welfare of his family. In this way, every excess is palliated at least, if not altogether justified. To such an extent do many deceive themselves in this matter, that they even value and congratulate themselves upon those very habits, which, in the eyes of more dispassionate persons, constitute their chief defects. What more common than to hear men boast of a line of conduct, which all but themselves see to have been altogether extravagant and unbecoming? We may have some idea of this by looking to the conduct of St. Paul, previous to his conversion. When persecuting the Church of God, he had no conception but that he was rendering to God a most acceptable service; just as bigots have done in every age; as our Lord has said, "Whoso killeth you will think that he doeth God service." The truth is, that self-love altogether blinds the eyes of men, and prevents them from discerning their true character.

Another source of the ignorance of which we are speaking is, that men are very backward to self-inquiry. In reference to worldly concerns men will exercise some degree of caution, to guard against any fatal mistakes. A general, in the vicinity of a hostile army, will have his picquets sent forth to watch his adversary, and to prevent surprise. A mariner, aware how much he may be driven out of his course by winds and currents, will make his observations, in order to ascertain his true position, and to pursue his destined course. A tradesman will examine his books, and balance his accounts, in order that he may know how to estimate the measure of his success.

But Christians, in the midst of enemies, and exposed to violent temptations, and having their eternal interests at stake, never think of setting aside a day for self-examination, and, perhaps, even in their whole lives, never spent one hour in prayer to God, to "search and try them, to see whether there were any wicked way in them, and to lead them in the way everlasting." We read of a Heathen, who every evening of his life, made a conscience of asking himself these questions:

Πῇ παρεζην; τι δ' έρεξα; τι μοι δεον ουκ ετέλεσσας* But how few amongst those who bear the Christian name, examine thus carefully their deviations from duty, both in a way of commission and of omission! No, in truth; we have no jealousy over ourselves, no self-supicion, no fear of self-deception. We take for granted that all is right. If our external conduct be tolerably correct, we never think of inquiring into the motives and principles by which we have been actuated; or of examining what mixture of alloy may have been blended with our best desires. If appearances are favourable, we care not much about the reality; and if any doubt arise in our minds, we rather turn our eyes from it, than make use of it, for investigating the inmost recesses of our hearts. It is no wonder, therefore, that persons should possess so little of self-knowledge, when they use not the proper and necessary means for the attainment of it.

* Wherein have I lived amiss? What have I done? What duty incumbent on me have I not performed?

Another cause of men's ignorance of themselves is, that they never refer their conduct to a proper standard. They take the opinions of men, and the habits of those around them; especially if they be of the same rank, and age, and under similar circumstances with themselves, as a fair criterion whereby to estimate their own character. What is done by those who are most respected in society, they imagine may well be done by themselves; and if a thing have been done by one who is looked up to as a religious character, they think that an ample vindication of themselves. They will not take the trouble to inquire into the circumstances under which the thing was done, or the motives and principles by which the person was actuated in doing it, or the difference of the motives or principles by which he himself is actuated. No: the "religious professor has done so; and therefore I may do so: he has done so on some particular occasion; and therefore I may do it every day of my life." A remarkable instance we have of this, in two of our Lord's apostles, who would have called down fire from heaven, to consume a Samaritan village, because the inhabitants had refused their Master admission into it: and, in favour of their design, they pleaded the example of Elijah, who had called down fire from heaven to consume two bands of soldiers that had been sent to apprehend him. They never considered, that Elijah was actuated, not by personal resentment, but by a concern for God's honour, and a desire that God would, by a fresh manifestation of his power, give still more convincing evidence to the persecut

ing monarch, that he was opposing the only true and living God. The prophet had before called down fire from heaven, to consume his sacrifice; and as, in direct opposition to the convictions of his own mind, the wicked monarch still persisted in his endeavours to establish idolatry, and to extirpate the worshippers of Jehovah, he desired that they who were come to execute his impious commission, should themselves be made a sacrifice, for the conviction of the monarch's mind, and for the benefit of the whole nation. And the result of these very judgments showed how completely they answered the end for which they had been inflicted. But what sanction did this give to the cruel and vindictive spirit of the disciples? None at all: and therefore they received from their divine Master this just rebuke, "Ye know not what spirit ye are of." But not unfrequently persons, at the very time that they condemn a thing, as done by a religious character, will plead the example in vindication of themselves; just as though the same conduct which is censurable in one, could be blameless in another, who was similarly circumstanced with himself.

But the truth is, that neither the opinions nor conduct of fallible men are any just criterion for us. We are to come to the written word of God, and to take that as our standard to which we should refer our every sentiment, and every act. We are told, on infallible authority, that "if we measure ourselves by ourselves, and compare ourselves amongst ourselves, we are not wise." If we would look to examples, as illustrations of the divine precepts, we should fix

our eyes upon the Lord Jesus Christ and his holy Apostles, and see what was their mind, and spirit, and conduct under circumstances most resembling our own. But we do not like this high standard. We admire, indeed, what was done by them; but then we think, that, however commendable it was in them, it is not necessary for us; but that we are at liberty to take a lower standard for the regulation of ourselves. How is it possible then that we should attain self-knowledge, when we deliberately and habitually foster such delusions?

To these different causes of ignorance we may add another which is no less prevalent, namely, our aversion to be told of our faults. To those who will applaud and flatter us, we lend a willing ear: but if a man take us aside, and tell us our faults, what multitudes of excuses instantly arise in vindication of ourselves! Even truth itself shall be violated, rather than we will acknowledge the full extent of our criminality. And if this friendly office be repeated twice or thrice, we shall need nothing more to call forth a rooted aversion to our faithful monitor. If we were on the brink of an unseen precipice, or wandering by night in a trackless desert, we would bless the person who should warn us of our danger, or direct us in our path. But in every thing relating to morals, we would rather dispense with the services of others, and be best contented when most left to prosecute our own way.

Thus far we have spoken on the subject of selfknowledge generally, as it respects our moral conduct.

But all which we have said, will have a yet