Matthew XII

1. At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.

2. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

3. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him;

4. How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

5. Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

6. But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

7. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

8. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

9. And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue.

I. “His disciples were an hungered.” All positive laws must yield to man’s necessities. The law as a formal commandment may be broken, yet its spirit may be honoured. An illustration is supplied in this incident. Hunger must be appeased, else life would suffer; and throughout all the Divine economy the importance of life, specially of human life, is signally indicated. Life must be first satisfied, afterwards law may be observed, but law is nothing apart from life.

II. There is a relation of life to positive laws; there is a relation to moral law which is higher, and more exacting. The man who dies of hunger because some positive enactment binds him to a certain course, is guilty of suicide; but the man who dies of hunger rather than break a moral law is the subject of martyrdom.

III. Christ shows that in all ages circumstances have arisen which have necessitated a violation of literal Sabbatism, — David ate the shewbread, and the priests profaned the temple, and yet were guiltless.

Christ’s answer to the Pharisees shows: — I. That exceptional circumstances must be provided for under all dispensations; 2. That profanation of the Sabbath, as in the case of the priests, is blameless if it be the result of the necessities of life; and, 3. That the observance of all law is a question of the spirit rather than of the letter, — of “mercy” rather than “sacrifice.”

Sabbath observance must be determined by the spirit. No man can literally, under all circumstances, keep the fourth commandment, yet all men may keep it in spirit. God “rested,” — man must rest. Whenever man rests from his usual occupation he admits the Sabbatic principle, whatever he may contend as to the details of the case. If man does not rest from his labours, he does not follow the example of God, and by so much he makes himself wiser than God, and so by a roundabout process he proves himself to be a fool. The fool always lives an expensive life, — he wastes his nervous force, he weakens his intellectual power, he diminishes his moral capacity, he rots away into the lowest degree of manhood, and only stops there because there is no deeper humiliation.

10. And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? that they might accuse him.

11. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?

12. How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

13. Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.

Christ adopts the analogical and cumulative method of argument: from the few points which His adversaries were prepared to grant, He reasoned to conclusions which they would gladly have escaped. He shows again and again that man does in his little sphere precisely as God does in the universe, and thus by a large concession to the rational element in man, He carries His hearers irresistibly to the results which He came to establish. The Pharisees allowed that it was right to save a sheep, yet they quibbled about the healing of a man! It was enough for Christ’s purpose that they granted the first, and He consequently proceeded to show that the legitimate expansion of their own principle would involve the very act on His part of which they complained. The incident shows — 1. That prejudice may restrain the exercise of benevolence; 2. That men (such as the Pharisees) may put religious inquiries in a very irreligious spirit; 3. That right-doing should be prosecuted in the very presence of the most resolute opposition; 4. That well-doing, not well-talking, is the true method of keeping the Sabbath-day.

Dr. Adam Clarke has well said that “there are four ways in which positive laws may cease to oblige. First, by the natural law of necessity: Secondly, by a particular law which is superior: Thirdly, by the law of charity and mercy: Fourthly, by the dispensation and authority of the lawgiver.”

14. Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him,

15. But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;

16. And charged them that they should not make him known;

17. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

18. Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles.

19. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.

20. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.

21. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

Here is another instance of the Pharisees taking one course, and the multitudes another; the former were inspired with envy, the latter were conscious of most painful need. These two states of mind, with all the modifications which lie between them, explain the treatment which Christ has ever received at the hands of men. The whole paragraph may be used homiletically to show: — 1. The action of the Pharisees: 2. The action of the multitudes: 3. The action of the Saviour. The action of the Pharisees shows the operation of an envious spirit: — 1. It blinds the mind to a right interpretation of the prophetic and historic writings;

2. It sets laws of arrangement above laws of life; 3. It sacrifices human happiness to the dignity of effete dogmas; 4. It hates and seeks to destroy every manifestation of God which does not comport with its own preconceptions. The action of the multitudes shows: — 1. That bodily suffering may develop a courage superior to the tyranny of sectarian prejudice; 2. That men are impelled to seek the Saviour more earnestly through suffering than through speculation;

3. That suffering men are more anxious to follow a practical philanthropist than a conventionally recognised theorist. The action of Christ shows: — 1. That prudence is an element of the highest courage; 2. That the prevention of mischief was as much His business as its cure; 3. That the foiling of an evil design need not prevent the fulfilment of a good one — “he healed them all;” 4. That the most vital and stupendous results maybe obtained without vicious excitement; 5. That the most exciting predictions may be fulfilled in the quietest life. Noise has never done much for the world. “The greatest objects in nature are the stillest.”

22. Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.

23. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is this the Son of David?

24. But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

25. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

26. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

27. And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

28. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

The Pharisees are once more at their work. They knew of two causes to which great effects were commonly attributed — namely, God and the devil; and you have only to give some men the remotest possible opportunity of crediting the devil with any work, and they will, with the most indecent eagerness, avail themselves of it. The argument of the Pharisees was not devoid of ingenuity; it seems to take some such turn as this, — “Christ and the devil are in league; they are, apparently, or even really, casting out devils now, so that they may attract attention and widen their influence; all this expulsion of devils seems very well at present, but by feigning to commit suicide the devil is actually getting men more entirely into his power, the whole thing is a deep-laid plot, he casteth out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.” The reply of Christ struck at the root of this sophism, and His personal home-thrust covered them with confusion: — “And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children, your associates, your recognised exorcists, cast them out?” It is remarkable how in every case Christ found some point in the creed or life of His adversaries on which to base a defence of Himself; in every case He cut off the head of Goliath with Goliath’s own sword. They who fight against God are whetting weapons for their own destruction!

This was an extraordinary case of healing; the man was possessed with a devil, blind and dumb. The human system could not have been more thoroughly despoiled. The man stood off at the extreme end of society, — as near death as a poor shattered life could be while yet numbered among men. Every human voice had failed to recall him to consciousness, or to give him completeness as a man. Christ came for the express purpose of seeking and saving the lost, and now a lost man, in a special sense, was before Him, a humiliating and saddening spectacle. A word was enough — “he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.” Christ was ever seeking the completeness of human nature, — the fulfilment of God’s ideal; and in this case, as in every other, His power and His love prevailed against the devil. It was such an occasion as might have filled all hearts with holy joy, and brought all spirits in reverent and loving homage to the Saviour’s feet, yet the Pharisees pronounced the cure a devil’s trick, and blasphemed against God. The best protest which we can offer against the pharisaic spirit is — i. To remember that Jesus Christ is still the healer of humanity; and, 2. To make continual application to Him until the whole purpose of His redemption is complete in our nature, — body, soul, and spirit. It is not only possible but easy while denouncing the pharisaic name to be cultivating the pharisaic spirit.

So far as we have proceeded in this chapter, we have had repeated illustrations of the obstructiveness of the Pharisees. See how the case stands: the Pharisees complained of the disciples for eating the ears of corn; the Pharisees reproached

Christ for healing the withered hand on the Sabbath day; the Pharisees went out and held a council against Him; the Pharisees said that He cast out devils by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. Thus at every step they opposed Him; when He moved, He moved through the centre of an armed host. Nothing but infinite love could have carried Him through dangers so numerous and terrible; He went with His life in His hand, — His whole life was a lingering death, — His entire service was an atonement for the sins of the world.

29. Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

30. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

The enemy of man is well represented as being “strong.”

There is this difference between the strength of God and the

strength of the devil, — God’s strength is employed in the

salvation, and Satan’s in the destruction of man. The work

of destruction is always easy, so that a little strength goes a

great way. The fact that the devil is strong should — 1.

Inspire men with continual fear of his temptations; and, 2.

Impel them towards Christ to seek the only strength which

can overcome them. In the thirtieth verse, Christ presents

Himself as the man by whom all men should either rise or

fall. He was the standard, so that men knew whether they

were right or wrong according as they stood in an affirmative

or a negative relation to Himself. These claims to priority

are invaluable collateral illustrations of His divinity. They

establish that marvellous consistency of His character which

more than any mere statement or reasoning gives one to

feel that He was not of the world, and that the world

without Him would be a world without life or light. Men

say that union is strength; this is true, but it should be

remembered that individuality is also strength. The man

K who is divided against himself is weak; the man whose convictions, sympathies, and actions all move in one direction is mighty either for good or evil.

The whole paragraph may receive fuller treatment thus: —

Imagine the spectacle — a man “possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb.” Here is more of Satan’s work. His way may be tracked by the ruins he has wrought. Blood-pools are his footprints. Darkness is his mantle. His whole force is directed against the temple of manhood. As I gaze on this melancholy sight, it speaks to me, saying, “I am but a picture of what Satan would make the whole world!” He would enthrone himself on every intellect. He would poison all love-streams. He would close the eye, that it might no longer dwell upon the glories of the universe. Every song of hope, every anthem of joy, he would silence; and when all men were fully under his dominion, he would announce his triumph with shouts of scornful laughter, and would gaze with pride on a universal hell. I wish you, then, to take this demon-bound, blind, dumb man, as a sample of Satan’s work — as an indication of what he would make of yourselves but for the restraint of a merciful and omnipotent God.

I shall use this incident, —

I. To show the Good Man’s relation to the world

OF WANT.

This world is a wide one. It embraces the physical, mental, and moral nature of man. The world’s great empty hand is evermore thrust out in token of deep and urgent necessity; and its imploring, want-revealing eye is ever looking for a Helper. You need not force your way to the abodes of poverty, squalor, and misery, to find lean, hungry, eager want. You may find it in every home, because you may find it in every heart. It has its manifold modifications indeed, but there it is — its bosom an aching void, its voice an everlasting appeal. Into this world of want the gentle

Saviour — the Good Man — came; and as I observe Him, with all the dignity of essential divinity, and yet with the tremulous tenderness of sympathetic manhood, walking up and down among the children of men — gazing upon them through His pure tears, shedding upon them His living smile, touching them with His brotherly hand, and speaking to them with His voice of love — I see in Him, and His work, the Good Man’s relation to the world of want.

And around this relation many ideas — blushing with divinest beauty — cluster. Take three of them: —

First. The Good Man is approachable. He did not isolate Himself in gloomy grandeur, and do His deeds of mercy at an immeasurable distance. He might have done so. He might have hidden Himself, either in a pavilion of light or a tabernacle of darkness, and scattered His blessings thence. Instead of this chilling isolation, we find the holy Saviour mingling with men — communing with the inquirer, hearkening to the needy, feeding the hungry, and blessing all. Even little children could find access to the arms which were to be stretched in sacrificial death, and infancy was not too feeble to sustain the tender blessing of a tender Saviour. Do you ever find Him too weary to help the helpless? Does He ever plead His own indulgence as a reason for not receiving others? Never! — blessed be His sacred name — never!

Second. The Good Man is sympathetic. Jesus did not do His miracles as mere feats of power — as displays of proud ability. He often came to His work with tears. His sympathy trembled with compassion, and dissolved in showers, before He put forth the arm of His irresistible power! I have often been struck with the manner in which power was preceded by sympathy. It might have been otherwise. Miracles need not have been softened, mellowed, beautified by tenderness. The tear of sympathy need not have prek 2 ceded the shout of power at the grave of Lazarus. But it did, and we thank God for it! God walked forth on the wings of the power, but man trembled in the tear. It was a glorious union. Power with a tear in its eye, — the eyelids of Omnipotence wet with the tears of sympathy. Ay, that is mystery — that is God!

Third. The Good Man is unostentatious. “And He healed him.” Such is the simple phraseology in which this stupendous act is transmitted to posterity! What a mass of meaning is condensed into that little phrase! The devils banished — sight revelling in countless glories — mouth opened in song, — all wrapt up in that simple statement, — “And He healed him”! Many a man has made more demonstration in the simplest act of charity than Christ made in His sublimest, His world-amazing deeds. The angel named Charity, nightingale-like, sings her soft, rich, mellow song in the hush of midnight, with few listeners but the silent, bright-eyed stars. Love, charity, sympathy, and the other celestial sisters, run their errands noiselessly. They do not “strive or cry, neither doth any man hear their voice in the streets:” they are gentle-handed — “the bruised reed” they never broke; they are tender-hearted — “the smoking flax” they never quenched!

Such is the Good Man in his relation to the world of want. What Christ was, we should be in our degree. We must, indeed, move at a humble distance, but our business is to move in the same direction. We should be approachable, sympathetic, unostentatious, and thus reflect the splendour of a peerless example.

I use this incident, —

II. To SHOW THE DEVIL’S RELATION TO GOOD MEN.

I take those captious Pharisees as a type of the devil; and I think not unjustly so, for they are doing the devil’s work. Regarding them in this capacity, I am warranted in making this second use of the incident, — How did those devil’s men

use Christ?

First. They resorted to personal abuse, — “This fellow.”

Nothing easier than to use bad names; but bad names are bad arguments. When your opponent is driven to personal abuse he is driven to his wit’s end, and you may safely leave him. Never throw mud. You may miss your mark, but you must have dirty hands. “This fellow” is no argument, it is scurrility — it is a faint spark of hell-fire; the man who throws that would throw something deadlier if he could.

Second. They ignored, the value of the greatest blessings. They could not deny that the devil was gone, but were they glad that he was gone? So with the enemies of good men now. Good men are doing great deeds in the name of God, but there are many detractors. Even ministers are occasionally guilty of this habit of detraction in relation to their brother ministers. They cannot bear that their brethren should cast out too many devils: they don’t care for an imp or two being expelled, but there is a point beyond which fraternal jealousy shows its glaring eyes, its clenched teeth, and its pitiless sword. Such men always endeavour to make a brother’s success appear as little as possible. If, by changing an accent or modifying an emphasis, they can reduce a little, they are prone to avail themselves of these pitiful trickeries. Be it known, however, that such is not the Gospel spirit: it may be robed in the silk of orthodoxy, and bound with the purest white, but it is not heaven-born, and cannot be heaven-tending.

Third. They insulted the plainest common sense. Jesus knew their thoughts, and exposed the hollowness of their reasoning. He tore their sophistry to rags.” Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. And if Satan

1/ cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand?” In this pointed manner did Jesus show how common sense was outraged. But what is common sense to men who have an object to gain? They are determined to be at a certain point, and, if common sense stand in the way, cut it down — bury it beneath the most scornful insults, and gain their point. It is even so with the enemies of the Cross now; they can trample upon the simplest rules of argument, they can defame the holy name of reason, and turn the sacred temple of conscience into a place of fradulent merchandise.

Fourth. They attempted to trace good results to a bad cause. What do such men care for philosophy? It is nothing in their way to ascribe good to evil; they know that a corrupt fountain can bring forth pure streams, — they know that “cause and effect” is an old sophism, hatched by a school of sleepy-headed, brooding philosophers. It is the same with the enemies of Christ now. When a man is converted, and becomes a new creature, there are many ready to ignore the Holy Spirit, and the “precious blood” of Jesus, and to attribute the change to education, or example, or even to the devil himself, — to any one rather than to God.

Fifth. They falsified the deepest and truest instincts of human nature. “And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?” Still, you observe, they plunge headlong into ruin; they have overthrown common sense; they have laughed philosophy to scorn, and now let parental affection go too. The copestone once off, the wall soon disappears. They are quite willing that their children should be proclaimed the emissaries of Satan — anything; anything that Christ’s honour might be smitten, and Christ’s heart stabbed. They were bent on murder, and whatever or whoever stood in their way must bear the consequence of their fiery madness.

31. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32. 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.

This doctrine will receive its true elucidation by reviewing the preceding verses. The climax of guilt had been nearly reached by the Pharisees, when they charged Christ with Satanic complicity in casting out devils. They had “spoken a word against the Son of man,” and their madness was thereby nearly reaching the fatal point. Whether this extraordinary and much-controverted passage has yet received its true exposition may be doubted. The meaning seems to be this — “I am the Son of man; there are features about my method of revealing myself to the world which may stagger the prejudices of you Pharisees; I am poor, lonely, unprotected, and unpatronised by influential men; my incarnation has shocked all your anticipations; then be it known to you that though God may condescend to save you as parties belonging to the former dispensation, yet henceforth, after my ascension, I shall be revealed to men by the Holy Ghost, who shall take of mine and show it unto them; and then whosoever shall speak against the Holy Ghost will speak against me, and having done so will have rejected the only method of salvation, and thus incurred a guilt which will cleave to him in all worlds, through all time.”

This meaning: — 1. Simplifies the expression; and 2. Saves the co-equality of Christ with the Spirit. Jesus Christ, not the Holy Ghost, is the Redeemer and Saviour of men; our iniquities were laid upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. The whole burden of redemption having been sustained by Him, it would, therefore, be inexplicable if the Redeemer could be dishonoured with impunity, and if the Holy Spirit, whose function is to reveal and glorify Him, could be spoken against in His simple individuality, without unpardonable guilt being the result. This interpretation degrades the person and work of Christ; but the meaning which had been suggested proceeds upon the ground that the Holy Spirit is the revealer of Christ, that Christ is the only way of salvation, and that by speaking against the Revealing Spirit men are also speaking against the Redeeming Son, and thus rendering themselves inexcusable and unpardonable. This meaning, and to it we attach immense importance, 3, gives us a more hopeful view than any other of the fate of Christ’s betrayers and murderers. Christ Himself said — “They know not what they do:” the Holy Ghost was not then given in connection with His name; men saw only the Son of man according to the flesh, and in a mistaken zeal for God they put Christ to death. In our day, however, we stand on a different basis; the work of Christ has been completed; He is now represented by the Spirit, and to speak against the Spirit is to rebel against the whole economy of redemption, and he who does that cannot be forgiven.

Another interpretation is that the sin against the Holy Ghost is simply the sin of attributing Divine operations to Satanic agency. This view is supported by Mark’s report of the discourse — “Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme, but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.” (Mark iii. 28 — 30.) This is in perfect harmony with the meaning which has been suggested, viz., that the spiritual is inclusive: Christ in the flesh was a link in a chain; Christ risen and glorified, and represented by the Spirit, is the fulness and glory of God.

He who seeks to turn God Himself into an unclean spirit can never be forgiven. As to persons frightening themselves lest they have committed the inexpiable sin, the old answer is still the best, viz., if they had done so they would have been totally indifferent to consequences.

33. 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.

Christ demands consistency in every argument or imputation. He had been doing a good work, and the Pharisees traced it to a bad cause; He now rebukes them by saying: “Have some respect for your own consistency as reasoners — not only call me a bad tree but call that cured man bad fruit, for the tree is known by his fruit.” Thus Christ stands or falls with His own works. Again and again He insisted on putting the works forward as a basis of faith in Himself. Christ abides by the simple law of cause and effect; a bad man may do an occasional good deed (good by the outside), but the life that is uniformly beneficent, being inspired by a good motive, is necessarily good. Christ, then, reduced the argument concerning Himself to the simplest possible limits — He pointed to a pure stream, and contended that such a stream could come only from a pure fountain.

34. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

35. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

He now retorts upon His accusers. He moves along the same line of argument, the line of cause and effect, and directly accuses them of bad-heartedness: from bad hearts bad words may be expected; where the heart is wrong the whole thought and speech and habit are wrong. Christ thus goes to the core of all mischief, and so proves that

He well understands the nature which He has come
to redeem.

36. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

37. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

This gives us a most solemn view of words. Language is the principal medium of communication between man and man; by it thought is disclosed and purpose is stated; by it covenants are made, and upon its interpretation great speculations are based; if, therefore, language be vitiated, or used with double meanings, or anywise distorted, the most disastrous results may follow. It may seem an easy thing merely to speak against God or man, but there may be blasphemy in a word — there may be poison in a syllable. Solemn subjects demand solemn treatment. The Divine name is not to be profanely pronounced, and human character is to be treated as a sacred possession. Great destinies may hang upon a word; the peace of a day or of a lifetime may be broken by a harsh expression. This text has been quoted in condemnation of all pleasantry, but this is a perversion of its meaning — altogether a pointless and most absurd application of its import. The primary, and indeed exclusive, reference is to the most solemn subject that can engage human attention, and upon such a subject no idle word must be spoken; men must not talk irreligiously about religion; men may enjoy to the utmost all wit and laughter, but are forbidden to talk insincerely or ambiguously upon solemn subjects.

While bad speaking is thus condemned, good speaking is enjoined by implication. Bad men are not slow to show their corrupt spirit; nor should good men be too timid to bear their testimony in God’s name. When the heart is right, the tongue will be eloquent for God.

38. Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.

39. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.

40. For 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.

41. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

42. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uppermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

Bad-hearted people can never be satisfied with the amount of evidence which is placed before them in illustration of Christ’s divinity. They don’t want Him to be Divine, and they consequently turn the very light into darkness. The Pharisees had seen sign upon sign, yet they asked for another, as if none had ever been granted. Christ gave them to know that the only sign which should be shown unto them was His own immortality; out of His death He would come up clothed with “all power in heaven and on earth;” the momentary eclipse would be succeeded by eternal light.

Every age is responsible to its own prophet — Nineveh to Jonah, England to Christ. Men are to be judged according to the degree of light under which they have lived. What, then, must be the judgment of England? This prediction respecting the ages confronting one another in judgment is most suggestive. I. Here is the fact of human resurrection — “the men of Nineveh shall rise;” “the queen of the south shall rise;” 2. Here is the fact of human judgment — “the men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment,’” “the queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment.” Take the startling announcement that Christ is greater than Solomon. How greater? 1. Not in the abundance of secular possessions; 2. Not in the extent of political influence. How then? I. In His perfect familiarity with the future; 2. In the infinite purity of His character; 3. In the spiritual resources at His command; (a) Solomon appealed to the intellectual nature, but Christ to the depraved and ruined heart; (b) Solomon’s gifts were compatible with his own selfish enjoyment, but Christ’s involved a sacrificial life and death; 4. In the posthumous relation which Christ sustains to men; (a) Solomon has no power to condemn or acquit; (b) Solomon himself must stand at the common bar. From the whole subject we may learn: — 1. That Christ demands the supreme attention of the world; 2. That man becomes great in proportion to his union with Christ; 3. That the most terrible guilt is involved in the neglect of this last and greatest of the prophets of God.

43. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.

44. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.

45. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

Christ is still continuing His discourse occasioned by the charge of casting out devils by Beelzebub. That charge aroused Him to the very depth of His being, directed as it was against the very divinity of God. The cured man is still the text. In these words Christ shows the awful fate of those who have undergone a merely negative change; the unclean spirit has been expelled, but the Holy Spirit has not been besought to enter. The unclean spirit cannot find rest away from the human heart; no sea was ever so restless as the great deep of an unclean spirit. The consequence is that the unclean spirit returns to the heart out of which it had been driven, and, if that heart be not occupied with engagements worthy of its nature and destiny, its last state shall be worse than its first. The great appeal suggested by this text is to persons who have ceased to do evil, but have not learned to do well; and the solemn fact to be pressed home upon every man is that Salvation is not only deliverance from the devil, but perfect union with God.

46. While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

47. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

48. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

49. And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

50. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

This declaration respecting His kindred would serve to show: 1. The intense spirituality of Christ’s mission;

2. The comprehensive philanthropy of Christ’s heart;

3. The true nature of man’s union with Christ; 4. The high privileges secured by a living union with the Saviour. This statement further shows: (a) That connection with Christ is not determined by social position; (b) That connection with Christ is not a question of mere physical affinity. A chivalrous queen is reported to have said that her country was her husband. Christ says that all who do His Father’s will are His brethren! 1. There is but one infallible will; 2. This infallible will may be disregarded; 3. This infallible will appeals for universal obedience.

GENERAL NOTE ON THE WHOLE CHAPTER.

The whole chapter shows how mighty must have been the motive which controlled the life of Christ; otherwise, with so much that was discouraging on the outside, He would have thrown up His mission in anger and disgust. The religious people were against Him; and this fact is not sufficiently pondered by those who estimate the difficulties of His position, or by those who are often discouraged in the same way. The “sinners” were not Christ’s opponents. The thieves and the harlots did not take up stones to stone Him; on the contrary, the chief priests, the Pharisees, the Scribes, the conservative theologians, were against Him to a man! This is a most extraordinary, but most impressive and suggestive fact, not only as a point in history, but as a principle in daily life. The fact is not only historic, it has all the newness of to-day upon it. Whoever shall arise to do any great work in the world will have the professedly religious people against him. The religion of some hearts appears merely to have increased their pugnacity and morbid sensitiveness, without working in them any breadth of holy charity or any power of self-reserve. They would fight Christ Himself, were He to reappear in any other form than that which would harmonise with their preconceived notions. This is proved by the rigour of their denominationalism. Christendom is divided as clearly into Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees, as ever the Jews were. The Christ who would be welcomed by one sect would be suspected by other sects. This must be so, for the sects suspect one another, and seldom forego an opportunity of inflicting mutual injury. Here, then, is a solemn and startling fact, that Christ was opposed by all the religious people of His day. Yet, with passion of love He toiled through all the trouble of His work! He never lost a moment through petulance or retaliation; He never said, “Well, die if you like, I shall care no longer for you;” but, with patience which put all other patience to shame, He worked until the time of His tarrying among men expired, and even then He shed tears where He might have hurled lightnings. His Life was Love; no other word is deep enough to reach its mystery — to explain its meaning. Yet to-day He is the Rejected Man; society treats Him as an enemy; men speak of Him so seldom that one would deem His a shadowed name, not fit to be pronounced; yes, even now, in a land that is covered with churches, Christ stands on the outside waiting to be invited — eager to be loved — but the Pharisee knows Him not, and charges Him with blasphemy.

Christ’s relation to “sinners” is, however, to be looked at in the light of the fact that they had no deep religious convictions to be shocked. In their case, Christ had no theological preconceptions to overget; they were cast out and despised, consequently any gleam of hope which fell on their darkness was magnified by their grateful surprise: they little expected it, and, when it came, it was inexpressibly welcome. Another fact to be noted is, that when sinners came to Christ, they abandoned their sinfulness. They did not love Christ on the ground that He was indifferent to sin, or that He was such an one as themselves; they loved Him for love, and, though incapable of arbitrating between Him and the Pharisees upon theological differences, yet they felt that His heart glowed with the most ardent and exalted affection towards guilty, abject, and friendless sinners. It is common in our day to talk of Christ’s companionship with sinners as though He really enjoyed irreligious society. No blacker blasphemy can be spoken against His holy name. “He was separate from sinners;” He touched that He might heal; His companionship was as a fire which purified the heart.