I. THE PERSONAL EXCELLENCE OF SIMEON. It is expressed in the 25th verse :-" And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout." These are the two grand elements of religion, rectitude and devoutness. He was eminent in the two great relationships of his being. Towards God he was devout; towards man he was just. This part of the subject needs but a brief application: a few suggestive hints, however, may be useful. It is important to study the distinction between these two primary attributes of human holinessthe diversities and inequalities which mark their develop ment-yet their essential union; and, finally, the necessity for the joint, harmonious, vigorous activity of both, in order to constitute perfection of character. A word, then, on each of these points.

Who is the devout man? The answer is brief. It is the man who, in consequence of inward, spiritual illumination, entertains correct views of God-of God's nature, character, government, worship, and grace; and who habitually feels, acts, and lives under the living influence of these views. It is the man who has respect to God in all things, who inherits and exhibits the moral glories of the great Father, walks in serene fellowship with him in a world of storms, and lives and moves in his everlasting love. The devout man prays

to his God in secret, makes His book the reason and rule of duty, leans upon His kind arm when sorrows darken his path, and endeavours everywhere and always to glorify his name.

But Simeon was not only devout but also just. And who is the just man? The scriptural idea of him is vast and comprehensive. Without aiming at an exact definition, or even description, I would say that the just man is one who comprehends the moral relationships in which he is placed, who studies the various duties which spring from these relationships, who aims to fulfil these duties by the grace of God, and who moreover endeavours to bring others to do the same things. A just man is one who is universally right-right as to his condition, and right as to his character. His faith,

his principles, his practice, are all right. Having accepted the divine method of salvation, he is treated as though he were just; the "Lord imputeth no iniquity to him." Having received the Divine Spirit, he is become actively just towards himself, his race, and his God. In law he is righteous: in life he is righteous.

Such is the general idea the Bible gives of a "just man.” But, in the text, the phrase has evidently a limited signification. It denotes social rectitude. To be just to our fellow men is to recognise, and, as far as we can, to protect their rights, civil, mental, religious. It is to treat them, in deed, word and feeling, according to the spirit of our relations to them. It is to love them as ourselves: to do to them as we would that they should do to us. It is, in a word, to study, practice, defend, and diffuse universal justice. This is to be just; and to be just is an essential element of true religion.

Now, between these distinct, virtues there is an essential connection. They never do, they never can, exist separately. Strictly speaking, they are only two manifestations of the same thing. It is human holiness embracing at once the finite and the infinite as the spheres of its action. Men would sever devotion and morality; but the thing is impossible. Facts as well as philosophy prove it so. How can a truly devout man be unjust? And how can a just man be yet so unjust as to neglect his God? The two virtues we speak of necessarily co-exist. The combination is required by God and expected by men. False must be the devotion of the unjust: partial and precarious must be the rectitude of the prayerless.

But although these two qualities never exist independently of each other, yet it is a matter of fact, that in many a good man they are far from being equally developed. One man is very devotional as to the current of his thoughts, associations, feelings, hopes, and desires, and yet very defective, to say the least, in the discharge of his social obligations. Another man is remarkably exact, punctual, and conscien

tious in all his relative duties, who nevertheless is, or appears to be, very careless and cold in the offices of devotion and in the higher exercises of religion. How is this? What opinion are we to form of such persons? Would it be right to deny the piety of the one, or of the other, or of both? Certainly not that would be uncharitable and unjust.

In the history of practical godliness there are four things which it would be well to remember: that different men excel in different virtues ; that the same men excel in different virtues at different periods of their history; that in no man do all the virtues shine with equal radiance; and, finally, that the best of men are far from perfection here. These are wellknown truths; but sometimes we act as if it were not so. The habitual recollection of them is a duty; it will help us to form a just estimate of human character, promote our charitableness, and make us long for the perfections of the higher world.

Thus we have glanced at the virtues of Simeon; their nature, development, and mutual relation. In him they shone beautifully and harmoniously. His love to God produced universal propriety of conduct towards men; that is what I would call true religion.

}

and

II. I now proceed to notice THE PUBLIC SPIRIT OF SIMEON. That is beautifully expressed in these words "Waiting for the consolation of Israel." He was not only a just and devout man, but he was also waiting for Him who was to be Israel's consolation and glory and the Gentiles' light. Simeon was not a man of a narrow, contracted, selfish mind. Oh, no. His thoughts, desires, solicitudes, and hopes were not limited to himself, nor to his own nation; his heart burned for the public good; he was an observer and interpreter of public events. Through the divine medium of prophecy he sur veyed the far-spread scenes of futurity. From the mount of Vision he contemplated the evolutions of Providence, the source and the spread of redemption, the changes and the predestinations of the world-of the universe. He had

long waited for the day of the Lord: at last it sweetly dawned upon his hopes. Faith and prayer ever wait for those eras of light and renewal, by a succession of which God has promised to draw humanity nearer and still nearer to himself. Simeon waited for the coming of Messiah: expectation was the habitual attitude of his spirit; it was the theme of his conversation; the breath of his prayers; the bright beam that ever cheered the long path of his pilgrimage. In the teachings of the synagogue, in the sacrifices of the temple, in the changes which were passing over the institutions of his people, the devout patriarch saw the prophetic signs of the Son of man. His constant waiting for Christ kept his affections in a state of healthy excitement, spiritualized his piety, shed an unearthly lustre around his general character, and raised him far above the men of his age.

But it may be said that the Jews as a nation, waited for the Messiah. True they did so. But then we must bear in mind, my brethren, that their expectation was grounded upon a wrong interpretation; a narrow, selfish, secular interpretation-of prophecy; for it was this false interpretation that led them to condemn and crucify as an impostor the true Messiah, the Son of God. They waited. for an earthly, political Saviour; one that would crush Rome, fight for the temple, and make Jerusalem the empress of the world. But very different from that were the anticipations of Simeon. He studied universal interests, and studied universal interests in connection with universal and eternal principles. His address in the temple contains a sublime prediction of the personal history and public influences of Jesus. But I can only just glance on it at present, naming some of the principles which it embraces, without attempting to discuss them.

Simeon gives three distinct views of Jesus. He refers to Him as the object of human hostility; as the cause of great moral revolutions; and, finally, as the divine source of spiri tual blessings.

First. The text refers to Christ, as an object of human enmity. He was to be a "sign to be spoken against"-the mark of evil men and evil spirits. "From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples how He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed." He, for the joy that was set before Him, endured the cross, despising the shame; "for consider Him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself." To give a minute account of the sufferings of the Saviour is not necessary on this occasion: the wonderful history of them is written in our Bible--is written in our hearts. It is impossible to think of men's opposition to Jesus-to think of the general and special sources whence it sprang of the varied forms which it assumed-of the manner in which it was borne-of the extraordinary scenes in which it issued-and of the marvellous bearings which it had on the history of man and the government of God;— it is impossible, we say, to think of these things without being instructed and moved. Oh! how they teach us to weep for our race and to cling to the dear cross of our Lord.

Secondly, Simeon pointed to Jesus as the cause of great moral revolutions. He was to be "for the fall and the rising of many in Israel ;"-" the thoughts of many hearts were to be revealed." Here two great effects are attributed to the presence of Jesus on earth; a revelation of human thoughts, and a revolution in human affairs. One of the mighty works which Jesus came to accomplish was to set men to think-to think with freedom, earnestness and force; and this He actually did to an extent before unknown. His aim was not to affect the mere surface of our nature, to alter only its moral forms and fashions; but to send its influence down to its very centre. He came to speak to our inner being, to give liberty to thought, to open the doors of its prison, and to show it the path of light. He set mind in motion; he touched the mysterious springs of its power: and this he did by the conjoined influence of two things-his truth and his character. Both these were original, perfect, divine. The