subsequent period he detects the cause of the deviations from what appeared to be the natural course dictated by the general law of attraction, to be latent in the universality of that law affecting other bodies, which he had before neglected to take into the account. But what

analogy is there between this and the case of a man born blind suddenly restored to sight; a cripple suddenly restored to the use of his limbs; or of a man, who had died some days before, arising from the grave, on being commanded so to do? I do not know every thing relative to the human body, and the changes it may undergo from various causes; but I do know sufficient to inform me that the sound of the human voice has no power over the "dull cold ear of death." I do not know every thing relative to the nature of water; but I do know that similar bodies similarly situated will be affected in the like manner by the same causes; and that if on the sea of Galilee Peter was sinking at the time his Master walked upon it, that undoubtedly there was a suspension of the accustomed course of nature.

Maria. I do not think my brother's objection much better than the first.

Edward. But if a deviation from a law of nature take place, it must require amazingly strong evidence to prove

it.

Mr. B. The whole resolves itself into a question of probabilities, and as such it ought to be considered; viz. whether it is more probable that the miracle has taken place, or that those who bear witness to it are deceivers or deceived?

Maria. But, from the nature of the miracles you have just now cited in illustration, there appears no chance of deception.

Mr. B. There can be very little; but however we will consider both cases. Now, with regard to the miracles of the New Testament, their probability rests upon the following probabilities;-that they cannot be disproved;

12 What application does he make of this case to the argument against miracles?-13 What additional illustration does he make in the case of Peter?-14 Into what does he say that the whole resolves itself?-15 Upon what probabilities do the miracles of the New Testament rest?

that the witnesses of them were not deceivers; that they were not deceived; that the cause of the performance of these miracles was such as made the interposition of Divine power necessary or expedient.

Maria. The reason of the three first I see, but not of the last.

Mr. B. A miracle may be said to have been wrought, which I cannot disprove, and which is well attested, but which does not affect me; but the miracles of the New Testament are expressly given as proofs of the divine origin of the religion therein taught; and therefore I must be quite certain of their connexion with God, and must be convinced that they are in agreement with what I know of him. If I found the reverse the case, I should conclude that there was a defect in some part or other of the preceding proof, though I might not be able to detect it; in the same manner that an absurd conclusion in mathematics is allowed to overthrow a theory, however plausible, which has led to it.

Edward. Before we examine the miracles, will it not be as well to examine the credibility of the other parts of the New Testament? since, if we detect falsehood in common things, it is not unreasonable to distrust statements of extraordinary events.

Mr. B. Certainly; and first, then, I observe, that with regard to all the leading facts, not miraculous, the statements of the New Testament were allowed by those who were able to have detected falsehood, had it existed, and who were most anxious to destroy their credit. From the enemies of Christianity, and its most bitter antagonists, we may prove the credibility of the New Testament. Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, must have had the power to detect any gross falsehood; and who that looks at the remains of their works can doubt their anxiety to overthrow Christianity?

But again, the leading facts have never been disputed.

16 What does Maria say of these probabilities?-17 How does Mr. B. reply to her remark?-18 What does Edward propose to examine before the miracles, and why?-19 How, in the first place, is the credibility of the New Testament to be proved?-20 What is said of the existence of Paganism, Mahometanism, and Judaisın, as affecting this argument?

14*

Paganism did not become extinct till the sixth century, and with the seventh arose Mahometanism: Judaism never was extinct; yet not one of these three bodies of adversaries have disproved the facts. It was reserved for those of later time to become sceptical upon these points.

Maria. This is, however, only a general and negative argument in favour of their veracity.

Mr. B. Let us then descend to particulars, and examine them in those points where we have most information from their adversaries, and the truth may positively be ascertained. It is not uncommon for rational and religious prejudices very materially to warp the mind. What accounts, then, do the New Testament writers give of themselves and others, and how far do these agree with the statements of their adversaries?

Now, with regard to the Jews, look at their own books, their favourite authors, and you will find the nation was not in the least different from the accounts given of them by the writers of the New Testament. Or if you turn from these to Josephus, whom they now abhor, is his account any better? Or do the Pagans give a more favourable account of this proud and bigoted nation?

Again, with regard to the Pagans, St. Paul's statements, strong as they are, do not go beyond those of their own writers, and even to the finer shades we find the same scrupulous accuracy.

Or take the characters of individuals described by both parties. Do the accounts of Herod, Pilate, Agrippa, Felix, and others differ from those of Josephus and the Roman writers who have mentioned them?

Edward. And in all these instances prejudice would be likely to influence them.

Mr. B. Again, with regard to themselves, in no respects do they appear to over-rate the character or influ

21 How does Mr. B. propose to vary the argument?-22 How does he show that the New Testament account of the Jews is correct?-23 What is said of the New Testament account of the Pagans?-24 What cases of individuals are named in further proof of the same trait in the New Testament account of character?-25 How does Edward speak of these instances?-26 How do the writers of the New Testament speak of themselves?

ence of their converts, in order to magnify their own importance. Pliny, you have seen, bears witness to the purity of their conduct; nor do any other accounts enable us to detect false statements in this respect.

Edward. Still these are in some respects general statements also: are they found equally correct in minutiæ ? Mr. B. In general we find an accuracy of fact, and sometimes with an appearance of carelessness in expression, which is strongly corroborative of their veracity. To give one example, St. Luke speaks of Sergius Paulus as proconsul of Cyprus. Now Strabo and Dio expressly state that Cyprus was a prætorian and not a proconsular province: and till very lately it was supposed, on their authority, that St. Luke was incorrect; but closer investigation has proved his accuracy in this respect, a coin having been found, bearing an inscription, in which the very term used by St. Luke occurs. We find similar accuracy wherever the scene of action is laid. Now even a learned man, however well informed on general topics, could hardly have preserved uniform accuracy in all points of a work of fiction on so extended a scale; and the most consummate art would be requisite to preserve it with that appearance of freedom and carelessness observable in these books.

Maria. If the apostles had not really lived and travelled as they profess to have done, it is then most improbable that they would have adhered to truth so closely, or indeed have been informed of facts so minute, as to escape the observation of more learned men.

Mr. B. In the narratives of the Gospels, there is the same propriety of expression with regard to things purely local, which at least fully proves that the whole was so familiar to the writer's mind, that he naturally made use of proper and determinate expressions. Palestine to this. day remains an evidence for the veracity of the evangel

27 What case of St. Luke's great accuracy is given?-28 Is there a similar degree of accuracy in other parts of the New Testament?-29 What conclusion does Maria draw from this accuracy in the statement of facts?-30 What does Mr. B. say of the narratives of the Gospels genesally, and of Palestine in particular, in relation to the same subject?

ists,‚—a noble evidence, whose testimony cannot be silenced or misrepresented.

Maria. But if we find them correct with regard to historical and geographical minutiæ, we must conclude that they were writing altogether what was true; or that they were engaged in compiling a laboured, false account with the greatest care, and affecting accuracy in some things, the truth of which could be ascertained, that they might be the more readily believed in others, when this was not the case.

Mr. B. Yet nothing can be more contrary to matter of fact than the latter supposition; for from one end to the other common facts are mentioned with the greatest indifference, or merely alluded to so as to connect the narrative of the life of their Master with the history of the times, and enable all, by the mention of time and place, to ascertain the reality of the extraordinary occurrences on which their attention was fixed. There is no effort in the Gospels, no display; all minor considerations are lost sight of in the greatness of the subject on which the authors are engaged; and even then, it is not so much the giving a full account of our Lord, as the stating what they themselves knew, as in the case of St. Matthew, and St. John, or of the truth of which they were assured by eye-witnesses, as in the case of St. Luke and St. Mark.

Edward. If these writers had to support a false story, it is indeed improbable that they should have thus acted; that they should have neglected to avail themselves of their own advantages, and left themselves exposed to animadversion from the narratives being different.

Mr. B. But besides this positive testimony to the veracity of the evangelists, we must not omit the negative testimony afforded, in that their enemies never denied many things, which, if false, they must have had the

31 What are the two cases supposed by Maria, one of which must be applicable to the writers of these books?-32 What does Mr. B. say of her latter supposition?-33 How were the authors of the Gospels governeb in writing those histories?-34 What does Edward say, in relation to them, is improbable?-35 Besides the positive testimony in favour of the veracity of the evangelists, what other testimony is there?