;

sentence of God the Father being executed by God the Son, to whom all judgment is committed. It may be so ; for who shall set a limit to the infinite harmonies that are hidden in the language of Scripture? But there can be no doubt that one fact intended to be conveyed by the words quoted above is, that the destruction, whatever might be the secondary causes which met human observation, was the work of God Himself. Another truth is that Lot was saved in answer to Abraham's intercession, and in remembrance of the gracious covenant which included, at any rate, this member of the elected family. The news of this catastrophe spread far and wide, not only in the land of Canaan, but even into distant countries. There is an ancient tablet now in the British Museum containing a quotation from an Accadian poem, with an Assyrian translation appended, which is thought to refer to this overthrow.' The passage is as follows: "There came a storm from the midst of the deep [the firmament]; the fated punishment from the midst of heaven descended. The sword [lightning] mowed down the earth like grass. Towards the four winds the lightning burned, destroying like fire. It sickened men in their cities; it consumed their bodies. In city and land it spread mourning; small and great it overthrew. Freeman and slave alike it cut off; it filled (the land) with woe; in heaven and earth like a thunderstorm it rained; a prey it made. To the place of refuge of their gods they hasted, and uttered a strong cry. received the strong (protection) of their gods, and were concealed as by a garment."

They

And if the knowledge of this awful overthrow was spread abroad, we cannot doubt that the warning was needed. Men are slow to profit by admonitions of which only the memory remains. The great lesson of the Flood had long lost its force; and the general declension in religion and morals, the shameless and open profligacy now prevalent, called for an extraordinary intervention to check the growing evil, and to demonstrate God's hatred of vice. So here in the midst of a teeming population, and where armies, travellers, merchants, caravans, were always passing, was raised a terrible monument of the vengeance of heaven, which all might see, the account of which might be carried to the utmost parts of the earth, so that men might give 'Prof. Sayce, "Monthly Interpreter," iii. p. 465. The reference does not seem altogether applicable, especially in the case of the last clause.

heed in time, and understand that the Lord threatens before He strikes, but that when His hand does fall, the blow is irresistible.

The subsequent history of Lot is sad and degrading. Weak and distrustful he fears to dwell in Zoar, and retires with his daughters to one of the caves which abound in the hills overlooking the Dead Sea, and there becomes unwittingly the perpetrator of a monstrous crime. The shameful origin of the Moabites and Ammonites, as narrated in Genesis xix. 30-38, is supposed by the "higher criticism" to have no historical foundation, but to have been invented by the later Israelites to gratify their hatred of these two tribes. The names, at least, confirm the account of their birth; for thus we read: "And the first-born bare a son, and called his name Moab," i.e., as most probably explained, Me-ab, "from a father," "begotten by a father," or as the Septuagint renders: " saying, From my father." "And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben-Ammi," i.e., son of my people," or tribe, thus implying his unmixed extraction. The descent of these peoples from Lot, and their near connection with the Israelites, are asserted in other passages of the Bible. An historian, desirous of concealing the failings of the holy family and giving the most favourable account of their progenitors, would have omitted these disgraceful details, or extenuated the error of the father and glossed over his involuntary crime. The candour of the writer is shown here as elsewhere, and attests the truth of the narrative. A later author might have yielded to the implacable hatred felt in after time for these nations, and invented stories to their discredit; but he would not have been so careful to secure their rights as Moses was, nor have called them "the children of Lot," as he does.' The close connection of the two tribes, which is seen throughout their history, favours the tradition of a common origin. No other explanation of this association than that given in the Pentateuch is available; and we are warranted in considering the transaction, horrible and revolting as it is, entirely historical. The motive that led to the crime is evident. It is not, indeed, necessary to believe, with Chrysostom and some other of the Fathers, that Lot's daughters supposed that

* Deut. ii. 9, 10.

2

See Numb. xvii.; 1 Sam. xiv. 47; 2 Chron. xx. I; Psa. lxxxiii.; Zeph. ii. 8.

the whole human race was destroyed except their father and themselves. They had seen that the city of Zoar was spared ; they probably obtained there the wine which they used in intoxicating their parent; so, when they say to one another, “There is not a man in the earth to marry us," they are thinking only o! their present isolation, perhaps with some idea (lately learned) of the impropriety of forming any connection with the natives of the land, while they felt the strong necessity of preserving their family. Whence could they seek husbands? Who would be willing to unite themselves with those who had been dwellers in that wicked and ill-fated city, Sodom? Ishmael, their own relation, was still a child. There was in their view only one way practicable for preserving their house. And this was the way which they took. At the same time, they knew that it would be impossible to persuade their father knowingly to commit the contemplated crime; hence they took the means to compass their end which the record specifies, stupefying him with wine that he might be able to offer no opposition to their purpose. Doubtless, too, the degrading associations of the Cities of the Plain, the open licentiousness and depravity there exhibited, had lowered their moral tone, and blinded their eyes to the enormity of the offence. And thus Lot passes away from sacred history-saved, but with the loss of all that he held dear, widowed, homeless, childless save for the heirs of his shame, in strong contrast with Abraham who had peace and joy in believing, in whom was fulfilled the word of Holy Scripture (1 Tim. iv. 8): "Godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life which now is, and of that which is to come." And yet St. Peter applies the term "righteous" to Lot (2 Peter ii. 7); does the Scripture narrative warrant the use of this epithet in his case? Plainly the answer to such question lies in the relative worth of the adjective. Considered in the full connotation of the word, "none is righteous, no, not one." But human excellence is comparative. Contrasted with the habits and character of those among whom he dwelt, the virtue of Lot shines forth conspicuously; and if his conduct shows weakness, worldliness, selfishness, his own morality is unquestioned, and may well meet with commendation. God does not stamp imperfection with His approval, but He is merciful in His estimation of His weak creatures; and personal purity and faith receive limited praise, though they be combined with a lower

standard in other respects. Lot had to struggle against serious temptations which he had chiefly brought upon himself, and he successfully resisted the worst of them. He was saved amid ruin and loss and desolation (for sin always has the penalty to pay), because God saw the good that was in him, while He punished his folly and worldly spirit. As " one star differeth from another star in glory," so are there degrees in righteousness. Lot, indeed, must be placed very much below the level of Abraham; yet he is, at least, so far elevated among his contemporaries, as, in a restricted sense, to deserve the epithet applied to him by St. Peter: "For that righteous man dwelling among the wicked. in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their lawless deeds."

CHAPTER XI.

GERAR AND BEERSHEBA.

Removal to Gerar-Philistines-Abraham's evasion-Sarah taken by Abimelech ; saved by God's interposition-Abimelech's conduct-His rebuke-Beersheba-Treaty between Abimelech and Abraham-Origin of the name Beersheba-Isaac born; signification of his name— Ishmael's conduct- He and his mother cast out-Reason of this expulsion-Peril in the wilderness; relieved by the angel of GodIshmael's subsequent history-Tribes sprung from him.

FOR fifteen years Abraham had dwelt at Mamre, but now he moves his camp to the south country. It was probably not merely for the requirements of his flocks and herds that he took this step. The terrible catastrophe in the Plain, the sight of that desolated region, the thought of the calamity of Lot and his family, rendered the whole neighbourhood hateful to the tender-hearted patriarch. If he knew of Lot's own safety he could have no comfort in intercourse with him, especially should any intimation of his nephew's crime have reached him. So he left his old home, and took his way into that region whither Hagar had fled from her mistress' tyranny, between Kadesh and Shur, and which Abraham himself had traversed on his road to and from Egypt. Here he roamed from spot to spot, and finally pitched his tent near a town called Gerar. This place lay in a valley running towards Beersheba, from which it is some twentyfive miles distant. It is identified with the heap of ruins called Umm el Jerrâr, ten miles south of Gaza, thirty from Eleutheropolis, where are remains of cisterns and large quantities of broken pottery. Here the patriarch first came in contact with the Philistines, who, in after years, inhabited the Shephelah