does this remark refer? If we consider the natural context of the narrative it would relate to the time of the Hebrew wanderings in the desert . . . But that is impossible. How could the author suppose that sacrifices were offered at all places promiscuously, while Moses, the ostensible proclaimer of the Levitical laws, the zealous and inflexible champion of the new faith, watched and directed the people, and while the tabernacle formed the very heart and life of the Hebrew journeys and encampments? '1

This argument, which aims a blow at the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy as well as of Leviticus, is grounded on an assumption in no ways warranted by the text. Let us look at the whole of it together: Ye shall not do so unto Jehovah your God. But unto the place which Jehovah your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even after his residence shall ye enquire, and thither thou shalt come; and thither ye shall bring your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave-offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your free-will offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks; and those ye shall eat before Jehovah your God, and ye shall rejoice in every performance of your hand, you and your households, wherein Jehovah your God hath blessed thee. Ye shall not do after all the things which we do here this day, every man whatever is right in his own eyes. For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance which Jehovah your God giveth you' (Deut. xii. 4-9). This law regards first, the one fixed sanctuary to be afterwards established in Canaan; and secondly, the duties devolving upon the people in consequence. Its observance on either point was impracticable in the desert. For the tabernacle being migratory, there was no fixed sanc

1 Ib. p. 23.

tuary, and the people had not the means to offer personal sacrifices, nor to give tithes, nor to pay vows, nor to present offerings, whether in money or in kind. It was probably owing to their want of grain and of sacrificial animals that the Passover itself was intermitted until the nation's arrival in Canaan. Whatever, then, was done by the people while in the desert in the way of tithes, or sacrifice, or other religious offerings, was owing to their own free will and good feeling. They did whatever was good in their own eyes. But in Canaan that state of things was to cease, and the law to come into full operation. They would then be in possession of the inheritance which God was to give them, and would, in consequence, be obliged to devote the appointed part of their agricultural produce and pastoral stock to the purposes commanded by the law. It would no longer be permitted to do whatsoever was good in their own eyes. From this analysis it is clear that Kalisch has missed the sense of the passage, and that the argument which he founds upon it is consequently of no value.

XI.

Let us now come to the first of the seven reasons which he adduces in support of his peculiar opinion: The Levitical ordinances were neither known nor carried out before the exile; they were unknown in the time of the Judges, when Jephthah offered his daughter as a burnt sacrifice with the knowledge of the whole people, and when prominent and pious leaders of the nation publicly performed priestly functions in places not hallowed by the presence of the Ark; nor in the time of David and Solomon, who, descended from Judah, on many occasions assumed the prerogatives of the Levites; nor in the time of the later Kings; for Josiah (B.c. 642-611) was seized

with astonishment and despair when he heard "the words of the Book of the Law," the contents of which were entirely new to him; which would have been impossible had the precept of Deuteronomy regarding the septennial and public recital of the Law existed.'1

As this is a stock argument with our opponents, it will be found noticed and amply refuted in the review which we have made of Israel's history,2 where every instance cited by our author, whether in his summary or in his detailed catalogue, has been shown (at least implicitly) to be reconcilable with the existence of the Levitical law. In its bearing on Leviticus the case of Josiah is singularly unfortunate. For it is hard to see how his asserted ignorance about Deuteronomy can prove the non-existence of Leviticus; when, if it were true, it could do no more than prove the non-observance of Deuteronomy itself.

The supposed idolatry of Gideon deserves a little further notice at our hands, as the ephod which he made is set down by Kalisch as a gold-plated image of Jehovah.*

The word is, at the present day, as much abused by critics as the thing was of old by the Hebrews. For although the belief in such a meaning has been gradually gaining currency, yet it has no justification whatever, either in etymology or in usage. Certainly none of the ancient versions understood it so; and Gesenius himself confesses that it was the Arabic-belonging to the twelfth or thirteenth century 6-which first broached the idea. How, then, has it obtained a place in the Lexicons? Not, certainly, for any etymological reason. For the etymology of the word is unknown, and the only recognisa

1 Ib. pp. 43, 44.

3 Ib. pp. 26-31.

2 Supra, pp. 67-72, 153-160, 174-177, 192-196.

4 Ib. pp. 18, 19, 28, 353, 355.

5 See his Thesaurus, sub voce.

* See Horne's Introd. to the H. Script. vol. ii. Ancient Versions, p. 85.

ble traces of its origin lead back to a Semitic root connected with ideas of clothing. Just as little from usage, which in no case gives the least countenance to any other than the original meaning of a vestment.

Let us look at every instance where it occurs. Passing over the proper name (Num. xxxiv. 23), in the Pentateuch ephod is used exclusively for the precious vestment peculiar to the High Priest (Ex. xxv. 7, xxviii. 4, 6, 12, 15, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, xxix. 5, xxxv. 9, 27, xxxix. 2, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22; Lev. viii. 7). In the historical books, when it is associated with the high-priestly dignity or functions, we are naturally to understand it in its legal sense, unless it be proved to have another (1 Sam. ii. 28, xiv. 3, xxi. 9, xxiii. 6, 9-11, xxx. 7, 8). With the qualification linen, it is used of the robe worn by the ordinary priest (1 Sam. xxii. 18), or by the infant Levite Samuel at the tabernacle (1 Sam. in. 18), or by the king in a religious ceremony (2 Sam. vi. 14; 1 Chron. xv. 27). Where we cannot help remarking the extraordinary logic of those critics who infer from this fact that both Samuel and David had sacerdotal rights and powers. The law nowhere prescribes the linen ephod for the priest,1 much less does it forbid any other Israelite to wear it; and, least of all, any one who is actually taking a prominent part in the services of religion. In the Catholic Church, cassock, surplice, and cope are clerical robes, and yet she permits their use occasionally to laymen when assisting at solemn functions within the sanctuary. Josephus was, therefore, guided more by the bigotry of his Pharisaism than by his knowledge of law, when he pronounced illegal the permission accorded by Agrippa to Levite choristers to wear linen garments like the priests.2 Under David and

1 In Lev. xvi. 4, &c., there is mention made of the priest's linen tunic, but not of the linen ephod. 2 Ant. B. xx. c. ix. 6.

Solomon they had been allowed to do so at the transportation of the ark (1 Chron. xv. 27), and at the dedication of the temple (2 Chron. v. 12). No reclamation was made even by the Chronicler, who alone records the fact. Indeed, it is he too that tells us of David's wearing the linen ephod (1 Chron. xv. 27), though Kalisch unaccountably denies it.1 So that it is quite clear that he who, according to our adversaries, is continually shaping his history to further his own priestly views and Mosaic prepossessions, saw nothing incongruous in the proceeding, nothing out of joint with the prescriptions of the Pentateuch.

Passing on to the other instances where the ephod is met with, we find it in the story of Micah (Jud. xvii. xviii.) employed in the rites of an illegal worship. Four times it is mentioned in conjunction with images which, if not absolutely idolatrous, were at least superstitious (xvii. 5, xviii. 14, 18, 20). But to infer from that, as Kalisch does, that ephod means image is a somewhat hasty conclusion. Surely it is not so, because it appears along with three other words signifying image. For according to such reasoning the six words in Hos. iii. 4 would all mean the same thing when he says: "The children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without an officer, and without a sacrifice, and without monument, and without ephod, and without teraphim.' Nor can it be merely because it happens to be employed in the service of idolatry. For idolatry had precious vestments as well as the religion of Jehovah, and pretended to deliver oracles as infallible as the Urim and Thummim; especially among the Hebrews, who in their superstitious rites naturally adopted the use of the wonder-working robe with which they had been familiar from the

1 Ib. p. 33.