dours of an earthly kingdom? In the language of the prophet, he "grew up before them as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he had no form nor comeliness, and when they saw him, there was no beauty that they should desire him he was despised and rejected of men: they hid as it were their faces from him; he was despised, and they esteemed him not."-Is there no guilt, nothing morally wrong, in that state of mind, which allows the petty distinctions between fellow-creatures to shut out the remembrance of the infinite superiority of God?—a superiority, before which all these distinctions are "less than nothing and vanity," the very thought of which should throw them all into forgetfulness;—as in nature, though "one star differeth from another. star in glory," the whole hemisphere of twinkling lights retire from view before the splendours of the rising sun.-Is there no sin in the state of mind, which allows the imaginary degradation of connection with an inferior to outweigh the honour of being

brought into fellowship with the infinite Je hovah? Is there no guilt in refusing the very highest dignity that God himself has to confer, because that dignity must be shared with those who are destitute of the paltry honours of this vain world? Is there no guilt in the dishonour thus put upon God by sentiments of him so low and unworthy-as if HE was to be influenced, in the bestowment of his blessings, by those little worthless differences that elevate one worm of the dust above his fellows !-Is there no guilt in slighting and disowning the offers of the "gospel of the grace of God" on such a ground?

There is, moreover, what the Bible denominates "the deceitfulness of riches." And so powerful are the seducing temptations included in the expression, that Christ himself has said, in language that may well startle the possessors of this world's abundance, "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,

than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."-The language strongly intimates, how exceedingly prone the proprie tors of riches are to trust in them;-to "make gold their hope, and say to the fine gold, thou art my confidence;"-to glory in their wealth as their "strong city," in the presumptuous spirit of self-sufficiency and self-dependence ;-thus to forget the God who "maketh them to differ," and by whose munificent hand their undeserved abundance is bestowed, to fancy they can do well enough without religion,―to feel as if it were beneath them,—and to leave it to the poor, for whom, they grant, it may be suitable, and who stand in need of its supports and consolations. As for themselves, they do not require them.

Is there no guilt in this attachment to the world?-in ungratefully forgetting God in proportion as he is liberal in his kindness? -in "forsaking the fountain of living water, and hewing out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water?"-in estimating reli

gion, as if it were a matter of mere selfinterest, something to which a man may, if he please, have recourse, when his circumstances are felt to require it, but which otherwise he is under no obligation to mind? -Is not this spirit of worldliness the spirit of idolatry? Is it not substituting the creature for the creator,-the gift for the giver,the cause of gratitude for its infinitely worthy object? Is there not truth and reason in what Job says "If I have made gold my hope, or have said to the fine gold, thou art my confidence; if I rejoiced because my wealth was great, and because my hand had gotten much;-I should have denied the God that is above?" And if it be by such a state of heart,—by such a worldly, such an atheistical spirit, that a man is kept back from accepting the proposals and embracing the offers of the gospel,—is not the unbelief criminal, and worthy of condemnation?" How CAN ye believe," said Jesus to the Jews, "who receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that

cometh from God only ?"

The inability thus expressed is obviously and entirely moral. It is the inability of rooted and habitual worldliness to value and to relish spiritual blessings. It is the inability of the want of right principle.-And what is true of the honours of the world, is equally true of its riches: what is true of ambition is true of covetousness; and true, indeed, of every inordinate desire after earthly things. It was this that disinclined the Jews from "coming to Christ"-from accepting his doctrine, and submitting to his authority. He himself imputes it all to their want of will,—and that want of will to the absence of the principle of godliness:-"Ye WILL NOT come unto me, that ye might have life:"-" I know you, that ye HAVE NOT THE LOVE OF GOD in *** you. This description of unbelief, then, might be designated the unbelief of worldly-mindedness. And I repeat the question, Is there no guilt in it?-no guilt in allowing the

* John, v. 40. 42. 44.