3. It is evident from these descriptions, that no one, who retains the profession of Christianity, can be supposed to be included in any of these denunciations. Indeed they are not applicable to any but those, who, from malignity of heart, reject or apostatize from the Gospel, and who endanger the comfort and stability of others by an open, active, acrimonious cavilling against its evidences and doctrines. And as wilful apostacy and opposition, arising from depravity of heart, alone produces the full measure of guilt, none but they who have the gift of "discerning of spirits," can be authorized to ascribe this guilt to any of their fellow-sinners. We cannot now incur it by opposition to sensible and present miracles. Yet what the evidence of the Gospel now wants in that respect, is perhaps abundantly counterbalanced by many circumstances, which, since the Apostolic times, have augmented, and strengthened, and made still more satisfactory, the arguments in behalf of the Gospel. We therefore cannot deny the possibility of the crime, even in our own circumstances; but we must rather dread its approaches in ourselves, than venture to impute it to others. And as it is a crime which is brought into full operation by actually leading, not only to suppressed infidelity, but to open revilings directed against the Gospel, we shall, at least, do well in suffering the caution,

which our Lord subjoined to this denunciation,. to work its full effect upon that "unruly member the tongue," and upon that corrupt fountain the heart, "out of the abundance of which the tongue speaks." "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt; for the tree is known by his fruit. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

II. I observed that a second cavil was also advanced against the sufficiency of the proofs, by which the mission of Jesus was supported, in the demand of a particular species of evidence which the Jews chose to require. One of the occasions upon which it was advanced, was after our Lord had refuted the former one. "Then certain of the Scribes and Pharisees, answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee." This demand was however made on several occasions; and it is more fully expressed by St. Mark, when

he mentions the repetition of it after the feeding of the four thousand. "The Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. And he sighed deeply in his Spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? There shall no sign be given to this generation"." No sign, such as they required, would be exhibited to them. For alas! they knew as little what they asked, as do those who, in playful but thoughtless depravity, invoke ' damnation on their souls.' They referred to the sign of "the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven," of which Daniel had spoken. But, as our Saviour observed with reference to the same prophecy, "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.-And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." There was a time, however, when Jesus, avowing his Messiahship to the high priest, said with awful significancy,

a Mark viii. 11, 12.

Matt. xxv. 31-46. Compare this with Dan. vii. 9-14.

"Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Yet, even after that declaration, they continued the same "blasphemy against the Son of man," the same neglect, and even contempt of the various evidences which he had exhibited of his authority, and again specified that particular evidence, which alone would induce them to abandon their unbelief. "He saved others, himself he cannot save. Let Christ, the king of Israel, descend now from the cross, that we may see and believed." Again, they knew not what they asked. Jesus came to destroy every enemy of man's salvation, by "triumphing over them on his cross." To have complied with their demand, would have been to have left undone the work which he was then about to finish. Jesus made not any answer to them from the cross; for he knew that the glory, which would follow his sufferings, would be made known by his resurrection from the dead, and that the gifts, which he would receive for men, would soon be poured down from on high. But on the former occasions, though unwittingly they had made a demand with which it was impossible to comply, he answered them

e Matt. xxvi. 64.

d Mark xv. 29-32. It is worthy of notice that this allows the miracles of Jesus, and that he had advanced a claim to be the Messiah.

1

according to their intention. For they meant to require another evidence, in addition to all that had previously been afforded. And although no such sign, as that to which they had alluded, would be given to that generation, another would be given, which he described under the phrase "the sign of the Prophet Jonas." "For," added our Lord in explanation, "as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth "."

a

In what manner that prediction was fulfilled, it is unnecessary to repeat. But let it be observed that, in two different respects, the spirit of infidelity ignorantly and erroneously objected to the sufficiency of the proofs that Jesus was what he claimed to be. They hastily complained of the supposed deficiency, when a little patience would have furnished them with decisive evidence. It was not indeed of the precise kind which they demanded; but the question which they ought to have considered was, whether it was not sufficient.—And again, they insisted on the want of such exhibitions of the power of Jesus as could not have been given consistently either with the intentions of God, or the good of mankind. Yet infidelity still continues to make similar objections and

Matt. xii. 39, &c.