Other miracles of Jesus may be accommodated to the doctrines of religion, and much spiritual instruction may be derived from them. But these three, the cure of diseases, the casting out devils, and the raising the dead, are applied by himself in the manner which I have stated. They are not only a confirmation of his divine mission, by being a display of the same kind of power which appears in creation and providence, but, from their nature, they are a proof of the characteristical doctrines of the Gospel; and we are led by considering works so great in themselves, and at the same time so apposite to the purpose for which they were wrought, to transfer to the miracles of Jesus that devout exclamation which an enlarged view of the creation dictated to the Psalmist; "How manifold are thy works, O Lord; in wisdom hast thou made them all."*

I have thus stated the force of that argument which arises from the miracles of Jesus, as they are recorded in the New Testament. They who beheld them said, "When Messias cometh, will he do more miracles than those which this man doth? This is the prophet."+ They spoke what they felt, and the deductions of the most enlightened reason upon this subject accord with the feelings of every unbiassed spectator. But we are not the spectators of the miracles of Jesus; the report only has reached our ears; and some further principles are necessary in our situation to enable us to apply the argument from miracles in support of the truth of Christianity.

SECTION II.

Ir appeared more consistent with the simplicity of nature and the character of man, that one or more persons should be ordained the instruments of conveying an extraordinary revelation to the rest of the world, than that it should be imparted to every individual mind. The commission of these messengers of heaven may be attested by changes upon the order of nature, which the Almighty accomplishes through their agency. But the works which they do, are objects of sense only to their contemporaries with whom they converse. Without a perpetual miracle exhibited in their preservation, those facts which are the proof of the divine revelation must be transmitted to succeeding ages, by oral or written tradition, and, like all other facts in the history of former times, they must constitute part of that information which is received upon the credit of testimony. Accordingly we say, that Jesus Christ, for a few years, did signs and wonders in the presence of his disciples, and before all the people: the report of them was carried through the world after his departure from it by chosen witnesses, to whom he had imparted the power of working miracles; and many of the miracles done both by him and his apostles are now written in authentic genuine records which have reached our days, that we also may believe that he is the Son of God. Supposing then we admit, that the eye-witnesses of the miracles of Jesus reasoned justly when they considered them as proofs of a divine commission; still it remains to be inquired, whether the evidence which has trans

mitted these miracles to us, is sufficient to warrant us in drawing the same inference which we should have drawn if we ourselves had seen them.

There are three questions which require to be discussed upon this subject. Whether miracles are capable of proof? Whether the testimony borne to the miracles of Jesus was creditable at the time it was given? And whether the distance at which we live from that time destroys, or in any material degree impairs its original credibility?

1. It was said by one of the subtlest reasoners of modern times, that a miracle is incapable of being proved by testimony. His argument was this: "Our belief of any fact attested by eye-witnesses rests upon our experience of the usual conformity of facts to the reports of witnesses. But a firm and unalterable experience hath established the laws of nature. When, therefore, witnesses attest any fact which is a violation of the laws of nature, here is a contest of two opposite experiences. The proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can be imagined; and if so, it cannot be surmounted by a proof from testimony, because testimony rests upon experience." Mr. Hume boasted of this reasoning as unanswerable, and he holds it forth in his Essay on Miracles as an everlasting check to superstition. The principles upon which the reasoning proceeds have been closely sifted and their fallacy completely exposed, in Campbell's Dissertation on Miracles; one of the best polemical treatises that ever was written. Mr. Hume meets here with an antagonist who is not inferior to himself in acuteness, and who, supported by the goodness of his cause, has gained a, triumphant victory. I consider this dissertation as a standard book for students of divinity. You will find in it accurate reasoning, and much information upon the whole subject of miracles, and, in particular, a thorough investigation of the question which I have now stated.

It is not true that our belief in testimony rests wholly upon experience; for, as every man has a principle of veracity which leads him to speak truth, unless his mind be under some particular wrong bias, so we are led, by the consciousness of this principle, and by the analogy which we suppose to exist between our own mind and the mind of others, to believe that they also speak the truth, until we learn by experience that they mean to deceive us. It is not accurate to state the firm and unalterable experience which is said to establish the laws of nature as somewhat distinct from testimony; for since the observations of any individual are much too limited to enable him to judge of the uniformity of nature, the word experience, in the sense in which it is used in this proposition, presupposes a faith in testimony, for it comprehends the observations of others communicated to us through that channel. It is not true that a firm and unalterable experience hath established the laws of nature, because the histories of all countries are filled with accounts of deviations from them.

These are objections to the principles of Mr. Hume's argument, which his subtle antagonist brings forward, and presses with much force. But, independently of these inferior points, he has shown that the argument itself is a fallacy; and the sophism lies here. Experience vouches that which is past; but, if the word has any meaning,

experience does not vouch that which is future. Our judgment of the future is an inference which we draw from the reports of experience concerning the past: the reports may be true, and yet our inference may be false. Thus experience declares that it is not agreeable to the usual course of nature for the dead to rise. Suppose twelve men to declare that the dead do usually arise, there would be proof against proof; a particular testimony set against our own personal observations, and against all the reports and observations of others which we had collected upon that subject. But suppose twelve men to declare that one dead man did arise, here is no opposition between the reports of experience and their testimony; for it does not fall within the province of experience to declare that it is impossible for the dead to rise, or that the usual course of nature in this matter shall never be departed from. We may hastily draw such inference from the reports of experience. But the inference is our own: we have taken too wide a step in making it; and it is sophism to say, that because experience vouches the premises, experience vouches also that conclusion which is drawn from them merely by a defect in our mode of reasoning.

When witnesses then attest miracles, experience and testimony do not contradict one another. Experience declares that such events do not usually happen: testimony declares that they have happened in that instance. Each makes its own report, and the reports of both may be true. Instances somewhat similar occur in other cases. Unusual events, extraordinary phenomena in nature, strange revolutions in politics, uncommon efforts of genius or of memory, are all received upon testimony. Magnetism, electricity, and galvanism are opposite to the properties of matter formerly known. Yet many who never saw these new powers exerted, give credit to the reports of the experiments that have been made. Experience indeed begets a presumption with regard to the future. We are disposed to believe that the facts which have been uniformly observed will recur in similar circumstances; and we act upon this presumption. But as new situations may occur, in which a difference of circumstances produces a difference in the event, and as we do not pretend to be acquainted with all the circumstances which discriminate every new case, this presumption is overturned by credible testimony relating facts different from those which have been observed. Without the presumption suggested by experience, we should live in perpetual amazement; without the credit given to testimony, we should often remain ignorant, and be exposed to danger. By the one, we accommodate our conduct to the general uniformity of events; by the other, we are apprized of new facts which sometimes arise. The provision made for us by the Author of our nature is in this way complete, and we are prepared for our whole condition.

There does not appear, then, to be any foundation for saying that a miracle is, from its nature, incapable of being proved by testimony. As nothing can hinder the Author of nature from changing the order of nature whensoever he sees meet, and as one very important purpose in his government is most effectually promoted by employing, at particular seasons, the ministry of men to change this order, a miracle is always a possible event, and becomes, in certain circumstances, not improbable. Like every other possible fact, therefore, it may be com

municated to such as have not seen it by the testimony of such as have. It is natural indeed, to weigh very scrupulously the testimony of a miracle, because testimony has in this case to encounter that presumption against the fact which is suggested by experience. The person who relates it may, from ignorance, mistake an unusual application of the laws of nature for a suspension of them; an exercise of superior skill and dexterity for a work beyond the power of man; or he may be disposed to amuse himself, and to promote some private end by our credulity. Accordingly, we do not receive any extraordinary fact in common life upon the credit of every man whom we chance to meet. We attend to the character and the manner of the reporter; we lay together the several parts of his report, and we call in every circumstance which may assist us in judging whether he is speaking the truth. The more extraordinary and important the fact be, there is the more reason for this caution; and it is especially proper, in examining the reports of those facts which deserve the name of miracles, i. e. works contrary to the course of nature, said to be performed by man, as the evidences of an extraordinary revelation.

2. We are thus led to the second question which I stated, Whether the testimony borne to the miracles of Jesus was credible?

The Apostles were chosen by Jesus to be witnesses to the uttermost parts of the earth of all things which he did, both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, and of his resurrection from the dead. This was the commission which they received from him immediately before his ascension, the character under which they appeared before the Jewish council, and the office which they assume in their writings. It is not my business to spread out the circumstances which render theirs a credible testimony, and give to each its propercolouring. It is enough for me to mention the sources of argument.

In judging of the credibility of this testimony, you are led back to that branch of the internal evidence of Christianity which arises from the character of the Apostles, as it appears in their writings-in their unblemished conduct, and distinguished virtues-in that soundness of understanding, and calmness of temper which are opposite to enthusiasm, and in those simple artless manners which are most unlike to imposture. You are further to observe, that their relation of the miracles of Jesus consists of palpable facts, which were the objects of sense. The power by which a man born blind received his sight was invisible; but that the man was born blind might be learned with certainty from his parents or neighbours: and that, by obeying a simple command of Jesus, he recovered his sight, was manifest to every spectator. The power which raised a dead man was invisible; but that Jesus and his disciples met a large company carrying forth a young man to his burial-that this young man was known to his friends, and believed by all the company to be truly dead, and that upon Jesus' coming to the bier, and bidding him arise, he sat up and began to speak; all these are points which it did not require superior learning or sagacity to discern, but concerning which, any person in the exercise of his senses, who was present and who bestowed an ordinary degree of attention, could not be mistaken. The case is the same with the other miracles. We are not required to rest upon the judgment of the Apostles-upon their acquaintance with physica'

causes, for the miraculous nature of the works which Jesus did; for they gave us simply the facts which they saw, and leave us to make the inference for ourselves. There is no amplification in the manner of recording the miracles, no attempt to excite our wonder, no exclamation of surprise upon their part; they relate the most marvellous exertions of their Master's power with the same calmness as ordinary facts; they sometimes mention the feelings of joy and admiration which were uttered by the other spectators; they hardly ever express their own.

This temperance with which the Apostles speak of all that Jesus did, gives every reader a security in receiving their report, which he would not have felt, had the narration been turgid. Yet he cannot entertain any doubt of their being convinced that the works of Jesus were truly miraculous; for by these works they were attached to a stranger. While they lived in honest obscurity, an extraordinary personage appeared in their country, and called upon them to follow him. They left their occupations and their homes, and continued for some years the witnesses of all that he did. They were Jews, and had those feelings which have ever distinguished the sons of Abraham with regard to the national religion. Their education, instead of enlarging their views, had confirmed their prejudices. Yet they were converted : with every thing else, they forsook their religion, and joined a man who was the author of a system which professed to supersede the law of Moses. They received him as the promised Messiah. But, possessed with the fond hopes of the Jewish nation, they believed that he was a temporal prince, come to restore the kingdom to Israel, and to make the Jews masters of the world. They were undeceived. Yet this disappointment did not shake their faith. Although they had followed Jesus in the expectation of being the ministers and favourites of an earthly prince, they were content to remain, during his life, the wandering attendants of a man who had "not where to lay his head;" and they appeared in public, after his departure from the earth, as his disciples. The body of the Jewish people, attached to the law of Moses, regarded them as traitors to their nation. To the priests and rulers, whose influence depended upon the established faith, they were peculiarly obnoxious. That civil power with which the spirit of the Jewish religion had invested its ministers, was directed against the apostles of Jesus: and without any attempt to disprove the facts which they asserted, every effort was made to silence them by force. They were imprisoned and called before the most august tribunal of the state. There the high priest, armed with all the dignity and authority of his sacred office, commanded them not to preach any more in the name of Jesus. Yet these men, educated in servile dread of the higher powers, with the prospect of instant punishment before their eyes, declared that they would obey God rather than man. Their conduct corresponded to this heroic declaration. Although exposed to the fury of the populace and the vengeance of the rulers, they continued in the words of truth and soberness to execute their commission; and they sealed their testimony with their blood; martyrs, not to speculative opinions in which they might be mistaken, but to facts which they declared they had seen and heard, which they said they were commanded to publish, and which no threatening or punishment could make them either deny or conceal.