Chapter X.

The Jewish Religion.

§ 1. Palestine, and the Semitic Races.

§ 2. Abraham; or, Judaism as the family Worship of a Supreme Being.

§ 3. Moses; or, Judaism as the national Worship of a just and holy King.

§ 4. David; or, Judaism as the personal Worship of a Father and Friend.

§ 5. Solomon; or, the Religious Relapse.

§ 6. The Prophets; or, Judaism as the Hope of a spiritual and universal

Kingdom of God.

§ 7. Judaism as a Preparation for Christianity.

§ 1. Palestine, and the Semitic Races.

Palestine is a word equivalent to Philistia, or the land of the

Philistines. A similar name for the coast region of Syria has been found

on a monument in Nineveh,[336] and at Karnak in Egypt.[337] Josephus and

Philo use the term "Palestine," as applying to the Philistines; and the

accurate learning of Milton appears in his using it in the same

sense.[338] "The land of Canaan," "The land of Israel," and "Judæa" were

the names afterward given to the territory of the children of Israel. It

is a small country, like others as famous; for it is only about one

hundred and forty English miles in length, and forty in width. It

resembles Greece and Switzerland, not only in its small dimensions, but by

being composed of valleys, separated by chains of mountains and by ranges

of hills. It was isolated by the great sea of sand on the east, and the

Mediterranean on the west. Sharply defined on the east, west, and south,

it stretches indefinitely into Syria on the north. It is a hilly,

high-lying region, having all the characters of Greece except proximity to

the sea, and all those of Switzerland except the height of the mountains.

Its valleys were well watered and fertile. They mostly ran north and

south; none opened a way across, Judæa to the Mediterranean. This

geographical fact assisted in the isolation of the country. Two great

routes of travel passed by its borders without entering its hills. On the

west the plains of Philistia were the highway of the Assyrian and Egyptian

armies. On the north the valley of the Orontes, separated by the chain of

Lebanon from Palestine, allowed the people of Asia a free passage to the

sea. So, though surrounded by five great nations, all idolatrous,--the

Babylonians, Medes, Assyrians, Phoenicians, and Egyptians,--the people of

Judæa were enabled to develop their own character and institutions without

much interference from without. Inaccessible from the sea, and surrounded,

like the Swiss, by the natural fortifications of their hills, like the

Swiss they were also protected by their poverty from spoilers. But being

at the point of contact of three continents, they had (like the

Mahommedans afterwards) great facilities for communicating their religious

ideas to other nations.

Palestine is so small a country that from many points the whole of it may

be overlooked[339]. Toward the east, from all points, may be seen the high

plateau of Moab and the mountains of Gilead. Snow-capped Hermon is always

visible on the north. In the heart of the land rises the beautiful

mountain Tabor, clothed with vegetation to its summit. It is almost a

perfect cone, and commands the most interesting view in all directions.

From its top, to which you ascend from Nazareth by a path which Jesus may

have trod, you see to the northeast the lofty chain of Hermon (Jebel es

Sheikh = the Captain) rising into the blue sky to the height of ten

thousand feet, covered with eternal snow. West of this appears the chain

of Lebanon. At the foot of Tabor the plain of Esdraelon extends northerly,

dotted with hills, and animated with the camps of the Arabs[340]. The Lake

of Galilee gleams, a silver line, on the east, with Bashan and the

mountains of Gilead in the distance, and farther to the southeast the

great plateau of Moab rises like a mountain wall beyond the Jordan. The

valley of the Jordan itself, sunk far below the level of the

Mediterranean, is out of sight in its deep valley; nor is anything seen of

the Dead Sea. To the northwest rises rocky Carmel, overhanging the Bay of

Accha (or Acre), on the Mediterranean.

The whole country stands high. Hebron, at the south, is three thousand

feet above the level of the sea; Jerusalem is twenty-six hundred; the

Mount of Olives, twenty-seven hundred; and Ebal and Gerizim in Samaria,

the same. The valley in which Nazareth stands is eight hundred and twenty

feet above the sea; that at the foot of Tabor, four hundred and

thirty-nine; while the summit of Tabor itself is seventeen hundred and

fifty. From Judæa the land plunges downward very rapidly toward the east

into the valley of Jordan. The surface of Lake Galilee is already five

hundred and thirty-five feet below that of the Mediterranean, and that of

the Dead Sea is five hundred feet lower down.[341] Palestine is therefore

a mountain fastness, and most of the waves of war swept by, leaving it

untouched and unassailed. From Jerusalem to Jericho the distance is only

thirteen miles, but the latter place is a thousand feet lower than the

former, so that it was very proper to speak of a man's "going down from

Jerusalem to Jericho."

The Jews belonged to what has been called the Semitic race. This family,

the only historic rival of the Japhetic (or Aryan) race, is ethnologically

composed of the Assyrians and Babylonians, the Phoenicians, the Hebrews

and other Syrian tribes, the Arabs and the Carthaginians. It is a race

which has been great on land and at sea. In the valley of the Euphrates

and that of the Tigris its sons carried all the arts of social life to the

highest perfection, and became mighty conquerors and warlike soldiers. On

the Mediterranean their ships, containing Phoenician navigators, explored

the coasts, made settlements at Carthage and Cadiz, and sailing out of the

Straits of Gibraltar went as far north as Great Britain, and

circumnavigated Africa two thousand years before Vasco da Gama. This race

has given to man the alphabet, the Bible, the Koran, commerce, and in

Hannibal the greatest military genius of all time.

That the different nations inhabiting the region around the Euphrates and

Tigris, Syria and Arabia, belonged to one great race, is proved by the

unimpeachable testimony of language. The Bible genealogies trace them to

Shem, the son of Noah. Ewald,[342] who believes that this region was

inhabited by an aboriginal people long before the days of Abraham,--a

people who were driven out by the Canaanites,--nevertheless says that they

no doubt were a Semitic people. The languages of all these nations is

closely related, being almost dialects of a single tongue, the differences

between them being hardly greater than between the subdivisions of the

German group of languages.[343] That which has contributed to preserve the

close homogeneity among these tongues is, that they have little power of

growth or development. As M. Renan says, "they have less lived than

lasted."[344]

The Phoenicians used a language almost identical with the Hebrew. A

sarcophagus of Ezmunazar, king of Sidon, dating from the fifth century

before Christ, was discovered a few years since, and is now in the Museum

of the Louvre. It contains some thirty sentences of the length of an

average verse in the Bible, and is in pure Hebrew.[345] In a play of

Plautus[346] a Carthaginian is made to speak a long passage in his native

language, the Punic tongue; this is also very readable Hebrew. The black

basalt stele, lately discovered in the land of Moab, contains an

inscription of Mesha, king of Moab, addressed to his god, Chemosh,

describing his victory over the Israelites. This is also in a Hebrew

dialect. From such facts it appears that the Hebrews, Phoenicians, and

Canaanites were all congeners with each other, and with the Babylonians

and Assyrians.

But now the striking fact appears that the Hebrew _religion_ differed

widely from that of these other nations of the same family. The Assyrians,

Babylonians, Phoenicians, and Carthaginians all possessed a nearly

identical religion. They all believed in a supreme god, called by the

different names of Ilu, Bel, Set, Hadad, Moloch, Chemosh, Jaoh, El, Adon,

Asshur. All believed in subordinate and secondary beings, emanations from

this supreme being, his manifestations to the world, rulers of the

planets. Like other pantheistic religions, the custom prevailed among the

Semitic nations of promoting first one and then another deity to be the

supreme object of worship. Among the Assyrians, as among the Egyptians,

the gods were often arranged in triads, as that of Ann, Bel, and Ao. Anu,

or Cannes, wore the head of a fish; Bel wore the horns of a bull; Ao was

represented by a serpent. These religions represented the gods as the

spirit within nature, and behind natural objects and forces,--powers

within the world, rather than above the world. Their worship combined

cruelty and licentiousness, and was perhaps as debasing a superstition as

the world has witnessed. The Greeks, who were not puritans themselves in

their religion, were shocked at the impure orgies of this worship, and

horrified at the sacrifice of children among the Canaanites and

Carthaginians.

How then did the Hebrews, under Moses and the later prophets, originate a

system so widely different? Their God was above nature, not in it. He

stood alone, unaccompanied by secondary deities; he made no part of a

triad; he was not associated with a female representative. His worship

required purity, not pollution; its aim was holiness, and its spirit

humane, not cruel. Monotheistic in its spirit from the first, it became an

absolute monotheism in its development. Whence this wide departure in the

Hebrews from the religious tendencies and belief of the surrounding

nations, who spoke the same language and belonged to the same stock?

M. Renan considers this a question of race.[347] He says: "The

Indo-European race, distracted by the variety of the universe, never by

itself arrived at monotheism. The Semitic race, on the other hand, guided

by its firm and sure sight, instantly unmasked Divinity, and without

reflection or reasoning attained the purest form of religion that humanity

has known." But the Assyrians, Babylonians, Arabians before Mohammed,

Phoenicians, and Carthaginians, and perhaps the Egyptians, belonged to the

Semitic race. Yet none of these nations attained to any monotheism purer

than that of the Veda or the Avesta. The Arabs, near relations of the

Hebrews, were divided between a worship like that of Babylon and Sabæism,

or star-worship. No doubt in all these Semitic families the idea of one

supreme god lay behind that of the secondary deities; but this was also

the case in the Aryan races. And in both this primitive monotheism receded

instead of becoming more distinct, with the single exception of the

Hebrews. M. Renan's view is not, therefore, supported by the facts. We

must look further to find the true cause, and therefore are obliged to

examine somewhat in detail the main points of Hebrew history. It would be

easy, but would not accord with our plan, to accept the common Christian

explanation, and say, "Monotheism was a direct revelation to Moses." For

we are now not able to assume such a revelation, and are obliged to

consider the subject from the outside, from the stand-point of pure

history.

§ 2. Abraham; or, Judaism as the family Worship of a Supreme Being.

We have been so accustomed to regard the Jewish religion as a part of our

own, and so to look at it from within, that it is hard to take the

historic position, and to look at it from without. But to compare it with

other religions, and to see what it really is and is not, this is

necessary. It becomes more difficult to assume the attitude of an

impartial observer, because of the doctrine of verbal inspiration, so

universally taught in the Protestant Church. From childhood we have looked

on the Old Testament as inspired throughout, and all on the same level of

absolute infallibility. There is no high, no low, no degrees of certitude

or probability, where every word is assumed to be the very word of God.

But those who still hold to the plenary inspiration of the Old Testament

must consent, for our present purpose, to suspend their faith in this

doctrine, and provisionally to look at the Old Testament with the same

impartial though friendly scrutiny with which we have regarded the sacred

books of other nations. Not a little will be gained for the Jewish

Scriptures by this position. If they lose the authority which attaches to

the Word of God, they will gain the interest which belongs to the

utterance of man.

While M. Renan finds the source of Hebrew monotheism in a like tendency in

the whole Semitic race,--a supposition which we have seen to be

contradicted by the facts,--Max Müller regards the true origin of this

tendency to be in Abraham himself, the friend of God, and Father of the

Faithful. He calls attention to the fact that both Moses and Christ, and

subsequently Mohammed, preached no new God, but the God of Abraham.

"Thus," says he, "the faith in the one living God, which seemed to require

the admission of a monotheistic instinct grafted in every member of the

Semitic family, is traced back to one man." He adds his belief that this

faith of Abraham in one supreme God came to him by a special revelation.

And if, by a special revelation, is meant a grand profound insight, an

inspired vision of truth, so deep and so living as to make it a reality

like that of the outward world, then we see no better explanation of the

monotheism of the Hebrews than this conviction transmitted from Abraham

through father and son, from generation to generation.

For the most curious fact about this Jewish people is, that every one of

them[348] is a child of Abraham. All looked back with the same ancestral

pride to their great progenitor, the friend of God. This has never been

the case with any other nation, for the Arabs are not a nation. One can

hardly imagine a greater spur to patriotism than this union of pride of

descent with pride in one's nation and its institutions. The proudest and

poorest Jew shared it together. There was one distinction, and that the

most honorable, which belonged equally to all.

We have seen that, in all the Semitic nations, behind the numerous divine

beings representing the powers of nature, there was dimly visible one

Supreme Being, of whom all these were emanations. The tendency to lose

sight of this First Great Cause, so common in the race, was reversed in

Abraham. His soul rose to the contemplation of the Perfect Being, above

all, and the source of all. With passionate love he adored this Most High

God, Maker of heaven and earth. Such was his devotion to this Almighty

Being, that men, wondering, said, "Abraham is the friend of the Most High

God!" He desired to find a home where he could bring up his children in

this pure faith, undisturbed and unperverted by the gross and low worship

around him. In some "deep dream or solemn vision" it was borne in on his

mind that he must go and find such a home.

We are not to suppose, however, that the mind of Abraham rose to a clear

conception of the unity of God, as excluding all other divine beings. The

idea of local, tribal, family gods was too deeply rooted to be at once

relinquished. Abraham, as described in Genesis, is a great Arab chief, a

type of patriarchal life, in which all authority is paternal. The religion

of such a period is filial, and God is viewed as the protector and friend

of the family or tribe. Only the family God of Abraham was the highest of

all gods, the Almighty (Gen. xvii. 1), who was also the God of Isaac (Gen.

xxviii. 3) and of Jacob (Gen. xxxv. 11).

Stanley[349] expresses his satisfaction that the time has past in which

the most fastidious believer can object to hearing Abraham called a

Bedouin sheik. The type has remained unchanged through all the centuries,

and the picture in the Bible of Abraham in his tent, of his hospitality,

his self-respect, his courage, and also of his less noble traits,

occasional cunning and falsehood, and cruelty toward Hagar and

Ishmael,--these qualities, good and bad, are still those of the desert.

Only in Abraham something higher and exceptional was joined with them.

In the Book of Genesis Abraham enters quite abruptly upon the scene. His

genealogy is given in Genesis (chap, xi.), he being the ninth in descent

from Shem, each generation occupying a little more than thirty years. The

birth of Abraham is usually placed somewhere about two thousand years

before Christ. His father's name was Terah, whom the Jewish and Mohammedan

traditions describe as an idolater and maker of idols. He had two

brothers, Nahor and Haran; the latter being the father of Lot, and the

other, Nahor, being the grandfather of Rebecca, wife of Isaac. Abraham's

father, Terah, lived in Ur of the Chaldees (called in Scripture Casdim).

The Chaldees, who subsequently inhabited the region about the Persian

Gulf, seemed at first to have lived among the mountains of Armenia, at the

source of the Tigris; and this was the region where Abraham was born, a

region now occupied by the people called Curds, who are perhaps

descendants of the old Chaldees, the inhabitants of Ur. The Curds are

Mohammedans and robbers, and quite independent, never paying taxes to the

Porte. The Chaldees are frequently mentioned in Scripture and in ancient

writers. Xenophon speaks of the Carduchi as inhabitants of the mountains

of Armenia, and as making incursions thence to plunder the country, just

as the Curds do now. He says they were found there by the younger Cyrus,

and by the ten thousand Greeks. The Greeks, in their retreat, were obliged

to fight their way through them, and found them very skilful archers. So

did the Romans under Crassus and Mark Antony. And so are they described by

the Prophet Habakkuk (chap, i. 6-9):--

"For lo, I raise up the Chaldeans,

A bitter and hasty nation,

Which marches far and wide in the earth,

To possess the dwellings that are not theirs.

They are terrible and dreadful,

Their decrees and their judgments proceed only from themselves.

Swifter than leopards are their horses,

And fiercer than the evening wolves.

Their horsemen prance proudly around;

And their horsemen shall come from afar and fly,

Like the eagle when he pounces on his prey.

They all shall come for violence,

In troops,--their glance is ever forward!

They gather captives like the sand!"

As they were in the time of Habakkuk, so are they to-day. Shut up on every

side in the Persian Empire, their ancestors, the Carduchi, refused

obedience to the great king and his satraps, just as the Curds refuse to

obey the grand seignior and his pashas. They can raise a hundred and forty

thousand armed men. They are capable of any undertaking. Mohammed himself

said, "They would yet revolutionize the world."

The ancient Chaldees seem to have been fire-worshippers, like the

Persians. They were renowned for the study of the heavens and the worship

of the stars, and some remains of Persian dualism still linger among their

descendants, who are accused of Devil-worship by their neighbors.

That Abraham was a real person, and that his story is historically

reliable, can hardly be doubted by those who have the historic sense. Such

pictures, painted in detail with a Pre-Raphaelite minuteness, are not of

the nature of legends. Stories which are discreditable to his character,

and which place him in a humiliating position towards Pharaoh and

Abimelech, would not have appeared in a fictitious narrative. The mythical

accounts of Abraham, as found among the Mohammedans and in the

Talmud,[350] show, by their contrast, the difference between fable and

history.

The events in the life of Abraham are so well known that it is not

necessary even to allude to them. We will only refer to one, as showing

that others among the tribes in Palestine, besides Abraham, had a faith in

God similar to his. This is the account of his meeting with Melchisedek.

This mysterious person has been so treated by typologists that all human

meaning has gone out of him, and he has become, to most minds, a very

vapory character.[351] But this is doing him great injustice.

One mistake often made about him is, to assume that "Melchisedek, King of

Salem," gives us the name and residence of the man, whereas both are his

official titles. His name we do not know; his office and title had

swallowed it up. "King of Justice and King of Peace,"--this is his

designation. His office, as we believe, was to be umpire among the chiefs

of neighboring tribes. By deciding the questions which arose among them,

according to equity, he received his title of "King of Justice." By thus

preventing the bloody arbitrament of war, he gained the other name, "King

of Peace." All questions, therefore, as to where "Salem" was, fall to the

ground. Salem means "peace"; it does not mean the place of his abode.

But in order to settle such intertribal disputes, two things were

necessary: first, that the surrounding Bedouin chiefs should agree to take

him as their arbiter; and, secondly, that some sacredness should attach to

his character, and give authority to his decisions. Like others in those

days, he was both king and priest; but he was priest "of the Most High

God,"--not of the local gods of the separate tribes, but of the highest

God, above all the rest. That he was the acknowledged arbiter of

surrounding tribes appears from the fact that Abraham paid to him tithes

out of the spoils. It is not likely that Abraham did this if there were no

precedent for it; for he regarded the spoils as belonging, not to himself,

but to the confederates in whose cause he fought. No doubt it was the

custom, as in the case of Delphi, to pay tithes to this supreme arbiter;

and in doing so Abraham was simply following the custom. The Jewish

traveller, Wolff, states that in Mesopotamia a similar custom prevails at

the present time. One sheik is selected from the rest, on account of his

superior probity and piety, and becomes their "King of Peace and

Righteousness." A similar custom, I am told, prevails among some American

tribes. Indeed, where society is organized by clans, subject to local

chiefs, some such arrangement seems necessary to prevent perpetual feuds.

This "King of Justice and Peace" gave refreshments to Abraham and his

followers after the battle, blessing him in the name of the Most High God.

As he came from no one knows where, and has no official status or descent,

the fact that Abraham recognized him as a true priest is used in the Book

of Psalms and the Epistle to the Hebrews to prove there is a true

priesthood beside that of the house of Levi. A priest after the order of

Melchisedek is one who becomes so by having in him the true faith, though

he has "no father nor mother, beginning of days nor end of life," that is,

no genealogical position in an hereditary priesthood.

The God of Abraham was "The Most High." He was the family God of Abraham's

tribe and of Abraham's descendants. Those who should worship other gods

would be disloyal to their tribe, false to their ancestors, and must be

regarded as outlaws. Thus the faith in a Supreme Being was first

established in the minds of the descendants of Abraham by family pride,

reverence for ancestors, and patriotic feeling. The faith of Abraham, that

his God would give to his descendants the land of Palestine, and multiply

them till they should be as numerous as the stars or the sand, was that

which made him the Father of the Faithful.

The faith of Abraham, as we gather it from Genesis, was in God as a

Supreme Being. Though almighty, God was willing to be Abraham's personal

protector and friend. He talks with Abraham face to face. He comes to him,

and agrees to give to him and to his posterity the land of Canaan, and in

this promise Abraham has entire faith. His monotheism was indeed of an

imperfect kind. It did not exclude a belief in other gods, though they

were regarded as inferior to his own. His family God, though almighty, was

not omnipresent. He came down to learn whether the rumors concerning the

sinfulness of Sodom were correct or not. He was not quite sure of

Abraham's faith, and so he tested it by commanding him to sacrifice Isaac,

in whom alone the promise to Abraham's descendants could be fulfilled. But

though the monotheism of Abraham was of so imperfect a kind, it had in it

the root of the better kind which was to come. It was imperfect, but not

false. It was entire faith in the supreme power of Jehovah to do what he

would, and in his disposition to be a friend to the patriarch and his

posterity. It was, therefore, trust in the divine power, wisdom, and

goodness. The difference between the religion of Abraham and that of the

polytheistic nations was, that while they descended from the idea of a

Supreme Being into that of subordinate ones, he went back to that of the

Supreme, and clung to this with his whole soul.

§ 3. Moses; or, Judaism as the national Worship of a just and holy King.

In speaking of Moses and of his law, it may be thought necessary to begin

by showing that such a man as Moses really existed; for modern criticism

has greatly employed itself in questioning the existence of great men. As

the telescope resolves stars into double, triple, and quadruple stars, and

finally into star-dust, so the critics, turning their optical tubes toward

that mighty orb which men call Homer, have declared that they have

resolved him into a great number of little Homers. The same process has

been attempted in regard to Shakespeare. Some have tried to show that

there never was any Shakespeare, but only many Shakespeare writers. In

like manner, the critics have sought to dissolve Moses with their powerful

analysis, and, instead of Moses, to give us a number of fragmentary

writings from different times and hands, skilfully joined together; in

fact, instead of Moses, to give us a mosaic. Criticism substitutes human

tendencies in the place of great men, does not love to believe in genius,

and often appears to think that a number of mediocrities added together

can accomplish more than one man of genius.

Certainly this is a mistake. The easiest and most natural solution of

wonderful results is the supposition of genius, inspiration, heroism, as

their cause. Great men explain history. Napoleon explains the history of

Europe during a quarter of a century. Suppose a critic, a thousand years

hence, should resolve Napoleon into half a dozen Napoleons; would they

explain the history of Europe as well? Given a man like Napoleon, and we

can understand the French campaigns in Italy and Germany, the overthrow of

Austria, the annihilation of Prussia, the splendid host of field-marshals,

the Bonaparte circle of kings, the Codex, the Simplon Road, and the many

changes of states and governments on the map of Europe. One man of genius

explains it all. But take away the man of genius, and substitute a group

of small men in his place, and the thing is much more obscure and

unintelligible. So, given Moses, the man of genius and inspiration, and we

can understand the Exodus, understand the Jewish laws, understand the

Pentateuch, and understand the strange phenomenon of Judaism. But, instead

of Moses, given a mosaic, however skilfully put together, and the thing is

more difficult. Therefore, Moses is to be preferred to the mosaic, as the

more reasonable and probable of the two, just as Homer is preferable to

the Homerids, and Shakespeare to the Shakespeare Club.[352]

We find in Moses the three elements of genius, inspiration, and

knowledge. Perhaps it is not difficult to distinguish them. We see the

natural genius and temperament of Moses breaking out again and again

throughout his career, as the rocky strata underlying the soil crop out in

the midst of gardens, orchards, and fields of corn. The basis of his

nature was the hardest kind of rock, with a surging subterranean fire of

passion beneath it. An awful soul, stem and terrible as Michael Angelo

conceived him, the sublime genius carving the sublime lawgiver in

congenial marble. The statue is as stern as law itself. It sits in one of

the Roman churches, between two columns, the right hand grasping the

tables of the law, the symbolic horns of power protruding from the brow,

and the austere look of the judge bent upon those on the left hand. A

fiery nature, an iron will, a rooted sense of justice, were strangely

overflowed and softened by a tenderness toward his race, which was not so

much the feeling of a brother for brethren as of a parent for children.

Educated in the house of Pharaoh, and adopted by his daughter as her

child, taken by the powerful and learned priesthood of Egypt into their

ranks, and sharing for many years their honors and privileges, his heart

yearned toward his brethren in the land of Goshen, and he went out to see

them in their sufferings and slavery. His impetuous nature broke out in

sudden indignation at the sight of some act of cruelty, and he smote the

overseer who was torturing the Jewish slave. That act made him an exile,

and sent him to live in Arabia Petrea, as a shepherd. If he had thought

only of his own prospects and position, he would not have gone near the

Israelites at all, but lived quietly as an Egyptian priest in the palace

of Pharaoh. But, as the writer to the Hebrews says, he "refused, to be

called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction

with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a

season."[353] Another instance of his generous and tender feelings toward

his nation is seen in his behavior when the people made the golden calf.

First, his anger broke out against them, and all the sternness of the

lawgiver appeared in his command to the people to cut down their

idolatrous brethren; then the bitter tide of anger withdrew, and that of

tenderness took its place, and he returned into the mountain to the Lord

and said, "O, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods

of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I

pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written." Moses did not make

much account of human life. He struck dead the Egyptian who was

ill-treating a Jew; he slew the Jews who turned to idolatry; he slew the

Midianites who tempted them; but then he was ready to give up his own life

too for the sake of his people and for the sake of the cause. This spirit

of Moses pervades his law, this same inconsistency went from his character

into his legislation; his relentless severity and his tender sympathy both

appear in it. He knows no mercy toward the transgressor, but toward the

unfortunate he is full of compassion. His law says, "Eye for eye, tooth

for tooth, hand for hand, burning for burning, stripe for stripe." But it

also says, "Ye shall neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him, for ye were

strangers in the land of Egypt. Ye shall not afflict any widow or

fatherless child." "If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by

thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer." "If thou at all take thy

neighbor's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the

sun goeth down, for that is his covering." "If thou meet thine enemy's ox

or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again."

Such severities joined with such humanities we find in the character of

Moses, and such we find to have passed from his character into his laws.

But perhaps the deepest spring of character, and its most essential trait,

was his sense of justice as embodied in law. The great idea of a just law,

freely chosen, under its various aspects of Divine command, ceremonial

regulations, political order, and moral duty, distinguished his policy and

legislation from that of other founders of states. His laws rested on no

basis of mere temporal expediency, but on the two pivots of an absolute

Divine will and a deliberate national choice. It had the double sanction

of religion and justice; it was at once a revelation and a contract. There

was a third idea which it was the object of his whole system, and

especially of his ceremonial system, to teach and to cultivate,--that of

holiness. God is a holy God, his law is a holy law, the place of his

worship is a holy place, and the Jewish nation as his worshippers are a

holy people. This belief appears in the first revelation which he received

at the burning bush in the land of Midian. It explains many things in the

Levitical law, which without this would seem trivial and unmeaning. The

ceremonial purifications, clean and unclean meats, the arrangements of the

tabernacle, with its holy place, and its Holy of Holies, the Sabbath, the

dresses of the priests, the ointment with which the altar was anointed,

are all intended to develop in the minds of the people the idea of

holiness.[354] And there never was a people on whose souls this notion was

so fully impressed as it was upon the Jews. Examined, it means the eternal

distinction between right and wrong, between good and evil, and the

essential hostility which exists between them. Applied to God, it shows

him to have a nature essentially moral, and a true moral character. He

loves good and hates evil. He does not regard them with exactly the same

feeling. He cannot treat the good man and the bad man in exactly the same

way. More than monotheism, this perhaps is the characteristic of the

theology of Moses.

The character of Moses had very marked deficiencies, it had its weakness

as well as its strength. He was impetuous, impatient, wanting in

self-possession and self-control. There is a verse in the Book of Numbers

(believed by Eichhorn and Eosenmuller to be an interpolation) which calls

him the meekest of men. Such a view of his character is not confirmed by

such actions as his killing the Egyptian, his breaking the stone tables,

and the like. He declares of himself that he had no power as a speaker,

being deficient probably in the organ of language. His military skill

seems small, since he appointed Joshua for the military commander, when

the people were attacked by the Amalekites. Nor did he have, what seems

more important in a legislator, the practical tact of organizing the

administration of affairs. His father-in-law, Jethro, showed him how to

delegate the details of government to subordinates, and to reserve for

himself the general superintendence. Up to that time he had tried to do

everything by himself. That great art, in administration, of selecting

proper tools to work with, Moses did not seem to have.

Having thus briefly sketched some of the qualities of his natural genius

and character, let us see what were the essential elements of his

legislation; and first, of his theology, or teachings concerning God.

Monotheism, as we all know, lay at the foundation of the law of Moses. But

there are different kinds of monotheism. In one sense we have seen almost

all ancient religions to have been monotheisms. All taught the existence

of a Supreme Being. But usually this Supreme Being was not the object of

worship, but had receded into the background, while subordinate gods were

those really reverenced. Moses taught that the Supreme Being who made

heaven and earth, the Most High God, was also the only object of worship.

It does not appear that Moses denied the existence of the gods who were

adored by the other nations; but he maintained that they were all inferior

and subordinate, and far beneath Jehovah, and also that Jehovah alone was

to be worshipped by the Jews. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

(Exod. xx. 3; Deut. v. 7). "Ye shall not go after other gods" (Deut. vi.

14). "Ye shall make no mention of the name of other gods" (Exod. xxiii.

13). "For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords" (Deut. x.

17). The first great peculiarity of the theology of Moses was therefore

this, that it taught that the Infinite and Supreme Being, who in most

religions was the hidden God, was to the Jews the revealed and

ever-present God, the object of worship, obedience, trust, and love. His

name was Jahveh, the "I am," the Being of beings.[355]

In a certain sense Moses taught the strict unity of God. "Hear, O Israel;

the Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. vi. 4), is a statement which Jesus

calls the chief of the commandments (Mark xii. 29, 30). For when God is

conceived of as the Supreme Being he becomes at once separated by an

infinite distance from all other deities, and they cease to be gods in the

sense in which he is God. Now as Moses gave to Jehovah infinite

attributes, and taught that he was the maker and Lord of heaven and earth,

eternal (Deut. xxxiii. 27), a living God, it followed that there was no

God with him (Deut. xxxii. 39), which the prophets afterwards wrought out

into a simple monotheism. "I am God, and there is no other God beside me"

(Isaiah xliv. 8). Therefore, though Moses did not assert in terms a simple

monotheism, he taught what contained the essential germ of that idea.

This one God, supreme and infinite, was also so spiritual that no idol, no

statue, was to be made as his symbol. He was a God of truth and stern

justice, visiting the sins of parents on the children to the third and

fourth generation of those who hated him, but showing mercy to thousands

of those who loved and obeyed him. He was a God who was merciful,

long-suffering, gracious, repenting him of the evil, and seeking still to

pardon and to bless his people. No doubt there is anthropomorphism in

Moses. But if man is made in God's image, then God is in man's image too,

and we _must_, if we think of him as a living and real God, think of him

as possessing emotions like our human emotions of love, pity, sorrow,

anger, only purified from their grossness and narrowness.

Human actions and human passions are no doubt ascribed by Moses to God. A

good deal of criticism has been expended upon the Jewish Scriptures by

those who think that philosophy consists in making God as different and

distant from man as possible, and so prefer to speak of him as Deity,

Providence, and Nature. But it is only because man is made in the image of

God that he can revere God at all. Jacobi says that, "God, in creating,

_theo_morphizes man; man, therefore, necessarily _anthropo_morphizes God."

And Swedenborg teaches that God is a man, since man was made in the image

of God. Whenever we think of God as present and living, when we ascribe to

him pleasure and displeasure, liking and disliking, thinking, feeling, and

willing, we make him like a man. And _not_ to do this may be speculative

theism, but is practical atheism. Moses forbade the Jews to make any image

or likeness of God, yet the Pentateuch speaks of his jealousy, wrath,

repentance; he hardens Pharaoh's heart, changes his mind about Balaam, and

comes down from heaven in order to see if the people of Sodom were as

wicked as they were represented to be. These views are limitations to the

perfections of the Deity, and so far the views of Moses were limited. But

this is also the strong language of poetry, which expresses in a striking

and practical way the personality, holiness, and constant providence of

God.

But Moses was not merely a man of genius, he was also a man of knowledge

and learning. During forty years he lived in Egypt, where all the learning

of the world was collected; and, being brought up by the daughter of

Pharaoh as her son, was in the closest relations with the priesthood. The

Egyptian priests were those to whom Pythagoras, Herodotus, and Plato went

for instruction. Their sacred books, as we have seen, taught the doctrine

of the unity and spirituality of God, of the immortality of the soul, and

its judgment in the future world, beside teaching the arts and sciences.

Moses probably knew all that these books could teach, and there is no

doubt that he made use of this knowledge afterward in writing his law.

Like the Egyptian priests he believed in one God; but, unlike them, he

taught that doctrine openly. Like them he established a priesthood,

sacrifices, festivals, and a temple service; but, unlike them, he allowed

no images or idols, no visible representations of the Unseen Being, and

instead of mystery and a hidden deity gave them revelation and a present,

open Deity. Concerning the future life, about which the Egyptians had so

much to say, Moses taught nothing. His rewards and punishments were

inflicted in this world. Retribution, individual and national, took place

here. As this could not have been from ignorance or accident, it must have

had a purpose, it must have been intentional. The silence of the

Pentateuch respecting immortality is one of the most remarkable features

in the Jewish religion. It has been often objected to. It has been

asserted that a religion without the doctrine of immortality and future

retribution is no religion. But in our time philosophy takes a different

view, declaring that there is nothing necessarily religious in the belief

of immortality, and that to do right from fear of future punishment or

hope of future reward is selfish, and therefore irreligious and immoral.

Moreover it asserts that belief in immortality is a matter of instinct,

and something to be assumed, not to be proved; and that we believe in

immortality just in proportion as the soul is full of life. Therefore,

though Moses did not teach the doctrine of immortality, he yet made it

necessary that the Jews should believe in it by the awakening influence of

his law, which roused the soul into the fullest activity.

But beside genius, beside knowledge, did not Moses also possess that which

he claimed, a special inspiration? And if so, what was his inspiration

and what is its evidence? The evidence of his inspiration is in that which

he said and did. His inspiration, like that of Abraham, consisted in his

inward vision of God, in his sight of the divine unity and holiness, in

his feeling of the personal presence and power of the Supreme Being, in

his perception of his will and of his law. He was inwardly placed by the

Divine Providence where he could see these truths, and become the medium

of communicating them to a nation. His inspiration was deeper than that of

the greatest of subsequent prophets. It was perhaps not so large, nor so

full, nor so high, but it was more entire; and therefore the power that

went forth from the word and life of Moses was not surpassed afterward.

"There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord

knew face to face." No prophet afterward till the time of Jesus did such a

work as he did. Purity, simplicity, and strength characterized his whole

conduct. His theology, his liturgy, his moral code, and his civil code

were admirable in their design and their execution.

We are, indeed, not able to say how much of the Pentateuch came from

Moses. Many parts of it were probably the work of other writers and of

subsequent times. But we cannot doubt that the essential ideas of the law

proceeded from him.

We have regarded Moses and his laws on the side of religion and also on

that of morals; it remains to consider them on that of politics. What was

the form of government established by Moses? Was it despotism or freedom?

Was it monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, or republicanism? Were the Jews a

free people or an enslaved people?

Certainly the Jews were not enslaved. They had one great protection from

despotism,--a constitution. The Mosaic law was their constitution. It was

a written constitution, and could therefore be appealed to. It was a

published constitution, and was therefore known by all the people. It was

a sacred constitution; given on the authority of God, and therefore could

not be modified, except by the same authority. This constitution therefore

was a protection against despotism. A constitution like this excludes all

arbitrary and despotic authority. We can therefore safely say that the law

of Moses saved the nation from despotism. Thus he gave them an important

element of political freedom. No matter how oppressive laws are, a

government of fixed law involves in the long run much more real freedom

than the government, however kind, which is arbitrary, and therefore

uncertain and changeable.

But were these laws oppressive? Let us look at them in a few obvious

points of view.

What did they exact in regard to taxation? We know that in Eastern

governments the people have been ground to the earth by taxation, and that

agriculture has been destroyed, the fruitful field become a wilderness,

and populous countries depopulated, by this one form of oppression. It is

because there has been no fixed rate of taxation. Each governor is allowed

to take as much as he can from his subordinates, and each of the

subordinates as much as he can get from his inferiors, and so on, till the

people are finally reached, out of whom it must all come. But under the

Mosaic constitution the taxes were fixed and certain. They consisted in a

poll-tax, in the first-fruits, and the tithes. The poll-tax was a

half-shekel paid every year at the Temple, by every adult Jew. The

first-fruits were rather an expression of gratitude than a tax. The tithes

were a tenth part of the annual produce of the soil, and went for the

support of the Levites and the general expenses of the government.

Another important point relates to trials and punishments. What security

has one of a fair trial, in case he is accused of crime, or what assurance

of justice in a civil cause? Now we know that in Eastern countries

everything depends on bribery. This Moses forbade in his law. "Thou shalt

take no gift, for the gift blindeth the eyes; thou shalt not wrest the

judgment of the poor, but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor."

Again, the accuser and accused were to appear together before the judge.

The witnesses were sworn, and were examined separately. The people had

cheap justice and near at hand. "Judges and officers shalt thou make thee

in all thy gates, throughout thy tribes; and they shall judge the people

with just judgment."

There were courts of appeal from these local judges.

There seems to have been no legislative body, since the laws of Moses were

not only a constitution but also a code. No doubt a common law grew up

under the decisions of the local courts and courts of appeal. But

provision was made by Moses for any necessary amendment of his laws by the

reference which he made to any prophet like himself who might afterward

arise, whom the people were to obey.[356]

There was no provision in the Jewish constitution for a supreme executive.

But the law foretold that the time would come in which they would desire a

king, and it defined his authority. He should be a constitutional king.

(Deut. xvii. 14-20.)

We have already said that one great object and purpose of the ceremonial

law of Moses was to develop in the minds of the people the idea of

holiness. This is expressed (Lev. xix. 2), "Speak unto all the

congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be

holy; for I the Lord your God am holy."

Another object of the ceremonial law was to surround the whole nation with

an impenetrable hedge of peculiarities, and so to keep them separate from

surrounding nations. The ceremonial law was like a shell which protected

the kernel within till it was ripe. The ritual was the thorny husk, the

theology and morality were the sacred included fruit. In this point of

view the strangest peculiarities of the ritual find an easy explanation.

The more strange they are, the better they serve their purpose. These

peculiarities produced bitter prejudice between the Jews and the

surrounding nations. Despised by their neighbors, they despised them again

in turn; and this mutual contempt has produced the result desired. The

Jews, in the very heart of the world, surrounded by great nations far more

powerful than themselves, conquered and overrun by Assyrians, Medes,

Persians, Syrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, have been more entirely

separated from other nations than the Chinese or the people of Japan.

Dispersed as they are, they are still a distinct people, a nation within

other nations. Like drops of oil floating on the water but never mingling

with it, so the Jews are found everywhere, floating drops of national life

in the midst of other nationalities. In Leviticus (xviii. 3) we find the

command, "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall

ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring

you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." They

have not obeyed this command in its letter, but continue to obey its

spirit in its unwritten continuation: "After the doings of the English and

French and Americans shall ye not do, nor walk in their ordinances, but

shall still continue a peculiar people."

§ 4. David; or, Judaism as the personal Worship of a Father and friend.

Many disasters befell the Jews after their settlement in Palestine, which

we should allude to were we writing the heads of their history rather than

giving an account of their religion. Among these were their long conflict

with the Philistines, and their subjection by that people during twenty

years. The Philistines, it has been recently discovered, were not a

Semitic nation, and were not in the land in the time of Moses. They are

not mentioned as a powerful people in the Pentateuch or the Book of

Joshua, but suddenly appear as invaders in the time of the Judges,

completely defeating and subduing the Canaanites along the shore. In fact,

the Philistines were probably an Indo-European or Aryan people, and their

name is now believed to be the same as that of the Pelasgi. They were

probably a body of Pelasgi from the island of Crete, who, by successive

invasions, overran Palestine, and gave their name to it.[357] They were

finally reduced by David; and as his reign is the culminating period of

Judaism, we will devote some space to his character and influence.

The life of David makes an epoch in Jewish history and human history.

Nations, like plants, have their period of flowers and of fruit. They have

their springtime, their summer, autumn, and winter. The age of David among

the Jews was like the age of Pericles among the Greeks, of Augustus among

the Romans, of Louis XIV. in France, of Charles V. in Spain. Such periods

separate themselves from those which went before and from those which

follow. The period of David seems a thousand years removed from that of

the Judges, and yet it follows it almost immediately. As a few weeks in

spring turn the brown earth to a glad green, load the trees with foliage,

and fill the air with the perfume of blossoms and the song of birds, so a

few years in the life of a nation will change barbarism into civilization,

and pour the light of literature and knowledge over a sleeping land. Arts

flourish, external enemies are conquered, inward discontents are pacified,

wealth pours in, luxury increases, genius accomplishes its triumphs.

Summer, with its flowers and fruits, has arrived.

When a nation is ripe for such a change, the advent of a man of genius

will accomplish it. Around him the particles crystallize and take form and

beauty. Such a man was David,--a brave soldier, a great captain, a

sagacious adventurer, an artist, musician, and poet, a man of profound

religious experience; he was, more than all these, a statesman. By his

great organizing ability he made a powerful nation out of that which, when

he came to the throne, consisted of a few discordant and half-conquered

tribes. In the time of Saul the Israelites were invaded by all the

surrounding nations; by the Syrians on the north, the Ammonites and

Moabites on the east, the Amalekites and Edomites on the south, and the

Philistines on the west. In the time of David all these nations were

completely subdued, their cities garrisoned, and the power of the

Israelites submitted to from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean.

Most great men are contented to be distinguished in one thing, and to lead

a single life; but David led three lives, each distinct from the

other,--the life of a soldier and statesman, the life of a poet and

artist, the life of deep religious experience. We will look at his

character in each of these three directions.

We have already said that David found the Israelites divided and half

conquered, and left them united and conquerors. By means of his personal

qualities he had made himself popular among the tribes. He was known as a

brave and cautious guerilla chief. His native generosity and

open-heartedness won him the love of the people. His religious tendencies

gained for him the friendship of the priests, and the great influence of

Samuel was always exerted in his favor. He was thus enabled to unite the

people, and gain their confidence till he could make use of them in larger

enterprises. The Jews were not naturally a military nation, and were never

meant to be such. Yet when their strength was united they were capable, by

their determination and tenacity of purpose, of extraordinary military

exploits. Everything depended on their _morale_. Demoralized and weakened

by doubts and scruples, or when conscious that they were disobeying the

laws of Moses, they were easily defeated by any invader. The first duty of

their general was to bring them back from their idolatries and

backslidings to the service of God. Under Joshua it only needed two great

battles to conquer the whole land of Palestine. So, reunited under David,

a few campaigns made them victorious over the surrounding nations.

The early part of David's life was a perpetual discipline in prudence. He

was continually beset with dangers. He had to fly from the presence and

ferocious jealousy of Saul again and again, and even to take refuge with

the Philistines, who had reason enough to be his enemies. He fled from

Saul to Samuel, and took shelter under his protection. Pursued to this

retreat by the king, he had no resource but to throw himself on the mercy

of the Philistines, and he went to Gath. When he saw himself in danger

there, he pretended to be insane; insanity being throughout the East a

protection from injury. His next step was to go to the cave Adullam, and

to collect around him a body of partisans, with whom to protect himself.

Saul watched his opportunity, and when David had left the fastnesses of

the mountain, and came into the city Keilah to defend it from the

Philistines, Saul went down with a detachment of troops to besiege him, so

that he had to fly again to the mountains. Betrayed by the Ziphites, as he

had been before betrayed by the men of Keilah, he went to another

wilderness and escaped. The king continued to pursue him whenever he could

get any tidings of his position, and again David was obliged to take

refuge among the Philistines. But throughout this whole period he never

permitted himself any hostile measures against Saul, his implacable enemy.

In this he showed great wisdom, for the result of such a course would have

been a civil war, in which part of the nation would have taken sides with

one and part with the other, and David never could have ascended the

throne with the consent of the whole people. But the consequence of his

forbearance was, that when by the death of Saul the throne became vacant,

David succeeded to it with scarcely any opposition. His subsequent course

showed always the same prudence. He disarmed his enemies by kindness and

clemency. He understood the policy of making a bridge of gold for a flying

enemy. When Abner, the most influential man of his opponents, offered to

submit to him, David received him with kindness and made him a friend. And

when Abner was treacherously killed by Joab, David publicly mourned for

him, following the bier, and weeping at the grave. The historian says

concerning this: "And all the people took notice of it and it pleased

them: as whatsoever the king did pleased all the people. For all the

people understood that day that it was not of the king to slay Abner the

son of Ner." His policy was to conciliate and unite. When Saul's son was

slain by his own servants, who thought to please David by that act, he

immediately put them to death. Equally cautious and judicious was his

course in transferring the Ark and its worship to Jerusalem. He did this

only gradually, and as he saw that the people were prepared for it.

We next will look at David in his character as man of genius, musician,

artist, poet. It is not often that an eminent statesman and soldier is, at

the same time, a distinguished poet and writer. Sometimes they can write

history or annals, like Cæsar and Frederick the Great; but the imaginative

and poetic element is rarely found connected with the determined will and

practical intellect of a great commander. Alexander the Great had a taste

for good poetry, for he carried Homer with him through his campaigns; but

the taste of Napoleon went no higher than a liking for Ossian.

But David was a poet, in whom the tender, lyrical, personal element rose

to the highest point. The daring soldier, when he took his harp, became

another man. He consoled himself and sought comfort in trial, and sang his

thankfulness in his hours of joy. The Book of Psalms, so far as it is the

work of David, is the record of his life. As Horace says of Lucilius and

his book of Odes, that the whole of the old man's life hangs suspended

therein in votive pictures; and as Goethe says that his Lyrics are a book

of confessions, in which joy and sorrow turn to song; so the Book of

Psalms can only be understood when we consider it as David's poetical

autobiography. In this he anticipates the Koran, which was the private

journal of Mohammed.

"The harp of David," says Herder, "was his comforter and friend. In his

youth he sang to its music while tending his flocks as a shepherd on the

mountains of Judæa. By its means he had access to Saul, and could sooth

with it the dark mood of the king. In his days of exile he confided to it

his sorrows. When he triumphed over his enemies the harp became in his

royal hands a thank-offering to the deity. Afterward he organized on a

magnificent scale music and poetry in the worship of God. Four thousand

Levites, distinguished by a peculiar dress, were arranged in classes and

choirs under master-singers, of whom the three most distinguished, Asaph,

Heman, and Jeduthun, are known to us by specimens of their art. In his

Psalms his whole kingdom lives."

We speak of the inspiration of genius, and distinguish it from the

inspiration of the religious teacher. But in ancient times the prophet and

poet were often the same, and one word (as, in Latin, "vates") was used

for both. In the case of David the two inspirations were perfectly at one.

His religion was poetry, and his poetry was religion. The genius of his

poetry is not grandeur, but beauty. Sometimes it expresses a single

thought or sentiment, as that (Psalm cxxxiii.) describing the beauty of

brotherly union, or as that (Psalm xxiii.) which paints trust in God like

that of a sheep in his shepherd. Of the same sort is the fifteenth Psalm,

"Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle?" the twenty-ninth, a description

of a thunderstorm; the sixty-seventh, "O God, be merciful to us and bless

us"; the eighty-fourth, "How lovely are thy tabernacles"; and the last

Psalm, calling on mankind to praise God in all ways.

It is a striking fact that these Hebrew lyrics, written long before the

foundation of Rome, and before the time of Homer, should be used to-day in

Christian worship and for private devotion all over the world.

In speaking of the Vedas and the Avesta we said that in such hymns and

liturgies the truest belief of a nation can be found. What men say to God

in their prayers may be assumed to express their practical convictions.

The Jewish religion is not to be found so surely in its Levitical code as

in these national lyrics, which were the liturgy of the people.[358]

What then do they say concerning God? They teach his universal dominion.

They declare that none in the heaven can be compared to him (Psalm

lxxxix.); that he is to be feared above all gods (Psalm xcvi.). They teach

his eternity; declaring that he is God from everlasting to everlasting;

that a thousand years in his sight are as yesterday; that he laid the

foundations of the earth and made the heavens, and that when these perish

he will endure; that at some period they shall be changed like a garment,

but that God will always be the same (Psalm xc., cii.). They teach in

numerous places that God is the Creator of all things. They adore and

bless his fatherly love and kindness, which heals all our diseases and

redeems our life, crowning us with loving-kindness, pitying us, and

forgiving our sins (Psalm ciii.). They teach that he is in all nature

(Psalm civ.), that he searches and knows all our thoughts, and that we can

go nowhere from his presence (Psalm cxxxix.). They declare that he

protects all who trust in him (Psalm xci., cxxi.), and that he purifies

the heart and life (Psalm cxix.), creating in us a clean heart, and not

asking for sacrifice, but for a broken spirit (Psalm li.).

These Psalms express the highest and best moments of Jewish life, and rise

in certain points to the level of Christianity. They do not contain the

Christian spirit of forgiveness, nor that of love to one's enemy. They are

still narrowed to the range of the Jewish land and nation, and do not

embrace humanity. They are mountain summits of faith, rising into the pure

air and light of day from hidden depths, and appearing as islands in the

ocean. They reach, here and there, the level of the vast continent, though

not broad enough themselves to become the home of all races and nations.

There is nothing in the Vedas, nothing in the Avesta, nothing in the

sacred books of Egypt, or the philosophy of Greece and Rome, which so

unites the grandeur of omnipotence with the tenderness of a father toward

his child.

§ 5. Solomon; or, the Religious Relapse.

We have seen how the religion of Abraham, as the family worship of the

Supreme Being, was developed into that of Moses, as the national worship

of a just and holy King. We have seen it going onward from that, ascending

in the inspirations of David into trust in an infinite God as a friend,

and love to him as a father. We now come to a period of relapse. Under

Solomon and his successors, this religion became corrupted and degraded.

Its faith was changed into doubt, its lofty courage into the fear of kings

and tyrants, its worship of the Most High into adoration of the idols of

its neighbors. The great increase of power and wealth in the hands of

Solomon corrupted his own heart and that of his people. Luxury came in;

and, as in Rome the old puritanic virtues were dissolved by the desire for

wealth and pleasure, so it happened among the Jews. Then came the

retribution, in the long captivity in Babylon, and the beginning of a new

and better life under this hard discipline. And then comes the age of the

Prophets, who gradually became the teachers of a higher and broader faith.

So, when the Jews returned to Jerusalem, they came back purified, and

prepared to become once more loyal subjects of Jehovah.

The principle of hereditary succession, but not of primogeniture, had been

established by an agreement between David and the people when he proposed

erecting a Temple at Jerusalem. He had appointed his son Solomon as his

successor before his own death. With the entrance of Solomon we have an

entirely different personality from any whom we have thus far met. With

him also is inaugurated a new period and a different age. The age of Moses

was distinguished as that of law,--on the side of God absolute authority,

commanding and forbidding; on the side of man the only question was

between obedience and disobedience. Moses was the Law-giver, and his age

was the age of law. In the time of the Judges the question concerned

national existence and national independence. The age of the Judges was

the heroic age of the Jewish nation. The Judges were men combining

religious faith with patriotism; they were religious heroes. Then came the

time of David, in which the nation, having become independent, became also

powerful and wealthy. After his time the religion, instead of being a law

to be obeyed or an impulse to action, became ceremony and pageant. Going

one step further, it passed into reflection and meditation. In the age of

Solomon the inspiration of the national religion had already gone. A great

intellectual development had taken the place of inspiration. So that the

Jewish nation seems to have passed through a fourfold religious

experience. Religion was first law, then action, next inspiration and

sentiment, afterward ceremony, and lastly opinion and intellectual

culture.

It is the belief of Herder and other scholars that the age of Solomon gave

birth to a copious literature, born of peace, tranquillity, and

prosperity, which has all passed away except a few Psalms, the Book of

Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon.

Solomon is personally a much less interesting character than David; for

policy is never so interesting as impulse, and the crimes of policy seem

worse than those of passion. The first act of Solomon was of this sort. He

put his brother Adonijah to death for his attempt to seize the throne.

Joab, who supported Adonijah against Solomon, was also put to death, for

which we do not grieve, when we remember his assassination of Abner and

Amasa, shedding the blood of war in peace. But the cold, unscrupulous

character of Solomon is seen in his ordering Joab to be slain in the

tabernacle while holding the horns of the altar, and causing Adonijah to

be taken by force from the same place of refuge. No religious

consideration or superstitious fear could prevent Solomon from doing what

he thought necessary for his own security. He had given Adonijah a

conditional pardon, limited to good behavior on his part. But after his

establishment on the throne Adonijah requested the mother of Solomon,

Bathsheba, to ask her son to give him for a wife the beautiful Abishag,

the last wife of David. Solomon understood this to mean, what his mother

did not understand, that his brother was still intriguing to supplant him

on the throne, and with cool policy he ordered him to immediate execution.

Solomon could pardon a criminal, but not a dangerous rival. He deposed the

high-priest for the same reason, considering him to be also dangerous.

Shimei, who seems to have been wealthy and influential as well as a

determined character, was ordered not to leave Jerusalem under penalty of

death. He did so, and Solomon put him to death. David, before his death,

had warned Solomon to keep an eye both on Joab and on Shimei, for David

could forgive his own enemies, but not those of his cause; he was not

afraid on his own account, but was afraid for the safety of his son.

By the death of Joab and Shimei, Solomon's kingdom was established, and

the glory and power of David was carried to a still higher point of

magnificence. Supported by the prophets on the one hand and by the priests

on the other, his authority was almost unlimited. We are told that "Judah

and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating

and drinking and making merry. And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from

the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt;

they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life. And

Solomon's provision for one day was thirty measures of fine flour, and

threescore measures of meal, ten fat oxen, and twenty oxen out of the

pastures, and an hundred sheep, beside harts, and roebucks, and fallow

deer, and fatted fowl." The wars of David were ended. Solomon's was a

reign of peace. "And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his

vine and under his fig-tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of

Solomon. And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots,

and twelve thousand horsemen." "And 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. For he was

wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and

Darda, the sons of Mahol; and his fame was in all nations round about."

"And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all

kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom." The great power and

wealth of the Jewish court at this period are historically verified by the

traditions still extant among the Arabs of Solomon's superhuman splendor.

The story (1 Kings iii. 5) of Solomon's dream, in which he chose an

understanding heart and wisdom, rather than riches and honor, reminds us

of the choice of Hercules. It is not unlikely that he had such a dream, it

is quite probable that he always preferred wisdom to anything else, and it

is certain that his wisdom came from God. This is the only connection we

can trace between the dream and its fulfilment.

Solomon inaugurated a new policy by entering into alliances and making

treaties with his powerful neighbors. He formed an alliance with the king

of Egypt, and married his daughter. He also made a treaty of commerce and

friendship with the king of Tyre on the north, and procured from him cedar

with which to build the Temple and his own palace. He received an embassy

also from the queen of Sheba, who resided in the south of Arabia. By means

of the Tyrian ships he traded to the west as far as the coasts of Spain

and Africa, and his own vessels made a coasting voyage of three years'

duration to Tarshish, from which they brought ivory, gold, silver, apes,

and peacocks. This voyage seems to have been through the Red Sea to

India.[359] He also traded in Asia, overland, with caravans. And for their

accommodation and defence he built Tadmor in the desert (afterward called

Palmyra), as a great stopping-place. This city in later days became famous

as the capital of Zenobia, and the remains of the Temple of the Sun,

standing by itself in the midst of the Great Desert, are among the most

interesting ruins in the world.[360]

The great work of Solomon was building the Temple at Jerusalem in the

year B.C. 1005. This Temple was destroyed, and rebuilt by Nehemiah B.C.

445. It was rebuilt by Herod B.C. 17. Little remains from the time of

Solomon, except some stones in the walls of the substructions; and the

mosque of Omar now stands on the old foundation. No building of antiquity

so much resembles the Temple of Solomon as the palace of Darius at

Persepolis. In both buildings the porch opened into the large hall, both

had small chambers on the side, square masses on both sides of the porch,

and the same form of pillars. The parts of Solomon's Temple were, first, a

porch thirty feet wide and fifteen feet deep; second a large hall sixty by

thirty; and then the holy of holies, which was thirty feet cube. The whole

external dimensions of the building were only sixty feet by one hundred

and twenty, or less than many an ordinary parish church. The explanation

is that it was copied from the Tabernacle, which was a small building, and

was necessarily somewhat related to it in size. The walls were of stone,

on extensive stone foundations. Inside it was lined with cedar, with

floors of cypress, highly ornamented with carvings and gold. The brass

work consisted of two ornamented pillars called Jachin and Boaz, a brazen

tank supported by twelve brass oxen, and ten baths of brass, ornamented

with figures of lions, oxen, and cherubim.

The Book of Kings says of Solomon (1 Kings iv. 32) that "he spake three

thousand proverbs, and his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of

trees, from the cedar-tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that

springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl and of

creeping things, and of fishes." He was, according to this account, a

voluminous writer on natural history, as well as an eminent poet and

moralist. Of all his compositions there remains but one, the Book of

Proverbs, which was probably in great part composed by him. It is true

that three books in the Old Testament bear his name,--Proverbs,

Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. But of these Ecclesiastes was

probably written afterward, and though the Song of Songs may have been

written by Solomon, it was probably the work of another, living at or

near his time.

But of the Book of Proverbs there cannot be much doubt. It contains some

of the three thousand of which Solomon was the reputed author. It shows

his style of mind very clearly,--the cool understanding, the calculating

prudence, the continual reference to results, knowledge of the world as

distinguished from knowledge of human nature, or of individual character.

The Book of Proverbs contains little heroism or poetry, few large ideas,

not much enthusiasm or sentiment. It is emphatically a book of wisdom. It

has good, hard, practical sense. It is the "Poor Richard's Almanac" of

Hebrew literature. We can conceive of King Solomon and Benjamin Franklin

consulting together, and comparing notes of their observations on human

life, with much mutual satisfaction. It is curious to meet with such a

thoroughly Western intellect, a thousand years before Christ, on the

throne of the heroic David.

Among these proverbs there are many of a kindly character. Some are

semi-Christian in their wise benevolence. Many show great shrewdness of

observation, and have an epigrammatic wit. We will give examples of each

kind:--

PROVERBS HAVING A SEMI-CHRISTIAN CHARACTER.

"If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread;

If thirsty, give him water to drink,

For thou wilt heap coals of fire on his head,

And Jehovah will reward thee."

"To deliver those that are dragged to death,

Those that totter to the slaughter,

Spare thyself not.

If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not,

Doth not He that weighs the heart observe it?

Yea, He that keeps thy soul knows it.

And He will render to every man according to his works."

"Put not thyself forth in the presence of the king,

Nor station thyself in the place of great men.

Far better it is that one should say to thee,

Come up hither!

Than that he should put thee in a lower place,

In the presence of the prince."

"The lip of truth shall be established forever,

But the tongue of falsehood is but for a moment."

PROVERBS SHOWING SHREWDNESS OF OBSERVATION.

"As one that takes a dog by the ears,

So is he that passing by becomes enraged on account of another's

quarrel."

"Where there is no wood the fire goes out;

So where there is no talebearer contention ceases."

"The rich rules over the poor,

And the borrower is servant to the lender."

"The slothful man says, There is a lion without,

I shall be slain in the streets."

"A reproof penetrates deeper into a wise man

Than a hundred stripes into a fool."

"Hope deferred makes the heart sick."

"The way of transgressors is hard."

"There is that scatters, and yet increases."

"It is naught, it is naught, saith the buyer,

But when he goeth his way then he boasteth."

PROVERBS WITTILY EXPRESSED.

"The legs of a lame man are not equal,

So is a proverb in the mouth of fools."[361]

"As a thorn runs into the hand of a drunkard,

So is a proverb in the mouth of a fool."[362]

"As clouds and wind without rain,

So is a man who boasts falsely of giving."

"A soft tongue breaks bones."

"As vinegar to the teeth, and smoke to the eyes,

So is the sluggard to him that sends him."

"The destruction of the poor is their poverty."

"A merry heart is a good medicine."

But what are human wisdom and glory? It seems that Solomon was to

illustrate its emptiness. See the king, in his old age, sinking into

idolatry and empty luxury, falling away from his God, and pointing the

moral of his own proverbs. He himself was the drunkard, into whose hand

the thorn of the proverb penetrated, without his heeding it. This prudent

and wise king, who understood so well all the snares of temptation and all

the arts of virtue, fell like the puppet of any Asiatic court. What a

contrast between the wise and great king as described in I Kings iv. 20-34

and the same king in his degenerate old age!

It was this last period in the life of Solomon which the writer of

Ecclesiastes took as the scene and subject of his story. With marvellous

penetration and consummate power he penetrates the mind of Solomon and

paints the blackness of desolation, the misery of satiety, the dreadful

darkness of a soul which has given itself to this world as its only

sphere.

Never was such a picture painted of utter scepticism, of a mind wholly

darkened, and without any remaining faith in God or truth.

These three books mark the three periods of the life of Solomon.

The Song of Songs shows us his abounding youth, full of poetry, fire, and

charm.

The Proverbs give his ripened manhood, wise and full of all earthly

knowledge,--Aristotle, Bacon, Socrates, and Franklin, all in one.

And Ecclesiastes represents the darkened and gloomy scepticism of his old

age, when he sank as low down as he had before gone up. But though so sad

and dark, yet it is not without gleams of a higher and nobler joy to come.

Better than anything in Proverbs are some of the noble sentiments breaking

out in Ecclesiastes, especially at the end of the book.

The Book of Ecclesiastes is a wonderful description of a doubt so deep, a

despair so black, that nothing in all literature can be compared to it. It

describes, in the person of Solomon, utter scepticism born of unlimited

worldly enjoyment, knowledge, and power.

The book begins by declaring that all is vanity, that there is nothing

new under the sun, no progress in any direction, but all things revolving

in an endless circle, so that there is neither meaning nor use in the

world.[363] It declares that _work_ amounts to nothing, for one cannot do

any really good thing; that knowledge is of no use, but only produces

sorrow; that pleasure satiates.[364] Knowledge has only this advantage

over ignorance, that it enables us to see things as they are, but it does

not make them better, and the end of all is despair.[365] Sensual pleasure

is the only good.[366] Fate and necessity rule all things. Good and evil

both come at their appointed time. Men are cheated and do not see the

nullity of things, because they have the world in their heart, and are

absorbed in the present moment.[367]

Men are only a higher class of beasts. They die like beasts, and have no

hereafter.[368]

In the fourth chapter the writer goes more deeply into this pessimism. He

says that to die is better than to live, and better still never to have

been born. A fool is better than a wise man, because he does nothing and

cares for nothing.[369]

Success is bad, progress is an evil; for these take us away from others,

and leave us lonely, because above them and hated by them.[370]

Worship is idle. Do not offer the sacrifice of fools, but stop when you

are going to the Temple, and return. Do not pray. It is of no use. God

does not hear you. Dreams do not come from God, but from what you were

doing before you went to sleep. Eat and drink, that is the best.[371] All

men go as they come.

So the dreary statement proceeds. Men are born for no end, and go no one

can tell where. Live a thousand years, it all comes to the same thing. Who

can tell what is good for a man in this shadowy, empty life?[372]

It is better to look on death than on life, wiser to be sad than to be

cheerful. If you say, "There _have been_ good times in the past," do not

be too sure of that. If you say, "We can be good, at least, if we cannot

be happy," there is such a thing as being _too_ good, and cheating

yourself out of pleasure.[373]

Women are worse than men. You may find one good man among a thousand, but

not one good woman.[374]

It is best to be on the right side of the powers that be, for they can do

what they please. Speedy and certain punishment alone can keep men from

doing evil. The same thing happens to the good and to the wicked. All

things come alike to all. This life is, in short, an inexplicable puzzle.

The perpetual refrain is, eat, drink, and be merry.[375]

It is best to do what you can, and think nothing about it. Cast your bread

on the waters, very likely you will get it again. Sow your seed either in

the morning or at night; it makes no difference.[376]

Death is coming to all. All is vanity. I continue to preach, because I see

the truth, and may as well say it, though there is no end to talking and

writing. You may sum up all wisdom in six words: "Fear God and keep his

commandments."[377]

The Book of Ecclesiastes teaches a great truth in an unexampled strain of

pathetic eloquence. It teaches what a black scepticism descends on the

wisest, most fortunate, most favored of mankind, when he looks only to

this world and its joys. It could, however, only have been written by one

who had gone through this dreadful experience. The intellect alone never

sounded such depths as these. Moreover, it could hardly have been written

unless in a time when such scepticism prevailed, nor by one who, having

lived it all, had not also lived _through_ it all, and found the cure for

this misery in pure unselfish obedience to truth and right. It seems,

therefore, like a Book of Confessions, or the Record of an Experience,

and as such well deserves its place in the Bible and Jewish literature.

The Book of Job is a still more wonderful production, but in a wholly

different tone. It is full of manly faith in truth and right. It has no

jot of scepticism in it. It is a noble protest against all hypocrisies and

all shams. Job does not know why he is afflicted, but he will never

confess that he is a sinner till he sees it. The Pharisaic friends tell

him his sufferings are judgments for his sins, and advise him to admit it

to be so. But Job refuses, and declares he will utter no "words of wind"

to the Almighty. The grandest thought is here expressed in the noblest

language which the human tongue has ever uttered.

§ 6. The Prophets; or, Judaism as the Hope of a spiritual and universal

Kingdom of God.

Before we proceed to examine the prophetic writings of the Old Testament,

it is desirable to make some remarks upon prophecy in general, and on the

character of the Hebrew prophets.

Prophecy in general is a modification of inspiration. Inspiration is

sight, or rather it is insight. _All_ our knowledge comes to us through

the intellectual power which may be called sight, which is of two

kinds,--the sight of external things, or outsight; and the sight of

internal things, which is insight, or intuition. The senses constitute the

organization by which we see external things; consciousness is the

organization by which we perceive internal things. Now the organs of sense

are the same in kind, but differ in degree in all men. All human beings,

as such, have the power of perceiving an external world, by means of the

five senses. But though all have these five senses, all do not perceive

the same external phenomena by means of them. For, in the first place,

their senses differ in degrees of power. Some men's eyes are telescopic,

some microscopic, and some are blind. Some men can but partially

distinguish colors, others not at all. Some have acute hearing, others

are deaf. And secondly, what men perceive through the senses differs

according to what is about them. A man living in China cannot see Mont

Blanc or the city of New York; a man on the other side of the moon can

never see the earth. A man living in the year 1871 cannot see Alexander

the Great or the Apostle Paul. And thirdly, two persons may be looking at

the same thing, and with senses of the same degree of power, and yet one

may be able to see what the other is not able to see. Three men, one a

geologist, one a botanist, and one a painter, may look at the same

landscape, and one will see the stratification, the second will see the

flora, and the third the picturesque qualities of the scene. As regards

outsight then, though men in general have the same senses to see with,

what they see depends (1) on their quality of sense, (2) on their position

in space and time, (3) and on their state of mental culture.

That which is true of the perception of external phenomena is also true of

the perception of internal things.

Insight, or intuition, has the same limitations as outsight. These are (1)

the quality of the faculty of intuition; (2) the inward circumstances or

position of the soul; (3) the soul's culture or development. Those who

deny the existence of an intuitive faculty, teaching that all knowledge

comes from without through the senses, sometimes say that if there were

such a faculty as intuition, men would all possess intuitively the same

knowledge of moral and spiritual truth. They might as well say that, as

all men have eyes, all must see the same external objects.

All men have more or less of the intuitive faculty, but some have much

more than others. Those who have the most are called, by way of eminence,

inspired men. But among these there is a difference as regards the objects

which are presented by God, in the order of his providence, to their

intuitive faculty. Some he places inwardly among visions of beauty, and

they are inspired poets and artists. Others he places inwardly amid

visions of temporal and human life, and they become inspired discoverers

and inventors. And others he places amid visions of religious truth, and

they are inspired prophets, lawgivers, and evangelists. But these again

differ in their own spiritual culture and growth. Moses and the Apostle

Paul were both inspired men, but the Apostle Paul saw truths which Moses

did not see, because the Apostle Paul had reached a higher degree of

spiritual culture. Christ alone possessed the fulness of spiritual

inspiration, because he alone had attained the fulness of spiritual life.

Now the inspired man may look inwardly either at the past, the present, or

the future. If he look at the past he is an inspired historian; if at the

present, an inspired lawgiver, or religious teacher; if at the future, an

inspired prophet. The inspired faculty may be the same, and the difference

may be in the object inwardly present to its contemplation. The seer may

look from things past to things present, from things present to things to

come, and his inspiration be the same. He fixes his mind on the past, and

it grows clear before him, and he sees how events were and what they mean.

He looks at the present, and sees how things ought to be. He looks at the

future, and sees how things shall be.

The Prophets of the Old Testament were not, as is commonly supposed, men

who only uttered predictions of the future. They were men of action more

than of contemplation. Strange as it may seem to us, who are accustomed to

consider their office as confined to religious prediction, their chief

duty was that of active politicians. They mixed religion and politics.

They interfered with public measures, rebuked the despotism of the kings

and the political errors of the people. Moreover, they were the

constitutional lawyers and publicists of the Hebrews, inspired to look

backward and explain the meaning of the Mosaic law as well as to look

forward to its spiritual development in the reign of the Messiah.

Prediction, therefore, of future events, was a very small part of the work

of the Prophets. Their main duty was to warn, rebuke, teach, exhort, and

encourage.

The Hebrew prophets were under the law. They were loyal to Moses and to

his institutions. But it was to the spirit rather than to the letter, the

idea rather than the form. They differed from the priests in preferring

the moral part of the law to the ceremonial. They were great reformers in

bringing back the people from external formalism to vital obedience. They

constantly made the ceremonial part of the law subservient to the moral

part of the law. Thus Samuel said to Saul: "Hath the Lord as great delight

in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord?

Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of

rams." And so afterward Isaiah declared in the name of the Lord, that the

sacrifices of a wicked people were vain, and their incense an abomination.

We read of the schools of the Prophets, where they studied the law of

Moses, and were taught the duties of their office. In these schools music

was made use of as a medium of inspiration.

But the office of a prophet was not limited by culture, sex, age, or

condition. Women, like Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Huldah, and Noadiah;

inexperienced youths, like Jeremiah; men of high standing in society, like

Isaiah and Daniel; humble men, like the ploughman Elisha and the herdsman

Amos; men married and unmarried, are numbered among the Prophets. Living

poorly, wearing sackcloth, feeding on vegetables, imprisoned or

assassinated by kings, stoned by the people, the most unpopular of men,

sometimes so possessed by the spirit as to rave like madmen, obliged to

denounce judgments and woes against kings and people, it is no wonder that

they often shrank from their terrible office. Jonah ran to hide in a ship

of Tarshish. They have called their message a burden, like Isaiah; they

have cried out like Jeremiah, "Ah, Lord God, I cannot speak, for I am a

child"; like Ezekiel, they have been obliged to make their faces harder

than flints in order to deliver their message.

Dean Stanley, in speaking of the Prophets of the Old Testament, says that

their theology consisted in proclaiming the unity of God against all

polytheism, and the spirituality of God against all idolatry, in declaring

the superiority of moral to ceremonial duties, and in announcing the

supremacy of goodness above the letter, ceremony, or dogma. This makes

the contrast between the Prophets and all other sacred persons who have

existed in pagan and, he adds, even in Christian times. Dean Stanley says

the Prophets were religious teachers, without the usual faults of

religious teachers, and he proposes them as an example to the Christian

clergy. He says: "O, if the spirit of our profession, of our order, of our

body, were the spirit, or anything like the spirit, of the ancient

Prophets! If with us truth, charity, justice, fairness to opponents, were

a passion, a doctrine, a point of honor, to be upheld with the same energy

as that with which we uphold our own position and our own opinions!"

The spirit of the world asks first, Is it safe? secondly, Is it true? The

spirit of the Prophets asks first, Is it true? secondly, Is it safe? The

spirit of the world asks first, Is it prudent? secondly, Is it right? The

spirit of the Prophets asks first, Is it right? secondly, Is it prudent?

Taken as a whole, the prophetic order of the Jewish Church remains alone.

It stands like one of those vast monuments of ancient days, with ramparts

broken, with inscriptions defaced, but stretching from hill to hill,

conveying in its long line of arches the pure rill of living water over

deep valley and thirsty plain, far above all the puny modern buildings

which have grown up at its feet, and into the midst of which it strides

with its massive substructions, its gigantic height, its majestic

proportions, unrivalled by any erection of modern time.

The predictions of the future by the Prophets of Judæa were far higher in

their character than those which come occasionally to mankind through

dreams and presentiments. Yet no doubt they proceeded from the same

essentially Iranian faculty. This also is asserted by the Dean of

Westminster, who says that there is a power of divination granted in some

inexplicable manner to ordinary men, and he refers to such instances as

the prediction of the discovery of America by Seneca, that of the

Reformation by Dante, and the prediction of the twelve centuries of Roman

dominion by the apparition of twelve vultures to Romulus, which was so

understood four hundred years before its actual accomplishment. If such

presentiments are not always verified, neither were the predictions of

the Prophets always fulfilled. Jonah announced, in the most distinct and

absolute terms, that in forty days Nineveh should be destroyed. But the

people repented, and it was _not_ destroyed. Their predictions of the

Messiah are remarkable, especially because in speaking of him and his time

they went out of the law and the spirit of the law, and became partakers

of the spirit of the Gospel. The Prophets of the Jews, whatever else we

deny to their predictions, certainly foresaw Christianity. They describe

the coming of a time in which the law should be written in the heart, of a

king who should reign in righteousness, of a prince of peace, of one who

should rule by the power of truth, not by force, whose kingdom should be

universal and everlasting, and into which all nations of the earth should

flow. What the Prophets foresaw was not times nor seasons, not dates nor

names, not any minute particulars. But they saw a future age, they lived

out of their own time in another time, which had not yet arrived. They

left behind them Jewish ceremonialism, and entered into a moral and

spiritual religion. They dropped Jewish narrowness and called all mankind

brethren. In this they reach the highest form of foresight, which is not

simply to predict a coming event, but to live in the spirit of a future

time.

Thus the Prophets developed the Jewish religion to its highest point. The

simple, childlike faith of Abraham became, in their higher vision, the

sight of a universal Father, and of an age in which all men and nations

should be united into one great moral kingdom. Further than this, it was

not possible to go in vision. The difference between the Prophets and

Jesus was, that he accomplished what they foresaw. His life, full of faith

in God and man, became the new seed of a higher kingdom than that of

David. He was the son of David, as inheriting the loving trust of David in

a heavenly Father; he was also the Lord of David, by fulfilling David's

love to God with his own love to man; making piety and charity one, faith

and freedom one, reason and religion one, this life and the life to come

one. He died to accomplish this union and to make this atoning sacrifice.

§ 7. Judaism as a Preparation for Christianity.

After the return from the captivity the Jewish nation remained loyal to

Jehovah. The dangers of polytheism and idolatry had passed. We no more

hear of either of these tendencies, but, on the contrary, a rigid and

almost bigoted monotheism was firmly established. Their sufferings, the

teaching of their Prophets, perhaps the influence of the Persian worship,

had confirmed them in the belief that Jehovah was one and alone, and that

the gods of the nations were idols. They had lost forever the sacred ark

of the covenant and the mysterious ornaments of the high-priest. Their

kings had disappeared, and a new form of theocracy took the place of a

royal government. The high-priest, with the great council, became the

supreme authority. The government was hierarchal.

Hellenic influences began to act on the Jewish mind, and a peculiar

dialect of Hebrew-Greek, called the Hellenistic, was formed. The

Septuagint, or Greek version of the Old Testament, was made in Alexandria

about B.C. 260. In Egypt, Greek philosophy began to affect the Jewish

mind, the final result of which was the system of Philo. Greek influences

spread to such an extent that a great religious revolution took place in

Palestine (B.C. 170), and the Temple at Jerusalem was turned into a temple

of Olympic Jupiter. Many of the priests and leading citizens accepted this

change, though the heart of the people rejected it with horror. Under

Antiochus the Temple was profaned, the sacrifices ceased, the keeping of

the Sabbath and use of the Scriptures were forbidden by a royal edict.

Then arose the Maccabees, and after a long and bitter struggle

re-established the worship of Jehovah, B.C. 141.

After this the mass of the people, in their zeal for the law and their old

institutions, fell in to the narrow bigotry of the Pharisees. The

Sadducees were Jewish Epicureans, but though wealthy were few, and had

little influence. The Essenes were Jewish monks, living in communities,

and as little influential as are the Shakers in Massachusetts to-day. They

were not only few, but their whole system was contrary to the tone of

Jewish thought, and was probably derived from Orphic Pythagoreanism.[378]

The Talmud, that mighty maze of Jewish thought, commencing after the

return from the captivity, contains the history of the gradual progress

and development of the national mind. The study of the Talmud is necessary

to the full understanding of the rise of Christianity. Many of the

parables and precepts of Jesus may have had their origin in these

traditions and teachings. For the Talmud contains much that is excellent,

and the originality of Jesus was not in saying what never had been thought

before, but in vitalizing all old truth out of a central spiritual life.

His originality was not novelty, but vitality. We have room here but for a

single extract.[379]

"'Six hundred and thirteen injunctions,' says the Talmud, 'was Moses

instructed to give to the people. David reduced them all to eleven, in the

fifteenth Psalm: Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle who shall dwell

on thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly,' &c.

"'The Prophet Isaiah reduced them to six (xxxiii. 15): He that walketh

righteously,' &c.

"'The Prophet Micah reduced them to three (vi. 8): What doth the Lord

require of thee but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly

with thy God?

"'Isaiah once more reduced them to two (lvi. 1): Keep ye judgment and do

justice.

"'Amos (v. 4) reduced them all to one: Seek ye me and ye shall live.

"'But lest it might be supposed from this that God could be found in the

fulfilment of his whole law only, Habakkuk said (ii. 4): The just shall

live by his faith.'"

Thus we have seen the Jewish religion gradually developed out of the

family worship of Abraham, through the national worship of the law to the

personal and filial trust of David, and the spiritual monotheism of Job

and the Prophets. Through all these changes there ran the one golden

thread of faith in a Supreme Being who was not hidden and apart from the

world, but who came to man as to his child.

At first this belief was narrow and like that of a child[380] We read

that when Noah went into the ark, "the Lord shut him in"; that when Babel

was built, "the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the

children of men had built"; that when Noah offered burnt-sacrifices, "the

Lord smelled a sweet savor"; that he told Moses to make him a sanctuary,

that he might dwell among the Israelites. We have seen, in our chapter on

Greece, that Homer makes Jupiter send a pernicious dream to Agamemnon, to

deceive him; in other words, makes Jupiter tell a lie to Agamemnon. But

how is the account in I Kings xxii. 20-23, any better?[381]

But how all this ignorance was enlightened, and this narrowness enlarged,

let the magnificent theism of the Psalms, of Job, and of Isaiah testify.

Solomon declares "The heaven of heavens cannot contain him, how much less

this house that I have builded." Job and the Psalms and Isaiah describe

the omniscience, omnipresence, and inscrutable perfections of the Deity in

language to which twenty centuries have been able to add nothing.[382]

Thus Judaism was monotheism, first as a seed, then as a blade, and then as

the ear which the sun of Christianity was to ripen into the full corn. The

highest truth was present, implicitly, in Judaism, and became explicit in

Christianity. The law was the schoolmaster to bring men to Christ. It

taught, however imperfectly, a supreme and living God; a Providence ruling

all things; a Judge rewarding good and punishing evil; a holy Being, of

purer eyes than to behold iniquity. It announced a moral law to be

obeyed, the substance of which was to love God with all the heart, and

one's neighbor as one's self.

Wherever the Apostles of Christ went they found that Judaism had prepared

the way. Usually, in every place, they first preached to the Jews, and

made converts of them. For Judaism, though so narrow and so alien to the

Greek and Latin thought, had nevertheless pervaded all parts of the Roman

Empire. Despised and satirized by philosophers and poets, it had yet won

its way by its strength of conviction. It offered to men, not a

philosophy, but a religion; not thought, but life. Too intolerant of

differences to convert the world to monotheism, it yet made a preparation

for its conversion. This was its power, and thus it went before the face

of the Master, to prepare his way.