The statement that they were chosen at the pleasure of the king is therefore to be taken as implying that, as in David’s and Solomon’s time, so also later they could and might be chosen at pleasure; on the other hand, in point of fact the sacred office, in Dan at least, continued from the period of the Judges down to the Assyrian deportation hereditary in the family of Jonathan.  One must, moreover, avoid imagining that all the “houses of the high places” and all the priestly posts 1 belonged to the king; it was impossible that the

******************************************** 1.  The parallelism between “Bamoth-houses” and a priestly appointment in 1Kings xii. 31 seems not to be casual merely.  Whilst a Bamah may be a simple altar, a “Bamoth-house” presupposes a divine image, and renders an aedituus necessary. ********************************************

government should be so all-pervading in such matters.  At this period most of the sanctuaries were public, but not therefore as yet on that account royal, and so also doubtless there were numerous priests who were not servants of the king.  The preponderance of official cultus and of an official personnel to carry it on was counteracted in the northern kingdom by the frequent dynastic changes and the unattached particularism of the separate tribes; the conditions may be presumed to have developed themselves with great variety and freedom, hereditary and unhereditary priests, priests with independent benefices and others in complete poverty, subsisting side by side; the variety and the equality of rights enjoyed by all is the distinguishing mark of the time.

Speaking generally, however, the priesthood has distinctly consolidated itself as compared with its former condition, and gained not a little alike in number and in influence; it has become an important power in public life, without which the nation cannot be imagined.  It would perhaps be somewhat bold to assert this on the strength merely of the brief and inadequate indications in the Book of Kings, which is chiefly interested in the extraordinary interventions of the prophets in the course of Israel’s history, but other and more authentic testimonies justify us in doing so.  First of these is the Blessing of Moses, an independent document of northern Israel which speaks for itself.  Here we read:  “Thy Thummim and thy Urim belong to the man of thy friendship, whom thou didst prove at Massah, for whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah; who saith of father and mother, I have never seen them, and acknowledgeth not his brethren nor knoweth his own children—­ for they observe thy word and keep thy covenant, they teach Jacob thy judgments and Israel thy law; they bring savour of fat before thee and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar; bless, O Lord, his strength, and accept the work of his hands; smite through the loins of them that rise up against him, and of them that hate him that they rise not again” (Deuteronomy