Ashteroth-Karnaim says that 'the double peak of the southern summit of Tell-el-Ashari, formed by the depression running from north to south, would make the appellation of Karnaim, or 'double-horned," extremely appropriate' (Across Jordan, p. 208). Further, in a discussion in the Talmud as to the constructions for the Feast of Booths, it is said that Ashteroth Karnaim was situated between two mountains which gave much shade.'2

ii. Secondly, it is maintained that the two horns were those of the crescent moon. There is much to be said in support of this. As we have already seen, the original home of Ashtoreth was Babylonia; in the astro-theology of the Babylonians Ishtar, in her celestial character, 'represents the crescent moon, and is called the " Daughter of the moongod." In this character she appears in the legend of the descent of Ishtar into the under-world in search of her lover Tammuz or Adonis ; in this character, as queen of heaven, we find her worship practised by the Hebrew women, and rebuked by Jeremiah and Ezekiel': Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead the dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven. And behold, there sat the women weeping for Tammuz.5 'It was in this celestial character that Ishtar appeared as the "two-horned Ashtoreth" (cf. the name Ashteroth Karnaim in Gn 145) with a crescent moon on her head like the Egyptian goddess Isis. The cakes offered to the queen of heaven are often mentioned in the Babylonian religious texts. She was also the goddess of the planet Venus.' It is quite possible that there is a reference to the worship of Ishtar, in her celestial character, in Job 312

If I beheld the sun when it shined,

Or the moon walking in brightness;
And my heart hath been secretly enticed,
And my mouth hath kissed my hand:

26-28_

Furthermore, Ishtar is represented on coins with the horns of the crescent moon.7

iii. The third theory is that of the late Professor Robertson Smith; he writes: "The place-name Ashteroth Karnaim is probably derived from the sanctuary of a horned Astarte. It may indeed be questioned whether this last is identical with the cow-Astarte of Sidon, or is rather a sheep-goddess; for in Dt 718 the produce of the flock is called the "Ashtaroth of the sheep," an antique expression that must have a religious origin '8; and again: 'A phrase like this (i.e. "Ashtaroth of the sheep"), which has descended from religion into ordinary life, and is preserved among the monotheistic Hebrews, is very old evidence for the association of Astarte with the sheep; and it is impossible to explain it except by frankly admitting that Astarte, in one of her types, had originally the form of a sheep, and was a sheep herself, just as in other types she was a dove or a fish.'9

To sum up, therefore: the 'two horns' of Ashtoreth were regarded by the Hebrews as referring either to two mountain peaks which were sacred to the goddess, or to the two horns of the crescent moon, or else that her horns represented those of a cow or a sheep, according as to whether she was looked upon as a cow or a sheep goddess.

Some recent discoveries in Palestine throw instructive light upon the subject, and help materially towards determining which of these three theories is nearest the truth. Among the many objects of interest found during the excavations on the site of ancient Gezer 10 is one which unquestionably represents the goddess Ashtoreth. It is a small bronze statuette, four and a half inches in height; the figure is that of a nude female; it is badly proportioned, for the head is too large and the arms too long; on the head is a small cylindrical headdress. But the point of greatest interest about the figure is the presence of two horns coiling downwards; they spring from just above the ears, which are unduly large 11; these horns look like those of a ram, but it is quite possible that they represent

7 Schlottmann in Riehm's Handwörterbuch des bibl. Alterthums, i. III ff.

8 Religion of the Semites, new ed., p. 310.

9 Op. cit., p. 477. There is no difficulty about a sheepgoddess having horns, as all wild sheep, and some domestic breeds, have horns, whether male or female.

19 Undertaken by the Palestine Exploration Fund, operations were started in June 1902, and are still in progress. 11 See the illustration in P.E.F. Q., 1903, p. 226.

cows' horns; moreover, numbers of small heads and other parts of cattle, modelled in pottery, have been found during the work of excavating.1

It is well known how greatly the Israelites were influenced in their religious practices by the Canaanites among whom they settled; but the Canaanites worshipped Astarte under the symbol of a cow, just as they worshipped Baal under that of a bull; and that this worship was practised by the Israelites is abundantly clear from the Old Testament writings.2 These facts, therefore,

1 See P.E.F.Q., 1902, p. 342; 1903, p. 228. "Cf., besides the golden calf in the wilderness, I K 1416 1516 1626, Hos 85 105, etc.

incline one to feel pretty sure that Robertson Smith was right in his contention, as far as the Israelites were concerned. In later days there can be no doubt, in consideration of the quotation from Jeremiah given above, that Ashtoreth was worshipped as an astral deity, but this was owing to the influence of Babylonia; in the early days of their settlement in Canaan, when their worship became assimilated to that of the Canaanites, Ashtoreth must have been for them, as for their neighbours, a sheep- or cow-divinity, and in the name Ashteroth Karnaim they must have seen a reference to the horns of the sheep

or cow.

ACTS XX. 28.

'Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.'-R.V.

EXPOSITION.

'Take heed unto yourselves.'-This is not contrary to, but a part of, the highest altruism, for, as Calvin says, 'No one can successfully care for the salvation of others, who neglects his own; since he himself is a part of the flock.' Cf. 1 Ti 416.-Pelou bet.

'And to all the flock.'-Note the word all, to the poorest, the weakest, the erring, the neglected, the disagreeable; and especially to the lambs of the flock.-Peloubet.

THIS verse is the utterance of St. Paul's—and the only one-which corresponds to the great pastoral passages in St. John, chaps. 101-18 and 2115-17, and in the First Epistle of St. Peter chap. 51-4, which are the N.T. parallels to Ps 23, Is 4010-11, Ez 34.-RACKHAM.

'In the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops.'-The appointment, as referred to the Holy Ghost, implies, probably-(1) the inward call; (2) the attestation of that call by the voices of the prophets, cf. chap. 132; (3) the bestowal of gifts fitting them for the work.—ELLICOTT.

THE Greek term episcopos denoted a superintendent in the widest sense of the word. It cannot here denote an ecclesiastical title as it did a few years later in Ph 11; for the context is referring not to the title of an office, but to the duties incumbent on the elders. But this passage makes a considerable step towards the ecclesiastical usage by applying the term to the spiritual functions with which the Spirit had invested these elders.-RENDALL.

doctrinal statement a grave variation in the reading in the original Greek of the most ancient authorities exists. For 'the church of God' some MSS of great weight read the church of the Lord.' This would water down the immense importance of the doctrinal assertion here. The words of Dr. Scrivener on this point are most weighty. 'The reading of the Received Text,' he says, though different from that of the majority of copies, is pretty sure to be correct. It is upheld by the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS, Codices and B, by all the known MSS and editors of the Vulgate, exccept the Complutensian.'-HOWSON.

'Which He purchased with His own blood.'-I.e. the blood of Jesus. The conception of the death of Christ as a price paid by the Father is in strict accordance with St. Paul's own language (Ro 58 832).—PAGE.

AND now the work of the three Persons is described in one sentence-the church is God's, purchased by the blood of Christ, ruled by the Holy Spirit.—RACKHAM.

THE SERMON.

Our Own Sins.

By the Rev. Canon B. W. Randolph, D.D. The order of our text is correct. It bids us 'take heed to ourselves' first, and then to all the flock. Our own lives must be our first care, and then the lives of our flock. What is it that we have to take heed of? what is it which prevents a close communion with God? It is sin. There is only one thing in the world which it is lawful to hate, and that is sin; in the words of Jeremy

are tempted to think lightly of it, let us remember what it cost Christ to deliver us from its power.

To take heed properly, however, we must know the nature of what we are avoiding. What is sin?

1. Sin is lawlessness. It is a transgression of no arbitrary code of enactments, but a law which we cannot conceive of God not imposing on men if, indeed, He be God. There is a threefold malice in sin; a malice against God the Creator, because we use against Him the gifts which He made for His own glory; a malice against Jesus Christ, because we renew the causes of the Crucifixion, and a malice against the Holy Ghost because, by sinning, we 'grieve' or even 'quench' the Holy Spirit.

2. Sin is a missing of the mark. This is the meaning of the Greek word for sin, áμapría. Our aim is to glorify God and to attain union with Him, and whatever retards that is a missing of the mark.

3. Sin is selfishness. The root tendency of sin is to dethrone God and to enthrone self. To work hard so as to gain the applause of our people, to gain a character for industry is excellent, but it must be done with a single eye for God's glory.

And now, since our whole time will be given up to a constant struggle against sin, let us look at the tendencies which lie at the root of sin. There are seven of these root sins to which all others can be traced. First, those which appeal to the higher part of our nature, pride, envy, and anger. Pride is the 'inordinate desire for our own excellence,' and from it, St. Augustine thought, sprang all sin. All other sins run away from God, pride sets itself up against God. Then there is envy, the great enemy of united work. Paul has given us the great antidote to envy, and that is 'brotherly love.' Let us remember the words of Moses, 'enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord's people were prophets.' Then there is anger, not right anger, but wrong anger, in which there is always something of self. Let us cultivate self-restraint which will show itself in meekness. Then there are the three sins which attack our lower nature, gluttony, lust, and sloth. The first two, the result of a misuse of the body, the last of a disuse of it. Sloth, Dante says, is defective love. It is 'failure to give God all we are, or to give men all they need.' Lastly, there is the sin of covetousness, which attacks us on our higher side as ambition, and on our lower as covetousness. It is the sin of

middle and later life, and it must be banished by hard work and the quenching of ambitious daydreams.

We have not only to watch our sins, we have to watch our tendencies and desires. If we are to help others, we must not tamper with sin ourselves. Let us fight every known tendency to evil in our own hearts, saying, with the Psalmist, I will follow. upon mine enemies and overtake them.'

The Mastership of the Spirit.

By the Rev. G. Matheson, D.D.

To be made an overseer by the Holy Ghost is very different from being made an overseer by the world. In the first case we are a servant, in the latter a master. The words of the text are not 'the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, there fore take care to rule,' they are 'the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, therefore take care to feed, to nourish, to minister.' The power of the world exalts us, the power of the Holy Ghost makes us lowly. It is the power of stooping. It was by a cruel death that Christ gained His power over the hearts of men, so it is by sacrifice that His followers gain their power. Jesus Christ proclaimed Himself king when He put on the martyr's crown of thorns before the throne of Pilate. So do we prove ourselves to have been truly elected overseers by the Holy Ghost, when we are content humbly to feed the flock. When we feel the power of sacrifice glowing within us, then do we know that we have the spirit of Christ. Let us be willing to toil with those who work, to bear with those who are burdened, to weep with those who weep. Let us never forget that Christ Himself said that the test of the greatest love was readiness to stoop to feed His lambs. Let us become more and more self-forgetful, till at length we are able to prove ourselves good overseers by being willing to give up our lives for the flock.

it philosophers as subtle as Aristotle, saints more serene and self-forgetful than Aurelius; but it will only mislead or deceive if we do not realize at the same time that these have been as stars shining rare and remote in a vast and melancholy night, and that India as she is to-day forms a tragic comment on the saying, 'Corruptio optimi pessima.'

If there is any part of Indian life of which Miss Noble might be expected to write with special knowledge and insight, it is that which concerns the Hindu wife and mother. To this a large part of the volume is devoted, but with the result of darkening counsel rather than bringing any illumination. One can go far with her in her tribute, though expressed with a depressing monotony of eloquence, to the simplicity and the domestic piety that not seldom redeem the sordid narrowness of the Hindu woman's life. Especially when she is mother of a son, her attainment of what is recognized as her only end and purpose in living gives her a dignity that almost justifies Miss Noble's description of her as a Madonna.

But there can be no doubt that even here Miss Noble has entirely misread and misinterpreted the facts. It is characteristic of her whole book that she is so largely possessed by the Christian sentiment, which she probably imagines herself to have outgrown, that she is continually importing Christian conceptions into the midst of Hindu ideas and ideals to which they are completely alien. There is beauty in many aspects of Indian life, and especially in the affection and the dependence of the relation of the mother and her child, but there is little in it of the beauty of spiritual affection. Hinduism, in spite of the profound reflexion that it embodies within itself, is, after all, a natural religion; and Hindu family life likewise is based upon the impulses of nature and not, in practice or in theory, on any higher or less selfish instinct. To speak of the Hindu husband as being to his wife 'the window of the Eternal Presence' is not only untrue to the facts; it is simple nonsense. She worships him, more probably, because he is the 'window' in her narrow life to much more immediate and accessible rewards. There is some element of truth in Miss Noble's words-though one can with difficulty be patient with her language-when she speaks of the Hindu woman's worship of the 'Child Saviour' (p. 28); the pathos of her worship and of her earnestness in it is due to the fact that

the son whom she desires is indeed in a very real sense her saviour. This tragedy is concealed beneath fine words by Miss Noble when she says, 'In motherhood alone does marriage become holy; without it the mere indulgence of affection has no right to be' (p. 28). Certainly without it there is apt to be the very opposite of affection in India. But surely she reaches the very climax of misrepresentation in her account of the Indian widow. It was no belief in a 'mystic union of souls' (p. 53) that was the motive of suttee, but the monstrous selfishness of the male animal, and it is the same motive that still maintains the widow in bondage and in shame. A perpetual faithfulness that is required of the wife but not of the husband has nothing in it of which India need be proud. Instead of Miss Noble's picture of the child-widow dwelling 'in a great calm' in 'the thought of the Divine itself,' we see her, shaven and half-starved, shunned as a bringer of misfortune, living out her bleak and joyless life, indeed a patient, pitiful 'mother of sorrows.'

It would take too long to go through the whole of this book, pointing out its consistent and unvarying misrepresentation of the facts. When it is said (p. 14) that 'any woman is safe' in an Indian street, 'not even the freedom of a word or look will be offered,' one can scarcely believe that Miss Noble can really be as ignorant of Indian life as such a statement implies. Has she never heard, for example, of the annual Holi festival? Again, she is guilty of ignorance that in the writer of a book on India is culpable if she really supposes that polygamy is now 'practically obsolete' (p. 43). Did she live in Calcutta for a year without hearing of Kulin Brahmans? And indeed, not a few among all classes in India would have to say with a candidate at a recent examination, 'I do not believe in polygamy, but I am one.' Students of Mohammedanism will be surprised to learn that that austere and haughty faith is another name for bhakti, the melting love of God,' and amused, perhaps, to find the grim prophet himself described by Miss Noble's favourite adjective 'sweet.'

It would not perhaps be worth one's while to spend time over such a work of imagination as this is, were it not that one recognizes it to be a romance with a purpose. Miss Noble is one of several, of whom Mrs. Besant is another, who have come from the West to the help of Hinduism, and whom genuine Hindu reformers by no means