applied to all, it applies especially to those who are in the more elevated ranks of life. The ignorant will be likely to follow the example of the learned-the poor will imitate the rich children will copy the manners of their parents. Therefore, even in things which may not be in themselves unlawful, they should, under these circumstances, set an example of self-denial, of plainness, of abstinence for the sake of others beneath them. They should live in a manner that it would be safe and right for all to tread in their footsteps. Three questions should be asked by every Christian to form a guide for action.

1. How did Christ act? Examine his life. He lived "not to please Himself." Though He was rich, yet He so lived that all might safely imitate Him; though He was honoured of God, and was exalted to the highest station as the Redeemer of the world, yet He so lived that all in every rank might follow Him-though He had all power, and was worshipped by angels, yet He so lived that He might teach the most humble and lowly how to live. So should every person in high station-so should every noble and learned man live-so should every minister of the gospel live-so should every head of a family live-so should every man of age and wisdom live, that others may learn of them how to live, that they may safely walk in the way pointed out to them.

2. How did St. Paul act? His conduct marks a great, a disinterested, and magnanimous spirit—a spirit seeking the good of all, supremely anxious for the glory of God and the salvation of man-a spirit that could make personal comfort and gratification subservient to the welfare of others. This is rare Christianity; how seldom is it practised! Paul did not form this resolution because he was impressed with the unlawfulness of eating meat, but because he was impressed that, though lawful, his example might be the occasion of sin unto others. This may be applied to Christians of the present day in many things which are practised amongst them. Some we have already mentioned, such as amusements, entertainments, and the use of intoxicating drinks. You may

be safe at a festival, or a public dinner, or a large convivial party; you may be safe in practising some games for the amusement of yourself and friends; you may be safe in the use of wine and other fermented liquors: but all do not possess the same strength of resolution, or have the same knowledge or discretion as you; they have been led by your example to do the same, and have fallen into sin. Would it be right for you to continue the practice under the circumstances? Would Christ have done it? Would St. Paul have done it? Take them for your example, then you can stand forth as a safe example to others.

3. The third question to be asked is, What does my Christian profession require from me? You will find, I think, that it requires every man to look not on his own things, but every man also on the things of others." You will find, I think, that it requires we should "bear one another's burden, and so fulfil the law of Christ." You will find, I think, that "we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves." Such are the principles to which we subscribed in our baptismal and confirmation vows, which vows we confirm each time we approach the Lord's Table. Does our conduct bear them out? Can we afford to be exclusive from the world for the sake of others? Can we sacrifice the gratification of our own feelings although they be lawful in themselves, lest we place a stumbling-block in the way of our weaker brethren? If all Christians possessed Paul's delicate sensibilities, and Paul's strength of Christian virtue, and Paul's willingness to deny himself for the benefit of others, the aspect of the Christian world would soon be changed, many of the practices in which we now indulge would be abandoned, and every Christian would be seen setting such examples that all others could safely follow.

280

The Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity.

MORNING SERVICE.-Second Lesson: Mark iii.

Verse 29.-" But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation."

EVERY sin is an evil which incurs a penalty in proportion to its extent and aggravation. There are, however, gradations in sin, consequently there are gradations in punishment. For instance, a sin committed through the infirmity of the mind, when by the surprise of a sudden temptation, a person succumbs to the attack of an enemy without being previously warned of the danger, does not incur the same amount of punishment as a sin deliberately committed from a designed motive of gratifying an evil propensity. A sin committed against a man is less aggravated than a sin committed directly against God. A sin conceived in the mind is less aggravated than when it is reduced into practice by word or deed. An assault made on the person of an individual, is of less serious consequences than an assault made upon his character and public interests. Hence arises the difference in the extent of retributive justice. Such a distinction is borne out by our Saviour in the context. "Verily, I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they may blaspheme; But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." In the parallel passage in St. Matthew, it is added, " And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." The direct reference is to the conduct of

the Pharisees in attributing His power of working miracles to Beelzebub, whereas it was really done by the Spirit of God. Therefore they reproached and blasphemed the Divine power therein exhibited. He tells them that if they confined their reproaches to His person as man, their conduct would be pardonable. If they merely despised Him for His poverty, and meanness of birth, or merely censured Him as a gluttonous man, a winebibber, and a friend of publicans and sinners, they should be forgiven; but if they blasphemed that Divine power by which He performed His mighty works, and attributed to the devil what belonged exclusively to the Holy Ghost, their condition was not only dangerous, but desperate, and if they continued to express such notions, contrary to the convictions of their better informed minds, their state would become hopeless, having no prospect of forgiveness under any dispensation in this world or the

next.

The subject introduced to us in the text is what is called the unpardonable sin, or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, or as St. John calls it, "a sin unto death." We shall therefore enquire, First, In what does this sin consist? and secondly, Why is it unpardonable?

I. In what does this unpardonable sin consist?

This is a subject of rare importance. May we be favoured with Divine light to treat it consistently. Our Saviour declares that "all (other) sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men." However aggravated their form-however frequent their repetition, they are not beyond the pale of forgiveness. "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." But He Himself has made this one exception, and it is the only one within the Christian code, varied and comprehensive as it is; and observe even this one is made in a very qualified form. He does not say, he that shall sin, but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost. We have all sinned against the Holy Ghost; when we resist Him as our Guide-our Comforter-our Sanctifier-our Helper, we

sin against Him. All those who grieve the Spirit, quench the Spirit, tempt the Spirit, and endeavour to shake off the convictions of the Spirit from the conscience, sin against Him. Each of us has done this times out of number. We do it whenever the voice of conscience is hushed—whenever we commit a sin contrary to our convictions-whenever our evil propensities have the ascendancy over our knowledge.

The term employed here is blaspheme. Blasphemy is the act of the tongue, and it is the most abominable act of which the tongue is capable; it is an index of the deepest depravity of the human mind—an overflow of the most pernicious malignity of the human heart. To slander a neighbour is a crime akin to felony, to slander a friend is the height of wicked ingratitude, to slander God in the operations of His Spirit, is an unpardonable sin.

The offence therefore, is blasphemy; not blasphemy against God in His Majesty and attributes, but against Him in the operations of His Spirit on the heart of man. In the former case it is pardonable for the reason that no slanderous language of man can effect the least injury or change upon His Divine Being; in the latter case, such language tends to destroy the work intended for man's salvation.

The combination of two dispositions seems to be absolute to compose this sin; first, a thorough conviction in the mind of the reality of the Spirit's work and office as declared in the Gospel; and secondly, a malicious determination to oppose the truth contrary to that conviction. In this view of the case we have but one instance in Scripture of a person incurring the guilt, and that was the case of Judas Iscariot. He was, according to his own testimony, convinced of the Saviour's true Messiahship, but still such was the malicious perfidy of his heart that he consented to sell Him as a deceiver and impostor. When Peter denied his Lord, he was guilty of sinning contrary to the convictions of an enlightened mind, but he did it from the lack of resolution to withstand the shock of temptation, and not from a feeling of hatred and malice against Christ. Paul, in writing to Timothy says, that