lead. No one can fail to perceive that this was a most crushing catastrophe. "The ark of God was taken." Looked at merely as a military reverse it presents a very gloomy aspect. Overwhelming must be the defeat inflicted when it reaches even to the capture of the general's tent or the pavilion over which floats the royal standard; and this was what happened. Ah, how different from the past days! Then the very appearance of the standard upon the field was enough. "The sea saw it and fled, Jordan was driven back." The walls of Jericho fell at its approach. Indeed, such a fame had it obtained, that even upon this fatal day the Philistines are struck with terror by the news that it is in the opposing camp. But its inspiration seems to have departed. It is no longer "the ark of His strength," before which His "enemies are scattered." On the contrary, it becomes the spoil of the adversary. But it is more than a military standard, it is a religious symbol. Its capture would seem to be not only a victory over the Israelites, but a victory over Jehovah. What a feeling of exultation it would awaken in the breasts of the uncircumcised, and how they would laugh. On some of the sculptured tablets which adorn the walls of the British Museum you may see representations of triumphal processions, in which the gods of the congregated people are being carried into captivity. Something like this happened, I suppose, after this battle of Aphek. With jubilant, and it may be mocking shouts, a procession was formed, and the sacred prize was borne to the temple of their chief idol. To Dagon they owe their success, and Jehovah is now the prisoner of Dagon, and must own the superior Deity. And in this way, of course, their own spiritual nature was injured. They had some germs of superstitious reverence at least, if not of dread, at the beginning of the day. They were greatly moved. They cherished respect for Israel's God; but all that respect was quenched by the close of the day and their idolatry confirmed. Moreover, it must have been a very great blow to those amongst the Israelites themselves who were trusting in God and waiting for His consolation. Many such there must have been like Hannah, the mother of Samuel, and Samuel himself. All their hopes and most hallowed associations would be connected with the ark. That would be to them Jehovah's shrine the sign of His presence and pledge of His power. And when that was taken it would seem as if the last lamp were going out, as if God were withdrawing altogether and leaving them to their fate. It was indeed a sad disaster. And how did it come about? What was the cause of it? Without doubt, the ungodly lives of Hophni and Phinehas, tolerated by their weak though pious father, and accepted with too much sympathy, it is to be feared, by the nation at large.

The thought is old, I know, and the lesson almost commonplace. Nevertheless, let a few words of enforcement be permitted, for we never can put it too frequently before our minds. The inevitable and irresistible tendency of sin, wherever it exists, is to bring calamity

upon the individual, upon the family, upon the nation; but when wickedness lifts up its head in the Church there is, if I may use the expression, a cancer of the heart; the very centre of life and vigour is stricken. "Ye are the salt of the earth, but if the salt have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted?" If the light that is in the world be darkness, how great is that darkness! And the end of it will be that God's name will be discredited, souls injured most desperately, the Lord's own people plunged in gloom, and the cause of truth and righteousness smitten with a staggering blow, if not covered with disgrace. Hence the folly and guilt of an easy toleration of open sin anywhere, but especially in the Church. It is foolish and wicked in the head of a household, and is really not love, but only a selfish regard for personal feelings; but, of course, it is incomparably more foolish and more wicked in those who have the government of the household of God, and is the very opposite of charity, with which it is stupidly confounded. Some one may say to me, "You are to let the tares grow together with the wheat until the harvest." Yes, the tares, for these are in outward resemblance precisely like the wheat; and when there is a member of a Church who is leading externally a moral life I have no business to be attempting to remove such a one merely because I suspect that his faith is only external and formal, and that he has not the root of the matter in him; for I cannot read the heart, and I might be pulling up genuine wheat along with that which is its image. But the command to leave the tares never means that I am to let alone those who are manifestly thorns and weeds and poisonous herbs. No, no. Persecution, of course, we must not allow, but discipline we dare not neglect. Apostolic anathemas we have no business to pronounce; but the apostolic command to "withdraw ourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly we have no business to disobey. So long as Hophni and Phinehas are in the Church you may depend upon it that the end of it will be some crushing disaster. "The ark of God will be taken."

II. The text exhibits the outrageous folly of attempting to compensate for the absence of godliness by superficial excitement and superstitious attention to religious forms. "The ark of God was taken." Yes; but how came the ark of God into a position of such danger? How came it to be there at all? To answer this question we must go back to the beginning of the chapter. We read in the first verse, "And the word of Samuel came to all Israel." It is generally supposed and maintained, that this clause belongs really to the former chapter, and has no business to stand where it is. This seems to us, however, to be a criticism which is not only unncessary, but one which misses a very interesting and rather important point. The the language, I think, explains what was the occasion of the spurt which now took place. This part of the history is involved in very much obscurity; we do not know what the position of Israel was, nor does the exact nature of the relations between them and the Philistines

very clearly appear. It seems, however, to be on the whole probable that the latter had at the time the upper hand: they were the masters and the children of Jacob were their servants. It was a period of political depression for God's people.

Moreover, it had been for a long while a season of religious stagnation and spiritual drought. "The word of the Lord was precious in those days. There was no open vision." The heavens were as brass; all the celestial windows were closed and shuttered. But a door had been opened. New communications had been inaugurated. The Lord had spoken to Samuel. His prophetic call became known. The news flashed throughout the tribes and awakened a responsive thrill. There was a "stirring amid the dry bones of the valley." There was a ferment in the midst of the darkness; and the first immediate result was an awakened impulse to go out and fight the Philistines, and throw off the foreign yoke. They are roused out of their lethargy to make an effort. But the effort only leads to the disappointment of a repulse. Like Samson shorn of his locks, they rise and shake themselves; but like Samson they discover with sad surprise that the old strength is no longer possessed. Then comes the question, "Wherefore hath the Lord smitten us to-day?" And their answer suggests three things.

1. It indicates that they had not consulted the Lord before they commenced the campaign. You remember the time when the earlier generations of those redeemed out of Egypt came to the borders of Canaan, and the command was given to go up and possess the land? Spies were sent to explore the country, and they brought back an evil report. The people lost heart and began to murmur bitterly. The Lord in His righteous anger said, "These people shall not go in at all; their children shall go in, but as for them, they shall die in the wilderness." Then their murmuring changed into penitential mourning, and they said, "We will go." Moses retorted, "It is now too late, the Lord will not be with you." Nevertheless they presumed to advance, "but the ark of the covenant of the Lord and Moses moved not out of the camp." It was a superficial, undisciplined, unconsecrated impulse, and it met with defeat. "The Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites, and smote them and discomfited them even unto Hormah." What happened then was apparently repeated now. They arose of their own accord. They had no divine call-no authoritative sanction. They were moved by an emotional impulse which had no depth, no stamina in it. They did not ask of the Holy Oracle, Shall we go? They advanced before the ark. They anticipated Providence. They precipitated an immature crisis and produced abortion.

2. They showed very shallow conceptions in regard to the principles of the kingdom to which they belonged, and the first conditions of success. "Why had the Lord smitten them!" Surely there was little need to ask that. Was not gross iniquity tolerated in high places? Were not the services of the sanctuary steeped in defilement? * Could

there be a blessing where such a condition of things remained unaltered? Was not their first duty obviously this, to mourn before the Lord, to make confession of sin, to demand a thorough reformation, to clear out the accursed thing? Were there not abundant reasons suggested by their past history, and does not the very fact that even after a defeat they, the elders of Israel, can ask such a question, prove that the people, however they might be superficially awakened and excited, were radically unprepared to fight?

3. Their language shows that they were utterly blinded in regard to the true nature of religion, and had no glimmer of that faith in the power of which their fathers had conquered, and which is evermore "the victory that overcometh the world." They said, "Let us take unto us the ark," as if the ark were everything. The grand old war-cry, "Arise, O Lord, thou and the ark of thy strength," had become dwarfed and dried up into confidence in what was nothing better than a wooden chest, as if, having that, they had all they needed, or could at least compel God to go with them. Now man never will be profoundly moved by a symbol, unless the cause which the symbol represents reigns and pulsates in the heart; and even when the ark came the enthusiasm excited by it was only from the teeth outwards. Still the ark is there, and one is almost inclined to believe that under the circumstances Jehovah must make it victorious. But no. I know of no diviner, sublimer protest in favour of reality and spirituality and against mere rite and form and ceremony than is here given. The ark is in danger, but the ark shall be sacrificed. It is a sacred vessel, Jehovah's seat. But there is something infinitely more important than Jehovah's throne, and that is Jehovah's spirit, and for the sake of the spirit and the truth the shrine shall be allowed to go into captivity.

66

There is a tendency of the soul in all ages which may be thus expressed little religion, much religiousness; little purity, much ritual; indifferent morals, the most polished manners. When people neglect the "weightier matters of the law," all the more devoutly do they tithe mint and anise and cummin." It is written, you remember, in the Gospel according to St. John, that when the Jews brought our Lord to Pilate, "they would not go into the Prætorium lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the Passover." There is a difficulty in connection with the time of the Passover in that year which cannot be thoroughly explained. Anyhow it seems pretty clear that the time observed by the Jews in general was the evening of the day upon which our Lord was tried by Pilate, or, according to Jewish reckoning, the beginning of the next day, which commenced at six o'clock. Why, then, should they be afraid in the early morning of rendering themselves unclean for the Passover ? "The entrance of the Jew into the house of a Gentile made him unclean until the evening, but in the evening, when the Passover would have to be eaten, the uncleanness would, according to the law, pass

away.' Why, then, again we ask, this hesitation? We cannot help thinking that the reason lay, at least partly, in this, that knowing they were doing a more than usually wicked action, they were more than usually particular and punctilious in their attention to their religious etiquette. The persons who do not use their pound in a life of godly consistency and consecration, wrap it up in a napkin. A very delicate napkin it often is, made of the most costly material, elaborately embroidered and covered over with mysterious hieroglyphs. And they bring the pound to the master and judge, and they say, "Here is Thy pound, see how devout we have been; see what care we have taken of it, we have wrapped it up in a napkin ; here it is, napkin and all;" and they do really seem to fancy that by means of that napkin they have made full atonement for the miserable abuse of the gifts bestowed on them by their Lord. Brethren, I need not say it, and yet I do need to say it, this will never do. God will not have it. Pharisees cannot make up for a hollow spiritual life by reverentially refraining from uttering the name of Jehovah, or by writing that name in capital letters. Herod cannot atone for Herodianism, by building a splendid temple. You cannot atone for doing a wicked deed, or cherishing a wicked thought, by ejaculating in a parenthesis, "The Lord forgive me." You cannot make up for betraying the cross, by bowing to the crucifix. You cannot make up for living sour skim milk, or putrid water, by serving it up in a silver cream-jug. You cannot hide the ghastliness of death by beautifying its shroud, or stay the corruption of Hades by adorning its sepulchre. You cannot cover hypocrisy or avert the consequences of formalism, by running to the ark for shelter. "The elders said, Let us take to us the ark of the covenant of the Lord. And when the ark of the covenant of the Lord came into the camp all Israel shouted with a great shout. . . . And the Philistines fought, and Israel was smitten, and the ark of God was taken."

III. The text shows us how God in defeat and disaster sows the seed of ultimate deliverance and victory. "The ark of God was taken." Yes; "but the ark was taken and Hophni and Phinehas were slain;" that is, the material prop upon which they were weakly and vainly leaning was removed, and the main causes of their national deterioration were destroyed. There are some successes which are worse than any defeats. If a builder is raising a house upon a rotten or weak foundation, the higher he is enabled to raise it without a check, the more overwhelming is the collapse which he is preparing in the long run. A student who is relying on luck and succeeding by a cram, has met with a misfortune which might well make him tremble. There are victories which, confirming a false principle and strengthening a vain self-confidence, do but lure the triumphant conqueror forward into the heart of a more tangled mass of difficulties, and land him in a more utter overthrow. On the other hand there

* See Alford.