Now, though the change from one mode of selfishness to another, as in this instance, is a very different thing from the conversion of the heart to God; yet as the change of character in both cases arises from a real change in the conviction of the mind as to what is truly good, (from whatever sources of influence these convictions may proceed, whether earthly, as in the one case, or heavenly, as in the other,), I consider myself entitled to use this analogy as an argument against those, who either ridicule sudden conversions as absurd fables, or who confine such events to the miraculous period of Christianity. Is it rational to suppose, that a conviction of the love of God-of the vastness of eternity of the glory of heaven―of the misery of hell, should be insufficient to produce an instantaneous change of no light nature, when we see so striking a change produced by the comparative prospect of wealth or poverty for a few uncertain years? Shall we suppose that the Spirit of God hath less power than the spirit of Mammon? or, Does it belong only to things which pass away, to exert a sove reignty over the springs of the mind? And

are things which abide for ever, to be alone considered as powerless and inefficient? Could we imagine such a thing as a paradise for misers under the government of a God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, we might safely say, that if the young man, whose history we have been contemplating, had dropped down dead as he descended from the eminence which had witnessed his resolution, he would have been fit for a situation there. Nor would his former conduct have debarred him from the full enjoyment of its delights. So when the pardoning mercy of God is perceived in its glory and its beauty, it capacitates the mind immediately, however dark and vile before, for that bliss which it so freely bestows, and girds and prepares the parting traveller for that everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour, an entrance into which it so abundantly ministers, even though this may be the first look he has ever cast towards that happy land, and the last look he takes of aught until the body returns to the dust, and the spirit to him who gave it..

The Bible never shuts out hope; and in the example of the thief on the cross, it invites the dying sinner to look, that he may live for ever. But the Bible never encourages the negligent, nor the presumptuous-it warns of the uncertainty of life and opportunity, and it exhibits the difficulty of overcoming settled habits of sin, under the similitude of the leopard changing his spots, or the Ethiopian his skin. In truth, every hour of delay makes this change more difficult and improbable, because every hour is giving growth and strength to principles of an opposite description; he is grieving and despising the Holy Spirit, and is making a dark league with hell, which is gaining validity and ratification by every act in accordance with it!

SECTION VI.

I HAVE already explained two causes why spiritual Christianity is so much opposed, and so rarely received with true cordiality amongst men. The first is, that its uncompromising holiness of principle arms against it all the corruptions of our nature: The second is, that it rarely gains an attentive and full consideration, so as to be apprehended in all its bearings, both in relation to the character of God and its influence on the heart of man.

I shall now mention another circumstance, nearly connected with the second of these causes, which often opposes the progress of true religion.

Many persons, in their speculations on Christianity, never get farther than the miracles which were wrought in confirmation of its divine authority. Those who reject them are called infidels, and those who admit them are called believers; and yet,

after all, there may be very little difference between them. A belief of the miracles narrated in the New Testament, does not constitute the faith of a Christian. These miracles merely attest the authority of the messenger, they are not themselves the message: They are like the patentee's name on a patent medicine, which only attests its genuineness, and refers to the character of its inventor, but does not add to its virtue. Now, if we had such a scientific acquaintance with the general properties of drugs, that from examining them we could predict their effects, then we should, in forming our judgment of a medicine, trust to our own analysis of its component parts, as well as to the inventor's name on the outside; and if the physician whose name it bore was a man of acknowledged eminence in his profession, we should be confirmed in our belief that it was really his invention, and not the imposture of an empiric, by observing that the skill displayed in its composition was worthy of the character of its assigned author, and that it was well suited to the cases which it was proposed to remedy. And even though the name