which He, a holy God, must hate. It will then be impossible for us to sin but in the presence of an offended God, a crucified Saviour, a burning world, and a judgment to come.

This use of the holiness of God in promoting the holiness of those that love Him, is constantly enforced in Scripture. In the New Testament, no less than in the Old, that God is holy, is urged as a reason why we should be holy, that we may be like Him—that is, in a state of moral harmony with Him, and conformity to Him-in a state of fitness for his presence. Surely that attribute which, above all others, is proclaimed in the courts of heaven continually by the cherubim, and by saints made perfect in glory, is one of most exalted importance, and claims our most careful thought-not abstract thought, but thought evidenced in, and having a wholesome influence upon, all our conduct in the church and in the world. Indeed, we are told that without holiness no man shall see the Lord.' Heb. xii. 14. It is therefore of supreme importance for us to consider what this holiness—a reflection of God's holiness-is, seeing that it becomes so essential to our welfare. We apprehend, indeed, that without holiness not only will no one see God, but no one will have even a real desire to see Him. There are thousands who desire a place in heaven, not because they love God, not because they, 'being made partakers of his holiness, long for more perfect union with Him and conformity to Him, but because they dread hell, and know no other way of escaping from it but by going to heaven. But of such is not the kingdom of heaven. They would be as miserable in the immediate presence of ONE with whose holiness their souls have not been brought into unison, as they would be in hell. Let us believe that it is impossible for the soul of man to be happy with God, till it has become holy like Him.

Seeing, then, that to be holy is to be like Him, it behoves us to count holiness as our highest attainment and most glorious distinction; and instead of imitating the ignorant Bethshemites, in putting away the ark of God from us, because we cannot stand before his holiness, let us rather strive after this assimilation to Him, that we may be enabled to keep the ark among

us. But for the fact that we are commanded to be holy as He is holy, it might seem presumption to aspire so high. It is a glorious privilege, and it becomes us to regard it as such, while it is not the less an indispensable duty. Here our ambition may have free scope; and our highest aspirings to a greater degree of that holiness which brings us nearer to God, by making us more and more like Him, meet no rebuke. To stand before a holy God in holiness like his, may indeed seem difficult to flesh and blood; but there is a way, a safe, a certain, and a pleasant way, known of those to whom Christ is revealed as a Redeemer, and to whom the Spirit has come as a Sanctifier. 'Christ gave himself for us, to redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works:' and the holiness of which they become possessed is His.

What the elements of this holiness in God are, has been pointed out. In man it consists in that blamelessness of feeling and conduct which at once constitutes and adorns the Christian character; and also in the habitual abhorrence of sin and love of goodness.1 In this way the Christian becomes like God, and loves Him from similarity of disposition; and in return is loved by God, as a dutiful son who resembles his father is loved by him. Man is destined by God for holiness, and for the happiness which is invariably connected with it; and hence, when any one is admitted to the communion of saints, holiness becomes the great object of his pursuit. Without this, his admission into the church, and his fellowship with the saints, would avail him nothing; indeed, his condemnation would be the greater on account of these privileges, for of him to whom much is given, much will be required. Holiness is therefore justly stated by theologians to be at once the result and the evidence of conversion, or of repentance and regeneration. Let no one cherish vain delusions. He who is destitute of holiness, or who is remiss in the pursuit of it, has not been converted, has not repented, has not been born of the Spirit, and is still a child of wrath.

1 1 John iii. 7; Rom. vi. 18.

Thirtieth Week-Second Day.

A CHANGE DEMANDED.—I SAMUEL VIII. 4–7.

No nation, perhaps, can render so noble a testimony to the integrity and public spirit of its ruler, as when, in the conviction that he will do right, they call upon him to lay down his own power for the public good, and leave to him the organization of the new government and the choice of the ruler who is to supersede him. This was what the elders of Israel did, when they appeared before Samuel one day at Ramah, and requested' of him the establishment of a regal government. It does not appear to us that the solemnity of this great circumstance has been adequately apprehended. The demand was not the outcry of an ignorant and deluded rabble, but the grave and deliberate application of the elders of Israel-of those whose years or high standing in the nation gave to them the utmost weight and influence. It was not made from the mere impulse of the moment, but was the result of previous deliberation and conference; for the elders repaired to Ramah for the purpose of proposing the matter to the prophet; and beyond all doubt they had met together and considered the matter well before they took a step so decided. It seems to us that the subject was set forth to Samuel in a manner marked by respect and delicate consideration. The elders were careful to show that their movement arose from no discontent with him. But they intimated that he was now advancing in years, and that his sons evinced no disposition to tread in his steps; by this implying, that had it been otherwise, they would have been content to let matters take their natural course, and to see his power consolidated in the hands of his sons, and inherited by them. But since this was not the case, they were anxious to avert the evils likely to ensue upon his demise, by having the secular government established on a permanent basis during his lifetime, and under the sanction of his authority.

It is true that they went so far as to limit his action in this

VOL. III.

H

great matter by declaring the form of government they desired to see established. They must have ‘a king to judge them,' like the nations. It is far from unlikely that this preference for a regal government, at this time, was suggested by circumstances with which we are unacquainted. It is possible that there were already signs of movement against Israel among the Philistines on the west, and the Ammonites on the east, which suggested that they would soon be called upon to engage in a severe military contest, without their having any one before the public qualified by his position or prowess to take the command of their armies and lead them to battle. Samuel himself, besides being advanced in years, was a man of peaceful pursuits; and his sons had forfeited, or rather had not won, the respect and confidence of the people, while, as Levites, they were scarcely the class of persons to be looked to for the performance of such duties. We do not indeed lay too much stress on this sort of disqualification; for in those days there was no military profession, and almost every man was more or less qualified to wield the sword and the spear. Still, as the results of military conflicts were then often determined by the prowess and experience of individuals, it was a natural subject of anxiety that they saw no one with pre-eminent claims, from fitness or station, to be their leader in the conflicts that seemed to be at hand. They were then led to regard as enviable in this respect the condition of the neighbouring nations, each of which had a king who relieved his subjects from all anxiety in this matter, being naturally, as his chief office, the leader in war, and, from the necessities of his position, trained from his youth up in all martial exercises. To him belonged the consideration and decision of all matters of peace and war; and his people were spared the trouble of deliberation and decision. They had nothing to do but to obey his orders and follow him to battle.

It may also appear, from previous indications, that the Israelites craved to have an earthly sovereign, surrounded with the usual attributes of power and state, and representing to the eyes of those around them the power and dignity of the

nation. Besides, the eastern mind is so essentially and pervadingly regal, that to be without a sovereign is scarcely an intelligible state of things to an Oriental; and they must have had occasion to feel, that the absence of a king gave them an appearance of inferiority in the eyes of their neighbours, incapable of understanding or appreciating the special and glorious privileges of their position. The want of a royal head must often have been cast in their teeth by their neighbours, as a kind of stigma; and they would in course of time come to regard it as such themselves, and long to be in this point on a level with other nations. Even good men, able to appreciate the advantages of existing institutions, would eventually become weary of a peculiarity which the nations would obtusely persist in regarding as discreditable.

This principle, which has not been before urged as contributing to the explanation of this transaction, does not lack such confirmation as historical illustration can supply. We remember to have read some years ago, in Harris's Collection of Travels, that when the English and Dutch were competing for power and influence in the East, the English, in order to damage their rivals, industriously circulated the dangerous secret, that the Dutch HAD NO KING. The oriental mind was astonished and perplexed by the indication of a condition so utterly beyond the scope of its experience and comprehension; and the Dutch, alarmed for the effect of this slur upon their respectability, stoutly repelled the charge as an infamous calumny, affirming that they had a very great king, thus exalting for the nonce their stadtholder to that high rank.

The magnates of Israel-who are the parties we behold moving in this matter-may also have considered that, although a form of government had been organized by Moses, in which the presence of a human king was not recognised, he had clearly contemplated the probability that a regal government might eventually be adopted, and had even laid down certain rules involving principles by which the conduct of their future king was to be guided. Deut. xvii. 14-20. This, it might be urged, was inconsistent with any absolute interdiction of the