I constantly had occasion to admire the power with which be laid hold of the moral side of every controversy; whether he was reasoning against Romanism, against the High Church, against learned religion or philosophic scepticism: and in this matter his practical axiom was, that the advocate of truth had to address himself to the _conscience_ of the other party, and if possible, make him feel that there was a moral and spiritual superiority against him.

Such doctrine, when joined with an inculcation of man's _natural blindness and total depravity_, was anything but clearing to my intellectual perceptions: in fact, I believe that for some years I did not recover from the dimness and confusion which he spread over them.

But in my entire inability to explain away the texts which spoke with scorn of worldly wisdom, philosophy, and learning, on the one hand; and the obvious certainty, on the other, that no historical evidence for miracle was possible except by the aid of learning; I for the time abandoned this side of Christian Evidence,--not as invalid, but as too unwieldy a weapon for use,--and looked to direct moral evidence alone.

And now rose the question, How could such moral evidence become appreciable to heathens and Mohammedans?
I felt distinctly enough, that mere talk could bring no conviction, and would be interpreted by the actions and character of the speaker.
While nations called Christian are only known to heathens as great conquerors, powerful avengers, sharp traders,--often lax in morals, and apparently without religion,--the fine theories of a Christian teacher would be as vain to convert a Mohammedan or Hindoo to Christianity, to the soundness of Seneca's moral treatises to convert me to Roman Paganism.

Christendom has to earn a new reputation before Christian precepts will be thought to stand in any essential or close relation with the mystical doctrines of Christianity.