SKCOND EDITION 
 
 ADDITIONAL 
 
 ANSWER TO THE LIBEL 
 
 SOME ACCOUNT OF THE EVIDENCE THAT 
 
 PAETS OF THE PENTATEUCHAL LAW 
 
 AEE LATER THAN THE TIME OF 
 
 MOSES 
 
 BY 
 
 W. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 EDINBUHGH 
 DAVID DOUGLAS, 9 CASTLE STEEET 
 BSlEa5 1878 
 
PRINCETON, N. J. -<^ 
 
 ^ PRINCETON. N. T. ^A 
 
 d- . S 6 6 
 
 Section 
 
ADDITIONAL 
 
 ANSWER TO THE LIBEL 
 
 WITH 
 
 SOME ACCOUNT OF THE EVIDENCE THAT 
 
 PAETS OF THE PENTATEUCHAL LAW 
 
 AEE LATEE THAN THE TIME OF 
 
 MOSES 
 
 BT 
 
 W. EOBEETSON SMITH 
 
 ^c\ ed . 
 
 EDTNBUEGH 
 
 DAVID DOUGLAS, 9 CASTLE STEEET 
 
 1S7S 
 
 ^ 
 
The preparation of this paper was undertaken wlien the Pres- 
 bytery found it competent to deal with a charge of " tendency," and the 
 greater part of it was in print when the Synod of Aberdeen reversed 
 the finding of the subordinate Court, and made it unnecessary for me 
 to lay fresh arguments before the Presbytery, which has now dismissed 
 the whole Libel. But the case comes before the Assembly by dissent 
 and complaint, and I find that many members of Presbytery and others 
 are unwilling that my Additional Answer should be withheld from the 
 Church. Therefore, with the consent of the Presbytery, I now pub- 
 lish what I meant to lay before the Court on the 16th of April, had the 
 Synod not sustained my appeal on " tendency." I deal only with Primo 
 and Secundo. The other charges may be discussed later if the course 
 
 of the case makes it necessary. 
 
 W. R. S. 
 
ADDITIONAL ANSWER TO THE LIBEL. 
 
 In my previous Answer to the Form of Libel now before the 
 Free Church Presbytery of Aberdeen, I replied in detail to the 
 charge of publishing doctrines contradictory or opposed to the 
 doctrines set forth in Scripture and the Confession, but rested 
 my defence against the alternative charges on the constitu- 
 tional plea that these are in their own nature incompetent. 
 
 The Presbytery has sustained my defence against the 
 first and gravest charge, but, by the vote of 14th March, my 
 objections to the competency of the second alternative were 
 overborne, and it has been found, by a majority of voices, that 
 in the opinion of the Presbytery an ofiftce-bearer, who has 
 been acquitted of the charge of publishing opinions which 
 contradict or are opposed to doctrines set forth in the Scrip- 
 tures and the Confession of Faith, may be tried on the 
 alternative charge of publishing " opinions which are in them- 
 selves of a dangerous and unsettling tendency in their bearing 
 on the doctrines," wliich they cannot be shown to contradict. 
 
 Appeals have been taken against this finding, but mean- 
 time the Presbytery proceeds to apply its abstract decision, 
 and it falls to be considered whether the charge which has 
 been found relevant in the abstract can, under the Libel, be 
 brought home to me. 
 
 The procedure of tlie Presbytery, in considering this 
 question, will still be regulated by the resolution adopted on 
 the 14th of February, to discuss the details of the Libel 
 seriatim. The particular opinions which it is proposed to 
 
4 CONDITIONS OF RELEVANCY 
 
 condemn as of dangerous tendency, are the same opinions, 
 classified under eight heads in the major of the Libel, and 
 supported in the minor by eight groups of extracts from my 
 writings, which were formerly impugned as contradictory to 
 the Confession. The procedure, therefore, must follow the 
 same course as in the previous part of the case. The eight 
 heads will fall to be examined seriatim ; and the Libel can 
 be found relevant only if it appears (1) that the opinions 
 tabulated in the major correctly express the sense of the cor- 
 responding extracts in the minor, and (2) that these opinions 
 are in themselves of a dangerous and unsettling tendency in 
 their bearing on the doctrines of inspiration, etc., as set forth 
 in the standards of our Church. 
 
 In my former Answer, I have pointed out that the first of 
 these necessary conditions of relevancy is not properly ful- 
 filled. The statements from Primo to Octavo in the major do 
 not represent with accuracy the meaning of the corresponding 
 extracts from my writings. In some cases they represent a 
 position directly opposite to that which I hold, and in other 
 cases the Libel gives a coloured and distorted view of my 
 teaching, or puts it in a false light by combining what I have 
 said with things Avhich I repudiate, and which represent not 
 my opinions but those of the framers of the Libel. Such 
 defects altogether vitiate the part of the Libel in which they 
 occur. A member of the Court may think that what is stated 
 in the extracts from my articles is really dangerous and un- 
 settling, but unless he is also satisfied that my statements 
 under each head of the minor amount to what is set forth 
 under the corresponding head of the major, he is bound to 
 find against the relevancy of the Libel as it now stands. The 
 faults of the Libel may be corrected, or the whole may be 
 rejected and a new Libel drawn, but under the present Form 
 of Libel the only dangerous and unsettling opinions with 
 which the Presbytery can deal are those enumerated from 
 Primo to Octavo of the major. It is not enough that my 
 views, as expressed in the minor, may resemUe the opinions 
 tabulated under the eight heads of the major; the views in the 
 
OP A CHARGE OF TEyDENCT. 8 
 
 extracts from my writings must be the very identical views 
 condemned in the major, otherwise the Libel does not possess 
 that complete logical consistency of structure which con- 
 stitutes relevancy. 
 
 Unless the decision of relevancy is referred to this strict 
 standard, neither formal nor substantial justice can be done. 
 I must not be condemned for the dangerous character of my 
 teaching until I know the precise construction which is put 
 on what I have written, and have an opportunity of showing 
 wherein that construction is incorrect. But if members of 
 Court are allowed to vote any part of the Liljel relevant be- 
 cause they judge my expressions to bear a dangerous sense, 
 though not the precise sense formulated in tlie major, I may 
 be condemned for what is not in the Libel at all, and what I 
 have never had an opportunity of answering or even of hear- 
 ing distinctly expressed. And what is more important, the 
 members of the Church, for whose edification Church cen- 
 sures are designed, can derive no instruction and doctrinal 
 guidance from a decision in which the Court has condemned 
 expressions without clearly formulating the sense in whicli 
 they are condemned. But assuming the major to be so adjus- 
 ted by changes on its present form as accurately to represent 
 my published opinions, it will next fall to be considered by 
 w^hat marks an opinion can be proved to be in itself of a dan- 
 gerous and ttnsettling tendency in its hearing on a doctrine or 
 doctrines with vjhich it cannot he shoioi to he lugically inconsis- 
 tent It will be the part of the prosecution to show under 
 each particular that such marks exist, that they are suffi- 
 ciently definite and tangible to form a ground of argument and 
 otter to the accused an opportunity of defence, and that they 
 possess an objective value sufficient to free the Court wliich 
 accepts them from the suspicion of exposing the administra- 
 tion of justice to the influences of personal feeling and per- 
 sonal dislike to distasteful opinions. 
 
 I am unable to anticipate the nature of the arguments by 
 which it can be shown that two propositions which are not 
 contradictory tend to subvert one another, not merely in cer- 
 
^ 
 
 OPINIONS WHICH ARE TRUE 
 
 tain minds — under the intiuence of acquired habits, or from 
 want of adequate intellectual training, or from forgetfulness of 
 the limitations of our powers of thought, which are not always 
 sufficient to comprehend how two true propositions are to be 
 harmonised — but in themselves. But it seems safe to assume 
 that an inherent tendency to attack and destroy a true doc- 
 trine cannot be predicated of any opinion which is not itself 
 false. 
 
 At this point an important question emerges. Does the 
 prosecution propose to demonstrate that my opinions are 
 erroneous, and then to argue that being erroneous they are 
 also dangerous, or is it proposed to prove directly that they 
 are in themselves dangerous and unsettling in tendency, and 
 to argue that being of such a tendency in their bearing on 
 admitted truths, they are necessarily false ? 
 
 The former course alone seems consistent with justice and 
 reason. The Presbytery has already found that my opinions, 
 so far as they are set forth in the Libel, are not inconsistent 
 with the truths taught in our Standards, and in the discussion 
 of the second alternative no argument can be admitted which 
 is at variance with this finding. Now, if two propositions 
 are not contradictory, it is not impossible that both are true. 
 The admitted truth of the one j)roposition may give ground 
 for holding the other to be improbable, and for weighing with' 
 great caution any evidence that is adduced to support it. 
 But what is improbable may be perfectly true. A thing is 
 improbable only so long as the balance of evidence is against 
 it, and the production of new evidence may at any moment 
 change what has hitherto appeared improbable into probable 
 or even demonstrated truth. 
 
 The Standards therefore cannot be employed to disprove 
 my opinions, but only at most to show that they are very im- 
 probable. So far as the Standards are the basis of argument, 
 it must be conceded that the truth of my views is perfectly 
 conceivable, and that the evidence which is finally to deter- 
 mine whether they are true or false must be sought in another 
 direction. And unless the prosecution is prepared to accept 
 
CANNOT BE DANGEROUS. 7 
 
 this state of the ([uestion, and to adduce evidence sufficient 
 to refute my critical views on their merits, the whole charge 
 breaks down. For that which is true is necessarily innocent, 
 and no opinion can be judged censurable until it has been 
 shown to be false. 
 
 This clear issue must not be obscured by any attempt to 
 argue that the dangerous tendency of my opinions constitutes 
 so strong a presumption against their truth, that the Court is 
 entitled to treat them as false, or at least to throw upon me 
 the burden of proving them true. This argument moves in a 
 circle, for it is not certain that an opinion is dangerous until 
 it is certain that it is false. It is never just to condemn a 
 man on a presumption, or to throw the burden of proof on 
 the accused. And probable evidence, which has a legitimate 
 use in the proof of facts dependent on human testimony, is 
 wholly inadmissible in deciding the abstract question whether 
 a fact as to which there is no dispute, viz., that I have 
 published certain opinions, constitutes an offence under the 
 constitution of our Church. In the eye of justice I am not 
 guilty of the offence libelled, unless it is demonstrably certain 
 that my opinions are false, and also demonstrably certain that 
 being false they have the tendency ascribed to them. 
 
 It follows from these considerations, that it will be the 
 part of the Presbytery to enquire whether those who maintain 
 the relevancy are able to refute on their merits the opinions 
 which it is proposed to condemn. The Presbytery cannot in 
 this connection listen to arguments drawn from the bearing of 
 these, opinions on the Confession ; for the Court has already 
 decided that there is nothing in the Confession inconsistent 
 with the truth of my views. The refutation must meet the 
 evidence on which critics themselves base their conclusions, 
 and it must be proved either that the premises of the critical 
 argument are false, or that the reasoning based on these 
 premises is unsound. Nor will it be enougli to show that the 
 arguments which can be brought in favour of the critical 
 opinions impugned are not conclusive at every point. The 
 most legitimate historical criticism must always contain some 
 
8 UNIQUE CHARACTER OF 
 
 hypothetical elements, and offer some opinions not as certain 
 and absolute truth, but as probably expressing the nearest 
 approximation to truth which the present state of enquiry 
 permits. It cannot be proposed to stifle historical enquiry 
 altogether, because it has not yet reached its ultimate goal. 
 Unless the Church is prepared to say that she will tolerate 
 no scientific study of the Bible at all, she must be prepared 
 to tolerate imperfect views ; for it is only through imperfect 
 views, and by means of successive essays, that scientific truth 
 can be reached on any subject. In matters which are not of 
 divine faith but belong to the sphere of scientific discussion 
 — and to this sphere the previous decisions of the Presbytery 
 have assigned the question of the truth of my views — it 
 would be the height of obscurantism to declare an opinion 
 illegitimate, and suppress it by an act of judicial censure, 
 merely because it is not a final and perfect expression of the 
 truth. An opinion is not illegitimate unless it proceeds on 
 the rejection of undeniable truths, or the repudiation of 
 legitimate scientific method. These faults nmst be brought 
 home to my opinions, and it must be shown that in virtue of 
 these faults the opinions are dangerous ; otherwise there can be 
 no relevancy in the present charge. 
 
 The task which is thus laid upon the Presbytery is ex- 
 tremely grave and difficult. In all previous prosecutions for 
 opinion the business of the Court has been to compare each 
 proposition libelled as unsound with some clear definition of 
 doctrine, and to decide a plain question of logical consistency. 
 But in this case my views are to be tested by comparison, not 
 with some one truth, but with truth in general. The relevancy 
 of the Libel depends on the solution of a series of complicated 
 historical and literary problems, and the materials for this 
 solution, the evidence and arguments which it is essential for 
 the Court to weigh, are not contained in the Libel, or even in 
 the writings libelled, but are scattered through the whole 
 compass of Old Testament literature, and embodied in re- 
 searches which have occupied for more than half a century 
 almost all the great masters of Hebrew Scholarship in Europe. 
 
THE PnESEM LIBEL. 9 
 
 The Presbytery may well shrink from facing such a task, and 
 it may probably be argued that the idea of introducing such 
 questions into the discussion of relevancy of an indictment 
 does violence to common sense. But if this argument has 
 force — which I for my part am ready to admit — it only goes 
 to show that the present charge is in its own nature incom- 
 petent, and in no way to diminish the responsibility of the 
 Court to condemn no opinion as dangerous until it has been 
 demonstrated to be false. The very singularity of the charge, 
 its remoteness from every analogy of ordinary justice, the 
 vagueness of its terms, and the risk therein involved of sub- 
 stituting an expression of individual feelings for the sentence 
 of universal justice — all these considerations lay on the Court 
 an obligation to proceed with double caution, to exact the 
 most rigorous proof of relevancy on every point, and to 
 master the whole scientific evidence for each opinion before 
 venturing to assert that it is untrue, and in its untruth 
 danGjerous to faith. 
 
 But while the burden of proof does not lie with me, I 
 think that it is possible for me at this stage to help the 
 Presbytery in the task that lies before it, by adducing 
 some arguments to show that my opinions proceed on a legiti- 
 mate endeavour to denl with difficulties of which traditional 
 views as to the literary history of the Bible give no adequate 
 account. I believe it will be found that almost in every case 
 the offence which has been given by my writings, and the 
 dangerous tendency which is thought to appear in them, are 
 not due to anything speculative or hypothetical in the parti- 
 culars of my positive critical construction, Ijut to the fact that 
 I reject old views as inadequate. For example, the real source 
 of offence under Prima and Sccundo lies in the fact that I see 
 insuperable difficulties in the way of supposing that all the 
 Pentateuchal laws are of Mosaic date, and that Deuteronomy 
 gives a literal transcript, written down by Moses himself, of 
 the last speech of the lawgiver. If it be granted that such 
 insuperable difficulties exist, no one is likely to affirm that 
 my atteniDt to find a new view of the matter is specially 
 
lO PLAN AND PURPOSE 
 
 objectionable. The real question before the Presbytery is not 
 whether everything which I have written in my articles is 
 correct, but whether I have shown a culpable indifference to 
 truth in departing from traditional opinions, and have given 
 unnecessary disturbance to faith by conjuring up imaginary 
 difticulties, or unduly exaggerating difficulties that are not suffi- 
 ciently grave to justify an attempt to solve them by depart- 
 ing from old ideas. And so the charge against me must fall 
 to the ground if I can show the Presbytery that the tradi- 
 tional views which I have surrendered are really encumbered 
 with difficulties so grave that it cannot be safe for the Church 
 to pin her faith on the accuracy pf these views, or to forbid 
 her members to aim, with such scientific helps as they can 
 command, at the construction of some more consistent ac- 
 count of the Biblical facts. It is futile for the prosecution to 
 point out difficulties to belief that arise under my views, if 
 the ultimate source of these difficulties lies in the Biblical 
 data themselves, and if equal or at any rate similar difficulties, 
 flowing from the same source, attend the ordinary opinions on 
 the subject. If the Court is satisfied that this is the actual 
 state of the case, it will, as a matter of course, dismiss the 
 charge without listening to any further arguments against my 
 opinions, which on this hypothesis cannot be treated as real 
 sources of danger to faith, even if they are not successful as 
 an attempt to remove danger and solve puzzling difficulties. 
 
 I think that a full view of the critical evidence would 
 convince most men, as it has convinced me, that there are 
 t^reater dangers to faith in inflexible adherence to traditional 
 views as a necessary part of orthodoxy, than in the frank 
 admission that the Pentateuchal legislation is not in all its 
 parts directly Mosaic. But I cannot undertake to lay be- 
 fore the Court a full discussion of so large a subject, and 
 it is not necessary for my exculpation to ask the Presbytery 
 to go so far. All that I shall attempt is to show that the 
 divergence of critics from cui^rent views proceeds upon 
 evidence of such a kind that no member of a Church court 
 can justly undertake to say that to depart as I have done from 
 
OF THE PRESENT DEFENCE. 11 
 
 the old opinions is necessarily to deliect into error which the 
 Church cannot tolerate. I shall select from an argument of 
 enormous compass only a few of the simplest lines of evidence, 
 and these I shall attempt to set before the Court in a form 
 sufficiently popular to be followed by those who have not the 
 advantage of scholarly training and a knowledge of the 
 original language. Such a statement must necessarily omit 
 many powerful arguments, and convey a very imperfect idea 
 of the strength of the critical position. It must not therefore 
 be supposed that in laying this paper before the Presbytery 
 I take upon myself the burden of proof, which properly lies 
 on the prosecution, or that I consent to limit the discussion 
 of the case to the points which I now raise. I do no more 
 than open the discussion with arguments which may perhaps 
 convince the Court that in the interests of truth and justice 
 the case ought not to be pressed farther. But if the charge 
 is still pressed it will be for the prosecution to adduce posi- 
 tive arguments against the views put forth in my articles, and 
 I shall still claim the ritt-ht to answer these arouments, and to 
 be acquitted unless they appear to be scientifically conclusive. 
 
 PRIMO AND SECUNDO. 
 The Pentateuchal Legislation. 
 
 I have shown in my former Defence (p. 50/,) that 
 the statement under Primo in the major is so much at 
 variance with my actual views, and so unsupported by the 
 minor, that the irrelevancy of this part of the charge is ap- 
 parent without further argument. And, in like manner, the 
 statement under Secundo, though less inaccurate, is not so fair 
 and impartial as is proper in a Libel, and should not be ad- 
 mitted without the corrections which I have indicated (Ibid. 
 p. 52/). 
 
 Leaving the Presbytery to give due weight to these con- 
 siderations, I shall now speak to the views actually ex- 
 pressed in my writings on the subject of the Pentateuchal law. 
 
12 THE CRITICAL VIEW 
 
 According to the tradition which the Libel proposes to 
 incorporate with the official creed of the Church, and to pro- 
 tect from criticism by the use of ecclesiastical censures, the 
 wliole Pentateuchal law was delivered to Israel before the 
 death of Moses; and, with the possible exception of some 
 temporary ordinances, designed for the special circumstances 
 of tlie wilderness journey, all the statutes of the law were 
 meant to be observed in the land of Canaan, from the first 
 settlement of the people downwards. When several laws are 
 given on the same subject they are to be regarded as mutually 
 supplementary, and their provisions cannot be really contra- 
 dictory, though at first sight they may appear to be so. Those 
 critics, on the contrary, whom I follow, and who maintain the 
 character of the Pentateuch as a record of revelation, admit, 
 indeed, that the fundamental laws of the theocracy were 
 given to Israel through JMoses, but hold that these laws were 
 modified and added to from time to time by prophets or 
 other divinely guided leaders of the Old Testament dispensa- 
 tion ; that the Pentateuch in its legislative as well as in its 
 historical parts is made up of several documents originally 
 distinct ; that these documents were written at different 
 times ; that their object was not merely to give a history of 
 the work of Moses, but also to expound, in connection with 
 this history, the laws which the people were still bound to 
 obey; and that the legislative part of each document conse- 
 quently represents the theocratic law, not precisely as it stood 
 in the time of Moses, but with the modifications which, in 
 the progress of the dispensation, were necessary to meet the 
 needs of the people of God, and which had either been 
 actually put into practice, or were by prophetic authority 
 ordained as proper to be put into practice. As the prophets 
 and the priests who acted with them did not always, or 
 indeed often, exert so much authority with the government 
 as belonged by right to the mouth-pieces of God's will, the 
 new laws which they conveyed could not always be put into 
 force at once. In such cases they could only commit these 
 laws to writing, awaiting tlie earliest opportunity to get them 
 
OF THE PENTATEUCIIAL LAWS. 13 
 
 recognised by the State. This is what is meant when it is 
 said by critics that some parts of the Pentateuch may be 
 supposed to be made up of legishative programmes ; the com- 
 munication to the people by prophetic authority of a necessary 
 new application of the principles of the legislation of Moses 
 often preceding the adoption of the new law by the civil 
 authorities. On this view, as I have explained in my former 
 answers, the designation of all true theocratic laws as laws of 
 Moses must be taken in a figurative sense, which, however, 
 would not give rise to any misunderstanding. It was a re- 
 cognised convention to incorporate new ordinances with the 
 history of the first institution of the law by Moses ; and, how- 
 ever inconvenient such a practice may appear to us, it had 
 the important advantage of constantly impressing on the 
 people that no law could have force in Israel which did not 
 attach itself to the principles of the Mosaic legislation as a 
 genuine development of Mosaic ideas ; while at the same time 
 the people's duty of obedience to every law of God was 
 enforced by teaching the Israelites always to look at the 
 Divine commands in connection with the great work of God's 
 grace in redeeming His people from Egypt, entering into 
 covenant with them at Sinai, and guiding them to the land of 
 Promise. 
 
 The great difficulty which is felt about this view is, of 
 course, that under it certain things in the Pentateuch can no 
 longer be taken as plain literal statements of fact, but receive 
 a figurative or conventional sense. The Presbytery has indeed 
 found that the critical view does not necessarily involve the 
 position that there is anything fraudulent in the form in 
 which the Pentateuchal laws are cast. It is admitted to be 
 possible in the abstract, that under peculiar literary con- 
 ditions a Pentateuch, such as the critics suppose, might have 
 been written as part of the record of revelation, possessing 
 the characters of Divine Scripture laid down in our Con- 
 fession. But it seems to be argued that it is practically 
 incredible that this abstract possibility represents the actual 
 facts ; that if the Pentateuch is not the work of ]\ loses it is 
 
14 RATIONALISM, COmERVATIVE AND SCEPTICAL. 
 
 far simpler to suppose it to be a forgery in his name, de- 
 liberately written to deceive the people, and unworthy of a 
 place in Scripture ; and that unless the Church is prepared to 
 accept this last supposition she cannot with safety allow it 
 to be doubted that the whole law is of Mosaic date. The 
 rationalistic character of this objection lies on the surface. 
 It allows a prio7''i considerations of human probability to 
 determine what we are to believe about the method and 
 form of God's Revelation to His ancient people. But for 
 the present purpose it is more important to observe that the 
 same argument can be turned against the ordinary view of 
 the Pentateuch. The conservative argument is that on the 
 critical theory the Pentateuch departs so far from the ordinary 
 standard of history, that people cannot be expected to regard 
 the book as part of the Divine record of revelation. But a 
 rationalist of another school may argue with equal force that, 
 on the traditional theory, the Pentateuch departs so far from 
 the ordinary standard of legal composition that people cannot 
 be expected to regard the book as embodying a God-given 
 legislation. The variations in legislative style and terminology 
 that appear in different ordinances on a single subject; the 
 occurrence of numerous laws which appear to give quite 
 independent and inconsistent provisions for the same case, 
 and which, if reconcileable at all, are so only by arbitrary 
 assumptions not suggested by the text; the fact that the 
 final repetition of the law in Deuteronomy adds new 
 difficulties and apparent inconsistencies, instead of simpli- 
 fying the interpretation of earlier ordinances; these and 
 other features in the legislation, which on the critical theory 
 are intelligible and free from difficulty, do on the traditional 
 view give a handle to objections against the Divine au- 
 thority of the legislation, which can hardly be overruled if 
 it is admitted that people have a right to disbelieve what 
 seems to be d priori improbable. If one man, arguing in 
 the interests of supposed orthodoxy, is allowed to say: — "I 
 cannot believe that God would admit into the Bible a kind 
 of literary composition so artificial and so liable to be mis- 
 
CURRENT THEORY <>F THE TOR A II. IS 
 
 understood as the Pentateuch would be on the theory of the 
 critics," another man arguing against lievelation cannot be 
 forbidden to say, " And I cannot believe that a legislation, 
 really given by God to Moses, would contain so many 
 obscurities, and appear in so disjointed, puzzling, and 
 apparently contradictory form as the Tentateucli exhibits on 
 the traditional interpretation." It is not safe in a controversy 
 like the present to use arguments that are liable to recoil on 
 those who employ them, and it will be a sorry service to 
 orthodoxy to condemn my opinions on grounds which the 
 very first assailant of Kevelation is sure to turn against the 
 orthodox themselves. 
 
 In truth the confidence with which men propose to cut 
 short aU critical enquiry into the composition of the Penta- 
 teuch, on mere grounds of d priori probability as to the man- 
 ner of God's revelation, would be impossible, but for the fact 
 that the difftculties of the critical theory lie on the surface, 
 while the difficulties of the current view are apparent in their 
 full force only when the Pentateuch is read with minute at- 
 tention. And therefore it may not be amiss at this point to 
 illustrate what has been said by looking in some detail at one 
 class of facts. According to the current view, Israel received 
 at the commencement of its national existence the laws which 
 were to regulate civil and religious life through the whole sub- 
 sequent progress of the state and people. The institutions of 
 the theocracy were to remain stationary, not only in principle 
 but in detail, under every change in political circumstances 
 and in the structure of society, or, if any modification might 
 become indispensable in the course of time, this was already 
 provided for in the prophetic wisdom of the original legisla- 
 tion. Thus in Deut. xvii 14, seq, a law is given for the future 
 kingship, and in Deut. xix. 9, directions are given to increase 
 under certain circumstances the number of the cities of 
 refuge. The existence of such exceptional provision for future 
 contingencies, in a limited number of cases, only serves to 
 make it more clear that, on the traditional view of the Pen- 
 tateuch, the whole constitution and laws of Israel were de- 
 
16 DIFFICULTIES INSEPARABLE 
 
 signed to remain unmodified to the close of the dispensation. 
 Let us consider for a moment what this involves. In all 
 nations new legislation is the invariable accompaniment 
 of progress in national life, and no considerable change can 
 take place in the state of society without making old laws 
 obsolete and new law^s necessary. Thus it is plain that a 
 stationary system of theocratic institutions could only be de- 
 signed to correspond to a stationary condition of the whole 
 national life. In giving to the people an invariable legisla- 
 tion, no part of ^7hich was to be abrogated or modified in later 
 times by the inspired successors of Moses, God designed to 
 prescribe to the people an ideal of domestic, social, and politi- 
 cal life, from which, so long as the dispensation lasted, no age 
 could depart without sin. It is admitted that the ideal wa3 
 not perfect, that some things were allowed for the hardness 
 of the people's hearts, and that the whole dispensation was 
 destined to pass away. But within the dispensation there 
 was no room for growth. There was a growth in the know- 
 ledge of Divine truth through a succession of inspired 
 teachers ; but new truth was not allowed to modify old ordi- 
 nances, which corresponded from the first with the highest 
 ideal of national life attainable before the coming of Christ. 
 From this it follows that since the conditions of Hebrew life 
 never did correspond with the ideal, some parts of the law 
 were in every age impracticable. Political complications 
 or social disturbances, themselves the fruit of Israel's sins, 
 led to a state of things in which even the highest prophets 
 made no attempt to carry out important parts of the law, as 
 for example the statute that confined sacrifice to the central 
 altar. But though observance of the law might be suspended, 
 the law itself was there as a witness to the Divine ideal of 
 theocratic life. 
 
 From this ideal character of the legislation, it is at once 
 apparent that the details of the Pentateuchal laws were 
 not shaped with regard to the special circumstances of 
 national life in the age of Moses. The laws are not adapted 
 to the particular condition of things in one age, but to the 
 
^RO^f THE cuRiu-yT vii:\v. 17 
 
 highest ideal condition of things possible under the dispensa- 
 tion. The legislation is essentially prophetic ; even the form 
 of its words is sometimes addressed to future generations (as 
 in Deut. xix. 14)- In a word, it is the very essence of the 
 traditional view of the Pentateuch that tlie law of Israel did 
 not grow up by successive revelations adapted to changing 
 circumstances, but that it was framed by Divine Wisdom in 
 a shape independent of all change of national conditions 
 within the limits of the dispensation. 
 
 But the ideal stability, which we have hitherto contem- 
 plated as the special characteristic of the Torah, disappears 
 when we go back to the lifetime of Moses. Ordinances which 
 were not to vary in subsequent centuries undergo repeated 
 changes between Sinai and the plains of Moab — changes per- 
 fectly intelligible if the different forms of the law were adapted 
 to the needs of different ages and to changing conditions of 
 society, but altogether unintelligible in a legislation given by 
 Divine authority, and not to meet a temporary need, but to 
 be the unvarying and ideal rule of Israel's life. One 
 can understand that certain temporary ordinances might 
 be given for the wilderness journey which should disappear 
 on entrance into Canaan. But this explanation does not 
 cover the facts. For example in Num. iv., the service of the 
 Levites is ordained to begin at the age of thirty, but in Xum. 
 viii., 23, seci., at the age of twenty-tive. There is nothing to 
 account for such a variation in the circumstances of the 
 wilderness journey, and neither law is prescribed with 
 limited reference to that period. Indeed both laws appear 
 in a part of Numbers which, if taken as literal history, records 
 what was done before the people moved from Sinai. Or again 
 tlie laws of Exodus xxi.-xxiii., which (with ch. xx.) formed 
 the basis of the Sinaitic legislation, are plainly designed for 
 the period of settled residence in the land of Canaan. Now 
 at xxi. 7 it is expressly stated that a Hebrew niaic.servant is 
 not to be set free like a manservant at the close ot seven 
 years. In Deut. xv. 12, 17, the law is made the same lor both 
 sexes, and so it is taken in Jer. xxxiv. Again in Exod. xxii. 31, 
 
18 VARIATIONS IN LAWS. 
 
 carrion is to be thrown to the dogs. According to Leviticus 
 xvii. 12, 15, it must be eaten neither by the native Israelite 
 nor by the Ger (protected stranger). But in Deut. xiv. 21, tlie 
 Ger is allowed to eat of it ; so that Moses appears as relaxing 
 his original ordinance. Similar modifications appear in ritual 
 laws. The same sin-offering is assigned for the day of Pente- 
 cost in Lev. xxiii. 19, and Num. xxviii. 30, but the burnt- 
 offering, according to the former law, consists of seven yearling 
 sheep, a bullock, and two rams ; wdiile the other law names 
 seven sheep, two bullocks, and one ram. Or again, in Exodus 
 xiii. 11-13, a law is given that after the people enter Canaan, 
 the firstling of an ass must be redeemed with a sheep, or else 
 killed. But before the wilderness journey is over, and before 
 the law has ever been put in f^rce, the ordinance is changed 
 (Lev. xxvii. 27, Num. xviii. 15), and it is provided that the 
 firstlin£[ of an animal not fit for sacrifice shall either be 
 bought back by the ow^ner at the priest's valuation, or, 
 failing this, shall be sold by the latter. On the current 
 theory we must suppose that these variations took place 
 within a few years, or perhaps in some cases within a few 
 months, in laws which were not designed to meet a temporary 
 necessity, or framed in the tentative style of human legislation 
 on principles of expediency, but given by Divine authority as 
 the ideal and invariable rule of Israel's life in the promised 
 land, covering with prophetic foresight even contingencies of 
 the remote future. Does not this view suggest difficulties to 
 belief at lease as formidable as lie in the critical hypothesis of 
 a figurative ascription of later legislative developments to the 
 first lawgiver ? Will not unbelievers, with these facts before 
 them, retort upon the Church the very argument with which 
 it is proposed to crush my views, and declare that, if this is a 
 true account of the work of Moses, common sense will refuse 
 to acknowledge him as a mouthpiece of revelation, and will 
 recognise in the variations of his laws the tentative con- 
 struction of a fallible human legislator? And will it be 
 possible to deny force to this argument, if the Church has 
 admitted as a ground for rejecting critical views without ex- 
 
CRITICISM RL: MOVES DIFFICULTIES. 19 
 
 ainination, the argument that if the whole Pentateuch is not 
 literal history common sense will reject it as a forgery, and 
 refuse to entertain the idea that the ascription of the laws to 
 Moses may have been designed and accepted in a figurative 
 sense. In truth, the current view of these facts must raise 
 grave difficulties in the mind of every thouglitful man wlio 
 seeks a truer conception of God's plan of revelation than 
 that of Talmudic Judaism,* and refuses to ascribe the work- 
 ings of the Most High to a human changeful ness of purpose. 
 To believe in revelation at all, we must believe that at everv 
 point in the history God gave to his people the best ordin- 
 ances and the fullest light that they were able to bear. There 
 is no difficulty in believing that a God-given law underwent 
 many changes to meet new needs of God's own people, 
 and to answer changing circumstances in the history of the 
 Church. But in every case the change must be not in God's 
 holy will and purpose, but in the relation of his purpose to 
 mutable human conditions. On this principle, the Mosaic 
 authorship of the whole Pentateuch, with its varying ordi- 
 nances, frequent repetitions, and apparent contradictions, raises 
 a serious theological difficulty ; and the believing mind will 
 not make light of the fact that criticism, which started with 
 no theological purpose, which argues solely on historical and 
 philological grounds, has led to another view of the Law 
 which removes the difficulty, enabling us reverently to con- 
 template in the Pentateuch the divine wisdom which watched 
 over the growth of the theocratic ordinances through long 
 generations, and ever anew adapted them to new needs.f 
 
 * In the Talmudic Haggada God is continually represented as mutable in 
 his counsels. Even in the work of ci-eation he is depicted as doing a certain 
 thing and then thinking better of it and undoing his work. See, for examine, 
 llashi's note on Gen. i. 21. 
 
 t Thus, to choose a single illustration from the cases already cited, it is easy 
 to show on the critical theorj- that the various forms of the law as to the use of 
 carrion present a single principle in the legal symbolism of the Mosaic dispensa- 
 tion modified in application by changes in social condition. In the earliest law 
 of Exodus xxi.-xxiii., the Ger is mentioned only as a person subject to opi)ression 
 and having a claim to kindness (xxii. 21, xxiii. 9) and not as one of another 
 religion. Probably in early times he was quite as often an Israelite of another 
 
20 POINTS ADMITTED 
 
 1 turn from the theological aspects of the question to the 
 evidence of Biblical facts, bearing on such points in the 
 critical position as are particularly attacked in the Libel. 
 The present controversy turns directly on the date of the 
 several parts of the Pentateuchal law. But it is proper to 
 observe that, as matter of history, the earliest question 
 discussed by critics was not whether all the laws as laws go 
 back to Moses, but whether the Torah or Pentateucli, in its 
 present form, is the w^ork of a single author, and whether that 
 author is Moses. And on this preliminary question scientific 
 enquiry has led to conclusions which are no longer matter of 
 dispute among scholars, which are accepted by Hebraists of 
 every school in our own country as well as abroad, and from 
 which, I imagine, no continental Hebraist, known to the 
 world of letters now dissents, with the exception of Tal- 
 mudical Jews, Eoman Catholics, and Keil, who is the sur- 
 viving representative in Germany of the school of Hengsten- 
 berg and Havernick, to which many in our country still adhere. 
 
 I. It is admitted, in the first place, that the first four 
 Books of the Pentateuch do not profess to be written by 
 Moses, though we read that from time to time he was 
 conmianded to record some particular precepts or facts (Exod. 
 xxiv. 4-7, xxxiv. 27 — Exod. xvii. 14 ; Xum. xxxiii. 2). And 
 even if the words of Deut, xxxi., 9 scci., (" and Moses wrote 
 this lav/," &c.) are to be taken as literal history — a point which 
 it would be premature to discuss at this stage — it is admitted 
 that the words "this law" (Hebrew, this Torah) can only mean 
 the law of Deuteronomy, and not the whole Pentateuch. In 
 the foregoing books Torah does not mean a law-book or a 
 body of laws, but an individual revelation (literally in- 
 struction) or a legislative prescription on one definite subject. 
 In Deuteronomy again the expression "this Torah" occurs 
 
 tribe as an absolute alien (cf. Lev. xxv. 35, Judges xvii. 7, xix. 16). But before 
 Deuteronomy was written tribal distinctions were weakened, the nation was 
 become homogeneous, and the Ger could only be one who was not a Hebrew. 
 The law of Lev. xvii. is perhaps still later, and dates from a time when the word 
 Ger had acquired the sense of a religious Proselyte. Compare Zech. ix. 7, Ezek. 
 xlvii. 22. 
 
/;)■ ALL ^CIIOLAIUS. 21 
 
 very fre(|ueiitly, and i.s manifestly used thruugliout in one- 
 consistent sense, of the body of instruction conveyed by 
 Moses to the people in his last speech, without reference to 
 any previous law or laws. See cliaps. i. 5 ; iv. 8 ; iv. 44. 
 Accordingly, when we read in Deut. xxxi. 9 that "Moses 
 wrote this Torah," the meaning can only be that he wrote the 
 Deuteronomic Torah, which he had already delivered to the 
 people by word of mouth. This is confirmed by what follows 
 in the next verses. As soon as it is written, the command 
 is given that "this Torah" be publicly read to the people 
 in solemn congregation at the great autumn feast of tlie 
 Sabbatic year, that they may hear and learn, and fear the 
 Lord, and sedulously observe all the ivords of this Torah. To 
 read the whole Pentateuch would not have been possible. And 
 Jewish tradition distinctly states that Deuteronomy alone 
 was read (Delitzsch, Genesis, p. 20). It is plain tlien that 
 the Deuteronomic Torah originally formed a book by itself; 
 and this is what is meant when we so frequently read in 
 Deuteronomy of "the book of this Torah." Of course the 
 book written by Moses did not comprise the whole of our 
 present Deuteronomy. The first verse of the book as it now 
 stands tells ua that Moses spoke, "on the other side of 
 Jordan " from that on which the verse was written ;* the 
 establishment of Israel in Canaan is presupposed in ii. 12, 
 iv. 38 ; and the last chapter, which records Moses' death, 
 was composed after the name of the city Laish had been 
 changed to Dan by the Danites, whose doings are related 
 in Judges, and who had for their priest a descendant of 
 Gershom, the son of Moses.-f- Nor would Deut. xxxiv. 10 
 have any meaning unless the writer lived some time after 
 ]\Ioses. Accordindy recent defenders of the Mosaic oriGfin of 
 Deuteronomy admit that the legislative part of the book, from 
 the title in iv. 44-49 to the subscription in chap. xxix. 1 (Heb. 
 
 * That this is the tnie transhition, and that the English version is wrong, is 
 now generally admitted. 
 
 t Judges xviii., 29-30. It is well known that Moses should be read for 
 JJavasseh. 
 
22 DEUTERONOMY AND THE OTHER BOOKS. 
 
 xxviii. 69), or perhaps only to the end of chap, xxvi., originally 
 formed a distinct work, which was not filled out to the limits 
 of our present Deuteronomy, and made to form an integral 
 part of the Pentateuch till a later date * 
 
 II. It is admitted, in the second place, that the hand 
 which wrote down the Deuteronomic legislation cannot have 
 composed the four other books. The great difference in style 
 between Deuteronomy and the other books is denied by no 
 one. and popular defenders of the unity of the Pentateuch 
 are accustomed to argue that a man's style might be vastly 
 changed in a period of nearly forty years. But this argument 
 is not to the point. The last chapters of lumbers, which 
 were not written before the fortieth year of the Wan- 
 dering, are as different from Deuteronomy as any part of 
 Exodus or Leviticus, and in points of style agree with the 
 latter against the former. For example, Deuteronomy always 
 speaks of the mountain of the law as Horeb, and Sinai occurs 
 only in the poetical passage xxxiii. 2. But in the other four 
 books we always hear of the law as given at Sinai.f And so 
 we find Sinai and not Horeb in Num. xxvi. 64 and xxviii. 6, 
 passages which were not written more than a few weeks 
 before the last speech of Moses. Or to take a larger 
 example, the law about cities of refuge in Num. xxxv., and 
 that in Deut. xix., are both dated from the plains of Moab. 
 Yet it is impossible to conceive two laws on the subject more 
 different in style and expression to any one who reads them 
 in the original. In Numbers, the technical expression city of 
 refuge is repeated at every turn. In Deuteronomy the w^ord 
 refuge does not occur, and the cities are always described by 
 a periphrasis. In Numbers the phrase for " accidentally" is 
 hisligaga, in Deut. hiVli dcCat. The judges in the one are " the 
 congregation," in the other "the elders of his city." The 
 verb for liaU is different. The one account says again and 
 
 * So Oehler Bih. ThcoL, sec. 31, Koehler, Geschichte vol. i., p. 333, and 
 Delitzsch, Genesis I.e. 
 
 t Horeb is named in Exod. ii'. 1, xvii. 6, xxxiii. 6. 
 
p. 1 RA L L EL AM A' AM TI 1 ^EK 2 3 
 
 again "to kill any person," the other "to kill his neighbour." 
 The detailed description of the dillerence between munhir 
 and accidental homicide is entirely diverse in language and 
 <letail. The structure of the sentences is distinct, ami in 
 addition to all this there is a substantial diiference in the laws 
 themselves, inasmuch as Deuteronomy says nothing about 
 remaining in the city of refuge till the death of the high 
 priest* 
 
 I have said a little on this matter of style, because my 
 opponents have generally maintained that ]\Ioses wrote tlie 
 whole Pentateuch, and have made it a point of their argu- 
 ment that the language and style of the books oi)poses no 
 i)bstacle to this view. But I cannot give anything like full 
 <letails, and it is the less necessary to do so, because when it 
 is admitted that the Deuteronomic law was originally pub- 
 lished as a separate book, that a writer considerably later than 
 Moses added the historical setting which now connects it 
 with the rest of the Pentateuch, and that in the other books 
 only isolated passages claim to be written by ]\Ioses, no scholar 
 will be found daring enough to maintain that notwithstanding 
 this, the main body of these books equally with Deuteronomy 
 is in form, as well as substance, the composition of Moses. 
 
 III. But there is a third point on which Protestant scholars 
 are agreed, namely, that more than one hand was engaged on 
 the earlier books, that from Genesis to Xumbers we can trace 
 at least two distinct streams of parallel narrative. It is com- 
 mon to make light of the consensus of scholarship on this 
 head, by observing that critics differ much among themselves 
 in their attempts to dissect the constituent narratives out of 
 the present complex structure of the books. But this obser- 
 vation is by no means to the point. It is much easier to re- 
 cognise that a narrative is made up from several sources than 
 
 * I find on a rough calculation, omitting auxiliary verbs, particles, i'c., 
 that in the passage, Num. xxxv. 11-34, there are 19 nouns and verbs which also 
 occur in Deu«. xix. 2-13, and 45 which do not occur in the parallel j-assage; while 
 the law, as given in Dout., has 50 such words not in the law of Xumbers. 
 
24 SCHOLARS AGREE ABOUT 
 
 to reconstruct tlie sources themselves. It may not be easy 
 to say whether the second author in the Pentateuch merely 
 interwove supplementary passages with the context of au: 
 earlier narrative, or whether the hand of an editor combined 
 two narratives originally independent ; and yet it may be quite 
 plain that in one of these ways a compound authorship 
 must be recognised. There is far more harmony among 
 critics of the Pentateuch than among critics of Homer. Yet 
 no one would for a moment be allowed to argue that tlie 
 differences of Greek scholars invalidate the argument that the 
 Homeric poems are not the work of a single hand. The chief 
 dispute among Biblical critics is as to the dates of the several 
 authors whose work is combined in the Pentateuch ; and that 
 is plainly a question which is hard to answer, and perhaps 
 never can be answered. P)Ut that the Pentateuch is a com- 
 plex narrative is no longer a hypothesis but a demonstrated 
 fact, admitted as fully by Delitzscli, Kurtz, and Oehler as by 
 Ewald, Piehm, or Kuenen. The proofs have b(;en often set 
 forth and never answered. To say that they have any con- 
 nection with rationalistic principles is simply to say that 
 scholarship and rationalism are identical, for on this point 
 Hebraists of all schools are agreed. I could not reproduce 
 the evidence on which the consent of scholars rests without 
 going step by step over a great part of the Pentateuch. T 
 am ready to do this if it is required of me, but meantime it 
 is enough for my purpose to direct attention to one element 
 in the case. It is admitted on all hands (except by Keil, 
 wliose conservatism is unbending, and by Colenso, whose pecu- 
 liar views have found no followers) that one of the component 
 parts of the Pentateuch is a document which originally formed 
 a separate book and which has been preserved almost entire, 
 though passages from other documents or supplementary 
 statements by a later hand now come in to break its con- 
 tinuity. This document, for which, following Wellbausen, I 
 shall use the symbol Q, begins with the first chapter of 
 Genesis, and can be traced throughout the Pentateuch by very 
 marked peculiarities of style and plan. It was first recog- 
 
THREE DOCUMI-XTS IX THE Toil MI. 25 
 
 nised by the use of Eloliiin in preference to Jeliovuli up tn 
 the time when God made himself known to j\Ioses by the 
 latter name (Exod. vi. 2, ^eq) But this criterion is only one 
 of many others which are altogether unmistakable. To tliis 
 document a large part of the legislation in the Middle ]5ooks 
 of the Pentateuch unquestionably belongs — particularly law.s 
 about the tabernacle and its service, the priesthood, and the 
 Levites. The recognition of this fact leaves room for great 
 variety of opinion in detail, especially as to the date at which 
 Q was written. Delitzsch supposes that it may have been 
 written immediately after the conquest — perhaps Ijy P^leazar 
 —while most scholars think of a later date. Ikit the ari^u- 
 ments on. which conjectures as to the date are founded are 
 distinct from those wdiich have proved to the satisfaction of 
 all scholars that Q was originally an independent work. 
 
 Observe then the point to which we are carried by the 
 universal consent of those who have a right to speak on tlie 
 subject, whether they be supporters or opponents of what are 
 called critical views. That the Deuteronomic law originally 
 formed a separate book is plain from what is told to us in 
 the book itself. It is impossible to defend the .Mosaic 
 authorship of that law w^ithout admitting a distinction be- 
 tween the book to wdiich Moses consigned his last crreat 
 speech, which was entrusted to the priests and ordained to 
 be periodically read to the people, and the introduction and 
 epilogue added by a later hand, which now link the original 
 book to the rest of the Pentateuch. AQ:ain, the hand that 
 wrote Deuteronomy did not write the last chapters of 
 IS'umbers, or indeed the main body of the previous books. 
 Finally, these books are themselves complex in structure, and, 
 without using any arguments save theologically neutral 
 considerations of style and structure, scholars have come ta 
 be agreed that at least one great book of history and law had 
 originally a distinct existence apart from Deuteronomy. In 
 a w^ord, the Pentateuch, by universal consent, contains at least 
 two separate law^ books. And to these we may add, on the 
 authority of the Pentateuch itself, the Book of the Covenant 
 
26 MODIFICATIONS IN LAWS 
 
 (Exod. xxiv. 7) wliich Closes wrote at Sinai, and wliicli the 
 people bound themselves by covenant to obey. According 
 to Exod. xxiv. 4, this book contained '' all the words of 
 Jehovah." This might perhaps be taken to mean only the 
 words of XX., 2-17, spoken directly by God to the people. But 
 it is generally held to embrace all the laws in Exod. xx.- 
 xxiii., which the narrative manifestly presents as a connected 
 scheme. This third book I shall call S as an abbreviation of 
 Sinaitic Covenant. 
 
 That these several law books existed separately for some 
 time before they were combined in the present Pentateuch, 
 is not in itself a proof that the laws which they contain were 
 not all promulgated by Moses substantially as we have them. 
 A prophet composing a history of Mosaic times might in- 
 corporate with his book as much of the law as was specially 
 important for the laity ; and a priestly historian, on the other 
 hand, might prefer to fix in writing the priestly ordinances 
 wliich had previously been handed down by word of mouth. 
 But unless there is reason to suppose that all the constituent 
 parts of the Pentateuch were written very near the time of 
 Moses, it is quite conceivable tliat, in a theocracy continually 
 guided by the prophetic word and the priestly oracle, the 
 details of the laws had already undergone, by divine com- 
 mand, some modifications to fit them to new conditions. 
 And in that case it is very probable that an author who 
 wrote for the practical instruction of the people, and not from 
 mere antiquarian interest, would think it right to give the 
 laws in a form corrected down to date ; while it is not so clear 
 that he would think it necessary to add an elaborate ex- 
 planation to the effect that ]\Ioses originally gave a somewhat 
 different ordinance for this or that emergency. And if the 
 Pentateuch is so complex a book as we have seen reason to 
 suppose, it is hardly to be thought that all its parts are 
 nearly of one date ; and at any rate the task of uniting several 
 books in one whole, artificially fitting passages of the one into 
 the other, and adding long supplementary sections, could hardly 
 be undertaken when the books so treated were still new. 
 
INCORPORATED IN SUCCESSIVE DOCUMENTS. 2.1 
 
 AVe have found distinct evidence that the " framework " of 
 Deuteronomy is considerably later than Moses. And the 
 other books exhibit indications of the same kind. Compare 
 Gen. xii. G, Num. xv. 32, Num. xxxv. 14 (where the rendering 
 " on this side Jordan " must be corrected to " beyond 
 Jordan " ) Gen. xiv. 14, ("Dan") and above all Gen. xxxvi. 31, 
 ^' These are the kings that reigned in the land of Kdom before 
 there reigned a king of the Children of Israel." When all 
 this is taken into account, the idea that there may be real 
 discrepancies between the laws in different parts of tlie 
 Pentateuch loses the appearance of improbability, and ceases 
 to present the alarming character with which it is generally 
 invested by persons who are not acquainted with the state of 
 the case as now admitted among scholars. 
 
 Another difficulty that besets the usual view of the 
 Pentateuch is at once obviated by the recognition of docu- 
 ments, which though now fused together were originally 
 complete in themselves. Any one who has taken the trouble 
 to compare the parallel laws in different parts of the Torah, 
 must have been struck by the want of references from later 
 passages back to earlier ones. The technical terms of the 
 Middle Books are dropped in Deuteronomy (e.g. city of 
 refuge), and new ones are introduced, without a word of ex- 
 planation, (e. g. year of release). The feast of Pentecost is 
 called the feast of harvest in S (Exod. xxiii. 16), the day of 
 first-fruits in Q (ISTum. xxviii. 26), and the feast of weeks in 
 Exod. xxxiv. 22, and Deut. xvi. 10. Similar variations in 
 legal expressions might be multiplied almost without number. 
 Yet there is no point which a lawgiver is naturally more 
 attentive to than the use of the same expressions in the same 
 sense throughout his writings. Or again in the many cases 
 where those who maintain the Mosaic authorship of the 
 whole Pentateuch admit that at least a seeming contradiction 
 exists, why did not Moses choose his language with an eye 
 to what he had already written, and thus obviate all risk of 
 mistake ? But these difficulties disappear in the light of 
 scholarship. The language of Q does show that consistency 
 
28 PURPOSE OF DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 wliicli one expects in a lawgiver, and so does the language of 
 D (as I shall call the legislative kernel of Deuteronomy 
 without the later framework). And as each book was written 
 to stand by itself, the author of each could use his own style 
 and such technical terms as were current in his own time or 
 tribe. 
 
 On the other hand, the fact that Q and D were originally 
 self-contained works must be kept clearly before us when wc 
 examine whether there are real discrepancies between the 
 laws in these books. It is quite certain, from the expressions 
 used in Deuteronomy itself, that D was not meant as a mere 
 supplement to a book already in people's hands, but as a 
 self-contained system of divine instruction (see especially 
 xvii. 18 ; xxvii. 26 ; xxviii. 1, 58 ; xxix. 29 ; xxx. 10.) It 
 contains God's renewed covenant with Israel (xxix. 1) by 
 which the people are to live and by which they are to be 
 judged. Accordingly, its ordinances must have been meant 
 to be intelligible and to be an adequate guide to the people 
 without any other written law. It does not indeed contain 
 a system of ceremonial ordinances for the priests, because it 
 is meant for the whole people, who did not require to carry 
 in their memories details which it fell to the priests to execute. 
 The law of leprosy, for example, is not repeated, but the 
 people are simply told (xxiv. 8) to follow in this matter the in- 
 structions of the priests. So also difficult questions of judgment 
 are reserved for decision by the priests (xvii. 8) ; but the 
 plain duties of life are complete in the book, and where it 
 fails the appeal is not to another written law book, but to the 
 priests in person. Accordingly, no reconciliation of a sup- 
 posed discrepancy can be accepted which goes on the assump- 
 tion that the law of Deuteronomy is not intelligible without 
 reference to the other Pentateuchal books. And conversely 
 the law in Q must have been meant to be understood by 
 readers who had no access to D. The importance of this 
 remark will appear in the sequel. I add to it one other 
 general observation. When an entirely independent line of 
 enquiry has established the original separate existence of 
 
PRIi:STS AND LEVITES. 29 
 
 two parts of the rentateucli, evidence to show tliat th(?y 
 contain discrepant ordinances ac([uires a new force and 
 weight. If it can be sliown that Q gives a view of any 
 large subject — such as the rehition of the priests to the 
 Levites and the people— which is thoroughly consistent from 
 first to last, and that D gives another view, also self-consis- 
 tent, but which from point to point appears to diverge from 
 Q, the force of this argument against the possibility that botii 
 laws are of contemporary date is not to be broken by offering 
 for each apparent contradiction some solution founded en 
 hypothesis and admittedly more or less precarious. 11 le 
 force of tlie critical argument is that all the differences in 
 detail between Q and D hang together and are part of a 
 system. These systematic differences occur between two 
 documents which are otherwise known to have been originally 
 distinct publications ; and it seems incredible that the recon- 
 ciliation of a systematic series of discrepancies in two inde- 
 pendent books can lie in a disconnected series of hypothetical 
 solutions, all in some degree unnatural. 
 
 Carrving with us these observations, let us go on to ask 
 whether there is evidence for the statement in the article 
 "Bible," that the ordinances about the priests and Levites in 
 Q and the corresponding legislation in D cannot be con- 
 temporaneous, and cannot both go back to the time of Closes. 
 In the ]\Iiddle Books of the Pentateuch, in ordinances which 
 form part of Q, a sharp line of distinction is drawn between 
 the Levites and the priests, tlie sons of Aaron. Though the 
 latter are of Levitical descent, the name of Levites is never 
 applied to them, but designates exclusively the Levites who 
 are not priests.* It is the priests' service to offer sacrifice 
 and burn incense before the Lord. Their office extends to 
 everything of the altar and within the veil (Xum. xviii. 7), 
 and it is also their function to bless the people in the name 
 of the Lord (Num. vi. 23). The Levites again are strictly 
 
 * A solitary exception seems to be Num. xxxv., where the 48 cities of the 
 iwz^ include, as appears from Josh. xxL, the 13 cities of the priests. In the 
 Pentateuch cities for the priests are not mentioned. 
 
so THE LEVITE PRIESTS 
 
 confined to subordinate offices. They bear the tabernacle and 
 its furniture (Num. iv.), but dare not touch the altar or 
 the holy vessels (N'um. xviii. 3). The fate of Korah 
 teaches that it is a crime for them to pretend to the priest- 
 hood or to offer incense (Num. xvi). They are in fact servants 
 given to the priests (Num. iii. 9) who are " made to stand 
 before Aaron the priest, and minister to him" (Num. iii. 6), 
 performing necessary service before the tabernacle for him 
 and for the congregation. But though thus subordinate, the 
 Levites have a position of consequence in the theocracy. 
 Their service has the value of savin^j the laity from the deadly 
 risk of rash contact with the tabernacle (Num. xviii. 21-24), 
 and in return for this important function they receive " every 
 tithe in Israel" which the people offer as a heave-offering 
 (teruma) to the Lord. This tithe is called the Levites' in- 
 heritance ; but in addition to it cities are appointed for their 
 residence, round which they are to receive pasture for their 
 cattle (Num. xxxv.) Of the priests again it is said that the 
 Lord is their inheritance (Num. xviii. 20). They receive 
 certain offerings and dues from the people and a tithe of the 
 tithe from the Levites. Of the priestly dues enumerated in 
 Num xviii., it is important to mention the breast and 
 leg (shoq) of ordinary sacrifices, the first fruits, and the first- 
 lings of cattle. The firstlings of animals not used for 
 sacrifi.ee were sold, the price falling to the priests (Lev. 
 xxvii. 27) ; all others were sacrificed, but the flesh belonged 
 to the priest in the same way as the breast and leg of 
 ordinary sacrifices — that is, it was eaten by all clean members 
 cf his household. 
 
 Wlien we turn to Deuteranomy we find no trace of an in- 
 delible distinction of birth between priests and other Levites. 
 The priests are not called the sons of Aaron. In xxi. 5, they 
 are " the priests, the sons of Levi." More frequently they 
 are called " the priests the Levites," or, as we should express 
 it, the Levite priests. Again, the book of Deuteronomy re- 
 cognises no function as assigned by God to the tribe of Levi, 
 which it does not expressly declare to belong to the " Levite 
 
rX DKVTEROyoMY. 01 
 
 priests." According to x. 8, the Lord separated the tiibi- (jf 
 Levi (1) to bear the ark, (2) to stand before the Lord to minis- 
 ter unto him, and to bless in his name. The first of these 
 functions is ascribed to the Levite priests in xxxi. 0,* the 
 second is named in xxi. 5, as the very function for which the 
 Levite priests were chosen. And throughoTit the book we 
 never read of any office being discharged by a Levite svithoii!: 
 distinct intimation that the ministry is priestly or the minis- 
 trant a priest. In other words, Deuteronomy regards all 
 Levitical duty as priestly duty. Accordingly the same men 
 who, in xxxi. 9, are called Levite priests, appear in verse 25 
 .'limply as Levites. It has been suggested in explanation of 
 these facts that Deuteronomy uses the word ^)?v>.s7' in a looser 
 sense than the earlier books, and applies the term to all Le- 
 vites in virtue of the special consecration of the tribe. This 
 would be a very remarkable change of language on the part 
 of Moses since the time when he rebuked Korah and his 
 Levites for " seeking the priesthood also." (Xum. xvi. 10). 
 We should have to suppose that while maintaining the 
 privileges of the house of Aaron, the lawgiver had silently 
 conceded a nominal priesthood to the rest of the tribe. But 
 as a matter of fact, the Levite priests of Deuteronomy always 
 appear as persons entrusted with functions, or possessing pri- 
 vileges, which, according to Q, are limited to the sons of 
 
 * ]\Ir. Curtiss, to whose book I refer as the latest attempt to solve the diffi- 
 culties of the subject before us, observes that the words of Deut. xxxi. may mean 
 no more than that the priests bore the ai'k on this particular occasion, as they are 
 recorded to have done on other important occasions later in the history. This view 
 is grammatically possible ; but it must be remembered that whfn Closes delivered 
 his book to the priests, the ark was at rest in the tabei-nacle, from which it was 
 never moved except when the host was on the march. Thus it must be meant 
 that the priests to whom Moses gave the book were those whose business it was 
 to carry the ark when it had to be carried. In other words, Deut. xxxi. makes 
 the carrying of the ark a priestly function. As such it appears in the subsequent 
 history, Josh. iii. 3 ; vi, 6 ; viii. 33 ; 1 Sam. vi. 15 (for the Levites of Bethshemesh 
 were priests, Josh. xxi. 16) ; 1 Kings viii. 3. In 2 Sam. xv. 24, 29, we see that the 
 chief priests are the proper bearers of the ark even when they have other Levites 
 to help them. And 1 Chron. xv., the one passage which describes a ciise where 
 the ordinance of Q> was strictly observed, serves only to show that it was not the 
 importance of the occasion, as ]\Ir. Curtiss supposes, which decided whether i)riest.-; 
 or Levites were to bear the ark. 
 
S2 7A^ DEUTERONOMY ALL LEVITICAL 
 
 Aaron. Let us take up iu order the principal passages in 
 which they are mentioned. In Deut. xvii. 18, xxxi, 9, 25, they 
 appear as the custodians of the book of the law which was kept 
 by the side of the ark. Ilie common Levites were not 8,llowed 
 to touch or even see the ark (Num. iv. 20) ; and everything 
 within the vail, which the Levites were not allowed to pass, 
 belonged to the charge of the priests (Num. xviii. 7). A book 
 preserved in the Holy of Holies could therefore be entrusted 
 only to the priests proper. In Deut. xxiv. 8, the Levite priests 
 give direction in cases of leprosy. This is the business of Aaron 
 and his sons (Lev. xiii. 2). Again, judicial functions belong 
 to the Levite priests (Deut. xvii. 9; xxi. 5), more particularly to 
 the priest " who stands to minister at the sanctuary before the 
 Lord" (xvii. 12), or to the priests whom " the Lord hath 
 cliosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the 
 Lord" (xxi. 5). The former expression, in the context in 
 which it occurs, unquestionably denotes the high priest, and 
 the terms of the latter are inapplicable to an ordinary Levite. 
 Wq have seen from Numbers vi. that to bless the people was 
 the special work of the sons of Aaron. With this function 
 the duty of ministering to the Lord is co-ordinate ; the priest 
 presented the people's service to God, and carried back to 
 them His blessing. And, whereas the Levite priests of Deu- 
 teronomy " stand before the Lord to minister to Him" (x. 8 ; 
 xxi. 5), the non-priestly Levites of Q are " made to stand be- 
 fore Aaron and minister to him" (Num. iii. 6, Heb.) This 
 distinction is based on the ordinary meaning of the words 
 minister (sharet), and stand heforc ('amad lipne), which, in 
 Hebrew, denote only such personal attendance as brings the 
 minister into the closest contact with his master. The com- 
 mon Levites of Q are personal attendants of the priest, but 
 not of Jehovah ; for the priests stand between, and the 
 Levites are forbidden to approach the altar or the holy things, 
 the " instruments of ministry" (Num. iv. 12). This distinction 
 is brought out with peculiar sharpness in Ezekielxliv. 10-16, 
 especially by comparison of verses 13 and 15 in the Hebrew. 
 God's minister is the priest, who draws near to Him, and 
 
FUNCTIONS ARE PRIESTLY. 33 
 
 stands before Him at tlie altar, liaving that closeness of medi- 
 atorial access which under the symbolism of the dispensation 
 is denoted b}^ the privilege of approaching with impunity to 
 tlie altar and the holy things.* We have still to consider 
 Deut. xviii. 1, where it is declared that " the Levite priests, 
 tlie whole tribe of Levi, shall have no part or inheritance in 
 Israel; they shall eat the fire-offerings of the Lord and his 
 inheritance." It is a question with interpreters whether in 
 this verse the ivhole tribe of Levi is synonymous with t?ie 
 Levite priests, or whether, as in Joel i. 14, an and should be 
 supjDlied. But in either case the Levite priests appear as 
 having a right to eat of the fire-offerings of the Lord, which 
 in Q are reserved for the sons of Aaron. 
 
 Observe then the point which w^e have now reached. 
 In Q the functions of the priests are distinct from those of the 
 Levites, and the choice by God of Aaron and his sons was 
 quite distinct from the subsequent choice of Levi. But ac- 
 cording to Deuteronomy, all the functions for which God 
 separated the tribe of Levi are priestly functions, discharged 
 by Levite priests ; and it was in choosing the tribe as a whole 
 tliat God chose a priesthood (Deut. x. 8). On the other hand 
 
 * Tins usage is invariable. So, Joel i. 9, 13, the priests, tlie miuistirs of 
 Jeliovali are the ministers of the altar, which is the point at which under the old 
 Covemant God meets with man (Exod. xx. 24). In Jer. xxxiii. 18, 21, 22, the 
 Levites who minister to God are the Levite priests who do sacrilice, which pre- 
 cisely agrees with Deuteronomy, and illustrates the text before us. On the 
 x)ther hand, Levites who are not priests are never said to minister to the Lord, or 
 to stand before the Lord. Mr. Ciu'tiss, indeed, cites 2 Chron. xxix, 11, compared 
 Avith verses 4, 5, 12. But here the persons who stand before the Lord to mmister 
 to Him are chOsen " to be to Him ministers and bm-ners " [of incense or sacrifice] : 
 the ministiy contemplated is therefore the jiriestly ministry of the altar, and if 
 the passage proves anything, it proves that at the time of Hezekiah the law of D 
 and not that of Q, was in force. A more plausible reference would have been to 
 1 Chron. xv. 2, which, howcver, is simi)ly a quotation from Deuteronomy. i\Ir. 
 Cui-tiss refers further to the case of Samuel (1 Sam. ii. 11). But though Samuel 
 was not by birth a son of Aaron, he was certainly adopted into the place of a 
 priest, for in his ministry before the Lord he wore the Ei)hod and the priestly 
 mantle or Mc'U (1 Sam. ii. 18, 19), which the English version unfortunately 
 renders coat. Neither of these belonged to a common LeWte. Mr. Curtiss singu- 
 larly enough refers to the fact that Samuel ojiened the doors of the sauctuaiy, 
 forgetting that to shut these doors is priest's work (Mai. i. 10). 
 
34 LEVITES AT THE SANCTUARY, 
 
 the Levite priest of Deuteronomy is always represented as 
 possessing privileges from wliich Q excludes all but the sons 
 of Aaron. Even the Levite priests who carry the ark are 
 true priests, quite unlike the Kohathites to whom the same 
 work is assigned in Q, for they have the custody of what is 
 within the vail. In other words, every Levite who holds 
 sacred office is a Levite priest, and every Levite priest shares 
 the privileges which in Q are confined to the sons of Aaron. 
 This conclusion from the facts already noticed is explicitly 
 confirmed by the ordinance of Deut. xviii. 6, which provides 
 that any Levite who is sojourning as a Ger in some other 
 town may, if he please, come up to the sanctuary, in which 
 case he shall be admitted " to minister in the name of the 
 Lord his God like all his brethren the Levites who stand 
 there before the Lord." These expressions are almost identical 
 with those which we have already found to be used of proper 
 priestly service. But their force here is rendered quite un- 
 ambiguous by what precedes. In verse 4 we are told that 
 the priest — the priest in the strict sense of the word, who- 
 gets a share of every sacrifice, and enjoys the first-fruits 
 assigned by Q to the sons of Aaron — was chosen by God " out 
 of all thy tribes to stand to minister in the name of the Lord," 
 and that it is for this service that he enjoys these perquisites. 
 Accordingly verses 6 and 7 can only mean that any Levite- 
 who comes to the sanctuary is enrolled among the priests 
 proper "like all his brethren the Levites who stand there 
 before the Lord." And verse 8 adds, that all Levites so enrolled 
 share alike in the dues paid by the people. 
 
 I have already observed that the differences between D and 
 Q are not accidental but systematic. We have found them 
 to be so hitherto, and we may pause to notice that our results 
 explain one curious difference which might at first sight seem 
 due to accident. In Num. xvi. we have the history of a revolt 
 in which Korah, a Levite, was engaged along with Dathan 
 and Abiram, sons of Eeuben. Korah's object was to gain 
 priestly privileges. Xow, in Deut. xi. 6 the destruction of 
 Dathan and Abiram is referred to as a warning, but Korah is 
 
AX I) AV OTHER PLACES. 35 
 
 not mentioned. And it stands to reason that his examph; 
 could not serve as a warning in Deuteronomy, which concedes 
 altar privileges to any Levite. Another interesting proof, how 
 completely Deuteronomy places the whole tribe of Levi in the 
 position which Q gives to Aaron and his sons, is found in x. 
 9. Levi is to have no part or inheritance with his brethren, 
 the Lord is his inheritance. Tliese are the very expressions 
 used in Num. xviii. 20, but there they apply to Aaron. It is 
 not said of the common Levites in Q that the Lord is their 
 inheritance. 
 
 This remark carries us on to a new point of difference 
 between Q and D. What is the position, according to Deuter- 
 onomy, of the Levite who is not in office at the sanctuary ? 
 We know already that he has no part or inheritance with 
 Israel. The whole tribe, according to xviii. 1, is de- 
 pendent on the fire-offerings of the Lord and his inheritance. 
 In the fire-offerings Levites at a distance from the sanctuary 
 can have no share. The question, therefore, is how much we 
 can suppose to be covered by the expression " God's in- 
 heritance." Does it include the Levitical tithe, and a residence 
 with right of pasture in a Levitical city ? No one certainly 
 could infer this from the text of Deuterononi}^ alone. On 
 the contrary, one would naturally suppose that the vague 
 \vord "his inheritance" is explained in what immediately 
 follows, where we read that the priest's due from the people 
 consists of the shoulder, cheeks, and maw of every sacrifice, 
 with the first-fruits and the first of the fleece of sheep. In 
 other words, the tribe of Levi is supported by dues paid to the 
 priests at the sanctuary, and in these every Levite may share 
 who takes a share in the priestly work. As the Levite, who 
 is not engaged in priestly work and resident at the sanctuary, 
 has no duties recognised in D, it is natural that he receives. 
 no emoluments. This explanation of what is meant by 
 " God's inheritance " agrees with the idiom of Q ; for theri^ 
 also the phrase is used of altar dues paid to the priest. It 
 agrees, moreover, with Josh. xiii. 14, where the fire-offerings 
 of the Lord are called Levi's inheritance (comp. verse 33), 
 
36 THE LEVITES AS SOJOURNERS. 
 
 and with Josh, xviii. 7, where the priesthood is called the in- 
 heritance of the Levites. But apart from the meaning of this 
 expression, can it be supposed that D recognises the Levitical 
 tithe and Levitical cities of Q ? We find in xviii. 6, that the 
 Levite who is not at the sanctuary is supposed to be so- 
 journing in some city of Israel. The word v/hich our trans- 
 lators render sojourn has a very precise sense; it means to 
 live, not as a burgess but as a stranger (Ger), under the pro- 
 tection of some person or community. That the word can 
 be used of Levites residing in their own cities is asserted by 
 Keil without an iota of evidence, and is absolutely excluded by 
 the words of the text, which speak of the Levite as sojourning 
 in any Hebrew town. Mr. Curtiss, therefore, has given up 
 Xeil's position, and refers the text only to such Levites as 
 may have sold their houses and wandered to other places. 
 But observe the absurdity in which this view lands us. If 
 ]\Ir. Curtiss is right the lawgiver gives no permission to a 
 Levite to go straight from a Levitical city to the sanctuary. 
 The service of the sanctuary is to be recruited only from 
 homeless Levites. A Levite must become a sojourner before 
 he becomes a priest. And while Moses in his last speech has 
 much to say of the Levite priests in the sanctuary, and of the 
 homeless Levites scattered through the land, he never in a 
 single syllable alludes to the Levites who, though not priests, 
 had homes and pastures assigned to them by law in the 
 various corners of the land. Levites who are not in office as 
 Levite priests appear in Deuteronomy only in one light. 
 They are invariably spoken of as living " within the gates " or 
 towns of the laity in a dependent condition, with a claim 
 on charity like the Ger, the orphan, and the widow (xii. 12, 
 18; xiv. 27, 29; xvi. 11, 14; xxvi. 11, seq.) 
 
 So much for the residence of the Levites, and now for the 
 tithe. In Deut. xviii. we hear only of such provision for the 
 Levites as is connected with the service of the altar. But 
 the lawgiver is not without thought for the Levites who are 
 scattered through the land, and do not share these revenues. 
 He provides accordingly that when the people go up to feast 
 
THE LAW OF FIRSTLINGS. 37 
 
 at the Sanctuary, the Levite that is within their gates shall 
 have a share in the festivity (ch. xii.) This precept is par- 
 ticularly applievi in chap. xvi. to Pentecost and the Feast of 
 Tabernacles, on which occasions the people were to invite the 
 Levite, tlie Ger, the orphans, and the widows of their town- 
 ship to share their joy. For the supply of these festivities D 
 makes a provision not known to Q. The Israelite with his 
 family and dependents were to consume at the sanctuary the 
 firstlings of the flock and herd, and the tithe of corn, wine» 
 and oil (xiv. 23, xv. 20). The destination here given to the 
 firstlings is directly contradictory to Num. xviii. 18, wliich, as 
 we have seen, assigns them to the priest. It is in vain that 
 harmonisers endeavour to give to the passage in Numbers the 
 sense that only the breast and leg are to fall to the 
 priest. The words are distinct. After the priest has sprinkled 
 the blood and burned the fat, the flesh is to be his — as abso- 
 lutely his as the breast and leg of a common sacrifice."^ 
 This is the practice of the second temple, as w^e know it from 
 Josephus and Jewish tradition. And there is another differ- 
 ence between D and Q on this point, which serves still 
 further to show that the two laws are independent. 
 According to Dent. xiv. 24, scq. the firstlings might be turned 
 into money if the distance from the sanctuary was too great 
 to allow them to be brought in kind, and any sort of food 
 or drink might be bought with the price. But in Num. xviii. 
 17 it is forbidden to redeem any firstling fit ibr sacrifice. 
 
 Now with this difference in the law of firstlings, it ceases 
 to be surprising that D and Q differ in the destination of the 
 tithe, and that this offering, which in Q appeared as a kind of 
 tribute payable to the Levites, is to be spent according to D 
 on the sacred feasts at which the Levites were present merely 
 as guests. But in this particular, old Jewish tradition, al- 
 ready expressed in Tobit i. 7, suggests a possible way of har- 
 monising the two laws — namely, by supposing that two tithes 
 
 * That the law of Deuteronomy modifies the provisions of Numbers is 
 admitted by Oehler in Herzog's Encyc. xii. 181. 
 
38 THE LAW OF TITHE 
 
 were paid by the Hebrews, one to tlie Levites according to 
 Q, and the other to provide for sacrificial feasts according to 
 D. If we adopt this view, however, it is very extraordinary 
 that Q — originally a separate book — never mentions the tithe 
 of D, and that D, also originally separate, never hints at the 
 tithe of Q. And when we follow out everything that is said 
 about tithing in Deuteronomy, we are forced to the con- 
 clusion that the author of D knew nothing of the other tithe. 
 The language of Deut. xii. 6, 17, implies that this chapter 
 does not institute a new kind of sacred offering, but only 
 regulates previous usage by forbidding the tithe to be con- 
 sumed at home. That the recognised purpose of the tithe is 
 to furnish a sacred feast is taken for granted. But in Deut. 
 xiv. 28, xxvi. 12, we find a further law of tithe, which is at 
 the same time a further provision for the dispersed Levites 
 and other dependents. Every third year is, according to 
 Deut. xxvi. 12, the year of tithing in a special sense. • In this 
 year the whole tithe of his produce must be laid aside by the 
 Israelite in his own township (within his gates) xiv. 28. It 
 is not to be removed or paid away; bat the Levite, the Ger, 
 the orphan, and the widow, have a right to come and eat it 
 where it is stored (xxvi. 12). The Jewish tradition, which 
 counts the tithes of Q and D as the first and second tithes 
 respectively, calls this triennial tithe the third tithe ; but it 
 is generally agreed that, properly speaking, the law of Deu- 
 teronomy only prescribes that on every third year the destina- 
 tion of the tithe shall be changed. On the triennial tithe 
 great weight is laid. It is expressly said that the whole 
 tithe is to be stored, and after it has been consumed, the 
 Hebrew is called upon to make a solemn profession before 
 God that it has been properly spent, that he has fully carried 
 out the divine command, and that the Levites and other 
 claimants have had their share. Now if, in addition to this 
 tithe, the Levite had a claim to another annual tribute, such 
 as is prescribed in Numbers, it is quite incredible that the 
 lawgiver should not name it in the same connection. Why 
 exact of a man so solemn a profession that he has done the 
 
JN DEUTERONOMY. QQ 
 
 least part of liis duty to the Levite, and not add one word to 
 remind him of a larger duty ? The fact is, that Deuteronomy 
 speaks only of two compulsory offerings in which the offerer 
 himself had no share. These are the first-fruits and the 
 triennial tithes. For both of these a solemn liturgy is pro- 
 vided in cliapter xxvi. to enforce on the people their duty. 
 And the original book of iJeuteronomy, as we saw above 
 (page 28), professes to lay before the laity their whole ordin- 
 ary obligations under the law. Yet there is not one word of 
 the Levitical tithe of Q. 
 
 The extreme difficulty which these facts lay upon tlie 
 harmonisers may be estimated by the last desperate attempt 
 of Mr. Curtiss, who admits that if the tithe of Q is consistent 
 with Deuteronomy at all, it must, as far as the third year is 
 concerned, be included in the " whole tithe " of xiv. 2o, 
 xxvi. 12. He supposes, therefore, that this "whole tithe" is 
 a double tithe, of which the Levites first carried away the 
 half according to the law of Q, leaving the other half to the 
 needy. But this solution is absolutely inconsistent with tlie 
 words of the text, which says distinctly (xxvi. 12, com p. 
 xiv. 29) that the Levites, like the other claimants, are to eat 
 the tithe in the township where it is stored, * whereas the tithe 
 of Q might be eaten by the Levites where they pleased, and 
 in later times was stored at the temple.*!" 
 
 And now from these tedious particulars let us turn for a 
 moment to consider how thoroughly consistent Deuteronomy 
 is throughout, and how thoroughly clear and full its provisions 
 appear to be when we take them by themselves. The Levites 
 are a tribe set apart by God to the priestly of&ce, and on this 
 account receive no landed property. Those who are at the 
 sanctuary in the discharge of their office are nourished by the 
 altar dues. But in these revenues no Levite remote from the 
 
 * Id xxvi. 13, hrou^iht awaij of tlie English version should be con.^iinicd. The 
 tithe is consumed by being eaten where it lies. Comp. ver. 14 (Heb.) 
 
 t I may note in a word a difference in latiguage between Q, and D confii-ma- 
 ■tory of these results. In Q the tithe is the jieople's Tcrunm (tribute). In D the 
 Tcnuiia of thy hand means not the tithe but the fii-st-fruits. 
 
40 DEUTERONOMY CLEAR IN ITSELF, 
 
 sanctuary can share. He who is not doing priest's work has 
 no official income. He belongs to the landless classes, and 
 in an agricultural country is presumably poor. He has, 
 therefore, a special claim on the kindness of the people in 
 whose midst he sojourns, and has the first place among those 
 whom the lawgiver makes the object of a systematic and 
 divinely appointed charity. The observance of this charity 
 is specially laid on the consciences of the people, but they are 
 nowhere taught to pay to the Levites, by way of tribute, the 
 liberal allowance prescribed in Q, wdiich would have raised 
 them above the need of charity. 
 
 This is an account of the position of Levi thoroughly 
 complete and intelligible, and one, as we shall by and by see,. 
 wdiich corresponds in a striking Avay with facts in the sub- 
 sequent history. But the attempt to harmonise it with Q, 
 involves the assumption wdiich Mr. Curtiss expresses very 
 naively, " that sharpness and detail are especially wanting in 
 Deuteronomy," and compels us at every turn to put upon 
 words a meaning inconsistent with all analogy, and which no 
 one could possibly dream of if he had Deuteronomy alone 
 before him. Now, to say that Deuteronomy is an obscure 
 and inexactly written book, or that it wants detail, is simply 
 absurd. N'o book is clearer in style and expression, or fitter 
 to be a manual of the law. And there are ample details of 
 everything that the laity require to know, as is seen, for 
 example, in the long list of clean and unclean animals (chap, 
 xiv.), and in the minute provisions of the law of war (chaps. 
 XX., xxi.) Is it credible that a legislator who repeats in 
 detail, from the previous laws, such minor ordinances as we 
 read from chap. xx. to chap, xxiv., should speak at great 
 length about priests, and Levites, and tithes, and never 
 mention the provisions of the other law if he recognised 
 ihem as binding ? And finally, it is to be remembered that 
 some of the details in Deuteronomy are in explicit verbal 
 contradiction with those in Q. We saw this in the case of 
 the firstlings. But this is not the only point in which the 
 priestly dues are differently determined in the two legislations. 
 
BUT DARKENED BY HARMONISTS. 41 
 
 In Q the breast and leg of ordinary sacrifices (peace oflerings) 
 fall to the priest. According to Deut. xviii. 3, the priest 
 receives from them that offer a sacrifice (zebach) the shoulder, 
 the two cheeks, and the maw. I will not go through all the 
 suggestions that have been offered to harmonise tliis obvious 
 contradiction. The only one which deserves a moment's 
 notice is the traditional Jewish solution that the law of 
 1 )euteronomy does not apply to sacrifices proper, and tliat 
 z'hach here means an animal not sacrificed but slain for 
 ordinary use. Now the word zehacli occurs more than a 
 hundred and fifty times in the Bible, and the only cases out of 
 all these to whicli the latest defenders of the traditional view 
 appeal as proving that the w^ord ever means anything else 
 than a sacrifice, are three figurative passages in the prophets, 
 where it stands metaphorically of a divine act of judgment. 
 On the strength of these metaphors, Mr. Curtiss argues that 
 it is fair to take a word, which means sacrifice everywhere else, 
 to denote in this one passage of Deuteronomy, not a slain 
 beast in general, though that ^vould be arbitrary enough, but 
 any slain beast except a sacrifice. In short, the laws of D and 
 Q cannot be harmonised except by ascribing to the decisive 
 word in Deut. xviii, a sense directly contradictory to that 
 which it has in all other passages. Such a way of inter- 
 2:)reting Scripture is worthy of the Jewish scribes, its in- 
 ventors ; and the exaction which it put upon the people, by 
 suffering the priest to claim a sliare of every slain beast, is a 
 fair sample of the heavy burdens which they laid on men's 
 shoulders ; but it is not with such aid and by such defenders 
 that the Christian Church can desire to vindicate the ex- 
 cellence of God's AVord. 
 
 There is much more that might be said upon the discrep- 
 ancies of Q and D, but I conceive that I have advanced enough 
 to prove that on the matter of priests and Levites the two 
 codes present distinct systems of law, which could not be 
 enunciated by one lawgiver to be observed contemporaneously. 
 Each system, taken by itself, is clear and self-consistent, but 
 to harmonise the two is impossible, except by substituting 
 
42 DEUTERONOMY PRESUPPOSES CUSTOMS 
 
 Eabbinical quirks for the laws of grammatical exegesis. It is 
 of course impossible to imagine two laws which could not be 
 harmonised by such assumptions as we have had occasion to 
 mention ; but harmony so gained is purchased by surrendering 
 the plain meaning of words, and by reducing the simplest 
 statements to a chaos of unintelligibility, from wdiich no 
 meaning can be drawn without the aid of authoritative tradi- 
 tion or arbitrary conjecture. Such a system of interpretation 
 stands self -refuted ; and till the defenders of the unity of the 
 Pentateuchal law can put something better in its place, no 
 Church which values the Word of God for its wisdom, its 
 perspicuity, and its divine perfection, will commit itself to 
 them as the sole upholders of orthodoxy. 
 
 In my Encyclopaedia article I do not undertake to say 
 whether Q or D gives the earlier form of the law. ]N"or in 
 our argument hitherto have we found anything to determine 
 this point. The observances of the later Jews, from the time 
 of Ezra downwards, are known to have agreed mainly with 
 the law of Q. But this does not settle the question ; for it is 
 conceivable that the elaborate rules of Leviticus and N"umbers, 
 or at the least the main features thereof, were planned by 
 Moses ; that, owing to circumstances, the system was never 
 thoroughly put in force, or after a time dropped out of use; 
 tliat D was then given as a simpler code to take its place ; 
 and that after the captivity it was found practicable to revert 
 to the original and more complicated system. But on this 
 view we must at least suppose that the distinctive ordinances 
 of Q had fallen into desuetude when D was written. Deuter- 
 onomy does not enact the abolition of a previously existing 
 barrier between the priesthood and the Levites, but everywhere 
 assumes as a matter of course that the Levite in office is a 
 priest supported by priestly dues, and that Levites out of 
 office are sojourners dispersed through the land and possessing 
 a claim on charity. And, in like manner, it is taken for 
 granted that the people are accustomed to consume the tithe 
 and the firstlings in sacrificial feasts; and the special enact- 
 ment made is that such feasts must be confined to the sane- 
 
AT VARIANCE WITH NUMBERS. 43 
 
 tuary and shared with needy dependents, and that in every 
 third year the tithe shall form a store for charity. In these 
 points the law of Deuteronomy appears as sanctioning and 
 regulating prevalent customs inconsistent with Q. And 
 therefore if the substance of Q is Mosaic, Deuteronomy can- 
 not have been written till a very considerable time after 
 ]\Ioses. 
 
 This being the state of the question as it appears by exa- 
 mination of the Pentateuch alone, it l^ecomes most important 
 to look at the history of Israel within the Land of Promise. 
 If we can find evidence that during part of that history the 
 law of Q was out of use, and current practice agreed with 
 what is taken for granted in D, the critical argument will re- 
 ceive confirmation of the most important kind, and we may 
 find materials for determining more exactly the date of each 
 code. 
 
 On the subject of the priestly dues the historical notices 
 are scanty ; but they show that established custom on this 
 point was fluctuating, and by no means corresponded with Q. 
 In the time of Eli, the recognised right of the priest in case 
 of a sacrifice was to thrust a fork into the pot and take what 
 came up.* Again, at the time of Jehoiada, the dues seem to 
 have been paid in money ; and it is quite against the law of 
 Q that a money payment was taken instead of the sin and 
 trespass offering (2 Kings xii. lG).t 
 
 To the tithe there is a single allusion before the Exile in 
 Amos iv. 4, in such association with sacrifices and voluntary 
 offerings as seems to indicate a state of things analogous to 
 
 * 2 Sam. ii. 13. The con-ect sense of this passage is expressed by the Greek 
 and Syiiac versions. In the Hebrew text a letter has been di-opped (an initial m 
 after a final one) which obscures but does not change the meaning. The phrase 
 in the original text was the same as in Deut. xviii. 3, " the priest's due from the 
 people." See WeLUiausen on the passage. It was by going beyond this rule that 
 the sons of Eli offended, especially by exacting a share in the sacrifice before offer- 
 ing the fat on the altar. 
 
 t By comparison of Hosea iv. 8, Amos ii. 8, it may be gathered that this i)ractice 
 prevailed in Ephrahn also. It was doubtless connected with the judicial functions 
 of the priests locognised in Deut. xvii. 9. Deuteronomy does not mention sin 
 and trespass offerings. 
 
44 PRIESTS AND LEVITES 
 
 the custom presupposed in Deuteronomy. In the prophecy 
 about Eli's house, 1 Sam. ii. 36, it appears that a priest who- 
 had no office was in danger of starving, which would not be 
 tlie case if the tithe of Q was recognised. In 2 Chron. xxxi. we 
 find the account of a tithe collected by Hezekiah for the 
 priests and Levites. The details do not agree strictly either 
 with Q or with D, and the thing appears to have been quite 
 exceptional in character. It is noteworthy that the edict to 
 bring in the tithe was issued only to the people of Jerusalem, 
 which seems to point to the triennial tithe of Deuteronomy 
 stored within each township. The other cities joined volun- 
 tarily and brought the tithe of cattle, which is mentioned 
 neither in Deuteronomy nor in Numbers, but only in Lev. xxvii. 
 The next point is the residence of the Levites. The cities 
 assigned to them are enumerated in Josh. xxi. But some of 
 these cities remained in the hands of the old inhabitants, and 
 cannot have been occupied by the Levites.* And there is 
 good reason to doubt if they took actual possession even of 
 all the others. The sons of Aaron could not have occupied 
 thirteen cities in the time of Joshua. The only Levites men- 
 tioned in the book of Judges appear in accordance with D as 
 sojourners in Bethlehem, in the remoter parts of Mount 
 Ephraim, or wherever they could find a place (Jud. xvii. 7, 
 xix. 1). In 1 Sam. vi. 15, we find Levites in the priestly city 
 of Bethshemesh. Abiathar had fields in Anathoth (1 Kings 
 ii. 26) and Jeremiah was one of the priests of Anathoth. 
 These, I think, are the only definite references to the cities of 
 Josh, xxi., as actually inhabited before the Exile by those ta 
 whom they were assigned. And it hardly appears that these 
 cities were occupied according to the law of Q. Abiathar's 
 original city, the priestly city par excellence, in the time of 
 Saul, was Nob, which is not one of the 48 cities named in 
 Joshua. And though the law gives the Levites and priests a 
 right of common round their cities, this pasture ground was 
 inalienable (Lev. xxv. 34), so that the possession of fields at 
 
 * Gezer remained unconquered till the time of Solomon, 1 Kings ix. 16, 
 And Taanach, Nahalal, are mentioned as unconquered cities in Jud. i. 
 
IN HISTORY. 45 
 
 Anatlioth by Abiatliar, and the sale of such a field to Jere- 
 miah by his cousin (Jer. xxxii. 7), are against the Pentateuchal 
 ordinance. The Chronicler certainly twice speaks in a gene- 
 ral way of the Levites as actually resident in their cities and 
 pastures (1 Chr. xiii. 2, 2 Chr. xi. 14). But it is doubtful 
 whether these references imply that the provisions of Q liad 
 been fully carried out. And it is plain from the latter passage 
 that from the time of Jeroboam downward there were no cities 
 for common Levites (Comp. 1 Kings xii. 31). For the Levites 
 did not retain their cities in the Northern Kingdom, and those 
 in the Southern Kingdom were all destined in Josh. xxi. to 
 the sons of Aaron (Comp. 2 Chr. xxxi. 19). Thus the his- 
 tory fully bears out the inference which the critical interpre- 
 tation drew from D, that for a long time the Levites, except 
 so far as they had priest's work at the central sanctuary, were 
 sojourners scattered through the land. So the prophecy of 
 Jacob was fulfilled : " I will divide them in Jacob ; and 
 scatter them in Israel " (Gen. xlix. 7). 
 
 We have still to consider what lioht the historv throws on 
 the line of distinction between priests and Levites. 
 
 We have already seen (page 31, note) that the history 
 agrees with Deuteronomy in making it a function of the 
 priests to bear the ark, the one exception being in 1 Chron. xv. 
 
 In the period of the Judges we have clear proof that the 
 law of Q was not in force. Samuel, though not sprung from 
 Aaron, was from his childhood a priest, even wearing the 
 ephod, which was the instrument of the sacred lot, and is 
 confined in Q to the high priest (supra, p. 33). So all the priests 
 of Nob wore the ephod (1 Sam. xxii. 18), and even David, on 
 a great occasion, wore this vestment, offered sacrifices as a 
 priest before the Lord, and blessed the people in the name of 
 Jehovah (2 Sam. vi. 14, 18). Moreover the sons of David 
 were priests, as the Hebrew of 2 Sam. viii. 18 unambiguously 
 declares. These facts, be it observed, do not imply mere tem- 
 porary deflection from the law of Q under the pressure of cir- 
 cumstai-ces. They refer to the stated customs of the chief 
 family of priests and the court of the king after God's heart ; 
 
46 ZADOK AND ABIATHAR. 
 
 and therefore they are unambiguous proof that the strict 
 Levitical law had at that time no recognition. But the most 
 remarkable evidence from this period refers to David's chief 
 priests, Zadok and Abiathar. Abiathar was the descendant 
 of Eli, and his removal from the priesthood, in which he was 
 succeeded by Zadok, is recognised in 1 Kings ii. 27, as the 
 fulfilment of the prophecy against Eli's house. What now is 
 this prophecy as contained in 1 Sam. ii. 27-36 ? It declares 
 that Eli's father's house or clan received God's revelation in 
 Egypt with the promise of everlasting priesthood ; that this 
 promise is to be withdrawn ; that calamit}'- shall overtake the 
 house and clan of Eli ; but that God will raise up a faithful 
 priest to whose family the priesthood shall be confirmed, the 
 descendants of Eli sinking into subordinate posts, which 
 they are glad to hold for the sake of a morsel of bread. 
 
 To understand this passage, we must observe that priest 
 here, as often in the Old Testament, stands for high priest. 
 Although the promise of everlasting priesthood made to Eli's 
 house and clan is cancelled, his descendants continue to 
 occupy priestly office in a lower sense. The sense therefore 
 is that the high priesthood is to be taken from the family of 
 Eli, and not only so, but from the house or clan of Eli's 
 father, whom God chose as high priest at the time of the 
 Exodus (ver. 28). Zadok, therefore, in whom the prophecy 
 was fulfilled, cannot have been a member of the house of 
 Aaron. He was no doubt a Levite (comp. 2 Sam. xv. 24), but 
 he was not of the seed of Aaron. This conclusion seems in- 
 deed to be inconsistent with 1 Chron. vi. 50-53, where 
 Zadok's descent is traced to Aaron and Eleazar, so that he ap- 
 pears as continuing the rightful line of high priests ; while 
 Abiathar's son, Ahimelech (though curiously enough not Abi- 
 athar himself) is represented as the head of the line of Ithamar, 
 Aaron's younger son (1 Chron. xxiv. 3, 6). It is quite plain, 
 however, that the genealogical statement in Chronicles does 
 not express natural descent. The prophecy in Samuel is ex- 
 plicit in saying that Eli's house held the priesthood oj divine 
 promise from the beginning. Eli therefore, and his descend- 
 
EZEKIEL. 47 
 
 ant Abiathar, were unquestionably sprung of Aaron tb rough 
 Eleazar and his son Phinehas, to whom was given the very 
 promise of everlasting priesthood, quoted and cancelled in 
 Samuel (Xum. xxv. 13). Accordingly the explanation of the 
 statement in Chronicles can only be sought in the well known 
 fact that classifications, not exclusively based on natural 
 descent, are often put into genealogical form. The Genealo- 
 gies of Chronicles are properly a systematic exposition of the 
 organisation and subdivisions of the nation, and a man's place 
 in the genealogy depended on his place in tlie organisation of 
 the theocracy, which generally, indeed, but not always, de- 
 pended on his natural descent. Xot only in the Biljle, but 
 among all Semites, a guild is represented as a family, and 
 sonship is the ordinary expression for memhcrship of a guild. 
 Thus in the time of the Chronicler, sons of Eleazar and Itha- 
 mar respectively would mean no more than the higher and 
 lower guild of priests, and Abiathar's descendants are by him 
 reckoned to the latter, because they lost the high ;riestbood ; 
 whereas Zadok, becoming high priest, is reckoned in the 
 later genealogies as a son of Eleazar. But the adoption of 
 this classification by an author who lived many centuries 
 later, and had to adapt his expressions to the usage of his own 
 day, cannot go to disprove the clear evidence of the earlier 
 books, that Zadok was not of the house of Aaron by natural 
 descent.* 
 
 T now pass to the testimony of Ezekiel, that in his time 
 the Levites were not excluded from priestly office. The last 
 chapters of Ezekiel's book, following on the prophecy of 
 Israel's restoration, give a sketch of the ordinances of the new 
 theocracy. Here we read, xliv. 6 : — 
 
 O house of Israel ! Have done with all your abominations, (7) in 
 that ye bring in foreigners uncircumcised in heart and Iflesh to be in 
 
 * The explanation given above of the expression "sons of Ithamar " in post. 
 Exile writings, is confirmed by the fact that no genealogical line is given to con- 
 nect Abiathar with Ithamar. Moreover, Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, on whom 
 alone depends the common doctrine that Eli was a high priest of the line of 
 Ithamar, appears to owe his existence simply to an en-or ia the Hebrew text of 
 2 Sam. viii. 17. See Wellhausen on the passage. 
 
48 THE ROYAL BODYGUARD 
 
 my sanctuary, polluting my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat, and 
 the blood ; and so ye break my covenant in addition to all your abomin- 
 ations, (8) and keep not the charge of my holy things, but appoint them 
 as keepers of my charge in my sanctuary. Tho-efore, (9) thus saith the 
 Lord, no foreigner uncircumcised in lieai't and flesh shall enter my 
 sanctuary — no foreigner whatever, who is among the children of Israel. 
 (10) But the Levites, because they departed from me when Israel went 
 astray, when they went astray from me after their idols ; even they shall 
 bear their guilt, (11) and be ministers in my sanctuary, officers at the 
 gates of the house, and ministers of the house : it is they who shall 
 kill the burnt-ofi'ering and the sacrifice for the people, and it is they 
 who shall stand before them to minister unto them. (12) Because they 
 ministered unto them before their idols, and were a stumbling-block of 
 guilt to the house of Israel, therefore, I swear concerning them, saith 
 the Lord God, that they shall bear their guilt, (13) and shall not draw 
 jiear to me to do the office of a priest to me, or to touch any of my holy 
 things — the most holy things ; but they shall bear their shame and their 
 abominations which they have done. (14) And I will make them 
 keepers of the charge of the house for all the service thereof, and for all 
 that is to be done about it. (15) But the Levite priests, the sons of 
 Zadok, who kept the charge of my sanctuary when the Children of 
 Israel went astray from me — they shall come near unto me to minister 
 unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and 
 the blood, saith the Lord God. They shall enter into my sanctuary and 
 approach my table, ministering unto me, and keep my charge.* 
 
 Tlie meaning of this passage plainly is, that the exclusion 
 of the Levites from the priesthood is a punishment for their 
 sins now decreed by prophetic authority. Up to Ezekiel's 
 time, therefore, the Levites had ranked as priests ; but hence- 
 forth the priesthood is limited to the house of Zadok, and the 
 Levites are condemned to lower services, which in Ezekiel's 
 time were allow^ed to fall into the hands of foreigners, uncir- 
 cumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh. Singular as 
 this last statement may appear it is confirmed by the history. 
 We know that the royal bodyguard, organised by David, con- 
 sisted of foreigners — Philistines, Cretans, and Carians (2 Sam. 
 
 * In verse 7 I read jje (marked with italics) following the Greek Syriac and 
 Vulgate. The Hebrew has thei/. So at the end of verse 8 I have with the Greek 
 changed one le tter, and render Therefwe instead of for yourseh-es. But if any 
 one prefers the received text the general sense is not changed. The Greek also 
 omits the first clause of verse 8. 
 
/N THE TEMPLE. 49 
 
 XV. 18, XX. 23, Heb ) The bodyguard iiUeiided the kings of 
 Judah in the temple (1 Kings xiv. 28), and in the time of 
 Jehoiada (2 Kings xi.) they were guards of the tsmple as 
 well as of the palace, and were armed on occasion from the 
 temple armoury. At this time, as we learn from 2 Kings xi. 
 4, 19, the Carians still formed part of the force.* It is not 
 probable that the constitution of the bodyguard was changed 
 afterwards, for in Zephaniah i. 8, 9 we still find associated 
 with the court men clad in foreign dress, and men who leap 
 on the threshold, that is Philistines (1 Sam. v. 5), who fill the 
 house of their master with violence and deceit — a des- 
 cription very suitable to an Oriental bodyguard. This 
 palace and temple guard of foreigners is what I^^zekiel doubt- 
 less refers to. Their functions were in fact so nearly Levitical 
 that the Chronicler in his account of Jehoiada's revolution 
 calls them Levites.t 
 
 This digression into the history of the royal bodyguard 
 makes Ezekiel's command quite intelligible. It shows, too, 
 how futile is the ordinary interpretation, according to which 
 the Levites, deprived of the priesthood, are the priests of the 
 house of Ithamar. Ezekiel does not say that certain sons of 
 Aaron are to be degraded, and become common Levites, but 
 that the Levites are to be degraded to do functions which 
 formerly belonged to the people themselves, or were by them 
 entrusted in a godless way to foreigners (comp. Lev. i. 5, 6, 
 
 * The former verse should run "Jehoiada sent and fetched the captains over 
 hundreds of the Carians, and of the guard." 
 
 t There is, I thuik, good ground for supposing that the shiughtwring of 
 sacrifices, which Ezekiel expressly assigns m future to the Le\ites, was formerly 
 the work of the guards. It was the king who provided the ordinary temiile 
 sacrifices (2 Chron. viii. 13, xxxi. 3 ; Ezek. xlv. 17), and there can be little doubt 
 that the animals killed for the royal table were usually offered as peace offeiings 
 at the temple (Deut. xii. 21). In Saul's time, at least, an unclean person could 
 not sit at the royal table, which implies that the food was saciificial (1 Sam. xx. 
 26; Lev. vii. 20; Deut. xii. 22). Now the Hebrew name for "captain of tho 
 guard" is "chief slaughterer" {rah hattabbdch i in)— -au exi)ression which, so far 
 as one can judge from the Syi'iac and Arabic as well as the Hebrew, can only 
 mean slaughterer of cattle. So the bodyguard were also the royal butchera, 
 an occu})ation not deemed unworthy of wairior.s in early times. Comp. Eurip. 
 Elcctra 815. Od/is. A. 108. 
 
50 LEVITES AT THE HIGH PLAGES 
 
 where it is assumed that every man kills his own sacrifice). 
 And the Levites on whom this punishment falls are, as 
 appears from the subsequent reference in xlviii. 11-13, the 
 whole tribe except the sons of Zadok. Besides, it appears, 
 from our discussion on Zadok and Abiathar, that sons of 
 Zadok and sons of Ithamar would not form a correct dis- 
 junction, and that the former expression naturally means the 
 whole guild of temple priests, of which Zadok was head and 
 founder. And, finally, on our interpretation the command of 
 God to Ezekiel was fulfilled under the second temple ; but the 
 sons of Ithamar continued to be priests after the Exile. 
 But to complete the argument, we must turn back once more 
 to the Book of Kings, where we learn some details as to the 
 offence for which the Levites were punished. When Josiah 
 destroyed the high places, about half a century before Ezekiel 
 wrote, he brought their priests to Jerusalem (2 Kings xxiii, 8). 
 But it is specially observed that these priests were not 
 allowed to officiate at the altar ; only they ate unleavened 
 bread, i. c, shared in the meat offering which belongs to the 
 priests alone (Num. xviii. 9j, in the midst of their brethren."' 
 In other words, it was recognised that the priests of the high 
 places were real priests, with a claim to share the priestly 
 dues though they were not allowed to officiate. We cannot 
 imagine that all these priests were sons of Aaron, but, as 
 Ezekiel tells ns, they were Levites, and so we have another 
 proof that at this time it was recognised, just as in Deutero- 
 nomy, that Levites are essentially priests, and when they are 
 at the sanctuary have a right to share the priestly dues.f 
 
 Against all this evidence I believe only one text can be" 
 drawn from the earlier historical books. In 1 Kings viii. 4, 
 we read of the priests and the Levites as if they were distinct. 
 But the Greek text, which is of value in this part of the 
 
 * In Num. xviii. 9 and Ezek. xlii. 13, this meat offering is reckoned among 
 the most holy things. Now in Ezek. xliv. 13, the Levites are sentenced no longer 
 to touch the most holy things. In other words the usage of Josiah 's time is 
 cancelled by the prophet. 
 
 t We learn from 2 Kings xxiii. 20, that the priests of the Northern high- 
 places, who were not Levites (1 Kings xii. 31), were put to death by Josiah. 
 
AND AT .JERVSALEM. 51 
 
 Bible, uiiiiLs the Levites, and the Jiuok of Chronicles, copying 
 the verse, has the priests, the Levites, /. c, the Lovite-priests. 
 If this reading is adopted we have a fresh conHrmation of the 
 priesthood of the tribe of Levi in the time of the Kings, to 
 which may be added Jeremiah xxxiii. 18, and especially Tsa. 
 Ixvi. 21, where it is predicted that God will take of the lientiles 
 for priests for Levites, i. c, for priests even for Levites. 
 
 When all these facts are viewed together they give remark- 
 able confirmation to our interpretation of the Deuteronomic 
 laws. We found that, on a natural rendering, these laws are 
 not only inconsistent with Q, but imply that a state of things 
 at variance with the law of Q, was actually existent when D 
 was written. It now appears that such a state of things did 
 exist in Israel, and that not merely in times of lawlessness, 
 but under the Davidic kings. Before the building of the 
 Temple we even find priestly functions performed by persons 
 who were not Levites. But the principle that Levi is the 
 legitimate possessor of priesthood was recognised ; for it is 
 recorded as a special offence in Jeroboam that he departed 
 from it and made all sorts of people priests (1 Kings xii. 31). 
 On the other hand, up to the time of Ezekiel, the priesthood 
 belonged to Levi as a tribe, and not to a single family. These 
 facts are in no way inconsistent with the pre-eminence of one 
 high-priestly family, or with the choice of Aaron as priest 
 ^j<vr excellence, or head of the whole priesthood and custodian 
 of the sanctuary of the ark. The whole point of the argu- 
 ment is, that before the reformation of Josiali all Levites were 
 admitted to do sacritice, and that even after that time they 
 were viewed as true priests with a right to share the altar 
 
 dues. 
 
 At this Doint I might not unreasonably close my defence. 
 Until the facts now before us are refuted, the Church cannot 
 venture to affirm as a point of orthodoxy that, the whole 
 Pentateuchal law was given by Moses, and contains no contra- 
 dictory provisions. It appears, as the argument now stands, 
 that either in Q or else in D, there are laws which, though 
 ascribed to :Moses, were not given by him, but form a later 
 
S2 GENERAL RESULT. 
 
 development of the legislation. Tliis is enough to make good 
 my general position, and if so much is conceded, no one is 
 likely to make it a question of orthodoxy which particular 
 parts of the Pentateuch are post-Mosaic. If Deuteronomy is 
 the work of Moses, the hierarchical system of Q is of later 
 date even in its main distinctive principles. Or on the other 
 hand, if the main outlines of the legislation in Q are sub- 
 stantially Mosaic, and fell out of recognition in the times of 
 anarchy under the judges, the book of Deuteronomy is cor- 
 respondingly late. In either case some expressions in the 
 Pentateuch cannot be taken as strict history, but are merely a 
 parabolic vehicle for legal ideas. To those who are not 
 familiar with the full force of the exegetical and historical 
 facts on which it rests this conclusion has not unnaturally 
 seemed startling and dangerous — not because parable and 
 figure are an unfit vehicle for sacred teaching, but because 
 their use in such a connection seems to render uncertain the 
 outlines of the history of Redemption under tlie old dispen- 
 sation. But on the one hand it will be found, that in the 
 actual scholarly analysis of the Pentateuch it is not so diffi- 
 cult as it might at first sight appear to separate the purely 
 historical from the legally parabolic elements of the narrative ; 
 and that even where exact separation is unattainable with our 
 present knowledge, no interest of faith is touched by this 
 uncertainty. And on the other hand, we must remember, 
 what has been so well enforced by Butler, that " after all, 
 that which is true must be admitted, though it should show 
 us the shortness of our faculties, and that we are in no wise 
 judges of many things of which we are apt to think ourselves 
 very competent ones. ... As we are in no sort judges before- 
 hand, by what laws or rules, in what degree or by what means 
 it were to have been expected that God would naturally in- 
 struct us ; so upon supposition of his affording us light and 
 instruction by revelation, additional to what he has afforded 
 us by reason and experience, we are in no sort judges by what 
 methods and in what proportion it were to be expected that 
 this supernatural light and instruction would be afforded us. 
 
BlHUiW nilTLEU. S3 
 
 .... And thus we see that the only question concerning the 
 truth of Christianity is whether it be a real revelation, not 
 whether it Ije attended with every circumstance which we 
 should have looked for : and concerning the autliority ol" 
 Scripture, whether it be what it claims to be — not wiiether it 
 be a book of such a sort, and so promulged as weak men 
 are apt to fancy a book containing a divine revelation sliould." 
 {A'iudogij, Pt. II. ch. iii.) 
 
 In contending for freedom of critical enquiry with regard 
 to the composition of the Pentateuch, I ask no more than is 
 covered by these weighty sentences of Butler. The Churcli 
 is not ixsked to give official approbation to any critical con- 
 clusion. It is not her part to decide questions that are not 
 of faith, or to pronounce an opinion on the results of 
 historical investigation. But no Church can safely forbid her 
 members to acknowledge and to reason upon facts lying 
 within the Scriptures, and elicited by the ordinary methods 
 of grammatico-historical exegesis. Such facts cannot be 
 dangerous to faith even if they appear to be inconsistent 
 with current ideas, and to call for some revision of our 
 way of looking at the Biblical books. And it does no honour 
 to the Word of God to insist that scholars within the Church 
 shall rather leave difficulties unsolved than attempt to re- 
 move them by constructive criticism. It is often said that 
 because criticism cannot profess to give a complete account 
 of the origin of the Pentateuch, free from all hypothetical 
 and uncertain elements, it has no right to attack traditional 
 opinions as inconsistent with the facts of the ca,se. But all 
 facts relating to the Bible ought to be brought out ]>y those 
 who have Biblical studies for their special vocation. And if 
 men are to study the facts it is useless to ask them to abstain 
 from drawing inferences, and from the attempt to account 
 for the facts in the most probable way, even where absolute 
 certainty cannot be attained. No doubt many mistakes have 
 l:teen made, and will continue to be made in the reo-ion of 
 Old Testament criticism, and the Church has a right to 
 expect that men shall carefully distinguisli their OAvn ])rivate 
 
54 RELATION OF JJEUTERONOMY 
 
 views and conjectures in matters of historical enquiry from 
 the teaching of the Church in matters of ftiith. But no 
 Protestant Church can undertake to repress the formation 
 and expression of private opinions, and no man is fit to bear 
 office in such a Church who would consent to surrender the 
 Christian's inalienable right to enquire to the best of his 
 ability into every ])art of the Word of Grod, and every pro- 
 blem of Biblical scholarship. 
 
 In the exercise of this right I have been led not only to 
 admit the force of the critical argument against the 
 traditional view that all the Pentateuchal laws are of 
 Mosaic date, but to accept the opinion that the Book of 
 Deuteronomy is one of the later parts of the Torah. This is 
 a private opinion, which I have no desire to press upon 
 others, further than they are satisfied by the historical 
 evidence in its favour, and which I shall of course be 
 ready to modify if sufficient evidence is adduced. 
 It is an opinion which presents no additional 
 theological difficulty, if it is once admitted that all 
 l^arts of the Torah cannot be literally Mosaic, and which the 
 Church can hardly refuse to tolerate, unless she is prepared 
 in the face of the evidence already adduced to make it a 
 point of faith that Moses gave all the Pentateuchal laws. But 
 since the Libel makes a special point of my views of 
 Deuteronomy, it may be well to give a sketch of some of the 
 grounds on which they rest. 
 
 The Deuteronomic code is represented in chaps, v. 1 
 seq. vi. 1 seq. and in the subscription xxix. 1, as a renewal of 
 the covenant made with the people at Horeb, and a repetition 
 of the commandments then laid upon them. 
 
 Now the part of the Pentateuch which contains the 
 original Sinaitic Covenant is, as we have alread}^ seen, the 
 document S embracing Exod. xx.-xxiii ; and when we speak 
 of D as a repetition of the Law, we must remember that it 
 does not profess to repeat any other law than that of S, to 
 which the people were solemnly pledged at Sinai. Between 
 S and D a very intimate relation subsists. The opening 
 
TO THE SIN AITIC COVENANT. 55 
 
 pamgraphs of the latter (ch. v.) are a reproduction of 
 Ex. XX. 1-21 ; and tlie detailed ordinances whicli bei'-in witli 
 Dent. xii. 1 take u}) almost every point contained in Ex. 
 XX. 23 — xxiii. 19, omitting only the list of compensations to 
 be ]mid for various injuries, Ex. xxi. 18 — xxii. 15. The re- 
 production of the law in D is at the same time a develop- 
 ment and expansion. Thus in Exod. xxi. 12-14, we find a 
 short law stating that the wilful murderer must be taken 
 from God's altar to be slain, and that God will appoint an 
 asylum for him who has slain a man by accident. In Deut. 
 xix. 1-1:3, this is developed into a full law of murder and 
 man.slaughter, and the asylum is provided in the form of 
 cities of refuge. Again, the holiness of the people is men- 
 tioned in S only in xxii. 31, as the reason for not eating 
 flesh torn of beasts in the field. In D the principle of cere- 
 monial holiness is largely extended (xiv. 1-21), and a long- 
 list of forbidden foods is given. Besides expanding and 
 developing, Deuteronomy often introduces changes on the 
 provisions of S- Of this we had examples above, p. 17. An- 
 other case is that of the firstlings, which, according to Exod. 
 xxii. 30, must be given to God on the eighth day, but in 
 Deut. xii. 17/; xv. 19/, are to be eaten at the Sanctuary 
 at the annual feasts. The comparison of such parallel laws 
 offers the most obvious test whether Moses can be viewed 
 as the author of D. In the first place, it is fair to ask 
 whether the lano-uao-e of the two books is consistent with 
 the idea that both are ^losaic, or even that both were written 
 within forty years. The answer to this question can hardly 
 be a decided afiirmative ; but as arguments from style are 
 admittedly difficult and often precarious, it will Ijc safer to 
 confine ourselves to a second question, viz., whether the 
 modifications made on the laws of S, when they reappear in 
 D, are consistent with the idea that both are Mosaic. 
 
 In looking at this question we may begin with some 
 cases which, though not quite decisive in themselves, seem 
 at least to point to the conclusion that a considerable inter- 
 val of time and considerable changes in social life lie between 
 
36 PARALLEL LAWS. 
 
 S and D. The laws as to the manumission of slaves form a 
 case in point (Exod. xxi. 2-11, Deut. xv. 12-18, comp. xxi. 
 10-14). Both laws are written for the land of Canaan, as 
 appears from the reference to door and doorpost. In 
 the law of S maidservants are exempted from manumission, 
 in D they are to be treated exactly as menservants. If both 
 laws were given in the wilderness for a time of future settle- 
 ment in Canaan, this variation appears arbitrary. The 
 explanation, however, is clearly indicated in S, where verses 
 8 seq. show that that law is calculated for a state of society 
 in which a Hebrew girl was ordinarily bought to be the 
 wife of her master or his son. This simple and primitive 
 state of things had doubtless passed away before Deutero- 
 nomy was written, and it was necessary in the interests of 
 humanity to modify the old law. Again, in Exod. xxii. 
 IG, 17, he who seduces a virgin is obliged to buy her of her 
 father as his wife, or if the father refuse he is to pay the 
 same dowry as if he had married her a virgin. We have here an 
 example — quite parallel to the law last quoted — of a state 
 of society well known to students of antiquity. The 
 father has a pecuniary interest in his daughter's virginit}^ 
 because he expects to receive a dowry or rather purchase 
 price {mdlmr — exactly equivalent to the Homeric Uva) from 
 the suitor in exchange for her hand. The seduction 
 frustrates this hope (comp. Odyssey viii. 318), and the 
 seducer must therefore make good the injury to the father 
 as well as to the damsel. In accordance with this point of 
 view, the law of S stands at the close of a list of cases of 
 pecuniary compensations for injury to property, and not 
 among the laws as to personal injury. In Deut. xxii. 
 28 we find a parallel law — not among laws of property, 
 but among laws as to purity. The case contemplated is not 
 that of seduction, but of violence to a maiden. It is still 
 provided that the offender shall marry the damsel and pay 
 a sum to the father ; but the expression " Tndhar of virgins" 
 has disappeared, and the compensation is fixed at fifty 
 shekels. Apparently the custom of paying a dowry to the 
 
THE LA W OP WoR^niP. S7 
 
 father in every case of marriage is no longer known, and 
 therefore, though the fine is retained, it cannot, as in S, be 
 estimated by usual practice as to the dowry of virgins, but 
 requires to be fixed by law. When this important change 
 in marriage customs took place we cannot say witli preci- 
 sion. In the time of Saul the payment of a mohar was still 
 usual (1 Sam. xviii. 25) ; but the book of Kings has a tech- 
 nical word for dowry given by the father to his daughtei- 
 (shilluchim, 1 Kings ix. 16, literally " dismissal gift"), which 
 implies a reversal of the old custom. In the post-Biblical 
 Jewish law the dowry was settled on the wife, as well as 
 the paraphernalia which she brought from her father's house. 
 From these minor cases I pass at once to the great cen- 
 tral difference between S and D. In both codes the details 
 of the legislation open witli a law respecting the worship of 
 God (Exod. XX. 22-26, Deut. xii.) In S the argument runs thus 
 — The God who has spoken to Israel from heaven must not be 
 worshipped by images. But tlie dispensation was not so ad- 
 vanced as to permit of worship in all places alike, without a 
 visible sign of the meeting place of heaven and earth, and a 
 visible expression of Israel's service. An altar therefore is 
 requisite ; but it must be built, with all simplicity, of earth 
 or unhewn stone. On such, an altar the people shall offei* 
 their sacrifices, and to such worship the promise is attached : 
 " In all the places where I set a memorial of my name I 
 will come unto thee and bless thee." It appears then that 
 it is not legitimate to sacrifice everywhere indiscriminately. 
 God designates as the points at which he will hold tryst with 
 the people only those places where he has set a memorial of 
 his name, ie., of his revealed qualities. This idea is clearly 
 illustrated by the history of the patriarchs, who were wont 
 to build an altar where God had appeared to them (Gen. xii. 
 7, xxvi. 24«/., XXXV. 7). The doctrine that God marks out 
 his own holy places by some revealing manifestation con- 
 tinues to receive illustration from the later history. Gideon's 
 altar at Ophrah was erected where the angel met him (Jud. 
 vi. 24). Saul's first altar commemorated the great victor}- 
 
38 THE LAW OF WORSHIP 
 
 at Michmash (1 Sam. xiv, 35), and in like manner David's 
 altar on the threshing floor of Araunah occupied the spot 
 where the hand of the destroying angel was stayed (2 Sam. 
 xxiv, 18). It appears from the words used that God may 
 legitimately be worshipped by sacrifice at all altars erected 
 in conformity with this command. It is not said that by 
 placing a memorial of his name at a new place God with- 
 draws legitimation from previously erected altars. On the 
 contrary, God meets with his people in all lolaces * (collec- 
 tively) where he has put a memorial of his name. This law 
 has greatly perplexed those who hold that from the begin- 
 ning of the Mosaic dispensation sacrifice was limited to a 
 single central altar. For the altar of burnt- offering, which 
 on this view superseded the altars of earth or stone, was 
 erected only nine months later. In the interval we read of 
 one occasion on which an altar was erected by Moses and 
 sacrifices offered upon it (Ex. xxiv. 4). But Moses had built 
 an altar before (Exod. xvii. 15), and the present law is not 
 addressed to him for his guidance on one occasion and in 
 one place, but to Israel at large on all occasions of worship) 
 and in " all places where the Lord sets a memorial of his 
 name." So general a law cannot be limited to a few months 
 during which the people were resident at Sinai, and so con- 
 fined to one place of divine manifestation. Moreover, the 
 connection between the precept and the prohibition of idola- 
 try, the place which it holds, immediately after the promul- 
 gation of the Decalogue, at the head of the Sinaitic ordin- 
 ances, and the fulness of detail with which directions are 
 given for the construction of altars of stone instead of earth 
 (ver. 25), if the people choose the former material, combine 
 to show that we have in the passage a fundamental law of 
 
 * One of my critics,' ]\Ir. James Kennedy, has discovered that the correct 
 translation of the Hebrew i^hrase in ver. 24 is, " in the place — wherever it may 
 be." Applying this new grammatical light to Jer. iv. 29, we should have to 
 render, " the city — wherever it maybe— is forsaken, and no man dwells in them." 
 The idiom over which Mr. Kennedy has stumbled is sufficiently common. Exod. 
 i. 22, Deut. iv. 3, 1 Sam. iii. 17. See Ewald's Lehrhvch, 290 c, and Hitzig on 
 Jer iv. 29 
 
7/V EXOUL'.^ KX. 39 
 
 the new theocracy and no mere temporary ordinance.- Ac- 
 cordingly Keil admits that the hiw includes not only the 
 seats of the central sanctuary, as Sinai, Sliilnli, and Jerusa- 
 lem, but also " the places where, at tlie command of tlie 
 Lord or in consequence of tlieophanies, altars were built in 
 an extraordinary way and sacrifices offered upon them — for 
 example, Ebal, Jos. viii. 30 ; Ophra, Judges vi. 25, etc." This 
 is undoubtedly correct. Only if no sanctuary can be 
 consecrated except by divine choice and divine manifes- 
 tation (a principle which ap})lies to Sinai, Shiloh, and 
 Jerusalem as strictly as to Ebal or Ophra),* it is plain 
 that according to this law the oue class of altar is no 
 more " extraordinary " than the other, and there is no reason 
 wh}' the one and not the other should retain a permanent 
 consecration. Indeed, if we look at the matter strictly, the 
 class of sanctuaries which this law contemplates, and at all 
 of which tlie people are [)ermitted to offer peace offerings 
 and burnt sacrifice, and look for God's presence and blessing, 
 is a class distinct from the sanctuary of the ark, which is 
 rather itself exceptional and extraordinary. For though the 
 frame of the brazen altar was presumably filled up with 
 earth or stones, the last verse of our ordinance, which foi'- 
 bids the altar to be ascended by steps " lest thy nakedness 
 be uncovered upon it," did not apply to the brazen altar of 
 the tabernacle, which was five feet high, or to Solomon's 
 altar, the height of which was ten cubits. Altars of this 
 size were necessarily approached by some kind of steps or 
 ascent, so that Aaron is described in Lev. ix. 22 as descendiiu/ 
 from the altar, while Ezekiel's altar is expressly said to 
 have steps (Ezek. xliii. 17, ma'alot, the very word used in 
 Exodus XX. 26). In fact, the use of steps was quite un- 
 objectionable in connection with an altar at which none but 
 priests were allowed to minister ; for in the case of priests 
 the risk of exposure of the person to the altar was met in 
 another way, viz., by the ordinance that when approaching 
 
 * Compare, for Shilo, Jerem. vii. 12, and for .Jenisalem, 1 Kinj<s vjii. 11. 
 
60 PLURALITY OF 
 
 the altar they should wear linen breeches, Ex. xxviii. 48. 
 In a word, the whole law of Exodus xx. is directed to the 
 people at large, and lays down regulations under which the 
 Israelites as a nation are permitted to approach God in the 
 exercise of their national privilege as a kingdom of priests 
 (Exod. xix. 6). This privilege, and the laws by which it 
 was regulated, were not necessarily superseded by the 
 establiphment of a special altar before the ark with a special 
 priesthood and ritual ; and we shall by and by see that, as 
 matter of history, the law of S long continued in force, and 
 that the right of the people to sacrifice at local altars was 
 recognised and exercised without derogation to the rights 
 of the Aaronic priests, who were appointed to maintain 
 a stated service of God at the central sanctuary.* Mean- 
 time, and before we turn to the corresponding legis- 
 lation in D), let us observe that the principle of plurality 
 of altars is tacitly assumed in other parts of S. The clearest 
 passage is Exod. xxii. 30, where it is provided that the 
 firstlings of oxen and sheep shall be given to God — i.e., 
 offered in sacrifice, on the eighth day from their birth. This 
 could not have been done if sacrifice was legitimate only at 
 one sanctuary ; and, in fact, Deuteronomy, which abolishes 
 the local altars, changes the law and appoints only that the 
 firstlings be eaten year by year in the sanctuary, that no 
 work must be done with the firstling of a bullock, and that 
 
 * The impoi-tant distinction between the altars of Ex. xx. which are ap- 
 proached by laymen in their ordinary dress, and the brazen altar approached by 
 priests protected against exposure by their special costume was not understood 
 by the later Jews, and consequently it was held that the prohibition of steps 
 (ma'alut) did not prevent the use of an ascent of some other kind — as for 
 example a sloping bridge or mound [See the Targum of Jonathan on our passage, 
 and also Kashi's Commentary]. In the Second Temple, the altar was a vast 
 platform of unhewn stone approached by a sloping ascent (Joseph. B.J. , Lib. v., cap. 
 5, § 6) (MishiiB,, Zebachim v., Tumid i. 4). But the expression maUdot seems to cover 
 all kinds of ascent, and the risk of exposing the person to the altar would be 
 unaffected by the nature of the ascent. In fact with a large altar the priest 
 covxld not put the blood of a victim on the four horns without standing and 
 walking on the altar {Zebachim 1. c.) which is clearly against the spirit of Exod. xx., 
 except on the understanding that that law does not apply to priests appropriatel 
 clad for the oifice. 
 
LOCAL ALTARS. 61 
 
 a firstling- sheep must not be shorn (Deut. xv. IJ) ficq.) 
 Another indication of the phirality of sanctuaries ai)})ears in 
 the hiw of asylum, Exod. xxi. 12-14", where the principle 
 that the right of asylum does not extend to wilful murderers 
 is expressed by saying that such criminals must be taken 
 from the altar to die. In other words, the altar is the 
 asylum ; and this agrees with the fact that several of the 
 cities of refuge are known to have been ancient holy places. 
 (Hebron, Gen. xii. 8 ; Shechem, Gen. xxxiii. 20 ; Ramoth- 
 Gilead or Mizpah, Gen. xxxi. 54 ; Jud. xi. 11.) And Josli. 
 XX. 7 says that the cities of refuge were " sanctified." 
 
 In general then it appears that S contemplates a plurality 
 of sanctuaries within the land of Can^ian, and that not by 
 way of temporaiy concession but as a fixed principle. The 
 principle is not inconsistent with the institution of a special 
 altar with special priests for national as distinguished from 
 local worship. Perhaps, indeed, the institution of such a 
 central sanctuary is already contemplated in what is said (jf 
 the three pilgrimage feasts (Exod. xxiii. 17, compare chap, 
 xxxiv. 24), and in the command to bring the first-fruits into 
 tlie " House of Jehovah" (Ibid., ver. 19). But it is clearly 
 not contemplated that the central sanctuary shall supersede 
 the local altars which God has hallowed by a revelation of 
 himself, and at which he is ready to meet with his people 
 and bless them without the mediation of a special priesthood. 
 This view of the meaning of the law in S is so plainly the 
 natural one that the objections taken to it are not dra^'ii 
 from exegetical considerations, but solely from other i)arts of 
 the Pentateuch with which it appears to be inconsistent ; 
 and particularly from the law of D on the one hand and from 
 Lev. xvii. on the other. 
 
 In Lev. xvii. it is enacted that no domestic animal shall 
 be slaughtered, either in the camp or in the open field, with- 
 out being presented as a peace offering at the tabernacle, so 
 that the fat may be burnt on the altar. From the con- 
 text it appears that this law is connected with the rule 
 against eating blood, but its main motive is to check a pre- 
 
6 2 LE VITICUS X V/L 
 
 Vcileiit habit of sacrificing to certain false deities called 
 Se'ii'im (E. V. Devils). Here, it is argued, we have a limita- 
 tion of sacrifice to a single altar in the time of Moses, and 
 therefore a refutation of the view which makes S license a 
 plurality of sanctuaries. But in its form of words the law is 
 designed for the period of the wandering. If limited to 
 that period alone it is by no means inconsistent with our in- 
 terpretation of S ; for in the wilderness the people would 
 have access to no altar which S acknowledges as legitimate, 
 with the one exception of tliat which stood before the 
 tabernacle. It appears, however, that the law is designed to 
 be permanent, for we read at verse 7 that " this shall be 
 a statute to them for ever in their generations." Now comm(Hi 
 sense excludes the idea that Moses could mean that after the 
 people were scattered through Canaan every animal designed 
 for food must be brought up to the tabernacle. The law, if 
 it is really Mosaic, can in its application to Canaan have only 
 one sense, viz., that as all animals in the wilderness had to 
 be presented at the tabernacle, so in Canaan they must be 
 presented at some legitimate sanctuary. And this provision 
 is intelligible and practicable only under the law of S, which 
 allows altars in all parts of the land, and assumes them to be 
 so numerous that it is always })racticable to sacrifice the 
 firstlings eight days after birth. We shall by and by have 
 occasion to see that, whether or not the present form of 
 Lev. xvii. is as old as Moses, the idea that all animal food 
 ought to be consecrated by presentation at the altar prevailed 
 among the Israelites to an extent that is not conceivable, if 
 from the first there was but one legitimate altar. 
 
 And now we come to the law of D, which is certainly 
 quite different both from S and from Lev. xvii. Some of the 
 details in Deuteronomy cannot be properly understood till 
 Ave go into the history of the actual practice of worship in 
 Canaan, but the main provisions are very plain (Deut. xii.) 
 On entering Canaan the Israelites are to destroy the 
 Canaanite sanctuaries. Moreover they are not to imitate the 
 heathen worship of these places, but must confine tlieif 
 
THE Dl-CTKRONOMIC ."^ANCTrARY. 63 
 
 ritual .service to one [)lace, which God shall chouse to " iiuike 
 his name dwell " there. To this one sanctuary all sacrifices, 
 tithes, vows, and sacred dues of all sorts must be brought. It 
 is absolutely forbidden to offer sacrifice " in any place thou 
 pleasest " (verse 13), but if the sanctuary is at a distance 
 animals may be killed for food in any town, and eaten like 
 game by the clean and unclean alike, the blood only being 
 poured upon the ground. The permi.ssion to kill animals 
 for other than sacrificial [)urposes a})pears to be new, and is 
 twice repeated in the same chapter (xii. 15, 21). But, in- 
 deed, the whole law is new, and is not meant to be enforced 
 till the peo})le are settled in Canaan (xii. 8, seq) It is re- 
 markable that we are not told when or how the choice of the one 
 sanctuary is to be made ; and so we are thrown upon the sub- 
 sequent history to determine when the law of D, supposing 
 it to be really Mosaic, would first come into action. The 
 answer to this question is given bjr comparing Joshua xviii. 1 
 Avith Jerem. vii. 12. The latter passage tells us, using 
 the very words of Deuteronomy, that God first " made his 
 name dwell" at Shiloh. And from the other text we learn 
 that Shiloh l3ecame the sanctuary in the time of Joshua. 
 Thus, on the traditional view of D, all sacrifices at other 
 altars would be illegitimate from the days of Joshua down- 
 wards. From this date onward the laws of S and of Lev. 
 xvii. would be a mere dead letter ; though the former is 
 meaningless uiJess it refers to Canaan, and the latter is 
 expressly given as a perpetual statute. We are here face to 
 ftxce with a plain contradiction between law and law, which 
 must either be solved by historical criticism or by finding 
 some other exegesis of the laws which, as we have interpreted 
 them, are at variance with one another. 
 
 The attempt to get over the difficulty by a different 
 exegesis })ractically reduces itself to this. It is assumed 
 that the law of S was given as a permanent rule for ceitain 
 exceptional cases, in which God relaxed the law of D, and 
 that the " enduring statute" of Lev, xvii. is simply the 
 prohibition to sacrifice to the Se'irim, whereas the rule 
 
64 CHANGES IN THE 
 
 that the fat of all animals used for food must be 
 burned at the tabernacle is temporary, and abrogated by D. 
 The latter assumption is clearly illegitimate. The rule that 
 the fat of every animal killed for food must be burnt on the 
 altar cannot be meant for the temporary circumstances of the 
 wilderness journey. And it reappears in Lev. vii., 22-25, 
 where we find that the only fat available for ordinary 
 uses is that of animals which have died a natural death, or 
 have been torn by wild beasts. Again, though Deut. xii., in 
 giving the permission to kill beasts for food without going to 
 the sanctuary, implies that previous custom was to sacrifice 
 every animal killed for food, it is plain that the law of D is 
 not the formal abrogation of so much of Lev. xvii. as was 
 meant only for the wilderness. The people to whom D was 
 addressed were not in the practice of bringing all their 
 victims to the tabernacle. On the contrary, we learn from 
 Deut. xii. 8, that every man did just as he pleased, and this 
 is not put as matter of blame, for the lawgiver identifies 
 himself with current practice by using the pronoun ive. 
 Equally little can any ground be found in the text for the 
 supposition that the law of D left room for exceptions to 
 which the provisions of S might still apply. Deuteronomy 
 speaks of one altar to be erected in Canaan in conformity 
 with the law of S, viz., the altar on Ebal (xxvii. 5-7). But 
 this altar was built before the choice of Shiloh (Josh. viii. 31), 
 and, therefore, if D is Mosaic, could give no precedent for 
 altar building at a later date. It is certainly true that long after 
 the choice of Shiloh sacrifices were offered and accepted by God 
 at other altars. But, unless it can be shown from the history 
 that these were exceptional cases, they only confirm our exe- 
 gesis of S, and tend to prove that the law of D was still un- 
 known. And as matter of fact it can be shown that the law 
 of S and not of D was that which regulated the habitual and 
 ordinary practice of the Hebrews long after they entered 
 Canaan. 
 
 In approaching the historical facts which establish this con- 
 clusion we must keep clearly before us the fundamental ideas 
 
LA IV of' W'uRsniP. 65 
 
 wliicli underlie the laws ol'S and D alike. Thc^reiigioii ut* 
 Israel ivS a covenant establishing a sort of feudal relation be- 
 tween Jehovah a»s Israel's God and Israel as Jehovah's people. 
 The exercises of religion are the acts in which this relation is 
 realised — in which Israel presents itself before Jehovah with 
 cx})ressions of homage, and Jehovah in rejily " comes to his 
 peojjle and blesses them." Every overt act of worshi}) is a 
 tryst between God and his people, undei- the terms of the 
 'Covenant, and subject to the conditions which God, as king 
 of the theocracy, has laid down for meeting with his sub- 
 jects. But under the old Covenant, God had not yet 
 }>romised to meet with his people wherever they assemble to 
 Avorship him in spirit and in truth (John iv. 21, seq.) 
 According to the covenant of Sinai God only promises to 
 come to his people and bless them at the sanctuaries where 
 he has set the memorial of his name. And the mark of such 
 a sanctuary is the altar on which the people offer the material 
 tokens of their homage. All public acts of religion are 
 limited to the sanctuary, and every sanctuary im})lies an 
 altar. This principle is (piite as distinct in D as in S. The 
 sanctuary of D is the one place where God causes His name 
 to dwell, i.e., where He permanently reveals Himself to His 
 people and meets with them. AVhen a man goes up to this 
 sanctuary he is " before Jehovah " (Deut. xii. 18, xxvi. 5, 10, 
 13, etc.), and therefore it is at the sanctuary and before the 
 altar that every religious act addressed to Jehovah must take 
 place. This principle runs through the whole Old Testament ; 
 and it was not till the Exile that it was modified, even by the 
 establishment of synagogue worship for those who had no 
 access to the sanctuary. In earlier times every act of visible 
 and public worship necessarily took place before Jehovah in 
 his altar-sanctuary, and was associated with sacrihcial acts. 
 (Comp. 1 Sam. xiii. ll^ Psalms xlii, xliii, Ixiii. 1, 2, etc.) 
 Thus David regards his banishment from the land ol" Israel, 
 and consequently from the privileges of the sanctuary, as a 
 command to " serve other gods " (1 Sam. xxvi. 11>, compare 
 Deut. xxviii. o(J, 6-i). And Husea views the desUuction oi' 
 
66 THE PRACTICE OF WORSHIP 
 
 the sanctuaries of Israel and the captivity of the people to a 
 land where sacrificial worship is interrupted as a temporary 
 separation between Israel and Jehovah (Hos.iii.), during which 
 the whole nation is unclean (ix. 4). Nay, so obvious is the 
 principle that all worship is altar worship, that in the earlier 
 prophets the external service of God by sacrifice is invariably 
 contrasted not with spiritual service by prayer and praise, 
 but with the moral service of justice, mercy, and humility. 
 It is never for a moment contemplated, unless in prophetic 
 vision of a new and higher dispensation, that Israel can 
 appear before God in overt acts of worship except at the 
 sanctuary and in the form of altar service (Amos v. 21 scq ; 
 Micah vi. 6 seq ; Isa. i. 11-20 ; Jer. vii. 21).* 
 
 Accordingly every national transaction which possessed a 
 religious character was necessarily carried out at a sanctuary. 
 And if the law of D is Mosaic, and came into force as soon as 
 Joshua erected the tabernacle at Shiloli, that sanctuary would 
 have been the only proper seat of such transactions, the only 
 place where Israel could appear before God with acceptance and 
 claim His blessing according to His own promise. Yet from 
 the days of Joshua downwards, all through the time that the 
 ark was at Shiloli, we find a different practice. Joshua him- 
 self gathered all Israel to Shechem to present themselves 
 "before God" at the "sanctuary" there (Jos. xxiv. 1, 26). In 
 Judges ii. 5, the people assemble and do sacrifice at Bochim. 
 Jephthah appears " before the Lord in Mizpah of Gilead " 
 (Jud. xi. 11). In Judges xx. 1, the whole nation assembles 
 "unto the Lord" in Mizpali, and in ver. 18, 23, and 26 of 
 the same chapter they go up to Bethel, and there weep 
 before the Lord, do sacrifice and enquire of Him.f Nay, 
 in chapter xxi. 4 they even build an altar at Bethel for 
 special sacrifices. All these transactions are recorded without 
 the slightest hint that they were irregular, though they are 
 
 """ When the sanctuary is inaccessible God may be addressed in a vow to be 
 paid at his holy place. 2 Sam. xv. 8, 1 Sam. i. 21, Jud. xi. 31. 
 
 f The English version renders " the house of God " instead of Bethel, but this 
 is unquestionably a blunder. The ark was then at Bethel ; but on the law of D 
 this would not justify au act of sacrifice. 
 
uyni:n riii: .irin;i:s. 67 
 
 quite aj^iiiiist tliu law of D. J^ui the saiictiuirie.s chuseii were 
 legitimate according to the law of S. Sliecheiii, Mizpah, 
 Bethel were old holy places of patriarchal consecration (Gen. 
 xxxiii. 20, xxxi. 45, 54, xxviii. 18, 19), and tlie sacritice at 
 Bochim was legitimate because of the special revelation that 
 preceded it. And therefore the fact that such meetings were 
 sanctioned by divine approval, while the sanctuary of Shiloh 
 existed and was accessible, is clear proof that the law of S and 
 not that of D was recognised as the divine rule of \vorshi[> 
 in the period of the Judges. 
 
 After the battle of Ebenezer, and the capture of the ark, 
 the sanctuary of Shiloli appears to have been destroyed, and 
 during the long period of oppression by the Philistines the 
 worship of Jehovah was grievously interrupted (1 Sam. vii. 
 2, o). But the reformation under Samuel again presents a 
 proof that it was the law of S and not of D that was looked 
 to, even by prophets, as the rule of the theocracy. The work 
 of reformation began at Mizpah — not ]\Iizpah in Gilead, but 
 perhaps the same Mizpah which already appears as a sanctu- 
 ary in Jud. XX. Here, and not be^ore the ark at Kirjatli- 
 jearim, the people appear before the Lord, and Samuel offers 
 sacrifice (1 Sam. vii. 9). After the rout of the Philistines, 
 when the central district of the land was brought back to a 
 settled state under Samuel's rule, he judged Israel at four 
 centres, Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah, and his own city of Ramah. 
 Al\ these places were in his time sanctuaries as well as seats 
 of civil rule, for indeed under a theocracy the two ideas were 
 hardly separable (Bethel, 1 Sam. x. 3; Mizpah, x. 17 ; Gilgal, 
 xi. 15, xiii. 9 ; Kamah, ix. 12). Moreover, at least three of 
 them were old sanctuaries under the law of S. Bethel and 
 Mizpah we know already ; Gilgal was the restingplace of the 
 ark after the miraculous passage of Jordan, and was then 
 marked as a holy place by the erection of twelve stones, ex- 
 actly as in the case of the covenant altar (Ex. xxiv. 4). The 
 history of Ramah is not so clear, but its very name seems to 
 mark it as an old sanctuary. And iinally, when Samuel made 
 his sons judges in the far south, he placed them in another 
 
68 THE ^SANCTUARIES 
 
 old patriarchal sanctuary, Beersheba (1 Sam. viii. 2). The 
 whole lines of Samuel's reformation are strictly modelled on 
 the law of S ; but he makes no attempt whatever to realise 
 the provisions of D. But perhaps this was only because the 
 land was still unsettled ? Well, in the reign of David this 
 difficulty was removed. The ark was brought up to Jerusa- 
 lem, and a new central sanctuary was establislied, with divine 
 sanction, at the centre of government. But we still hear 
 nothing of the law of D. On the contrary we receive fresh 
 confirmation of the law of S, which grants permanent con- 
 secration to all places of ancient sanctity. Absalom opened 
 liis revolt at the iVbrahamic sanctuary of Hebron. He did so 
 ^because he could have his father's consent to go there on the 
 pretext of discharging a vow, and so could gather his fellows- 
 conspirators without suspicion to a sacrificial feast (2 Sam. 
 XV. 7, 12). But under the law of D the discharge of vows is 
 strictly confined to the central sanctuary (Deut. xii, 6, 17). 
 But indeed w^e have the explicit testimony of 1 Kings iii., 
 that the people continued to sacrifice and burn incense at the 
 higli places, or local altars, till the building of the Temple, 
 and that the chief of these was Gibeon, where Solomon him- 
 self did sacrifice, and received God's gracious answer in a most 
 notable revelation. 
 
 From the time of Solomon the history of Hebrew worship 
 is divided into two streams. In the kingdom of Judah the 
 temple naturally overshadowed the local sanctuary, and at- 
 tracted the people to the great feasts. But it is explicitly 
 recorded that all the best kings up to the time of Hezekiah, 
 however zealous they showed themselves in the suppression 
 of idolatry, tolerated the worship of Jehovah at local sanc- 
 tuaries (1 Kings XV. 14 ; xxii. 43 ; 2 Kings xii. 3 ; xiv. 4 ; 
 XV. 4, 35). There is not the slightest trace up to this point 
 of the existence in the southern kingdom of the law^ of the one 
 altar. Nay, we have already seen that even after Hezekiah 
 the local high places were served by Levite priests, whose 
 legal right to support from altar dues was recognised in 
 the reformation of Josiah. 
 
UNni-n THE K/xas. 69 
 
 In Hie Xorthorn Kiiiprdom tlif case is still cloaror. Tbo 
 revolt of Jeroboam was accompanied by religious declension, 
 inasmucb as tbe king departed from the law of S in settin^ij 
 up images to counteract tbe attractions of tbe temple on 
 Zion. But tbe propbets wbo countenanced bis revolt did not 
 contemplate tbe cessation of all national worsbip in tbe 
 nortbern kingdom. Aliijab does not rebuke tbe king for 
 worshipping at nortbern sanctuaries, but only for idolatry 
 (1 Kings xiv. 9). And this was also tbe standpoint of Elijah, 
 tbe greatest of tbe nortbern propbets. In bis campaign 
 against the worsbip of the Phoenician Baal, Elijah appears as 
 the defender and restorer of the altars of Jehovah, which had 
 been destroyed by Ahab in his attempt to introduce a 
 national service of the 'I yrian deity. The scene upon Carmel 
 was a victorious assertion of the Sinaitic law of worship, even 
 following the analogy of Exodus xxiv. in the use of twelve 
 stones according to tbe number of tbe Hebrew tribes (1 Kings 
 xviii. 'Ml, 31). And in the wilderness the prophet's complaint 
 was that tbe children of Israel bad " forsaken God's covenant 
 and cast down bis altars " — tbe altars, tliat is, of the nortbern 
 kingdom, built under tbe covenant legislation of Sinai, but 
 every one of thein a breach of covenant under the law of D 
 (I Kings xix. 10). 
 
 Xow what does this unbroken series of historical testimonies 
 prove ? It is not a series of exceptional cases, in which a 
 special revelation or theophany might be held to justify an 
 individual exception to tbe law of D. I have not cited such 
 examples as those of Gideon (Jud. vi. 24), Manoah (Jud. xiii. 
 16), Saul (ISam. xiv. 35),inwhichitmay be questioned whether 
 tbe spot where sacrifice was once offered is subsequently re- 
 cognised as a legitimate permanent sanctuary. Tbe evidence 
 brought before us has been of a different and much stronger 
 kind. We have seen that through long centuries, from the 
 time of Joshua till far on in the period of tbe kings, the sacri- 
 ficial worsbip of Israel was celebrated at a number of holy 
 places, not arbitrarily chosen, but possessing an ancient con- 
 secration, such as the law of S directs. In nianv cases we 
 
70 THE y[INOn DETAILS 
 
 can oven show the origin of that consecration in patriarchal 
 times. Hebron, Beersheba, Shechem, Bethel, Mizpah, were 
 places where the patriarchs met with Go;l, and their sanctity 
 remained and was recognised by later eyes. Nor were the 
 other sanctnaries arbitrarily chosen. Even when we cannot, 
 as in the case of Gilgal, explain their original consecration, 
 they are lixed and definite lioly places. Tlie worship at high 
 places recognised by Joshua, Samuel, and Elijah, by David 
 and Solomon, was not will-worship unregulated by sacred 
 principles. It was strictly conformed to the law of S, and so 
 is spoken of by Elijah as a worship that cannot be suppressed 
 without a breach of God's covenant. These are facts which 
 cannot be explained as temporary exceptions to the observance 
 of the law of D. Through the whole period which we have 
 considered there is not (with the apparent exception of the 
 affair of the altar Ed, to which 1 shall give a few words in 
 an Appendix) the slightest indication that the Deuteronomic 
 law of a single sanctuary was recognised as the rule of the 
 theocracy. In the periods of most thorough-going reformation 
 we hear nothing of it. The battle against idolatry and will- 
 worship, fought by prophets like Samuel and Elijah, by kings 
 like Asa and Jehoshaphat, or by a priest like Jehoiada, is 
 always directed to the re-establishment of the order of the 
 law of S. 
 
 This conclusion is strengthened when we consider the 
 minor details of worship. We have seen that the law of 
 worship in S is a law addressed to laymen, which recognises 
 the possibility of sacrifice without the intervention of a trained 
 priesthood. Of course, in the nature of things, a stated worship 
 before the ark could not be kept up without a stated priest- 
 hood, which from the first belonged to the house of Aaron. 
 And, beyond doubt, the services of regular priests w^ould soon 
 be called into requisition even at the more noted local sanc- 
 tuaries, so that we can easily understand how the Levites, who 
 in the wilderness formed the bodyguard of the ark, appear 
 under the kings as priests of the local high places. But the 
 law of S, constructed on the lines of the old patriarchal religion, 
 
OF THE LA W OF WOnSII/P. 71 
 
 seems to contemplate something of the nature of a family 
 priesthood, in which the head of a Hebrew household brought 
 his gifts to the altar without waiting for the great pilgrimage 
 feasts (siqjm pp. OO, Gl). In D on the contrary, all sacrificial 
 worship is strictly in the hands of the Levite priests. Now 
 in this respect also the history agrees with S. The cases of 
 Manoah and Gideon will no doubt be objected to as excep- 
 tional, though there is nothing in the lii story to mark them as 
 such, and though it seems strange theology to suppose that 
 God will make exceptions to his own covenant ordinances. 
 But we find a family sacrifice observed by David's elan at 
 Bethlehem (1 Sam. xx. 29). And we have seen that David 
 himself did sacrifice (2 Sam. vi. 17), and that liis sons are 
 called priests (suiyra p. 45). Moreover, though Samuel re- 
 bukes Saul for his sacrifice at Gilgal (1 Sam. xiii. 8 seq.), the 
 offence is disobedience, and not interference with priestly 
 prerogative, as is clear from 1 Sam. xiv. 33-35. Finally, Elijah's 
 sacrifice on Carmel is in this, as in all other points, exactly 
 conformed to the law of S. 
 
 Another curious point is the use of sacred pillars at the 
 sanctuary. Our version unfortunately obliterates this argu- 
 ment by frequently rendering images instead of macgebot, i.e. 
 pillars or stones set up like Jacob's pillars at Bethel (Gen. 
 xxviii. 18), or Mizpah (Gen. xxxi. 45). In patriarchal times, 
 as these examples show, the magceba was the mark of a holy 
 place. It was also used in heathen sanctuaries ; and in S 
 (Exod. xxiii. 24) macg.rbot erected to false gods are com- 
 manded to be broken. But this command did not exclude the 
 use of the sacred pillar in the sanctuaries of Jehovali. And 
 so we have found that taacccbdt were set up at the Covenant 
 altar at Sinai, and aojain at Gilgal. In like manner Joshua 
 sets up a great stone at the sanctuary of Shechem (Josliua 
 xxiv. 26) ; Samuel erects a similar stone at Ebenezer near 
 Mizpah (1 Sam. vii. 12) ; the men of Bethshemesh sacrifice 
 beside the great stone on which the ark was laid, and wliicli 
 no doubt already marked the sanctuary of that priestly town 
 (1 Sam. vi. 14) ; Adonijah's sacrifice takes place at the Ser- 
 
72 ANIMAL FOOD UNCLEAN 
 
 pent stone l^esido Enrogel (1 Kings i. 9) ; and we learn from 
 2 Sam. XX. 8, that there was a great stone at the sanctuary of 
 Gibeon. In the temple courts Solomon erected two pillars at 
 the porch near the altar (1 Kings vii. 21). Even in Isaiah 
 xix. 19 we read of an altar to Jehovah and a maggeha to 
 Jehovah as parallel ideas, just as in Hosea iii. 4, " without 
 sacrifice and witliout macccM," means without sacrificial 
 worship. But when we turn to D we find a strict prohibi- 
 tion to set up a macceba (Deut. xvi. 22). Is it not clear that 
 this law was unknown to Joshua and Samuel, nay, even to 
 Isaiah, when he predicts the erection of a macceba as a sign 
 of the conversion of Egypt ? 
 
 There is one other detail in D which must not be passed 
 over in silence. Tlie permission to kill and eat domestic ani- 
 mals just like game, and without bringing them to the sanc- 
 tuary, if the distance is too great, is given in Deut. xii. as 
 something new (supra p. 63). JSIo circumstances temporarily 
 suspending the enforcement of other parts of the law could 
 cancel tliis permission. And if, as Deuteronomy expressly 
 says, clean and unclean alike were permitted to eat such food, 
 the idea could never again l^ecome current that all flesh not 
 offered in sacrifice is unclean, or must be regarded according 
 to Lev. xvii. 4, 10, 11, as eaten " with the blood." Yet we 
 find tliis idea deeply rooted in the nation for many centuries 
 after Moses. In 1 Sam. xiv. 32 seq., we have a case in point. 
 Saul's army flies on the spoil, and the people kill animals on 
 the ground and eat them " with the blood." Saul rebukes 
 this transgression ; a great stone is brought, an altar is built, 
 and a sanctuary being thus consecrated, with altar and maggeha, 
 the disorderly eating is changed to a sacrificial feast. Under 
 the law of D, sheep and oxen might quite legitimately have 
 been killed on the ground " like the roebuck and the hart." 
 But Saul goes by the principle of Lev. xvii., which we have 
 already seen to be quite consistent with S. Thus, too, we 
 understand why an unclean person could not sit at Saul's 
 table (1 Sam. xx. 26). Only clean persons could eat food that 
 had been presented at the altar, and the narrator evidently 
 
uxLESf^ n/Kfi'd'/rr to 77/ a' altar. 73 
 
 assumos tliat tlio reader will take it f(ir granted that Saul's 
 meal consisted of such food. Tlie same principle is most 
 clearly expressed in Hosea ix. 3 scq., where it is said that in 
 Assyria the people shall eat unclean food ; tliat their sacritice 
 (i.e., the animal food which in Canaan was wont to bo pre- 
 sented at the altar) shall be to them like the In-ead of mour- 
 ners, which makes every one unclean who eats of it — and 
 this because their food can no longer " come into the house of 
 Jehovah." In other words, all animal food not presented at 
 the altar is unclean ; the whole life of the people ])ecomes 
 unclean when they leave the land of Jehovah to dwell in an 
 '' unclean land " (Amos vii. 17). The practice here acknow- 
 ledged by Hosea stands in the strongest contrast to the law 
 of D, demanding as it does the application to all food of the 
 same ceremonial rule which in Deut. xxvi. i4, is enforced in 
 very similar words for the sacred dues alone.* 
 
 When we tlius follow the law of S, and the associated 
 principle of Lev. xvii., into the details of their application, 
 we see that the promulgation of the law of D means notliing 
 less than a complete social and religious revolution. The use 
 of the local sanctuaries which we have found established in 
 Canaan up to the eighth century B.C. was interwoven with 
 every part of Hebrew life, and prescribed the form for every 
 expression of religious faith, and every utterance of homage 
 and prayer directed to Jehovah. Every occasion of life that 
 calls on the individual or the community to look Godwards 
 is a summons to the altar. In the family every feast is an 
 Eucharistic sacritice. In affairs of public life it is not otlier- 
 
 It must be remembered, in considering the practicability of sucli a law, that 
 beef and mutton are not so freely used in the East as ^vith us, and that except in 
 great houses an animal would not be slaughtered on an everyday occasion. Thus 
 the practice of presenting every victim at tlie sanctiuiry is an acknowledgment of 
 God on all festive occasions. Compare, as an illustration of the identity of feast 
 and sacrifice, Prov. xv. 17, with xvii. 1. On the other hand, the law was pro- 
 bably pretty frequently broken. Compare the caution of the Angel to Manoah's 
 wife against eating anything unclean (Jud. xiii. 7, 14). Saul's special anxiety on 
 the subject is not merely a proof of zeal, but may be viewed as connected with 
 the peculiar feeling as to the sanctity of the host of Israel, which appears Deut. 
 xxiii. 10, 14, and elsewhere. 
 
74 THE LA W OF DEUTERONOMY 
 
 wise. The very expressions used in Hebrew of " making a 
 covenant," or " inaugurating war," point to the sacrificial 
 observances that accompanied sucli acts. Tlie local sanctuaries 
 were the seat of judgment, and so in tlie language of S to 
 lu'ing a man before the magistrates is to bring him " to God " 
 (Kxod. xxi. 6, xxii. 8, 9. Heb.) The earlier history relates scarcely 
 one event of importance that was not transacted at a holy 
 place. The local sanctuaries were the centres of all Hebrew 
 life. How little of the history would remain if Shechem and 
 Bethel, the two Mizpahs and Ophra, Gilgal, Eamah, and 
 Gibeon, Hebron, Bethlehem, and Beersheba, Kadesh and 
 ]\Ialianaim, Tabor and Carmel, were blotted out from the 
 pages of the Old Testament.* 
 
 Thus so far is it from being true that the use of the local 
 high places was exceptional and irregular under the theocratic 
 law, that we must rather say that it was only by worship at 
 them, under the law of S, that Israel in the earlier centuries 
 was ab]e to realise and express in religious acts its covenant 
 relation to God. The hearts of the greatest prophets, as well 
 as of the common people, clung to these ancient shrines. When 
 Elijah is banished from Carmel, Gilgal, and Bethel, he turns 
 his footsteps to Beersheba and Sinai. 
 
 To ignore all these ancient seats of Israel's religion, and 
 limit altar worsliip to a single sanctuary, was to prescribe a 
 chano'e in the whole external forms of religion not less radical 
 than if all the churclies" of Scotland, with one exception, were 
 
 * In some of these cases, evidence that the j)lace was a sanctuary may be 
 demanded. Kadesh is, by its name, a sanctuary, with which it agrees that it 
 was a Levitical city and a consecrated asylvim. Accordingly it formed the 
 rendezvous of Zebulon and Naphtali under Barak and Deborah. Mahanaim was 
 the place of a theophany, from which it had its name. It was also a Levitical 
 city, and Cant. vi. 13 alhules to the "dance of Mahanaim," which was probably 
 such a festal dance as took place at Shiloh (Jud. xxi. 21). As a holy place the 
 town was the seat of Ishbosheth's kingdom, and the headquarters of David's 
 host during the revolt of Absalom. Tabor, on the frontiers of Zebulon and 
 Issachar, seems to be the movintain alluded to in Deut. xxxiii. 18, 19, as the 
 sanctuary of these tribes, and it appears along with Mizpah, as a seat of degenerate 
 priests, in Hos. v. 1. I mention these instances, not as essential to my argaiment, 
 but to illusti-ate how it may, by the use of circumstantial evidence, be carried 
 much farther than has been attempted in the preceding pages. 
 
.)fARh's A /{EfJtrJorS llFVOU'TfOX. 73 
 
 closed for public worship. For ncuteronomy, a^ we have 
 seen, is quite as clear as S on the doctrine that it is only in 
 tlie sanctuary that the people can come before Jehovah. 
 And the culminating point in the proof of the critical position 
 is that this extraordinary change can be fully accounted for 
 from the history. 
 
 We have had occasion to observe in passing tliat all 
 Hebrew reformers had to contend witli idolatry. But 
 idolatry and the worship of Canaanite gods were not kept 
 distinct in the people's minds from the worship of Jehovah. 
 Tlie history of the sanctuary of Dan (Jud. xvii., xviii.), and 
 the later example of Jeroboam, show tliat will- worship 
 mingled witli the service of Jehovali in such a way as 
 practically to obliterate the distinction between the true god 
 and the Baalim. Tliis state of things spread more and more, 
 and in the time of Amos and Hosea the religion of the 
 Northern Kingdom was what is called a sy nrret l>im , a mixture 
 of Jehovah worship and Canaanite worship, in which the 
 people still thought themselves perfectly loyal to the Clod of 
 Israel, though the prophets denounced their service as practi- 
 cally mere heathenism and devotion to tlie Baalim. In truth 
 when the moral elements of the Mosaic covenant were for- 
 gotten, and the worship of the calves had obscured the 
 spirituality of Jehovah, the external features of a Hebrew 
 and a Canaanite sanctuary were not dissimilar. The macceba 
 in particular was common to high places of both kinds, and 
 being interpreted in the symbolism of heatlienism as an 
 emblem of tlie male reproductive ])ower of nature — that is oi" 
 Baal, the male partner of the abominable Ashera, who corres- 
 ponds to the Alylitta ot Herodotus L, 19'J, and to A]»lirodite 
 Pandemos — formed a link by whicli all the flagrant abomin- 
 ations of Canaanite prostitution were attaclied to the sanctu- 
 aries of the Lord.* Though the clearest picture of this state 
 of things is found in the prophets of the North, the same 
 
 * Amos ii. 7 ; Hosea iv. 13, 14 ; conip. Deut. xxiii. 17, 18 — These pa.ssages 
 do not refer to ordinary prostitution, but to the religious prostitutes — qede.^hCd — 
 well known to scholars as a disgusting feature in Semitic religion. 
 
76 THE RE FORMAT /ON 
 
 corruptions liad laroely affected Judali, and in both l^'ingdoms 
 alike the prophets inveighed against a religion which was no 
 longer Jehovah worship except in name, and foretold the 
 overthrow of the now degraded sanctuaries (Amos. iii. 14 ; 
 V. 5 ; vii. 9 — Hosea iii. 4; viii. 11; x. 2 seq. — Micah i. 5 ; 
 V. 13 — Isa xvii. 8 ; xxvii. 9). But the work of the prophets 
 was to teach as well as to predict judgment ; and, therefore, 
 they confront the zeal in external service, l^y which the people 
 thought themselves assured of Jehovah's lielp, with the 
 doctrine tliat God cares nothing for ritual, that his favour is 
 not to be purchased by sacrifices, and that he will gladly dis- 
 pense with all signs of outward homage if justice and mercy 
 and true obedience are shown (see the citations stvpra p. 66). 
 As these doctrines laid hold of the hearts of the true Israel, 
 they pointed out the only possible course of fundamental re- 
 formation. Previous reformers had striven in vain to cut off 
 the excrescences of idolatry and will- worship, and restore the 
 local shrines to the pure ideal of the Sinaitic Covenant. The 
 choice must now be made either to give up the spirit of Moses 
 and maintain the letter of external service, or to take action 
 on tlie prophetic word, and surrender the ancient forms of 
 worship to the spirit of moral obedience. It was in this spirit 
 that Hezekiah attacked tlie high places. The religion of Israel 
 could not dispense with all sanctuaries — tliat was reserved for 
 the new Covenant ; but at least the sanctuary of Zion might 
 be purged, and the local slmnes, the fertile seat of uncontroll- 
 able corruption, might be swept away. There is not the 
 slightest hint that the king was supported by a written law ; 
 and the prophets whom we have cited never appeal to the 
 law of D. Nay it is clear that Isaiah, who predicts as a 
 victory of true religion the erection in Egypt of a maggeba to 
 Jehovah, knew nothing of Deut. xvi. 22, where the maggeha 
 is called hateful to Jehovah. The movement, like every 
 attack on religious traditions, was unpopular. The Assyrian 
 ambassador knew that he would touch a chord in the people's 
 sympathies when he spoke of the altars of Jehovah which 
 Hezekiah had taken away (2 Kings xviii. 22). But God 
 
<)F .HfSlAlf. 77 
 
 maintained his u\vn cause and that of his prophets. The 
 contidence of Isaiah that Jehovali would ])roteet his " sacied 
 hearth" on Zion, the visible centre of his reign on earth 
 (Isa. xiv. 32, xxix. 1), was vindicated by the miraculous over- 
 tln'ow of the Assyrian, and tlie party of reform was for the 
 moment in the ascendant ; while the destruction of the realm 
 of I^phraim narrowed the battlefield of true religion to the 
 compass of Judea, for whicli a single altar might more easily 
 suffice. But the victory was not gained in a moment. Under 
 Manasseh a terrible reaction set in, and religious conservatism, 
 allied with rampant heathenism, asserted itself in cruel perse- 
 cution of the prophetic party. The truth was crushed, but 
 not overthrown. With Josiah's reign the tide of battle turned, 
 and then it was that " the book of the Torah " was found in 
 the temple (2 Kings xxii.) Its words smote the conscience 
 of the king and his people, for though it was merely a book 
 found, without external credentials, it bore its evidence within 
 itself, and it w^as stamped with the approval of the prophetess 
 Hulda. The " book of Covenant " found in the temple was 
 publicly read. The people pledged themselves to obey it, and 
 on the lines of its legislation the reformation of Josiah was 
 carried forward. 
 
 What was this " Book of the Torah " or " J>ook of the 
 Covenant ? " That it embraced D no one disputes, for the 
 work of reformation based on it was in all particulars carried 
 out in the spirit of Deutronomy. Compare in 2 Kings, xxiii., 
 verse 5 with Ueut. xii. 2 ; verse 7 with xxiii. 17, 18 ; verse *J 
 with xviii. 8 ; verse 10 with xviii. 10 ; verse 11 witli xvii o; 
 verse 14 with xvi. 21, 22 ; verse 21 (Passover at central 
 sanctuary) with xvi. 5 ; verse 2-1 with Deut. xviii. 11. It is 
 pretty clear, moreover, that the book was not the wliole 
 Pentateuch, for we have seen above ([). 51) that Q was not in 
 force between Josiah and Ezekiel. Moreover, the whole 
 Pentateuch would not be correctly named the book of Covenant 
 (2 Kings xxiii. 2), whereas this name is proper to Deut. iv. 44 — 
 xxix. 1, which as we saw already forms a complete book with 
 title and subscription. Moreover, it is the original Deutero- 
 
78 DEUTERONOMY AND THE 
 
 iiuinic legislation in its separate furni wliicli in tlie Pentateuch 
 bears, like Josiali's lawbook, the name of Book of the Tor ah. 
 But for our present purpose it is indifferent what the precise 
 compass of Josiah's lawbook was. At all events its import- 
 ance lay in the fact that it contained the Deuteronomic 
 ordinances, and that thus the teaching of the prophets of the 
 eighth century, which they did not base on the written law, 
 is now embodied in a regular code and becomes for the first 
 time, by solemn covenant, the public law of the land. Accord- 
 ingly the writings of the contemporary prophet Jeremiah, 
 unlike those of the earlier prophets, bear numerous traces of 
 acquaintance with Deuteronomy. 
 
 This history points with unmistakable clearness to the 
 period between Hezekiah's reformation and that of Josiah, 
 or roughly speaking the first three quarters of the 7th cent. 
 B.C., as the time within which Deuteronomy was probably 
 written. But the history by no means leads us to conclude 
 that the book was written at the close of the period indicated. 
 On the contrary we are told that Hilkiah produced the book 
 as one wdiich he had found in the temple without himself 
 knowing its history. Some critics have gratuitously supposed 
 that the " finding " was a mere fraud on Hilkiah's part, and 
 that he himself had got the book forged, in order to gain the 
 weight of the name of Moses for his scheme of reformation. 
 But if one reads the narrative of 2 Kings xxii with due care, 
 one sees that Hilkiah did not give the book out as Mosaic. 
 He simply gave it for what it was — a book of Torah, or divine 
 instruction, found in the temple. No stress is laid on the 
 history of the book. Its value was intrinsic, and it was 
 received because it was felt to contain the voice of God and 
 to agree with prophetic doctrine. There is another considera- 
 tion which seems conclusive against the theory of a fraud on 
 the part of Hilkiah. A forgery by the head of the temple 
 priests could hardly fail to represent the interests of that 
 body. But this is not the case with the law of D. On the 
 contrary, Deut. xviii. allows to all Levites scattered through 
 the land — that is, to all priests of local shrinoo — the right tu 
 
TEACHING OF THE PROEIIETS. 79 
 
 ihiim ihe full status and privileges of priestliuod at Jerusalem. 
 This provision could not be acceptable to the sons of Zadok, 
 and in fact formed the one point in the law of D which Josi.ili 
 was unable to enforce. The Levite.s were indeed treated 
 with a consideration not extended to the priests of Ephraim 
 and the idolatrous priests {Icmu/rim) about Jerusalem. They 
 received a subsistence at the temple ; but, contrary to the 
 law, they were forbidden to do altar service. Obviously the 
 class interests of the Zadokites were strong enough to frustrate 
 the law which, on the theory of a forgery, was the work of 
 the Zadokites themselves. 
 
 We have no right, therefore, to suppose that the finding ul 
 the book was a fiction, or that Hilkiah put it forth in pious 
 fraud in order to stir up a religious revolution. The discovery 
 of the book produced a great effect, because it touched a chord 
 in the national conscience. But in point of form D is 
 singularly unfitted to be the programme of a sudden and 
 violent movement like the reformation of Josiah, and could 
 not have been drawn up for the sake of immediate effect by 
 any political schemer. The book is what it calls itself, a 
 Book of Covenant ; a constitutional code in wdiich the old 
 law is recast in such a form as to adapt it to the new^ principle 
 of the one altar, and the suppression of local high places. 
 This work is done with the greatest care and fulness of detail, 
 and, humanly speaking, the whole is well adapted to secure 
 the fruits of a reformation already accomplished, or in full 
 train. But revolutions are not made with law books. Codes 
 and constitutions are the outcome of national movements, and 
 not their cause. The real force in the revolution of Josiali 
 was the power of the prophetic teacliing, which half a centur}' 
 of persecution had not been able to suppress — not the name 
 of Closes attached to a document found in the temple. 
 
 In short, it is with iJeuteronomy as with the law of 
 iSinai. It was not the law that made Israel a nation. The 
 covenant of Sinai only gave fixity and permanent form to the 
 work accomplished by the prophetic word of Moses, and the 
 miraculous deliverance of the Exodus. And in like manner 
 
so DEUTERONOMY AND 
 
 the book of Deuteronomy gave fixed and constitutional form 
 to the work accomplished by the preaching of the great 
 prophets of the eighth century, and acknowledged by God 
 in the deliverance of Hezekiah from Sennacherib. It is 
 obvious tliat the abolition of the high places by Hezekiah 
 must at first have produced the greatest confusion. Even 
 those who had faith and insight enough to approve the act 
 must have felt the want of guidance in adapting their daily 
 religious life to the new state of things. There was an urgent 
 need for a plain and popular exposition of the way in which 
 the reforming principles of the prophets were to be interwoven 
 Avith the old theocratic institutions. The prophetic agency 
 supplied the fit vehicle for divine instruction on these matters. 
 It was in the prophetic societies that the sacred literature of 
 Israel had always been specially cultivated. And from them, 
 so far as we can judge, the book of Deuteronomy went forth 
 to interpret the teachings of Isaiah and his fellows in their 
 bearing on the constitution and practice of theocratic life. 
 It would require a separate essay to trace the whole infiuence 
 of prophetic teaching on the new book of the law. The law 
 of the one sanctuary, which gives shape to all the Deuteronomic 
 ordinances of worshi]), has itself a twofold root in the 
 preaching of the prophets. In its positive side — the impor- 
 tance assigned to the spot where Jehovah makes his name to 
 dwell — this law attaches to the great doctrine of Isaiah that 
 the Lord hath founded Zion, and tlie poor of his people sliall 
 trust in it (Isa. xiv. 32 ; xxviii. 16 ; xxix. 1, scq. ; ii. 2 ; iv. 5, 
 dc.) It is to the immovable sanctity of the hill of Zion, the 
 visible centre of divine sovereignty of eartli, that Isaiah ever 
 directs the nation's faith in all the perils that threaten to crusli 
 Judah and blot out the religion of Jehovah ; and so it is round 
 this fixed sanctuary, and not round the ark, the ancient 
 symbol of the Covenant, that the Deuteronomic ordinances of 
 worship are grouped. To us this may seem a small change. 
 It was not deemed so then ; for in Jeremiah the transitory 
 sanctity of the perishable ark is contrasted with a better 
 hope in the permanent sanctity of Jerusalem, the throne of 
 
TIIK PROPHET. SI 
 
 Jeliovali.* Again, on its proliibituiy side, Deuteronomy af'i'ees 
 with the prophetic teaching that all the local altar worship 
 is pure heathenism. Hosea had taught that while tlie 
 people thouglit themselves to be worshipping Jehovah, but had 
 ceased to worship him as tlie spiritual (J-od, their worship was 
 really directed to the Baalim. To tl.e author of Deuteronomy 
 this prophetic sentence has become an axiom. He everywhere 
 assumes that there are but two alternatives, worship at the 
 central sanctuary and worship of false gods, involving 
 rebellion against Jehovali. 
 
 With the overpowering sense of the personal sovereignty 
 in Zion of the Holy One whose glory fills the earth (Isa. vi.), 
 Isaiah combined the strongest sense of Israel's vocation to 
 lioliness (vi. 13; iv. 3; etc). This idea too is forcibly ex- 
 pressed in Deuteronomy. But how can Israel's vocation as a 
 lioly nation receive constant expression '. Under the old law 
 the relation of tlie peopje to Jehovah was embodied in frequent 
 sacrificial acts in all corners of the land. Such embodiment 
 was no longer possible under the centralisation of worship. 
 And a purely spiritual expression was too high a thing for 
 the old dispensation. Therefore the law not only enforces 
 with emphasis the duties of moral purity, especially in contrast 
 with the sexual excesses of Canaanite worship (Deut. xxii.), 
 but develops at far greater length than S a series of external 
 observances of sanctity, establishing a broad line of separation, 
 even in ordinary life, between the people of Jehovah and the 
 heathen — (Deut. xiv.) 
 
 Again the pr.:;phets had constantly denounced the fertile 
 source of corruption which the imitative character of the 
 Hebrews foun.l in contact with heathenism. Canaanite ritual, 
 foreign deities, and foreign sorcery turned away the heart of 
 Israel from God. They were always as Isaiah expresses it, 
 ready " to strike hands with the children of strangers " (Isa. 
 ii. ()) ; and their st-itesmen were dazzleil with the splendour, 
 
 * Jer. iii. IG, 17 — lu those days they shall say no more, the ark of the 
 covenant of the Lord ; neither shall it come to mind ; neither shall they re- 
 member it ; neither shall they search for it ; neither shall it he remade. At that 
 time they shall call Jcnisalcm the throne of the Lord, &c. 
 
82 DEUTERONOMY A REPRODUCTION 
 
 and courted the alliance, of the great empires on the Nile and 
 the Tigris. In the time of Isaiah the alliance with Egypt in 
 particular was a constant temptation to substitute trust in 
 man for trust in God, and the prophet has special occasion to 
 condemn the policy that thought to gain strength for the 
 nation from the multitude of Egyptian chariots and horses 
 (Isa. XXX, 1). In tliese points too Deuteronomy follows the 
 prophets. Tlie warnings against heathen witchcraft, Canaanite 
 nature worship, Assyrian star worship, are many and express; 
 and the short law of the kingdom (Deut. xvii. 14, sc([) has for 
 its main concern to forbid the king to imitate the splendour 
 of foreign courts, or to "cause the people to return to Egypt 
 in order to get many horses."* 
 
 But while in these and other ways D shows the influence 
 of prophetic teaching on all parts of its legislative structure, 
 the purpose of the book is not to form a new Covenant in 
 room of the Mosaic constitution, but to preserve the spirit 
 and substance of the old, interwoven with the new prophetic 
 principles. We have already observed that practically the 
 whole law of S, except a list of compensations for damages, 
 which would be less useful to the general public than to 
 judges, is incorporated in D with the necessary, and no more 
 than the necessary, modihcations. There are other precepts 
 which are neither expressly found in the older law, nor seem 
 to be necessary consequences from new principles. These are 
 
 " The law of the kinydoni is one of the best secondary proofs that D was not 
 known to the i^rophet Samuel, wlio with this passage before him could not have 
 represented it as great wickedness to ask a king (1 Sam. xii. 17). It has been 
 asked why Deut. xvii. 15 forbids the appointment of a foreigner as king, when the 
 dynasty of David had been so long established on the throne. Eut if D was 
 written at or soon after the time of Isaiah, this difficulty is of easy solution. 
 Isa. vii. G records a league of Ephraim and Damascus to depose Ahaz and set up 
 a foreign king, and Isa. viii. (3, shows that this project had supporters in Judah- 
 Moreover, we now know from Assyrian records, in conformity with Isa. vii. 8, 
 that after the capture of Samaria, circa 720 B.C., and the fall of the old kingdom 
 of Ephraim, a vassal sovereignty, probably not of pure Hebrew blood, was estab- 
 lished at Samaria (Schrader in Z. f. Prof. Thcol. 1875, p. 329 seq. A v. Gutschmidt, 
 Neue Beitriujc, p. 143 mi) Thus the warning in D was not out of season ; nay, 
 it would be difficult to find a time in history at which it would be more appro- 
 priate. Before the time of Josiah the vassal kingdom at Samaria had disappeared, 
 and Avith it the motive for the law in D. 
 
OF THE MOSAIC LAW. 83 
 
 probably drawn from tlie old common law. For example, 
 Deut. xix. 14 agrees with Prov. xxii. 28 ; xxiii. 10. It is clear 
 that in sucli a case tlie proverbial expression must be older 
 than tlie written law.* In like manner the law of Deut. xx. 
 5-8 agrees with old practice (Jud. vii. 3). Ihit tlie law in D 
 is worked out in more detail, and Gideon's action is not based 
 on law, but on a special divine command. + 
 
 On the whole then tlie law is just what it is called in 
 Deut. xxix. 1, — a new form of the old ^Mosaic covenant of 
 Horeb. And this conception of the nature and purpose of 
 the legislation is most fittingly expressed by the parabolic 
 form which })uts the whole into Moses' own mouth. It is 
 just what ]\Iose3 would have said had he been called upon to 
 renew the covenant with a new generation. This way of 
 presenting the necessity for a revised legislation is one which 
 could be at once understood by the popular mind ; and, for 
 my own part, I am unable to see what other shape the work 
 could have assumed which would have expressed its purpose 
 as clearly, and in a way so generally intelligible. If anyone 
 did not see through the parable, the practical utility of the 
 book would be none the less for him ; but anyone who cared 
 could see through it, for there was not and could not be any 
 attempt to give out as old, ordinances and writings notoriously 
 new, and divergent from the current book of S. 
 
 In the last pages of this statement I have gone into more 
 detail of historical construction than is necessary for the 
 purpose in hand. But I am anxious to bring out two features 
 in criticism which entitle it to a respectful hearing and to 
 toleration in the Church. I ask the reader to observe in the 
 first place that the critics build their opinions on a sedulous 
 
 * !^[oses coiilil hardly say to tliosc who had not yet entered Canaan " Remove 
 not thy neighbour's landmark which they of old time \Ut. former men] have set." 
 IJiit also a forger anxious to pass for Moses would he sure to avoid such an ex- 
 pression. 
 
 t Another feature in the law of war, which heai-s the stami> of prima-val 
 Semitic custom has not, so far as I am aware, been previously noticed by scholars. 
 The paring of the nails (Deut. xxi. 12) by a captive woman before she was taken 
 to wife by a Hebrew, is ob\-iously parallel to the similar act by which an Arabian 
 widow broke her widowhood {^iddat), and was allowe<l to marry again. See 
 Lane's Arabic Lexicon, p. 2400a. 
 
84 CONCLUSION. 
 
 search of Scripture, and on examination of the minutest 
 points in the Old Testament record ; which is surely more 
 honouring to the Word of God than indolent acquiescence in 
 traditional views. Not one of the arguments wliich I have 
 adduced is of rationalistic complexion, or in any way touches 
 the supernatural character of the history of revelation and 
 the sacredness of the record. The facts on which criticism 
 builds are Scripture facts, of which the Church is bound to 
 take account. The critical view strives to be the Biblical 
 view, and it is not less Biblical because it is not content with 
 what lies on the surface of the record, but seeks to penetrate 
 the inner structure of the Old Testament. And in the second 
 place, the attentive reader will perceive that the results of 
 such criticism are far from being negative, uninteresting, or 
 unedifying. They make the Old Testament history more 
 living and real, they help us to enter more thoroughly into 
 the great battle of God's truth with man's ignorance and re- 
 bellion, and they show with increased clearness the marvellous 
 wisdom of Him who caused even the backslidings of Israel 
 to work together with the providential movements of the 
 world's history and the word of revelation sent through his 
 prophets, so as to lift the Covenant religion step by step 
 towards the great consummation in the coming of Christ 
 Jesus, and the proclamation of that Spiritual kingdom in 
 which all the limitations of the old theocracy are done away. 
 And as we see God's truth making its way in gradual process 
 and incessant battle against new forms of evil, towards ever 
 new clearness and fulness, approving itself in every point as 
 truth sent from heaven to meet some necessity before which 
 the strength and wisdom of man was helpless, we acquire an 
 experimental proof, which the ordinary reading of the history 
 too often fails to supply, that the words of God to his ancient 
 people are pure words, silver seven times tried, commended 
 to us not only by the Spirit which witnesses to them in our 
 own souls, 1)ut by their birth in fiery trial, in which the wis- 
 dom and devices' of man came to nouglit, and the truth of 
 God alone survived. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 The object of the fore^'oinc,' i)ai)er is not to exliaust controversy, Lnt 
 only to })rove that critical ar<,ainients have a ri<,'ht to be impartially 
 heard, and tolerated so long as they are not proved to be cont)-ary t<^ 
 sound doctrine ; I have therefore limited myself to the exhibition of 
 positive arguments, which have their own weight, whatever difficulties 
 may be still felt to attach to the critical position. But there are t)ne or 
 two arguments, which are the mainstays of the conservative position 
 about Deuteronomy, and which therefore deserve a few words. 
 
 I. It is argued that whatever irregularities may have sulxsequently 
 arisen, the affair of the altar Ed (Tosh, xxii.) proves that the Deutero- 
 nomic law was acknowledged at the time of Joshua. In other word^, 
 it is heltl that unless J^ had been extant the Western tribes could not 
 have regarded the erection of the altar as an act of i-ebellion. The nar- 
 rative of Josh. xxii. presents difficulties to the expositor on any theoiy, 
 but it is to be noted : — 
 
 (1.) That the altar Ed was erected on the West Imnk of the Jordan, 
 "in front of the land of Canaan" (ver. 11, Heb. comp. viii. 33). It was 
 therefore outside of the territory of those who built it, and could not 
 form a local shrine for them under the law of g. Thus the Western 
 tribes must naturally have supposed that it was designed as a new 
 pilgi'image shrine in rivalry to the national sanctuary of the Ark, the 
 only visible token of theocratic luiity. Such an erection would have 
 been an obvious breach of national unity, quite apart from the law of J), 
 and is fitly described, in ver. 19, as rebellion against the Lord ami 
 against Western Israel. 
 
 (2.) The altar was not built at a place chosen by God, and from its 
 great size was not a legal structure under Exod. xx. 20. Thus its erec- 
 tion was quite as nmch an otlem-e under S ''^-^ under D- 
 
 (3.) According to ver. 19, the Western tribes thought it ])ossible 
 that the others had erected the altar in C*anaan, bec^iuse tlieir own land 
 was unclean. In that case the Eastern tribes were in\ited to cross the 
 Jordan and share the possession of their brethren. It is assumed that 
 no Israelite ought to live in an unclean land, and the mark of an 
 unclean land is that an altar for the worship of Jehovah cannot be 
 erected in it. This is i)recisely the idea which we found in Hosea ix. 
 compared with 1 Sam. xxvi. 19; Amos vii. 17 (an.jyra p. 72). An unclean 
 land is one in which the life of the inhabitants is unclean, becau.se 
 their daily food cannot be ])resented at the sanctuary. This view 
 
86 THE ALTAR ED. 
 
 corresponds witli S ^i^c^ witli Lev, xvii., Init is inconsistent with jy, 
 which relaxes the ol)ligation to bring before the altar all animals slain 
 for food. 
 
 (4.) The only expressions in the narrative which seem to favour an 
 opj)osite view of the transaction are those of v. 29, which, if taken alone, 
 might seem to imply that the Kenbenites and their fellows admit that 
 it would be a crime to erect any altai- for sacrifice besides that before 
 the tabernacle. But in reality the question of local altars under the 
 law of S, at ancient high places, is not in the case at all. The whole 
 controversy turns on the institution of a new sanctuary, not conform- 
 able to S, in rivalry with the tabernacle. The rights of the local altars 
 under g are not challenged. Nay, rather it is assumed in verse 19 that 
 if through lack of such altars the land is unclean,, no Israelite should 
 continue to dwell there. This accounts for the broad way in which the 
 Reubenites put their case. And, as must be remembered, we cannot 
 be sure that we have a verbal report of their words, and consequently 
 individual expressions (as distinguished from explicit ideas like that of 
 the imdean land) ought not to be pressed. 
 
 II. It is argued that Deuteronomy must be Mosaic, because we read 
 in Josh. Adii. 30 seq. of the actual execution by Joshua of the command 
 given in Deut. xxvii. But neither Deut. xxvii. nor the parallel passage 
 in Deut. xi. lies within the strictly legislative part of D ; indeed it is an 
 open question among critics whether the original draft of D contained 
 more than chaps, xii. — xxvi. which have a title and subscription of their 
 own (xii. 1 ; xxvi. 15 seq.). And it is no part of the critical theory as 
 to the law of J) to deny that genuine historical matter is contained in the 
 setting of the law, or even that such a passage as Deut. xxvii. may be 
 in part derived from an older document, in which the law to be written 
 on the stones set up as mag^ebut, beside an altar erected according to the 
 prescription of S, verses 4, 5, would mean the law in its original form, 
 or perhaps only the ten commandments, the Torah of Ex. xxiv. 12. 
 That so striking an incident should be utilised and enlarged upon in the 
 practical exhortations with which Deuteronomy opens and closes is 
 perfectly natural and fitting. 
 
 At the same time it is fair to say that the language of Josh. viii. 
 makes it probable that the author was acquainted with D, aud borrowed 
 expressions from it. Verses 31 and 32 might apply to ^ as well as to 
 D "' ; but from v. 34 it appears that the author knew the blessings and 
 curses as part of the book of the law, or in other words that he had 
 read Deut. xxvii. But this proves nothing for the early date of D, 
 unless it is certain that the ]:»assage in Joshua is by an early hand. It 
 does not follow that Joshua read from D what a later historian knows 
 and describes as part of that book. We must always be careful to dis- 
 tinguish between arguments drawn from the substance of a narrative 
 
 * In ver. 32, the LXX. offers a probable correction of the text, omitting after Moses the 
 words tohich he lorote. 
 
MOUXT EBAL 87 
 
 and arguments l)asLHl on such expressions ;us in a later writer are not 
 only natural but almost inevitable, if liis meaning is to be plain to the 
 reader. This remark api)lies to many ])assages in the Old Testament 
 wherf^ the expressions law of Moses or the like are used. For example 
 it was argued at hist General Assembly that the Mosaic authorshij* of 
 D is unquestionable, because 2 Chrou. xxxiv. 14 tells us that Hilkiah 
 found the " book of the law of the Lord by the liaiid of Moses." Our 
 onbj authority for the finding of the hook at all , said the speaker, states 
 that the hook foand was the lair of Moses. One would think that the 
 book of Kings might also be allowed some authority ; and in it the 
 l)ook found is not called the law of Moses. But wliat does the pjussage 
 in Chronicles prove '. Nothing more than this, that some three hun- 
 dred years after Josiali, a writer who wishetl to convey to his readers 
 the fact that the book was jjart of the Pentiiteuch, used a current ex- 
 })ression to im]>art that information. 
 
 These observations seem to be suthcient to meet the force of the 
 argument from Joshua viii. But a careful examination ])erhaps enables 
 us to go farther. We have documentary evidence that in se\eral 
 passages the Hebrew text of the book of Joshua has been inter pohited 
 by the later Jewish scribes. Thus in chapter xv., where vei-se 32 speaks 
 of twenty-nine Judean cities, the preceding list contains a larger num- 
 ber ; and Hollenberg has shown, with the help of the Septuagint, that 
 the discrepancy is due to aji interpolation from Nehemiah xi. A fain, 
 in chapter xx., the Greek text omits the whole of verses 4 and o, and 
 jiarts of verses 3 and 6. This is the original text, exactly correspond- 
 ing with Num. xxxv. 11, 12, and the rest has been interpolated, mainly 
 in the language of Deuteronomy, by a liand so late that the Greek 
 translators had still the true text before them.* The })assage about the 
 altar on Mount Ebal ai)pears to be a similar late interpolation after 
 Deuteronomy. A hint of this is preserved by the Sei)tuagint, which 
 has got the verses in question in a ditlerent jihice, ;is if they were 
 originally no part of the narrative. As they stand in the Hebrew they 
 break the obvious connection of ix. 1 with viii. 29. Moreover, the in- 
 terpolator seems to have misunderstood ])euteronomy xxvii. In Deu- 
 teronomy the stones on which the law is engraved (verse 8, not jus E. Y. 
 iijritte)i) are distinct from the altar, as indeed was necessjiry, since to 
 use a graving tool on the altar would have defiled it. But iu Josh. viii. 
 32 the inscribed stones are plainly the stones of the altiir itself. 
 
 Finally, we find in Joshua xxiv. the narrative of a jirecisely [)arallel 
 transaction at the same place — for Shechem, wliich is there named, lies 
 between Ebal and Cierizim. Joshua assendjles the people at Shechem 
 before the Lord. We read, in verse 20, of the sanctuary, i.e. of an alt<ir. 
 A gi-eat stone is set uj), and there the people enter into covenant, and 
 jirofess their obedience to Jehovalrs commands. This is in all essentials 
 
 For the proof at largo sec Ilollciibcrg's ussay on the AlcxaudriaJi version of Josiiua 
 (Mucrs, 1S70). 
 
88 THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 a ceremouy jn-ecisely equivalent to that enjoined in Deuteronomy 
 xxvii ; for tlie blessings and cur.tiings are just a form of covenant oath. 
 The substantial identity of the conmiand in Deuteronomy, and the 
 accomplishment in Joshua xxiv., is not affected by the fact that all the 
 details of the foi-mer passage are not rei)eated in the latter. Now it 
 will not be supposed that what was commanded by Moses was tidce 
 executed by Joshua. Joshua viii. 30, s&i. is a duplicate of Joshua xxiv., 
 Avhicli betrays its later origin b}^ the marks already einimerated, and by 
 the fact that such a ceremony could not take place at Shechem, when 
 the Israelites had })ushed no further forward than A\. 
 
 III. The last main argument which is used against the critical view 
 is that derived from the testimony of our Lord. In Mat. xix. 8, and Mark 
 x. 5, the Old Testament law of divorce is called Mosaic. The words, 
 "Moses wrote this 'precept ^^ occur in Mark but not in Matthew ; which 
 shows that the evangelists are not reporting our Lord's words verbally, 
 and that nothing can be based on mere verl^al points. But it is argued 
 that this i3recept is found only in Deuteronomy, so that Jesus at least 
 regards the law of Deuteronomy as Mosaic. Well, the precept referred 
 to is found in Deut. xxiv. But the proper translation there is, that, 
 when a man has taken a wife and mariied her, if she please him not 
 and he divorce her, and send her awny, and she go from his house, and 
 marry another husband, and he iu turn divorce her or die, then she may 
 not be re-married to her first husband. The precept about re-marriage is 
 the Deuteronomic precept ; the law of divorce is in Deuteronomy 
 assumed as current law, and, therefore, presumably is of immemorial 
 date, an ancient custom, which Moses, as our Lord puts it, according to 
 Matthew, permitted rather than approved. A second Mosaic testimony 
 to th(i Pentateuch is Mark vii. 10. " Moses said honour thy father and 
 th}'- mother." This verse proves how wroii" it is to press expressions 
 for more than their natural sense. By the same sort of exegesis which is 
 used against the critics this verse might be made to disprove the 
 utterance of the ten commandments by God at Sinai. Again in Mark 
 xii. 26, there is a reference to "the book of Moses at the Bush," 
 i.e. in the section about the burning bush. This is a mere reference to 
 a passage in current language, and so in the parallel passage, Luke 
 XX. 37, Moses means no more than the book usually cited under his 
 name. Once more, it is plain that in John vii. 22, — "Moses gave you 
 circumcision " — Moses means no more than the oUl dispensation, for it is 
 innnediately added that, strictly si>eaking, that rite is patriarchal. And 
 it is in this broad sense, and not with limited reference to any one 
 passage, that in John v. 46, Moses is said to bear witness to Christ. Is 
 there anything in all these passages which can be said to imply a 
 testimony to the Mosaic authorship of the whole Pentateuch, or of 
 Deuteronomy, excei)t on an exegesis which would make the verbal 
 variations in the gos}jcls an insu]jerable barriei' to faith I 
 

 Date 
 
 Due 
 
 
 ^' • ■< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , \ 
 
 
 
 '"''^l^llf'KSffm 1 
 
 
 
 ««*«-^_ 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <|)