of my readers, I can at least say, that, while I have never written what was not in accordance with my own

conscientious conviction, nor sought to invent an explanation merely in order to get rid of a difficulty, my

own reverent belief in the authority of the Word of God has not in any one case been the least shaken. It

sounds almost presumptuous to write down such a confession. Yet it seems called for in clays when the

enumeration of difficulties, easily raised, owing to the distance of these events, the great difference of

circumstances, and the necessary scantiness of our materials of knowledge - whether critical, historical, or

theological, - so often takes the place of sober inquiry; and high-sounding phrases which, logically tested,

yield no real meaning, are substituted for solid reasoning.

As in the course of this volume I have strictly kept by the Biblical narratives to be illustrated, I may perhaps

be allowed here to add a bare statement of three facts impressed on me by the study of early Old Testament

history.

First, I would mark the difference between the subjective and objective aspects of its theology. However

low, comparatively speaking, may have been the stage occupied by Israel in their conceptions of, and

dealings with God, yet the manifestations of the Divine Being are always so sublime that we could not

conceive them h igher at any later period. As we read their account we are still as much overawed and

solemnized as they who had witnessed them. In illustration, we refer to the Divine manifestations to Elijah

and Elisha. In fact, their sublimeness increases in proportion as the human element, and consequently the

Divine accommodation to it, recedes. Secondly, even as regards man's bearing towards the Lord, the Old

Testament never presents what seems the fundamental character of all ancient heathen religions. The object

of Israel's worship and services was never to deprecate, but to pray. There was no malignant deity or fate to

be averted, but a Father Who claimed love and a King Who required allegiance. Lastly, there is never an

exhibition of mere power on the part of the Deity, but always a moral purpose conveyed by it, which in turn

is intended, to serve as germ of further spiritual development to the people. We are too prone to miss this

moral purpose, because it is often conveyed in a form adapted to the standpoint of t he men of that time, and

hence differs from that suited to our own.

Of course, there are also many and serious critical and exegetical questions connected with such portions of

the Bible as the two Books of Samuel and the first Book of Chronicles. To these I have endeavored to

address myself to the best of my power, so far as within the scope of a volume like this. Whether or not I

may have succeeded in this difficult task, I am at least entitled to address a caution to the reader. Let him not

take for granted that bold assertions of a negative character, made with the greatest confidence, even by

men of undoubted learning and ability, are necessarily true. On the contrary, I venture to say, that their

trustworthiness is generally in inverse ratio to the confidence with which they are made. This is not the

place to furnish proof of this, - and yet it seems unfair to make a charge without illustrating it at least by one

instance. It is chosen almost at random from one of the latest works of the kind, written expressly for English

readers, by one of the ablest Continental scholars, and the present leader of that special school of critics.1

The learned writer labors to prove that the promise in Genesis 3:15 "must lose the name of, 'Proto-

Evangelism,' which it owes to a positively incorrect view" of the passage. Accordingly he translates it: "I

will put enmity between thee (the serpent) and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: this (seed)

shall lie in wait for thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for his heel" - or, as he explains it: "man aims his attack

at the head of the serpent, while it tries to strike man in the heel." It may possibly occur to ordinary readers

that it scarcely needed what professes to be a record of Divine revelation to acquaint us with such a fact.

Very different are the views which the oldest Jewish tradition expresses on this matter. But this is not the

point to which I am desirous of directing attention. Dr. Kuenen supports his interpretation by two

First, he maintains that the verb commonly rendered "bruise," means "to lie in wait for," "according to the

Septuagint and the Targum of Onkelos," - and that accordingly it cannot bear a Messianic reference.

Secondly, he, of course, implies that it is used in this sense by Onkelos in the passage in question. Now, the

answer to all this is very simple, but quite conclusive.