signs and wonders, should solicit them to
leave the worship of Jehovah, in spite of his sacred character, and in
spite of the seeming evidence of miracles, they must turn from him with
loathing, and his doom should be death. And if the apostasy should
have the weight of numbers and a whole city go astray, the same doom is
theirs. If the tenderest relationship should tempt the soul away, if a
brother, or son, or daughter, or wife, or friend, should entice to
apostasy, the same relentless judgment must be meted out.

The fact that this stern treatment is advocated in this Book, which is
full of the most tender consideration for all weak things, shows the
need of the time. Deuteronomy has some of the most beautiful
legislation in favor of slaves and little children and birds and
domestic animals, some of it in advance of even our modern customs and
practices, permeated as these are by Christian sentiment. And it is in
this finely sensitive Book that we find such strong assertion of the
paramount importance of individual responsibility.

The influence of a friend or near relative is bound to be great. We
are affected on every side, and at every moment, by the environment of
other lives. There is a spiritual affinity, which is the closest and
most powerful thing in the world, and yet in the realm of morals it has
definite limits set to it. At the best it can only go a certain
length, and ought not to be allowed to go further than its legitimate
bounds. The writer of Deuteronomy appreciated to the full the power
and attraction of the near human relationships. We see this from the
way he describes them, adding an additional touch of fondness to each,
"thy brother the son of thy mother, the wife of thy bosom, thy friend
who is as thine own soul." But it sets a limit to the place even such
tender ties should be allowed to have. The most intimate of relatives,
the most trusted of friends, must not be permitted to abrogate the
place of conscience. Affection may be perverted into an instrument of
evil. There is a higher moral law than even the law of friendship.
The demands of friendship must not be allowed to interfere with the
dictates of duty. It is not that the moral law should be blindly
obeyed, but because in obeying it we are choosing the better part for
both; for as Frederick Robertson truly says, "the man who prefers his
dearest friend to the call of duty, will soon show that he prefers
himself to his deare