early as the time of Moses. On examination, however, it will be found not to be by any means so conclusive as has been pretended. (1) It is to be observed that the mere fact of the non-observance of a law, even by good men, does not necessarily involve the assumption that the law was not then known or did not then exist. This is only a conjecture, which the critic puts forth as accounting for the fact, and which oan be accepted only as it appears probable. But on what does the alleged probability of this conjecture rest? Only on the counter-improbability of good men acting 88 Samuel and others did had the law been then in existence. That is to say, it is probable they did not know the law because it is not probable that, had they known it, they would have neglected it. To one accustomed to weigh historical eTidence, this cannot but appear anything but conclusive. Good men often do very unexpected things ; and unless we know all the circumstances, it is impossible to determine beforehand what they will do or will not do in any particular case. Even when all the oircumstances are known, the chances of any given course being followed are not such that a prudent man will risk much on the anticipation. (2) So far as the circumstances are known to us, they suggest another and different reason for the condnct of the pious men of Samuel's time in the matter referred to than that adduced by the objector; they make it highly probable that the law of the central sanctuary was neglected, not because it was unknown, but because the means of observing it were wanting. The central sanctuary was where God chose to put his Name, and where was his habitation ( eh. xii. 5, 21 ), and this was where the ark of the covenant was. There it was that God had engaged to meet his people, and there it was that his Name was put (Ex.od. x.x.v. 22; 2 Sam. vi. 2). Now, during the whole of Samuel's time and part of that of David, the ark was in abeyance, nor was there any sanctuary in which it was placed. After the destruction of the sanctuary at Shiloh, the ark was for a season a captive in the land of the Philistines, and when at length it was restored, it was only to find temporary accommodation in private houses and unconsecrated courts, until it was brought up by David to Jerusalem. During all this time, therefore, there was no central sanctuary to which the worshipper could bring his offering, and consequently no one place more legitimately appropriate for this act of worship than another. The alternative before the men of that time was thus, either to omit the offering of sacrifice altogether or to offer it at such places as were most convenient and suitable for such a. service. They chose the latter; and in so doing they obeyed the earlier and more general law (Ex.od. XL 24), while they neglected the later and more special one-not 'because they were ignorant of the latter, but because they had not the means of obeying it ( comp. 1 Kings iii. 2). (3) It is to be noted tliat the law in Deuteronomy appointing the one place for sacrificial worship is not absolute and unconditioned. It is expressly qualified by the condition of the Lord's giving them rest from all their enemies round about (eh. x.ii. 1-0). Until thill wa~ done, then, the law THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. xxxi
wus in abeyance ; so that, if oircumstances required, oth81' methods than that which it prescribed of observing the primary and absolutely im- perative ordinunce of sacrifice might be followed. We find, accordingly, thut it was only as it was considered that the Lord had given them rest from their enemies that it was deemed fitting to fix upon a certain place to which the people might repair as to the dwelling-place of Jehovah, to present their worship and offerings. ThUB, after the occupation of the land by the Israelites, it was not until the land was subdued before them, and the Lord had given them rest round about, that the congregation of the children of Israel assembled at Shiloh, and set up the tent of meeting there (Josh. xviii. 1; xxi. 44; xxii. 4). The rest, however, which was then given to them was not destined to be permanent. Times of unsettlement ensued, and at length the sanctuary at Shiloh was everted and the ark of the covenant carried away by hostile invaders; nor was it till the time of David that it could be said definitively that the Lord had given rest to his people from all their enemies, as he had promised. Then at length the occasion had arrived when a house might be built for the Lord to dwell in; and David, recognizing this, determined, seeing " the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies," to build a. house unto the Name of the Lord; and though he was not permitted to carry this into effect, because of the wars in which he had been engaged in the earlier part of his reign, his purpose was approved of by God (2 Sam. vii. 1 ; 1 Kings viii. 18). The fact that in the usages of the nation there was this con- necting of a time of rest from all enemies with the setting up of a fixed place for the sanctuary, is surely a. strong indication that the law of Deuteronomy was all along known and respected by them; and, at the same time, we may see from this how it was that, pending the arrival of the promised rest, good men were found offering worship and sacrifices elsewhere than at a central sanctuary. ( 4) That the law of Deuteronomy respecting the offering of sacrifice only at the place which the Lord should appoint was known and reverenced from the earliest times, is placed beyond doubt, not only by the constant references, in the early historical books, to the "house of the Lord" as the place where worship and sacrifice were to be offered, but especially by what is recorded in Josh. xxii. The indignation of the people against their brethren who had erected an altar on the border of Jordan before:they crossed it to return to their own possession on the eastern side of that river; the earnestness with which the latter hastened to assure the people that they had erecled the altar, not to establish an independent worship, but rather that it might stand as a permanent witness that they still adhered to and claimed to have part in J ohovah as their God; and the solemnity with which they disclaimed any intention to rebel against the Lord by building 1111 altar for burnt offerings, for moat offerings, or for sacrifices besides the altar of the Lonl that was before the tabernacle ;-all incontestably show that this law wat1 known and recognized as imperative at the time of the llXil INTRODUCTION TO