157 



and acknowledged that positional precedence does not always 

 infer historic or chronological priority, and consequently can- 

 not be allodged, without subsidial and extraneous argument, 

 for the insertion of this interregnum. If we examine the 

 current of sacred history, as we have done in the case of this 

 supposed interregnum, we shall find it is by no means ac- 

 knowledged or insinuated. In effect, there is but one oppres- 

 sion of the Philistines recorded, until the period under review, 

 viz. that from which Samson " began to deliver Israel." (Jud. 

 xiii. and sequel.) If the jurisdiction of Eli and the taking 

 of the ark, commenced another, it is a remarkable deviation 

 from the usual style and expression of the sacred history, that 

 its duration or commencement are not any where recorded, 

 and that the sojourn of the ark should be understood as syn-- 

 nonymous with the continuance of the oppression. It Avould 

 be remarkable that the wonderful and providential return of 

 the ark should produce no adequate effect upon the religious 

 feelings of the Israelites, that for twenty years after this mira- 

 culous intervention in their favour, they should have perse- 

 vered in idolatry and disobedience, and afterwards assemble, 

 " lament after the Lord," (v. 2. sub. finem,) repent, on the 

 preaching of Samuel, and " put away Baalim and Astaroth, 

 and serve the Lord only ;" Avhen twenty years had elapsed ; 

 when the memory of the Philistine misfortunes, in conse- 

 quence of the capture of the ark, misfortunes explicitly as- 

 cribed, by the enemy themselves, to the power and influence 



of 



