eousness punishing the oppressor. Thus an ethical conception of deity formed the starting-point of Israel's religion. Holiness was declared to be at once the rule of divine action and a law for human conduct 1.

It would be misleading to speak of Mosaism as if it embraced a formal system of ethics. It did, however, prepare the way for a system by a gradual, but in the long run effectual, elucidation of two ideas which a religious system of morals seems to presuppose: first, the idea of holiness; secondly, the idea of the worth and dignity of personality.

In a former lecture we have noticed how the idea of holiness was transferred in process of time from the sphere of ritual to that of ethics; how the notion of religious separation gradually passed into that of moral sanctity. The point, however, to be observed here is that the deeper sense of the word 'holiness' was suggested at the very starting-point of Israel's career. The proof of this statement lies in the general characteristics of the earliest legislation. On the one hand, there is a comparative silence in regard to points of ritual. Certainly the Mosaic cultus was for a long period merely an affair of practice and tradition, resting on knowledge that belonged to the priestly guild 2. It does not appear to have been reduced to theory or formally codified at the time of the exodus. The positive ordinances that relate to worship in the 'Book of the Covenant' are of the most simple and primitive character. There is only one direction that touches upon ceremonial purity, viz. a precept to abstain from the flesh of animals torn by wild beasts 3. There are also injunctions bearing upon the erection of altars, the offering of firstfruits, and the observance of three stated feasts connected with the ordinary conditions of agricultural life. All the other

1

Cp. W. S. Bruce, Ethics of the O. T. ch. iii.

2 Robertson Smith, O. T. in J. C. p. 332.

3 Exod. xxii. 31. Cp. xx. 24, xxii. 29, xxiii. 14 foll. Observe two points of sacrificial ritual in xxiii. 18. Cp. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the O. T. pp. 33 foll.

precepts of the first legislation are social and ethical; they regulate the transactions of man with his fellow; they provide for the due punishment of injuries inflicted upon a fellow Israelite either unwittingly or with malicious intent; they define the elementary rights of the slave and they enjoin certain minor duties of humanity. The crimes restrained are such as would be common in a rude and semi-civilized community. What is most striking, however, is the constant reference made to the divine authority behind the law. If the widow or fatherless child is afflicted, Jehovah will hear their cry, and His wrath shall wax hot1. Jehovah himself watches, as it were, over the administration of justice and guards the interests of the helpless and friendless. Indeed, the distinctive peculiarity of the legislation is the prominence assigned to righteousness and humanity. Its effect could not fail to be that of deepening the sense of Jehovah's chief requirement, or, in other words, elucidating the notion of His holiness.

The Decalogue is especially significant in this connexion, for in it we may confidently believe that we have an original monument of Mosaism. It is indisputable that the ten words' are an index to the character of Moses' work in so far as they place morality in the forefront of Israel's religion, and form a commentary on the meaning of the holiness' ascribed to the God of redemption. I am aware of the view advanced by some eminent critics that the Decalogue, even in its original form, cannot be ascribed to Moses 2. Moreover, as is well known, there is a so-called second Decalogue contained in Exod. xxxiv. 10-283, which is one of the puzzles of

1 Exod. xxii. 24.

2 See e. g. Cornill, Der Israelitische Prophetismus, 17; Wellhausen, Sketch, &c., p. 21; Montefiore, Hibbert Lectures, appendix i. (p. 553). There is, of course, an important revelation of Jehovah's character in the sanctions attached to the first four 'words;' but on this point it would be unwise to insist, inasmuch as these sanctions appear to belong to a later age than the Decalogue itself.

Robertson Smith, O. T. in J. C. p. 335; Driver, op. cit. p. 37.

criticism. But we seem to be justified in adhering to the traditional view of the Decalogue chiefly on the ground that it is intrinsically credible. It is consistent with all that we know of Israel's subsequent history, and it would be impossible to explain satisfactorily the vitality and vigour displayed in the conquest of Canaan without the supposition that the long observance of some primary laws of moral conduct had moulded the character of the nation and consolidated its strength 1. On the other hand, it is scarcely conceivable that the prophets were the first ethical teachers of Israel. It has been justly pointed out that 'the more the pre-prophetic religion is depreciated, the more difficult it will be to account for its sudden rise to the level in which we find it in the earliest writing prophets 2. The prophets never claim the position of pioneers in religion; they regard themselves as restorers of a moral and religious ideal which had been set before the people at the very outset of its history. Their language implies that Mosaism was pre-eminently an ethical religion; that, in fact, it had laid the foundations of Israel's polity in a lofty conception of God, and in the exaltation of righteousness as the essential element in true and acceptable worship. Certainly this view harmonizes with the fact that the Old Testament uniformly ascribes to Moses a prophetic character.

The notion of holiness, then, was closely associated with morality in the Sinaitic legislation, and each fresh disclosure of Jehovah's character contributed something to the education of conscience and developed more profound conceptions of human duty. In this progressive movement the book of Deutero

1 Prof. Kamphausen, quoted by Montefiore (Hibbert Lectures, p. 47), says: I recognize in the fact that the small number of the Israelites was not absorbed by the Canaanites, who were by far their superiors in all matters of external culture, a convincing proof of the ethical power of the Yahvistic religion.'

2 Robertson, The Early Religion of Israel, p. 264. 3 Cp. König, Religious History of Israel, p. 25.

nomy may be said to play a decisive part1. The didactic recapitulation of the history and legislation, which is characteristic of this book, was apparently intended to serve the purpose of deepening the religious life of Israel by bringing out the spiritual significance of its past experience. It is the spirit of the prophets which gives to Deuteronomy its peculiar tone and impress. In teaching that the service of Jehovah demands not formal compliance with the external precepts of the law, but an inward devotion of heart and will, the book bears eloquent testimony to the true genius and character of Mosaism. It evidently presupposes the existence of a well-understood moral code reaching back to the very commencement of Israel's national life. And if it is urged that the low moral condition of the people during the wanderings contradicts the idea that Moses instituted a pure and imageless worship of the true God, it may be rejoined that the practical failure of the prophets to win the mass of the people to a higher standard of morals and worship proves the possibility at least of an analogous condition of things in the time of Moses himself. Wellhausen and others question the authenticity of the second commandment on the express ground that its observance was virtually unknown throughout the older period of the history. 'Could Moses,' it is asked, have forbidden image-worship, when we know that the representation of Jehovah under the form of a bull was a common and scarcely reprehended custom down to the age of Amos 2?' Now the analogy of later history renders it perfectly credible that a spiritual worship of Jehovah was enjoined as an ideal by Moses, but that it did not prevent an occasional or even constant declension of the people to a lower standard. This account of the matter is more simple than the supposition that the second commandment is a late insertion into an earlier form of

.

Cp. W. S. Bruce, The Ethics of the O. T. pp. 224 foll. 2 Montefiore, Hitbert Lectures, appendix i.

the Decalogue1; moreover, it is consistent with the fact, pointed out by M. Renan, that nomadic religion is as a rule simple in character, and that the primitive Semites had little liking for figured presentments of the deity 2. Neither theory, however, vitally affects the main point on which I have been insisting, namely, the distinctively ethical character of Mosaism. The basis of righteousness was laid in simple precepts designed to protect life, property, chastity, and the reverence due to parents. The holiness of Jehovah was in process of time seen to consist in His utter abhorrence of inhuman and unrighteous conduct; and in the ethical connotation imparted to the notion of holiness lies the characteristic contribution of Mosaic religion to the advancement of ethical theory and practice.

There was another idea which needed development before morality could become in any sense systematic: the idea, namely, of the worth, dignity, and rights of personality.

In the early stages of Hebrew civilization, religion appears to accommodate itself to a defective or even debased notion of human individuality. This statement may be justified by such incidents as the destruction of Achan's household, the doom of Dathan and Abiram with their company, and the slaughter of the Canaanites whom Israel dispossessed of their land. An attentive reader of the Old Testament, however,

1 Cp. Bruce, Apologetics, p. 212. Kittel, Hist. of the Hebrews, vol. i. p. 235, takes a mediating view. 'Neither the Decalogue nor the Book of the Covenant in their present form can be directly Mosaic. Criticism must be allowed a free hand in separating the later additions and enlargements, which here also are quite intelligible. When this is done, the original kernel, both of the one document and of the other, must remain. Their Mosaic origin is witnessed to in a manner which deserves the fullest credence: the infrequency with which such witness is borne; the contents, as well as the concise and lapidary style, of these two fundamental laws; the history of the circumstances amidst which we have shown they originated;—are sufficient proofs.'

Histoire du peuple d'Israël, bk. i, ch. 4 init.

3 It is significant that in referring to 'the commandments' our Lord does not mention the first, second, third, or fourth (Mark x. 19; cp. Matt. xix. 16 foll., Luke xviii. 18 foll.).