religions, but it gave unmistakable intimations that the truth which it contained would have world-wide extension. As if conscious, on the one hand, that they were proclaiming imperishable and universal truth, its writers gave the most glowing anticipations of a latter day of glory, when out of Zion should go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem-the word which would lead all nations to walk in the light of the Lord. On the other hand, as if conscious that this truth was for the time held in too narrow bonds for acceptance by all nations, they abstained from pressing it upon the Gentiles, and were content to hold up the witness through the long years of waiting till the fulness of the time should come. A consideration of such facts as these will have a certain influence on the mode in which we have to approach the religion of Israel, as will be indicated presently. They have been pointed out in the meantime as outstanding features of the subject, which invest the religious history of Israel with peculiar interest, and have always attracted the attention of thinkers and scholars in an uncommon degree. Just as in the New Testament history, where the life of Jesus has been felt to be the key-stone of the whole structure, writers of every shade of opinion have taken in hand to explain His influence on the succeeding development of Christianity; so in the field of Old Testament inquiry the greatest industry and the keenest ingenuity have been exercised in the attempt to account for the origin of that peculiarly religious cast of thought, which is so observable in the Hebrew literature. The very earliest attempts at Old Testament criticism had their point of departure in dogmatic considerations; and though for a time the labours of scholars assumed a more technically critical and literary aspect, the historical view was never entirely lost sight of, and has of late again dominated the whole process of criticism. Even the works which profess to deal in the most technical manner with the Old Testament books have at their basis a theory of the Old Testament history; and of recent years we have had an increasing number of attempts to set forth the history in a more formal manner according to the principles of historical criticism, till we have almost as many Histories of Israel, and from as varied standpoints, as we have Lives of Jesus. It is not without reason that M. Renan-who, according to his own estimate, would have anticipated the discoveries of Darwin had he given himself in early life to the study of physical science,1 and who now almost regrets that he had not devoted his lifetime to the history of Greek thought-after working out for forty years a design of his earlier years to write 'The History of the Origins of Christianity,' closes his lifelong labour with the 'History of the People of Israel.' 3 A religion which has had a history like this, and has attracted such attention from investigators, proves itself thereby to have more than common features, and cannot be approached with indifference. It is true that the most of the modern writers who have undertaken histories of Israel make great professions of impartiality and freedom from prejudice. Thus Kuenen in the opening of his Religion of Israel' says: "Our standpoint is sketched in a single stroke, as it were, by the manner in which this work sees the light. It does not stand entirely alone, but is one of a number of monographs on the principal 1 Souvenirs d'Enfance et de Jeunesse, p. 263. 3 See Note II. 4 Eng. transl., vol. i. p. 5. religions. For us the Israelitish is one of these religions, nothing less, but also nothing more." This sounds exceedingly impartial, but he "doth protest too much, methinks." It may be questioned whether this is not an assuming of a standpoint from which it is impossible to give a sufficient account of the matter in hand. If it be indeed possible for one to regard all religions with perfect impartiality as so many phases of man's activity, we may expect from such a one an even-handed treatment of all; but such an impartiality is very apt to run into an equalising and levelling of all. At all events, for those who regard Christianity as occupying a peerless position among the "principal religions," and who have perceived the way in which it appeals to the religion of the Old Testament, it would be vain to pretend to have no prepossession in the matter. It is not necessary that the historian of a country should be a foreigner; and we prefer that a biographer should be one who was intimately acquainted and in sympathy with the person whose character is to be described. A handful of jewels are, from one point of view, just so many minerals; but we should think none the less of a lapidary whose eyes sparkled when he discovered among them "one pearl of great price." A joiner or cabinetmaker may say that from his standpoint three planks of wood are nothing less and nothing more, though one may be cut from the trunk and the others from large limbs of the same tree; and the anatomist may describe simply as so many "subjects" the dead bodies of a mother and her two daughters. From their standpoint they are right enough; the question is as to the standpoint. Religions are not so many things that may be laid on the bench or dissecting-table, so that learned men may write a series of "Something more" than other Religions. 23 monographs upon them. They are not so many dry systems that can be circumscribed by "documents" and examined in books. No religion that has inade its mark in the world can be thus appreciated. Account must be taken of the character of the founders and first teachers, as well as of the doctrines or systems they have left; and above all, the effects of the religion in the world must in each case be estimated, if we would know what the power of the religion is. Now the religion of Israel, by its very position in the world, has been "something more" in some sense than other religions. No other religion has had so striking an origin, so persistent an existence, and so wide an influence, if we take into account the two religions which have sprung from it. And the main question before a historian of Israel's religion is to make plain what the "something more" is. But to set out with a formula or equation that will represent the history of all religions,1 and then apply it to the religion of Israel, is to prejudge the whole question in a most unscientific way, and to run in the teeth of historical fact. The science of comparative religion is legitimate, and most useful; but it becomes unscientific when it is a levelling science. Stade very properly 2 assigns to the religion of Israel not only a place among the principal religions, but the very first place, the universal religion, in a much fuller sense than, e.g., the philosophy of Greece or the law of Rome can claim to be universal. There is enough in the external history of Israel to prepare us for finding in it something very different from what other ancient religions exhibit. Is it impossible that there should be unique things in the world? Is it scientific to assert that there are not? We 1 See Note III. 2 Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i. pp. 3, 4. do not require at the outset to claim more for this religion than for other religions; but neither are we allowed to assume at the outset that it is no more nor better than others. What we have seen is sufficient at least to make us disposed to admit any features that can clearly be proved to exist, even though they have no counterpart in other ancient religions. Since it has, in later historic time, had a unique development, it need be no wonder if in its earlier course it was equally distinguished. xx The history of Israel, then, resolves itself into a history of the religion; and the problem of the history is to explain the possession by this people of a faith and practice which distinguished them from their neighbours, and made them the religious teachers of the world. More particularly, it is to the earlier portion of the history that attention has to be turned, with the view of discovering, if possible, a starting-point which will form a sufficient explanation of all that followed. If we take the modern orthodox Jew with his Talmud and traditions, we can give no account of him, nor understand his persistent adherence to peculiar customs and old-world beliefs, till we go back to the time of the formation of the Talmud itself. And as soon as we begin to investigate that process, we are compelled to go back to Ezra and his contemporaries, who gave the start to the complicated work of the scribes. And when we take up the books that tell us of the activity of Ezra and Nehemiah, and try to account for their influence, we find we are not only at the beginning of one course of development, but also at the end of a long anterior one. A great part of the writings of the Old Testament was by that time certainly in existence; the political history of the nation in its independence had run its course, and |