may appear, no arguments of antecedent improbability, however warmly and ably urged, would convince that man that he did not witness what his senses assure him that he did. It might have been a matter in which deception was practised, and subsequent reasoning might convince him that the transaction was not real. Still he witnessed the appearance, and nothing could shake his confidence that he had done so. But if the transaction were of such a kind as left no possible room for deception, (and such, as we shall hereafter show, were most of the Christian miracles,) no reasoning could dissuade him from his belief, not simply that he witnessed it, but that it was also real. This is a simple case. Now the only question is, whether the conviction of an eye witness can be transferred to the mind of another, whose knowledge of the case is derived from testimony: that is, whether we can have the same confidence in the ability of another to detect imposture, as we could have in ourselves; and whether we can have the same confidence in the veracity of another, as we could in the immediate exercise of our own senses. I do not say, is such confidence generally exercised; but, is it possible for it to exist? I think there is scarcely a living man, who will take the trouble fairly to go through the engagements of a single day, that will not say it does exist. I do not ask him to take the weightier matters in which he is concerned, for these he may probably look into himself; but if it be found in the smallest and most ordinary trifle, the mere announcement of a stranger, or of the simplest household arrangement, it does exist, and therefore is possible. All that prevents his carrying the very same principle into more important concerns, is, a not unreasonable want of reliance, sometimes on the ability, but more often on the integrity of those through whose agency he must receive a report, or manage a transaction. Such trust-worthy agents are employed, and their statements acted on; but the too general uncertainty of human testimony may justify a stranger in not receiving implicitly the representation of one as yet unknown to him. What is wanting, however, in the credibility of a single witness, may often be supplied by the concurrent testimony of a number. Our security then consists in the independent examination, and close cross questioning of many witnesses; and the diligent comparison

of their testimony. We may thus discover their honesty, or even if all be dishonest, by sifting well their depositions, the truth may be arrived at; and do we not thus, especially in the case where the integrity of our witnesses is fairly brought out, often attain as great a certainty as to many transactions, as if we had been actual eye witnesses? If the story be unusual, we may ask for stronger testimony, and scrutinize the evidence more closely; still it is easy to imagine that the witnesses might be so many, and so trust-worthy, and the statements agree so satisfactorily, each with itself and that of others, that credit could not fairly be withheld. The contrary to the infidel's assertion, then, is true. The greatness of the improbability may be a just measure of the quality and quantity of evidence required; but competent evidence is capable of establishing any fact, so that no antecedent want of probability can invalidate it. The probability of a Revelation being made, though it may materially assist the proof, cannot alone prove that one has been made; still less that any professed Revelation is the true and only one. But the contrary improbability, supposing it to exist, can never affect the proof, if otherwise conclusive, that one has been made. The whole ultimately hinges on the validity of the evidence adduced in its support.

We come therefore to consider the manner in which this evidence is brought before us. A man may communicate with his fellow men, either by direct personal intercourse; or by the intervention of a messenger, or of writing. Nor is there any thing to render any of these plans impracticable, or unsuitable, in the case of a Divine Revelation, supposing one to be made. Revelation, for convenience of distinction, has been termed immediate, when the communication is made directly to an individual, or a collective assemblage of men; and mediate, when an individual or body of men, thus commissioned, make known their message to others. Of both these methods the Christian Scriptures afford a great variety of examples. It may perhaps be asked, why has not the Revelation been immediate to each individual, or, at the least, repeated to each successive generation? Let it suffice for the present to remark, that it is only analogous to what we see continually among men, for one in power to communicate with those around him, and often once for all, through others; and further that, as I have

already remarked, ours is a religion of faith; and faith, as shall be more fully explained hereafter, is excluded by certain personal knowledge. But the solution of this difficulty, if such it appear to any, need not here delay us; for I would repeatedly urge it on the reader's mind, that we are not so much concerned with what might have been, or even, if you please, ought to have been; as with what has been. However much the wisdom of the plan of redemption, when understood, may commend itself to our understandings, or its marvellous condescension to our affections, we are not bound, even if we be able, to show that it is the best that could have been contrived, or that it has been published in the best possible manner. If we can substantiate its truth, it is enough for us to know, that such are the terms on which our heavenly Sovereign has announced his willingness to enter into an intercourse with his subjects here on earth; and that it is his good pleasure to communicate his will, for the most part, through a selected few. We find it stated that on a few rare occasions a voice from heaven was heard by multitudes, as when the law was given on mount Sinai, and at the Baptism of Jesus; but that, more commonly, the divine will was promulgated through the intervention of chosen men, known in the Old Testament as Prophets, and in the New as Apostles; while on one occasion the Son of God, being himself very God of very God, assumed a human form, and thus spake openly with men. these, except the incarnate Son of God, were men in every respect like ourselves, and subject to like infirmities. The Son of God himself differed only in this, that he partook not of the sinful corruption of our nature, but in all other particulars was like the rest of men. The intrinsic omniscience of his Divinity, which he did not lay aside when he put on the human form, rendered any Revelation from above unnecessary to him. He was himself the God from whom the Christian Revelation emanates, and on whom centres the whole Christian scheme. It is in fact to demonstrate his claim to the obedience of all nations, that we cite the prophets and apostles as witnesses; and if we can make out their testimony to be credible, that testimony is, that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

All

And here, in passing, it may be well to pause and remind the reader, though this is not the place to enter upon the rela

tionship between the three Persons of the blessed Trinity, or to dwell upon their respective offices, that it is a first principle of our faith, that the Son and the Holy Ghost are, with the Father, one God, ever world without end. It will be sufficient therefore to speak of Revelation, as the Revelation, generally, of the Christian's God, irrespective of the particular Person of the Godhead whose more peculiar office may be touched upon; without staying to state particularly that it was the Holy Ghost that moved both prophets and apostles, or to discuss how far the inspiration of the prophets may be correctly ascribed to the Son of God, or, finally, to show, that whatever light of the knowledge of the glory of God shine forth in the Christian scheme, it is all, as is implied in the very name of CHRISTIANITY, in the face of JESUS CHRIST.

To resume:-on the few occasions when the voice of God spake to a multitude, the spectators could have no doubt of the reality of the transaction. When the communication was made through one in human form, the question was reasonable and proper:-the question might be reasonably and properly asked, How can we tell that you are sent from God? The Lord spake to his prophets, sometimes in dreams and visions of the night; sometimes in an audible voice; and again, by the mere exercise of an impression on their minds. How were they to discriminate between an ordinary dream, and a prophetic vision; the wanderings of an excited imagination, and the suggestions of the Spirit of God; and if there were a distinguishing token sufficient for their own guidance, how were they to satisfy those to whom their message was addressed? There may, or may not, be more ways than one by which this object might be accomplished; but there is one not to be mistaken, and beyond all controversy adequate to secure it. This is the performance of some work, simple and obvious to the senses of all, clearly not a cunning trick, and manifestly beyond the power of man; or the announcing of some future event, speedily to be accomplished, and obviously such as no human penetration could foresee. We might not unreasonably expect a repetition of these, to such an extent as would fairly bring the certainty of a miracle having been wrought, or a future event foretold, within the reach of the generality of those whom it concerned to assure themselves of the divine cha

But it is obvious

racter of the messenger thus accredited. that it would not be necessary that these credentials should be repeated on every occasion of his appearance in public. It would be clear from a few such exhibitions that such an one was commissioned by a Superior Power; and the seal thus unequivocally put to his pretensions, it is fair to suppose, would extend to the ratification of all his public and official acts, in his capacity of an emissary of that Power. We do not ask a well known servant to produce a warrant from his master on every message he may bring; and thus, the official character of a prophet being once established by the possession of miraculous or prophetic powers, and perhaps by their repetition on suitable and momentous occasions, the authority of this general testimony would be sufficiently satisfactory; it would, moreover, be fair to presume, that did he dare to deviate from his instructions, some public reprimand would be given; and the nonappearance of such reprimand would suffice to demonstrate his fidelity.

To their contemporaries, then, the proof of the divine mission of the prophets and apostles was THEIR MIRACLES; and their spirit of prophecy, which indeed may be well included under the general idea of a miracle. But the age in which they lived could alone be assured, from the seeing of the eye, or hearing of the ear, that the works and words. ascribed to them were actually wrought and said. They have long since been gathered to their fathers; and the gift of miracles has long ceased in the Christian Church. But the message they delivered has, we are told, been put in writing; and the Scriptures in the hands of the Christian Church profess to be those very writings; and to contain a faithful account of all we need to know concerning our religion. In what way are we to satisfy ourselves that these are indeed the writings they profess to be; and that the doctrines and the story they contain are true? If the story be strictly true, these miracles have been wrought, for it is essentially a miraculous story; and, if the miracles were wrought, the doctrines that are involved in and mixed up with them, and in support of which they were originally urged, are from heaven; and the whole scheme claims our implicit credit. This scheme was not developed at once but gradually; and the divine authority of each successive

C