encampment (Deut. i. 2, 19). It is to the people encamped in Horeb that God speaks (i. 6); the people are standing in Horeb, and God speaks from Sinai (iv. 10 col. 12, 15); with the people in Horeb God makes the covenant (v. 2, xxix. 1); the people in Horeb provoke God (ix. 8); the people in Horeb present their request (xviii. 16). On the other hand, when Mount Sinai occurs in the other books, it is invariably used of the special peak whence God delivered the law (Ex. xvi. 1, xix. 11, 18, 20, 23, xxiv. 16, xxxi. 18, xxxiv. 2; Lev. vii. 38; xxv. 1, xxvi. 46, xxvii. 34; Num. iii. 1, xxviii. 6) And so also it is in Deut. xxxiii. 2, the only passage where it occurs in that book. So far, then, the distinctive usage of both terms is identical in Deuteronomy and the other books.

But besides, the Deuteronomist speaks of Sinai precisely in the way most suitable to one who had shared so largely in the wondrous events of which it was the scene. A later author would naturally have mentioned Sinai by name when he speaks of it, especially one who copied from Exodus and Numbers, and wished to imitate their style. But one in whose memory its marvels were fresh and vivid, who had learned to look upon it as the mountain above all others, and who was addressing those who shared the same feelings, had no occasion to mention its name when alluding to its associations. It is, therefore, ever as the mount that he talks of it (Deut. v. 4, 5, 22, ix. 9, 10, 15, 21, x. 1, 3, 4, 5, 10). As an historian, indeed, he had to particularise it by name, as often as he had occasion to introduce it in detached portions of his work. Hence its frequent appearance in the history under its proper designation. But even there, when from surrounding associations and the general context the name is easily understood, it is likewise spoken of as the

mount (Ex. xix. 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 17, 23, xx. 18, xxiv. 4, 12, 15, 17, 18, xxv. 40, xxvi. 30, xxvii. 8, xxxii. 1, 15, 19). The association of ideas is what in either case gives rise to the expression. But in the historian of Exodus, that comes from the juxtaposition of events, and the grammatical connection of the relative with the antecedent, or of the demonstrative with the subject. But in the orator of Deuteronomy it springs from the memory and feeling of the spectator supplying in mind. the common-place syntax of the language.

§ 4.-Deuteronomist's stand-point that of the Exodus.

The contemporaneousness of the Deuteronomist with the Exodus is shown also by the stand-point which he takes up anterior to the conquest of Canaan; one, not only ever in perfect keeping with the character and position of Moses, but such as no author could have assumed after the conquest, when the national development had begun its course, and much more, when it was running to its close. For he often speaks in entire ignorance of the march of events in Canaan, and frequently contemplates future arrangements which circumstances never allowed to be carried out. To appreciate the force of this argument, it should be observed, that in Deuteronomy Moses occasionally appears as a prophet foretelling the establishment of the kingdom, the advent of the Great Prophet, the captivity of Babylon, and other facts of national interest. Critics of the adverse school seize upon these predictions as so many proofs that the author wrote after the fact, and by putting them in the mouth of Moses wished to enhance his reputation as a prophet. On one side, therefore, it is allowed that, instead of incongruity, the Deuteronomist sees a positive advantage in making

his hero foresee the great national changes that were to take place. On the other, we have to ask how it agrees with this supposition, that he takes no notice of other religious or political revolutions, which, at an early period of the history, entirely changed the destiny of the nation. He never dreamed of the schism of Jeroboam, which broke up the nation into shivers, and paralysed its efforts for ever. So little did the thought ever cross his mind that his darling Joseph was to be the ringleader in rebellion and impiety, that of all the blessings of the tribes put into the mouth of Moses, the most magnificent is the one pronounced on the recreant Ephraim and Manasseh, who dragged the whole nation into ruin irretrievable. Neither was he aware of that other national calamity that threw Israel for a century into mourning-the Philistine capture of the ark; a circumstance which dissolved the essential union between it and the tabernacle, introduced so many unthought-of anomalies into religion, and seemed for so long to render hopeless the accomplishment of his great wish for perfect unity of worship in the place that Jehovah should choose. For had he been aware of it, he would surely have given some hint of how the difficulty was to be removed, and how Solomon and David, and even Samuel himself, were to be spared an apparent infringement of his strict command of sacrifice. but in one place. How is it, moreover, that he knows not the one place chosen at last; and that he has no word to say about Jerusalem, the seat of the Temple, the city of David, the glory of the nation, the constant theme of the other prophets? But so little is he acquainted with the history closely following on the conquest, that he knows neither the special enemies with whom Israel had to contend, nor the peculiar relations in which they stood towards the Canaanites in particular. For the only

enemies he contemplates in the neighbourhood are the Canaanites. There is no hint of hostilities with the Philistines and Ammonites, who gave so much trouble at the time of the Judges. Nay, the Ammonites are treated as an inoffensive people, who were on no account to be meddled with (Deut. ii. 19); as also Edom and Moab, who nevertheless were dealt with so severely by David. And as to the hostile Canaanites themselves, the author shows himself ignorant of the long and bitter contests waged with them from the time of the Judges. For in Deut. vii. 22 he speaks of their gradual expulsion, not from any difficulty in effecting it, but for the convenience of Israel itself: whereas all the after-history shows, that, owing to their neglect of the law and proneness to idolatry, the people were never able, with all the power they could bring to bear, to expel them from the country. Historically, they were kept in the neighbourhood of Israel, not as a fence against the wild beasts, as the Deuteronomist contemplates, but as a divine chastisement and corrective (Jud. ii. 21, 22, iii. 1, 4).

That the author's point of view was taken before the development of Israelitic history, we again see in the proposal of certain arrangements, which were never actually effected. Such are the boundaries assigned to Israel itself in Deut. i. 7. These were never attained even under David and Solomon. For the Tyrians and Sidonians were most flourishing in Israel's best time; and the coast of Philistia was never in their power. In connection with this are the three additional cities of refuge, which Israel was charged to appoint, when God should have enlarged their boundaries to their full extent (Deut. xix. 8, 9). As the extreme limit was never gained, so the additional asylums were never established. What

could induce any author but Moses to enter upon such slippery ground?

§ 5.-Deuteronomist the lawgiver of Exodus.

It is also clear that the speaker of Deuteronomy can be no other than the lawgiver of Exodus. Deuteronomy is in the nature of a legal commentary: which, according to the source from which it proceeds, may be either authoritative or private. The latter again may be scientific or homiletic. Erskine's or Coke's Institutes will exemplify the one; while the homilies of St. Chrysostom or St. Gregory may represent the other. But when the commentary is authoritative, it proceeds either from the lawgiver himself in person, or from some deputy legally empowered to interpret it officially and bindingly. The Parliament of Great Britain is the authoritative exponent of its own laws; the Congregation of Rites in the ecclesiastical constitution of Rome is legally empowered to interpret the rubrics of the Church, even though it has not itself originated them.

To which of these categories does the Deuteronomic commentary belong?

Not, certainly, to the class of private and unauthorised commentaries; for, in the first place, it is Moses himself who is introduced as the commentator of his own laws. And as the exposition of the legislator carries the same weight as the original law, it is clear that the author of Deuteronomy could never have contemplated his work as a private commentary. When our divine Lord explains his own law, it is with the full authority of the Lawgiver; and when Moses comments upon his, he does not mount the bench in judicial ermine, but ascends the throne with the sceptre of the unlimited monarch, adding and