Lord had been put to death by Jezebel, and a considerable number saved only by the exertions of Obadiah.* The "legend,' therefore, as Mr. Newman calls it, would go to prove that the worshippers of Baal began the hostilities. If one-half of the history would prove a hostile feeling on the part of the worshippers of Jehovah, the other half proves far more on the opposite side. But it seems to be Mr. Newman's habit, whether he regards a record as fiction or truth, to select such parts of it as have a tendency to cast a shade upon the worshippers of Jehovah. He admits that the "martyr age of the prophets of the Lord now began," but excuses Jezebel on the ground that "hers was a struggle of life and death." "The crisis," he continues, "called forth two great prophets, Elijah and Elisha, whose adventures and exploits have come down to us in such a halo of romance . . . that it is impossible to disentangle the truth."

It must be acknowledged that Mr. Newman makes no effort to perform this "impossibility," but summarily dismisses both histories, merely observing that the miracles recorded of both prophets are often mere repetitions of each other. Such a case as a similar event happening to two persons, or at different times to one, he is unable to believe possible.

"The ascription of miraculous powers" (Mr. Newman continues) "to these prophets is a notable circumstance, as being altogether new in Jewish history. (!) To find anything analogous we must run back to the legendary days of Moses." (!) The dangers of the times, he adds, worked up the people to such an enthusiasm that they were ready to imagine miracles. It would seem strange to readers of a less easy belief than Mr. Newman, that the enemies of the prophets-the zealous worshippers of Baal-should have been affected by this enthusiasm for miracles, which were wrought against them. Several of Elijah's miracles resemble those of our Lord and his Apostles in this circumstance, that they were wrought amongst enemies. Ahab and Jezebel would not have stood in such awe of an impostor. Mr. Newman's best course would have been to deny the whole history from beginning to end. This he hesitates to do in express words; but he throws additional discredit on all the facts by his assertion, (totally unsupported by the faintest attempt at a proof,) that the Book of Kings was written 300† years after the facts recorded in it.

* Obadiah's preservation of the Lord's prophets is the more remarkable from its not being ostentatiously brought forward, but incidentally, and as it were casually, mentioned in a parenthesis.

+ It has been remarked by scholars deeply learned in the original language of the Old Testament, that this book bears in its construction the strongest marks of having been composed in detached pieces, as a chronicle or register at the time when the events noted down occurred.

Jewish Theocracy and Religious Toleration.

133

The overthrow of the walls of Jericho is alluded to by Mr. Newman incidentally as "an old poem," which was recalled to the minds of men when "the legendary curse was fulfilled!

He proceeds rapidly to the history of Athaliah and the murder of the young princes. He endeavours to defend, or rather palliate, her cruelty by attributing it to the alarm and "irritation" occasioned by the severity shewn by the prophets of the Lord towards the Baal worshippers. "Such (these are his words) is the train of atrocities which Elisha's message entailed on both the Hebrew kingdoms." The study of these events, "is," he continues, "the training of mind which steeled all Europe to cruelty under the name of religion. This has lit up hell-fires in Christendom; this has perpetrated perfidious niassacres unknown to Paganism; this has bequeathed, even to the present age, a confusion of mind which too often leads those who are naturally mild and equitable, to inflict hardship, vexation, degradation, and loss, on the professors of a rival creed."

"Unknown to Paganism!" How well must an accomplished scholar, like Mr. Newman, have known the contrary! How familiar must he be with the cruelties of heathen monarchs, from Phalaris down to Nero and Commodus, with the human sacrifices in Carthage, with the tortures inflicted by Hindoo Brahmins, with atrocities in every heathen country openly countenanced and approved by public opinion, such as have never been paralleled even in the darkest ages of Christianity. But his eagerness to carry his point is quite unchecked by any regard for truth. And this portion of his work is likely to be more injurious to careless readers, because it assumes the garb of Christian humanity and forbearance.

There are, however, two or three considerations which even faithful students of the Bible are apt to overlook, because connected with the peculiar character of the Jewish dispensation. We are apt to consider the case of the worshippers of the true God with regard to those of Baal, as analogous to the relation between Christians, for instance, living in close connexion with heathens, or Protestants with members of the Church of Rome. Such persons are convinced, indeed, that their companions are in grievous error, but (if imbued with a truly Christian spirit) they feel it a duty, while guarding against their mistaken belief, to treat them with kindness and forbearance. Such was not the duty of a pious Hebrew of Elijah's day: for what with us is

* Elisha is very severely treated by Mr. Newman. His zeal is called "frenzy;" and he is described as condemning a troop of young children for laughing at him. We have already seen that the term "children" was applied to young men ; and we may here add that Benjamin was called a lad, and even a little one, when certainly more than twenty years old. The young persons whom Elisha punished were probably votaries of Baal, who insulted him as a prophet of the Lord. (Sce M. Burnier's Commentary on the Old Testament.)

merely religious error, with them was high treason; and we must again repeat, that to one who loses sight for a moment of the peculiar character of a theocracy, the Jewish history necessarily presents a tissue of contradictions. What would Mr. Newman have thought of a faithful subject of George the Second, who should have connived at the machinations of some emissaries of the Pretender? Should we not look on such toleration of high treason as treason itself? Would he admit, as an excuse for such conduct, the plea "that we ought to live peaceably with our neighbours?" This was precisely the case with Elijah. Under the Christian dispensation we are commanded not "to strive" for our religion; but this is because the rewards and punishments of the new covenant are reserved for another world, and under the sole and immediate administration of the great Mediator, that "Man whom God hath ordained to be the Judge of quick and dead." Our Saviour's own words are, "My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,”—evidently acknowledging the consequence which necessarily followed from such a dispensation as that of the Old Testament.

Why such a dispensation should have been necessary, is a question which fallible mortals are not competent to answer. It is not for us to look into "the hidden things of the Lord." But it may be observed, that writers of the stamp we are now considering, seem to be unwilling to allow the possibility of God's punishing wickedness either here or hereafter, and shrink from every part of the Bible which implies it. They forget that this is a difficulty not peculiar to revealed religion, but inseparably connected with the course of natural events in this world. Sin does draw down evil on itself even in this life: why it exists, or why it is permitted, it is not for us to know: but we cannot escape from the difficulty by denying revelation.

This prevalent reluctance to look a fact thus self-evident in the face, may also be in part the cause of another evil of the present times the tendency to confound tolerance with indifference.

Mr. Newman goes so far as to endeavour to convey a more favourable impression of the worshippers of Baal than of their opponents. He informs us (page 213,) that "they did not revenge on the priests of Jehovah the violence which they had suffered from Jehovah's prophets,"-(naturally enough, as they had slain these already, and could not wreak their vengeance twice over) and in comparison with their opponents, he regards them as humane!

He proceeds to sketch rapidly, but not very clearly, the later reigns of the kings. He affirms that the Levite and priestly system was devised long after the time of Moses; the "priestly system" being "at its height in the time of Jehu," the Levite

The Prophetical Writings.

135

later. For this conclusion he gives no reasons, unless we can so denominate the complaint that the pedigree of the priests was not made out before the Captivity. This is, however, just what we should expect. After the Captivity it was necessary to prove that their genealogy was correct: before that event it was needless to prove or to mention what was well established. To the same cause may be referred the omission of all mention of the Sabbaths (on which he also remarks) in the history of the monarchy.

But the object of this part of Mr. Newman's work is evidently to prove the modern origin of the Pentateuch, which he considers to have been compiled in the days of Jehoiada. The reasons adduced for this belief are not very clear: one of them seems to be, that Joshua wrote on "the stones" of the altar he erected after passing Jordan, "a copy of the law." (Joshua viii. 30.) As no stone altar could have contained the whole of the last four books of the Pentateuch, he concludes that they could not then have existed: but is it not a far more simple and obvious conclusion, that he copied the positive commands taken from these books; or rather, merely those which the tables contained, which would naturally, in common parlance, be called "the Law," and which our Lord afterwards referred to as the Commandments?

In support of his opinion, however, Mr. Newman speaks of the law found in Josiah's reign as "a new book." Is it conceivable that the people would have read it with grief and shame, had they not recognised the Law which was the acknowledged standard by which their nation had been governed?

In commenting on the prophetical writings, Mr. Newman ascribes the books of Isaiah and of Zechariah each to two different writers. Here, however, as in every other part of his work, he seems to adopt implicitly the dicta of the German critics whom he has chosen for his authorities, and who, like his favourite prophets of the Baalistic faction, "follow their own spirit," in preference to inspiration, common sense, or fair reasoning. He delights also to dwell on those parts of the other prophetic writers from which he can draw conclusions to the discredit of their private character. Jeremiah's flight into Egypt, and the bitterness of Hosea and others towards "their fellowprophets,"—as he denominates the idolaters whom they denounce, are animadverted upon with great severity.

It is remarkable, too, that disposed as Mr. Newman is to treat the recorded facts of Scripture as myths, he is ready to assume that the metaphorical language of the prophets involves real facts, and that deeds of a questionable or an extraordinary nature, said to be performed by the prophets at God's command,

There seems to be a considerable difference in the style of the earlier and later portions of Isaiah, which has probably led him to this conclusion.

in order to declare and explain his present will and future dealings towards his people, were in all cases real transactions, originating in the will or desire of the human agent to whom they are attributed. Now, how is it that one who holds so strongly that the Bible accounts are not trustworthy, should adhere so scrupulously to a literal interpretation of statements more probably allegorical than many to which he ascribes that character, whenever they appear to militate against the Most High, or against his accredited messengers?

To a very different class of Bible-readers many of these passages (laying aside such as through our own ignorance of ancient customs, or through doubtful readings, are in themselves uncertain) do indeed present great difficulties, chiefly, perhaps, arising from an incorrect view of the subject of inspiration.

The revelations or messages with which the prophets were entrusted seem to have been usually conveyed to them through visions or dreams; and the prophet commonly delivered his message along with the vision or dream through which it came to him. Hence the relation of actions which were not only allegorical in their meaning, but the very history of which is allegorical, as the eating of the book or roll in Ezekiel, and in St. John's Revelations. And as the vision or dream through which the revelation came to the recipient would naturally be formed of images taken from the store-house of his own imagination, they would, it is likely, be conformable to his age, his country, and his individual character. The message or revelation might indeed come to the mind of the inspired instrument clothed in language suitable for delivery—and this we have every reason to believe was the ordinary mode of its communication-but it might also come as a simple suggestion or impression, in which case he would naturally declare it by means of such images as most readily occurred to him, and which he thought best adapted to draw attention to it; and hence, besides the Oriental type which runs through all the language of prophecy, we find in it the marks of individual influences, of the education, turn of thought, and moral sentiment habitual to the prophet. For God's messages seem to have been conveyed through various instruments, (as the ordinary workings of his providence take place by various means;) and the mode of delivery would therefore vary accordingly. Thus would the imagery of each prophet be more or less exalted, and his language more or less pure, according to the influence of his own natural habits of thought and life, and very much according to the nature of the prophecy he was declaring, which we find to be the case. Hence the purity and sublime simplicity of Isaiah's language in all his announcements of the Messiah, and the blessings of his kingdom, and in all his direct allusions to the Most High. And so with the