HOMILETICS. Vers. 1-6.-Self-aggrandisement. If we study the characters of men famous either in profane or sacred history with a view not merely to their capacity, but to their moral worth, we shall observe 011e very marked distinction between them. Some, the few, evidently used their great pe>wers and their great opportunities with entire disinterestedness, with singleness of purpose to promote God's glory and the happiness and welfare of their country, and not in any wise for self-aggrandisement. Such men, for example, as Moses, and Joshua, and Samuel, though they wielded nil the power of the state, were entirely above the littleness of self-seeking. They had each a great mission, and they fulfilled it to the utmost of their ability with unswerving fidelity; they had each a weighty task intrusted to them, and they executed it with unflagging perseverance ; but the idea of enriching themselves, or exalting their own families, seems never to have entered into their heads, or, at all events, never to have influenced their conduct. We can say the same of a few great names in profane history. It was true to a certain extent of Charlemagne ; it was true pre-eminently of Alfred the Great; it was true of some of the early patriots of Rome, like Scipio Africanus, or Cincinnatus; of Washington, of Pitt, and of the Duke of Wellington, But in the bulk of the great men of history we cannot help seeing that th~ _motive force which called forth their energies and stimulated their powers was nmb~tion, the lust of conquest, the desire of wealth and greatness-in a word, self-aggrandisement. The career of such men of might as Alexander the Great, Julius Cresar, Louis Quatorze, Napoleon Buonaparte, whatever eminent qualities of head or heart they may have displayed, gave unmistakable signs that they were really pursuing their own greatness as the end of their performances in the cabinet or in the field. We may trac1-. tl1e same distinction between men who have filled much less important places in the world. Compare, for example, Dunstan with Wolsey,. '!'he first, though we may think him mistaken, pursued a disinterested purpose with concen- trated energy ; the second bad constantly in view the royal favour or the Papal throne. A comparison of Gideon and Abimelech presents the same sharp contr~st. Gideon was roused by the call of God to seek his country's deliverance from a gallmg yoke, and to restore the worship of the true God in his native land. With th~ self- devotion of a Hofer, and the unflinching enthusiasm of a Luther, he gave himself to his double task, and accomplished it at the risk of his life without a thought of himself or any selfish ends. A.bimelech, seeking power for himself, pretended t~ have in view the people's interest, and, to secure their favour, restored an ahommable idc.Jatry. His kingdom, founded in bloodshed, abetted by falseho?d, and fostered b,Y e. ha.Re and cruel policy, had no end or motive but self-aggrand1s_ement. There 1e exactly the same difference in the characters and conduct of men m the commonest CH. IX, 1-li.] THE BOOK OF JUDGES. 99
affnirs of every-day life. Some men have high aims, and pursue them by righteous puths, Others have selfish ends, and pursue them in unscrupulous ways. Be it ours to nim at doing the will of God in the commonest as well as in the greatest actions of onr lives. Let us steadily set before us the thing that. is right as the end which we are to seek. Let us consider that our powers, be they great or small, are given tCJ us tl1at in the exercise of them we may give God glory and do good to man. Without calculation of selfish interests let us follow God's call, devote ourselves to do his good pleasure, seek our neighbour's welfare, and trust to God's loving-kindness to order for us what seems best to bis godly wisdom. In so doing we shall be meet for tb~ kingdom of God.