miracles: therefore the authority and confirming proof of his mission, rested very much upon the evidences which were exhibited, not by himself, but by the person whose appearance he professed to foretell; and undoubtedly the miracles of our Lord did, by a reflected operation, establish the preaching of John. For if a person in these days should appear, not working any miriele himself, but declaring that another and greater person was soon to follow, and if that other and greater per son did accordingly soon follow, and shew forth mighty deeds, the authority of the first person's mission would be ratified by the second person's works. They who might doubt, nay reasonably doubt, concerning the first person's truth and pretensions before, would be fully satisfied of them afterward; and this was exactly the turn, which some rational and considerate Jews gave to the matter. "And many resorted to him, and said, John did no miracles: but all things that John spake of this man were true;" the effect of this observation was, what it ought to be, "many believed on him there."

This distinction between our Lord and his forerunner, in one working miracles, and the other not, furnishes an account for two things, which with in the Gospels; one is, John's de when the person, of whom he spoke, his own ministry, which was then and intended, would sink in im. steem. "He must increase, I must that cometh after me, is preferred ie that was with thee beyond Jora thou bearest witness; behold, the oth, and all men come to him." The ir Lord's own reflection upon John's in his favour, which was exaetly agreea truth of the case. "Ye sent unto John, bare witness unto the truth: but I receive, on man. He was a burning and

Ibid. x. 41, 42.

a shining light; and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. But I have greater witness than that of John-the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me." As if he had said: My own performance of miracles is a higher and surer proof of my mission, than any testimony which could be given to me by another, who did not perform miracles, however great, or praise-worthy, or excellent, his character and his preaching were in all respects, or however much his followers confided in him: the one was the testimony of men, the other of God. "I receive not tes timony of man?" the proofs, which I myself ex. hibit before your eyes of divine power, supercede human testimony.

Again, our Lord put the truth of his pretensions, precisely and specifically upon the evidence of his miracles, "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not: but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works." What fairer appeal could be made? Could more be done to challenge inquiry, or place the question upon the right ground?

Lastly, in the xvth chapter and 24th verse, our Lord fixes the guilt of the unbelieving Jews upon this article, that they rejected miraculous proof, which ought to have convinced them and that, if they had not had such proof, they might have been excusable, or, comparatively speaking, they would not have ha sin. His words are very memorable, "If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not bad sin."

It appears, therefore, that, as well in the answer to John's messengers, as in the other passages of his history and discourses which resemble this, our Lord acted a part the most consistent with his professed character. He referred the messen, ger who came to him, to miraculous works per

* John x. $7.

striet sense of which the term is capable? Now, I say, that the contents, or whole passage taken together, oblige us to understand the word s€= cret" in this latter sense: for observe two particulars. The first verse of the text runs thus:----"Who can tell how oft he offendeth? O cleanse thou me from my secret faults." Now, to give a connection to the two parts of this verse, it is ne cessary to suppose, that one reason, for which it was so difficult for any man to know how oft he offendeth was, that many of his faults were secret; but in what way, and to whom secret? to him. self undoubtedly: otherwise the secrecy would have been no reason or cause of that difficulty, The merely being concealed from others would be nothing to the present purpose: because the most concealed sins, in that sense, are as well known to the sinner himself, as those which are detected or most open; and therefore such concealment would not account for the sinner's diffi. culty in understanding the state of his soul and of his conscience To me it appears very plain, that the train of the Psalmist's thoughts went thus:He is led to cast back his recollection upon the sins of his life: he finds himself, as many of us must do, lost and bewildered in their number and frequency; because, beside all other reasons of confusion, there were many, which were unnoticed, unreckoned, and unobserved. Against this class of sins, which, for this reason, he calls his secret faults, he raises up his voice to God in pray

er.

This is evidently, as I think, the train and connexion of thought; and this requires, that the secret faults, here spoken of, be explained of such faults, as were secret to the person himself. It makes no connection, it carries with it no consistent meaning, to interpret them of those faults, which were concealed from others. This is one argument for the exposition contended for; another is the following. You will observe in the text, that two kinds of sins are distinctly spoken of, under the name of secret faults, and presump.