thesis seems destructive not only of certain forms of worship, but of certain essential aspects of divine regulations such as those enjoined in Exod. xx. 24-26; xxii. 29, 30; xxiii. 14-19 would not long continue in the same rudimentary state; fresh definitions and distinctions would be introduced, more precise rules would be prescribed for the method of sacrifice, the ritual to be observed by the priests, the dues which they were authorized to receive from the people, and other similar matters. After the priesthood had acquired, through the foundation of Solomon's Temple, a permanent centre, it is probable that the process of development and systematization advanced more rapidly than before. Although, therefore, there are reasons for supposing that the Priests' Code assumed finally the shape in which we have it in the age subsequent to Ezra it rests ultimately upon an ancient traditional basis; and many of the institutions prominent in it are recognized, in various stages of their growth, by the earlier pre-exilic literature, by Deuteronomy and by Ezekiel." Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, S. R. Driver, D. D., pp. 153, 154. "The code of Holiness comes into the historic field first in connection with Ezekiel. It is a codification of the immemorial practice of the priests of Jerusalem going back to Aaron and Moses. The priest-code and the document which contains it cannot be proven till Ezra's time. It was a larger codification of the priestly ritual and customs coming down by tradition from Moses and Aaron in the priestly circles of Jerusalem, which had been carefully conserved as holy relics in the priestly families among the exiles, as bearing in them sacred memories and holy promises." The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, by Charles A. Briggs, D. D., p. 157. Professor Wellhausen traces the development of the Jewish hierarchy and thus states his conclusion: "To any one who knows anything about history, it is not necessary to prove that the so-called Mosaic theocracy, which nowhere suits the circumstances of the earlier periods, and of which the prophets, even in their most ideal delineations of the Israelite state as it ought to be, have not the faintest shadow of an idea, is, so to speak, a perfect fit for post-exilian Judaism, and had its actuality only there. Foreign rulers had then relieved the Jews of all concern about secular affairs; they had it in their power, and were indeed compelled to give themselves wholly up to sacred things,

truth. The churchman, that is, he who attaches great value to the institutional forms of thought in which they were left completely unhampered. Thus the temple became the sole centre of life, and the prince of the temple the head of the spiritual commonwealth, to which also the control of political affairs, so far as these were still left to the nation, naturally fell, there being no other head." History of Israel, Julius Wellhausen, pp. 150, 151. Dr. Bruce sees in the organization of a hierarchy and a sacrificial system the sign of the degeneracy of the Jewish people. He says, “Judaism, apart altogether from critical questions, was distinct from Mosaism. The distinguishing feature of Mosaism, as we have seen, was that it asserted the supremacy of the moral as compared with ritual. This fundamental principle the prophets reasserted with new emphasis and widened range of application, so showing themselves to be the true sons of Moses. On the other hand, the distinctive character of Judaism was that it put ritual on a level with morality, treated Levitical rules as of equal importance with the Decalogue, making no distinction between one part of the law and another, but demanding compliance with the prescribed ceremonial of worship as not less necessary to good relations with God than a righteous life. This was a new thing in Israel; and it was a great downcome; a descent from liberty to bondage, from evangelic to legal relations with God, from the spirit to the letter." He nevertheless thinks the Code was a providential provision to meet that degeneracy and keep alive the spirit of Mosaism, and further says, It needs but a hasty and general survey of the priestly Code to be satisfied that there was much in it that tended towards the realization of the Mosaic ideal of a holy people faithful to Jehovah. One outstanding feature in it is the prominence given to the idea of sin. . . . It was well, it was a real advance in moral culture, that the religious system should be so altered as to develop a deeper consciousness of sin. It tended to a more exalted view of the holiness of God, and to greater heedfulness in conduct. . . . The centralization of worship in a single sanctuary, and the commitment of the whole sacrificial service into the hands of a priestly class, if an innovation as regards Mosaism, had certainly a tendency to prepare men for the religion of the spirit which came in with Jesus. In old times, it would appear, killing for food and

and worship as they are found in the church, generally also attaches great value to the sacrificial system as it is embodied in the church creed and expressed in the church ordinances. He regards the sacrificial system of the Old Testament as divinely organized and ordained; he reveres it as an ancient type foreshadowing the sacrifice of Christ and fulfilled in the Gospel; he looks upon it, therefore, as the most central feature of the Old Testament revelation; and it is not strange that he resists with the utmost vigor any view which treats the Levitical system as a human development, and the sacrificial system therein contained as temporary in its nature and now forever passed away, because it has fulfilled its purpose.1 But to this

sacrifice were the same thing, and every man was his own priest. Sacrifice was a thing of daily occurrence, and an essential element of religion. The centralization of worship changed all that. Sacrifice became an affair of stated seasons, public sacrifice for all Israel threw into the shade private sacrifice, and the offering of victims became the business of a professional class. But religion is not an affair for two or three seasons in the year, but for daily life. Therefore men had to find out for themselves means for the culture of piety independent of Levitical ritual. . . . The synagogue, with its prayers and its reading of the scriptures, met the want, and educated men for a time when temple and sacrifice would finally disappear." Apologetics, by Alexander B. Bruce, D. D., pp. 262, 268, 269, 270.

1 For a good statement of this view and a good presentation of the argument from the traditional point of view in favor of the Mosaic authorship of the Levitical Code, see The Book of Leviticus, by S. H. Kellogg, D. D., Expositor's Bible Series. The following paragraph (page 25) illustrates the spiritual interpretation of the Book of Leviticus by this school. After saying that one of the present uses of the "book is that it is a revelation of the charac

view of the Levitical system the modern literary study of the Bible necessarily conducts us, and it would be a mistake for one who is attempting to interpret the methods and results of that study to conceal from himself or from his readers the conclusions to which it will necessarily lead. How the modern or literary or scientific student of the Bible thinks the Levitical code was gradually formed, and what providential purpose he thinks it was intended to serve in the history of the race, it is the object of this article to show. Theology is what men think about religion; ritual is the way in which they express their religious feeling when they unite to give it combined expression. It is this ritual, this religious expression of the life of Israel, we are to consider in this paper.

In the earlier and primitive states of society the family is the only organization. This is what is known as the patriarchal age. The father is the ter of God," he says, "More particularly, Leviticus is of use to us now, as holding forth, in a singularly vivid manner, the fundamental conditions of true religion. The Levitical priesthood and sacrifices are no more, but the spiritual truth they represented abides and must abide forever; namely, that there is for sinful man no citizenship in the kingdom of God apart from a High Priest and Mediator with a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. These are days when many, who would yet be called Christians, belittle atonement, and deny the necessity of the shedding of substitutionary blood for our salvation. Such would reduce, if it were possible, the whole sacrificial ritual of Leviticus to a symbolic self-offering of the worshiper to God. But against this stands the constant testimony of our Lord and His apostles, that it is only through the shedding of blood, not his own, that man can have remission of sin."

king and lawgiver; he enacts the laws and directs the industries of the family. If the family is to fight in defense of itself or in attack on others the father is the commander-in-chief; he organizes his older sons and his servants, arms them and directs the battle. When the battle is over and thanksgiving is to be offered to the gods for the victory, the father doffs his military garments, puts on the garments of a priest, and conducts the worship. He is lawgiver, he is soldier, he is priest. But as society grows more complex and families are associated together in tribes, and later the tribes into a nation, a differentiation necessarily takes place. There become different classes for different vocations. There grows up an agricultural class, a mercantile class, a military class, one to cultivate the soil, one to trade with other nations, one to fight the nation's battles; and by the same process of human development there grows up a worship-leading class. It is ordinarily called a priestly class. There is some protest in the modern community against a priestly class. But if we are to have government we must have men to govern; if industry, we must have men to work; if war, we must have men to fight; and if we are to have public worship, we must have men to conduct such worship. Thus society is developed out of the simple patriarchal form into the more complex form. The priestly order arises in this process as naturally and as necessarily as the industrial, the military, or the ruling order.