and of wisdom, who might be solemnly appointed to have the charge of that business. This equitable and judicious proposal gave universal satisfaction. Seven men were immediately chosen, and set before the apostles; who when they had recommended these Deacons, for so they were termed, to God by prayer, laid their hands upon them. From the names of the Deacons there is ground for concluding, that most of them were selected from among the Grecians.

1

The evil was thus nipped in the bud. And there is no trace in the Scriptures of any future discontent having ever arisen on the subject.

There are two prominent violations of Christian Morality, which this transaction may properly introduce to our consideration Partiality, and Suspicion. It is my purpose, under the permission of God, to investigate them in two successive discourses.

Partiality is the sin, against the indulgence of which we are now to seek in

struction.

If the larger proportion of the charitable fund was contributed by the Hebrews; partiality to persons of their own kindred or country would be likely to persuade them, that the Hebrew widows were entitled to receive

Yet

receive more than the Grecian widows. it became them to reflect that they had been contributing not to a private collection for the benefit of their own friends, or for people belonging to the body of Hebrews in particular: but to a general fund, raised from love to Christ; and for the succour, in such proportions as need should require, of his distressed servants, whoever they might be. This reasoning we may well suppose that the Hebrews would immediately have advanced had the case been reversed; had the larger part of the sum been furnished by the Grecians, and the Grecian widows had on that account been preferred to the Hebrews. Why did they not reason thus, if they did not thus reason, as the case stood? Because they were under the influence of partiality. Partiality, be it remembered, is the giving of undue preferences. We are all liable, we are all disposed, to be partial. We are partial to ourselves, partial to our families, partial to our connections, partial to our friends. We deem ourselves, our families, our connections, our friends, entitled to attentions, to privileges, to favors, beyond others. We are offended if distinctions are not made for our own benefit; if allowances ampler than those which are usually granted

are not admitted on our behalf. Proceedings, which towards most individuals in our situation we should have acknowledged as highly proper, and should ourselves have been among the foremost to adopt, we resent when held towards us. We fancy that we discern various reasons, which gave us a claim to different treatment: and ascribe it to stupidity, to prejudice, to illiberality, to enmity, that other persons did not discern them, or did not act upon them. Advantages obtained by others we regard as better deserved by ourselves; and we envy and dislike those who have acquired possession of them. The same prejudices, the same groundless constructions, the same unreasonable expectations, we extend to the case, of any other person towards whom we are partial. These are among the ordinary forms, under which partiality displays itself.

Hitherto our partiality to ourselves and to persons connected with us has been contem→ plated chiefly as it influences our judgment and our feelings respecting the conduct of others towards us. The same principle, however, is no less powerful in determining our own sentiments and proceedings towards other men. Are ye not partial? said St. James to the Christians of his day, when,

on

on the entrance of a man of wealth and consequence into their assemblies for religious worship, they were officiously active to place him in a commodious seat: while to a poor man they would say, Stand thou there; or, sit here under my footstool (d). Whence was it that they were thus partial? Because pride led them to value riches and power too highly or because selfishness whispered, that by paying court to the rich and the powerful they might gain some advantage for themselves. Let us beware, under the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, of being partial in our conduct, of having men's persons in admiration because of advantage (e), when our reputation or our interest seems to be concerned. If we have transactions with twe different persons, one of whom in consequence of the authority or the property which he possesses, or of some other external circumstance, appears likely to be able, should he be so disposed, to raise us in the estimation of the world, or to render us an important service, while the other has not any such ability: we must be stedfastly and conscientiously upon our guard, or we shall shew some unwarrantable preference to the forEven if the case be evidently such, (d) James, ii. 1-fo

mer.

(e) Jude, 16.

that

that open preference is due from us to the person who cannot reflect credit upon us, or befriend us: we shall commonly find ourselves barely willing in practice to deal to him equal justice, and positively unwilling to shew towards him as large a measure of kindness, as towards the man by whom we hope to profit in the article of estimation, or of emolument, or in any other real or supposed advantage.

It is apparent then, that whether our partiality employ itself in judging of the proceedings of our neighbours towards us, or in influencing our views and actions towards him, it numbers among its principal sources, selfishness and pride.

It has also been made evident, that affection and personal favor frequently cause us to be partial. We are not required to persuade ourselves that affection and personal favor, if resting on some sufficient foundation, do not justify us when we shew a preference to one person over another in the discretionary exercise of benevolence. But in the very office of conferring kindness they must be habitually regulated under the control of conscience, lest they should produce unreasonable acts and degrees of preference. And in no case will they justify

a failure