not serve God and inammon."—" Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."

3. Let this portion of Naaman's history teach us to "abstain from all appearance of evil." Although Naaman had possessed such a measure of religious information as to know that an idol and an idol's temple are nothing,-that no place is unclean to them that know that the Lord he is God, and that there is no God beside him,-and that he was therefore in the house of Rimmon without conscience of the idol,-eventhen the conduct of Naaman would have been deeply reprehensible. Upon this supposition, which in Naaman's case is hardly admissible, his conduct, though not directly and personally evil, would have worn the most flagrant appearance of evil, and he was bound to have shunned the temple of the idol. He was compromising the honour of the God of Israel in the presence and estimation of the worshippers of Rimmon. It was leading them to place the living and true God on a level with the lying vanities of Syria. If Naaman could one day sacrifice to the God of Israel, and the next bow in the house of Rimmon, what was this but saying that their claims to homage were alike? True, he did not meditate this evil in his heart; but his conduct exhibited the most unequivocal appearance of

it. And how powerfully are we all hereby admonished to attend, not merely to the motive and principles of our actions, but to the aspect which they wear in the eyes of others, and to the influence which they are likely to have on those with whom we are connected. An action may be justifiable when viewed abstractedly and by itself, and yet various circumstances may render it of injurious tendency. It may not be evil in itself, and yet it may have the appearance of evil. It is not enough that what you do is lawful in itself and not directly and immediately injurious to others; you must consider whether it be expedient, and take into your account its remoter and less obvious tendency. By neglecting this plain rule, men often pursue a course highly dishonourable to their religious character and profession, and while they cast a stumbling-block in the way of others, they ultimately injure their own comfort and peace. Guard against this error with holy jealousy; and, praying for the grace that is profitable to direct, study to "walk in wisdom toward them that are without." The good Lord grant us all this grace! Amen.

SERMON X.

MALACHI, i. 6.-" A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear?"

As we form our notions of the Divine character and perfections from our consciousness of similar affections in our own minds, so all our ideas of the relations in which we stand to Deity are derived from the relations in which we are placed to our brethren of mankind. That we could have no ideas or conceptions of the perfections of God, unless we had some corresponding and similar powers in our own minds, the slightest reflection may be sufficient to convince us. When the Inspired Writers speak to us about the power, and wisdom, and justice, and goodness of God, they do not set themselves to define and explain what they mean by these terms; these are affections of which we have some consciousness in our own minds; and when they are ascribed to Deity, we conceive of them as free from every imperfection, and unlimited and everlasting in their operation. Man was formed after the image of God; and, although that image has been tarnished and defaced by his fall and his transgression, he retains those capacities and susceptibilities of soul, which remind him of the moral glory from

9

which he has fallen, and enable him to form some conception of the image in which he was created. He knows, from reflection on his own nature and capacities, what is meant by wisdom, power, justice, truth, goodness; and when he views these qualities as attributes of Divinity, he regards them as free from every imperfection, uninterrupted in their operation, and incapable of change or decay.

It is in a similar manner that we form our notions of the relations in which we stand to Deity, and of the affection and duties which these relations imply and demand. The Sacred Penmen do not lay down to us any formal definition or delineation of the various relations in which they represent the children of men as standing to the Author of their being; but, presuming upon our knowledge of these relations as existing among the sons of men, they inculcate and urge the duties they imply when viewed in reference to God. Instead of a minute exposition of the character of God as our Sovereign, they urge the obedience which we owe him as his subjects. As we know the relation of a father to his children, they do not explain the nature of the relation, but urge the duties which it implies. Without defining the connexion that subsists betwixt master and servant, they assume it to be known, and call upon men to render the homage and obedience which they owe as servants of the Most High. From what we know of the relation as it exists among mankind, we have little difficulty in forming our conceptions of it when extended to Deity. Our knowledge of the relation between earthly parents and their off

spring, guides us in forming our conceptions of that which subsists between the children of men and the Universal Parent. The relation between master and servant in domestic and civil life enables us to understand the authority which the Master of all claims over the inhabitants of the earth, and to ascertain the service which they owe him. It is after this manner that God, in the words of the text, reasons with the children of men. He makes his appeal to the understanding and the heart; and as men know, from the natural and obvious dictates of the mind, what is the relation between father and son, master and servant, he stays not to explain and illustrate these, but makes his demand for that honour and fear to which, as the Father and Master of the human family, he had so high a claim. "A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear?" In this very forcible and touching appeal, we are reminded of that honour and obedience which we owe to God as his children and servants, and are pointedly charged with having withheld them. Although at first addressed to the refractory priests and people of Israel, we shall find it not less applicable and instructive to ourselves. We shall find that God has as just and legitimate a claim to homage and fear from us as from his ancient people, and that our withholding them is as flagrant an instance of ingratitude as theirs. And to be reminded of the honour and fear which we owe to God, and to inquire whether they have been rendered to him, are the most momentous