ull:--

The main and certain results of this review are that the
teraphim were rude human images; that the use of them was an
antique Aramaic custom; that there is reason to suppose them to
have been images of deceased ancestors; that they were consulted
oracularly; that they were not confined to Jews; that their use
continued down to the latest period of Jewish history;
and lastly, that although the enlightened prophets and strictest
later kings regarded them as idolatrous, the priests were much
less averse to such images, and their cult was not considered in
any way repugnant to the pious worship of Elohim, nay, even to
the worship of him "under the awful title of Jehovah." In fact,
they involved _a monotheistic idolatry very different indeed
from polytheism;_ and the tolerance of them by priests, as
compared with the denunciation of them by the prophets, offers a
close analogy to the views of the Roman Catholics respecting
pictures and images as compared with the views of Protestants.
It was against this use of idolatrous symbols and emblems in a
monotheistic worship that the _second_ commandment was
directed, whereas the first is aimed against the graver sin of
direct polytheism. But the whole history of Israel shows how
utterly and how early the law must have fallen into desuetude.
The worship of the golden calf and of the calves at Dan and
Bethel, against which, so far as we know, neither Elijah nor
Elisha said a single word; the tolerance of high places,
teraphim and betylia; the offering of incense for centuries to
the brazen serpent destroyed by Hezekiah; the occasional
glimpses of the most startling irregularities sanctioned
apparently even in the temple worship itself, prove most
decisively that a pure monotheism and an independence of symbols
was the result of a slow and painful course of God's disciplinal
dealings among the noblest thinkers of a single nation, and not,
as is so constantly and erroneously urged, the instinct of the
whole Semitic race; in other words, one single branch of the
Semites was under God's providence _educated_ into pure
monotheism only by centuries of misfortune and series of
inspired men (vol. iii. p. 986).

It appears to me that the researches of the anthropologist lead him to
conclusions identical in substance, if not in terms, with those here
enunciated as the result