with the general doctrine of retribution and requiring explanation by the exceptional theory-" Howbeit, the LORD would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that He had made with David, and as He promised to give a light to him and his sons for ever" (2 Chron. xxi. 6, 7). This exceptional theory is, in truth, subversive of that of personal retribution; but furnished with this additional groove, the key of Jewish interpretation will, it is evident, unlock, to the satisfaction of those who dare so to apply it, any and all the secrets of God's high providence, as over the kingdom of Judah. If the temporal providence does not visibly avenge the notorious sins of the reign, it is for David's sake that the scourge is withheld; while, on the other hand, the evils really suffered may always be referred to sufficient acts of disobedience or default as their explanation. This was (as already observed) a very natural error for religious-minded Jews to fall into, through their belief in the providence of the only true and living God, joined with their ignorance of a future state and consequent inability to appreciate the inner retributions even of the present life; but we ought not to take it as our guide to a true theory of Providence over human affairs, nor need we hesitate to demur to its soundness as applied to the affairs of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel.

There is, indeed, implied in this kind of interpretation (as is evident in the last preceding extract) an assumed acquaintance with the precise temporal designs of Providence in each event, in which we are not prepared, as Christians or as reasoners, to acquiesce; and which is deliberately and severely rebuked in the Jewish sacred literature itself by that most thoughtful and devout poem on Providence, the book of Job. A few more instances may be added, which the writer of Job

would certainly have regarded as presumptuous expositions of the unseen and mysterious providence of God.

Thus it is said (2 Chron. xxxii. 31), "God left him (Hezekiah) to try him, that He might know all that was in his heart." So (2 Chron. xxv. 27), “Now, after the time that Amaziah did turn away from following the LORD, they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem." Again (xxvi. 5), "As long as he (Uzziah) sought the LORD, God made him to prosper. And God

helped him against the Philistines and against the Arabians," &c. (ver. 7). "But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction," &c. (ver. 16). "So Jotham became mighty because he prepared his ways before the LORD his God" (xxvii. 6). Ahaz "walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and made also molten images for Baalim. * * * Wherefore the LORD his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria" (xxviii. 2—5).

But the reader has only to go carefully through the few chapters from which the above extracts are taken, in order to feel the force of the remark, that this doctrine of temporal retributions according to the observance or non-observance of the Jewish Law, is carried out, in these books of Chronicles, to such an extent and with such minuteness as to become palpably untrue to fact.

On a larger and more general view it may be true, and it is true, that the times when the Jewish Law was best observed were those of the greatest national prosperity. And the connection of cause and effect is traceable in this matter, when we remember how good morals were part of the pure religion of the Law, while idolatry was the parent and instigator of licentiousness; for it is true in the everlasting order of Providence, on the great scale of human history the world over, that "Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach

to any people." But this great truth is exaggerated and distorted into what is no longer true, by the attempt to expound each particular incident of human history as the special expression of the moral will of the Divine Being. Jewish and Christian zeal have alike erred in this attempt.

EZRA AND NEHEMIAH,

OR THE HISTORY OF THE RETURN FROM BABYLON.

THE books of Kings and Chronicles have brought down the Jewish history to the times of the Assyrian and the Babylonish captivities, which severally terminated the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

But of the state of the Jewish nation in captivity (or exile, as some prefer calling it), sacred history gives no regular account. A few incidental allusions in the books of the Prophets are all that throw any light upon this sad, but important and salutary, period. Sacred history seems to have laid down the pen in shame and sorrow until the restoration, when Ezra and Nehemiah, who respectively led the second and the third detachments of captives home-prince Zerubbabel having headed the first-wrote the history of this re-colonizing of the land. Josephus passes by the period of the captivity in the same moody silence.

A few dates, in Babylonian and Persian, as well as Jewish history, may be useful here, to shew at a glance the extent of this gap in the Bible history.

KINGDOM OF ISRAEL:

First deportation of Israelites from Galilee and

Gilead, in the reign of Pekah, by Tiglath

Pileser, king of Assyria (2 Kings xv. 27-29) B. C. 741

Samaria taken by Shalmanezer (2 Kings xviii.
9-12)

KINGDOM OF JUDAH:

Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, subdued
Jehoiakim (2 Kings xxiv. 1)

Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem, carried away
its ablest inhabitants, and made Zedekiah
titular king (2 Kings xxiv. 17)

590

(generally counted as the date of the Babylonian captivity.)
Nebuchadnezzar took Zedekiah to Babylon....
[Accession of Cyrus to the Persian throne, and his

decree permitting the return of the Jews. 536] First return of captives under prince Zerubbabel (Ezra i. ii. iii.).

[Cambyses began to reign

536

....

529]

The building hindered in the reign of Artaxerxes (Ezra iv. 7) (Cambyses, according to Josephus)..

[Darius Hystaspis began to reign........ 522] Decree of Darius for the prosecution of the work (Ezra vi.)

.....

[Xerxes began to reign.

[Artaxerxes Longimanus

4867

464]

Second return of captives under Ezra (Ezra vii.-) .
Third return under Nehemiah, the cup-bearer of
Artaxerxes (Neh. i.-xii.)

Thus it appears that, from the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 599 to the decree of Cyrus in 536, there were 63 years. The captivity is, however, spoken of by Jeremiah, in round numbers, as lasting 70 years, which those who think it necessary may obtain pretty exactly by counting from the date of Jehoiakim's becoming tributary to the Babylonish king.

It is to be observed that, from this time forward, there is no mention of any distinction between Israel and Judah; and on the assumption that only Judahites (and Levites) came up with Zerubbabel's, Ezra's and Nehe

miah's colonies, it has been earnestly inquired, though without arriving at any positive satisfaction, what can have become of the ten tribes who were carried away by Shalmanezer. Of course they fell, with the Assyrian empire, under the power of the Babylonians; and the most natural opinion would seem to be, that the rivalry of feeling between Judah and Israel was lost when they were become companions in misfortune, and that they were not only considered by their conquerors, but also felt themselves, as one people. It is even possible, in spite of their strong nationality as Jews, that, during the 120 years between the two captivities, many of the descendants of the exiled Israelites may have become intermixed in marriage with the Assyrian and Babylonian population. But it can hardly be reasonable to suppose that the ten tribes have continued separate both from the Gentile nations and from the other Jewish tribes, and to look for their descendants (as some theorists have done) in the far East of Asia, or to claim the North American Indians as their representatives.

There is no reason to think that the captivity of the Jews in Babylon was a scene of severe oppression. Exile and denationalization were sad enough, it is true; but we need not picture to ourselves a scene of slavery or personal degradation. Several Jews are put upon record as having risen to high office in the Babylonian and Persian courts. Daniel was a minister of state; Nehemiah was the personal attendant of Royalty as cupbearer; Mordecai was in office in the palace. A Jewess once enjoyed the slippery elevation of queen to a Persian king. When the decree permitting their return to their own land was issued, few Jews availed themselves of it. Many were far too prosperous and comfortable to wish for any change. They were chiefly the poorer and hardier classes, in whom the spirit of nation