A clear testimony to the Mosaic authorship of the Book of Deuteronomy. The book, as Moses gave it to the priests, has plainly been re-edited, with the additions of Moses' song, Moses' blessing, and the account of his death; but only the wantonness of criticism can see "a different hand or hands" in Deuteronomy 12-26, from that employed upon the earlier chapters, or discern probability in the assumption that Deuteronomy 4:44-26:19 once constituted a separate book. The unity in style and treatment is so conspicuous throughout - "the same vein of thought, the same tone and tenor of feeling, the same peculiarities of conception and expression" - that unity of authorship follows as a thing of course. The denial of it is incomprehensible. It is less certain whether the "Book of the Law" (ver. 26) comprehends Deuteronomy only, or the bulk of the other books of the Pentateuch as well. That Deuteronomy is represented as existing in a written form is plain from Deuteronomy 28:58, 61; Deuteronomy 29:20, 21, 27; and Hoses had probably the written discourses in his band when he delivered them. But Deuteronomy, as a written book, rests so entirely on the history as we have it in the previous books; is so steeped in allusions to it; implies so full and accurate a knowledge of it, from the days of the patriarchs downwards; - that the presumption in favor of that history also existing in a written form, in authentic records, which subsequent generations could consult, is so strong as almost to amount to certainty. It is incredible that Moses should have taken pains to write out these long discourses - discourses based on the history, and inculcating so earnestly the keeping of its facts and lessons in remembrance - and yet have taken no pains to secure an authentic record of the history itself; that he should not have compiled or composed, out of the abundant materials at his command, a connected narrative of God's dealings with the nation, down to the point at which he addressed it; incorporating with that narrative the body of his legislation. Confining our attention to Deuteronomy, there can be no fair question but that it gives itself out as from the pen of Moses. This claim is disputed, and the book referred to about the time of Josiah on grounds of style, of discrepancies with the Levitical laws, and of laws and allusions implying the later date. On the contrary, we hold that the critical hypothesis can be shown to raise greater difficulties than it lays, and that the difficulties in the way of accepting the book as a composition of Moses have been greatly exaggerated. We glance at a few of these difficulties.

I. STYLE. Professor W.R. Smith ('Old Testament,' p. 433) notes as a crucial instance the laws about the cities of refuge in Numbers 35., and Deuteronomy 19. These laws are supposed to have been penned by the same hand within a few months of each other; yet, it is alleged, the vocabulary, structure of sentences, and cast of expression widely differ. But allowance must surely be made for the difference between a careful original statement of a law, and a later general rehearsal of its substance in the rounded style of free, popular discourse. And what are the specific differences? Deuteronomy, we are told, does not use the term "refuge," but "the cities are always described by a periphrasis." But the Deuteronomist simply says, "Thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of thy land" (Deuteronomy 19:2); "thou shalt separate three cities for thee" (Deuteronomy 19:7); "thou shalt add three cities more for thee "(Deuteronomy 19.9); and there is no periphrasis. The phrase, "that every slayer may flee thither" (Deuteronomy 19:3), "the slayer which shall flee thither" (Deuteronomy 19:4), is derived from Numbers 35:11, 15. But Deuteronomy and Numbers use different words for "accidentally." Admitted, but the words used are synonymous, and are only used in each case twice altogether - in Numbers 35:11, 15, and in Deuteronomy 4:42; Deuteronomy 19:4. "The judges in the one are ' the congregation,' in the other ' the elders of his city.'" But Deuteronomy says nothing about "judges," and "the elders" who are once referred to in Deuteronomy 19:12, plainly act in the name of the congregation. "The verb for 'hate' is different." Rather, "the verb for 'hate'" does not occur at all in Numbers 35., but the noun derived from it does (Numbers 35:20), and is translated "hatred," while in vers. 21, 22, a different term, translated "enmity," is employed, which expresses nearly the same sense. Had these words appeared, one in Numbers and the other in Deuteronomy, instead of standing in consecutive verses of one chapter, they would doubtless have been quoted as further evidence of diversity of authorship. So one book, uses the expression "to kill any person," while the other has "to kill his neighbor - a difference surely not incompatible with identity of authorship. "The detailed description of the difference between murder and accidental homicide is entirely diverse in language and detail." But in Deuteronomy there is no "detailed description" of the kind referred to. There is in Numbers (Numbers 35:16-24); but Deuteronomy confines itself to one simple illustration from concrete life, admirably adapted, it will be admitted, to the speaker's popular purpose (Deuteronomy 19:5). The statement in Deuteronomy, it is evident, presupposes the earlier law, and is incomplete without it, occupying only a dozen verses, as compared with over twenty in Numbers, while even of the dozen, three are occupied with a new provision for the number of the cities being ultimately raised to nine (Deuteronomy 19:8-10).

II. DISCREPANCIES IN LAWS. Considering the number of the laws, the alleged discrepancies are singularly few. On the "tithes," see Deuteronomy 26:12; on the "firstlings," Deuteronomy 15:20; "the priests' due," in Deuteronomy 18:3, seems, like the "fleece" of Deuteronomy 18:4, to be in addition to the provision in Numbers 18:11-18; the law of carrion (Deuteronomy 14:21) is slightly modified in view of the altered circumstances of settlement in Canaan (cf. Leviticus 17:15); and so with other instances. The chief modifications arise from the new legislation in regard to the central sanctuary, with the permission to kill and eat flesh at home (Deuteronomy 12:20-24). On this depends the new tithe-laws (provision for the sanctuary feasts), the additions to the priests' portions, and various minor changes.

III. PECULIARITIES IMPLYING A LATER DATE. We need not delay on stray phrases, such as "unto this day" (Deuteronomy 3:14), or "as Israel did unto the land of his possession" (Deuteronomy 2:12). The instances usually cited are not of great force, and are easily explicable as glosses. More important cases are:

1. The central altar. On this, see under Deuteronomy 12. It suffices to meet most objections to observe that, on the face of it, the Law bears that it was not intended to be put strictly in force till certain important conditions had been fulfilled - conditions which, owing to the disobedience of the people, who during the time of the judges so often put back the clock of their own history, were not fulfilled tilt as late as the days of David and Solomon. For thus it reads (ver. 10), "When ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety; then there shall be a place," etc. (cf. 2 Samuel 7:1; 1 Kings 3:2; 1 Kings 5:4).

2. Priests and Levites. The distinction between priests and Levites, which counts for so much in Leviticus and Numbers, is not, it is alleged, recognized in Deuteronomy. The phrase in use is not "priests and Levites" (which, however, as little as the other, occurs in the earlier books), but "the priests the Levites" (Deuteronomy 17:9, 18; Deuteronomy 18:1; Deuteronomy 24:8; Deuteronomy 27:9). They are not distinctively "the sons of Aaron," but "sons of Levi" (Deuteronomy 21:5; Deuteronomy 31:9). "All Levites are possible priests." But the objection is deprived of its force when we discover, what any one can verify, that these same expressions were freely used, and used interchangeably with others, at a time when it is not doubted that the Levitical system was in full operation. This is the case in the Books of Chronicles, written, it is asserted, in the interest of that system, yet using this phrase, "the priests the Levites," without hesitation or sense of ambiguity (2 Chronicles 5:5; 2 Chronicles 23:18; 2 Chronicles 30:27). "The priests the Levites" mean simply the Levitical priests; and when the tribe of Levi as a whole is meant, it is either expressly designated as such (Deuteronomy 10:8), or the designation is appended to the other phrase as a wider denomination (Deuteronomy 18:1). Nor is the idiom a strange one. At first, the priests," the sons of Aaron," stood out from the people with sharp distinctness, as alone invested with sacred office. The case was greatly altered after the separation of the tribe of Levi; when the designation "sons of Aaron" seems speedily to have been dropped for another identifying the priests more directly with their tribe. "Sons of Aaron" is not found in the latter part of Numbers. Priests and Levites had more in common with each other than either class had with the body of the people; and besides, the priests were Levites. So that to the popular eye, the tribe of Levi stood apart, forming, as a whole, one sacred body, engaged in ministering in holy things to God. Sacerdotal functions are attributed to the tribe, but not necessarily to all members of it (Deuteronomy 10:8; Deuteronomy 18:7). (On the ministering of the Levites, comp. 1 Chronicles 15:2; 2 Chronicles 29:11; 2 Chronicles 31:2). The counter-theory, that this distinction had no existence under the kings, and first originated in the time of the exile, is without a jot of evidence in the Books of Kings, and only escapes foundering on the statements in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, by robbing these books of their historical character.

3. The position of the Levites. Instead of being furnished with cities and pasturages, and enjoying an independent income from the tithes, they are represented as homeless and dependent, wandering from place to place, and glad to be invited, with the stranger, the widow, and the fatherless, to share in charitable feasts. (See on this, Deuteronomy 12:19.) But if a time is sought for the composition of the book when this was the actual position of the Levites, no time is so suitable as that of Moses himself, before the tithe-laws had come into regular operation - when, in truth, there was little or nothing to tithe - and when the Levites would be largely dependent on the hospitality of individuals. The language would have a point and force to Moses' contemporaries, which it would have greatly lost had the circumstances of the Levites, at the time of his address, been more prosperous. They were dependent then, and might from very obvious causes come to be dependent again. Their state would not be greatly bettered in the unsettled times of the conquest. Nothing could be more appropriate in itself, better adapted to create kindly sympathies between Levites and people, or more likely to avert neglect of the tribe by withholding of their just dues, than the perpetuation of these primitive hospitalities. No doubt the Levites suffered severely in the days of the judges and under bad kings, but we are not to forget the power and splendor to which the order attained under David and Solomon, and the revivals it enjoyed under Hezekiah and Josiah. There is no evidence that their condition was so deplorably destitute in the later days of the kingdom as the critics represent.

4. The law of the king (Deuteronomy 17.). The law, it is thought, is sketched in terms borrowed from the court of Solomon. The objection derives much of its plausibility from not observing that the description of Solomon's court in the Book of Kings (1 Kings 10:26-29; 1 Kings 11:1-4) is, on the other hand, given in terms distinctly borrowed from this law. The familiarity of the writer of the Books of Kings with Deuteronomy is undoubted, and he plainly draws up his account of Solomon's luxury and splendor in such language as will impress the mind by its contrast to the law. We, on the contrary, reading the law, are apt to think of Solomon's reign as if it were the original, and the law the copy. Solomon did what Moses knew too well kings would be prone to do, and there was every reason for the warning that was given. The objections taken to the book cannot, therefore, be allowed to set aside its own decisive testimony to its authorship. If we adopt the hypothesis of the critics, we are involved in graver difficulties than those from which we flee. We must suppose a state of things as existing under the kings, in respect of the Levitical orders, which we have no reason to believe ever did exist, which there is great difficulty in believing to have existed, and which historical documents in the most express language tell us did not exist. We must suppose Josiah and his people deceived about the book, for they unquestionably took it for a veritable book of Moses, grieving that its words had been neglected by their fathers (2 Kings 22.; 23.; 2 Chronicles 34.). We must explain away a multitude of the plainest allusions to the book, not simply in Joshua, but in the prophets, particularly in Hosea, whose pages are rich in such references (cf. Deuteronomy 7:13; Deuteronomy 8:7-20; Deuteronomy 11:14-16, with Hosea 2:8; Hosea 12:8; Hosea 13:6; Deuteronomy 12. with Hosea 8:11; Deuteronomy 18:18 with Hosea 12:13; Deuteronomy 17:12 with Hosea 4:4; Deuteronomy 28:68 with Hosea 8:13; Hosea 9:3; Deuteronomy 29:23 with Hosea 11:8; Deuteronomy 30:1-10 with Hosea 14.; Deuteronomy 25:13-16 with Hosea 12:7, etc.). We must suppose such a passage as Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the temple (1 Kings 8.), which is saturated with Deuteronomic language, to have been a free and unhistorical composition; though, if this be allowed for Deuteronomy, it need not trouble us with Solomon. Even then we are not out of difficulties, for the book itself is in many respects internally unsuitable to the times to which it is assigned; compare e.g. the mild tone of the book towards Edom - the kindly and brotherly relations which are enjoined - with the hostile tone to which we are accustomed in the prophets, where Edom is a sort of later Amalek, a standing type of implacable enmity to the people of God. If Deuteronomy is not by Moses, it bears false witness of itself, was misconceived by the writers of the later books of Scripture, imposed upon the Jews from the days of its first appearance, and has had its claims endorsed by Christ and his apostles in a way which makes them partners in the general delusion. - J.O.

There are many stiff-necked people. They are met with in the workshop, in the office, and almost everywhere. I should not be surprised at all if we had many in this assembly whose necks are as stiff as it is possible to be. There are a great many necks stiff with pride and selfishness. There are some men who are saving money; who live in their freehold cottages; whose necks are too stiff to see that they ought to pay the rent of the cottage in which their poor old parents live, who, perchance, in some country village are getting parish relief. There are other kinds of stiff necks. From our childhood most of us have been taught to love the Saviour, to trust in God, and do good. Yet I am afraid that a great many of us have disregarded the advice of those who loved us, and we have grown so unwise that many of us have stiffened our necks against religion. There is a tendency, now and again, to sneer at religion, and to talk about it as if it were all nonsense. There are a great many men who stiffen their necks. This is unwise. Take the New Testament and study that life of Jesus Christ, as sensible men. Look at the book, examine its pages, and learn its religion. Do not stiffen your necks against God, against purity, against holiness.

(Charles Leach.).