been diverted from the essential view of his Redeemer, to fabulous relics of the cross on which he died—the handkerchief which wiped his brow -and other personal memorials of him, which, if real and genuine, would, like the brazen serpent of the Israelites, only have been more likely to retain their hold on the superstitious veneration, the distorted piety, of successive generations. Experience shews that it would have been So. If pretended relics, if fabled accounts, were capable of seducing for ages the devotion of all Christendom from the Lord, to objects which became to them idols; what would have been the result, had all these been genuine and true? How should we have ever recovered from the spell, with which inherited habits and associations would have been investing no golden calf of man's own invention-but objects, that, like the brasen serpent, had been sanctified by association with miracle and divine help, and treasured up within the very ark of our covenant?

Again, how little do the evangelist-apostles say of their own ministry, as far as it was contemporary with his who is the principal subject of their histories? They and their companions were

commissioned to work miracles. They fulfilled their commission. So far we are informed. Now let any one imagine himself, after taking such a part in such a commission, writing a memoir, and saying no more of what he did-what he felt—than these writers have. Endeavour to put yourself for a moment in their situation. Think of the strange, bewildering sensation of the first miracle you found yourself performing ! Could you ever have become historian of the scene in which it occurred, and have summed up the whole account by saying, "And they went out, and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them "?" The only miracle belonging to this period of their ministry, about which the apostles give any particulars, is one attempted, and not performed by them ".

o Mark vi. 12, 13. St. Mark's Gospel is quoted, on the ground that its inspired authorship appears to have rested on St. Peter having either furnished the materials, or superintended it. In the Gospel of St. Matthew, only the account of their mission is given; and St. John is totally silent about the whole affair.

P Matthew xvii. 14.

Nor let it be supposed, that the argument depends on our knowledge from other sources that these miracles were wrought. He who forged such an account, and he who wrote the truth according to his free natural impulse, must alike have fashioned his statements, in a way directly opposite to the Gospel narratives. It is of itself and independently an indication of extra-human authorship, which may serve to confirm our proofs that miracles were really wrought; and, if we have not yet been satisfied by these proofs, sufficient to impress us with conviction more or less strong, that miraculous agency is apparent in the writings of these men, and to establish and coincide with their statements respecting miracles performed.

The absence of any code of laws for regulating the government of the Church, and of a form of Liturgy, is all equally inexplicable; whether we consider how naturally, how inevitably this would have been done by a human compiler of "The Acts of the Apostles ;" or add to this the strong additional circumstance, that those who omitted to do it were Jews, before they were Christians— men accustomed to the most minute and punc

tilious details of a written, ceremonial law; and claiming for Christianity a connection with that law-preaching the Gospel as founded on it.

So extraordinary indeed are these omissions, that it is much to be regretted that they are not noticed in any work on the evidences of our religion. Men's minds so much vary with respect to the

impression made by internal evidence, (as I have already had occasion to remark,) that many, possibly, who are not much impressed by any views of prophecy fulfilled, or of Gospel morality, may be forcibly struck and satisfied by this. To analyse and detail all the internal evidences of Christianity, and to give to each portion that relative importance which it will bear in each man's mind, would be impossible. But it is still useful to exhibit such a variety, as may, with God's blessing, suggest to each individual the proof which is most appropriate to him. Neither the writer on evidence nor the student should ever forget, that it is relative; the one should remember, that he has

* A recent publication, however, although not directly on the evidences of Christianity, contains some very valuable remarks on the subject. See "Errors of Romanism," chap. iv. §. 6.

to search for proof that will be proof to him—the other, that he has to furnish proofs various enough for such a choice; the student, that it is necessary for him to come to the study with some preparation of heart, and intellect, else God will not be at all inquired of by him-the teacher, that he must provide, as far as he can, not only meat for the strong, but milk for the babes— matter for the feeble and infantine spirit of inquiry.

§. 9. Proof of Inspiration derived from certain peculiarities in the Scripture narratives.

THE general character of simplicity by which the writers of the New Testament are strikingly distinguished from Rabbinical authors, has already been incidentally noticed. The particular feature of it, to which I would now advert, as evidencing inspired influence, is a remarkable characteristic of their narratives. Considering the nature of the events related by the evangelical historians and biographers, the connection of the writers with those events, the deep and general interest

G