(1.) Rdigioiu Statutes (xii-xvi, 17).— There is to be but one sanctuary where all offerings lure to be offered. Flesh may be eaten anywhere, but sacrifices may only be slain in **the place which the Lord thy God shall choose" (xii, 5-32). All idol prophets, all enticers to idolatry from among themselves, even whole cities if idolatrous, are to be cut off (xiii), and all idolatrous practices to be eschewed (xiv, 1, 2). Next come reg- ulations respecting clean and undean animals, tithe, the year of release, and the three feasts of the Pass- over, of Weeks, and of Tabernacles (xiv, 8-xvi, 17).
(2.) GovemrMKtal and Executive Functuma (xvi, 18- xxi, 23). — The laws affiacting public personages and defining the authority of the judges (xvi, 18-20) and the priests (xvii, 8-13), the way of proceeding in courts of justice (xvii, 1-13); the law of the king (xvii, 14- 20), of the priests, aod Levites, and prophets (xviii) ; of the cities of refuge and of witnesses (xlx). The or- der is not very exact, but, on the whole, the section xvi, 18-xix, 21, ia judicial in its character. The pas- sage xvi, 21-xvii, 1, seems strangely out of place. Baumgarten {Comnu in loc.) tries to account for it on the ground of the close connection which must subsist between the true worship of God and righteous rule and judgment. But who does not feel that this is said with more ingenuity than truth ?
Next come the laws of war (xx), both as waged (a) generally with other nations, and (b) especially with the inhabitants of Canaan (ver. 17).
(3.) Private and Social Injunctions^ or laws touching domestic life and the relation of man to man (xxi, 15- xxvi, 19). So Ewald divides, assigning the former part of chap, xxi to the previous section. Hftvemick, on the other hand, includes it in the present. The fact is that ver. 10-14 belong to the laws of war, which are treated of in chap, xx, whereas 1-9 seem more natural!}' to come under the matters discussed in this section. It begins with the relations of the family, passes on to those of the fHend and neighbor, and then touches on the general principles of justice and charity by which men should be actuated (xxiv, 16-22). It concludes with the following confession, which every Israelite is to make when he offers the first-fruits, and which reminds him of what he is as a member of the theocracy, as one in covenant with Jehovah, and great- ly blessed by Jehovah.
Finally, this whole long discourse is wound up by a brief but powerful appeal (xxvi, 16-19), which reminds •'* of the words with which it opened. It will be ob-
served that no pains an taken here, or indeed ga» ally in the Mosaic legislation, to keep tlie aercnl -^ tions of the law, considered as moral, rifeoal, sad < monial, apart frinn each other by any denriy-aaxM line. But there is in this discourse a T^sry tesEsAm. gradual descent from the higher gronnd to the \amv. The speaker begins by set^g forth Jebovsk Wrrrif as the great object of love and worship ; thnwi k passes [1.] to the Religious, [2.] to the PolMcal,^ [3.] to the Social economy of his peofde..
3. In the third Discourse (xxvH, 1-zxx, 2(^ the ^ ers of Israel are associated with Moses. The pK^ are commanded to set up stones upon Mount Eti^al on them to write '* all the words of this law.*' Tte follow the several curses to be pronounced bv tl» Le- vites on Ebal (xxvii, 14-26), and the blessings oa G» zun (xxviil, 1-14). How terrible will be the psa^ ment of any neglect of this law is further pcatnTsi in the vivid words of a prophecy but too feaifally T«i. ified in the subsequent history of the peof^ lb subject of this discourse is briefly '' The BlesoBf aad the Curse. * * The prophetic speeches visibly and pd- ually increase in energy and enthosiam^ mta & perspective of the remotest future of the people ^€d lies open to the eye of the inspired lawgirer in all s checkered details, when his words resolve theBseha into a flight .of poetical ecstasy, into the strum Pt% splendid triumphal song, in which the tone of grkf ^ lamentation is as heart-rending as the annomcce^ of divine salvation therein ia jubilant (eh. xxts. xxviU).
4. The delivery of the Law as written by Mosei (!■ its still further preservation) to the costody of the U- vites, and a charge to the people to bear H read &x every seven years (xxxi) ; the Song of Moees spokn in the ears of the peoi^e (xxxi, 30-xxxil, 4Q; aadtk blessing of the twelve ^ibes (xxxiii).
5. The book closes (xxxiv) with an acooral of &e death of Moses, which is first announced to hia is xxxii, 48-^52. On the authorship of the last efaapCK see below.
II. Relation of Deuteromotny to tkeprmsedi/^beeb.- It has been an opinion very geDeraUj entertainrf hw the more modem critics, as well as by the earlier, ^ the book of Deuteronomy forms a compile wbok 'm itself, and that it was appended to the other booktai « later addition. Only dupters zxxil, -■"grfii, xxxir have been in whole or in part called in qaestieB It De Wette, Ewald, and Von Lengerke. De ICrtto thinks that xxxii and xxxiii have been borrowed fna other sources, and that xxxiv Is the work of the B»> hist (q. v.). Ewald also supposes xxxii to harv bta borrowed from another writer, who lived, howerv (a accordance with his theory, which we shail notioe ^• er down), after Solomon. On the other hand, be «•- siders xxxiii to be later, whilst Bleek (Repert 1 35) and Tuch (Gen. p. 556) decide that it is Elohistic S<m of these critics imagine that these chapters ongiaillT formed the conclusion of the book of Kombeis, nd thi the Deuteronomist tore them away from thdr proper position in order the better to incorporate his awn v«i with the rest of the Pentateuch, and to give it a fittiif conclusion. Gesenius and his followers are otcfiBaes that the whole book, as it stands at presmt, b if tte same hand. But it is a question of some intsrctt asd importance whether the book of Deoteronomy iboeM be assigned to the author, or one of the anthers, of tk fbrmer portions of the Fentatench, or whether kin distinct and independent work. The more ooostns* tive critics of the school of Hengstenbcrg ooateod Ait Deuteronomy forms an integral part of the Pentatesck, which is throughout to be ascribed to Moses. Otbertt as St&helin and Delitasch, have given reasons ftr be- lieving that it was written by tiie Jebovist; wbOft others again, as Ewald and De Wette, are hi ftrw of a different author.