(Leviticus, xviii, 21; Jeremiah, xxxii, 35), and had worshiped Malcom, Asteroth, and Chemosh, the vile gods of the heathen, had intermarried with the Canaanites, and sacrificed to their idols (see Exodus, xxiii, 24, 32, 33); and yet all these debasing acts of contumacy and disobedience fell into the shade before the hideous outrage here related.

A horrible and wonderful thing had been committed in the land, and those that feared the Lord might well cry out Oh, that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears; that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughters of my people" (Jeremiah, v, 30; ix, 1). All this happened, too, when there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own sight. The ark of God was in the land, at Mizpeh, in the lot of Benjamin-the very people who were guilty of this revolting crime, and Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, was the high priest; yet we see that not even the presence of God's holy tabernacle or the sanctity of God's anointed representative could restrain the evil passions of the carnal heart.

God's theocratic government was despised and rejected, and man-brutish man-did that which was right in his own eyes. Three times are we told this in the passage under review, and that it is so with intent who can doubt? Man without God in his heart is worse than the brutes that perish; there is no crime, no iniquity, no enormity of which the natural man, untouched by God's grace, is not capable of. I cannot dwell on this now; a study of the 1st of Romans, verses 18 to 32, will point the moral of the tale.

As all Scripture is given for our edification, guidance, and instruction, let us examine somewhat minutely the frightful history recorded in these chapters.

Its chronological order demands a word of explication; it is placed at the end of the book of Judges, thereby seeming to convey the impression that the affair occurred towards the close of the period embraced by the book, but it must have happened long anterior to that, for we know from Acts, xiii, 20, that from the division of the land of Canaan to the time of Samuel a period of 450 years elapsed. Joshua judged Israel 17 years after the division, and Eleazar, the son of Aaron, who ministered as high priest during this period, died also, it would appear, about the same time as the great judge (Joshua, xxiv, 33). In the

28th verse of chap. xx, we find Phinehas was high priest in the room of his father, so it is impossible to place the event under review later than 70 or 80 years, if so long, after the death of Joshua. This to some may carry with it no importance; nor to the believer is it; but it is desirable to cut away from sceptics every loophole by which they imagine the Word of God can be impugned.

The second point to consider is, why the body of the poor victim should be divided into twelve parts and sent to all the coast of Israel. The explanation I take to be as follows:

A most glaring and brutal tragedy had been committed on a Levite and his wife by one of the tribes of Israel, in open defiance of all the sacred rights of brotherhood and hospitality. The Levite, unable from his humble position in life to take vengeance into his own hands, and conscious that in such an instance the whole nation, equally with himself, were outraged and dishonoured, and that the tribes of Israel were bound by every law, human and divine, to take up his cause and visit the offenders with condign punishment, he distributes by the hand, probably, of messengers a portion of the maltreated victim to the eleven tribes, in order to insure their aid and sympathy by the sight of such tragic memorials.

This mode of procedure was sanctioned by Holy Writ, and by the customs of the ancients. With regard to the first, see 1st Samuel, xi. We there read that when the Amorites threatened to thrust out the right eyes of the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead, these latter in utter despair sent to Saul, saying, if we be not delivered in seven days this awful infliction will fall on us. Now Saul, though anointed by Samuel to be king over Israel, had as yet only been acknowledged by a band of men whose hearts the Lord had touched, but the rest of Israel, the children of Belial, despised him (v. 26, 27).

Notwithstanding this, when Saul, who was coming after the herd out of the field, saw men weeping, he demanded the cause, and when he heard it, the Spirit of God came upon him, and his anger was greatly kindled, and he took a yoke of oxen and hewed them in pieces, and sent them throughout all the coasts of Israel by the hands of messengers, saying whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after Samuel so shall it be done unto his oxen, and the fear

of the Lord fell on the people, and they came out with one consent.

It matters not that this event occurred subsequent to that under review, the inference to be drawn from it is that such a custom prevailed in Israel, and that those who received the thing devoted or accursed were compelled under the penalty of being cursed in their turn to avenge the wrong implied by the delegated victim; the analogy is still stronger when we call to mind that Saul at that time was not the acknowledged king of Israel, he acted certainly under the spirit of God, but still he acted without the power and authority of a recognised ruler; he was much in the same position as the Levite, and could only enforce the assemblage of the tribes by an agency of this imperative nature, and in so doing he as well as the Levite compelled the people of Israel by a solemn covenant and by an indissoluble agreement to bind and associate themselves heart and soul in the object at stake. This, I imagine, is conclusive. It proves that the recipients of the devoted thing were not free to refuse entering into it. Without inquiry, consultation or deliberation they at once accept the call, and animated with the same desire as the aggrieved party, rush with ardour, vigour and devotion to vindicate the oppressed brother and sustain the honour of the nation. If an example is required to prove this, let the reader consider well (chapter xxi), and learn how the tribes visited with their wrath the only city that responded not to the solemn appeal; the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead were slaughtered with the edge of the sword for their contumacious conduct in this affair.

Amongst the ancients a similar system was pursued. Lucian makes mention of several. The mode of acting was the same. A bullock was offered in sacrifice, that is devoted, it was cut in pieces, distributed, all who received a piece of the sacrified or devoted animal were henceforth bound by solemn pact and treaty to concur in carrying out whatever business was connected therewith. Erasmus also may be consulted thereon. I may also mention a circumstance which comes within my own knowledge doubtless familiar to all readers of modern history, but which I think throws much light on the subject. It is well known to those conversant with the Indian mutiny that some time previous to the revolt small cakes of unleavened bread called "Chipatties" were circulated in a most rapid and mysterious manner throughout the length and breadth of the land; central points having been agreed upon, probably through the medium of confidential agents, the village watchman whose business

it

A third point now requires our attention; that of the anathema or devoted thing. In Leviticus, xxvii, 28, 29, is written, "Every devoted thing is most holy to the Lord; none devoted, which shall be devoted of man, shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death." Now, in this instance, the Levite devoted his dead wife to the Lord: had his wife been living, he had, by the Levitical law, full right to devote her to death consequent on her transgressions. Compare Judges, xix, 2, with Leviticus, xx, 10, and Deuteronomy, xxii, 22, &c.; and if he possessed this power over her living body, how much more over her dead body? And that he considered it in this light is evident from the fact that there existed no other method of devotion and anathema that could induce the entire nation to revenge his wrongs.

The anathema, it is true, extended only to the dead body of his wife, and so in the instance of Saul, the anathema was only pronounced against the oxen, but the tribes knew and felt that if they did not respond to the invocation the curse or anathema would fall on them and on their cattle. The Levite felt and knew this too, and his sending a part of the pieces to each tribe clearly signified that each tribe was subject to the same anathema.

Scripture records many instances of consecrations of this kind, that is of peoples and individuals devoting themselves to certain rules or vows under an implied penalty of a curse if not carried out. Taken as examples the case of Sampson, who was born to be a Nazarite from the womb. (Judges, xiii, 5), that of the Rechabites (2nd Kings, x, 15-24; Jeremiah, xxxv, 6—19), that of Jephthah (Judges. xi, 30). Also that of Hannah (1st Samuel, i, 11). And similar passage all proving that there was a devotion of an object

also is to convey letters from one station to another throughout remote and agricultural districts left as he went along a cake at each post house. This sign being understood was immediately recognised and other watchmen or special messengers were dispatched with the mysterious emblem to each place of note on their beat. These in their turn were forwarded to other places, and thus in an incredible short space of time all India became aware that the moment to rise against the English had arrived, and that the tocsin was on the point of being sounded and that all who had received the sign of revolt were bound under the penalty of the anathema to rise against the infidels and aid in re-establishing the orthodox creed of the original races.

which if not literally fulfilled carried with it the anathema. In Scripture devotion to death is a much stronger obligation than the promise of a sacrifice. A sacrifice vowed might be dispensed with or redeemed but as soon as the anathema was pronounced nothing could redeem it, "it shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus, xxvii, 28-29).

It does not appear that it was the Levites' intention to devote the whole nation, as he devoted his wife, he merely desired by the act of distributing morsels to each of the tribes to warn them that they were subjected to the anathema, and that if they declined to act corporately in visiting with punishment a crime as odious as that which brought down the wrath of God on the cities of the Plain, they would incur the direct manifestation of Divine displeasure.

The sin of adultery was denounced by God as one that in itself rendered the offender accursed; they were, ipse facto, deprived of the benefit and promises of the covenant; were cut off from all the prerogatives pertaining to the law, and were, in short, excommunicated or anathematised; the nation, therefore, could not forego listening to the appeal without charging itself with the crime the inhabitants of Gibeah had been guilty of. So strongly was this fact impressed upon the people, that without consciousness of the magnitude of the offence, they understood the summons as a general anathema, and at once hastened to meet the Lord at Mizpeh, and to demand counsel at His hands.

The observant reader will remark that prior to proceeding to extremities, the tribe of Benjamin was summoned to yield up the guilty inhabitants of Gibeah to be put to death, and it was only on the demand being refused that recourse was had to compulsion (chapter xx, 12, 13). Does not this bring forcibly to the mind the blessed precepts of our Saviour in Matthew, xviii, 15-17, and similar passages.

There is one other point in this instructive record which seems difficult of explanation. I do not venture to offer any decided solution, but simply suggest such observations as may in some measure tend to elucidate the matter.

It is recorded that in the first two attempts to defeat the Benjamites, the Israelites were signally routed, and lost full 40,000 men. Now, considering the cause was a just one, and instituted not for self aggrandisement, or from personal or political animosity, and entered into under the

0