fered on one altar only (Josh, xxii, 29). It is more sur- prising to find this law absolutely ignored at a much later period, when there was no intelligible reason for its violation— as by Samuel at Mizpeli (1 Sam. vii, 10) and at Bethlehem (xvi, 5) ; by Saul at Gilgal (xiii, 9) and at Ajalon (? xiv, 35) ; by David on the threshing- floor of Oman (1 Chron. xxi, 26) ; by Elijah on ]Mount Carmel (1 Kings xviii, 30) ; and by other prophets (1 Sam. X, 5). It will, however, be observed that in these cases the parties either acted under an immediate com- mand from God, or were invested with a general com- mission of similar force with reference to such transac- tions, It has also been suggested that greater latitude was allowed in this point before the erection of the Temple gave to the ritual principles of the ceremonial law a fixity which they had not previously possessed. This is possible, for it is certain that all the authorized examples occur before it was built, excepting that of Elijah ; and that occiu'red imder circumstances in which the sacrifices could not possibly have taken place at Je- rusalem, and in a kingdom where no authorized altar to Jehovah then existed. The Rabbins have invented elab- orate methods to account for the anomaly : thus they say that high places were allowed until the building of the tabernacle ; that they were tlien illegal until the ar- rival at Gilgal, and then during the period while the tabernacle was at Shiloh; that they were once more permitted while it was at Nob and Gibeon (compare 2 Chron. i, 3), mitil the building of the Temple at Jeru- salem rendered them finally unlawful (R. Sol. Jarchi, Abarbanel, etc., quoted in Carpzov, App. Crit. p. 333 sq. ; Reland, Ant. Hehr. i, 8 sq.). Others content themselves with saying that until Solomon's time all Palestine was considered holy ground, or that there existed a recog- nised exemption in favor of high places for private and spontaneous, though not for the stated and public sacri- fices. Such explanations are sufliciently unsatisfactorj^; • but it is at any rate certain that, whether from the ob- vious temptations to disobedience, or from the exam- ple of other nations, or from ignorance of any definite law against it, the worship in high places was organized and all but universal throughout Judoea, not only during (1 Kings iii, 2^), but even after the time of Solomon. The convenience of them was evident, because, as local centres of religious worship, they obviated the unpleas- ant and dangerous necessity of visiting Jerusalem for the celebration of the yearly feasts (2 Kings xxiii, 9). The tendency was engrained in the national mind ; and, although it was severely reprehended by the later his- torians, we have no proof that it was known to be sinful during the earUer periods of the monarchy, except, of course, where it was directly connected with idolatrous abominations (1 Kings xi, 7; 2 Kings xxiii, 13). In fact, the high places seem to have supplied the need of synagogues (Psa. Ixxiv, 8), and to have obviated the extreme self-denial involved in having but one legalized locality for the highest forms of worship. Thus we find that Rehoboam established a definite worship at the high places, with its own peculiar and separate priest- hood (2 Chron. xi, 15; 2 Kings xxiii, 9), the members of which were still considered to be priests of Jehovah (although in 2 Kmgs xxiii, 5 they are called by the op- probrious term Qi'n'33). It was therefore no wonder that Jeroboam found it so easy to seduce the people into his symbolic worship at the high places of Dan and Bethel, at each of which he built a chapel for his golden calves. Such chapels were, of course, frequently added to the mere altars on the hills, as appears from the ex- pressions in 1 Kings xi, 7 ; 2 Kings xvii, 9, etc. Indeed, the word n?32 became so common that it was used for any idolatrous shrine even in a valley (Jer. vii, 31), or in the streets of cities (2 Kings xvii, 9; Ezek. xvi,31). These chapels were probably not structures of stone, but mere tabernacles hmig with colored tapestry (Ezek. xvi, 16 ; Aqu., Theod. ipjioXityfia ; see Jer. ad loc. ; Sept. tiSiiiKov paTTTov), like the aicrjvi^ upd of the Carthagin
ians (Diod. Sic. xx, 65; Creuzer, Symhol. v, 176), and like those mentioned in 2 Kings xxiii, 7 ; Amos v, 26. iNIany of the pious kings of Judah were either too weak or too ill-informed to repress the worship of Jehovah at these local sanctuaries, while they of course endeavored to prevent it from being contaminated with polytheism. It is therefore appended as a matter of blame or a (per- haps venial) drawback to the character of some of the most pious princes, that they tolerated this disobedience to the provisions of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. On the other hand, it is mentioned as an aggravation of the sinfuhioss of other kings that they built or raised high places (2 Chron. xxi, 11; xxviii, 25), which are gener- ally said to have been dedicated to idolatrous purposes. It is almost inconceivable that so direct a violation of the theocratic principle as the public existence of false worship should have been tolerated by kings of even ordinary piety, much less by the highest sacerdo- tal authorities (2 Kings xii, 3). When, therefore, we find the reciuring phrase, " Only the high places were not taken away ; as yet the people did sacrifice and bum incense on the high places" (2 Kings xiv, 4 ; xv, 5, 35 ; 2 Chron. xv, 17, etc.), we are forced to limit it (as above) to places dedicated to Jehovah onlj\ The subject, how- ever, is made more difticidt by a seeming discrepancy, for the assertion that Asa " took away the high places" (2 Chron. xiv, 3) is opposite to what is stated in the first book of Kuigs (xv, 14), and a similar discrepancy is foimd in the case of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. xvii, 6 ; xx, 33). Moreover, in both instances the chronicler is ap- parently at issue with himself (xiv, 3 ; xv, 17 ; xvii, 6 ; XX, 33). It is incredible that this should have been the result of carelessness or oversight, and we must therefore suppose, either that the earlier notices ex- pressed the will and endeavor of these monarchs to re- move the high places, and that the later ones recorded their failure in the attempt (Ewald, CescA. iii, 408 ; Keil, Apolofj. Versuch. p. 290), or that the statements refer respectively to Bamoth dedicated to Jehovah and to idols (Michaelis, Schulz, Bertheau on 2 Chron. xvii, 6, etc.). "Those devoted to false gods were removed, those misdevoted to the true God were suffered to re- main. The kings opposed impiety, but winked at er- ror" (bishop Hall). At last Hezekiah set himself in good eamest to the suppression of this prevalent cor- ruption (2 Icings -xviii, 4, 22), both in Judah and Israel (2 Chron. xxxi, 1), although, so rapid was the growth of the evil, that even his sweeping reformation required to be finally consummated by Josiah (2 Kings xxiii), and that, too, in Jerusalem and its immediate neighljor- hood (2 Chron. xxxiv, 3). The measiu-e must have caused a very violent shock to the religious prejudices of a large number of people, and we have a curious and almost unnoticed trace of this resentment in the fact that Rabshakeh appeals to the discontented faction, and represents Hezekiah as a dangerous innovator who had provoked God's anger by his arbitrary impiety (2 Kings xviii, 22 ; 2 Cluron. xxxii, 12). After the time of Josi- ah we find no further mention of these Jehovistic high places.