therefore, our Lord appeals; to facts he refers them, and to the demonstration which they afforded of his power and truth; for shutting their eyes against faith, or, more properly speaking, for shutting their hearts and understandings against the proof and conclusion, which facts afforded, he pronounces them liable to condemnation. They were to believe his word, because of his works that was exactly what he required. The works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me; and the Father himself, who hath sent me, beareth witness of me:' John, v. 36. It is remarkable that John the Baptist wrought no miracle; 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 miracle himself, but declaring that another and greater person was soon to follow, and if that other and greater person did accordingly soon follow, and show 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 pretentions before, would be fully satisfied of them afterwards; 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 miracle: 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.' John, x. 41, 42.

6

This distinction between our Lord and his forerunner, in one working miracles, and the other not, furnishes an account for two things which we meet with in the gospels: one is, John's declaring that when the person of whom he spoke should appear, his own ministry, which was then much followed and attended, would sink in importance and esteem. "He must increase, I must decrease-He that cometh after me is preferred before me-He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness; behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.' The other is our Lord's own reflection upon John's testimony in his favour, which was exactly agreeable to the truth of the case. 'Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness

unto the truth; but I receive not testimony from man. was a burning and 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 praiseworthy, 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 testimony of man; the proofs which I myself exhibit before your eyes of divine power, supersede human testimony.

Again; our Lord put the truth of his pretensions, precisely and specifically, upon the evidence of his miracles: John, x. 37. 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 had sin. His words are very memorable; If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin.'

ses.

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 messenger who came to him, to miraculous works performed before their eyes, to things done upon the spot; to the testimony of their own senShow John those things which ye do see and hear.' Would, could any other than a prophet come from God do this? In like manner, was it for any other than a divine messenger to bid his very disciples not believe in him, if he did not these works; or to tell unbelievers, that if he had not done among them works which none other man did, their unbelief might have been excusable? In all this we discern conviction and sincerity, fairness, truth, and evidence.

XVI.

OF INSENSIBILITY TO OFFENCES.

PSALM XIX. 12, 13.

Who can tell how oft he offendeth? O cleanse thou me from my secret faults. Keep thy servant also from presumptuous sins, lest they get the dominion over me.

We

THESE words express a rational and affecting prayer, according to the sense which they carry with them at first sight, and without entering into any interpretation of them whatsoever. Who is there, that will not join heartily in this prayer? for who is there that has not occasion to pray against his sins? are laden with the weight of our sins. The remembrance of them is grievous to us; the burden of them is intolerable.' But beyond this, these same words, when they come to be fully understood, have a still stronger meaning, and still more applicable to the state and condition of our souls; which I will endeavour to set before you.

You will observe the expression, 'my secret faults: O cleanse thou me from my secret faults.' Now the question is, to whom are these faults a secret? to myself, or to others? whether the prayer relates to faults which are concealed from mankind, and are in that sense secret; or to faults which are concealed from the offender himself, and are therefore secret, in the most full and strict sense of which the term is capable? Now, I say, that the contents, or whole passage taken together, oblige us to understand the word secret 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 connexion to the two parts of this verse, it is necessary 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 himself 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 difficulty 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 prayer. 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 connexion, 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 presumptuous sins. The words are, 'O cleanse thou me from my secret faults; keep thy servant also from presumptuous sins." Now, it will not do to consider these secret faults as merely concealed faults; because they are not necessarily distinguished from, nor can be placed in opposition to, presumptuous sins. The Psalmist is here addressing God: he is deeply affected with the state of his soul, and with his sins, considered in relation to God. Now, with respect to God, there may be, and there often is, as much presumption, as much daring, in committing a concealed sin, as in committing a sin which is open to the world. The circumstance of concealment, or detection, makes no difference at all in this respect; and therefore they could not properly be placed in different classes; nor would it be natural so to place them; but offences which escape the sinner's own notice at the time, may certainly be distinguished from those which are committed with a high hand, with a full knowledge of the guilt, and defiance of the consequences; and that is, as I believe, the distinction here intended, and the one the Psalmist called his secret

.

faults, the other his presumptuous sins. Upon the whole, therefore, I conclude, that the secret sins, against which the Psalmist prayed, were sins secret to himself.

But here, therefore, comes the principal question-How there can be any sins of this sort? how that can be a sin, which is neither observed, nor known to be so by the person who commits it? And then there comes also a second consideration, which is; if there be such, what ought to be done with respect to them? Now, as well upon the authority of the text as upon what is the real case with human nature, when that case is rightly understood, I contend, first, that there are many violations of God's laws, which the men who are guilty of them, are, not sensible of at the time and yet, secondly, such, as that their want of being sensible of them, does not excuse, or make them cease to be sins. All this, in truth, is no other than the regular effect of sinful habits. Such is the power of custom over our consciences, that there is, perhaps, hardly any bad action which a man is capable of committing, that he may not commit so often, as to become unconscious of its guilt, as much as of the most indifferent thing which he does. If some very great and atrocious crimes may be thought exceptions to this observation; and that no habit or custom can by any possibility reconcile them to the human conscience, it is only because they are such as cannot, from their very nature, be repeated so often by the same person, as to become familiar and habitual: if they could, the consequence would be the same; they would be no more thought of by the sinner himself, than other habitual sins are. But great, outrageous crimes, against life, for instance, and property, and public safety, may be laid out of the question, as not falling, I trust and believe, within the case of any one who hears me, and as in no case whatever capable of being so common, as to be fair experiments of the strength of our observation. These are not what compose our account with God. A man may be (as indeed most men are) quite free from the crimes of murder, robbery, and the like, and yet be far from the kingdom of God. I fear it may be said of most of us, that the class of sins which compose our account with God, are habitual sins; habitual omissions, and habitual commissions. Now it is true of both these, that we may have continued in them so long, they may have become so familiar to us by repetition, that we think nothing at all of them. We may neglect any duty, till we forget that it is one: we may