Yers. 2, 3.-Sabceism. The crime here ordained to be punished by death was sabreism, or the worship of the heavenly bodies. Though this was in some respects the noblest, as it seems to have been the most ancient, form of idolatry-the purest in its ritual, the most elevating in its influence, the least associated with vice, it was not to be tolerated in Israel. Its apparent sublimity made it only the more seductive and dangerous. It was a departure, though at first a very subtle and scarcely recog- nizable one, from pure monotheism-the beginning of a course of declension which speedily led in Egypt, Phamicia, Babylonia, India, and most other nations to the grossest abominations. That the seductive influence of snn and star worship was JJOWerfully felt by the ancients appears from Job xxxi. 26, 27. In Egypt, according to M. de Rouge ( quoted by Renouf, 'Hibbert Lecture'), "the pure monothei~tic religion passed through the phase of sabreism; the sun, instead of being considered as die ~vmbol of life, was taken as the manifestation of God himself." M11.x Muller tells us (' Hibbert Lecture,' p. 13) that the "oldest prayer in the world"(?) is one in the Rig-Y cda, addressed to the sun. The teITJJ for God, which is common to the Imlo- Gerrnauic races ( deva, dreva, theos, deus, etc.), proves that the conception of the Di,ine among them was formed from that of light, and that the objects of their religious worship were· the effects and appearances of light. All ancient mythologies turn, as their principal subject, on the sunrise and sunset, the battle between light awi darkness, etc. ·w ~ learn: 1. It is the beginnings of evil which need most jealously to be guarded against. 2. Evil is not the less, but the more to be feared, that its first forms are usually pleasing and seducti,e. 3. It does not excuse evil that in its earlier forms it is still able to associate itself with worthy and noble irleas. 4-. The workings of evil, Lowevu deceptive its first appearances, invariably end by revealing its true iniquity aud l,ideousness. How aBtonishing the descent from the first enticing of the he"n.rt to wur,;hip sun or moon, and so to deny the God that is above, to the abominations and cruel Lies of Baal and Moloch worship! Yet the later excesses were present in germ from the beginning, and the descent was as natural and logical as history shows it to have Loon iuevitable.-J. 0. lllT, XVII, 1-20.] Tim nooK 01<' DEUTBft0~(JMY.
Vera. 4-8.-Criminal proceditre. I. THE RIGHT OF THE CRIMINAL TO A FAIB A,0 FULL •rmAL. The right is asserted in the Law of Moses as strenuously as it could b" n.nywheru. However abhorrent his crime, the criminal harl e,·ery protection against unjust trcntment which the Law could afford him. IIe must be formally impeached, tried before ju<lges, and legally convicted under stringent conditions of proof. The evidence of one witness, however apparently conclusive, was not to be accepted as sufficient. A second must confirm it. The principle is a plain dictate of j11stice. Suspicion, rumour, dislike of the individual, or even moral certainty of his guilt, form no sufficient ground for condemnation. He is entitled to demand that his crirr,e be proved under legal forms. A person really guilty may thus occasionally escape, b11t better this should happen than that the innocent should suffer. Lessons: 1. The rnle of criminal jurisprudence should be the rule of our private thoughts, anrl of 011r expressed opinions about others. We are entitled to hold no man guilty of deeds for which we have not explicit proof. i. While moral certainty of guilt may be createrl by proof which would not warrant judicial condemnation, we shoukl beware of a,lmit.- ting as proof that which at the most only seems to tell against the person under suspicion. 3. Where no better ground exists for unfavourable judgment than vagnc, unsifted rumour, or the dislikes and prejudices with which a person is regarded, it is the grossest unfairness, and often great cruelty to the person concerned, to entertain evil reports, or even to allow them in the slightest degree to influence us. 4. Where oppor- tunity for investigating reports to the discredit of another does not exist, or where en, have no call to undertake such investigation, our duty is not to judge at all (Matt. Yii. I). 'l'he utmost we should do is to exercise caution. II. THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY WHICH RESTS ON WITNESSES. This was well bron::ht out by requiring that the hands of the witnesses should be first upon the condemne,l person to put him to death. We may note: 1. That those who prefer serious accusa- tions againsL others, ought to be prepared publicly to substantiate them, Were this more insisted on than it is, it would quash in the birth not a few malicious accusations. 2. That blood-guiltiness rests on those who, by false testimony, whether borne publicly or in private, effect another's ruin.-J. 0.