every opportunity of drawing off their attention from himself, and of magnifying the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.

But besides this, every minister who is attentive to the effects produced by his ministry, will perceive that there are ebbs and flows in his usefulness, and that the same apparent means are far from uniformly causing the same results. These fluctuations, whenever they occur, should lead him seriously to inquire whether they are in any degree imputable either to himself, or to causes over which he has any controul. They may arise, on his own part, from a diminution of zeal-from a wrong direction of labours-from a partial or imperfect distribution of the word-from remissness in securing his people's affection-or from many causes of a similar kind, which will readily occur to any attentive observer of the effects of influence rightly exerted on the human mind. Or they may arise from extraneous causes, but

yet over which it is in our power to exercise a legitimate and salutary restraint; such, for example, as the prevalence of some local irregularity which may be remedied-some seducing example which may be removed—some ensnaring circumstances, the recurrence of which may be avoided in future by a little pains and foresight.

But there is no reason for discouragement, if after a conscientious survey of the whole case, it should appear that its peculiar symptoms cannot fairly be referred to any of these sources of disorder. Our Lord's own ministry was itself subject to such interruptions, owing to the waywardness of his hearers. At his first entrance upon his office, all flocked around him'. Yet we speedily find him appealing to his own personal attendants, amid the desertion of the rest of the world, whether they also would go away 2.

Matt. iv. 25.

2 John, vi. 67.

There is also abundant proof that St. Paul, whose labours as an apostle were more blessed than any of his fellow-workers, met with many cases of defection, even among those who at first heard him gladly. He expostulates warmly with some of the Galatians who did run well,' but had been 'bewitched' in suffering themselves to be led away again from the faith in which they had been instructed.

My temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and given them to me. Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth 3?' Passages of the Epistles also show

3 Gal. iv. 14-16. This is a remarkable passage, and almost seems to contain a clue to the meaning of the thorn in the flesh, of which the Apostle complains. None of the explanations given of it by the commentators are satisfactory. Those who explain it of the natural infirmity of man in his fallen state, to which St. Paul was subject in common with others, do not seem to advert to the form of expression used in this passage. The Apostle does not say, the temptation

2

that even among the earliest churches which were formed, there were some who made ship

which was in the flesh,'—but in my flesh.' And why should the Galatians' despise' him for a weakness from which they were not exempt themselves? Those who are of opinion that it was some defect in his speech which impeded his utterance, or rendered it ungraceful, appear to forget that, at Lystra, they called Paul Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker. It is more probable that it was some external blemish in his person, which rendered him contemptible in the sight of the multitude, and was thus likely to injure his usefulness. And if this be granted, there are some reasons for supposing that his eyes may have been affected with weakness, or some involuntary movement-perhaps the remaining and judicial effect of the dazzling light which shone round about him as he was journeying to Damascus, and which we know actually deprived him of sight altogether, during the space of three days. This hypothesis will give a rational meaning to the proof of the love of the Galatians towards him, instanced by the Apostle, for the explanation of which the quotations usually brought forward, (Ni te plus oculis meis amarem, &c.) are quite irrelevant. 'I bear you record, that if it had been poswould have plucked out your own eyes, and given How would such an action be any proof of love, unless the supposed gift had been intended to supply some deficiency in that feature under which the Apostle was known to labour. But it would have been indeed a great token of attachment if the Galatians could have remedied his natural failing, by depriving themselves of the faculty of sight to restore it to him.

sible, ye

them to me.

We Te may also account on the same supposition for another peculiarity in St. Paul's history. It is known that he always

F F

wreck of their faith, and drew back unto perdition. Two, of whom particular hopes seem

employed an amanuensis, for which no better reason has been assigned than the assertion, unsupported by any proof, that the Apostle was unable to write the Greek characters. But was it likely that one on whose education no expense was spared, should have remained ignorant of a language so necessary to a Jew of liberal birth, especially at a time when many Greeks came yearly to Jerusalem for commercial or religious purposes. Besides, he twice quoted passages from Greek poets, which proves a certain familiarity with their writings. Now if we suppose that his eyesight was affected, all the difficulty vanishes, and an intelligible reason is suggested for his requiring the aid of an assistant.

Again, when the High Priest Ananias ordered Paul to be smitten, he retorted on him, as upon an ordinary PhariseeGod shall smite thee, thou whited wall-but when informed who it was that had spoken, he excused himself by saying, 'I wist not that he was the High Priest.' The commentators account for his ignorance in various ways, but they leave the great difficulty untouched, since the seat and dress of the High Priest would have been sufficient evidence of his dignity in the eyes of a Jew, if eyes he had. But if St. Paul's infirmity prevented him from seeing the position in the council, or the external emblems of office which indicated the high station of the speaker, a clear solution of the mystery is provided, and the validity of the Apostle's apology for his hasty expression may be admitted by us, as, from the silence of the sacred historian, it seems to have been by the assembly. Acts, xxiii. 1—5.

To strengthen the hypothesis which has been advanced, I remark, lastly, that it serves to explain the expression