warmth of temper peculiar to one, as it is known to have been displayed on more than one occasion, and was beneficially blended with all his noblest sentiments. Let him think of the infirmities to which the best are subject, even when peculiarities of disposition are not stimulated, as in this instance they seem to have been, by a sense of duty, and sanctioned in some measure by the dictates of judgmentand he will be at no loss to assign to the passage in dispute its true and only rational interpretation.

In proceeding to demonstrate in what manner this transaction bears upon the truth of Christianity, it may seem perhaps at first sight little better than laborious trifling to answer in this place any objections derived from the faults and imperfections of its early promulgators. Contemptible as such objections really are, the necessity of leaving no part of the field encumbered even with possible difficulties, and the alternate subtlety and obtuseness of sceptical opponents, oblige us to descend to many provisions of methodical defence, and many details of cautious explanation, needless and even wearisome to ingenuous minds. A few words, therefore, will be admitted on a subject intimately connected with the present undertaking, and a very few will suffice.

The objections referred to might be disposed of altogether, by shewing that they are built on untenable grounds. The personal imperfection of the witnesses to the Gospel, if available as an argument against its authenticity, must be so in consequence of some implied connection supposed to be necessary, between the reality of a revelation, and a perfect conformity with its principles on the part of those who proclaim it. The objection rests, therefore, on a belief, either that the Deity would only transmit a revelation through channels originally pure, or that those channels, whatever may have been their primitive character, must become so in virtue of their connection with the system they communicate, whether this be by the natural course of things, or by a divine and irreversible appointment.

Now both of these hypotheses are gratuitous assumptions, unauthorized by any data accessible to us, and involving, besides, a degree of arrogance revolting to the sentiments of natural religion. We cannot possibly prejudge how the Deity might be pleased to act in the case of a revelation to his intelligent creatures, and we are almost equally ignorant as to the mode and degree in which the principles of that revelation might be expected to operate. Our speculations on the attributes of Deity are

unavoidably limited to little more than the examination of what he has done, indicative of his nature and almighty will; and our deductions from the phenomena of nature, however conclusive as to the fact of his eternal existence, are utterly inadequate to the determination of such questions as the present. It is perhaps impossible to estimate, with any precision, how much can, or cannot be inferred from the appearances around us, relative to the nature of the great source of all things: but it is notorious that the most incongruous opinions have prevailed on this subject, amongst the most sagacious enquirers of antiquity; and as we have no right in pursuing such enquiries to avail ourselves of Christianity, considered as a revelation, we are thrown upon the knowledge independently acquired-knowledge amounting to little more than the induction of all the attributes of human nature with its vices and virtues proportionately expanded, or the unheeded conjectures of some solitary speculatist, glimmering amidst the clouds of an almost universal night. But, could it even have been assumed that the inferences derivable from the phenomena of nature were not only obvious, but distinct and uniform, and that opinions had preponderated, if not concurred, in favour of some one mode of interpretation-could we go

on to assume that the information so derived was not only clear and certain, but complete, that is to say, comprehensive enough to give us adequate conceptions of an unseen and infinite Being—and lastly, that our minds had been endowed by the Father of Spirits with faculties sufficient for the knowledge of his uncommunicable nature-all this is not enough, unless we can further assure ourselves, that the visible creation includes the whole economy of its Creator, and that it is not a mere ephemeral and subordinate state of things-that it is externally as well as essentially the same universe which it was first created, and has never suffered the curse of its offended Maker; that the hand-writing of its divine Author has never been obliterated, nor the discernment of mankind darkened and confused. Unless we can feel ourselves entitled to assume all this, we can never be justified in pre-supposing any thing as to the probable conduct of Deity, whatever semblance of analogy may present itself to view, and by which we might be tempted to frame our anticipations. Speculate, as we may, about the unity, the wisdom, or the power of God, the essential perfection of his nature, the necessary harmony of his attributes, the indispensable consistency of his operations, or the immutable nature of his decrees-we do but " darken coun

sel by words without knowledge"-for we are entirely ignorant of that which constitutes perfection, harmony, or consistency with reference to such objects; our sphere of vision is infinitely too small for the display of an immutability that embraces eternity-and for ought that we can venture to assert, the most palpable contradictions, and the most unaccountable discordances may be parts of some immense and well adjusted whole, which is altogether inscrutable to our investigation, and which comprehends, unites, and harmonizes all. The insolence of dogmatising on such a subject is not more impious than unphilosophical, and must necessarily excite our disgust and reprobation, whenever it would attempt to convince or to perplex.

As the heathen world previous to the announcement of the Gospel, could know nothing of the attributes of God, except through their manifestation in the works of nature-so nothing could be determined as to a revelationits necessity-its objects-or the mode of its communication, save through the actual grant of a revelation. In both cases the want of independent information compels the enquiry, What has been done? If a revelation has been given, we cannot object to the mode of its delivery. If it has not, we cannot know how