earth, or gone to the winds, or, been given to the Great Enemy.

After thus insisting on the preceptive economy we are under,―on law, duty, obedience, is it necessary to introdude a caution against legality? against the pharisaic notion of merit in rendering to God what is due to him? If it be, there is, instantly at hand, the observation, that selfrighteousness is a flagrant robbery of God. In matters of duty and obedience, we have to approach him, so to speak, on the side of justice, (and it is, with so miserably imperfect an obedience at the best, that a claim for justification advanced upon it would be repelled by that justice, and blasted as with flames ;)-then, for acceptance, solely on the side of mercy, as manifested to us in the mediation of Christ. This is announced to us in every possible form of emphatic declaration. Then, a legal, self-righteous claim for acceptance and justification, how dees it bear on the mercy of God? It plainly tells him he shall not have the glory of saving by pure mercy,-shall not receive our grateful acknowledgments of free, superabounding grace,that we know better than to ascribe such an effusion of goodness to him. It tells our Lord and Saviour that the lofty language of the gospel concerning his great work, ought to be abated,—that he must be satisfied with a very limited gratitude, inasmuch as we could nearly do without him. Now, this would be the most fatal conjunction of the two kinds of robbery-of God, and of ourselves.

But then, again, there is the same wrong against God in an opposite form; that is, when men take advantage of grace and mercy to exempt themselves from the obligations of duty, as dictated by the Divine law. As if they should say, "If we are to pay such large tribute to the attribute of mercy, we will balance it, by withholding that to justice;it is too much, equally to honour two attributes;-by the

one attribute being satisfied, the other shall be silenced ;or, if it presume to speak to us of duty, we will reply by alleging free grace." But, from what cause was the grand intervention of grace, in the appointment of the Mediator? why? But because there had been a fearful breach of the Divine law; for remedy of which-that so awful a fact should not be permitted to pass, as if in defiance of God—a new and amazing kind of interposition was absolutely necessary. And shall this very mediation, appointed for this very reason, be perverted to the horrid purpose of abrogating the authority of that very law?

But to come to an end. We mentioned, in very general terms, some things as due to God; to specify particulars were endless; but we will name one (as bearing on the object of our present meeting), that is, the duty of promoting the cause of God in the world. That cause being in the world, there is, in His estimate (in which he cannot be mistaken), some certain amount of what is due from men, in promotion of it-due, therefore, to Him. Now, it might be a formidable revelation, if He were to declare that amount, and then set it against what is rendered. And if each professed servant of God, and follower of Christ could be supposed to be asked,-" Will you have your individual part of the statement set before you ?" he must be a bold man who should, instantly, and free from all apprehension, say, "Yes, I am sure of what it will testify." For instance, a man who sees that religious good, in his neighbourhood, might be done by him, in various ways, or one way, if he had zeal, activity, liberality, &c. A man who sees worthy attempts commenced trials to do good, struggling, almost sinking under difficulties which he could effectually aid. A man who, if he could be content with less of state, and show, and style, in his mode of life, might afford much to the good cause. A man who is economically and success

fully saving, and thinks he may as well save God's share with the rest; or even does not recollect that any accounts are kept in heaven. We hardly need specify, a quite opulent man, continually augmenting his wealth; but, though a professed Christian, regarding the slenderest outgoings for the cause of God as quite enough. One has come in the way of knowing, here and there, divers such individuals,―members of Christian churches-punctual in attendance on ordinances,-("fills up his place,")—very regular in their conduct, free from the ordinary and external vices, but, while perfectly well known to be vastly rich, not less notorious for niggardly parsimony in their contributions to the cause of God-plainly "robbers of God." Now, I cannot pretend to know much of the right formation and discipline of churches, but it does always appear to me, that there must be something very unsound in the constitution of a church that retains such a member. They are expected, and justly so, to exercise discipline in various things very censurable, but not of the worse kind, (great imprudences, temporary lapses under sudden temptation or provocation, injurious actions of a minor degree, &c.) But here is a great flagrant IDOLATER in their communion, who might just as well go on his knees, and literally worship his gold and silver, if put in the form of an image; (his objection to have it put in that form would be that it would pay “no interest!" yet he would affect to admire Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego!)—and yet, it would be thought a fanatical excess to rise up and assert that he is no fit member.

But however, we have no great number of "passing rich" men in our dissenting societies; and must mainly depend on persons of moderate (some of them very moderate) means. The claims come, indeed, very often,-the stronger needs to be the impression whose claims they are, and the assurance, that though men can give to God "only of what

is his own," yet he accepts it, less as the payment of a debt, than as a free tribute of love to him. For it is remarkable that every form of generous language is employed by him. There is, then, a certainty that what is given to his cause will be, on the whole account, no loss. What men in a pure spirit render to God, will come back to them here, or meet them hereafter, in a manner to testify that their Lord has not forgotten.

And, as the "gifts of God are without repentance,” so will the "gifts To God be without repentance."

LECTURE LX.

THE DAY OF SMALL THINGS.

ZECHARIAH iv. 10.

"Who hath despised the day of small things?"

THE question supposes the actual thing inquired for, namely, that there are such persons. It is not one of the questions which imply the answer that none have done the thing described; as for example, the question, "Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him?" Isaiah xl. 13.

For, the contempt of small beginnings has been quite a common feeling. We have an instance in the case which the text stands against-the founding of the second temple, after the return of the Jews from Babylon. And any tract of History affords examples. Divers of the great powers, and influential systems, good or evil, that have had a mighty effect, have in their apparent insignificant origin, been despised. Sometimes an individual, entering on life in a mean condition, neglected, depressed, ill-treated, has risen to great power over the political or intellectual condition of mankind. Christianity itself, in even the person of its glorious Founder, was "despised and rejected of men." The apostles and primitive Christians were regarded as the "offscouring of all things." The contempt entertained for the slender beginnings of such grand movements, continued till they became great enough to be dreaded and hated; contempt was often affected still; there was a forced laugh through the dark disturbed looks of