would be nothing to the purpose, for it would have been an assertion of a person irresponsible as far as revelation is concerned, not an assertion of God himself, or of any one authorized by him to make it. But, in fact, the popular cavil which these words have furnished is one founded on mere ignorance of their meaning.

When we speak of a person as after our own heart, we mean that he commands our full approbation. But in the original Hebrew, the phrase has no such emphatic sense. It denotes simply, that the person to whom it is applied is the object of choice, of preference, and that for the particular purpose in contemplation. The writer represents Samuel as having declared David to be "a man after God's own heart," simply in comparison with Saul, whom he declares to have violated the Divine will in his public administration. There is no reference whatever to private character. "Samuel said to Saul," are the words of the record, "Thou hast done foolishly; thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee; . . . thy kingdom shall not continue; the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee." * I repeat, that if this writer had been of such a dull moral sense as to suppose that a character like that of David could be an object of the cordial complacency of the perfectly good God, it would be an unimportant fact; because, if we have taken a correct view of his work, there is no ground for ascribing to him any such commission to speak in God's name, as would make revealed religion in the slightest degree responsible

* 1 Sam. xiii. 13, 14; comp. xv. 28; xxviii. 17, 18; 1 Chron. x. 13, 14.

for any such opinion of his. But it is only justice to him to understand that his words sustain no such sense. We can no more maintain that it was his intention to express that sense for himself, than that it was in his power to implicate revealed religion in the responsibility of declaring it.

INGS.

LECTURE XXXIX.

1 KINGS I. 1.- XI. 43.

THE TIME OF SOLOMON.

PERIOD OF HISTORY TO WHICH THE TWO BOOKS OF KINGS RELATE.— ORIGINALLY ONE BOOK, AND PROBABLY ONE WITH THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL.-TIME OF THE AUTHOR. REFERENCES TO EARLIER Writ - QUOTATION AND REFERENCES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.SOLOMON ASSOCIATED WITH HIS FATHER IN THE KINGDOM. DEATH OF DAVID. EXECUTION OF ADONIJAH, JOAB, AND SHIMEI. MARRIAGE OF SOLOMON TO AN EGYPTIAN PRINCESS. HIS VISION AT GIBEON. HIS WISE JUDGMENT. HIS PURVEYORSHIPS. BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE, AND OF THE ROYAL PALACE. CONSECRATION OF TEMPLE. -WEALTH AND GREATNESS OF SOLOMON. - VISIT OF THE QUEEN OF SHEBA.-CONSTRUCTIVE IDOLATRIES OF SOLOMON. DISORDERS OF THE LAST PART OF HIS REIGN. HIS DEATH.

THE

THE portion of Jewish history embraced in the two Books of Kings extends over a period of four hundred and twenty-seven years. The first book relates the events of a hundred and twenty-seven years, from the coronation of Solomon to the death of Jehoshaphat, fourth king of Judah; the second, those of three hundred years, to the epoch of the captivity of the people, and the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.

The division of this portion of the history into two books is modern. There is further very strong reason to believe that the Books of Samuel (so called), and of Kings, originally constituted one continuous treatise, the work of one compiler. They are arranged as successive parts of one book in the Septuagint and Vulgate versions, and "Four Books of

Kings" are mentioned in the earliest detailed catalogue, that of Melito. On the other hand, it has been remarked, that the Books of Kings differ from those of Samuel in containing frequent references to earlier written authorities.† But this is a fact perfectly consistent with their being the production of one writer. For the earliest part of the history which he undertook to relate, few or no written documents of any authority existed. As his story descended to more recent times, he found such documents ready to his hand, and accordingly used and referred to them.

Of the author of the Books of Kings, whether the same or not with the author of those of Samuel, we know nothing whatever, except that we can determine with some near approach to accuracy the time when his treatise was produced. That this was a time long subsequent to that of most of the events recorded, appears from expressions frequently occurring, such as that something, the origin of which is related, continued "unto this day." Chaldee forms of language occur, indicating a period when the Hebrew phraseology had been affected by intercourse with the Babylonians. The work was finished after the destruction of the city in the year 588 before Christ, and after the liberation of Jehoiachin, twenty-six years later; for it relates those events. It also appears to have been finished before the death of Jehoiachin, who at the time of his liberation was sixty-three years old; ¶ oth

* Apud Euseb., "Hist. Eccles.," Lib. IV. 26. See also Vol. II. pp. 237, 240.

† E.

g. 1 Kings xi. 41; xiv. 19, 29; xv. 7; 2 Kings xxiii. 28. Comp. 1 Kings ix. 13, 21; x. 12, 21; xii. 19; xxii. 47; 2 Kings ii. 22; viii. 22; x. 27, 32; xiv. 7; xvi. 6; xvii. 23, 34, 41; xviii. 4; xxiii. 25. E. g. 1 Kings vi. 1, 37, 38; viii. 2; xx. 14 - 17; 2 Kings iv. 3; xi. 13. || 2 Kings xxv. 8, 27.

Comp. 2 Kings xxiv. 8, 12; xxv. 27.

erwise, it is natural to suppose that that event would have been recorded. On the whole, we cannot be far from the truth in assigning to the book the date of the year 580 before the Christian era, four hundred years after the death of Solomon, and two hundred and fifty after that of Elisha.

The author refers to certain earlier writings, relating other particulars of the time of which he treats. They were called "The Book of the Acts of Solomon,' "The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel," and "The Book of the Chronicles of the

Kings of Judah."‡ But whether they were public records, or memoirs of the times from private hands, we have no means of judging. It is worthy of remark, that he refers to them, not for the events which he has himself recorded, but for "the rest of the acts" of successive monarchs. His historical authority is simply that of an anonymous writer, composing from sources of which we now know nothing, in an age long subsequent to that of most of the events which he records.

The Book of Kings is quoted only once in the New Testament, § and there only for an illustration, and not in a way to afford any testimony to its historical accuracy. There are also a few references to incidents of the history treated in that book, but none of them contains a mention of it, or is of a description to afford any confirmation to its circumstantial credibility. ||

* 1 Kings xi. 41.

† Ibid. xiv. 19; xv. 31; xvi. 5, 14, 20, 27; xxii. 39; 2 Kings i. 18; x. 34; xiii. 8, 12; xiv. 15, 28; xv. 11, 15, 21, 26, 31.

1 Kings xiv. 29; xv. 7, 23; xxii. 45; 2 Kings viii. 23; xii. 19; xiv. 18; xv. 6, 36; xvi. 19; xx. 20; xxi. 17, 25; xxiii. 28; xxiv. 5. Rom. xi. 2-4; comp. 1 Kings xix. 18.

1 Kings x. 1; comp. Matt. xii. 42, Luke xi. 31. 1 Kings xvii. 1;