gave His sanction to this strange and cruel pagan custom. It is well known that the law forbade such sacrifices. But in those times of confusion the plainest laws were broken. Jephthah's education was not fitted to give him either clear knowledge or exact fulfilment of the law of God. The son of a concubine, he was driven by the jealousy of his legitimate brethren from his father's house to the land of Tob, where he became leader of a band of outlaws, more desperate, it would seem, than those who followed David when he fled from Saul. We could hardly expect from one under such circumstances accurate knowledge of the law. His vow, then, if fulfilled by the sacrifice of his daughter, as on the face of it seems to be the meaning of the narrative, was the act of a generous, blinded, half-pagan soul, whose intention, however, to serve God's people, as in the case of Jael, was undoubted, though little in conformity with God's law. This tragedy would then bring before us one of those strange and instructive contrasts of history, in that the Ammonites, whose beginning was in a daughter's unnatural sin, are finally punished by one, whose daughter made herself a willing sacrifice, that the expiation might be complete.

But the Jews themselves have never been willing to admit that this is the true meaning of the story, as it leaves too deep a stain upon the character of one of the most heroic of their judges. In the first place they point out how the law expressly provided for the redemption of one whose life had become forfeit. The Targum blames Jephthah for not consulting Phinehas, the high-priest; and a tradition was handed down that the priesthood was transferred from Phinehas (in punishment for not having prevented Jephthah's act) and given to the house of Ithamar.? Kimchi gives a wholly different interpretation to the words concerning Jephthah, "who did with her according to his vow."3 "That is," says Kimchi," he made her 'Lev. xxvii. 4.

"Selden de Success. ad Pontif., L. I., Ch. II., fol. 117.
'Judges, xi. 39.

a house and brought her into it, and there left her secluded from the company of all men, and from all secular affairs." "The result whereof," says Waterland, who adopts this view, "probably was that she was to continue a virgin all her days, and to serve in such a way as females might for the use of the sanctuary, as in spinning, weaving, making vestments for the priests and Levites; or in grinding wheat, kneading flour, baking bread, or the like. Such kind of services, probably, she was condemned to for life. And thus the vow was executed."

I have now brought before you some typical instances where the morality of the Old Testament has been condemned, and its Author has been blasphemed, because of certain actions recorded there of leading heroes and saints, but who are never held up as perfect. It is a curious fact, however, that in none of the books or discourses that contain these violent charges will you find recogni tion of the fact that some of the great men malignedAbraham, Moses, and David, for instance-have a noble place in the world's history, even apart from their mention in Scripture, and are recognized, where faith is not known, not only as leaders among the great, but as among the number of the great who have been benefactors. You will seldom find in the literature of unbelief any recognition of the peculiar merits of the Ancient Scriptures, compared with all literature; their simplicity, their directness, their pathos, combined with a peculiar sublimity. They see nothing wonderful in the majestic disclosure of the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth. They admit no help for morality in the implanting in human souls a steadfast faith in Him. They will allow as little in the disclosure that all men are of one parentage, one blood. We never hear, in the writings of these profane objectors, of the Ten Commandments, or of their place in every system of morals. No advantage appears to have come from the wonderful separation and preserva'Bp. Patrick, in loc. those who have maintained this view 'Waterland, IV., 258. Among are Le Clerc, Bedford, and others.

tion of a nation that should witness to all that is most necessary for man to know, which still, humanly speaking, would have been irrecoverably lost without that nation's witness.

I desire finally to say a word upon what are sometimes called progressive standards of morality. The phrase, I believe, has been used so as to convey a sound meaning. But the perverse philosophy of the day tends continually to bring it in to the support of the false and baseless theory, that man by his own efforts is advancing toward more perfect morals, even as he has discovered without assistance whatever is known of religion. The Old Testament, the Book of Deuteronomy, for instance, contains the very highest conceptions of duty, the precept to love God supremely and our neighbor as ourselves, the golden rule, if not with the fulness of the Sermon on the Mount, yet with great plainness. "The law was our school-master to bring us to Christ." By the Law and the Prophets, and in the Jewish Church, our merciful Maker came among men to set up a school to teach the things of religion. All souls are invited, and allured to enter it. When those endowed with great natural gifts, with strength of intellect or strength of body, with generosity, courage, self-sacrifice, are brought to yield their necks to the yoke of this heavenly discipline, they are encouraged, their services are accepted, but they are never held up as perfect or nearly perfect. The Master grieves over the failure of his most promising scholar. He exposes to view no more of it than may be necessary for his pupil's good, or for the warning of beholders.

But the sins of the earnest and the loyal are no theme for the criticism of the half-hearted and indifferent. Such nerveless souls can measure the true man neither in his elevation nor in his fall. That half-heathen Jephthah, but whole-hearted soldier of God, taught the unreasonable Ephraimites a valuable though bitter lesson on this point. They fastened a quarrel upon him for vanquishing Ammon without their aid. With a fragment of his

victorious army he chastised these over-nice malcontents. Then, by a defect in the pronunciation of a word of their own language, he detected the fugitives as they came to the fords of Jordan. This was a bitter but not wholly unsuitable retort upon those who would have destroyed without scruple the brave champion and saviour of Israel, for a punctilio, a fine point of honor.

They will never pass Jordan who cannot lift their spiritual sight to behold the good that is in God's champions, though they be not perfect, and who cannot at the same time be brought to understand the danger of narrowness and half-heartedness. The Almighty loves all His creatures, and will love them always so long as they will let Him. He encourages, He reproves, He lifts the fallen, He checks the overbold, He teaches the most valuable lessons at times by the innocent and the weak. His Word may seem full of contradictions to the irreverent and the stubborn: its deeper harmonies are revealed only to loving and reverent hearts. But for this character of it, thoughtful observers have been prepared by intelligent contemplation of His works. The wise shun those teachers of natural science who see no difficulties in their subject. In that great continent of truth, Lord Bacon said, "there may be veins and lines, but not sections or separations.” 1

Transferring this character of scientific truth by analogy to the science of human character, we shall find that the lines that separate the good man from the weak and sinful cannot be traced with mathematical precision. But the good man ever relies firmly upon his God: "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him," are his characteristic words. The repentant sinner cries: "Against Thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me." But it was the Devil's voice that said to the Maker of men: "Doth the good man serve God Put forth Thine hand now, and

for nought?

.

touch all that he hath, and he will curse Thee to Thy face."

'De Aug. Scient.

LECTURE V.

OBJECTIONS TO SCRIPTURE MORALITY.

IN the last and in the present lecture, in order to make our view more precise, we confine ourselves to the consideration of objections to the morality of Scripture (as distinguished from critical, scientific, historical objections), and the instances reviewed in the last lecture may be taken as specimens of these. Now, what impression do these cases, on the whole, leave upon us? Do they seem blots upon the holy page? Do they rise up as stumblingblocks to sincere and believing souls? Are they of such a nature as to raise questions in thoughtful and candid minds honestly searching for the truth? We answer without hesitation, Nothing of the kind. On the contrary, both the graver charges and the light ribaldry, uttered so freely and copiously concerning these Scripture characters and events, suggest nothing so strongly as the presence of certain serious faults of mind and heart in those who uttered them. The malicious, flippant character of this hostile criticism; its want of candor; its blindness to what is excellent, while microscopically searching for defects; its lofty assumption of being in possession of some high standard of virtue, from which it can pass judgment on Holy Scripture and on every other standard; its evident insincerity even in this assumption -these obtrusive characters of infidel lectures and tracts show that the animus that sent them forth was not real difficulty or honest doubt, but license seeking to justify