be a hard task to fit them all together. It will never be an ignoble one to try to do so; and the more we see the real shape and bearings of each particular truth, the better chance we shall have. The God of Scripture claims to be the God of nature; and there have been such men as Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, and Michael Faraday, distinguished for their scriptural religion as well as for their scientific attainments. They have not been without successors. I could name some living now.

6

We hear a good deal now-a-days of Science and Revelation; but the expression is an unfortunate one, because it makes some people think that the two things are unconjoined, and that they require to be reconciled one with the other. Far better would it be to speak of 'Revelation by Science and Revelation by Scripture.'

For to me it seems that the man of science and the Scripturist, each in his several sphere, serves God by presenting the knowledge of His truth, just as the gallant members of our army and of our navy, in their very distinct ways, serve the same gracious Queen and protect the same glorious Commonwealth. If so, the sneers of philosophy at scriptural religion, and the fulminations of orthodoxy against scientific deductions, are relatively as bad for the cause of Truth as hostilities between our army and navy would be for the well-being of the State. We should not look for much national progress and prosperity if the garrison of Dover Castle tried the range of their Armstrongs by firing at every Queen's ship that sailed through the Straits, and if the captain of every ironclad that passed Shorncliffe did his best to throw a shell into the camp.

Inasmuch as we are ourselves imperfect, we shall not

find out the Almighty to perfection. Both in the kingdoms of nature' and of 'grace,' He is a God that verily hideth Himself so far as to abstain from furnishing us either with scientific definitions or formulated creeds. Till we get these things by proclamation direct from heaven, let us all work on humbly and fraternally in our search for Truth. So doing, we may best hope for that blessed peace and brotherly understanding foreshown in one of the finest inspirations of the great Hebrew prophets for the times, when, in the language of sacred imagery, 'Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.'

64

NOTE.

AFTER the manuscript of the foregoing Essay had left my hands, I found some reason for supposing that a question might be raised with reference to the earlier part of it. It might be said, perhaps, that I had not sufficiently taken into account the fact that men of great learning and research have come to the conclusion that what we call the Law' was compiled, not in the days of Moses, or even of Samuel, but at a comparatively recent age. If so, my argument, as far as based on the characteristic features of that Law, would certainly go for nothing, inasmuch as a review of a number of regulations drawn up after the period of the Babylonian Captivity could in no degree help one to form a just idea of the civilisation or the intellectual status of the chief among the Israelites on the eve of the conquest of Canaan. To some minds, the extract I gave from Dr. Smith's Dictionary may prove sufficiently satisfactory on this point, because it states the names of several eminent scholars who have written to support the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch; and after all, a plain man of ordinary information and intelligence has a right to set the one opinion against the other, and judge for himself as best he may between the opposing views. Still, it may be well to go into the matter a little further than has been done in the preceding pages.

What, then, is the nature of the statements put forth by those who do not believe in the early date of the Levitical ordinances? To no better quarter, perhaps, could we go for an answer than to the book indicated below.' It is the work of a very erudite man, who gives reasons for the opinions he holds. Moreover, he is one of the chosen race; he maintains

1 A Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament, with a New Translation, by G. M. Kalisch, Phil. Doc. M.A. LEVITICUS, Part I. Longmans, 1867.

that Jesus Christ is not the Deliverer promised in the Old Testament; he writes against the possibility of miracles, and does not believe there has ever been such a thing as inspiration' in the sense assigned to the word in popular theology. It is plain, then, that he can have no bias in favour of what is called orthodoxy.'

In the work referred to, he has written at very considerable length on the sacrificial laws found in the Book of LEVITICUS. He states that the said book was not the work of one author, or of one age; that it is composed of various portions, written, enlarged, and modified by different writers, in harmony with the necessities and altered conditions of their respective times,1 a few older portions forming the groundwork of the book." He finds that the Book of Deuteronomy could not have been written earlier than the seventh century before the present era, and that the minute and complicated sacrificial legislation of Leviticus originated at a considerably later time than that —in fact, that the sacrificial laws of Leviticus were not compiled before the Babylonian period, and came not into operation till after the return of the Jews from captivity.3 In fine, he holds that the Book of Deuteronomy was what we should call, in our modern plainness of speech, a forgery; that the prophet Jeremiah alludes to that, and not to the other books of the Pentateuch, when he speaks of the Law;' and that by far the greater part of the Book of Leviticus was written to suit the purposes of the priests of the last period mentioned in Old Testament history. He makes a great point of the difficulties or impossibilities connected with the required attendance at one particular Holy Place of all the men of every tribe from all parts of the land at stated seasons, and of individuals of both sexes on occasion of various events or accidents that might frequently happen in the course of their lives. His opinion that the Levitical laws could not have been of ancient date is also strengthened by the fact that they do not seem to have been observed in the times of the judges, or of Samuel and the earlier kings. Sacrifices were 1 A Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament. LEVITICUS, p. xx. 2 Ibid. p. xxviii. 3 Ibid. p. 43. Ibid. p. 45. In fact, Dr. Kalisch maintains that Jeremiah could not have known Leviticus and Numbers.

4

F

offered on the part of Gideon, Samuel, and Elijah, &c., at places away from the Sanctuary; and much inhumanity and idolatry prevailed. Indeed, he urges that for a considerable time there was no properly constituted Sanctuary at all, for want of the presence of the Ark of the Covenant.

I think I have condensed his elaborate statements with candour. They are well worth our careful notice, and it will not suit my argument to dismiss them with the dogmatic assertion that the voice of inspiration is against them.

I may commence some brief remarks on their cogency or otherwise by calling attention to certain expressions made use of in the prophecies of men who delivered their sacred messages long before the period of the Babylonian Captivity, and some time even before the days of the king in whose reign the Book of Deuteronomy is said to have been discovered, if not composed. For it seems very difficult to understand how such expressions could have been used, unless the first four books of the Pentateuch had been previously in existence in their present completeness, or nearly so. I grant that the allusions we shall find to Levitical observances, though sufficient in my opinion, are not numerous. And why should they have been? The prophet's office was to commend the law of God written in the heart, and not the ceremonial observances of Leviticus;1 to rebuke the vices of the day; to deliver his burdens' respecting foreign nations; and to raise the hopes of God's people by promises of a future deliverance.

Of the prophets I shall now name, it may be doubted whether Hosea or Joel was the earliest in point of date; but as most lists begin with the former, we will place him first. This prophet exercised his functions in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, the last of which kings died fiftysix years before Josiah began to reign; and he speaks of feast

1 Dr. Kalisch quotes Jer. vii. 22 as proving that Jeremiah could not have known Leviticus, &c. But what is the purport of this and the next verse when taken together, but the old sentiment, often repeated in the Bible, either literally or in spirit: 'Obedience is better than sacrifice'? And it is extremely curious that in this very passage in Jeremiah there does seem to be a direct allusion to Leviticus. In fact, the quotation is word for word: 'I will be your God, and ye shall be my people.' (Jer. vii. 23, and Lev. xxvi. 12.)