all their soul, to perform the words of this Covenant that were written in this Book. And all the people stood to the Covenant.' 547. If we met with the above narrative in any other book than the Bible, it would be natural to wish to examine more closely into the statement, and see what this occurrence really means, by which the young king was influenced to take in hand so strenuously the Reformation of Religion throughout the land. The High-Priest | 'finds' this Book of the Law in the Temple. If it really had been written by Moses, where, we might ask, had it been lying all this while, during more than eight centuries? 548. It could not have been in the Ark; for then Hilkiah would not have 'found' it, as he dared not look into the Ark: and, besides, we are expressly told that there was 'nothing in the Ark save the two tables of stone,' 1K.viii.9. Nor could it have been lying for those eight centuries beside the ark. For then, surely, it would have been named among the things, that were brought into the Temple by Solomon; and, at all events, it would have been well known to David and Solomon and other pious kings, as well as to the successive High Priests, and we should not find them so regardless of so many of its plain precepts, as the history shows them to have been, e.g. with respect to the worshipping on high places, and the neglect of the due observance of the Passover. 549. When, further, we consider that in this same Book of Deuteronomy is found also the command, said to have been given by Moses to the Levites, xxxi. 26, Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside (E.V. in the side of,' but see R.ii.14, she sat beside the reapers,' 1S.vi.8, in a coffer by the side thereof,' &c.) the Ark of the Covenant of Jehovah your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee,' it is scarcely possible to resist the suspicion that the writing of the Book, the placing it, and the finding it, were pretty nearly contemporaneous events; and that, if there was no king before Josiah,'-not David, in his best days, nor Solomon, in his early youth,—not Asa, nor Jehoshaphat, nor Hezekiah, that turned to Jehovah with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses,' 2K.xxiii.25, it may have been because there was no king before him who had ever seen this portion, at least, of the Pentateuch, or had believed that such parts of it, as had come into his hands, were really authoritative, and binding upon himself and his people, as containing the direct utterances of the Divine Will. 550. And this suspicion seems to be confirmed into a certainty, when we call to mind the proofs which we have already had before us, that Deuteronomy was written in a later age than the rest of the Pentateuch, and when we consider more closely the account which is given us of the finding of this Book of the Law.' For, first, it could hardly have been the whole Pentateuch, that Hilkiah now found. He gave it, we are told, to Shaphan, and Shaphan read it,'-perhaps, read only part of it, --or, as the Chronicler says, 'read in it,' 2Ch.xxxiv. 18,-before he returned to the king on the business, about which he had been sent to the Temple. And Shaphan read it also before the king, and appears to have read to him all the words of the Book. 551. But, at all events, the next day again,-perhaps, the same day,— the king himself, we are told, read in the ears of the people all the words of the Book of the Covenant, which was found in the House of Jehovah.' It cannot be supposed that he would read on this occasion all the histories in Genesis, the long account of the construction of the Tabernacle and its vessels, or the details of the Levitical Law. Besides, the Book found by Hilkiah is repeatedly called the 'Book of the Covenant,' 2K.xxiii.2,3,21, which name can scarcely have been used of the whole Pentateuch, though it very well applies to Deuteronomy, or to the chief portion of that Book, since we find it written, D.xxix.1,— These are the words of the Covenant. which Jehovah commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the Covenant which He made with them in Horeb.' 552. Again, this 'Book of the Law,' which was found by Hilkiah, contained also directions about the Passover, 555. And then a great Passover was held by the king in Jerusalem. For once, it would seem, the attempt was made to draw the great body of the people thither: and never, we are told, 2K.xxiii.21, such as we find in D.xvi. 1-8, and severe denunciations of the Divine displeasure against all who transgressed the commands contained in it, 2Kxxii. 13, such as we find in D.xi.16,17,xxix. 18-28, xxx.15-20, and, especially, in D.xxviii.15-68. And it led directly to the putting down, with a strong hand, of every kind of idolatrous practice, of all groves, high places, altars, &c., as we read in 2K. xxiii. 24: Moreover the familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations, that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the Law, which were written in the Book, that Hilkiah the Priest found in the House of Jehovah.' And this too was in accordance with the commands of the Book of Deuteronomy, xii.2,3, xiii, xvi.21,22, xvii.2-7, xviii. 10-12. 553. In short, the whole description of the nature and effect of the words contained in this Book of the Law,' which was read in the ears of the people, shows that it must have been the Book of Deuteronomy. Accordingly, we have seen already, and shall see yet more plainly, as we proceed, that there are internal signs in this Book, which tend to fix the date of its composition to somewhere about this period in the Jewish history. 554. It was, we may believe, the desire of Hilkiah, and, perhaps, of men of yet higher mind about the young king, to take advantage of his own religious and impressible spirit, and of the humbled state of the people, when Judah had been brought low through the oppressions of Manasseh, and the ten tribes had been carried into captivity, to abolish once for all the idolatrous practices which had so long prevailed, and to try to bind the hearts of the remnant of Israel to the Court and to the Temple at Jerusalem. And so there ensued at once, upon the discovery of this Book of the Law,' a complete Reformation of Religion throughout the land, with a thorough and violent rooting up of all idolatrous practices, as described in 2K.xxiii. from the days of the Judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the Kings of Israel, nor of the Kings of Judah,'— was such a Passover held, as this that was held in the eighteenth year of king Josiah. But we have no sign whatever of any other such Passover being held even in the reign of Josiah. Perhaps, after a time, the young king also became aware of the real facts of the case, and his zeal may have been damped by this discovery. At all events, we hear no more of any such gatherings. 556. Nor is there the least indication that the other two Feasts were kept by Josiah with similar solemnity in that very same year. And yet the Law is laid down with equal distinctness for all three Feasts in E.xxiii.17, xxxiv.23,24. And according to these laws,Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before Jehovah,'it was just as necessary that they should go up to Jerusalem at the Feast of Pentecost, and especially at the Feast of Tabernacles, at which, once in seven years, the Law was to be read in the ears of the assembled people, D.xxxi. 10-13,- -as at the Passover. CHAPTER V. THE BOOK FOUND IN JOSIAH'S REIGN, THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. 557. WE shall reserve for the present the full discussion of the very interesting question, to which we have before referred (539-541), and which was first raised by von BOHLEN, viz., whether the book of Deuteronomy is to be ascribed to the hand of Jeremiah, who was himself a Priest, the son of Hilkiah, Jer. i.1, and was called to the Prophetical office in the thirteenth year' of the reign of king Josiah, v.2, five years before the discovery of the Book of the Law in the eighteenth year of his reign,' 2K.xxii.3. 558. But we shall here consider what HÄVERNICK says on the subject of this 'discovery.' Pent.p.407-413. 'DE WETTE has come to the conclusion that, in the discovery of the Book of the Law in the Temple, the first certain trace of the existence of a Mosaic Book is to be found.' But the following considerations speak most decidedly against this. (i) The very words, 'I have found the Book of the Law,' v.8, clearly show the contrary. How could the High Priest use these words in delivering the Book to Shaphan, supposing that the latter knew nothing at all about it? Both individuals, on the contrary, are so well acquainted with it, that it only requires to be designated by this its known name, for one to know what it is.' first four Books of the Pentateuch. But, let it be well observed, the contents of those first four Books are of a very different character from those of Deuteronomy. They consist mainly, as we have said, of historical narratives, or ceremonial directions, while thirteen whole chapters of Exodus are devoted to the minute description of the details of the construction and setting up of the Tabernacle. In Deuteronomy it is the moral Law which is delivered throughout, in some of the most impressive language that has ever been written. (iv) 'It would also, assuredly, be a decidedly false conclusion, to infer a general nonacquaintance with the Pentateuch from the circumstance of the king's betraying an ignorance of its contents. In such a Court as must have existed during the long reign of Manasseh, does not such an ignorance appear quite probable, and admit of being so explained?' Ans. We believe that the greater portion of the first four Books of the Pentateuch had long been composed, and that the fact was known, more or less, to the more eminent men of the day, and even to the people gene- Ans. Josiah had already reigned seventeen rally, that some 'written Law' at one time years, and, when he came to the throne, he existed. Perhaps, in the time of Josiah's was too young,-indeed, only eight years old, idolatrous grandfather, Manasseh, or even 2K.xxii.1,-to have been very much influenced before his time, the roll of the Pentateuch, or, by the state of things in the Court of Manasseh, rather, as we believe, the Tetrateuch, had dis--laying out of consideration the story, which appeared. It may have been lying, little heeded or even noticed, among the archives of the Temple, and so came into the hands of the successive High Priests, until it reached those of Hilkiah, and those of the Deuteronomist. (ii) The conduct of the king and of the Court is inexplicable, supposing that they now for the first time heard news of this Book. We find no sign in the narrative of mistrust or astonishment on their part at the existence of such a Book. Would the king have been seized with such terror, when he heard the words of this Book? Would. he immediately have adopted such energetic measures, if he had not recognised it at once as authentic?' Ans. No doubt, the king believed it to be authentic. He, too, was aware that some such a Book had once existed; and if, for some time past, the Book of Deuteronomy was, as we suppose, in actual process of composition, we may be sure that measures would have been taken to keep alive in his thoughts, and in the thoughts of others, the remembrance of that fact, until the day of the 'discovery.' This would explain fully the words of Hilkiah just considered, I have found the Book of the Law in the House of Jehovah, as well as the apparent want of surprise on the part both of Shaphan and the king, apparent, we say, because none, at all events, is betrayed in the Scripture narrative, whatever may have been really the case. (iii) Further, the narrative says not a word of the king's astonishment respecting the existence of the Book, but only respecting its contents, and the long non-observance of the Law and the refractory opposition to it. When he complains that the fathers had not acted according to it, it is evident that he must have been convinced that the Law was known and accessible to them.' Ans. No doubt: this precisely agrees with our own view of the previous existence of the the Chronicler gives us, of Manasseh's deep repentance and reformation, 2Ch.xxxiii.12-16, according to which he must have restored the Law, (supposed by the Chronicler to have been in full operation in the days of his father Hezekiah, 2Ch.xxx.5,16, xxxi.3,21,) if he knew of it. But, according to the more authentic history of the book of Kings, Josiah from the first did that which was right in the sight of Jehovah, and walked in all the ways of David his father,' 2K.xxii.2; and from his youth he must have been, we may believe, in these early days of his reign, greatly under the influence of the High Priest, Hilkiah. If, then, during the first seventeen years of his reign, this pious young king was all the while ignorant of the contents of the Book of the Law,' as HAVERNICK admits, it is surely inconceivable that the people generally were better informed with the few individuals, who were privy to about it, whatever may have been the case the present movement. And, indeed, the whole story of the reading of the Book to the people, 2K.xxiii, implies this. (v) But the opposite of this conclusion may be proved convincingly (!) from the narrative itself. The king sends a message to the respecting the Book' and its declarations. Prophetess, Huldah, and makes enquiry of her She then at once confirms the truth of those words by a Prophetic declaration, and evidently knows the Book that is spoken of, for she says, All the words of this Book, wherein the king hath read, shall be fulfilled." Ans. Upon HÄVERNICK'S supposition, how could Huldah have known the Book? If she knew it, why did not Hilkiah the High Priest, and the King himself, know it? It is clear that the idea cannot be maintained. It would be more reasonable to say that she recognised the words of the Book, when she heard them, (as she might have heard them from the messengers sent to consult her,) as Divine words, or that she may have given her attestation to the Book by prophetic instinct. But, ac cording to our view, Huldah, most probably, did know the Book; for she was in the secret, and shared the hope of a great Reformation. And this may seem, at first sight, to be confirmed by the fact, that she actually makes verbal references to favourite expressions of the Deuteronomist. Thus in 2K.xxii.17 we read that they might provoke me to anger through all the work of their hands,' as in D.xxxi.29, to provoke Him to anger through the work of your hands.' And we have also the following resemblances; (a) v.17, forsake' Jehovah (528.vi.); (B)other gods,' D.v.7, vi.14, vii.4, viii.19, xi.16,28, xiii. 2,6,13, xvii.3, xviii.20, xxviii. 14, 36,64, xxix.26, xxx.17, xxxi.18,20, and also E.xx.3, xxiii.13, xxxiv.14; (y) provoke' (527.iv.); (8)work of the hands' (527.ii.); (e) v.19, shammah, desolation,' (E.V. 'astonishment,') D.xxviii.37, nowhere else in the Pentateuch; (5) kělalah, 'curse,' D.xi.28,29, xxi.23, xxiii.5, xxvii,13, xxviii.15,45, xxix.27, and also G.xxvii.12,13. These coincidences can hardly be accidental. And, if we could be sure that the text really records the words of Huldah, they would show decisively that she must have been familiar with the Book of Deuteronomy, and, therefore, as she could not have known it, in the usual way, as a Book publicly known, (since then the King and High Priest must have known it also,) it would follow beyond a doubt that she knew it privately,-that there was some such a course pursued as we have supposed, and that Huldah was privy to it. But it is very possible that these are not really the words of Huldah, but those ascribed to her by the writer of the narrative. We have suggested (539-541) that Jeremiah may have been the Deuteronomist, and the reasons which lend support to this conjecture shall be produced in due time; and we also believe, with many critics, that the latter part of the Second Book of Kings may have been written by this Prophet, who was contemporary with the events described in it. Thus Dr. DAVIDSON, ii.37, while not giving his own assent to this hypothesis, observes-According to the Talmudists, followed by many of the older theologians, Jeremiah was the compiler of the Book of Kings. This opinion has been adopted in modern times by HÄVERNICK and GRAF, &c.' The many points of coincidence between this passage, 2K.xxii.16-20, and Jeremiah, as well as Deuteronomy, are, indeed, remarkable, as follows: (a) v.17, forsake Jehovah,' Jer.i.16,ii.13,17, 19,v.7,19, ix.13, xvi.11,11, xvii. 13, xix.4, xxii.9. (B) other gods,' Jer.i.16, vii.6,9,18, xi.10, xiii.10, xvi.11,13, xix.4,13, xxii.9, xxv.6, xxxii. 29, xxxv.15, xliv.3,5,8,15. (y) provoke,' Jer.vii.18,19, viii.19, xi.17, xxv.6,7, xxxii. 29,30,32, xliv.3,8. where else in the Bible, except in the duplicate of the passage now before us, 2Ch.xxxiv.25. Also the complete phrase 'desolation and a curse' occurs in Jer.xxv.18, xlii. 18, xliv.12,22, and nowhere else in the Bible,-though the two words occur separately in Deuteronomy. If this second conjecture be true, it would be easy to account for Jeremiah's putting his own expressions into the mouth of Huldah. (vi) Hence the Prophetess Huldah must have had a share in the concerted scheme.' But we meet here with a fresh confirmation of our view. Not only does the Prophetess give confirmation to the Book that has been discovered, but it is also read out of, in presence of the Priests, the Prophets, and the whole people! What a conjoint plot must this concerted scheme' have been ! Who were the persons deceived here, since all appear to have nothing else in view than to deceive?' Ans. It is obvious that very few beside the writer may have been privy to the scheme,perhaps, only the Priest Hilkiah, and, possibly, Huldah, and one or two others. (vii) The relations between the Priests and Prophets of that age were not exactly of the kind that will allow us to imagine such a combination, (see Jer.viii.8,) in which both parties joined hand in favour of falsehood, which the Prophets on other occasions so unsparingly expose and rebuke.' Ans. Jer.viii.8 does not refer to the time of Hilkiah. But, as we have said, there is no reason to suppose that the Priests and Prophets, generally, were privy to the affair. (viii) We must accordingly suppose that, in the time of Josiah, even according to our narrative, the Book of the Law' was by no means generally unknown, and that it is only the king in particular that betrays an ignorance of its contents, yet without showing a total ignorance of the existence of the Book.' Ans. Rather, it seems impossible-if the people, generally, had knowledge of the contents of the Book,-that, at the same time, the king,- such a king as Josiah, who from his youth did that which was right in the sight of Jehovah,' 2K.xxii.2,-should have been totally ignorant of them. It is probable that both king and people knew of a written Law having once existed. (ix) This circumstance rises to a still greater certainty, when we consider that, even before the finding of that Book, the king had made reforms with regard to the idolatry which had prevailed to a great extent.' Ans. This fact, if true, would only make it more inconceivable than ever that the king should have been more ignorant of the contents of the Book than his idolatrous people were. But the account of this earlier attempt of Josiah, for the Reformation of Religion in his land, rests only on the unsupported statement of the Chronicler, who says that in his eighth year he began to seek after the God of David his father, and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from The full phrase 'burn incense to other gods' the high places and the groves, and the carved occurs in Jer.i.16, xix.4, xliv.5,8,15, and no-images, and the molten images,&c.' 2Ch.xxxiv. (8)work of the hands,' (539.ii.) (e) shammah, desolation,' Jer.ii.15, iv.7, v.30, &c., twenty-four places. : (5) kělalah, curse,' Jer.xxiv.9, xxv.18, xxvi.6, xxix.22, xlii.18, xliv.8,12,22, xlix.13. 3-7,-in fact, carrying out at that early age, of his own mere motion, the very Reformation, which, according to the more trustworthy Book of Kings, only followed the finding and reading the Book of the Law.' (x) Josiah does know that there is a 'Book of the Law,' and he is partially acquainted, probably by tradition, with the matter of its contents, as is shown by his obeying its Commandments. But now, by a remarkable occurrence, the discovery of the Temple copy, -his knowledge of it is not only made complete, but a powerful impression is also produced on his heart; it now becomes the purpose of his life to live as far as possible according to such a Law in its entire extent. In this way, the whole history of the occurrence and the life of the king stand in perfect accordance with each other.' Ans. The only reason for supposing that Josiah was partially acquainted with the contents of the Book, is, as HÄVERNICK says, the fact, that he is represented as 'obeying its commandments' in the purging of his land from idolatries. But this, as we have said, rests only on the authority of the Chronicler, and is contradicted by the whole tenor of the story, as told in the book of Kings. If Josiah, indeed, had been partially acquainted' with the contents of such a Book, we may be sure that he would have taken care to make himself fully acquainted with it; and, in fact, Josiah was just the person, if ever king of Judah was, to have literally fulfilled the command laid down for every king in D.xvii.18-20, -to copy out the Law with his own hand. We believe that both king and people were 'partially acquainted by tradition' with the fact that a Law-Book once existed, and even with the general nature of its contents. But we see no signs of their being acquainted with the details of the present Pentateuch. (xi) But, apart also from all these arguments, if we only consider the matter more seriously for a moment, as it appears when viewed in itself, the inadmissibility of the hypothesis, advanced by the opponents of the genuineness, is clearly exhibited. A Book, which penetrates so deeply into the whole life of the nation, impressing on it the most peculiar character,-which comes forward with the most direct opposition to an age sunken in idolatry, and unsparingly denounces war against it,--which is promulgated at a time when the Prophets, such even as Jeremiah, were exposed to the mockery of frivolous contemporaries, from whom neither Law nor Prophecy could expect any hearty recognition, this book is said to make its appearance suddenly, being a deceptive fabrication of the Priests, announcing to the people their punishment, and producing the deepest impression upon them, without anyone raising the cry of deceit and falsehood, without a voice being raised against it, when it appears to have been the interest of all to detect and expose the falseness of the book, and the deception which had been practised with it! Yet there was nothing more simple and easy than the adduction of proof in such a case, which besides could not but reckon on the accordance and sympathy of numbers.' Ans. (a) There was every reason to expect that, at first, the whole body of the people would be greatly affected by the discovery,both because they had a general traditionary knowledge of the existence of some such a book in former days, and because of the earnestness with which the king and leading men rcceived it, as well as because of the solemn and impressive character of the language of the book itself,-especially, that part of it, Deuteronomy, which we believe to have been read in their hearing. (B) But how do we know that no voice was raised against it,-if not immediately, in the first years of zeal, upon the new discovery, yet afterwards, at all events, when men's feelings began to cool, and they began to reconsider the matter? We have no record except from one, who may himself have been a party to the whole scheme,-who may, indeed, have been the chief person concerned. (y) We do not, in fact, find that even the thrilling language of this book made any great permanent impression on the people. There is no sign, as we have said, that the Passover was ever kept again with such solemnity, or that the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles,-respecting which the command is laid down so distinctly in E.xxiii.14-17,xxxiv.22-24,L.xxiii.15-21,33-36, D.xvi.16, where we find it so strongly enjoined, 'Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before Jehovah thy God in the place which He shall choose, in the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and in the Feast of Weeks, and in the Feast of Tabernacles, and they shall not appear before Jehovah empty,'were ever kept at all, even by Josiah. (8) It would seem also that not till the reign of Zedekiah, the son of Josiah, did the king and princes and all the people,'-probably at the instance of Jeremiah himself,-make a covenant to carry out the law in D.xv.12, for releasing their Hebrew servants, and this covenant they presently broke, Jer.xxxiv.8-11. So, too, all the solemn threatenings of the Law did not prevent the children of Judah from remembering their altars and their groves by the green trees upon the high hills,' Jer.xvii.2,-from loving and serving, walking after, seeking, worshipping, 'the sun and the moon and all the host of heaven,' Jer.viii.2,from having gods according to the number of their cities, and setting up altars, according to the number of the streets of Jerusalem, to that shameful thing, even to burn incense unto Baal,' Jer.xi.13. (xii) 'The copy found in the Temple was beyond dispute the Temple copy. It is quite an useless question, whether it was the autograph of Moses, or a later transcription instead of it; for even in the latter case it should be regarded as being as good as the autograph, with as much justice as if we should say that the Temple, when repaired by Josiah, still remained Solomon's Temple. . . It is manifest how easily such a copy, unobserved, might remain, especially as it did not lie in the Ark itself, and be neglected,-how easily even, under Priests who, to please the Kings, favoured, rather than hindered, idolatrous practices, especially under Josiah's immediate predecessors, the obnoxious testimony of |