the house of Obed Edom to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 16: 12 seq.).—So Lowth, Schnurrer, Rosenmüller. 3. Composed by David, to celebrate a victory over the heathen.— Aben Ezra. 4. Composed in the time of David, to celebrate the bringing back of the ark after a victorious battle with north-eastern enemies, to wit, Syrians and Ammonites (see 2 Sam. 8-12).-Böttcher. 5. Celebrates the bringing back of the ark to the temple after a victorious battle, subsequent to David's reign and before the separation into the kingdoms of Judah and Israel.-De Wette. 6. A joint victory of the two kingdoms over the Moabites.-Hitzig. 7. Hezekiah's deliverance from the invasion of Sennacherib, king of Assyria (2 Kings 19: 35, 36).-D. Kimchi. 8. Celebrates in a general way the praises of Jehovah as the God of victory, occasioned however by some occurrence that took place between Judah and Egypt about the close of the seventh century B. C. -Rödiger, Lengerke. 9. The dedication of the second temple.-Ewald. The reader in casting his eye over this list will perceive that the differences of opinion among the ablest commentators as to the period to which this composition belongs, are so great as to cover, like the theories respecting the date of the book of Job, the entire history of the Jewish nation. The conclusion which naturally arises to the mind from such an exhibition of conflicting views, is that the question, for want of sufficient data, is incapable of a satisfactory solution; and such perhaps is really the case. Still, while we have before us the wonderful disclosures which modern criticism is constantly making with regard to matters apparently far more difficult and hopeless than this, it would be presumptuous in the extreme to set a limit to its powers and affirm that what now is doubtful must necessarily remain so forever. Let us then endeavor in the meantime, by weighing the scanty evidence presented to us, to ascertain which of these views has the greatest probabilities in its favor, and thus contribute our mite to the final settlement of the question, if that be possible. Of course the early expositors, both Jews and Christians, who received the superscriptions of the psalms as of equal antiquity and authority with the psalms themselves, were unanimous in attributing this one to David. But when it came to be shown that many of these inscriptions are manifestly erroneous, and that consequently as a whole they are of no authority whatever, the date of the present composition was gradually lowered by critics until finally placed by Ewald at the completion of Zerubbabel's temple. The reason why they did so is, 1848.] Date is after David and before the Captivity. 339 that the psalm contains expressions and allusions which seem inconsistent with the supposition that it was written at so early a date as the reign of David. Thus we have already shown, in commenting on the psalm, that the ,(30 .v) הוֹבִיל שֵׁי v. 6) and) מְעוֹן קָדְשׁוֹ first writer that uses the phrases and whose age is known with certainty, is Isaiah. Again, in v. 32 we have a prediction respecting the future submission of Egypt and Cush to Jehovah. Now such joint predictions are not found in the Hebrew writings until the period when Upper Egypt was united to Ethiopia under the same sovereigns in the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah kings of Judah,1 when they became quite common; see Is. 18: 7. 19: 18, 21, 23. 20: 3, 4, 5. 43: 3. 45: 14. 46: 8, 9. Nah. 3: 9. Ezek. 30: 4, 9. Dan. 11: 42, 43. Ps. 87: 4. suming with a good degree of likelihood that this psalm was not composed before the reign of Ahaz. With this agrees well the character of the whole production, which in its historical reminiscences bears a strong family resemblance to the later psalms 78, 80, 81, 105, 106, 135, 136. As to the particular passages, compare the likening of manna to rain (v. 10) with Ps. 78: 24; the antithetic use of These facts warrant us in as and (v. 11) with Ps. 74: 19; the future gathering together of enemies for punishment (vs. 23 and 24) with Joel 4: 2 [3: 2]. Amos 9: 1-4. Ps. 139: 7-10; the coming of kings with gifts (v. 30) with Ps. 72: 10; and the description of God's glory (vs. 34 and 35) with Deut. 33: 26. On the other hand the psalm cannot well have been produced after the captivity. Though historical in its character, it does not contain the slightest reference to that great event. Its bold, free style, abounding in ana leyóueva and other rare words, bespeaks an origin anterior to the period when the language had lost much of its original purity and vigor. Moreover, the enumeration of the tribes, v. 28, is altogether opposed to the assumption of a date when all the tribes had become fused together into a single nation of Jews. In accordance with these arguments, the events which the psalm celebrates should lie between the accession of Ahaz to the throne of Judah B. C. 741 and the deposition of Zedekiah by Nebuchadnezzar B. C. 588. It is true that the mention of the tribes Judah and Benjamin, Zebulon and Naphtali, would naturally suggest a period either before the separation of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel or when they were united together against their common enemies in the days of Jehoshaphat and Ahab (1 Kings 22) or of Ahaziah and Jehoram (2 Kings 8: 25-29). But if the indications just pointed out are to 'See Gesenius, Com. on Isaiah, I. p. 595-599. be relied on, we must account for the appearance of these names in some other way. Thus we may suppose that many individuals from the northern tribes had either been left behind in their own country or had taken refuge in Judah when the main body of the population was carried off, and that these had assisted their kinsmen and protectors in the late battle. From various concurrent circumstances, this enemy is to be sought in the north-east. These circumstances are the mention of the Araboth traversed by the returning host (v. 5); the repeated allusions to Bashan as an inimical region (vs. 16 and 23); and the epithet of the enemy's king, beast of the reeds, meaning the lion, so similar to that applied to a northern enemy by Jeremiah (v. 31). The conclusion to which they lead us is corroborated by the fact that the psalmist has taken as his model the Song of Deborah and Barak (see remarks on verses 2, 5, 18, 7, 13, 14, 19, 31, 32), not improbably because the latter celebrates a victory over a northern enemy in ancient times. All these facts and arguments seem to indicate that the psalm was composed somewhere between the reigns of Ahaz and Zedekiah shortly after a battle between the forces of Judah assisted by Israelites on the one side and a north-eastern people, say the Syrians, on the other, in which the former were partially victorious; while the predictions in verses 23, 24, and 32, appear to refer to previous struggles with Egypt and Ethiopia. To come to a more definite conclusion than this and point to some occurrence within the limits specified which shall completely answer to the indications set forth, is a difficult if not an impossible task. The sudden destruction of Sennacherib's army, it is true, suggests itself at once; and history relates many circumstances preceding, attending, and following it (especially if we adopt the account of Hezekiah's reign as given in the book of Chronicles), which admirably suit this psalm; for which reason Kimchi, and it is said many other rabbins,1 interpreted it of that memorable event. But there are two circumstances which forbid us to adopt this exposition; one is the fact that, according to all the ancient authorities, the defeat of the Assyrian army was produced without any agency of the Jews, who were shut up in their capital at the time; the other is the good understanding which then existed between Judah and Egypt. The brief annals of Judah from Manasseh to Jehoahaz (2 Kings 21: 1-23: 3) offer no occurrence to which the psalm can be referred. We are thus brought to the conclusion, already arrived at by Prof. Rödiger and adopted by 1 Poli Synopsis Criticorum, ad Ps. LXVIII. 2 2 Kings 19: 35. Herodotus 2. 141. Berosus in Josephus, Antiqq. 10, 1. 1848.] Time of composition about B. C. 700. 341 Lengerke, that the event which gave rise to the psalm must have occurred in the time of Necho king of Egypt near the close of the seventh century, B. C. If required to specify the occasion more nearly, I would suggest that it may have been one of the contests with nations east of the Jordan in the time of Jehoiakim mentioned 2 Kings 24: 2. It is true that these contests are spoken of as resulting unfavorably to the Jews; but we may suppose that, although adverse on the whole, victory sometimes inclined to the side of the latter. If this be objected to as unsatisfactory, I can only lament, as many have done before me, that want of certain information which such conjectures can but ill supply. But though some points still remain subject to doubt, the labor devoted to the exposition of this psalm will not have been spent in vain, provided we have truly explained its general scope and design, and exhibited the connection in which its several parts stand to each other so as to constitute a harmoniously proportioned whole. This is plainly the first duty of an expositor, and forms the only true and legitimate groundwork for the higher exegesis of any portion of the Sacred Writings. This alone can gradually bring the world to something like unity of opinion respecting their meaning, and release them from the condition of a nose of wax in the hands of ingenious theologians to be twisted into any shape that may suit their purposes. Entertaining these views, it will not be surprising that, to use the words of bishop Patrick, “I have forborne a great many mystical and allegorical senses of words, and rather adhered to the literal meaning, though accounted trivial and vulgar by many men; who had rather indulge to their own fancies than be at the pains of making a diligent inquiry after the truth. For, whatsoever is pretended, it is not the easiness and meanness of the literal sense which have made it to be despised, and been the cause of allegorizing the Scriptures; but the great difficulty and labor that are required to the finding of it out in many places." 29* ARTICLE VII. OF THE DIVINE AGENCY IN THE PRODUCTION OF MATERIAL PHENOMENA. By George I. Chace, Prof. of Chemistry and Geology, Brown University. WHAT is matter? Has it a real existence, or is it merely phenomenal? Does it consist of atoms, endowed each with certain properties, or is it made up of points, around each of which certain powers are constantly manifested? Has it a separate and independent existence and does it act by virtue of its own inherent energies, or are the effects which we commonly refer to matter, in reality due to the Divine power exerted within certain prescribed limits and according to certain prescribed laws? Is the external world through all its parts and in all its relations, what our senses represent it to us, or are we deceived by our senses and led to infer reality or substance where there are only appearances On this question, the schools, both in ancient and modern times, have been divided. The Hindoo sages, who three thousand years ago, taught philosophy upon the banks of the Indus and the Ganges, inculcated the belief in simple phenomena. According to their doctrine, matter has no real existence. It is only the sensible manifestation of the Divine essence. The world is a perpetual creation; the universe a vast system of appearances, supported and kept up by the constant presence and power of the Deity. It is in fact, Brahm, their supreme God, acting. When this great being sinks into repose, which according to the Indian mythology has repeatedly happened, then all matter is annihilated, and spirits even " endowed with principles of action, depart from their several acts," and go to be reäbsorbed in the Divine substance. When at length, after ages of slumber, he again wakes to action, then the universe once more appears, pervaded in every part by life, order and beauty. The ancient Egyptian philosophers, less subtile and refined in their speculations, were content to admit the existence of matter on the simple testimony of the senses. They however supposed it to be pervaded everywhere by the Deity, and ascribed to this cause the exhibition of its powers and properties. Indeed, the triads so universally worshipped in the temples on the Nile, were only personified types or emblems of a primary law of nature regulating and controll |