ferring this learning to others"? To the divine origin of the Christian religion, indeed, the morality of the Gospel is equally evidence in whatever way this latter question is answered; but if the reasonable reply be, that the instruction his followers obtained must have been more than human, then the morality of their writings is proof that these writings were inspired. And such, I conceive, is the conclusion, at which every mind, neither biassed by prejudice, nor made callous by habitual neglect of religion, must arrive. In the strength of the impression produced there must always be differences of degree, according to the constitution and habits of different minds; but if the truth itself be altogether unperceived, this can, I fear, be attributed only to a corruption and unnatural state of the intellectual powers. The eye that has been closed from infancy, if opened in manhood or age, cannot be expected at once to measure the distance

Such appears to have been actually the impression made on many of the Jews. "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus." Acts iv. 13.

of the objects exhibited to it even in the clearest light, and to perform all those complicated functions of sight, which exercise and experience render familiar to others. So is it with the spiritual discernment of the mind.

And yet, it may be said, although Christ came that those who see not might see, how are these, the blind in heart and intellect, to be now convinced of their blindness? how, if not convinced, to be healed? Is not this case a hopeless one? Will not the Pharisee of every age say, "We see?" and will not the contemptuous suggestion of human pride still be, "Are we blind also ?" To what purpose then is the roll of evidence unfolded, if to those who most need it, it presents one dull unmeaning blank? The reply is plain. On the chance of conversion and salvation which the most deplorable case of this kind may exhibit, we have no right to speculate. Every Christian-every one who himself believes—is a soldier of Christ, and is furnished more or less with the armour of God; with the sword of the Spirit, as well as with the helmet of salvation; and while the command is, "Quit ye like men, be strong," he is also told, that not on himself

depends the issue-he is to "be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might." Shall we therefore, any of us, dare to cast aside the weapons of our warfare, as if on them and on ourselves depended the success? Shall any, and, above all, shall the Christian minister say, "Am I God, that I should heal these souls of their leprosy ?". forgetting, that in Israel-in his own true Israelthere is still, though unseen, the Prophet, whose hand, not ours, is to effect the cure. Disheartening doubts like these, that come across the efforts of a Christian on his Master's errand, can only be so long indulged, as he is forgetting the humble part which is his to act. Were it a sensible miracle he is performing, instead of developing or enforcing an argument, he would not more truly be the mere instrument, nor the work more truly his Lord's alone. Let him not therefore look to the feebleness of the apparent means, or say, Who then shall be saved? That Master, to whose service he is pledged, has taught him another language-one more confident, and yet more humble-more confident in divine power, more humble in his estimate of his own importance; he will say, With man this is

impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible."

§. 8. The omissions of Scripture a proof of
Inspiration.

ONE of the most striking features in the historical part of the New Testament, (to which I would confine the application of the present argument,) is the omission of so much matter, which would have gratified every reader's curiosity; and which every writer, one would think, would have been anxious to record. In the biography of the blessed Jesus, for example, there is none of that minute description of his person, dress, private habits, and the like, which we should fully expect to find, when we recollect especially that two of his biographers were his own familiar friends. None but the most scanty notice is found of that large portion of his life, which intervened from his circumcision to his temptation; pregnant with interest, as any occurrence of that period must have proved, both to them and to all generations of Christians. This is very

extraordinary, very unnatural. Look at the pretended gospels, which have been excluded from our canon, and the introduction of these topics is precisely what the uninspired writer has made part of his history; because he felt that it was natural. It matters not whether the pseudoevangelist received these facts from tradition, or himself invented them; he was sure that they would give a natural and genuine air to his story, and so he made use of them. Why was this not done by Matthew, by Mark, by Luke, and by John? Why should all omit to do it?

In order to perceive, that some counter-human influence must have been exerted in the authorship of these gospels, it is not necessary that we should comprehend the wisdom of the omissions; the fact is at variance with the established laws of man's nature, and of itself indicates a supernatural interference. That it was however a wise provision, and worthy of that interference, is, I think, as evident to us now, as it must have been beyond human foresight at the time it was done. Let us but reflect on the mischievous and fatal results which have followed, whenever the Christian's faith and piety have