for a space of three hundred years was known and honoured as the place of Jehovah's habitation. Afterwards, for the sins of the people, He "refused the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent which He placed among men" (Ps. lxxviii. 60), and He never returned there. But subsequently, on Mount Moriah adjoining Mount Zion and the city of David, in the place of the sheathed sword and the accepted sacrifice (2 Sam. xxiv. 18 and 1 Chron. xxi. 26-28), He found His rest, an habitation for the Mighty God of Israel (Ps. cxxxii.), and there His people gathered to His name, and there His glory appeared to them, long prior to either Jeremiah or Isaiah. This was about 130 years after Shiloh was forsaken. There is no difficulty in the matter. The interval was one of trial and disorder, and it was not till Solomon was established on the throne that the time for Deut. xii. 10 to be again fulfilled arrived. A review of the record of these events in the Word will make it all quite clear.

First, in Joshua xviii. we read that "The whole congregation of Israel assembled together at Shiloh, and set up the tabernacle of the congregation. And the land was subdued before them." Here we find God faithful to His promise, and the people living in the manifest enjoyment of His favour and blessing. At Shiloh the solemn lot was cast for the inheritance of the tribes (xix. 51); and there the commandment of Moses respecting the cities of the Levites was carried out. (xxi. 2.)

Then in Judges xviii. 31 we have the expression in reference to Dan's stolen image, that it continued "all the time the house of God was in Shiloh," an expression which is in exact harmony with the rest of the Word. "He refused the tabernacle of Joseph and chose not the tribe of Ephraim; but chose the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion which He loved, and He built His sanctuary like high places, like the earth which he hath established for ever." (Ps. lxxviii. 67-69.) At Shiloh it might have remained had the priests and people been faithful, but it is written: "Go ye now unto my place which was in Shiloh, where I set my name at the first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel". (Jer. vii. 12.) "If ye will not hearken to me to walk in my law then will I make this house like Shiloh." (Jer. xxvi. 6.) The remarkable narrative in Joshua xxii. of the holy jealousy of the people (Phinehas, the son of Eleazar being still alive), exhibits most strikingly the acknow.

ledgment of Shiloh as the one place of sacrifice. The elders with Phinehas said to the two and a-half tribos, who had erected their altar on the borders of Canaan : "Rebel not against the Lord, nor against us, in building you an altar beside the altar of the Lord our God". The answer was distinct and emphatic-"The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, He knoweth, and Israel he shall know, if it be in rebellion or in transgression (save us not this day), that we have built an altar to turn from following the Lord, or if to offer burnt-offering, or meat-offerings, or to offer peace-offerings thereon, let the Lord himself require it We said, Let us now prepare to build us an altar, not for burnt-offerings, or for sacrifice, but that it may be for a witness between us and you God forbid that we should rebel against the Lord, and turn this day from following the Lord to build an altar for burnt-offerings, for meat-offerings, or for sacrifice, beside the altar of the Lord God which is before the tabernacle."

With this assurance Israel was satisfied, and it is manifestly difficult to explain it otherwise than as a proof that all concerned knew of the law in Deut. xii., and of God's appointment of Shiloh as the exclusive place of sacrifice.

That it was actually used as such is certain from the scriptures which follow. In Judges xix. 18 we find the Levite going to the house of the Lord, and in xxi. we read of a yearly feast in Shiloh. In Ruth (while the law is shown to have been strictly observed) there is no mention or hint of any local altar. In 1 Sam. i. Elkanah is spoken of as going up yearly from his city in Mount Ephraim to worship and sacrifice at Shiloh. The special sin of Eli's sons who ministered there is stated to have been that they caused men to abhor the offering of the Lord; but it is not said (as we might expect from Professor Smith's view) that they then. sacrificed elsewhere. For a time it appears that the Lord in some measure forsook the place, but when according to His ways, of which we see so much in the Word, He raised up a prophet on the failure of the priesthood, we read (1 Sam. iii. 21)-"The Lord appeared again in Shiloh, for the Lord revealed Himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the Lord".

stored by the Philistines, and finds a dwelling-place in the house of Abinadab after being twenty years in Kirjath-jearim. In chap. xiv. Saul bids Ahiah "bring hither the ark (for the ark of God was at that time with the children of Israel)". This was in Gibeah of Benjamin, apparently the same place as Abinadab's abode, which is also called the hill of Gibeah. It is not in any way again mentioned in connection with Shiloh. Probably Shiloh had before this time been destroyed, for the priests are found at Nob.

But what of Samuel, of whose sacrificing in other places Professor Smith speaks as a proof that the law of Deut. xii, was then unknown? Stange if he did not know of a law which had manifestly been in full operation so long! We find no exceptions to the custom of sacrificing at Shiloh all the time the ark and tabernacle were there, save such as prove the rule. These are the sacrifices of Gideon and Manoah, in the presence of the Angel of the Lord, on a rock, and Gideon's altar and sacrifice by express divine command. The other altar, called "Jehovah Shalom," is not mentioned as a place of sacrifice, but was like the altar of the Reubenites for a memorial and witness. (Jud. vi.) Professor Smith implies that if Samuel had known of the law of Deut. xii., he would have sacrificed at Nob. But God had not chosen and appointed that place, and the ark was not there. Doubtless in sacrificing at Ramah, Gilgal, and elsewhere, he stood as a prophet in God's counsel. At Mizpeh (1 Sam. vii. 6), he poured forth water before the Lord, and afterwards offered a sucking lamb, whether on a rock or an altar we know not. All this time the kingdom was in terrible disorder, and sometimes, as we see in chap. xiii., was altogether in the hands of the Philistines. It was no time of rest for the people, or for the gathering of the tribes according to the law to the one sanctuary. Soon after, the priestly line of Eli was nearly destroyed, and the survivor was a fugitive with the rightful but rejected king in Adullam. There was nothing incongruous with Deut. xii. in Samuel's other altars at such a juncture. To speak of them as necessarily, in our view, superstitious or heathenish because apart from the one appointed place when there was no such place, betrays a singular misapprehension of the circumstances of the case,

PART V. ZION CHOSEN.

The true heart of David, however, yearned for the

fulfilment of the divine promise. He longed for the day when the ark should again have its chosen resting place. He knew by revelation that God had chosen Zion to be the seat of sovereignty and the joy of the whole earth, and thither with rejoicing he brought up the ark from the house of Abinadab to the place which he had prepared for it. (2 Sam. vi. 3; 1 Chron. xv. 3.) But the high place with the tabernacle remained at Gibeon. (1 Chron. xxi. 29.) It was only the ark that was in Zion. The troubled reign of David was not the fitting time for the new fulfilment of Deut. xii. in the establishment of the sanctuary. But God had promised David, "I will appoint a place for my people Israel" (2 Sam. vii. 20), and his son was to build the house according to the divine plan which David had received. In 1 Kings viii. we find the work accomplished in the appointed place (1 Chron. xxii. 1), and there the ark was brought in-the staves being taken out to denote the termination of its wanderings and yet the ends were seen behind it to recall the memory of the former days. The tabernacle also was brought up from Gibeon (2 Chron. v. 5); and in 2 Kings vii. we find Solomon asking for answers to all prayers directed "to this place," and saying, "Blessed be Jehovah that hath given rest to His people, according to all that He promised". (Ver. 56).

Here we have the accomplishment of Deut. xii., and Psalm cxxxii. celebrates the consummation. 66 Arise, O Lord, unto Thy rest, Thou and the ark of Thy strength, . for the Lord hath chosen Zion.

He hath chosen it for His habitation. This is my rest for ever, here will I dwell. I will abundantly bless her provision, I will satisfy her poor with bread. I will also clothe her priests with salvation, and her saints shall shout aloud for joy."

The 84th Psalm gives us the thoughts of the pious Israelite in regard to the yearly pilgrimages to the house of God. Thither the tribes went up, the tribes of His inheritance. It is needless to refer to all the language of the Psalms (which will be the language of Israel in a more intelligent and a loftier strain in a future day), expressing the knowledge of His people's privilege in gathering to His house. It may suffice to refer to the many passages which show with what joy and reverence the Sanctuary at Jerusalem was геgarded. But according to Professor Smith, all this time the law in Deut. xii, was unknown, and Israel was guided by the command in Exod. xx. as to altars in other places.

PART VI. THE APOSTACY OF THE TEN TRIBES. All that followed on the revolt of the ten tribes tends to contradict his view. The reason of Jeroboam's apostacy in the erection of his idolatrous altars at Dan and Bethel was his fear that the people would "go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem ". (1 Kings xii.) In 2 Chron. xi. 13, we read not only of the priests and Levites that were in all Israel resorting to Rehoboam, but "after them, out of all the tribes of Israel, such as set their hearts to seek the God of Israel came to Jerusalem to sacrifice unto the Lord God of their fathers". But Professor Smith would have us to believe that they thus all left their homes and lands quite needlessly, for they had the remedy in their own hands, and might have gone on sacrificing to Jehovah with equal acceptance elsewhere than at Jerusalem.

When king Asa put away the idols out of all the land of Judah and Benjamin, and the cities which he had taken, and "renewed the altar of the Lord that was before the porch of the Lord," "they fell to him out of all Israel in abundance, when they saw that his God was with him". (1 Chron. xv. 8-9.) When Jehosaphat ordered his kingdom, he took away "the high places" (2 Chron. xvii. 6); and though that is an expression that may include altars of false gods (xv. 3), yet it must not be so restricted. In 1 Kings iii. 3-4, we read that "the people sacrificed in high places, because there was no house built unto the name of the Lord until those days," a statement full of significance and importance. And it is both interesting and important to observe that while Jehosaphat in his refor mation sent teachers to all the cities of Judah, and with them Levites and priests with the book of the law who taught the people (2 Chron. xvi), there is no hint that he "guided himself by the law of Exodus" "in commanding anyone to build altars in any place where God had revealed His name". He, evidently, was not ignorant of the law of Deut. xii. And in his noble prayer of faith in 2 Chron. xx., part of his plea with God was that they had built Him a sanctuary for His name, and his expectation rested on the divine faithfulness when they stood before His house, for His name was there; and after the victory, they returned in triumph to the house of the Lord in Jerusalem.

May it not be said that in the days contemplated in Deut. xii., days, namely, when Israel was at rest (not such days as those of war and misery during the lives

of Samuel and Saul), it was needful thus to have one appointed place of sacrifice? The priests in each act of sacrifice had a part to bear, for the law had put men at a distance from God, and the intervention of priesthood had necessarily followed. But priests in days of peace were chiefly to be found in their order and ready for service, according to divine appointment, in the place of the sanctuary. There was their inheritance. (Deut. xviii. 2.) They had cities for their families, but no lands like the other tribes. They were encouraged to come thither with all the desire of their mind (ver. 6, "unto the place which the Lord shall choose"), to minister in the name of the Lord their God. There was no provision whatever for local altars, because there was no provision for local priests.

God's original command was, "Make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them". (Exod. xxv. 8.) A ritual was provided, an altar of sacrifice, and an altar of incense (and it is not pretended that there was any altar of incense elsewhere), a priesthood, feasts for assembling of all the people, and a great day of Atonement, as we read of fully in Lev. xxiii., and the Shekinah of glory shadowed the mercy seat. What was the response of the true Israelite, as he thought of these things? "Lord, I have loved the habitation of thine house, and the place where thine honour dwelleth." (Psalm xxvi.) It was not possible that in any other place the grand ceremonies of the year could be performed, and to the believing heart how great was the loss of them!

PART VII. THE PROPHETS.

It would require too much space to enter on Prof. Smith's reference to the prophets. Questions of interpretation would arise, which cannot be fully discussed here. It is at all events certain that the prophets found in the established place of Jehovah's worship, the theme of their loftiest praise, as they saw it in all its magnificance and glory, the centre, not alone of all Israel's worship, but also of all the nations. As we read in Deut. xii. of the divine purpose to choose such a place when Israel was settled in the land, we see the fitting complement of all the previous provisions for the worship of the people. The Pentateuch, with all its varied laws, would be incomplete without it. The types of the tabernacle embodied instruction to the believing Israelite, and they teach us now. They spoke of the Saviour, of salvation, and of the coming

glory. The Epistle to the Hebrews expounds them to us, and leaves us without a line of light on the local altars. To imagine that the law for one exclusive place of sacrifice was withheld for seven hundred years after Moses is to conceive that it was delayed till the kingdom was divided, and when the hope of accomplishing the purpose of gathering all Israel together to the Mercy Seat and to the appointed feasts of Jehovah had been utterly lost! Yet such is the teaching of this learned Professor.

But then he refers to the case of Elijah, who "guided his life by the law of Exodus, and knew nothing of the law of Deuteronomy". How he guided himself by the law of Exodus when he acted evidently by special instruction in erecting twelve stones, after the number of the twelve tribes of Israel, and making a trench and pouring water on the sacrifice, is not explained. His prayer was, "Lord God of Abraham, of Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that Thou art God in Israel, and that I am Thy servant, and that I have done all these things at Thy word". (1 Kings xviii.) And the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the sacrifice, and licked up the water. His was in fact an illustrous instance of faith in the faithfulness of God. He saw Israel divided, ten tribes from two, but he saw them also indissolubly one in Jehovah's purposes, and he acknowledged it before the apostate king and all the people.

It is true that in Horeb his complaint was that they had digged down God's altars; and it may be conceded that these were altars erected in Israel to the true God, and that this is not a reference to the sin of Israel in the overthrow of the divine institutions of Moses. It is probable that it was from seeing one of these altars that Naaman was led to ask for his two mules' burdens of earth to take with him to Syria. But the case of Elijah, Elisha, and Micaiah in Israel was a very special one. After so many in Israel had fallen to Judah. in Asa's time, "Baasha built Ramah that he might not suffer any to go out or to come in to Asa, king of Judah". (1 Kings xv. 17.) The altars spoken of in Exod. xx. were therefore again the resources of faith, as they had been in the days of Samuel and of David; and as we now find our resource amid the ruin of the Church in the promise of the Lord's presence, where two or three are gathered to His name. Zerubbabel, too, we may suppose, thus found his authority on the return of the people from

Babylon, when he and the priests at once erected an altar and offered sacrifices before the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid, and when there was no altar of incense prepared, and they had no Mercy Seat. For the Word of God is quick-living-it applies in fresh living power under all the needs of the heart and conscience, and under every variety of circumstances into which the people of God are brought. Oftentimes has lle risen in special ways above His dispensations, as the Lord taught the people of Nazareth when He opened the book and read in their hearing Isa. xi. and then spoke of the woman of Sarepta and Naaman the Syrian, and He Himself answered the prayer of the Syro Phenician woman. So it was that IIe employed a Deborah instead of the high priest to be the leader of His people, and Huldah the prophetess to teach them.

PART VIII. CONCLUSION.

Perhaps enough has now been said to show that there is no inconsistency whatever between Exod. xx. and Deut. xii. Nay more, perhaps some further confirmation may have been given, to the confidence of all who have delighted to see the essential unity and harmony of the sacred Scriptures. And so it will ever be, when the heart is opened to attend, and light and understanding are sought from the Lord Himself. Who teacheth like Him! The word in Deut. xii. is thus easily seen to be the first typical picture of the "house of prayer for all nations," and a vivid though distinct view of Him, to whom shall "the gathering of the people be ". Moses wrote of Him, and the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus. But unhappily the rash and undevout spirit of modern criticism has nothing in common with the teachableness of the little child, which can wait for the clearing away of all darkness and all difficulties, in the persuasion that all Scripture is indeed given of God, and that "God is His own interpreter, And He will make it plain."

It is a most melancholy reflection that those who are set to teach the students of divinity seem to be busy scattering the seeds of doubt, and sending forth a race of young self-confident ministers, separated in sympathy, far as the poles, from the poor of the flock, who are ordinarily its substance and its strength. Of all such teachers it may now as of old be truly said, that they "err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the

power of God". If they are wise in time, they will leave the throne of criticism to take David's place, and say with him, "I am thy servant, give me understanding that I may know thy testimonies". (Ps. exix. 125.) It is the wisdom which cometh from above that is wanted-the wisdom which is satisfied with the simplicity that is in Christ.

The Scriptures of truth are a grand and goodly edifice, the growth of ages under the watchful eye of Him who fitted them for the blessing of men and His own glory. Professor Smith and many others think that they can separate the parts and construct it all again without injury to its symmetry or strength. But all these attempts must end in confusion. The experience of ages has taught us that the only way to profit by the Word is to listen to it as the voice of the living God, and that as "the knowledge of Christ is the most excellent of sciences," so the most truly learned is he who has the deepest enjoyment in his soul of the power and sweetness of that Word which liveth and endureth for ever.

REMARKS ON ROMANS IV.

M. W.

(Continued from page 126.) BRAHAM standing in this grace was standing in righteousness before God, and a truly blessed position it was. It was one free from every obstacle that could oppose the character of God, or hinder his blessings. God cannot find fault with a righteous man. Righteousness does not oppose any part of God's character. In such a one then there cannot be a forfeiture of any favour, of any promise of God. All blessing is secured thereby in harmony with the Holiness, Righteousness, and Truth of God. What can take this righteousness from us? 'Tis not procured by works of our own. The righteousness of faith is the result of the death of Jesus whereby sin was borne away before God. Who can place remitted sins again to our account? Here lies the inaccessible barrier that defies all the malignant power of hell and Satan. Who can invalidate the death of Jesus, and unsettle poor sinners out of grace, life, righteousness, and God Himself their inheritance? God will not do it; He raised Jesus from the dead in testimony to the efficacy of His blood having put sin away, that our faith and hope may be in Himself (1 Pet. 1). Satan cannot do

it for he is a conquered enemy; his power is nullified, and he is robbed of his prey (Isa. liii.). Well may we challenge the enemy with the triumphant question, "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" It may be heard in silence for every tongue that shall rise against them in judgment He shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of Me saith the Lord.

In this righteousness sinners are planted, Abraham was planted. God now makes promises to him. God is his God for ever. Canaan is a pattern of his inheritance, incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away. The security of it is his standing in righteous"For the promise that he should be heir of the world was not through the law, but through the righteousness of faith," and it is added "Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed".

ness.

The faith of Abraham was in the promise of a son, when he was old and Sarah barren. It contained Isaac, the promised seed, when nature was destitute of all power of its own, and rendered it impossible by any means save the mighty power of God. This Abraham knew, but he looked not at nature's inability, he believed in his own weakness, but rested in the quickening power of God to accomplish His promise. This was entire resting upon God, and this is a faith which child of Abraham possesses. every It is to be the mark of all the saved people of God, and as such it is spoken of.

The sinner's character is typified in Abraham's childless condition; it was one of death, weakness, inability. Now the Gospel is to such what the promise was to Abraham. If we believe in Christ for forgiveness and life, we are righteous as Abraham was when he believed. The Gospel proclaims forgiveness to all who will receive it. Faith in this gospel puts us into the position of righteous persons before God, because we are believing on Him who raised up Jesus from the dead. Thus, as righteous persons we see ourselves raised up in Christ beyond death, and our hope is that we shall indeed know this in reality, when we will sing the triumphant song, "O death, where is thy sting, O grave where is thy victory," and will reign with Him in life for ever.

Such faith, like Abraham's, rests indeed upon God according to His promise, and not upon self. This faith is opposed to self righteousness, to any resting