ple. The curious fact is that in no one of these does the word matztzebah occur, and that in the last passage the word rendered "pillar" is totally different, being the same as that used for the pillar of cloud and fire in the Exodus. Indeed, except in the case of this example from the temple, the obvious suggestion is that they were natural monoliths taken as marking in simple early times the spots where they lay, and therefore capable of a commemorative1 use, either in situ, as in Joshua's case, or by being expressly moved and "great stone" erected, as in Samuel's. I wonder why the " which Saul bade the people "roll unto him" again as a witness, viz. against their illicit doings, is not added to the list (I Sam. viii. 33). Being closely associated with the "altar built by Saul at the same time (ver. 35), its identification with a matztzebah would at any rate be plausible. Nor need the "one stone" on which Abimelech massacred his seventy brethren have been left out (Judg. ix. 5, 18). If any sizeable stone at which anything is done is a matztzebah, one stone is obviously as good as another in such an argument. The matztzebah proper is always spoken of as distinct from the altar, not as the altar itself; unless its extemporized use by Jacob when a homeless fugitive, referred to in the note above, be taken as a standard, which would be obviously absurd. The Jachin and Boaz pillars are architectural, although of metal, and probably supported a porch of stone. Some have supposed them to be adaptations of some Tyrian design used in a temple of Melkarth. But as there is no suggestion of anything but a structural function in their case,-to which indeed the names obviously point,3-least of all of any ritual function, this antiquarian conjecture does not af fect the question. One might as well claim as matztzeboth 1 Absalom sets up a matztzebah (so in Heb. 2 Sam. xviii. 18) as his own memorial stone. 2So we have "a porch and pillars" (1 Kings vii. 6) as adjuncts of "the house of the forest of Lebanon." & Fachin, "He will establish;" Boaz, "strength therein." the two pillars which Samson pulled down. Nor, indeed, is there any one of the professor's alleged instances which has a better claim to the title. I come next to the prophets. Isaiah (xix. 19) predicts "an altar to Jehovah in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar (matztzebah) in the border thereof to Jehovah. And it shall be for a sign and a witness unto Jehovah of hosts in the land of Egypt." But the altar and the pillar would thus have been miles away from, and out of sight of, each other, the former in the heart of the country, the latter near Rhinocolura. The purpose of the latter is expressly defined, "for a sign and a witness." It is to be a sacred landmark in token of Jehovah's suzerainty, and its local remoteness from the altar measures it remoteness in use from any ritualistic function. Next, Hosea says (iii. 4), probably as realizing the captivity and deportation of the ten tribes, that they "shall abide many days without king, and without prince, and without pillar, and without ephod or teraphim." But when we look at the context with its symbolism of harlotry, which signifies of course idolatry, (cf. v. 3,) "Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the harlot," etc., and read on, "for the children of Israel shall continue. many days without," etc., etc., we see at once that the "sacrifice" and accompaniments of "pillar, ephod, teraphim," are all idolatrous or illicit; and in the kingdom of the ten tribes so they were. So far from Hosea's sanctioning them, he expressly condemns them. The "king" and the "prince" involving the ruin of the state, the rest involves the ruin of the apostate church. The whole fabric, built up, as we know it was, in schismatic rivalry, was to be effaced together. This is a curious sample of exegesis in a man of the professor's undoubted learning. And the above view harmonizes at once Hos. iii. 4 with x. I, 2, which the professor's view sets in hopeless discord. In this latter place Israel is rebuked for the multiplied "altars" and "goodly pillars" of which they are "found guilty," and both of which the avenger is to "smite" and "spoil." So far from these prophets, and especially Hosea, being at variance with the Pentateuchal precepts, Isaiah is consistent with them and Hosea expressly confirms them. The reason for his enumerating the ceremonial items lies, no doubt, in the fact of their being familiarly known, as used in the popular ritual of Samaria and Bethel, where they probably confronted the public eye. Zechariah, it may be as commonly used to added (x. 2), mentions "teraphim " obtain prognostics of the weather, but certainly with a tone of censure rather than approval, and therefore in harmony with Hosea. One may further add, that, if the marginal rendering of the Revised Version, "obelisk," be accepted for matztzebah, there is an obvious propriety in a monument taking that form on the border of Egypt, which is pre-eminently the I think that the attempt to land of monumental obelisks. establish a discord between law and prophecy on this point completely breaks down. [To be concluded.] ARTICLE VI. THE MIRACLES OF THE BIBLE. BY THE REV. ABEL H. HUIZINGA, PH. D., NEW PALTZ, NEW YORK. THE ordinary view as to the nature of the miracles of the Bible may be expressed as follows: God gives us a revelation of his truth and his will, and sends his Son Jesus Christ unto the world as the personal revelation, the Eternal Word, for the redemption and salvation of humanity. This revelation, however, and above all the person and work of Jesus Christ, had to be attested as genuine and truly divine, in order that it might be recognized and accepted as such, and in order that spurious revelations might be detected and exposed. As such attestations we have the miracles. Miracles, then, are such events in external nature or in history as cannot be wrought by natural forces or by human power, but only by the immediate efficiency or simple volition of God; and, being wrought by the immediate efficiency and simple volition of God, their purpose is to serve as the guarantee and voucher for the revelation which he has given, and to prove the divine mission of the prophets and teachers whom he sends, and, by inference, the truth of the doctrines which they teach in his name. But, although this view may be accepted as true to a certain extent, because the miracles undoubtedly served the purpose of gaining credence and confidence for the messengers whom God sent, yet in the ordinary treatment of this subject there is much that is unsatisfactory, because it is not based on a careful and thorough study of all the facts bearing upon the case. To state more clearly, therefore, and fully, than has been done VOL. XLIX. NO. 193. 9 hitherto, the occasion, scope, and design of the miracle, is the aim of this paper. 1. Negatively.-There are reasons for believing that the ordinary statements as to the occasion and design of the miracle must be received with some modifications and limitations. Although it is true that Christ points to the works which he does as showing his divine commission and as intended to win adherence (Matt. xi. 3-5; John v. 20, 36; x. 25; xiv. 11, "Believe me for the very work's sake”), yet, when called upon by unbelieving hearers to perform a miracle or give a sign to prove his Messiahship, he refuses (Matt. xii. 38). A miracle cannot convert a man who will not believe the word of Christ or of the Scriptures. "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." (Luke xvi. 31.) Again, we must remember that not every prophet of God, not every man who had a divine message to bring to his fellow-men, was endowed with this power of working miracles. Every prophet who speaks in the name of God and claims to have received a message from him without performing any miracles to prove such a claim is an argument precluding us from accepting the ordinary statements on the subject as a thoroughly satisfactory solution of the problem of the miracles. Some writers, noting that the occurrence of the miracle is limited to certain periods, have attempted a somewhat modified solution. They maintain that the miracles for the most part occur only at those epochs when the divinity of Jehovah was to be signally demonstrated in contrast with. heathen deities. Under Moses and Joshua this divinity and supremacy of Jehovah were to be demonstrated as against the imaginary gods of Egypt and Canaan. At the time of Ahab the conduct of the people of Israel was apostasy from Jehovah in a grosser form and more absolute sense than had ever existed or been attempted before; and if Israel was not |