with you always, even unto the end of the world." The persons immediately addressed were, none of them, to continue on earth longer than the usual period of life, and most of them were to be cut off prematurely by the persecutions to which the first Christians were exposed. This promise, therefore, must be understood as not limited to these, but as extending to their successors through all subsequent ages. It was the declaration of Christ that "the gates of hell," (as we translate the passage,) that is, the powers of death, should never prevail against his Church; that his visible Church should continue on earth as long as the earth itself should be allowed to continue. And, in conformity with this declaration, He promises (as in the passage before us) that He would be with the ministers of that Church even to the end of time.

We can have no doubt that these words do convey a permanent promise from Him whom we acknowledge as our God and Saviour; else the words would have no intelligible meaning.

But you will see this more clearly if you compare the commission recorded by St. Matthew with that very distinct commission which we read of in the Gospel of St. Mark. This latter commission I speak of as distinct from that of St. Matthew, though they are frequently, as I have remarked, confounded together. They both seem to have been delivered about the same period of time, and this has made them be regarded as identical. But

if

you examine them both, you will see they present points of distinction, which, though frequently overlooked, are very remarkable.

This is not a matter of trifling importance: it affects, indeed, the very credibility of the religion. of Christ; and I feel, therefore, I am not misusing your time in directing your attention to it.

I have already read to you the words of St. Matthew. Now attend to the expressions of the other Evangelist. "He said unto them, go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned," that is, condemned.* And to this he adds a declaration to which I would now direct your special attention: "And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Now, infidels and, I am sorry to say, some professing Christians, refer to those words, with opposite designs indeed, but in a manner equally calculated to undermine your faith in Christ. They

"Condemned" is the translation generally adopted in our version for the word in question. See Matthew, xii. 41, 42; xx. 18; Romans, ii. 1; Heb. xi. 7, and many other passages. The kind and degree of condemnation and salvation alluded to, is not the point now in question.

B 2

both refer to them as containing a promise that a power of working miracles should always distinguish those who were Christ's disciples. The infidel then appeals to the admitted fact, that miracles are no longer worked, as a proof that the promise of Christ has failed:-that his Church does not exist:or rather, that Christianity had no truth or reality in it from the commencement. Some weak Christians, again, taking the words in the same meaning, argue of course that the true Church of Christ must have miracles worked in it by some of its members, and that this is one of the marks which is to distinguish the true Church. From the theory that miracles ought to be worked, they easily pass on into the assertion, that they are worked;—and worked by the Body to which they themselves belong; and on this ground they claim that this Body is the true Church of Christ. The asserted miracles again turn out, on examination, to be either cures quite within the influence of imagination or other human agency to effect, or else, the utterance of unintelligible sounds, dignified, contrary to all common sense, by the name "gift of tongues." I need not say that infidels rejoice in the ridicule that is thus cast over the evidences of the truth of Christ's religion. They maintain,-and in this respect they will always carry with them the common-sense of mankind, that such events are not miraculous. But having previously secured the concession that Christ did promise a continuance of miracles in his

Church, they argue triumphantly from the absence of all indisputable miracles, that his promises have failed, and that his religion is untrue.

But, if you examine, you will find that the common foundation which these opposite parties agree in resting upon, is utterly fallacious. They both take it for granted, that the words of St. Matthew and St. Mark must be meant to convey the substance of the same discourse; and setting out with this theory, they seek to get rid of the difficulties it involves, by striving to combine the two passages together; while the result is, a combination involving insuperable perplexities, unauthorized by the Scriptures, and opposed indeed, as you will soon perceive, to all the facts which the Scriptures themselves relate. On a little consideration, you will see both the necessity and the importance of regarding the two passages as containing two very distinct commissions.

It is very true that the passage in St. Mark does speak of miraculous powers as, “signs following them that should believe." But then you will observe, that, in this place, no words intimating a permanent promise are used. The expression, "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world,"* does not here occur. And again, St. Matthew, who does use these words, abstains alto

* Some have tortured aiavos into the sense of age or generation :—all this merely to reconcile this with St. Mark.

gether from any mention of miracles. That is, where the promise is plainly permanent, there is no mention of miracles; and where miracles are spoken of, no words denoting permanence are employed. I need hardly offer proof that this cannot be considered accidental.

The fact is, that the commission in St. Mark's gospel was addressed to the Apostles only. The promise was,-not that Christians in all subsequent ages should work miracles, but that such signs should follow those who believed under the immediate ministry of the Apostles; those upon whom the Apostles "laid their hands."

And this interpretation agrees with the facts. related in the Acts of the Apostles. For instance, you read in the 8th chapter of Acts, that the Samaritans were converted to Christ through the ministry of Philip, one of the seven Deacons, and not an Apostle. Immediately on hearing this, the Apostles sent down from Jerusalem two of their own number, Peter and John; and when these laid their hands on the converted Samaritans, they received, it is said, the Holy Ghost: that is, the same miraculous manifestations as are spoken of in other parts of the Acts: amongst those are the gift of tongues and other such supernatural powers.* The signs then did not follow the ministry of Philip, who was not an Apostle, but they did follow

* See Acts, x. 46, and xix. 6,