ye have heard my doctrines-Go, then, believe and be no longer faithless."

But upon this principle the original difficulty still recurs, and we have still to account for the uncertainty which the Baptist experienced in his own mind. In this, however, if we will duly consider the circumstances in which he was placed, and the channel through which the fame of our Saviour's miracles had hitherto been communicated to his ears, we shall find but little, if any difficulty at all. John was now lingering out his life in captivity under the tyranny of Herod, far removed from the scene of our Saviour's glory, and of course entirely deprived of the power of becoming himself an eye-witness of his miracles. To this the Evangelist expressly directs our attention, when he introduces his account of the message, by observing, that "John had heard, in the prison, the works of Christ." The only means, therefore, which he possessed of ascertaining whether any miracles had really been wrought, and whether the person by whom they were said to have been wrought was that very Jesus whom he had himself baptized, was, by making the necessary inquiries through the medium of those in whose honesty and fidelity he could place implicit confidence-those who knew the person of Jesus, and who would faithfully relate to him the

things which they beheld. For though the wonderful mercies of Christ might be, and were, actually rumoured through all the region round about, yet so many false prophets had already arisen, to whom the multitudes had liberally attributed miraculous powers, that little could be gathered from that circumstance; and the voice of common fame is, at any rate, of too fleeting and uncertain a nature to form a sufficient foundation for our belief in any matter of difficulty and importance. The disciples of John might also, and as we are informed, did shew him of all these things. But it is by no means certain that they spoke of them as wonders which they had seen with their own eyes, or as facts which they knew from their own experience. It is rather probable, from the course which John afterwards pursued, in sending two of them as his messengers to our Lord, that they had merely detailed them to him as the subjects of general and common conversation. But the Baptist was not so destitute of sense and prudence as to trust the issue of his faith upon the very slender credit which is due to a flying report. To remove those doubts, therefore, which were unavoidably and rationally inspired by the suspicious channel of the testimony, he chose two of his disciples, on whose observation and fidelity he could best rely, to ascertain the

truth or falsehood of the rumour which had reached him. They came, they saw, they heard, they believed, and then returned with the glad tidings of certainty to their Master. And he also heard, and he also believed. His uncertainty was built upon just and reasonable grounds. It was the result of a want of confidence either in those who bore witness to the miracles of Jesus, or in the identity of the person by whom they were performed. When that want of confidence was once removed, the effect ceased with the cause, and he became thoroughly convinced. For Scripture often speaks to us as positively by its silence, as its assertions, and in the future pages of the Evangelist we meet with no other symptom whatever of the Baptist's doubt.

Such is the very simple and sensible explanation which was originally given of this difficulty in the earlier ages of the church, by the authors of those questions which stand amongst the works of Justin Martyr: and it is somewhat singular that the opinion should have been so soon and entirely forgotten, that I have looked for it in vain either in the majority of the fathers or the more modern Commentators.-Every wild and

"He sent his disciples to ascertain whether the person who performed these miracles was or was not the same person to whom he had himself borne witness." Quest. and Respons. 38.

hypothetical imagination which fancy could suggest they have successively proposed and approved, whilst this solid answer has always had the fate to be deserted. It has been held by some, that John doubted, because the miraculous powers of Christ were not exerted for his own deliverance from captivity; whilst others have supposed that by the question which he asked, "Art thou he that should come?" he did not mean to inquire whether Jesus was the Messiah who was to come as a Saviour upon the earth, but whether he was that being who was to go down to the habitation of departed souls and there "preach to the spirits in prison," which were sometime disobedient in the days of Noah. But let us leave these idle vanities, which have nothing but a shew of seeming wisdom to recommend them, and turn to the practical advantages which may be derived from the examination, for the improvement and security of our own faith.

It is evident, then, that the answer of our Saviour, was both intended by himself and received by the Baptist, as a satisfactory answer to the question he had proposed. The question proposed was this, "Art thou he that should come," the promised Messiah of the scriptures? The answer therefore must be conceived to convey to every one, who may be placed in circumstances resem

bling those of the Baptist, a solid and sufficient demonstration that Jesus was the Christ. Is it so? We are placed in the situation of John. We, like him, are imprisoned by the tyranny of time within the narrow limits of the age in which we live, and cannot get forth to hear the doctrines of Jesus by sitting at his feet, or become convinced of his miracles by the testimony of our senses. But, like him also, we have the testimony of others, who declare that they have both seen and heard these things. What the first disciples spake to their contemporaries by the tongue, they still speak by their writings unto us, in a voice which is living and irresistible. Into the arguments for the genuineness and integrity of their testimony I cannot, and it is happily unnecessary, to enter. The subject is too comprehensive for the brevity of my plan, and has been almost exhausted by the enlightened labours of others. This only I will say, that the genuineness and integrity of the sacred writings, as containing the evidence of the Apostles of Jesus, are supported by more numerous and varied testimonies, both of friends and enemies, designed and casual, explicit and incidental, than those of any other author whatsoever: and let him that thinketh otherwise but take the trouble of instituting the comparison. Is there then to be found for us in the books of the New Testament a proof of