re~p~:1t-had_ been the ~~sult (~ee end -yer. 7). Even to tha~ "day," in fact (ibid.), this confus10n of face, of which Damel had spoken so feelingly some eig·hty years ago, after some seventy years' trial of it, remained as part of their lot. Yet, with all this in their memory and experience, what had been their reply? To repeat 1tgain now the ;ery ?ffence ~or wh~ch they h~d suffered so much I 2. In despite of God'11 mercy. N ~tvF1th_standmg t~1s h~avy d1~ple3:sure, there had_ been compassion as well. :i,:or some little time back (httle m the life-history of a nat10n, that is to say) various signs of "grace" or favour had been vouchsafed to them. The destruction of the people, e. g., had not been total; a "remnant" had "escaped "-a great token of good in itself (Ezek. xiv. 22, 23). Nor had their disr,ersion from their home under God's wi_f!~ been for ever. _On the cont:ary1 a "nail,' or fixed habitation (Isa. xxii. 23; mm. 20), had been given them" m Ins holy place." There was some cheer- f-lilness also, or "lightening of the eyes," with all their "confusion of face," and some " reYi.ing" in their death-like bondage. Truly wonderful mercy, indeed, it was !- that restored house after such long desolation; that restored "wall" or fence round such captives ; how much it proved ; how much it promised ; what an undeserved mercy it was. How amazingly wicked, therefore, how ungrateful, to despise it as they had done. 3. In contempt of God's express will. Most clearly, most strongly, most earnestly, and t~at from the very first, had God declared his mind on this point. He had done so by his words, as here quoted. He had done so by his actions, as here referred to. Why had he ever swept away from Canaan its original inhabitants? Why had he introduced the Israelites in their place? What had he made their inheritance of it to depend on? The answers to these various questions were clear and emphatic on this subject, and made the conduct which Ezra was bewailing like that of soldiers ordered by their commander to charge the enemy, and drawing their swords instead against himself. These were the three reasons why Ezra spoke as he did of their sin (comp. 2 Chron. xxvili. 22; Luke xii. 47; Rom. ii. 4; Rev. ix. 20, 21). Ill. INEXCUSABLE GUILT. In circumstances such as these, what could they say or expect? After such experience, after such deliverance, and in the face of such knowledge, they had begun again the old sin. Must not this bring down again the old anger, and this time without bound (ver. 14)? Even as things were, would not God be "righteous" (ver. 15) if their whole remnant were destroyed? So much so, that it does not seem to occur to Ezra even to speak to God of any other course of proceeding. It is even a marvel to hini, in the circumstances, that they continue "escaped." Here we are-do as thou willest--we cannot stand before thee in our trespasses (see PA. cm. 3)-we can only place ourselves before thee in the dust-- we have nothing to urge. This total absence of all plea or entreaty almost reminds one of Ell's silence in 1 Sam. iii 18 (comp. also ii. 25), knowing as he did the inexcusable guilt and impenitence of hie sons. Even Daniel, in his deepest humilia- tion on account of the sine of his people, could take a different line (Dan. ix. 19). CONCLUSION. In this remarkable picture of true penitence we may notice-L Its singular accuracy of judgment. Sin here, as with David and Joseph and all truly "God-conscious" men and minds, is an offence against God himself (see Gen. mix. 9 • 1 Sam. xii. 23; Ps. Ji. 4; Rom. iv. 15; 1 John iii. 4). 2. Its unswerving loyal,ty. See t~e acknowledgments here of God'.~ mercy and ~~etice in vers; 131 15; and comp. Ps. lL end ver. 4, also 1. 4, 6; Luke vu. 29; Rom. m. 4, 19. Thie sm, at any rate, the sin w:hich renders amei;idme~t and forgiveness impossibl_e, th~ sin. of charging God foolishly, the true perutent is free from. 3. Its unsparing 81,ncer,,ty. So far from denying, hiding, or palliating the evil it refers to, it seems anxious rather to bring to light and exhibit its very worst traits. We read of Elias in one place ( Rom. xi. 2) as making "intercession against Israel." Ezra here, identifying his own case with that of Israel, may be almost said to do it against himself. Could even the great accuser (Rev. xii. 10) with truth have said very much worse? Con- trast Gen. iii. 12, 13; 1 Sam. xv. 13, 20, 21 ; and comp. perhaps the l,col,c,,rn,: of 2 Cor. vii 11. OH, IX, 1-lo.] THE BOOK OF EZRA. 145
HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.