came down that blessing, which ceases not, and never shall cease. And it has been observed (by Origen), that, as St. Matthew is the only one of the three Evangelists, who records the expression, "Thou art the Son of GOD," in addition to "Thou art the CHRIST," So he is the only one of the three who records the blessing, and that this was revealed to Peter "not of flesh and blood, but of GOD," as if this latter expression of our SAVIOUR'S had a reference to that declaration of His Divinity on the part of St. Peter.

The only mode, therefore, of arriving at the truth was by means of that moral inference, under the influence of God's good SPIRIT, which arises from that probable evidence, which He has given us as the guide of life in the same way that we gain natural truths. This was the mode pointed out to the Jews', and such appears to have been the case with the Virgin herself, of whom it is said, Μαριάμ συνετήρει ταῦτα, συμβάλλουσα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῆς, "Mary kept to herself these things, pondering them together in her heart,” and on another occasion, ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ διετήρει πάντα τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῆς, “ His mother kept throughout all these words in her heart ;" the same which St. Paul has pointed out as the way to heavenly wisdom, “comparing things spiritual with spiritual," and thus arriving at what is sometimes called the Anpopopía, the gradual accumulation gathered from probable evidence to the full assurance of faith.

As if in the same manner, as in natural events or worldly matters we gather this fulness of assurance from the recurrence or repetition of many single circumstances, so also a divinely illuminated mind, in the course of practical obedience, necessarily must accumulate numerous facts which necessarily lead to certain conclusions, or convictions of divine truth, so as to be open to the hearty and full reception of higher knowledge, when presented to it; the numerous circumstances, on which such evidence is built, being perfectly unknown to the careless and disobedient; which of course would explain how such conviction is entirely moral.

This view of the subject seems to explain, and itself to be ex

I See St. Matt. xvi. 3, "Ye can discern the face of the sky," &c.

plained by, the Baptist's sending his disciples, when he was in prison, to our SAVIOUR, and our LORD's reply to them. As John came to bear testimony to our LORD, and some of his disciples had already followed our SAVIOUR on that testimony, the Baptist must naturally have desired, that the others should do the same, particularly now on his approaching death; and, according to this mode of divine teaching, would have been desirous to leave it to them, to see and believe according to the strong moral evidence set before them. For if John expresses no belief in His being the CHRIST, nor does our SAVIOUR on the other hand declare Himself to be so; the Baptist tells them not it is the CHRIST, but sends them to see and our LORD declares not that He is the CHRIST, but points to His works1.

For we can hardly suppose, I think, that the Baptist, to whose testimony our LORD Himself so strongly appealed, could have had any doubts himself. That John the Baptist's sending in that manner might have naturally occasioned such a supposition on the part of the persons present, and that our LORD intended to correct that erroneous impression, appears to me to be the meaning of what our blessed LORD says on the occasion; as if (Matt. xi.) in that passage which commences with the words "What went ye out for to see?" something of this kind was implied, "Think not the Baptist's faith is shaken; you yourselves went to see Him, you well knew his character, that it was not liable to wavering, like the reed of his own desert. But, perhaps, you think his own sufferings, or my lowly appearance, have shaken his belief. He was not, you well knew (for you have seen him), a person like this, one who looked on personal exterior, whom a king's court could have dazzled, or subsequent misfortune shake. Such a man as that you would not have to seek in the desert; was he not a prophet, yea, indeed, and more? Do not think, therefore, that he himself has any doubt or wavering."

And at the same time they are told that, if they could receive it, this was the foretold Elijah; which seems to prove two things; first, that, if he was that great prophet, he could be no doubtful 1 Pascal says, "JESUS CHRIST, to leave the impious in their blindness, never expressly told them, that He was not of Nazareth, or that He was not the sou of Joseph."

testimony; and secondly, that it required a certain disposition of the heart to receive him as such.

And our blessed LORD Himself describes this peculiarity in His own mode of teaching, as in the parable of the new cloth added to the old, and the new wine received into the old bottles: which appears to indicate the exceeding danger of the Gospel being received into the unregenerate heart of the old man, and such fatal consequences as our LORD's manner of teaching was calculated to avert. And even to the disciples themselves at the last, He thus speaks, "I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." In all which our LORD appears as morally dealing with mankind in the same way as He supplies the necessities of all His creatures in His natural providence, ministering to all their meat in due season, and also according to the wants of each, and as they were able to bear it.

There is a tradition, mentioned more than once by Origen (as in Matt. 100), highly interesting from the moral reflections it suggests, that our LORD was in the habit of appearing to different beholders in a different personal form. Whether there is any evidence for the truth of such a statement or not, it is clear, that the very different feelings with which He would be looked upon, from those of the deepest adoration and love, to those of Pharisaical contempt, would, in fact, in the eyes of mankind have invested Him with the greatest imaginable difference of exterior, which might have given rise to such a report. Indeed the same writer makes this application of it, "The WORD," he says, "hath different forms, appearing unto each beholder in the way beneficial to him, and being manifested unto no one, beyond what he that beholdeth Him can receive." (Origen, Comment. St. Matt. tom. xii. 36.)

8. The instructions to the Disciples, and their conduct illustrating the same.

Again, do not our LORD's instructions to His disciples, when they were sent forth to preach, convey throughout something of the same impression, that they were not to press the truth beyond what men were willing to receive; while they also imply the awful state of those, to whom it had been spoken, as may be seen

at length in St. Luke (ch. x.)? Again, the word μalŋtevσate πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες is to be remarked, as of course it implies something different from "teach all nations," as if it was not to be the mere communicating of knowledge, but rather, the training them, and making them disciples. And it is observable, that the same expression is also applied to the apostles, in the Acts, xiv. 21, μaßŋrevσavτeç, “having made disciples."

These remarks derive additional force from something of this kind observable in their conduct, as when St. Peter, in raising Tabitha, "put them all forth." Athanasius speaks of them as observing the same reserve which is here noticed in our LORD respecting His Divinity. In his answer to the Arians, who urge that the apostles spoke of our SAVIOUR, as of a man, as when St. Paul says at Athens, "by the Man whom He hath ordained," and St. Stephen, "I see the Son of Man standing." To this says Athanasius, "Because the apostles used these words, did they consider that CHRIST was only a man and nothing more? GOD forbid! Let such a thought never enter the mind. But this they did as wise master-builders and dispensers of the mysteries of GOD; not without a good reason for doing so.""With much wisdom the blessed Apostles first declared to the Jews what concerned the human nature only of our LORD: in order that, when they had thoroughly persuaded them, from the manifest miracles that had taken place, that CHRIST had come, they might afterwards lead them on to faith in His Divine nature, showing that the works which had taken place were not those of a man, but of GOD." [Athanasius de Senten. Dionys. 8.]

9. The same system in the Epistles.

And now, if this view of the subject be correct, with respect to the Old Testament and the Gospels, may we not reasonably expect to find the same Spirit dealing with us in the sa same manner in the Epistles? And if we find what we might consider obscurities in the former, which had the effect of misleading the inconsiderate, as the prophecy of Elijah, descriptions which seemed to speak of a temporal kingdom, and perhaps the expression of the sword, misunderstood by St. Peter: we know also from the authority of an apostle, that there are things hard to be understood in the Epistles of St. Paul, which are "wrested to their

own destruction by the unwary." May not we suppose that the difficulties in the Epistles were intended to answer the same purpose as the figures of the Old Testament, and the parables of the New? Such was the opinion of Origen, who on the Epistle to the Romans thus writes:

"It must be observed, as a general truth, that, where it is the purpose to throw a veil over, and not openly to set forth the sentiments of truth, whether it be by the SPIRIT of CHRIST speaking in the prophets, or by His word in the apostles, there is often a confusion (or obscurity) in the diction, and the order of the sentiments is not clear and unbroken; to prevent those who are unworthy from discovering, to the condemnation of their souls, things which it is for their good should be concealed from them. And hence it is oftentimes the case that there appears a want of order and connexion in different parts of Scripture, especially, as we said before, in the Prophetical and Apostolical parts. And in the latter, especially in the Epistle to the Romans, in which things concerning the law are spoken of, and in such different ways, and under such different circumstances, that it might have appeared, as if St. Paul had not the object of that Epistle distinctly before his mind in writing it."

But with regard to the Epistles, as confirming these opinions, the subject would be too long to enter upon further than just to notice many passages in them, in which the Apostle speaks of his care not to impart divine knowledge to those, who are not worthy to receive it.

The

A full and adequate reason for this withdrawing, and withholding of divine truth, might be shown in passages which speak of the great danger of a revelation of GOD to man, as a savour of death, as well as a savour unto life. If fire is the figure under which the HOLY GHOST is spoken of, it is alluded to under both its properties, to cheer and give life, and also to consume. Baptist, who foretold our SAVIOUR'S manifestation as baptizing with fire, spoke also of the fire unquenchable, which should burn the chaff; and the pillar of fire, which was the strength of the Israelite, was the destruction of the Egyptian. Is it not said of Tophet, "the breath of the LORD like a stream of brimstone doth kindle it?" In all His moral dealings, therefore, it is the same