after the speaker's death, the argument would have been pertinent; but as it stands there is no force in it, unless the allusion be to a prophet or prophets soon to appear. Then only could the speaker's language be valid against the superstitious usages of the people. Still further, the subsequent context (verses 20-22), which prescribes criteria for distinguishing false prophets from true, is adverse to the Messianic application, because the reference is plural. We expect the true prophets to be spoken of before Moses begins to separate them and the false. Both on the ground of grammatico-historical interpretation and of context, we must hold that the collective prophets are meant. As to the likeness between Moses and the *), some suppose it to lie in the fact that the series of prophets were to be of the Israelite nation as Moses was. The Lord, says Moses, will raise up to you a prophetic order from among your brethren, as I am. They shall belong to your own nation. The only objection to this meaning is, that it is already contained in the phrase from thy brethren, making and superfluous. We believe, however, that neither expression is so. The likeness between Moses and the prophets must be restricted, else it does not agree well with Deut. xxxiv. 10 where we read : "There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses." It does not extend to all the qualities of the lawgiver, but simply denotes a capacity and will both to receive divine communications and to lay them in all their integrity before the people. We cannot assent to Havernick's interpretation, "speaking the same things which I have spoken." In xxxiv. 10 we understand the Deuteronomist to say, that no prophet as great as Moses afterwards appeared in Israel, because Jehovah held more confidential intercourse with him as explained in Num. xii. 6-8. In the present place, a general likeness between Moses and the is asserted. It is by no means implied, nor is it necessary to the sense, that the comparison should convey the idea of equality in character, dignity, or virtue. Similarity of official qualifications is intended.

The collective use of the singular ' has a parallel in king in Deut. xvii. 14-20, where the series of kings is meant, contrary to what Hengstenberg affirms.2

As to the arguments alleged in favour of the exclusively Messianic application, most of them rest on mere assumptions. The strongest is based on Peter's reasoning in Acts iii., of which we have already spoken as accommodation. We think it very probable that Christ had the present passage in his mind 1 Alttestamentliche Theologie, p. 90.

Christology, vol. i. p. 101, English translation.

when he uttered the words recorded in John v. 45, 46; but that circumstance only shews that he adopted the common interpretation of it; not that he recognised it as the true one, and sanctioned it as such. In employing the argumentum ad hominem, it was not needful that he should correct the prevailing application of a passage, or teach his hearers criticism. It was sufficient to confute them on their own acknowledged grounds. We need not speak of the supposed evidence for the Messianic sense contained in Matt. xvii. 5; John xii. 48-50; i. 45; vi. 14; iv. 25, because it is obviously weak and uncertain. Though the Samaritans, Nathaniel, and the Jews generally may have referred the prophet to Messiah in the days of the Saviour on earth, there is no reason for our adopting their opinion as infallible. The same remark applies to Stephen (Acts vii. 37). As to the second hypothesis, according to which there is a twofold reference, to the prophet and to Messiah, we greatly doubt if the original writer ever thought of it. Though apparently devised for the purpose of obviating the objection founded on Acts iii. 23, and vii. 27, it is not required even for that. Hengstenberg indeed has tried to set it forth with all possible plausibility; and Hävernick has lent it the weight of his name; but their arguments are unsatisfactory. The proper grammatical sense requires a single application, which the context teaches us to assign to the order of prophets. A complex application is unnecessary, and foreign to the words themselves. The first view is refuted by the fact that the Messiah is never set forth as a prophet in the Old Testament, nor is he termed, a prophet.1

XXI. ALLEGED MOSAIC RECORDING OF THE SACRIFICIAL LEGISLATION CONTAINED IN THE PENTATEUCH.-Having now surveyed the whole Pentateuch in outline, we proceed to make a few general remarks on the Mosaic origin and alleged Mosaic recording of its sacrificial legislation. If the basis of that legislation proceeded from Moses, and was unfolded in practice, we can understand the indefiniteness characterising that practice. But if he left the code as it now exists in the Pentateuch, a written, prescribed, precise system-it is not easy to see how it could have been so much neglected, even by such as were inclined to obey. Thus we observe in relation to the three middle books,

1. If they were left in writing by the legislator himself in their present state, why was there so great latitude about the persons offering sacrifices, as well as the offerings themselves? Both are definitely laid down. The appointments of both are

1 See Knobel, Exeget. Handbuch, xiii. p. 277.

expressly referred to God as their author. They are divinely prescribed by Moses. If so, they must have been publicly recognised and followed. The priesthood had been solemnly assigned to the descendants of Aaron. Others were forbidden to take upon them the duties belonging to the sacerdotal office. Yet we find various persons sacrificing without the Aaronic priests. And what makes the fact more remarkable is, the pious had no scruple about presenting such offerings as the law prescribed for priests alone. Thus Gideon of the tribe of Manasseh built an altar to the Lord in Ophrah, and offered a burnt-sacrifice upon it (Judg. vi. 25, 26). Manoah a Danite built an altar to the Lord on the top of a rock and offered a kid upon it (Judg. xiii. 16, 19). Samuel an Ephraimite offered sacrifice (1 Sam. x. 8; xvi. 2) etc. Ahithophel the Gilonite did the same (2 Sam. xv. 12). When Absalom asks leave to go and sacrifice, David makes no objection (2 Sam. xv. 7), etc. David himself offered burnt-offerings and peaceofferings before the Lord, and blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts (2 Sam. vi. 17; xxiv. 24, 25). Elijah built an altar on mount Carmel and offered burnt-sacrifice on it (1 Kings xviii. 30-33). These instances shew that those best acquainted with the divine law and most disposed to obey it— judges, kings, and prophets, the guides and teachers of the people, offered sacrifices to Jehovah with their own hands. The principle qui facit per alium facit per se will not apply to them, for the circumstances are such as to preclude it, as in the case of Elijah on mount Carmel.

In relation to the things offered there is similar freedom. Thus Samuel took a sucking lamb and offered it for a burntoffering; whereas the prescribed animals in the law should all be a year old at least (1 Sam. vii. 9). The Bethshemites offered female beasts for burnt-offerings (1 Sam. vi. 14). And at the time of Joash it would appear that the people substituted money for the sin and trespass-offerings (2 Kings xii. 4), etc.

The same latitude is seen with regard to the place where Jehovah should be worshipped. The old law, as far as it related to the sojourn in the wilderness, connected sacrifices with the tabernacle and the Aaronic priests. Thus we read in Lev. xvii. 3-6, "What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat in the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp, and bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the Lord, before the tabernacle of the Lord, blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people. To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices which they offer in the open

field, even that they may bring them unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest, and offer them for peace-offerings unto the Lord; and the priest shall sprinkle," etc. We admit that the chapter from which this passage is taken is not older Elohistic, but neither is it Jehovistic. Though it was not first written by the Elohist, there is no reasen for affirming that the laws it contains are not old, even as old as Moses himself. The substance indeed seems to be Mosaic, as Bleek has shewn, and even the form except in a few places. Its contents are by no means of the later type. With some critics we cannot see in Ex. xx. 24-26 anything contrary to the regulation quoted from Lev. xvii: "An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen in all places where I record my name, I will come unto thee, and Î will bless thee. And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar," etc. Here we understand the writer to say, that altars might be built in any place selected by God, for the language is, “in all places where I record my name," thus limiting the locality. The words do not imply that altars might be built wherever the people pleased; in several places at once; but that they should be erected wherever God chose to put his name. Wherever the tabernacle should be-according as the camp was shifted in the wilderness-there sacrifices should be offered. Understanding the passage thus, we cannot assent to the view of Knobel1 that the older law relating to sacrifices allowed altars to be erected in all places of the land at one and the same time; that it permitted the laity to attend at the altar (Ex. xx. 26); and that the prerogatives of Aaron's sons were not recognised by it; the firstborn possessing them (Ex. xxii. 28; xxiv. 5). These places hardly furnish valid evidence of what they are adduced to support. The old law as well as the Deuteronomic legislation, maintained a central place of public worship, at which sacrifices were to be offered. Wherever the tabernacle was, there only did the ancient legislation permit the appointed religious services; while the later legislation abiding by the same idea of unity pointed to the temple at Jerusalem, after the tabernacle had been superseded by the fixed structure. The three middle books of the Pentateuch hold that Jehovah might be worshipped at different places successively; Deuteronomy that he could be worshipped only at one place. Keeping in mind this legis

1 Exegetisches Handbuch on Exodus and Leviticus, pp. 350, 351.

lation respecting an authorised place of worship, either at the tabernacle or temple, let us see whether it was observed; as it would have been without doubt by the more pious of the people had it existed in a written code as now. Latitude may have been readily practised by the side of the older legislation, because the place for worship in it was variable. Good men may have seen nothing amiss, or contrary to its spirit, in the existence of sacrificial altars here and there. But had the legislation in Deuteronomy existed under the name of Moses they could not have mistaken its meaning or violated its repeated injunctions; for it expressly enjoins that the Israelites dwelling in their own land should destroy all places profaned by heathen worship, and serve Jehovah in the one place He himself should choose, that is, in Jerusalem. Supposing then the precise written legislation of Deuteronomy to have proceeded from Moses, observe the prevailing usage of the people in subsequent times. In the time of the Judges the people sacrificed at Bethel ; where, though the ark of the covenant once was, the tabernacle was not (Judg. xx. 18, 23, 26; xxi. 4). They also sacrificed at Bochim (ii. 6); and at Mizpeh (Judg. xxi. 1-4). Gideon built an altar and sacrificed at Ophrah. Manoah sacrificed at Zorah; and Samuel repeatedly offered sacrifices at Ramah, Gilgal, Bethlehem, Mizpeh, and Bethel, where the tabernacle could not always have been at the time, for we know that it was for the most part, if not always, at Kirjath-jearim, in his day (1 Sam. vii. 2). In the days of David, we find the mount of Olives (2 Sam. xv. 32), Bethlehem (1 Sam. xx. 6), Gilop (2 Sam. xv. 12), Hebron (2 Sam. xv. 7 etc.), and other localities used for worship. Saul also built altars in different places, and sacrificed on them without scruple. In Solomon's time, the people sacrificed on high places before the temple was built (1 Kings iii. 2); and these spots continued as recognised stations for the divine worship long after the time of Solomon, under the theocratic kings Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, (1 Kings xv. 14; xxii. 44; 2 Kings xii. 4; xiv. 4; xv. 4, 35). On mount Carmel there had been an altar which Elijah repaired, and on which he sacrificed. Such latitude do we find with regard to the place of worship; other positions being freely used for that purpose in addition to the main ones where the tabernacle and temple were.

We believe that the freedom in question-a freedom affecting not merely the place of worship but the persons sacrificing and the things offered up seems incompatible with the assumption of our present Pentateuch having been written by Moses. For how could the principal men of the nation, the very teachers of the people in sacred things, sanction so great a violation of the divine