there appear also other irregularities, equal seemingly to such as, before and after, drew down the divine displeasure. First, Samuel erected an altar for this sacrifice; although nothing is more distinct in the law, than that there were to be no offerings but at the great altar at the place of the tabernacle. Samuel did the same thing on other occasions, as did, at a later period, Elijah on Mount Carmel. It would also appear that Samuel himself, at this as at the other times, offered the sacrifice, although this was a function peculiar to the priesthood, and Samuel was only a Levite. This also is parallel to the case of Elijah. That they committed no offence, but rather did what was well-pleasing to God, appears from their sacrifices being most signally accepted. In the case of Elijah, this was shown by the descent of fire from heaven upon the sacrifice, which was consumed thereby; and this made that sacrifice less irregular than the offering of Samuel, for it was not lawful to offer sacrifice with any fire but that which was originally kindled from heaven, and which was preserved for the use of the great tabernacle altar. It is clear that Samuel's sacrifice must have been offered with common fire.

The difficulty is to reconcile the severe judgments denounced and inflicted for irregularities in the ritual service, with not only the complete impunity, but the direct sanction and approval, which attended the irregular actions of Samuel and other prophets with regard to the ritual observances. The point is of importance for it is the action of the prophets from this time forward upon public affairs which gives to the history of the Jews much of its peculiar character; for which reason we mean to bestow especial attention upon their proceedings, without a clear apprehension of which the history itself can never be well understood.

It would appear, then, that the prophets, as men divinely authorized and inspired, were regarded as having a right to dispense with the strict requirements of the law on special and extraordinary occasions; and that, as prompted by the Spirit, it was lawful for them to do that which would have been most criminal in persons not so authorized, and would have brought

down condign punishment upon them. And this authorized departure, when occasion demanded, from the strict requirements of the law, could not but operate beneficially upon the public mind. The rigid enforcement of every jot and tittle of the law, on ordinary occasions, might eventually, without the presence of a corrective and counteracting influence, have created a sort of idolatry for the mere letter of the law, and of every ritual detail, as in itself a divine thing. But the permitted departures therefrom by the prophets corrected this tendency, by directing attention more to the spiritual essence of those observances, teaching, as Samuel himself expressly declared on one occasion, that 'to obey was better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of lambs.' The diligent reader of Scripture is aware that this upholding of the spirit above the mere letter of the ritual service was a peculiar function of the prophets, appearing with more and more distinctness as time advanced, until at last the prophets declared, with great plainness of speech, that the mere ritual service in all its parts, and the most sacred solemnities prescribed by the law, were, in the nakedness of their literal truth-apart from the spiritual influences which should be connected with them -not only unacceptable to the Lord, but abomination in his sight. Thus a most important part of the prophetic office was to maintain the spiritual character of the Hebrew worship, and to prevent the degeneracy of the people into such mere ritualism as they had fallen into at the time our Lord appeared. Indeed, it is important to notice, that this character of Judaism, as then existing, followed, and was no doubt in a great degree the effect of, the long discontinuance of the prophetic office. Would not a man like Isaiah, for instance, have lifted up his voice day and night, against such a state of religion as prevailed in the time of our Saviour?

Still, these remarkable departures from the regular course of ritual observance were only resorted to when that course could not well be followed. It is clear that if, in the case before us, there was to be any sacrifice to seal the covenant which Israel had taken, it could only be then and there, as soon as it

appeared that the Philistines were advancing. Besides, as it appears that Shiloh had been destroyed, it is doubtful whether the tabernacle and the altar, although preserved, had yet been set up elsewhere, or the regular service maintained. So, in the case of Elijah, a more regular sacrifice than that which he offered at Mount Carmel would have been impossible; for there was, in fact, no authorized altar of the Lord in the kingdom which was the scene of his labours and his mighty deeds. The temple and altar were afar off in the neighbouring kingdom of Judah.

Strengthened by these religious acts, the Israelites stood their ground when the Philistines appeared in battle array against them. They had only to stand still; for the Lord had put their enemies into such confusion by a tremendous thunderstorm, that they soon fled in dismay, and were pursued with great slaughter by the triumphant Israelites. The thunder was no doubt attended with lightning, which probably, as Josephus says, flashed in their faces, and struck their weapons out of their hands. He adds, also, that there was an earthquake, which caused great gaps in the earth, into which they fell. At the place where the pursuit ceased, and where it was seen that the Philistines were utterly beaten, and that Israel once more was free, Samuel set up a great stone, and called it Eben-ezer (the stone of help), saying, 'Hitherto hath the Lord helped us.' Now it is a memorable fact, which gave a touching emphasis to this memorial, that this was the very place where, twenty years before, the Israelites were defeated, and the ark of God was taken. The stone of help thus became a twofold monu

ment.

It is interesting to note how, in most of their great struggles for their country and their liberty, God fought for his people. They were never left to the might of human arm or the wisdom of human tactics. These were not overlooked; but it was seen and felt that a supernatural power was at work directing and overruling all. The mightiest victories of Moses and Joshua, Barak and Gideon, Samuel and David, were owing to a direct forthputting of divine power. The God of Israel was emphatically the 'God of battles.'

The battle of Ebenezer must have been fought on, or very near, the spot where Joshua triumphed over the five confederate kings; and it is a remarkable fact, that in both cases the completeness of the victory was mainly the result of a terrific storm: 'The Lord thundered on that day upon the Philistines, and discomfited them; and they were smitten before Israel' (compare Josh. x. 11; Judg. iv. 15, v. 20, 21).

Twenty-ninth Week-Seventh Day.

CORRUPTION OF JUSTICE. .—I SAMUEL VII. 15, VIII.

It is remarkable how little is related of Samuel calculated to throw light upon his character and position during the twenty years in which he was the sole ruler of the Hebrew state. We hear more of him before he attains that high distinction, and more after he had been reluctantly constrained to resign much of his authority into other hands. Peace and prosperity are, however, seldom fruitful in materials for narrative; and the inference from the silence of the history is, that the people enjoyed ease and security under his rule. It is related that his usual residence was at Ramah, his native place, whence he proceeded, in yearly circuit, to administer justice to the people, at Mizpeh, Gilgal, and Bethel, all of them places of sacred interest in the ancient history of the Israelites, and selected probably for that reason. We do not find that any writer has thought it needful to inquire why, if the object of Samuel was, as in the circuits of our own judges, to carry justice to the people, and to render it of more easy access to them, the circuit was confined to places so near to each other, all, in fact, lying within the narrow limits of the small tribe of Benjamin. We should rather expect that, with that object in view, one of the towns would have been away in the north, another in the south, and the third in the country beyond the Jordan. We can only explain this by supposing that the territory of the southern tribes alone practically acknowledged Samuel's authority, or had any concern with the part of his

history we have gone through. The northern and central tribes seem to have been little affected by the triumphs or defeats of the Philistines, who do not appear to have ever manifested much solicitude to push their dominion to any distance from their own country. Supposing they had remained unaffected by these circumstances, their internal government must be conceived to have proceeded under the authority of their own tribal chiefs and elders, without any further reference to the government of Samuel, than to recognise it as a fact existing in the south, and as, perhaps, in conjunction with his prophetic character, giving him a claim to consideration in case he should have occasion to bring forward any matter affecting the general interests of all the tribes. The probability of this limitation of Samuel's practical authority to the southern tribes-we may say Judah, Benjamin, Dan, and Simeon is confirmed by the fact, that when Samuel made his sons his assistants in the administration of justice, he did not send them north or east, but only south, fixing their stations at Beersheba, on the southernmost border of the land.

This appointment was made in the latter part of the period under our survey. It may be doubted whether Samuel acted wisely in making this appointment, especially if, as seems to have been understood, the nomination in his lifetime of his sons to fulfil the functions he had hitherto discharged alone, was an intimation that he meant them to be regarded as his successors in such government as he exercised. Nothing of the kind had ever been done before. No son had hitherto succeeded his father as judge; and Gideon, for one, had nobly declined to nominate any one of his sons as his successor. Besides, no judge had hitherto taken office but at the special appointment of God, or at the spontaneous call of the people. Whether his intentions were justly interpreted or not, his integrity of purpose is beyond all suspicion; and his proceedings, however mistaken, or biassed by fatherly partialities, could only have been founded on a sincere regard for the welfare of the people, and a deep anxiety to carry out the principles which had guided his own administration, and which