he has not found the punishment immediately follow, and so begins to fancy that no punishment will follow at all. A little explanation and illustration would easily put this reason in a clear light. Then how well can we point to the instances I have been speaking of, where men thought in the same way. The wickedness of the antediluvians had been proceeding for a long time; and of course they all thought that it would never find them out. The destruction of the cities of the plain did not come, without a long course of unpunished vice having preceded it; and this is the lesson we have to teach-that sin, in its natural unatoned state, must of a very necessity, meet with misery some time or another, in this life or the next. And although it may be quite true that in most cases, adequate evil does not come, here, to men's sins; yet, for the very purpose of preventing the conclusion, that the evil never comes, these two or three dreadful cases are introduced, in order to show that even here, we may see sometimes, the sin consummated and the whole vengeance poured out. And I do not doubt that instances of this kind in the Old Testament, instead of appearing sometimes as offences, and to children as totally uninstructive, might be made the ground-work of the whole scheme of Christianity, and become, what indeed the whole narrative of the Old Testament was designed to become, a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ; in this most effective way, by gradually preparing the mind as it grows older, for receiving and appreciating the mysteries of godliness.

I have selected this kind of instance -the sweeping judgments of the Old Testament-because I believe that few are aware of their import, or of the value of properly reading them. They are intended to assist the natural, but insufficient feeling of our own hearts, that consummated sin must produce misery; and that therefore, we

stand strongly in need of a help and deliverance, such as the Gospel promises to give us. And I shall now proceed to notice another as important pointthe full and general lesson to be learned from the biographies of the prominent characters in the Bible, such as Abraham and Jacob, and David and Job. I think it beyond dispute, that the narratives of the lives of these men are more known, and more read in our schools, than any other part of the Scriptures, and while the charm of interest which is thrown around them, is the true reason why these parts are so much more studied than the difficult parts of the prophets, we must be exceedingly careful lest we are drawn away by the mere stories, from the lesson they are designed to teach. For here, as elsewhere, privilege implies danger; it is a privilege that much of God's book is written in so easy and so engaging a form; but there is danger of abusing this privilege, and forgetting that as God stoops to our comprehension, it is for the purpose of raising us up to Him. But, in general, I believe it will be found, at least among young people, that these Biblical biographies, while they almost exclude in their minds the other parts of the Bible, cannot convey any spiritual instruction at all; or if any meaning beyond that of a common story, is conveyed, it is of an improper, and even of a mischievous kind.

I conceive that these biographies, when duly considered, are not only the easiest, but by far the best mode of teaching truth. For putting all of them, as they occur in the Bible, together; we have a kind of drama, or representation of an action, wherein several very distant characters play a part; every one of whom has to exhibit the different modes in which men, actually real living men, are effected by religion. The error I have been alluding to, is the looking upon a great many of these characters as models in

all respects, as perfectly good and totally unlike any men whom we meet with in our daily walk; and the mischief caused by the error is, that we unconsciously look upon them as unreal and fictitious characters, such as we never do and never can meet with, such as there would be almost an impiety in comparing ourselves with. And again, this error, by drawing off our attention from the one perfect type of humanity, Christ, whom indeed, we see nowhere resembled, makes some people pay an unconscious worship to weak, and sinful, and even wicked men; and makes pert scoffers ridicule the worthies of the Scriptures, as though the Scriptures intended them to be anything but sinful men. In fact, we see repeated in nearly every person's mind of this description, that principle which, in Romish countries, by putting a halo of semi-divinity round the heads of saints, puts Christ at a distance, or brings him forward as a babe, not as a full grown, matured man.

Let me then explain what I imagine these characters clearly and unmistakeably teach. They teach, in the first place, that the end of our existence is to discover and follow the spiritual guiding of our spirits by God; and that the very reason, the true solution, why these actual men were not perfect, was that they just stopped short of this absolute inextinguishable persuasion. There were some times of their lives when they hesitated, and so they sinned; and therefore it is, that we learn not only the truth, that no man is without sin, and that we consequently need not draw back because we know that we have sins; but also, we see what sinless. ness means, namely-the undying, firm persuasion, the sensible conviction, that God is really not only the first Cause and Creator, but One who spiritually influences us, and is guiding us onward to good. And it is worthy of a remark, that the epithet usually attached to sinners in the Bible is highly significant

of the same truth; sinners are called godless, i. e. without God; they are driving on with no spiritual perception of God within them; he alone escapes from sin who possesses this perception. Why I think this lesson of such wonderful value is, that men are so constantly in the habit of comparing sin, or godlessness, i. e. the imperception of God, with what is merely some sinful action. And instead of pointing out to our hearers that their business is to be diligent in searching out every corner of their hearts for traces of God, and of constantly bringing their hearts near to God, how often are children told nothing else than that they must not do this or that wrong deed. We attack sin in its fruits, instead of going to the very root of it, viz: the vacancy there is without Him who alone can prompt good things.

Now, if we take the whole series of Scripture characters, we shall see that, while none of them save the One perfect man, had this intuition of God constantly; yet that, as a general rule, those who are held up as good men, were those, the tone of whose life had this need of God within, as the key note; and those who are mentioned as outcasts and reprobates, were those whose whole lives, (not some exceptional parts) were framed upon the principle of trying to deceive God, or of living with. out Him.

Thus Abraham, who is called the father of the faithful, and whose example St. Paul adduces in the iv. chap. of the Epistle to the Romans, for the purpose of showing what state of mind, and what rule of action we must adopt, in order to be in a state of justification like his-lived continually under the impression, that God was guiding him; his was a life eminently of trust, he was fully persuaded that what God had promised, He was able also to perform; and therefore this faith was imputed unto him for righteousness, and we ought no to doubt

that if Abraham had never at any one moment lost this keen perception and firm trust of God within him, he would have been a perfect man, and not have needed redemption. But, although the silence of the Scriptures on the failings of good men would not necessarily imply that they never failed, yet, by way of rendering assurance doubly sure, two instances are mentioned in Abraham's life, that show he had not this trust quite without weakness. On two occasions -once with Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and afterward with Abimelech, king of Gerar-he was tempted into a lie, concerning his wife; which it is very evident he would not have been, if his general principle of trusting God had been unimpaired. And I do not doubt that these failings are mentioned, not that they might be excused, or palliated, but for the very purpose of preventing the notion that Abraham was a perfect man; and then of cheering us with the thought that we also, although we sometimes fail, yet may be blessed as was Abraham, if our general life be tuned upon the principle of trust in God. These two offences of Abraham's are moreover introduced, that we may see what offence means in the eye of God, viz: not this or that wrong action, but a want of reliance on God, caused, of course, by what is sin essentially, or godlessness, i. e., an imperfection of God's guidance.

The next character I will adduce, is Jacob, who presents much more difficulties than Abraham; because he very often acted with a craft which was decidedly sinful, and for which he suffered severely in the distressing and fugitive life he was obliged to lead. Yet, while we must very carefully remember that Jacob is not held up to us as the picture of a good man, like Abraham; it is very clear that his general course was indicated by his reliance upon God's promises; and even his sins, flagrant as they were, and exceptions to his general

course, could not well have proceeded from any one but a man who, except in these sins, prized God's blessings and was eager to make them his. And it seems to me that the character of Esau is put in marked contrast with that of Jacob; in that Esau was a generous, manly, candid man, with none of Jacob's craft; yet, his whole life was framed upon the notion, that he could do very well without God; he cared little about any blessings God promised; he was especially, as he is called, a profane man. And while I think it almost certain that Esau must have been tainted with all the vices usually to be found in persons of his character, yet there seems to have been a remarkable design in keeping them out of sight, in order that we might be under no doubt as to what his great fault, his fault of faults, was; not his violence, or his lust, but his profanity; while Jacob's faults are evidently brought forward prominently, in order to shew, that while he generally prized spiritual blessings, and leaned upon God, his exceptional sins did not degrade him to the same level as Esau, whose whole life was one huge sin-whose heart was without God altogether.

A very similar lesson is to be learned from the contrast of the characters of Saul and David. David is usually set forth as the greatest of all the Old Tes tament heroes, after Abraham. But we must remember, that never in the New Testament is David held up as a righteous man; and that even in the Old, the name given him, as the man after God's heart, was given before his great and awful crime had been committed. No! we are not required to believe that a man like David, who could commit such a horrible wickedness as he did, a compound of lust and craft, of ferocity and meanness, and who remained in the state of mind which had produced this foul crime a considerable time, whatever his repentance and punishment, could have been a

type of a holy man; nor is it at all necessary for us to think that his general life was a virtuous one. David's place in Divine story, is that of a man who was appointed to serve his generation, who had a certain work to do, and he did it; while his predecessor Saul had shrunk from it. And therefore, while we may fairly contrast Saul and David together, to shew that, in general, David leaned towards God, while Saul's whole endeavour was to break away from Him; yet, the real value of the lesson derived from David's sad story, is not that his crime was the crime of a good man, but that, even when the most awful crime imaginable was committed, repentance was possible, and God would pardon when the repentance was sincere. The lesson indeed, that David teaches, is rather one of warning than of comfort; that when God is forgotten, even the most awful crimes are probable.

In all these narratives, as I have said, the true lesson we are to learn, is that spiritual perception of God's Spirit is the proper and holy state that a man is required to be in ; and in order to convey instruction to others from them, we ought to point out why, and where these men failed; and how we may endeavour to avoid their failings, and gradually progress on to perfection. And I have selected the three instances of Abraham, of Jacob, and of David, because their stories are told more in detail than those of any other characters in the Bible; and because I believe these three prominent characters just represent the three usual phases of men. First Abraham, the good and holy man; or rather, as good and holy as imperfect men can possibly be in this world. Secondly Jacob, who was drawn from the strait road by the sins of craft and deceit, and the lusts of the eye, and who is the Scriptural type of worldly men. Thirdly David, who was also drawn away by the brutal sins, by the lusts of the flesh; and who is the Scriptural type of sensual men. And

the palpable further inference we have to make from their apparent ultimate favour with God, is, that trust in Him, whether for support, as in the case of Jacob, or for pardon, as in the case of David, will, when sincere, blot out even such foul offences as are described in their lives. And it furthermore seems to be of consequence, that we should, in teaching from these narratives, have always at hand the one great and strait model of perfect humanity in Christ Jesus; and contrast his absolute sinlessness with their weaknesses, and wickednesses; and thus, while we close our lessons, with holding up that stainless model, and press upon our learners that they must never give up the effort after perfection, unless they be satisfied that they are as perfect as Jesus was; yet, lest they should faint and grow weary in the struggle, God has mercifully shown them that, if the general principle of their lives be like Abraham's, they are to conclude, not that they are perfect, but that they are going on to perfection; whereas, if from this general principle of trust, they be drawn aside by the lust of the eye, like Jacob, or the lust of the flesh, like David, they are treasuring up for themselves certain punishments which overtook those men, and they may not have the repentance granted, which saved them from eternal wrath.

This mode of instruction, by contrasting the imperfections of the Scripture characters with the spotlessness of the Son of righteousness, is no where more applicable than in the case of Job; who, I conceive, next to Abraham, is intended to be a picture of an imperfectly holy man; only in Job's case, the defect which existed in Abraham, and in all unfinished men, is made more remarkable, and dwelt upon at greater length. Indeed, I am somewhat surprised, that this history of Job seems so much banished from our Church service; men seem terrified by the bold eastern imagery of the book,

and its wild, rugged poetry, from drawing from it the religious lesson it was intended to convey; and which is the more worthy of attention, because our Lord so often conveys the same lesson, by very similar images; viz:-from a contemplation of nature, to rise to a persuasion of God's providence. And it is in the contrast between Job and Jesus, that we see come forth so vividly the principle which, as I have been endeavouring to show, may be extracted from all the Scripture characters; viz: that every man on earth, even an Abraham and a Job, while gradually advancing to perfection, is not perfect; and that imperfection displayed itself in the simple circumstance, that they could not very distinctly, at all times, recognize God working upon their hearts. The evident fault of Job was, that he thought himself too vile for the Almighty to care

for; he could easily acknowledge his power, and his justice, and even his goodness; but he could not understand why he should have been so sorely afflicted, except that God did not concern Himself with the happiness of so mean and downcast a creature; and those magnificent representations of the strength of Leviathan, of the courage of the war horse, of the skyflight of the eagle, are introduced for the purpose of convincing Job, that if he could not take God's place in governing and guiding these creatures, it was not very wonderful if he did not quite understand God's dealings with himself; or why these afflictions should not be a part and a proof of God's watchful care over him. And the book closes with an account of Job's acknowledgement of God's mercy in the afflictions, and of the need there was that he should be afflicted. In opposition to Job's want of perception in feeling God's hand in all this, is to be placed the resignation of Jesus, "Not my will but thine be done," and it is to be noticed, that our Lord, in teaching one of his great lessons, the conviction of,

and submission to Providence, grounds it upon very similar natural facts as Elihu had done with Job; when he declares, that if God clothed the lilies and fed the birds, how much rather would he clothe and feed those who trust in Him.

The great value of this book of Job, is that not only we may study Job's character, but that we may understand and thoroughly appreciate the cause which makes even righteous men like Job fall short of the perfection of Jesus, viz: the want of a keen, spiritual perception of God; and then apply the knowledge of this cause to the tracing of the weakness and wickedness of all the characters in the Bible, whether the holy Abraham, the failing Jacob and David, or the utterly godless, as Esau, and Saul, and Ahab.

I lay great and exclusive stress upon this quality, spiritual perception of God, as the one by which we must distinguish the characters of men in the Bible; not because their biographies may not teach other subordinate lessons, but because this is the chief thing all of us have to learn; in comparison of which, everything else is either unimportant, or only derives its importance from the aid it gives to the complete establishment of this grand principle. And when we illustrate the various ways in which this principle actuated the men of the Old Testament, and when we take occasion, from these interestin narratives, to draw the attention of our scholars to their own especial cases, (which I do not conceive would be a difficult task for those accustomed to the best modes of conveying information to children ;) we must in general draw further attention to the fact, that the worthies of the New were holier men than those of the Old; and give the reason for this difference, viz: that after the atonement had been published, there was a much more powerful moral suasion exercised upon them, than even the wisest and the holiest men of old