any particular prophecy to be true, if that interpretation proceed from a holy man of God, we are bound to submit to it in every instance in which it is not absolutely impossible or manifestly absurd. Bring the present case to the test of this infallible rule, and then tell me, Oh man, what is thy superior skill that thou shouldest presume to contend in knowledge and authority upon this matter with the faithful Evangelists. They were as Jews, the disciples of Moses. They were, as Apostles, the authorized and instructed and inspired disciples of Jesus, and as his instructed and inspired disciples, and as honest and credible men, they have declared that they believed that these various prophecies were accomplished in Jesus, who shewed himself by many infallible proofs to have been a prophet of God. Their authority, therefore, as the honest and instructed and inspired ministers of Christ, who was a prophet of God, is sufficient to bear the weight of any possible exposition or application which they may assign to the prophetic language, however difficult, or however obscure. A positive contradiction to reason or in terms is the only argument we should admit as destructive of the propriety of their * inspired illustrations.

*It is this objection of Collins which induced me to insert a proof of the inspiration of the Apostles, before I proceeded to

.66

It is not then "to give up the cause of Christianity" to its enemies, when we assert that these darker predictions, though seemingly relating to other matters, were yet literally fulfilled by Jesus in their primary sense, and according to the mind of the Holy Ghost in uttering them. It is only to give up our own fallible judgment to the superior authority of the infallible disciples of a prophet who, beginning at Moses and all the prophets, had expounded to them, in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself." Nothing, indeed, can be more sophistical or unfair than the manner in which Collins has managed the whole controversy with regard to the prophecies. He has inverted the natural order of reasoning, by beginning with those predictions whose interpretation is the most difficult and obscure, instead of those in which it is the most decided and plain. Nay, he has avoided the consideration of some of the most forcible altogether. Again, he has never alluded to the fact that the Messiahship of Jesus may be proved without any reference to the more doubtful prophecies, and from passages whose meaning and application to Christ is obviously primary and unequivocally literal. He has forgotten that the interpretation of the darker prefigu

reason from their applications of ancient prophecies to Jesus of Nazareth, and the advantage which has thus been gained in answering the objection will, I trust, appear evident.

rations of the Messiah, if not absolutely impossible, rests as much upon the authority of the expositors as the nature of the expositions themselves; and he has omitted to observe a very important distinction as to the different time and manner in which the different kinds of predictions are produced by the sacred writers. Predictions in which there is a manifest and unequivocal reference to Christ are those which were chiefly employed by the Apostles in their contests with the unbelieving Jews. Those, on the other hand, in which the intention of the prophet is more indirectly and obscurely revealed, are generally to be found in the Gospels alone, which were written for the instruction and consolation of believing Christians. I call this an important distinction, because it points out to us the difference we should observe in making use of the clearer or the darker prefigurations of the Messiah. In our contests with the hardened and notorious infidel, we should begin always with the plainest prophecies, because sufficient and most forcible. The rest may be reserved for the satisfaction of the yielding sceptic, or the support of the established Christian.

Thus have we retraced our steps through the whole process of our demonstration, and examining link by link the entire chain of our reasoning, have found it possessed not only of

outward fairness, but of inward strength. We have taken each objection into consideration as it occurred, and think, at least, that we have detected their unsoundness, shewn the fallacies upon which they rest, and proved them inapplicable in every instance to the evidences of Christianity. I could much have wished to have added a variety of most important inferences which follow from and recommend the course I have pursued. But for the present I must forbear. The time is past, and past in speculative reasonings, without leaving me more than a few moments for recalling your thoughts to practical godliness.

But what word of exhortation shall I this day take? Already have I spoken of the awful necessity of adding virtue to our faith, and besought you, as you value Christ's glory and man's hopes, to depart from iniquity of every kind, and to flee the lust, and the indolence, and the covetousness, and the pride, and the vanity of the flesh. And what more shall I now say? What but this? That there is a virtue of the mind, as well as of the body; an iniquity of the head, as well as of the heart; and a lust, and an indolence, and an intemperance, and a pride, and a vanity in the moral conduct of the understanding, as well as of the affections of our nature. Look to those children of darkness, those despisers of

66

the word of God whose errors we have been so Jabouring to correct. Think of their delusion, and then hear ye the word of the Lord. Thus is it spoken unto them. Behold, ye despisers, and wonder "-wonder that your counsel against the Holy One of God is brought to nought, that your reason was most unreasonable, your philosophy deceitful, your wisdom foolishness, and your imaginations vain! This might of itself seem a sufficient punishment for the boastful presumption of the Deist, to hear that the fancied triumph of his reasoning shall vanish away as a vision of the night before the morning ray. But the Scripture speaketh also of his destruction, and crieth out, " Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish." What then shall the unbeliever say to excuse himself in his infidelity and turn away from him this wrath of God? Shall he plead the innocency of error, and say that he was deluded ere he did delude?-But why was he in error? God giveth wisdom liberally to those that ask him, and prayer is a duty of natural religion, as well as of revealed; and if his error spring from his neglect in asking wisdom at the hands of God, it is fit that in the sinfulness of that error he should die. Prayerless thoughts are seldom sanctified. Or shall he say, that he was misled by some unavoidable prejudice? God tempteth no man above his strength, and so he is sinful still.-Or shall he