SPENCER'S ECCLESIASTICAL INSTITUTIONS. 207 



worth while then to ask whether he has fairly 

 represented the Hebrew Scriptures. And yet in 

 doing so we feel that an apology is due to our 

 readers for offering them a criticism of statements 

 which, but for the great name of Herbert Spencer, 

 might be put aside as childish and unintelligent, if 

 not intentionally dishonest. The anthropomor- 

 phisms are exaggerated ; the parallelisms are 

 strained ; the language is misunderstood ; great 

 questions are settled without discussion so as to 

 make for the theory which the author has set him- 

 self to prove. We venture to recommend to Mr. 

 Spencer not only a closer acquaintance with the 

 words of the Old Testament, but also some slight 

 study of Elizabethan English. 



We are told, first, that " the plasma of super- 

 stitions amid which the religion of the Hebrews 

 evolved was of the same nature with that found 

 everywhere." This may be readily granted. Also 

 "that sundry traditions they held in common with 

 other peoples." This, so far from being denied, is 

 commonly quoted (rightly or wrongly) as a proof 

 of something quite different from what Mr. Spencer 

 is contending for. We now come to the theology. 

 And here we are told that "under the common 

 title Elohim were comprehended distinguished 

 living persons, ordinary ghosts, superior ghosts or 

 gods," // or El being applied to heroes and to 

 the gods of the Gentiles : 



