strong and extreme form; and a man may easily say, and perhaps truly, "the love of money carries me no such lengths as that." But be it remembered, that a degree of evil is the evil in that degree, and always tending to more. Let a man who is sensible of the "love of money," examine whether the feeling fixes very much on the thing itself (the property, the gain) without a conscientious respect to its proper uses ;· whether, the more he has gained, the more he has felt disposed to consult his conscience about its proper use; -whether it is growing in its power over his mind; whether unsuccessfulness in the pursuit of gain, (or the loss of it,) has been felt by him, or not, a grievance more distressing than a conscious want of prosperity in his spiritual interests;—whether, if successful, he has been willing to take that as a kind of consolation, and compensation, for a conscious deficiency of religious welfare;—whether his “love of money" be but such, strictly no more than such, as leaves a very clear distinction between the professed Christian and the mere man of the world;—whether it be really such as does not interfere with the grand duty of mainly "setting the affections on things above, and not on things on the earth :" whether it comport with a habitual solemn consideration of the account of the stewardship to be given to the Great Master; and finally, whether it consist with a constant reference to the prospect of leaving the world behind, and with an earnest preparation to leave it.

1825.

LECTURE LII.

GOD NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS.

ACTS x. 34.

"God is no respecter of persons."

THOUGH this may be an unwelcome declaration as regarding a minor division of mankind, it must be accounted a favourable one as affecting the vastly greater proportion of them; since it affirms, that those who have not any conspicuous pretensions to make, (and that is the far greater number), do not stand before Him on any ground of comparative disadvantage.

Here, in this point of respect of persons, we have one of the many strong contrasts between God and men. And perhaps the most simple and useful way of employing our thoughts a little while on the subject set forth in the text, would be to name a few of those well-known things which draw respect to men's persons, and observe how differently they are accounted of by God,—and by man.

In comparing man and God, as to that which they both do, that is, estimating persons, we may notice, in the outset, a grand difference, antecedent to that suggested by the text, that is,-Man's estimate is of very limited compass, as to the number of persons taken account of-God's is universal. Men, any particular men, can take account of but very few persons, for either respect or contempt. Ourselves, for instance, on how few of mankind can we exercise any judgment whatever, to estimate their claims to respect, or anything about them. Look at the multitude of the inhabitants

of a great city, or of any province of a country,-what a great majority of them we can have no individual estimate of at all! And then think of a nation,—and the whole world. There are, indeed, a few distinguished persons in each part of a country, whom most of the inhabitants know something about,-a few that a whole nation knows by repute; several, who have a character in the estimate of a great part of the civilized world, but what a diminutive number do these make! Excepting all but a comparative few, each person has an extremely limited sphere in which to be respected, or the contrary, by his fellow mortals.

But God, one all-knowing Judge, has his estimate of every person of the entire race.

But to the immediate subject: the respect of persons, so prevalent among men, can have no place with God, because to him the whole world of mere exteriors is as nothing. Man is the dupe and idolater of them, all over the world. Nothing so mean or bad, but, if a fine appearance can be thrown over it, it becomes as a god to him; his soul seems to live chiefly in his senses. It is amazing to think of how little account with men is the pure reality of things. And then think how all the dazzling, delusive externals vanish in the sight of God. He beholds and estimates men in their intrinsic qualities. What an infinity of superficial, extraneous shows part off from them under that inspection,—that is foreign to the man—and again that! What a different thing must man appear, when all these are fled! And if men could be presented thus to one another, what would become of n ost of the human gods of human idolatry? It is true, that men are not to be reproached for not banishing entirely all these superficial appearances, for not look on men with a solar radiance which would penetrate and disperse every fallacy that invests them. The feebleness of our vision cannot do this entirely. But it is true, also, that we are

far too willing to be imposed on by the delusive show of the world.

Again,―men are respecters of persons from a principle of self-interest. They are looking up to certain men, and thinking what advantages they can confer;-what profit,what favour, what honour, or, sometimes, what evil they have the power to inflict. This, no doubt, produces a great deal of hypocrisy,-of feigned respect. But also, it does really magnify these persons in their esteem. There are multitudes thus looking to certain individuals with homage, as if they were the grand rulers and disposers of their destiny. In effect saying, "In his favour is my life." It were but trifling to show how the Divine Being can be under no such influence in his estimates.

In men's respecting of persons, some are foolish enough to do it because others do, without well knowing any other reason why. As a number of persons collected at a real or supposed spectacle will quickly draw a multitude. So, let an individual come, by any means, to be accounted of importance, by a portion of society, and it is curious to observe what an accession there shall soon be, of respectful opinions, tributary speeches, manners of deference. individual feels as if he were the wiser and safer for thinking with many, as if he took the strength of the collective opinions into his own.

Each

God has no opinion in the universe to regard, respecting men or anything else, but his own. What is it to Him that that one diminutive creature after another adds its slender intellect in affirmation of the judgment of a crowd. In every view, he is infinitely superior to the influence of all the causes by which men are made to be "respecters of persons." Contemplate this his divine superiority, in reference to several of those things which command men's highest respect. For example, we all see how men are affected

manners.

toward persons of great wealth. This perhaps is the most obvious of all the exemplifications of this human folly. The impression made by this wealth, when displayed or acknowledged, is instantaneous, and it is almost universal. What deference, what regulated and subdued demeanour— what attention to what is said-what prompt compliance! Suppose a man, in the first instance, not known to be rich, and the impression he makes shall be simply that of his apparent personal qualities,-his dispositions, his sense, his And suppose it then to become suddenly known that he is very rich,-what a difference! The movements of such persons are observed and reported, as matters of importance. Some good that they do, perhaps in no proportion to their superior means, shall be proclaimed and lauded. Their opinions shall be cited as of weight, when it is, evidently, no superiority of reason or knowledge that makes them so. A very considerable degree of misconduct, or vice, does not put them down in society. Their acquaintand company shall be held reputable, and courted, when the same ill character in men of no wealth would make them shunned. They can at once defy opinion, and be sure of obsequiousness.

What a state of human sentiments is this, in the sight of God! He "is no respecter of persons." He regards them as of the common material of humanity; does not mistake their wealth for a part of them; does not concentrate the cares of his Providence peculiarly on them,-not less requires a sense of entire dependence ;-does not, if they pray, give a precedence to their applications;-does not hold them less guilty in their sins;-does not give them sounder or more lasting bodies, or an exemption from the worst evils of the mortal state;-does not adopt an instant change of sentiment respecting them, if they fall from affluence to poverty;-does not ensure them that in the