Jahaveh's Character proclaimed to Moses.

325

character, which is by the Biblical writers placed as far back as the time of Moses (Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7, R.V.): "Jahaveh, Jahaveh, a God full of compassion and gracious, slow to anger and plenteous in mercy and truth; keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation." It seems to me that if we place at the outset such a conception of Jahaveh, which is twosided, and capable of expansion in two different lines, we can account for the development of the popular idea equally with that of the prophets from one common source; that we can give some explanation of the clearness with which the very earliest of the writing prophets represent the character of the national God, and also the persistency with which the people held to their view to the last. We obtain, in a word, development from a definite starting - point, whereas on Kuenen's view we neither find a reasonable meeting - point for the two divergent tendencies, nor can follow the steps in the development of either the one or the other.

"The principles which we see operating from the earliest times," says Professor A. B. Davidson, "are the principles wielded by the prophets. They are few but comprehensive. They form the essence of the moral law --consisting of two principles and a fact,-namely, that Jehovah was Israel's God alone; and that His being was ethical, demanding a moral life among those who served Him as His people: and these two principles elevated into a high emotional unity in the consciousness of redemption just experienced."1

Expositor, third series, vol. v. p. 43.

326

CHAPTER XIII.

AUTHORITATIVE INSTITUTIONS—THEIR EARLY DATE

Connection of this with the preceding-Reasons for postponing consideration of forms, (1) because practice is not a sure index of profession, and (2) because external forms, even when authorised, are not sufficient index of the truth of which they are signs-Mode of procedure as before-Three things to be distinguished, Law, Codification of Law, Writing of Lawbooks, on all of which the Biblical theory allows a latitude of viewPoints at which the Biblical and the modern view are at variance-The conclusions of the modern theory, (1) Law not of Mosaic origin, (2) Codes so inconsistent that they must be of different dates-Position similar to that before assumed-Presumption that Moses gave definite laws-The Covenant, how signalised - Proofs from prophetical writers; from Psalms; from admitted historical books-Conclusion that a Norm or Law, outside of prophets and superior to them, was acknowledged— What was it?

Up to this point the object of our inquiry has been to determine, as far as possible, what the religion of Israel was, in its essential and internal elements, at the earliest period to which we have access. We have examined the testimony given by the earliest admitted written sources to the nature of the religion at the date to which they belong, and have endeavoured to estimate the value of this class of witnesses for the determination of the religion of an antecedent and early time. Without relying on disputed books, we have found that

Connection with preceding Discussion.

327

those which are admitted confirm in many ways the statements of those which are not primarily taken into account. The earliest writing prophets, though not appealing to the authority of books, appeal to admitted and undeniable facts which are asserted in these books; and our conclusion has been, that whereas the modern theory is obliged to overstrain those admitted facts of history and experience which have a show of being in its favour, and to underrate those which seem to oppose it, the Biblical theory is confirmed in the main, and that the religion of Israel had, at a much earlier stage than the modern critical writers admit, the purer and more ethical character which they would relegate to a later time.

We come now to consider whether in outward form also and positive institutions the religion of Israel had not, before the time of the earliest writing prophets, or before the time at which modern critical writers place such an organisation, a more defined shape and authoritative arrangement than the modern historians allow. The two things are closely connected. Religious belief and practice always act and react upon one another. According to the Biblical view, as there was an early revelation of spiritual truth, so there was an early institution of law and religious observance. On the modern view also the two things are intimately related. Wellhausen says, "All writers of the Chaldæan period associate monotheism in the closest way with unity of worship;" and it is a fundamental element of his theory that the process of centralisation and spiritualisation which marks the development of the law and worship went on under prophetic influence and pari passu with the development of prophetic thought and teaching.2 1 Hist. of Israel, p. 27.

2 Ibid.; cf. p. 26 with 47, 81, 103.

It might seem at first sight that it would have been more proper to begin with outward observances, which are so obvious and give so tangible a representation of a people's religious belief; and then to reason from them to the essential character of the religion. There are, however, these two considerations to be taken into account. (1) In the first place, outward observance is not always, nor indeed generally, a faithful indication of religious profession; and when we are in search, as we are in this case, of a religion which claims to have been positively given with definite fundamental principles as well as formal institutions, it would be unfair to rest either upon the moral practice or the religious usages of a people making profession of such a religion. Forms may be perverted, obscured, or corrupted, and the life of the people is pretty certain to fall short of their faith. We might, for example, from the mere observance of facts. and phenomena gather what was the "state of religion," as we use the phrase, in any given age of the Christian Church, but we would not be safe, from the mere contemplation of any age, in drawing a conclusion as to the essential character of Christianity. To argue from custom or observance in religion to the requirements and essence of religion would, in the case before us, be begging the question, which is virtually as to whether or not there was an ideal or positive religion to start with. By examining, as we have done, first of all the writings of the prophets, we gain some guiding light on this the fundamental point. And (2) in the second place, outward rites and ceremonies, in a special manner, do not furnish a sufficient indication of the truth of which they are symbols or concomitants. In such rites there has often been a carrying over and adaptation of old customary

Observances and their Significance.

329

observances, which are in this transference invested with a new meaning. Many of the observances of Christendom are of this description; even the sacraments of the New Testament rest, as symbolic ordinances, upon earlier usages, although in the Gospel they are invested with new meaning. So also it is well known that some of the observances that are now characteristic of Islam were adopted and adapted from pre-existing Arabian usages. In any of these cases, to argue from the forms, without knowing what they were meant to signify, would be manifestly and grossly unfair. It would be similar to the false reasoning, which we have had occasion to notice already, from the primary or etymological signification of a word, without taking note of the sense in which, at a given time and in a particular context, it is employed. And it is necessary now to enter this caveat, because, as we shall have occasion to notice, this mode of reasoning is not a little relied on in the treatment of this subject. Certain observances of the Israelite religion, which are represented by the Biblical writers as commemorative or symbolical of national religious facts, have the outward forms of old observances or popular customs, and several of them are connected with the cycle of the natural year; and the conclusion is drawn, that down to a very recent period the sacred festivals signified nothing more than the bare outward form expressed. Hence the necessity of determining, first of all, as we have endeavoured to do, whether in religious conceptions and beliefs Israel had not at a much earlier period passed beyond the elements of a mere naturalistic faith. Hence also the necessity of caution in reasoning from the mere outward concomitants and expressions of religion to the essence of the thing signified.