self. I restrain the tides of feeling that press upon my soul. I know too well where I am. I take thought of the age in which we live. Others much more able than I have pleaded for dying souls, and they pleaded in vain. We may not ask too much. We must wait; we must pray for the Holy Spirit to be more abundantly showered down upon us; we must look for sanctifying influences to come in, to regenerate and rouse up the Church; we must pray for the power of God, that we may see afar off, and take in the great idea of Christianity. We want faith; we want to believe in Jesus. As yet we but partially believe all his word-every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God; who of us believes it— fully believes that man can not be saved without the blood of Christ? who believes that he can not hear without a preacher? who that none can preach except he be sent? I mean, who practically believes it, as in the light of the Judgment Day?

God grant that we may open our eyes-that we may hear his words and receive them into our hearts; that the enterprise which now appeals to us, and every effort which proposes to give the Gospel to the perishing, for whom the Redeemer died; that every such enterprise may become dear to the Church, may be gladly welcomed whenever its cause is presented, and that each one of us may come forward with our offering to testify our gratitude to Christ, and our sympathy for the souls for whom he died.

84633A

VI.

ON MIRACLES.

If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin, but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.-JOHN, XV., 24.

THIS text sets forth very clearly the true intent and object of our Savior's miracles. They were not wrought to demonstrate the truth and reasonableness of his doctrines. These were commonly apparent from internal evidence. The announcements of the Sermon on the Mount-the great commandments, "Thou shalt love the Lord, &c., and thy neighbor as thyself"—the divine rule of "doing unto others as we would have them do unto us"-carry with them to the human mind all necessary evidence, and they produce conviction independent of all argument. But evidence is not always authority, and the mind of man may be fully satisfied in regard to the truth and excellency of a doctrine or a system, without feeling the slightest obligation to reduce it to practice. Should a learned and eloquent jurist go forth through the length and breadth of the land, promulgating salutary legal principles, whoever might be constrained to believe and admire, none would feel obliged to obey without the clearest proof that the doctrines inculcated had been adopted by the Legislature as the laws of the land. Men would wish to know that the gifted lecturer was also a duly-authorized judge before they could listen to his teachings as any thing better than clever theories, which they were at liberty to receive or discard, as their habits, or tastes, or prejudices might incline them. A very respectable moral code might have been formed out of the books of mere philosophers, before the advent of the Redeemer, but their precepts were not author

itative. They were not law, much less were they religion; and they were consequently utterly deficient in all the sanctions which could give them power over the conscience and the life. Not so after they had been adopted by Christ. "He spake as never man spake," whether philosopher, scribe, or Pharisee, for he "did the works which none other man did." He wrought miracles which were the pledges and proofs of his divine mission, and thenceforward they who refused obedience to his words were guilty of sinning against God. They "hated both the Son and the Father."

These remarks expose the weakness of a common infidel objection, that, in the essential features of His moral code, Christ had been anticipated by the philosophers. This is only true in part, and it is of no force as an argument against Christianity, which alone gives to moral precepts, whether new or old, their power over the conscience. They also make manifest the intent and object of our Savior's miracles, which is my special topic of discourse on this occasion.

It has often been said, and I think with the strictest truth, that there is no conceivable way by which God could have given his sanction to the Gospel as the divine method of saving and governing the world except by miracles. I can conceive of two, and only two, possible methods of imparting such a sanction to our holy religion. God might have revealed its doctrines to each individual mind, accompanied by the sure conviction of its divine origin and obligations. Such a revelation would itself be a miracle, since it would plainly be a divine act, and an interference with the laws of our nature. It would not, however, be such a miracle as those by which Christ attested his authority as a divine teacher, nor would it be adapted to that end. Unquestionably God is able to endow all minds with the doctrines and the dispositions of the Gospel by direct inspiration. He is able to make us wise, and pure, and happy, by his own sovereign act; but ho chooses to deal with us as free moral agents, and so has

preferred a method of acting upon us under which our piety, and virtue, and faith, shall be voluntary and progressive, and dependent ultimately on our own persevering, earnest efforts. With this plan of saving sinners, the theory I have supposed -that which should communicate religious convictions and graces to individual minds by direct inspiration—would be plainly incompatible. It would do violence to our free agency, which religion always respects.

Besides this direct inspiration, which is not suited to the constitution of man, there was no other way, so far as we can perceive, of giving the divine sanction to Christianity, but the one actually adopted. The first teachers of the new religion performed miracles-gave manifestations of the divine power -to show that their mission was from God. This evidence was addressed to the external senses; and while it was sufficient to convince the understanding and bind the conscience, it left the will free, and every individual conformed his conduct to his convictions or not, as he pleased. The miracle was always a demonstration that the lesson inculcated was from God, and, of course, that it was the duty of man to give heed to it. Disobedience was clearly both presumptuous and sinful under such a manifestation; but man might choose to sin, to show forth the enmity of his heart, to show that he "hated both the Son and the Father." The evidence was clear and convincing, and the guilt of rejecting it was manifest and enormous in the same degree. The willing and obedient walked by a shining light, while they who closed their eyes in voluntary, obstinate blindness, incurred the greater condemnation. In this precise position does the great Teacher present the rejecter of his Gospel in our text. This rejection of Christ was the sin, by eminence, in comparison with which all others were unworthy to be named, and its enormity and guilt were great in proportion to the convincing proofs which the miracles of Christ had afforded of his divine character and mission.

When, from the position which we now occupy, we look back upon the conduct of these unbelieving Jews, we are filled with astonishment at their obstinate rejection of the Savior. We wonder how, in the light of so convincing a demonstration, they could remain unconvinced; or how, with convictions which, it seems to us, must have been irresistible, they should have "hated" and crucified the Son of God. Along with this general sentiment of blame, this verdict of condemnation, in which irreligious men freely join, I think there is often mingled a feeling of self-approbation that we have never sinned against a light so convincing, and of regret and complaint that the Gospel has not come down to us still clothed with its miraculous attributes. The rich man, even after some experience of the realities of eternity, is represented as still attaching undue importance to supernatural manifestations. "If one went unto them from the dead,

they will repent." This is a natural, though a little reflection will convince us, not a reasonable objection to the Gospel.

Why did miracles cease with the ministry of the apostles? I answer, They had fulfilled their office in attesting the divinity of the Gospel, and, from their nature, they could not be perpetuated in the Church. A miracle is an interference with the common laws and operations of nature. Any one of those operations is as much a manifestation of the divine power as a miracle; but it is no miracle, because of its frequent and uniform occurrence. Take a marble and an acorn, and deposit both in the earth. Antecedent to experience, there is just as much probability that the first will germinate, and produce a tree as the second; but, because acorns usually grow, we look upon the phenomenon without surprise. Should the marble germinate, we should regard it a miracle, an interposition of God. If, however, we had uniformly or usually observed marbles to grow when planted, we should feel no surprise, but should conclude it to be their nature,