when the Lord stood free from all the limitations of His humiliation -whatever they were-and spoke with full Divine knowledge, that in the most explicit and emphatic terms He accredited the Books of Moses as Divine. For then it was that, "beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." And again, referring back to His previous teaching, "He said unto them, these are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me" the well known three-fold division of the Hebrew Canon. (Luke xxiv, 27, 44.)

Professor HULL said: Though I am not in a position to speak on the details of the question before the Meeting, I would like to say that I have followed the line of march of the Exodus step by step through the wilderness of Sinai and Arabia Petræa, and I can confirm the absolute integrity and accuracy of the sacred writers; never was a description of a great migration so definite, clear, and evidently true. I cannot separate the story of the Tabernacle from its historical setting, and that I have been able to confirm by personal experience.

Anyone who reads, with a candid mind, the account in Exodus xxiv-xxxvii cannot fail to come to the conclusion that the details of events which took place at the foot of Mount Sinai (Jebel Musâ) were written by one who was a personal actor and spectator of the events there described; and amongst these were the directions given to Moses by Jehovah for the construction of the Ark which was henceforth to accompany the people through their journeyings into the land of Canaan, and the presence of which is so deeply interwoven with their history. For myself I accept the account in Exodus-whether dealing with miraculous or non-miraculous matters, as I would that of any reliable historian. It is the only source of our knowledge of these events, and the whole Jewish nation is a standing witness to its truth.

It is now so many years since my visit with the party sent out by the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund in 1883-4 that many members of the Institute may not have had any opportunity of becoming acquainted with its results; these will be found in vol. xxi of the Journal of Transactions (for 1887-8), being the address delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Society.

The little volume, Mount Seir, Sinai and Palestine, which I wrote with details of the expedition is now, I fear, out of print.

The Rev. J. A. LIGHTFOOT said: It seems to me that a strong argument for the historicity of the Mosaic Tabernacle may be derived from the character of the narrative of its construction :-(1) Two accounts of the details of the Tabernacle are given. One gives us the order in which it was revealed to Moses, Exodus xxv to xxx; the other gives us the order in which it was actually constructed, briefly in Exodus xxxv, 10-19, and fully in Exodus xxxvi to xxxix. The fact that we have two accounts gives a verisimilitude to the whole transaction. Surely this would be a quite unaccountable method of narrating, if the writer were an Exilic romancer. It is indeed pointless and clumsy, unless it is a history of what happened. (2) But the two accounts strikingly differ in the order in which they deal with the different parts. The first begins with the Ark and the Mercy-seat (the contents of the Holiest), the Table and the Candlestick (contents of the Holy Place); then follows the Tabernacle. But the second begins with the Tabernacle, and places the making of the Ark, etc., after the Tabernacle had been made. Now if we are dealing with a historical narrative this change of order is natural and intelligible. It was natural that in the order of revelation the Ark should be mentioned first, for it was the central object, and the Tabernacle was constructed for its sake. It was natural that in the order of construction the Tabernacle should come first, for its resting-place must be ready for the Ark before that sacred thing itself was made.

One other point of verisimilitude in the narrative is worth noticing. The series of instructions to Moses closes with an injunction as to Sabbath observance (Exodus xxxi, 13–17). This comes in naturally as a warning, as if God said: "I have set before you a sacred work to be done, but remember that its sacredness will not justify a breach of the Sabbath for its sake"; not even Tabernacle construction is allowed to be done on the Sabbath. It is no less natural that in the series of instructions given by Moses to the people, the reminder about Sabbath observance should come first of all (Exodus xxxv, 1–3).

Bishop Westcott (Commentary on Hebrews, p. 233) called the "critical" theory of the Tabernacle "an incredible inversion of history." It seems to me that the narrative itself defies the theory

of religious romance, and demands to be read as a record of what took place.

Mr. H. M. WIENER said: As it is getting late I must confine myself to one or two points. There can, I fear, be no doubt that Dr. Woods Smyth was quite right in saying that Dr. Orr accepted the documentary theory, though in a modified form. Indeed there is evidence of this in the sentence on p. 113, relating to the history of the Ark, where the composition of Deuteronomy is treated as an event that took place between the age of David and Solomon and the destruction of the Temple.

I desire to express my entire concurrence in what Sir Robert Anderson said as to the inability of the Higher Critics to weigh evidence.

The main point with which I wish to deal is the question of the tent in Exodus xxxiii, 7 ff. The first of these verses is not accurately translated in the current English version. It should run, "And Moses used to take the tent "-or a tent, for Hebrew idiom uses the definite article in certain cases where the English would require the indefinite "a"-" and pitch it for himself, etc." The little Hebrew monosyllable meaning "for himself" is unfortunately omitted in the English versions, but in the most recent English edition of Exodus-that of Dr. Driver-the inaccuracy of the current rendering is pointed out. Now I put it to you, is it really conceivable that if the tent here spoken of had been the shelter of the Ark, Moses would have taken it and pitched it for his own use outside the camp, afar off from the camp, leaving the Ark itself bared and unguarded in the midst of the camp? If that question is answered in the only possible way, it follows of necessity that this narrative does not relate to that tent of meeting, which we call the Tabernacle in ordinary parlance. A difficulty then arises from the name "tent of meeting." It is hard to believe that after seven chapters (xxv-xxxi) almost wholly devoted to instructions for the tent which was to bear that name, Moses should have taken an entirely different tent for his own purposes and applied to that the designation of the intended home of the Ark. If he had done so, the narrative would surely have given us some intelligible explanation of his procedure. I, myself, believe that Exodus xxxiii, 7-11, is at present misplaced, and should stand much earlier (see Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, pp. 93-102, 106 f.; The Origin of the

Pentateuch, pp. 53 ff.), but if I were to start on the subject of the textual criticism of the Pentateuch, I fear we should be here all night. I thank you for your kindness in giving me a hearing.

Dr. HEYWOOD SMITH wished to make two observations. The first was with regard to the author's remarks at the bottom of p. 111 on the wearing out of the boards and curtains; could not the same God that kept the clothes and shoes of the Israelites from wearing out have also preserved the material of his own Tabernacle from deteriorating? And secondly, the author says (p. 113), "We are on the safest ground when we affirm that Exodus correctly describes it." Have we not also the additional testimony of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who, in his description of the Tabernacle with its furniture and the Ark (chapter ix), writes as one who was inspired to speak of things that had had an actual existence and were not dim pictures of a myth.

The CHAIRMAN in summing up said: It is most valuable to have the opinion of experts in two branches of evidence, Sir Robert Anderson and Mr. Maunder, as to the value of questions of Higher Criticism. For my part, I have no doubt that experts in forensic evidence and in scientific evidence have much sounder views of what evidence really means than those whose criticism cannot be verified by experiment or practical life.

I cannot understand the objection to the Mosaic account of the Tabernacle, that it is not clear enough for anyone to work on. At least two of my friends have found it clear enough to construct models not exactly alike but differing only in minor points, the only great difference being whether there was or was not a ridge pole.

As to the remarks which have been made as to the author's views on questions not in the paper, I would say that it is not right to try a man in his absence when he has had no notice of the charge. It certainly is not allowed in law, and I think should not be in discussion.

In conclusion, I propose a hearty vote of thanks to Professor Orr for his most valuable and important paper.

This was put to the meeting and carried unanimously.

The following written communications have been received.

From Canon GIRDLESTONE:

P. 104. Reference is made to "high artistic skill." In Petrie's

Hist. Egypt (i, 140) we read with regard to a pre-Abrahamic artist, "God has made him excel . . . the work of the chief artist in every kind of precious stone, gold, silver, ivory, ebony." See also p. 177 on the pectoral inlaid with precious stones found in a casket, also his notes on early statuary and painting, and on the simplicity, vastness, perfection and beauty of Egyptian art in patriarchal times, and on traces of Semitic workmanship in Egypt, in the XVIIIth Dynasty (vol. ii, p. 36). In view of these and other utterances, the very natural difficulty about "high artistic skill," etc., vanishes.

P. 104. Dr. Orr's position is confirmed by the fact that the explanations with regard to structure are far more detailed and exact in regard to the Tabernacle than in the case of the Temple.

P. 105. Technical words introduced in Exodus xxv, etc., have to be carefully studied, as is sometimes, but not always, done by the revisers, in order to detect the substitution of other words in Kings and Chronicles. Note, e.g., the substitution of Row-bread for Showbread (not marked in Revised Version) and the introduction of "oracle," "chariot," "gourd" (for knop), "felloe" (for fillet).

P. 106. There is a remarkable pair of expressions bearing on the points of the compass, viz., "Southside southward " in Exodus xxvi, 18, and elsewhere, and "Eastside eastward" in Exodus xxvii, 13. What does it mean? In each case the old words used in patriarchal times (negeb and kedemah) come first, whilst other words used here for the first time in this sense are added by way of explanation (teman and mizrach). This would never have been needed in later times, and the duplicate expression is never used again except by Ezekiel, who is steeped in the use of Tabernacle expression. The sons of Jacob had not forgotten their ancestral language, and we have here. a testimony to the fact.

From CHANCELLOR LIAS:—

I quite agree with the statement on p. 105, that the theory of the Levitical Code, which enjoys the favour of critics just now, is "arbitrary and wholly preposterous." These words I feel to be not one whit too strong. A theory which is established by striking out every passage in the historical scriptures which is irreconcilable with it, and assigning that passage to a later date, is one which, to use the words of the late Bishop Stubbs, a historical expert by no means to be despised, would be "laughed out of