cated the same state of mind, there are yet interesting points of difference between them. In the one case, the worldly engagement is pleaded as a reason for disobeying, or hesitating to obey, Christ's call. In the other, it is urged in retractation, or, at least, qualification, of a voluntary offer of service. Our Lord seems to have regarded the latter of the two applicants as in the more unpromising stated; although His rebuke is more direct and personal in the former instance. To the first He seems to say, "Leave to others whom it better befits, an office which, however becoming in thee at another time, is inconsistent with thy new profession." Of the second He implies that he had already begun to "look back;" to mourn over what he had resigned. The Searcher of hearts (we may believe) well knew that a worldly home would have too many charms for a disciple so easily shaken in his purpose. "Jesus said unto him, No man having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

But it is much to be observed, that the alleged engagements upon which both of these applications were grounded were in themselves strictly lawful and

d St. Augustin (Sermo C. ad Populum) thus characterises the two applicants mentioned in the text: "Alius non audebat, et excitatus est; alius differebat, et culpatus est." With respect to the excuse urged by the former of the two, he says, "Dominus Christus quando parat homines Evangelio, nullam excusationem vult interponi carnalis temporalisque pietatis. Volebat iste juvenis obtemperare Deo, et sepelire patrem suum; sed est locus, et est tempus, et est res, quæ huic rei, huic tempori, huic loco serviat. Honorandus est pater, sed obediendum est Deo. Amandus est generator, sed præponendus est Creator."

even praiseworthy. Both had their origin in those affections of our nature, of which our compassionate Redeemer was so far from discouraging the exercise, that, on several occasions, He both recognised their value, and exemplified them in His own character. Decent respect for the dead-especially in the case of one connected with the applicant by ties so close and sacred-kind consideration for the feelings of the living on the eve of a lengthened separation-were these motives in themselves of a nature to be undervalued, these feelings likely to have been slighted and shocked, by Him who so beautifully exemplified the filial and friendly relations of life? by Him who shed tears of sympathy over the grave of Lazarus; and in the midst of His agony on the Cross, consigned His Mother to the care of His bosom friend?

Surely not. But hence it is that the lesson conveyed by the text derives its peculiar value. It is an exemplification, from real life, of that most important truth, which our Saviour has elsewhere established by an invented instance;-that things lawful, and even praiseworthy in themselves, become positively sinful, when permitted to interfere with the call and service of the Saviour. It cannot be thought merely accidental, that the excuses of those, who in the parable of the Marriage Feast are described as neglecting the original invitation of the King, are, one and all of them, grounded upon engagements in themselves strictly lawful-the farm, the merchandise, the ties of domestic life. And thus in the present case also, had the ground of these excuses been something sinful, we might have

argued, (the human heart is skilled in such sophistry,) that what was refused to wickedness would have been allowed to mere worldliness; we should then have gained a warning against apostasy, but, together with it, have seemed to ourselves to secure an indemnity for mere wavering; the rarer and more enormous sin would have received its check; the more frequent and seductive would have sheltered itself under the cover of a tacit recognition.

As it is, there is no pretence for any such distinction. Not things sinful; not things indifferent; not things merely lawful; but things positively good and praiseworthy, are set forth in the searching and uncompromising law of the Gospel, as those which have a tendency to interfere with the claims of Christ upon our first and principal regard. The most favourable case is exhibited, that so the rest may be left to the operation of a plain a fortiori argument. If even these may not interfere with duty, how much less those? If even the worldly be excluded from the kingdom of God, how shall it fare with the wicked?

The practical conclusion which our Lord derives from these incidents is thus expressed :-"No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." In the words "looking back," we may perhaps discover an allusion to that lingering love of the world for which Lot's wife was punished, and of which she has been set forth by our Lord as a memorable instance. In plain language, our Saviour enjoins, by these words, upon His followers, a straightforward, unflinching, unrepining, course of duty, with an eye

turned away from worldly and distracting objects, and steadily fixed upon the one great end.

He refers, doubtless, in the first instance, to all who take up their cross to follow Him, whether teachers or others. But in one of the instances recorded in the text, provision is directly made for the case to us at this time peculiarly interestingof the Christian Minister. What the former of these two wavering disciples was inclined to disregard, was not an ordinary call, but a special Commission. "Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead but go thou and preach the kingdom of God."

In one respect, the case of the Christian Minister comes nearer to that which our Lord contemplated, than that of the ordinary Christian in the present age of the Church. The Ministerial responsibilities are spontaneously and deliberately chosen. They correspond therein with the profession of the Gospel in the first age of Christianity. Ordinary Christians are now, in some sort, pledged by the act of others to their profession; not of course unalterably, but in a way different from that in which the Minister contracts his obligations. He puts himself (if I may so say) out of his way to do more than others; voluntarily superadds to the responsibilities which he shares with ordinary Christians, others peculiar to himself, and preeminently fearful.

His then, if he afterwards shrink from his duties as difficult and irksome, is the reproach of the thoughtless buildera, who failed to count the cost of his tower; or of the rash king, who consulted not

a St. Luke xiv. 28–33.

before the battle, whether, with his ten thousand, he could meet the enemy with his twenty thousand.

It was competent to him never to have undertaken the trust. It is inexcusable in him to betray it." Whiles it remained (his freedom from this selfsought responsibility, this condition of more than duty) was it not in his own power b?" It is for belying his profession that he is condemned.

Not, indeed, that any one ought so to represent the obligations and the difficulties of the Christian minister, as to underrate those of the ordinary Christian. It is a prevailing fault to make unwarrantable, because unscriptural, distinctions between the standards of duty respectively marked out for the Clergyman and the Layman. The clerical standard is not commonly set too high, (that were hardly possible,) but that of the ordinary Christian is set infinitely too low. Did men, indeed, content themselves with saying, that Ministers are raised up in God's Church to be burning and shining lights; that their failures in duty involve consequences peculiarly disastrous; that what may be lawful in others is often unlawful in them; they would say no more than the Bible warrants. But they are apt to do much more than this-to try the Minister and another not only by different, but even by opposite, rules; speaking of the Church as if laymen were not Churchmen; and tending to the Romish error of regarding the religion of the Clergy as, in some sort, a substitute for that of the rest.

Desiring, then, in any thing which may hereafter be said of the duties, and the trials, of the Christian Minister, to guard against seeming to represent

b Acts v. 4.