Thirdly, let them who are anxious to arrive at just sentiments of religion, keep their minds in a capable state, that is, free from the bias of former decisions made, or of former doubts conceived, at a time, when the power and influence of sinful temptation was upon them, suggested in fact lest they should find themselves obliged to give up some gratifications upon which they had set their hearts; and which decisions, nevertheless, and doubts have the same operation upon their judgments, as if they had been the result of the most pure and impartial reasoning. It is not peculiar to religion: it is true of all subjects, that the mind is sure almost to be misled, which lies under a load of prejudice contracted from circumstances, in which it is next to impossible to weigh arguments justly, or to see clearly. Fourthly, Let them; let all; especially those who find themselves in a dissatisfied state of mind, fly to prayer. Let them pray earnestly and incessantly for God's assisting grace and influence; assisting, if it be his good pleasure, as well our minds and understandings in searching after truth, as our hearts and affections in obeying it. I say again, let us pray unceasingly for grace and help from the Spirit of God. When we pray for any worldly object, we may pray mistakenly. We may be ignorant of our own good; we may err egregiously concerning it. But when we pray for spiritual aid and grace, we are sure that we pray for what we want; for what, if granted, will be the greatest of all blessings. And we pray with hope, because we have this gracious assurance, given us by the Lord himself of grace and mercy; "If ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” Matt. vii. 11.

SERMON XV.

JOHN'S MESSAGE TO JESUS.

Now when John had heard in prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another ?—MATT. xi. 2, 3. THESE words state a transaction, to say the least of it, of a singular kind, and well entitled to observation. Some time before our Lord's appearance, John the Baptist had produced himself to the country, as a messenger of God, and as a public preacher. The principal thing which he taught was, that a greater and more extraordinary person than himself, that is to say, no other than the long-foretold and long-expected Messiah, was about shortly to appear in the world; that for the appearance of this person, which would be the setting up of the kingdom of God upon earth, all men were to prepare themselves by repentance and reformation. Thus did John preach, before it was known or declared, and before he (John himself) knew or declared who this extraordinary person was. It was, as it should seem, upon our Lord's offering himself to John to be baptized of him in Jordan, that John, for the first time, knew and published him to be that person. This testimony and record John afterward repeated concerning him in this manner, and it is remarkable: "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me, for he was before me, and I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him: and I knew him not, but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw and bare record, that this is the Son of God."

It came to pass, that, soon after our Lord's public appearance, John was cast into prison, and there remained, till, by a barbarous order from Herod, in wicked compliance with a wicked vow, this good and courageous servant of God was beheaded. It does not seem quite

certain, whether he was not imprisoned twice. In prison, however, his disciples, as was natural, came to him, and related to him the great things which Jesus had lately been doing; and it appears, from the accounts of the different evangelists, and by laying these accounts together in order of time, that Jesus, a little before this, amongst other miracles, had cured the centurion's servant without coming near him; and had also raised the young man at Nain to life, when they were carrying him out to his funeral: miracles which, it may be be supposed, were much noised abroad in the country. What then did John the Baptist do, upon receiving this intelligence? He sent to Jesus two of his disciples, saying, "Art thou he that should come, or look we for another?"

It will appear odd, that John should entertain any doubt, or require any satisfaction, about this matter. He who had himself publicly announced Jesus to be the Messiah looked for, and that also upon the most undeniable grounds, because he saw the Spirit descending and remaining upon him; the token which had been given him whereby this person was to be distinguished by him.

This was a difficulty which interpreters of Scripture, in very early times, saw: and the answer which they gave to it, I believe to be the true one; namely, that John sent this message, not from any doubt which he himself entertained of the matter, but in order that the doubts which his disciples had conceived about it might receive an answer and satisfaction at the fountain head; from Jesus himself, who was best able to give it.

You will, therefore, now observe what this answer was, and how, and under what circumstances, it was given. If you turn to St. Luke's statement of the transaction, chap. vii. verse 20th, you will there find it expressly asserted, what is only implied and tacitly referred to by St. Matthew (and this is one instance, amongst many, of the advantage of bringing the accounts of the different evangelists together); you will find, I say, that it so happened, I ought to have said, that it was so ordered by Providence, that at the time, the precise hour, when these messengers from John arrived, our Lord was in the very act of working miracles. In that same hour, says Luke, he cured many of infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits, and unto many that were blind he gave sight: 80 that the messengers themselves were eye-witnesses of his powers, and his gifts, and of his mighty works; and to this evidence he refers them; and a more decisive or dignified answer could not possibly have been given. He neither says he was nor he was not the person they inquired after, but bids them take notice and tell John of what they saw, and make their own conclusion from it. "Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard, how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached." It does not, I think, appear, nor is it necessary to suppose, that all these species of miracles were performed then, or before their eyes. It is specifically mentioned that he then cured many plagues and infirmities, cast out evil spirits, and restored sight to the blind: but it is not mentioned, for instance, that he then raised the dead, though that miracle be referred to in his answer. After having wrought, whilst they were present, many and various species of decisive miracles, he was well entitled to demand their credit and assent to others upon his own testimony and assertion.

Now from this answer of our Lord's, we are entitled to infer (and this I think is the useful inference to be drawn from it), that the faith which he required, the assent which he demanded, was a rational assent and faith founded upon proof and evidence. His exhortation was, "Believe me for the very works' sake." He did not bid Philip upon that occasion, or the disciples of John upon this, believe him, because he was the Son of God, because he came down from heaven, because he was in the Father and the Father in him, because he was with God and from God, because the Father had given unto him the Spirit without measure, because he was inspired in the fullest and largest sense of the word; for all these characters and pretensions, though the highest that could belong to any being whatsoever, to a prophet, or to more than a prophet, were nevertheless to be ascertained by facts; when ascertained, they were grounds of the most absolute confidence in his word, of the most implicit and unlimited reliance upon his authority; but they were to be ascertained by facts. To facts, therefore, our Lord appeals; to facts he refers them, and to the

demonstration which they afforded of his power and truth; for shutting their eyes against faith, or more properly speaking, for shutting their hearts and understandings against the proof and conclusion which facts afforded, he pronounces them liable to condemnation. They were to believe his word, because of his works: that was exactly what he required. “The works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me; and the Father himself, who hath sent me, beareth witness of me." (John, v. 36.) It is remarkable that John the Baptist wrought no miracle; therefore the authority and confirming proof of his mission rested very much upon the evidences which were exhibited, not by himself, but by the person whose appearance he professed to foretell; and undoubtedly the miracles of our Lord did, by a reflected operation, establish the preaching of John. For if a person in these days should appear, not working any miracle himself, but declaring that another and greater person was soon to follow, and if that other and greater person did accordingly soon follow, and show forth mighty deeds, the authority of the first person's mission would be ratified by the second person's works. They who might doubt, nay reasonably doubt, concerning the first person's truth and pretensions before, would be fully satisfied of them afterward: and this was exactly the turn which some rational and considerate Jews gave to the matter. "And many resorted to him, and said, John did no miracle ; but all things that John spake of this man were true;" the effect of this observation was, what it ought to be, many believed on him there." John, x. 41, 42.

66

This distinction between our Lord and his forerunner, in one working miracles, and the other not, furnishes an account for two things which we meet with in the Gospels: one is, John's declaring that when the person of whom he spoke should appear, his own ministry, which was then much followed and attended, would sink in importance and esteem. "He must increase, I must decrease-He that cometh after me, is preferred before me—He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness; behold, the same baptiseth, and all men come to him." The other is our Lord's own reflection upon John's testimony in his favour, which was exactly agreeable to the truth of the case. "Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth: but I receive not testimony from man. He was a burning and a shining light; and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. But I have greater witness than that of John-the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me." As if he had said: My own performance of miracles is a higher and surer proof of my mission, than any testimony which could be given to me by another, who did not perform miracles, however great, or praiseworthy, or excellent, his character and his preaching were in all respects, or however much his followers confided in him : the one was the testimony of men, the other of God. "I receive not testimony of man ;” the proofs, which I myself exhibit before your eyes of divine power, supersede human testimony. Again, our Lord put the truth of his pretensions, precisely and specifically upon the evidence of his miracles, (John x. 37.) "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works." What fairer appeal could be made? Could more be done to challenge inquiry, or place the question upon the right ground? Lastly, in the xvth chapter and 24th verse, our Lord fixes the guilt of the unbelieving Jews upon this article, that they rejected miraculous proof, which ought to have convinced them and that, if they had not had such proof, they might have been excusable, or, comparatively speaking, they would not have had sin. His words are very memorable: "If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin.” It appears, therefore, that as well in the answer to John's messengers, as in the other passages of his history and discourses which resemble this, our Lord acted a part the most consistent with his professed character. He referred the messengers who came to him, to miraculous works performed before their eyes, to things done upon the spot; to the testimony of their own senses. "Shew John those things which ye do see and hear." Would, could any other than a prophet come from God do this? In like manner, was it for any other than a divine messenger to bid his very disciples not believe in him, if he did not these works; or to tell unbelievers, that if he had not done among them works which none other man did, their unbelief might have been excusable? In all this we discern conviction and sincerity, fairness, truth, and evidence.

SERMON XVI.

ON INSENSIBILITY TO OFFENCES.

Who can tell how oft he offendeth? O cleanse thou me from my secret faults. Keep thy servant also from presumptuous sins, lest they get the dominion over me.-PSALM Xix. 12, 13.

"The

THESE words express a rational and affecting prayer, according to the sense which they carry with them at first sight, and without entering into any interpretation of them whatsoever. Who is there that will not join heartily in this prayer? for who is there that has not occasion to pray against his sins? We are laden with the weight of our sins. remembrance of them is grievous to us; the burden of them is intolerable." But beyond this, these same words, when they come to be fully understood, have a still stronger meaning, and still more applicable to the state and condition of our souls; which I will endeavour to set before you.

You will observe the expression, "my secret faults: O cleanse thou me from my secret faults." Now the question is, to whom are these faults a secret? to myself, or to others? whether the prayer relates to faults which are concealed from mankind, and are in that sense secret; or to faults which are concealed from the offender himself, and are therefore secret in the most full and strict sense of which the term is capable? Now, I say, that the contents, or whole passage taken together, oblige us to understand the word "secret" in this latter sense for observe two particulars. The first verse of the text runs thus :- "Who can tell how oft he offendeth? O cleanse thou me from my secret faults." Now, to give a connexion to the two parts of this verse, it is necessary to suppose, that one reason, which it was so difficult for any man to know how oft he offendeth, was, that many of his faults were secret; but in what way, and to whom secret? to himself undoubtedly: otherwise the secrecy would have been no reason or cause of that difficulty. The merely being concealed from others would be nothing to the present purpose: because the most concealed sins, in that sense, are as well known to the sinner himself, as those which are detected or most open; and therefore such concealment would not account for the sinner's difficulty in understanding the state of his soul and of his conscience. To me it appears very plain, that the train of the Psalmist's thoughts went thus. He is led to cast back his recollection upon the sins of his life: he finds himself, as many of us must do, lost and bewildered in their number and frequency; because, beside all other reasons of confusion, there were many, which were unnoticed, unreckoned, and unobserved. Against this class of sins, which, for this reason, he calls his secret faults, he raises up his voice to God in prayer. This is evidently, as I think, the train and connexion of thought; and this requires, that the secret faults here spoken of be explained of such faults as were secret to the person himself. It makes no connexion, it carries with it no consistent meaning, to interpret them of those faults which were concealed from others. This is one argument for the exposition contended for; another is the following:-You will observe in the text, that two kinds of sins are distinctly spoken of, under the name of secret faults, and presumptuous sins. The words are, 66 O cleanse thou me from my secret faults; keep thy servant also from presumptuous sins." Now, it will not do to consider these secret faults as merely concealed faults, because they are not necessarily distinguished from, or can be placed in opposition to, presumptuous sins. The Psalmist is here addressing God: he is deeply affected with the state of his soul, and with his sins, considered in relation to God. Now, with respect to God, there may be, and there often is, as much presumption, as much daring, in committing a concealed sin, as in committing a sin which is open to the world. The circumstance of concealment, or detection, makes no difference at all in this respect; and therefore they could not properly be placed in different classes: nor would it be natural so to place them :

but offences which escape the sinner's own notice at the time, may certainly be distinguished from those, which are committed with a high hand, with a full knowledge of the guilt, and defiance of the consequences; and that is, as I believe, the distinction here intended, and the one the Psalmist called his secret faults, the other his presumptuous sins. Upon the whole, therefore, I conclude, that the secret sins, against which the Psalmist prayed, were sins secret to himself.

:

But here, therefore, comes the principal question-How there can be any sins of this sort? how that can be a sin, which is neither observed nor known to be so by the person who commits it? And then there comes also a second consideration, which is, if there be such, what ought to be done with respect to them? Now, as well upon the authority of the text, as upon what is the real case with human nature, when that case is rightly understood, I contend, first, that there are many violations of God's laws, which the men who are guilty of them are not sensible of at the time and yet, secondly, such as that their want of being sensible of them does not excuse, or make them cease to be sins. All this, in truth, is no other, than the regular effect of sinful habits. Such is the power of custom over our consciences, that there is, perhaps, hardly any bad action which a man is capable of committing, that he may not commit so often, as to become unconscious of its guilt, as much as of the most indifferent thing which he does. If some very great and atrocious crimes may be thought exceptions to this observation; and that no habit or custom can by any possibility reconcile them to the human conscience, it is only because they are such as cannot, from their very nature, be repeated so often by the same person, as to become familiar and habitual: if they could, the consequence would be the same; they would be no more thought of by the sinner himself, than other habitual sins are. But great outrageous crimes, against life, for instance, and property, and public safety, may be laid out of the question, as not falling, I trust and believe, within the case of any one who hears me, and as in no case whatever capable of being so common, as to be fair experiments of the strength of our observation. These are not what compose our account with God. A man may be (as indeed most men are) quite free from the crimes of murder, robbery, and the like, and yet be far from the kingdom of God. I fear it may be said of most of us, that the class of sins which compose our account with God, are habitual sins; habitual omissions, and habitual commissions. Now it is true of both these, that we may have continued in them so long; they may have become so familiar to us by repetition; that we think nothing at all of them. We may neglect any duty, till we forget that it is one: we may neglect our prayers, we may neglect our devotion; we may neglect every duty towards God, till we become so unaccustomed and unused to them, as to be insensible that we are incurring any omission, or contracting, from that omission, any guilt which can hurt; and yet we may be, in truth, all the while "treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath." How many thousands, for instance, by omitting to attend the sacrament, have come not to know, that it forms any part of Christian obligation! and long disuse and discontinuance would have the same effect upon any other duty, however plain might be the proof of it when the matter came to be considered.

It is not less so with sins of commission. Serious minds are shocked with observing with what complete unconcern and indifference many forbidden things are practised. The persons who are guilty of them do not, by any mark or symptom whatever, appear to feel the smallest rebuke of conscience, or to have the least sense of either guilt, or danger, or shame, in what they do; and it not only appears to be so, but it is so. They are, in fact, without any notice, consciousness, or compunction, upon the subject. These sins, therefore, if they be such, are secret sins to them. But are they not therefore sins? That becomes the next great question. We must allow, because fact proves it, that habit and custom can destroy the sense and perception of sin. Does the act then, in that person, cease to be any longer a sin? This must be asserted by those who argue, that nothing can be a sin but what is known and understood, and also felt and perceived to be so, by the sinner himself at the time, and who, consequently, deny, that there are any secret sins in our sense of that expression. Now mark the consequences which would follow from such an opinion. It is then the timorous beginner in wicked courses, who alone is to be brought to account. Can such a doctrine bę