must do what i5 right in their own eyes, in a way tl1at would not be lawful in times of ~ett\e<l avocations and of peace. Moses is instrncted, therefore, to remind them of the freedom they necessarily practise in the unsettled condition, which must be relinquished when they settle down beyond the Jordan (vers. 8, 9). IV. GoD RF.SERVES THE RIGHT OF CHOOSING THE CENTRAL PLACE 011' WORBIIIP, (Vers. 10---14.) This prevents all licence in such an important matter. It is not what they think advisable, but what God directs, that they are in the locality of worship to follow. This reservation is surely most significant. It indicates that in ,rnrship, which is the payment of due homage unto God, his will and wisdom are to be regarded as supreme. The right God holds in his hand of indicating whether he is to be ,vorshippeci. in one place or everywhere. V. GOD RE'l'EALED THE CENTRAL PLACE JN DUE SEASON. A good deal of the current criticism seems to overlook the distinction between the principle of centraliza- tion in worship and the pla,;e where it was to be observed. The principle was stated long before the place wns indicated. It was centuries before Jerusalem became the recognized centre of the Jewish religion. Had the name been indicated earlier, it would have prevented the natural development of the ritual in Canaan. It is not necessary 1o suppose that Moses had any definite idea of the central place when he uttered on the hanks of the Jordan the will of God. God can express his will through historical <lcvelopments, just as he can through natural developments. "The nature of things" may be justly regarded as the expression of the Divine mind; and so may a historical procession. Meanwhile, it is well for us to rejoice in the freedom and universality of spiritual worsbip to which we have come. Now the true worshippers, emancipated from the cumbrous ritual through its fulfilment in Christ, can "worship the Father in spirit and in truth" in every place.-R. M. E.
Vers. l 5-19.-Private worship not the substitute for public. While the central altar was ordained for the reception of the sacrifices and the place for the love-feasts of God's people, they were also allowed to slay and eat flesh meat at home. It must, of course, consist of the flesh of clean animals, and the blood must be carefully poured out unto the Lord; but, after these precautions, it was perfect.ly possible for the Jew to li'l'e luxuriously at home. In these circumstances he might say that the flesh killed carefully at home tasted as sweet as any peace offering enjoyed at the tabernacle, and that he would not trouble himself about the journey to the central altar. Such a con- clusion the Lord expressly forbids. How, in such circumstances, will the Levites be sustained? Such private luxury must not be substituted for the public peace offering and the Levitical support connected with the ritual. l. THERE IS A GREAT TEMPTATION WITH LUKEWARM PEOPLE TO MAKE PRIVATE wonsHIP DO DUTY FOR PUBLIC, It is insinuated that the Bible can be as well studied, and prayer as faithfully observed, and praise as joyfully rendered, amid the sanctities of home as in any congregation. But the fact is that the private worship is a sorry sub- stitute for the public. Not to speak of the promise," The Lord loveth the gates of Zion better than all the dwellings of Jacob," there is in the public congregation a power of sympathy, solemnity, and attention which is missed elsewhere. The private services, when separated from the public, fail to reach the professed ideal, and religious feebleness i.s the us ua.l result. lI. PRIVATE CELEBRATIONS OF PU11LIC SOLEMNITIES ABE MOST PROPERLY FORBIDDEN, The Jew might have excused himself from journeying to the central altar by resolving on the solemnities at home. " I can share the tithes, and firstlings, and vows, and free- will offerings, and heave offerings with my neighbours, and not bother taking them to the tabernacle." And so men can still abstain from membership in Church organiza- tions under the plea of private baptisms and private "tables; " but all this presumption is an abomination unto the Lord. III. IT DENIES TO THE PUBLIC MINlf'TERS OF GoD THEIB DUE RIGJITB. For Levitical support, so carefully guarded in the commandment here, is surely equivalent to" minis- terial support" still. The miuistry of the Word means an order of men set apart from the st:cularities of life to give themselves unto prayer and to the ministry of the Word (A.cts vi. 4). If it is highly expedient, as well as diviI1ely ordained, that such all order 011. xn. 1-32.] THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. 225
should exist, then it is a serious responsibility on the part of any private person to refuse to acknowledge this Divine ordinance and its attendant rights, The pitifulness of tho excuse, moreover\ in fefusing ministerial support because of private scruples, must strike the most euperficml Judge. IV. 'IHE LonD LEAVES THE LEVITE AS A OHARGE UPON THE GENEROSITY OF THE PEOPLE, The Levite was to be as a guest within the gates of the Jew (vcr. 18). All the rights of hospitality, so to speak, were to be his. Moreover, it was to be an unending charge. "Take heed to thyself that thou forsake not the Levite a.g long as thou liveMt upon the earth." Thus an order of men a.re left upon the generosity of the people, to have their share as long as the world lasts.- So is it with the Christian ministry. Public services, the public organizations of the Church, a.re a.II to be con- tinued till the end of time, and hence the ministry will continue. Nor will its support severely tax the Joya.I Christian people. We see how intimately the interests of God's servants a.re bound up with proper views a.bout private and public worship. If these are judiciously disseminate,l, there is no fear of the Lord's servants being neglected. God's rights in the ordering of his worship must be first vindicated and recognized, and then bis servants' rights will follow.-R. M. E.