up as our
idol, has been made to usurp the place of God, and to
bar the way of approach to Him. As Samuel tried to
impress upon the Jews and upon Saul that the rejec
tion of the priest was the rejection of God, so have we
been assiduously taught and trained to believe that if
we refuse to receive the whole Bible as a revelation of
the mind and will of God, we cannot escape the guilt
of rejecting God, and of rebelling against His revealed
Word. It is not wonderful that many of us have, like
Saul, been troubled with an evil spirit, seeing that our
Samuels have assured us that in refusing absolute
submission to their idol we are departing from the
only living and true God.
All idols must be utterly abolished; and when we
have purged ourselves from idolatry, we shall under
stand much better how to deal with the idolatry of
the heathen. When we have taken the beam out of
our own eye, then shall we see clearly to pull the mote
out of our brother’s eye.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The finding of the book; an essay on the origin of the dogma of infallibility
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Robertson, John
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: xv, [2] 18-159 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. "John Robertson, Coupar Angus'. [Title page]. Dedicated to the Rt. Rev. John William Colenso, Lord Bishop of Natal. Includes bibliographical references and index. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1870
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5495
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The finding of the book; an essay on the origin of the dogma of infallibility), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Authority
Bible
Conway Tracts
Infallibility (Philosophy)