bp. Burnet (on 25th article on "Penance," pp. 359-361); by bp. Mant (Romanism and Holy Scripture, p. 41-No. 150, on the Christian Knowledge list); by Dr. M'Neile (Lectures on the Church of England, ii. pp. 75-96); by rev. C. T. Collins (Perranzabulæ, pp. 214-217, where the subject is illustrated by Leviticus xiii. 3 and xiv. 11); and by rev. J. R. Page (in his edition of Burnet on the 39 articles, on 25th article, "Penance," pp. 358-9 note). But the former interpretation seems to be more natural and obvious; especially as following so closely upon the language which points to the office and work of a priest, "in the church of God" it seems to refer to ecclesiastical offences. Others, however, take a two-fold view of the meaning of the words, which includes both these interpretations, viz., bishop Jewel (Apology, c. ii. s.8); Hooker (b. vi. c. 6, s. 5); and abp. Secker (Address to Candidates for Orders, Mant, p. 815). And the whole subject may be well illustrated by the celebrated Westminster confession, a confession drawn up by the assembly of puritan divines in 1647, and which is now the standard of the established presbyterian kirk of Scotland, as follows: "To these officers [i. e., church officers] the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof they have power respectively to retain and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the word and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel, and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require" (Westminster Confession, c. xxx. s. 2). For a further and more extended illustration of this subject, the writer must refer the reader to a former paper of his, in the Church of England Magazine for 1845, vol. xix., No. 553, p. 306, where many of the foregoing authorities are cited at length; also to the Christian Observer, Oct. 1845, p. 590, and May, 1849, pp. 318, &c. Before passing on to the next division of the subject, it may be desirable just to notice the words used at the consecration of a bishop: "Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a bishop," &c. "And remember that thou stir up the grace of God, which is given thee by this imposition of our hands; for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and soberness." With respect to the first of these clauses, the words, Receive the Holy Ghost," must be interpreted in the same manner as the form in the ordination of priests; for they have a similar limitation, viz., to "the office and work of a bishop;" and the words, "And remember that thou stir up," are connected with them just as are the words, "and be thou a faithful dispenser," in the form for ordaining priests. pears to be an exhortation to the diligent exercise of episcopal "authority," and the diligent discharge of episcopal duties; such as maintaining godly discipline, and conferring holy orders, according to the promises previously made by the bishop-elect And, as the Holy Spirit's gracious aid is to be ob tained by fervent prayer, so of course the adme nition to "stir up the grace of God" virtually includes an admonition to the newly-consecrated bishop to "remember that" he ever "call upon God by prayer" (as he has before promised to do to "send down upon" him "the healthful Spirit of" his " grace, and" to pour upon" him "the continual dew of" his "blesing." 2. The Absolution in the Visitation of the Sick. -And here it is to be noted, in the first place, the the use of the office for the visitation of the sick left entirely to the minister's discretion, if he bea lawful "preacher." For he may deal with the sick in his ministrations "if he be a preacher, the as he shall think most needful and conveniat (57th canon). And, as "the usual licence is n considered a preaching licence, all the clergy a at liberty to exercise their own discretion" (Lat bury's History of Convocation, c. viii., p. 20, As to the prayer-book office, "its use is defined in the sixty-seventh canon, according to which seems to have been designed, on the same principle as the homilies, for the help and use of such could not dispense with its assistance" (Evans' Bishopric of Souls, c. iv., p. 82). Of course, however, the occasional use of some of its collects and exhortations is in some cases desirable. Bet, since it is only "in public prayer" (which the visitation of the sick is not) that ministers have engaged to "use the form in the" prayer "bok prescribed" and "none other," they are under no moral or legal obligation so to do. And the form of absolution will, of course, be required only when the priest is rigidly adhering to the visi tion service, where it stands (immediately after course of examination into the patient's spiritu state) as follows: "Here shall the sick person be moved to mak a special confession of his sins, if he feel his cor science troubled with any weighty matter. After which confession, the priest shall absolve him ( he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to ha church to absolve all sinners who truly repent an believe in him, of his great mercy forgive the thine offences; and, by his authority committed t me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the na of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." The rubric then directs that "the priest sha say the collect following" in which God's “merey is besought for him "who most earnestly desiret pardon and forgiveness", and the Lord is entreated to "impute not unto him his former sins." With respect to the second clause, the word "grace" xapiopa (2 Tim. i. 6) appears to mean the "authority" committed by the imposition of Now, it will be observed that there are important hands, since Hooker reminds us that "the power "limitations" in the rubric, as bishop Mant bas and authority delivered with those words is itself observed in his Clergyman's Obligations (secous Xapioua, a gracious donation, which the Spirit edition), respecting the use of this form of absa. of God doth bestow" (b. v. c. 77, s. 8). And solution, viz., "that the absolution is only to be in Ephes. iii. 8, the "grace given" seems to have been the commission to preach the gospel. (Compare Romans i. 5). This clause, then, apBishop Jewel's "Apology" received the sanction of convocation. pronounced, after a special confession of his sins made by the sick person under particular circumstances, and if the sick person humbly and heartily desire it'" (ch. ix., p. 169, note). And to the same effect speaks Wheatly in his Illustra tion of the Book of Common Prayer (ch. xi., | 8. v., § 7, p. 438), who reminds us that the words "if he humbly and heartily desire it" were purposely inserted at the last revision in 1661-2. So that special confession is not to be demanded in any case; nor even urged in every case; but only recommended in some particular cases as a relief to persons oppressed with a sense of grievous sin. And, even after any such confession, the priest is not to volunteer this absolution; but only to pronounce it "if" it be "humbly and heartily" desired by the sick person himself; nor even then, unless he be fully satisfied of the sick person's true repentance, sincere faith in Christ, and unfeigned charity to all men, ascertained by the examination prescribed in a previous rubric (see rev. C. Benson's Discourse on the Power of Absolution, pp. 47-52). Then, as to the exact meaning of the absolution itself, it has been supposed by some that it is merely an absolution from church censures, and a forgiveness of ecclesiastical offences. Bishop Burnet (on the twenty-fifth article, on penance, pp. 370, 371) takes this view; Wheatly strenuously contends for it (c. xi, s. v., pp. 430-437); archbishop Secker seems disposed to favour this view (see bishop Mant's Prayer.book, p. 478); as also rev. J. Venn (Hereford Discussion, p. 69); and rev. Joseph Baylee thus comments upon it: "After having pronounced the absolution .... and having thus declared to the sick person his freedom from all church censures," the church "teaches him that such an absolution could not fit him for the judgment-seat of Christ, by praying to the Lord for forgiveness for him: impute not to him his former sins'" (Institutions, pp. 82, 83). Now, doubtless, the words of the absolution may be taken to mean no more than this, and might be so used. But, as the absolution refers, not to notorious sin for which the sick man is supposed to have been visited with the censures of the church, but to some secret sin voluntarily confessed by one who is in communion with the church, this does not appear to be its true meaning. The true explanation of this form of personal absolution seems rather to be this: while the church distinctly teaches that "to" God "only it appertaineth to forgive sins," and that he hath merely "given power and commandment to his ministers to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins," and while Johnson defines the ecclesiastical sense of the word "absolve" to be "to pronounce a sin remitted," so we find the word "absolve" to be carefully distinguished from the word "forgive" in this absolution; for, after declaring that the Lord "hath left power to his church to absolve" (but only those "who truly repent and believe in him")*, it contains a prayer that He will himself "forgive"); after which, the minister proceeds to absolve" (i. e., to pronounce remitted); and then follows a prayer that the Lord will ratify and confirm the act, and "impute not unto" the penitent sinner his former sins"; which proves the previous absolution to be declaratory and conditional. Indeed, at the Savoy Conference, in 1661-2, the bishops' reply to the puritans (who wished it to be altered to "I pro • These words do not occur in the Romish form, but were added by the reformers. nounce thee absolved if thou doest truly repent and believe"), was this-that "the condition needs not to be expressed, being always necessarily understood" (Cardwell's Conferences, p. 361). That this is the true meaning of this form of absolution has been shown in Jenner's Protestant Character of the Prayer-book, pp. 25, 26; Dr. M'Neile's Lectures on the Church of England, ii., pp. 94, 95, 96; and rev. C. Benson's Discourse on the Power of Absolution, pp. 48, 49, 50. That the church of England claims for her ministers only a declaratory and conditional power of absolution might be proved from the writings of many of her best divines. For example, Hooker thus speaks upon the subject: "As for the ministerial sentence of private absolution, it can be no more than a declaration what God hath done; it hath but the force of the prophet Nathan's absolution (2 Sam. xii. 13), 'God hath taken away thy sin'" (b. vi., c. 6, s. 8). "God alone doth truly give, the virtue of repentance alone procure, and private ministerial absolution but declare remission of sins" (s. 13). And so archdeacon Sparke, writing in 1607 on the absolution of the sick, in a work "allowed, and commanded by public authority," and approved by king James I. and the archbishop says, "The meaning thereof is no more, but that, they so repenting and believing as is there specified in the book, we, as the ministers of God, assure them, that he doth absolve them of their sins so repented of" (Brotherly Persuasion to Unity, quoted by rev. W. Goode). Other eminent authorities to the same effect may be seen in bishop Mant's Prayer-book, pp. 477, 478, pp. 11, 12, and p. 358, where the marked and fundamental distinction between the Anglican and Romish doctrine is pointed out; as it is also more at length, and more in detail, in bishop Mant's "Churches of Rome and England compared" (No. 109 on the Christian Knowledge list), pp. 27-34); and in Jenner's Protestant Character of the Prayer-book, pp. 24-27; see also bishop Tomline on twenty-fifth article, on Penance, Works, p. 551. It is evident, then, that all personal absolution is limited by our church either to an absolution from ecclesiastical censures and remission of ecclesiastical offences, or to a close and individual application of the general authority "to declare and pronounce to" God's "people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins," agreeably to the scripturemodel, "your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake" (1 John ii. 12). Nor is this without example among non-conformists. For Dr. P. Doddridge, in his "Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul," thus addresses the reader on the supposition of his being a repentant believer: "I can then salute you in the Lord, as one to whom, as a minister of Jesus, I am commissioned and charged to speak comfortably, and to tell you, not that I absolve you from your sins, for it is a small matter to be judged of man's judgment, but that the blessed God himself absolveth you," &c. (c. xiii., s. 6). To sum up, then, these remarks upon the form of absolution, which has been retained for the special comfort of the sick in special cases: it is only in extreme cases that this strong form of absolution is to be resorted to at all, as is evident from the rubrics. grief; that by the ministry of God's holy word he may receive the benefit of absolution together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness." But here the party is invited to come only if he receive The sick person is not to be moved to make a special confession of his sins, except "he feel his conscience touched with any weighty matter"*. And, even when he has so confessed, the sinner's own earnest and expressed desire for the assurance of ministerial absolution is the sole ground upon which a priest is warranted in pronouncing it—cannot quiet his own conscience; and even then "if he humbly and heartily desire it." Nor even for "further comfort or counsel" only. Nor is then is the minister bound to the use of this exact it to the "priest," but to some "discreet and form of words, but, "if he be a preacher," may learned minister of God's word" that he is (not exercise his own discretion in some degree as to commanded or even urged, but) invited to come, the best mode of conveying a comforting assurance in order that (not by any authoritative absolution of forgiveness to the penitent but distressed sinner. or sentence of the priest or by any liturgical form of Here, then, there is no authority claimed for the absolution, but) "by the ministry of God's holy priest of the church of England but such as every word"-by a close and individual application of minister, as a minister of the gospel, must sometimes gospel truth contained in the bible, such as 1 exercise, in some way or other, for the comfort of John ii, 12-to the heart and conscience, by some penitent sinners under a deep sense of guilt. But, discreet and learned minister, he may if the sick person can be comforted in any other the benefit of absolution" in the comfortab way, or should not require such strong assurance, sense and assurance of remission of sin this form need not be used, as is evident from the That this is the true meaning of the wors, 67th canon. For such a reason as there was for its and that which was intended by the compiler. occasional use in the reformation-age, as has been has been proved by Wheatley (c. xi. s. V pointed out in the bishop of St. Asaph's history of | §. 6, pp. 437-8), and by Jenner, pp. 15, 16, and the church of England, s. 407 p. 233, note, and pp. 24, 25*. See also an able article in the Chrisin rev. C. Benson's discourse on absolution, pp. tian Observer, January, 1851, p. 11 &c., and PP 50-52, and 174, 175 (viz., as a "declaratory con- 35-6. Indeed the homily on repentance, pt. li. solation" to penitent sinners in such a form of pp. 478-481, expressly condemns the practice of words as some people of that period might from auricular confession." their early prejudice happen earnestly to desire), does not now exist. But, even if need should ever seem now to require its use, it is carefully guarded and limited in its application. For it expressly limits and restricts the power" to absolve" (that is "to pronounce reinitted"-" to declare and pronounce forgiveness to") to the cases of "all sinners who truly repent and believe in" Christ; and all such every protestant will admit are pardoned, and therefore may safely be pronounced absolved. And then the act of forgiveness itself is ascribed to Christ, and set forth as a thing to be prayed for. So that it is not the minister who forgives the person's sins; he only pronounces them forgiven, upon the supposition that the sick sinner truly repents and unfeignedly believes the gospel. "I absolve thee from all thy sins;" that is, "I pronounce thee remitted from" them "I declare and pronounce to thee, truly repenting and coming unto him by faith, the forgiveness of all thy sins." So then it is nothing more than an individual application of the general authority to "declare and pronounce" to "God's people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins." For a fuller discussion of the subject the reader must be referred to the Church of England Magazine, vol. xix. No. 554, p. 323, and the Christian Observer, May, 1849. p. 322. 3. The Exhortation to the Communion. It has been supposed by some that the Romish practice of "auricular confession" is sanctioned by these words: "Therefore, if there be any of you, who by this means cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned minister of God's word, and open his 4. The Omission of the Absolution in the Day Services by Clergymen in Deacons' orders.-It has been inferred from this that our absolution is a popish form. But it is a remarkable fact that this absolution was not derived from any Roman form, but was composed by the reformers in 1552, "with the advice of foreign, and even presbyte rian protestants" (Mant's prayer-book, p. 11 It appears to have been taken from Calvin, Pollanus, and "the liturgy used by John a Lasco, one of the most influential of the foreign reformers in the German church" (Jenner, pp.7,8), And it is nothing more than a particular an official form of preaching the gospel. But, as the deacon does not preach ex officio, like the pre byter, but only by virtue of the bishop's licence "if thereto licensed by the bishop"-the licence is withholden from preaching this particular for as a test of submission, as a significant mark and intimation of his subordinate and probationary office-as a proof that he is only a probationer * In the liturgy of 1549 the exhortation was worded tha "Let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learne priest, taught in the law of God, and confess and open his and grief secretly, that he may receive such ghostly counse advice, and comfort, that his conscience may be relieved, and that of us (as of the ministers of God and of the church may receive comfort and absolution," &c.; and there was admonition not to be offended with them that used the auricular and secret confession to the priest" (Keeling) 179). At the same time the rubric, prefixed to the absol tion in the visitation of the sick, contained this clause, and the same form of absolution shall be used in all private co fessions" (Keeling, p. 317). The omission of this clause, and its present form at the revision in 1552, are striking facts, the alteration of the exuortation to the communion to nearly from which both Wheatly and Jenner (in the passages re ferred to above) rightly argue that the meaning here assigned to the particular clause which is under consideration, is the In archdeacon Coxe's "Notes and Explanations" on the true and proper meaning. The 113th canon also uses this office for the visitation of the sick, a good hint against "ex-language: "If any man confess his secret and hidden sins to torting" confessions, if the sick do not choose to confess of their own accord (p. 24). At pp. 25, 26, he explains the absolution to be declaratory and conditional. the minister, for the unburdening of his conscience, and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind from him— not absolution. who has not yet purchased to himself the "good the probationary nature of their office, and to degree" (1 Tim. iii. 16) of a fully accredited am- render it anomalous to leave them in sole charge bassador of Christ, and therefore has not yet re- of a populous parish, and yet not enough to ceived full preaching powers "in the congrega- cause any serious inconvenience to resident incumtion." While his pronouncing this form on his bents in employing them as curates. And surely admission to the higher order of priesthood, at it is seemly in their public ministrations to mark once proves him to have been duly invested with in some way and to give some proof of their infull authority as a minister of Christ. Such ap- ferior office. What part of our public services, pears to be a simple and satisfactory reason for then, can best be omitted to serve this purpose and the omission of the absolution by the deacons of to answer this end? On investigation we shall our churcht. For, while a presbyter receives au- find none at once so obvious, so simple, and so apthority to preach the word of God, and to mi-propriate as the omission of this form of absolution, nister the holy sacraments," a deacon being a sanctioned as it is by custom, which is very sigprobationer, is allowed to preach only "if thereto nificant of their limited authority as to publicly licensed by the bishop"; in the absence of the preaching "in the congregation." priest to baptize infants"-not adults, and to "assist" at the holy communion "in the distri bation" of the same, viz., by delivering the cup (see the rubrics). The examination of adult can didates for baptism is properly assigned to the more experienced minister. The probation of the diaconate, before any person is entrusted with the full authority of a Christian minister (and consequently before he can hold a benefice), is a wise and salutary regution, founded on scripture (see 1 Tim. iii. 16). Now, if the deacon were permitted to perform every ministerial act, then there would be no distinction; while, on the other hand, if his authority were too limited, inconvenience would frequently arise in employing deacons as curates, in which capacity they are intended to learn the ministerial duties. Now the prominent ministerial acts of a gospel minister are the preaching of God's word and the administration of the sacraments. And in each of these departments the deacons' authority is somewhat limited-just enough to prove * In the absolution of the daily service, as also in that of the communion service, the priest declares God's pardon and forgiveness to all penitent believers; "and therefore, in making this declaration, every minister of the church is actually, and apostolically, binding on earth what is bound in heaven, and loosing on earth what is loosed in heaven” (Dr. M'Neile's Lectures on the church, ii. pp. 93, 94). And the fact that deacons do not pronounce these forms of absolution until they have received authority according to the form of ordination which has been before discussed is an additional argument in favour of the interpretation of that form which was there advanced. Hooker too speaks of " sermons as keys to the kingdom of heaven" (b. v. c. 22 s. 1). †The most simple course for the officiating deacon to pursue in the absence of the priest is, perhaps, to make a slight pause, and then to proceed at once to the Lord's prayer. If any prayer be used in this place, that which may be said after any of the former," viz., "O God, whose nature and property is ever to have mercy," &c. seems the most suitable (see bp. Mant's prayer-book, p. 12). The concluding prayer of the commination service, "The Lord bless us and keep us," &c.-seems a more suitable substitute for the benediction-"The peace of God," &c. for the use of deacons, than "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ," &c., which is always used in the course of divine service, and which therefore needs not to be repeated when there is choice of another prayer. That "the Lord bless us and keep us," &c., is a prayer and not a benediction, may be proved by Wheatly's arguments on the prayer, from 2 Cor. xiii. 14, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ," &c. in c. iii. 8. xxvi. p. 160; all of which are equally applicable to it, though he seems to forget this, and calls it a "blessing," in c. xiv. p. 496. It may at first sight seem as if the deacon were to preach as well as baptize only "in the absence of the priest;" but as the bishop afterwards gives him authority to preach the gospel with no other limitation than the bishop's licence, it is clear that when so licensed he is at full liberty to preach as well in presence as in the absence of the priest. Weekly Almanac. "Now, there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel."-1 SAM. xiii, 19. Prayer under chastenings.—“O Father, full of mercy and love in Jesus Christ, have compassion on me, whom thou hast touched with thy hand of correction... Have compassion upon me, recomfort me again, be pleased with me, and take thy heavy displeasure froni me. And, though my sins have deserved more than I can bear, the merits of thy Son are greater than my sins. Therefore, for his sake, come again in love; and by thy mercy and power repair my decay, relieve my wants, and cure my spiritual diseases. Speak the the word, and it shall be done: all things obey thy voice. Wherefore, bless thy creatures all to my use; that I may have them all blessed unto me in this life, and I be blessed by thee in Christ. Amen" (Norden's Progress of Piety, Parker Soc. edit., 1848). "The care here taken by the Philistines to leave no smith in Israel, who should make any arms for their defence, is an usual policy with conquerors, in order to disarm and keep in subjection those whom they have subdued. Our spiritual enemy, represented by these Philistines, never failed to use the like stratagem. The souls which they hold in captivity they first deprive of their arms, and prevent, as much as possible, the use of any weapons which may rescue them from their tyranny and regain their liberty. These arms are principally the word of God, and the use of the holy scriptures, which are not only a light and lantern to our path, but a buckler of defence, and a sword to smite and subdue our enemies. Thus the spirits of error and lies employ their utmost efforts and craft to take away both the knowledge and means of truth.' This note is borrowed from a popish expositor (Sacy), and a true one it is. Yet doth not his church pursue the very scheme? Does she not practise the same satanical artifice to oppose the truth, in detaining from the people the use of the scriptures, and in withholding from them the participation of the cup in the holy communion ?" (Wogan). SAUL'S REJECTION, AND THE AMALEKITES PUNISHMENT: A Sermon1 (For the Fifth Sunday after Trinity)*, BY THE REV. T. GRANTHAM, Rector of Bramber with Botolph, Sussex. "And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." VARIOUS are the characters which the holy scriptures set before us, some for our imitation, others for our warning. Among those of the latter description doubtless is that of Saul, the son of Kish, the first king of Israel; and, as our church in the first lesson for last Sunday afternoon, and in that for this morning, draws our attention to the two great instances of Saul's disobedience to the commands of the Lord, and his consequen: loss of the divine favour, in order that we may derive profit from this portion of holy writ I will on the present occasion, first, briefly lay before you an account of the chief circumstances mentioned in these chapters, and, secondly, point out some of the lessons of instruction with which it may furnish us. The first instance in which Saul was tried and found wanting was the following: Having been very unexpectedly called to the kingdom, and publicly anointed and solemnly installed in his office by Samuel at Gilgal, for a short time Saul appeared to act as became him; but, in the second year of his reign, having organized a small standing army, part of which under Jonathan took a fort of the Philistines, he summoned the people to withstand the forces which he expected their oppressors, now alarmed for their dominion, would naturally assemble. And so numerous a host of the Philistines came against Saul that the people with him, being altogether panic-stricken, fled to the rocks and caverns for safety, reduced apparently to extremity; and, the seventh day being come, though not ended, the expiration of which Samuel had enjoined him to wait for, Saul said: By a mistake not discovered till too late, this sermon, in tended for the succeeding number, is placed here. Our friends will excuse the undesigned error.-ED. "Bring hither a burnt-offering to me, and peace-offerings: And he offered the burntoffering; and it came to pass that, as soon as he had made an end of offering the burntoffering, behold Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him, that he might salute him. And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together to Michmash, therefore, said I, the Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal; and I have not made supplication unto the Lord: I forced myself, therefore, and offered a burnt-offering. And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee; for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever; but now thy kingdom shall not continue. But another trial was afforded to Saul be fore his final rejection. The prophet Samuel of Jehovah, to go and utterly destroy the was sent to him to require him, in the name Amalekites; this sinful nation being doomed by the righteous judgment of heaven to entire destruction. Without hesitation, and with great alacrity, he proceeded to execute the commiswhich he attacked and conquered the Amalesion: a numerous army was summoned, with doing the work of the Lord deceitfully; for kites. But his insincerity was manifested in he spared Agag, the king of the Amalekites, and destroyed only so much of the spoil as valuable. Thus the divine indignation was was vile and worthless, reserving all that was kindled against him; and the same prophet who had given him the commission was sent to reprove him for his unfaithful execution of it. Saul, indeed, as if unconscious of any dereliction ofhis duty, went up to Samuel with an appearance of respect and confidence, and mand given to him; but the bleating of the began to boast of his fulfilment of the comsheep and the lowing of the oxen, which had been spared, was sufficiently clear evidence against him. The king then attempted to cast the blame from himself upon the people, alleging that they had been the cause of the choicest of the spoil being preserved, and that, if the action were in some degree wrong, the motive at least was excellent, as they meant to devote the prey to religious purposes. But Samuel was so far from allow ing the excuse, that he denounced Saul's con"Hath the Lord as great delight in burntduct in the strong language of the text: offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better |