world, which it might well be, as Isaiah calls Tyre "a city, whose antiquity is of ancient days" (Isa. xxiii. 7). Connected with these sins of pride and self-deification, and with the position of the Prince of Tyre in the midst (heart, margin) of the seas, is bound up that terrible sin of self-centred isolation, which is but an extreme phase of pride and selfishness. Those who separate themselves from others and set themselves on their own pinnacle, are guilty of the Pharisaic sin of exalting themselves and despising others. Independence is a sin of the devil, and denies all the truths of membership, unity and catholicity; and is a direct outrage on the one grand law of the Universe, the LAW OF LOVE. The Prince is entrenched on his island, saying, "I sit on the seat of God in the midst (heart, margin) of the seas," thinking himself invincible and supreme (Ezek. xxviii. 2). Such is the inspired catalogue of the sins of the Prince of Tyre. III. Sins were also laid to the charge of the KING of Tyre. After the enumeration of his peculiar privileges, his sins are recounted as follows: "By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick" (Ezek. xxviii. 16-18). At first sight, it does not seem possible that this can apply to the heathen sanctuaries on the island and coasts of Tyre; and yet it may be, that the religion of the Tyrians under Hiram, was purer in its rites than it became under his successors. The personal influence of David over Hiram, who could not but observe how faithfully David strove to obey the commandments of God, may have led this king of Tyre to worship the true God; but if this were so, the later kings of Tyre may have relapsed into idolatry and violence, inasmuch as several of them were guilty of the murder of their predecessors on the throne. Ithobal I., priest of Ashtaroth (who, according to Menander, was "Ethbaal, king of the Zidonians"-1 Kings xvi. 31); was one of the regicides. When the offices of king and priest were thus occasionally united, he could introduce changes, good or evil, into the rites of their worship. Some terrible practices characterized their religion, one of which was the sacrifice of their sons and daughters to Baal and Ashtaroth (or Ashtoreth-1 Kings xi. 33), gods of Zidon (Judg. x. 6), with whose worship gross orgies were associated. It would seem from Ezek. xxviii. 18, as if God recognized even the "sanctuaries" of the heathen, in their ignorant endeavours to worship THE UNKNOWN GOD" (Acts xvii. 23), and that He held them responsible for keeping these undefiled. But by their desecration of the Divine gift of life to every man, through their shedding of innocent blood (Isa. lix. 7; Psa. xvi. 4), they outraged the laws of nature in their impure rites, under the guise of religion. The second sin charged against the King of Tyre is pride. This was manifested in the King as well as in the city and in the Prince of Tyre, albeit in different forms. It is remarkable that this follows the first charge of violence and precedes that of defiling his sanctuaries by the iniquity of his traffic. The King, from his pride, may personally have been guilty of violence, but it would appear from the text as if "they" (Ezek. xxviii. 16) might include the city, and that the King of Tyre, as the ruler or head, was held to be responsible for the sins of the city. The King (ver. 18) is personally denounced for violence through the multitude of his merchandise; for "defiling (his) sanctuaries by the multitude of (his) iniquities, by the iniquity of (his) traffic" (Ezek. xxviii. 18). From this we may infer that some sort of sacrilege or profanation of holy things was charged against the king of Tyre individually. It is possible that Hiram may have wrought his work for the Temple at Jerusalem, simply as a matter of merchandise and of gain, without any desire for the glory of the God of Israel; so that what was in itself essentially a privilege and should have brought a blessing, may have become a cause of condemnation: although, on the other hand, if Hiram were a worshipper of Melkarth or Baal, then the God of Israel would be no more to him, than the god of any other neighbouring country. This worldly spirit of unrighteous and covetous traffic, defiled even the beautiful Temple of God at Jerusalem. Our Lord, as the first official act of His ministry, cleansed the Temple; in which He found sheep and oxen for sale and the money-changers sitting at their tables; and rebuking them that sold doves, He said: "Take these things hence; make not My Father's house an house of merchandise" (John ii. 14-16): likewise, at the conclusion of His ministry, "Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves; and He taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves" (Mark xi. 15-17). Thus, even the Temple of the Lord God at Jerusalem was defiled by the iniquities of her traffic, and by her sons turning that sacred edifice into "a den of thieves." Again, the King was inferentially charged with the sin of covetousness, which in New Testament language is denounced as "idolatry." It is a painful reflection that trade, commerce and success in business, do not, in themselves, foster a spirit of religion, but rather the contrary. History and experience have often proved this to be true. The successful pursuit of wealth, its absorption, its strain on the time and energies of men leave them little leisure or repose for the worship of God. The fleeting vanities of sense and time extrude the realities of faith and eternity. The last sin mentioned in connection with the king of Tyre, was his neglected privileges. He had been, as it were, in Eden the garden of God, on the holy mountain of God, and these words are addressed to him by the Lord God: "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee" (Ezek. xxviii. 12–15). The destruction of the king of Tyre, from among the stones of fire, points to the perversion of the highest spiritual privileges of which he had been the recipient. As the monarchy of Tyre, in the person of Hiram, was granted such great blessings, his successors on the throne would be held accountable by God, if they profanely perverted their privileges. The intercourse of Hiram with Solomon, while building the Temple of Jehovah, might have resulted in much spiritual benefit to him; and through him to Tyre and Sidon, by leading them to become worshippers of the true God. But how can this people be blamed if they relapsed into the idolatry of their forefathers when Solomon, who had been brought up in the knowledge and worship of Jehovah, "went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians" and after the gods of "all his strange wives," for whom he built high places "in the hill that is before Jerusalem " (1 Kings xi. 5-8)-nearly facing even the Temple of the Most High God? It was this sin of Solomon in turning away from the Lord, and in leading Israel to worship other gods, that was the cause of the ten tribes of the kingdom of Israel being rent from his son Rehoboam (1 Kings xi. 9, 31-35); for this national schism was the judgment of God. This sin of idolatry reached its consummation under the reign of Ahab; who, having married "Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Zidonians" (1 Kings xvi. 31), set up the worship of Baal as the predominant state religion of Israel; and allowed his wife Jezebel to "cut off the This hill, which still goes by the name of the "Mount of Offence," is on the east side of the valley of Jehoshaphat, while the Temple area is on the western side, a little higher up the same valley, to the north. prophets of the LORD" (1 Kings xviii. 4). That this Phoenician influence was also injurious to Judah, is plain from the reference to the worship of Tammuz (the Syrian Adonis), described by the prophet Ezekiel (viii. 14). During the erection of the Temple, Hiram must have been familiar with its plan and details, and he would probably hear of the incidents and of the events connected with its consecration; through all of which, he might obtain some knowledge of the true God. Alas! as the kings of Israel lapsed into idolatry, and all “ did evil in the sight of the Lord," and as only a small number of the kings of Judah "did right in the sight of the Lord" (only about nine out of the twenty kings, after Solomon), can it be a matter for surprise, if any monotheistic impression made on Hiram or on the Phoenician kingdom, should have been evanescent ? Still, a great opportunity for turning to the Lord God had been granted to the Tyrians; which increased their responsibility for accepting or rejecting the truth. Hence, one of the special sins of Tyre, of her prince, and of her king, appears to have been that of having neglected her religious privileges, and the grace of "the time of (her) visitation" (Luke xix. 44). B. We now pass on to consider the second part of this subject. The sins of Tyre, of her Prince and of her King, have been left on record in Holy Scripture for our admonition and warning; and the parallelism between the sins of England and those of Tyre, may now be considered in the same threefold order: in other words, as the sins which pertain :— 1. To the people or Nation of England: II. To the Church of England and her Rulers. 1. It may be that in the history of England, there is no exact historical counterpart to the first sin charged against the CITY of Tyre, in rejoicing in the desolation of Jerusalem; for in this country, the ancient people of God have, for the last two hundred and fifty years, found a refuge and protection; but it is possible that some of our Continental neighbours might lay this sin to our |