of God's laws, both in nature and providence, if the nerves of the eye received such a shock as prepared the way for future disease, or to be so weakened, that though total blindness was prevented by Divine power, yet vision was seriously blurred. The miracle would not interfere with such a result. Indeed, this would be only another illustration, that God leaves the marks of his people's sins on them all their lives. Paul may have borne to the end of life, in his weak eyes, the scar of that stroke which arrested him in the midst of his relentless persecution. Here then, we have a circumstance in Paul's history which might furnish the occasion, if not the cause, of a partial blindness.

2. There are several peculiarities in Paul's history, which are best explained from the point of view we are now occupying, and thus may furnish, at least, circumstantial evidence.

Paul always employed an amanuensis. Seven out of the thirteen Epistles state this fact, either in the closing chapter, or in the postscript. While these subscriptions, at the close of the Epistles, are not reliable, and therefore do not prove the place where they were written, we think they are presumptive of the employment of an amanuensis. Paul's mode seems to have been to secure the services of members of the church to which he was ministering. In the longer Epistles, as the first to the Corinthians, several are employed. How can we explain this? It is altogether improbable that he was ignorant of the Greek language, so that he could not write it. If he could speak it, certainly he could write it. For in Paul's education no pains had been spared. It has been said, that Paul had not sufficient time to do the writing. But when a prisoner at Rome, and confined to his own house, he did not himself write his Epistles. Besides, scarcely more time would be consumed by writing than in dictating to another. This explanation, that Paul had not time to write, strikes us most unfavourably. Would you draw a parallel between Paul and Napoleon dictating to a half dozen amanuenses? Shall we imagine that the Epistle to the Romans, Galatians, or Ephesians, was jumbled up in Paul's mind with letters to a half-score of inquirers? Was his mind no more composed than such a state would indicate? If Moses must retire into the clouds of Sinai, and spend forty days there, to receive the tables of the law, shall we imagine that the laws of Christ's house, which are to last to the end of the world, were thrown out in so off-handed a manner? We are offended at any such conjecture. If Paul had not time to devote himself calmly and leisurely to one Epistle, through the Holy Spirit's guidance-what had he time for? Could any more important engagement occupy his hours? But on the supposition that his eyes were weak and near-sighted, we have a satisfactory explanation why an amanuensis was employed.

We now call attention to an incident, narrated in Acts xxiii.

1-5. Paul was before the Sanhedrim. Directing his words to the council, he said, "Brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." Ananias ordered him to be struck on the mouth for this. Paul retorted on him, as on an ordinary Pharisee, in the council: "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?" But when informed who it was that gave the order, he made an apology, "I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest." This ignorance has been accounted for in various ways. Now, though Paul had been away from Jerusalem, and knew not the high priest, still his seat, his robes, his presiding, would have indicated who he was, to a man with far less information on those matters than Paul had. But if there were an imperfect vision, so that he could not distinguish the dress, nor perceive the motions of the high priest, then Paul's apology is ample, without the props of any suppositions. His language can be taken to mean just what the words import. "I wist not”—“ I knew not, because I cannot see clearly." By us that explanation is always preferred which lets the words have the sense they give as they read. This is the case with this explanation, wherein it is decidedly superior to any other. And may not this suggest that the best way to explain difficult texts is to take them as they are, unless they contradict some other passage equally clear?

It is a favourite thought of ours, that as time advances, God's book will be found to need, less and less, the broken reeds of man's exegesis. Uzzah was so anxious for the ark, that he took unlawful means to keep it up, when he thought it was about to fall.

And good men, in their zeal, have taken liberties with God's words, when they thought science and philosophy were bearing down the Scriptures. To what shifts did not theologians resort, when astronomy startled the world with its discoveries! But we have settled down to a common-sense understanding of those texts, over which they so sweat and worried.

Dr. Alexander, in his Commentary on Acts, explains this difficult expression: "I wist not," etc.; "I did not know, and do not now know that he is the high priest;" i.e., I do not acknowledge him as such. To us this would be the best solution, if there were nothing else, save this text, to favour the supposition of imperfect vision. But if it can be made probable, from other circumstances and expressions, that Paul was purblind, then we prefer this interpretation, as requiring less to be understood, and as permitting us to accept the words in their most obvious sense.

Another link in our chain of circumstantial evidence, drawn from Paul's history, is, that he was scarcely ever alone when he travelled. Later in life, he did not take the shortest journey by

himself; he was conducted from place to place by some of the brethren. In his confinement at Rome he had a companion. The close of each Epistle shows that he had attendants. Does not this favour the supposition of his partial blindness?

3. A third class of proof, substantiating the plausibility of the supposition that Paul's thorn in the flesh was obscured vision, we now present-that which is found in his writings. We read in Gal. iv. 13-15: "Ye know how, through infirmity of the flesh, I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And 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 have given them to me." We have already stated our objection to explaining the infirmity here referred to, as a fit of sickness. It has been common to understand this plucking out the eyes as a figure, by which to denote the great attachment, at first, of the Galatians to Paul. They were willing to make any sacrifice for him. But notice the language, "pluck out your own eyes, and give them to me." Why give their eyes to Paul if his own were sound? How could such an action be proof of love, unless the supposed gift would supply a deficiency in the apostle? And he introduces this in connection with his infirmity, which they so far from despising or rejecting him because of it, rather would have deprived themselves of their own eyes, to remedy the defect in him. Why should they despise Paul, if his infirmity were an ordinary disease? But a blind man was despised among the heathen. If, therefore, he came to them under this disadvantage-how rich the sense!-my temptation (trial) ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me, a poor blind man, as an angel of God: yea, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have put them in the place of my halfquenched orbs.*

We read again, in Gal. vi. 11: "Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand." This is near the close of the Epistle, where Paul himself adds a few lines, as seems to have been his custom-e.g., 1 Cor. xvi. 21; Col. iv. 18; 2 Thess. iii. 17. "How large a letter," cannot denote the length of the Epistle, because it is one of the shortest of those addressed to the churches. The word letter is now quite generally conceded to mean handwriting; and "how large a letter," refers to the size of the characters in which Paul wrote. The usual hypothesis is, that being accustomed to Hebrew characters, he could not easily write the Greek, but in large and crude letters. And yet, how know we that Paul was not quite as accustomed to the Greek letters as the

An interesting chapter on this passage in Galatians, may be found in "Spare Hours," by John Brown, M.D., of Edinburgh.

Hebrew? But if Paul's defective eyesight rendered him nearsighted, we at once see why he should write in large letters. Or, if the expression refers to the uncouthness of the handwriting, the passage agrees equally well with our hypothesis. If, also, we accept the explanation given of the passage in chap. iv. 15, there was great propriety in his calling attention to his chirography. You see the large letters, and you know the reason. You are well aware of my infirmity.

We confess that the conviction of Paul's partial blindness grows on us, as we read his history and his writings. We imagine we can find traces of a reference to this infirmity in Eph. iii. 8"Unto me who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace glven," viz., to preach the gospel among the heathen. "Less than the least of all saints," is not a mere expression of humility, but the deep-seated feeling of his heart, as he thought of himself, a man almost blind. And well might he wonder at that grace, which should operate through a blind man, in so vast an undertaking as the diffusion of the gospel among the Gentiles-causing the Apostle to the Gentiles to grope his way among them, that by him, from whom nature's light was almost hidden, might shine the light of life.

Is it not also a singular fact that only to those churches where his apostolic dignity was questioned, does he speak of his infirmity? -to wit, the churches of Corinth and Galatia; and as he closes the epistle to the latter, in those rude letters, he says, "From henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." These marks are commonly referred to his scourgings and stonings. But if we suppose that a dim vision was caused by that mid-day flash near Damascus, then with power, these words would fall upon that Galatian church, which once would have restored his eyes by sacrificing their own-" Cease, ye calumniators, to question whether I am as apostolic as James or Peter. Think of the mark in my body. My branded eyes show the stroke of Christ, which at once arrested me in my madness, and consecrated me to the apostleship. He has put his mark upon me, that I am his. Doubt no more." For the word marks, oriypara, denotes a brand pricked or burnt upon the body of a slave, to indicate his owner.

This is the evidence which we adduce to confirm the supposition that Paul's thorn in the flesh was an affection of the eyes, which rendered him partially blind. We know of none which brings such strong confirmations. There is nothing in his history to contradict, and certainly several obscure passages are made clearer when viewed in this light.

Our readers are, of course, aware that this supposition is not original with us. We have mainly collated hints which we have

found scattered about. We know not who is the originator of this view, but the earliest trace of it we have found, is in a work entitled "Ministerial Character of Christ, by Charles Sumner, Domestic Chaplain to His Majesty (George IV.) Published in 1824. London." He was afterwards Bishop of Winchester.

Thus regarded, does not Paul appear more noble than ever! Picture that purblind man, with enough eyesight to trace out the altars of Athens, as he passed close to them, but not enough to distinguish the high priest in the dim light of the council-room. See him feeling his way through hostile countries, escorted from town to town by adherents won over, with his faithful Mark, or Silas, or Timothy, or Titus, or Luke, ever by his side. He needs the kind offices of these affectionate companions. Well may he have longed for them, and rejoiced in them-1 Cor. xvi. 17; 2 Cor. ii. 13; 2 Tim. iv. 9 and 21; Titus iii. 12, &c. He remembers their attentions. "Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us." Rom. xvi. 6. It is worthy of notice, that in his later travels, Luke, "the beloved physician," was his constant attendant, and probably he was with Paul until his martyrdom. 2 Tim. iv. 11. May not Paul's infirmity so have grown upon him, as to require the medical skill of Luke, that Paul might be so braced as to keep on with his duties? And yet among robbers, over mountains, across seas, taking tedious land journeys, passing perhaps even to Spain, he performs his work; stoned, scourged, imprisoned, hungry, thirsty, half-clothed, cold, and then scorched.

In Paul, as thus regarded, we have a noble specimen of what God has often shown the world-a lofty spirit, and a mighty intellect, doing its life-work hampered by a frail body, or encumbered with physical defects. Genius, in a sound body, is undoubtedly the perfection of man; and yet it is the exception. A large number of those to whom mankind is deeply indebted have had physical disorders. Pope was a hunchback. James Watt, who gave the steam-engine to mankind, was a nervous sufferer, afflicted with tearing headaches. His chest was sunken, and he suffered terribly from depression of spirits. At times he was tempted to suicide, so intolerable did life become. We well know how ungainly was the personal appearance of the celebrated Neander. A rheumatic disease lurked in his system for years. Three years before his death the disease turned upon his eyes, and reduced him almost to blindness. But he toiled on, by the help of readers and amanuenses, in his great work, the History of Christianity. Calvin's prodigious labours in that sickly and emaciated body, lend a deeper interest to his history. He was weak by constitution, and frequently disturbed by sickness, yet he worked on as preacher, pastor, and teacher of theology. For years he preached three times a week, besides the Sabbath. His correspondence was immense. He was afflicted