in silence. It is enough to say that the law of the kingdom in Deut. xvii need not surprise any one who observes tliat the king is represented as the mere vice- roy of Jehovah, liiniself the true and everlasting King of Israel, accordiug to Exod. xv, 18 ; Numb, xxiii, 21 ; and who recollects the promises that kings should spring from the loins of the patriarchs Abraham and Jacob (Gen. xvii, 16; xxxv, 11), and along with this the notice that kings had not yet arisen in Israel al- though thej' did exist in Edom (Gen. xxxvi, 31). But certain passages, alread}' considered in so far as they refer to the privileges of the priests, are brought into connection with others in such a way as to suggest the inference that a vast revolution had taken place in the position of the priests and Levites before the time when the author of Deuteronomy published his work, in whicli his object was to prop up the tottering institutions of his country. The two orders of priests and Levites had come to be confused, the Levites hav- ing been all admitted to priestl}' functions ; and the tithes having been seldom paid, they had sunk into poverty, and the scheme of this writer was to com- pound the matter by securing to them a certain share in these tithes, which were henceforth to be spent in re- ligious feasts at the Temple, where the Levites should have a place along with the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. This representation must be charac- terized as a mass of unsupported suppositions. That the Levites miglit often be poor is probable enough, but there is no appearance of general starvation, such as would have been their condition if their chief sup- port had been this share in the sacred feasts. There is no need to puzzle ourselves about the tithe which was spent at these feasts (Deut. xii, 6, 7, 11, 17-19, and especially xiv, 22-29 and xxvi, 12-15), which plainly was quite distinct from the other tithe given to the tribe of Levi as a compensation for having no share in the territorial allotment of Canaan (Numb, xviii, 20- 32). This is rightly expressed in the apocrj-phal book of Tobit (ch. i, G, 7), though in the original it is still more distinct than in our A. V. : "But I alone went often to Jerusalem at the feasts, as it was ordained to all the people of Israel by an everlasting decree, hav- ing the first-fruits and tenths of increase, with that which was first shorn ; and them gave I at the altar to the priests the children of Aaron. The first tenth part of all increase I gave to the sons of Aaron, who ministered at Jerusalem ; another tenth part I sold away, and went and spent it every year at Jerusa- lem." This hypothesis of a radical change in the po- sition of the priests and Levites, at that late age to which the composition of Deuteronomy is assigned, has been supposed to be supported by two expressions — "the priests the Levites" (Deut. xviii, 1), or "the priests the sons of Levi" (ch. xxi, 5), as if it estab- lished the conclusion that all the Levites were repre- sented in this book as performing priestly functions. But '• tlie priests the Levites" would be a proof of this only if it meant "the priestly Levites," which it does not; its only fair interpretation is "the Levitical priests." Yet it is true that the offices of the Levites and of the priests did come ver}- close to one anot-her, the ministry of the altar being the sole exclusive pre- rogative of the latter. Hence it is no wonder that in Deuteronomy, which is, comparatively speaking, the people's book of the law, it is the points of agreement which are noted rather than the points of difference; especially since none of the regulations as to sacrifices are given anywhere in the liook. Tlie close connec- tion of the priests and the rest of the Levites is taken for granted throughout tlie whole law, as in the first dedication of the entire tribe, on occasion of the wor- ship of the golden calf (Exod. xxxii, 25-29), and this representation of tliem in united privileges or duties continues through tlie book of Joshua (in which the critics are forced to imagine absurdly that the same confusion of the two orders appears, see ch. iii, 3) down
to the arguments in Mai. ii, 1-9 and in Heb. vii. Where- as in the earlier books of the law " the sons of Aaroti" are mentioned verj' naturally, while he was living and they were literally his sons; after his death, and as a new generation of priests was growing up, it was equal- Ij^ natural to alter the expression into " the priests the sons of Levi," or "the Livi'.ical priests." This name was peculiarly appropriate after the revolt of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram : it reminded the Levites of their high honor as God's servants, although the service of the altar was restricted to a single fainil}' among them (see Numb, xvi, 7-10; xvii, 3-9 [ver. 18-24, Ileb.]); and it summoned the whole congregation of Israel to give honor in spiritual tilings to this tribe which had so few political advantages, and whose fortunes had un- dergone a marvellous revolution since the time when Jacob pronounced a curse upon them. See Levi and Levite.