mind, long after a sufficient degree of evidence has been laid before the understanding, to render scepticism unreasonable. Men doubt without any reason, without any motive; for the act is purely negative, and requires but the lowest degree of intellect. But in reference to moral subjects, they believe only under the power of strong motives; and the reasonableness of belief, or the apparent truth of the thing, is not a motive of adequate force to compel belief. It might be a sufficient inducement to a purely intellectual being, but is not so to man: so far from this, that it wholly depends upon the character of the individual, what degree of assurance the same kind and measure of evidence shall produce; and under different circumstances, the measure of external evidence remaining the same, the power of motive,the operation, for instance, of alarm,-shall make the indolent sceptic an assured, if not a devout believer.

We shall be glad if these remarks appear to any of our readers, trite : we are sure that they are not more obvious than they are important. And if they are admitted, it will then be acknowledged to be a question of some difficulty, how unbelief is to be treated when it has once taken root in the character, or by what means, when the infection has spread itself among an ignorant population, attended by the aggravated symptoms of open impiety, we should proceed to counteract the subtle mischief.

And here, surely, it is natural to recur to the method which appears to have been adopted by the first promulgators of Christianity, in combating the inveterate unbelief of the Jews, or in addressing themselves to the still more ignorant heathen. Peculiar as in many respects their circumstances were, we may nevertheless presume that their conduct will be found to supply the safest model for our imitation. Did they, then, in dealing with the Sadducees of their day, attempt ever to reason them out of their infidelity, by answering their objections against the doctrines of the Gospel, or by shewing the reasonableness and probability of what they were commissioned to teach? Did they not rather proceed at once to the simple proclamation of the facts of which they were the accredited witnesses, knowing, at the same time, that a cordial belief in those facts must involve a transformation of character, because all the motives of corrupt nature opposed the believing in them? The Apostles would never for a moment have admitted that there was any deficiency of evidence attending their declarations, which might render scepticism venial; but they knew that to believe, upon any thing short of irresistible evidence, in truths opposed to the prejudices and passions of the heart, required something beyond mere natural capacity, and inducements far stronger than the reasonableness of belief. They preached Christ crucified, aware that the doctrine would be to their countrymen a stumbling block, and to the Gentile philosophers

utter foolishness, and that no degree of evidence, not even that of miraculous signs, much less any power of argument or any "excellence of speech or wisdom," would procure for such a doctrine universal reception. Their preaching and their writing consisted of a reiterated testimony to the truth of the grand fact of a mediatorial intervention for the salvation of man, and of moral exhortations founded upon the recognition of its truth.

The circumstance of their testimony being visibly confirmed by signs, and wonders, and miraculous gifts, may, however, be thought to have superseded any other argument against infidelity. In this respect, the Christian advocate, it may be said, is placed in a predicament essentially different; not that scepticism is less inexcusable, but that it has somewhat more plausible pretexts for its demands. We appear to have now no such direct means of silencing the flippant cavils of incredulity. Christianity, we have reason to suppose, could not have been established-or it is sufficient to say, it was not established-without miraculous attestations. When miracles ceased, what are we then to regard as the designed and appropriate substitute for a species of proof all but demonstrative?

That miracles were necessary to constitute sufficient evidence both of the Divine mission and character of our Lord himself, and of the credibility of his chosen witnesses, must be admitted by all who attend to the language of Scripture. The Messiah declared, that had he not performed among the Jews such works as man had never performed, they had not been chargeable with sin in rejecting him-" The works that I do, bear witness "of me that the Father hath sent me." The resurrection of Christ was, however, the preeminent attestation of the reality of his Divine character. As such, the Apostle Paul represents it, where he says, that if Christ was not risen, his preaching and the faith of his converts, were in vain. And it was chiefly as credible witnesses to this fact, that it was requisite the Apostles should themselves be invested with the credentials of miraculous power. We do not mean to concede that their testimony, unsupported by miracles, would have had absolutely no claim to be received; but these, by establishing the infallibility of their testimony as well as their veracity, were requisite to counterbalance the natural incredibility of so extraordinary a fact.

It is obvious, however, that the effect which miracles were adequate to produce, fell far short of a cordial reception of the Christian faith. They established the reasonableness of a belief in Christianity, but they supplied, properly speaking, no motive for believing. They tended to rouse the attention of the multitude, to excite that species of interest which favours the due impression of evidence, and to overcome that contempt previous to examination,' which fatally opposes the strongest

measure of moral proof. But they took nothing away from the natural incredibility and repulsiveness of the doctrine they were employed to establish they left unsubdued all the hostile tendencies of the heart. We find, therefore, that the miracles of our Lord and of his Apostles, even though admitted in several instances to be undeniably miracles, were ineffectual to excite any devout conviction. The reality of the miracle was held to be insufficient proof of the truth of the doctrine, or even of the moral character of the Teacher. There was no deficiency of information in this case: the reasonableness of belief was obvious to the lowest capacity; and the inference was readily drawn by, as it should seem, an illiterate person, "If this man were not "of God, he could do nothing." It could not then be said, Miracles are contrary to our experience, but imposture is not, and therefore we refuse our belief.' But such was the force of worldly motives, that a supernatural attestation was deemed insufficient to establish the truth of doctrines repugnant to men's preconceived opinions and their cherished anticipations of national glory. "How can ye believe," said our Lord, "who receive honour one from another?"

Even in cases where the miracles were recognised as the effect of Divine power, and the facts so attested believed in to a certain extent, the state of the heart often precluded what would seem to have been the rational, if not the necessary inference from being followed out in the practice. The resurrection of Christ must have been admitted as a fact by the Roman Emperor who proposed to assign to him, as the God of the Christians, a place in the Pantheon. The general truth of Christianity must have obtained the assent of many who opposed the authority of the Apostles as inspired teachers. It were indeed a gross mistake, to imagine that the most natural deductions from the miraculous facts which form the substance of faith, would, so soon as the understanding was convinced of the reality of the facts themselves, be included in the act of belief. The nature of miraculous evidence is, we have shewn, far from being demonstrative: the sacred history proves that it is by no means adequate to compel belief. But further, how much or how little they shall be held to prove, when believed in, depends not upon the strength of our belief in the miracles themselves, but upon our disposition to admit them as sufficient evidence of all that they were intended to confirm. The connexion between the fact and the doctrine, which, equally with the fact itself, we are under an obligation to believe, is not demonstrated by the miracle, but affords an occasion for the moral exercise of the understanding. Were it otherwise, the doctrines of the New Testament would not be rejected by individuals who firmly believe in the historical truth of Christianity. A slow

ness to follow out the consequences of admitted truths, is one essential characteristic of unbelief; and what species of evidence can avail to overcome this radical perversity of intellect? None, certainly, that leaves room for the possibility of doubt. Miracles, it is evident, had no such efficiency even upon eyewitnesses. They were contemplated with awe, with stupid wonder, sometimes with malignant envy, but they were far from producing, as the ordinary result, any disposition of heart of the nature of genuine faith. They presented, in fact, no motives to belief. Now, so far as they appealed to the understanding, the foree of the evidence they supply, remains undiminished. The sight of a single miracle would, we admit, be more satisfactory to the curiosity, than to hear of a thousand; but it would not, we may safely affirm, afford so strong a reason for believing, as the accumulated proof supplied by the unimpeachable records of that series of miracles wrought by the founders of the Christian church. Incredulity is in the supposed case, and under existing circumstances, equally irrational, being in the contempt of sufficient evidence; and as to the state of heart which indisposes to the reception of sufficient evidence, that, in the midst of miraculous attestations, would remain the sanie." If they believe not Moses and the Prophets, neither "would they be persuaded though one should rise from the dead."

There have been men of high name and transcendent faculties, who, in contempt of the irrefragable external evidence of the truth of Christianity, have chosen to remain sceptical as to even the historical facts recorded in the Gospel history. Miracles, say they, are improbable, contrary to experience, and therefore, philosophically incredible. Can it be for a moment imagined, that these men, had they been, like some of the Sadducees, eyewitnesses of the miracles of our Lord, would not, like them, have remained Sadducees still? Would not what was to the Jews a stumbling block, as, in spite of visible miracles, philosophically incredible, have been a stumbling block and foolishness to them? Would they not rather have forgotten for a moment their sceptical creed, and referred the inexplicable phenomena of the miraculous cures wrought before their eyes, to the agency of demons? This is not a gratuitous supposition. The unbelief of the Jew, and the infidelity of the modern Deist, spring alike from a determined opposition to the doctrines and requisitions of the Gospel, which operates so as to prevent his believing upon sufficient evidence; and this opposition manifests itself, in both, in a contempt previous to examination.

We have admitted, however, that miracles had a tendency to overcome, in some degree at least, this previous indifference, by compelling attention, and obtruding on the mind a forcible presumption in favour of the truth of what was taught.

In this point of view, it may seem that the cessation of miracles leaves the unbeliever in a less advantageous predicament, by presenting, if we may so speak, fewer chances of his being roused into conviction. But let it be considered, that if all that miracles could do, was, either to furnish sufficient evidence to the ingenuous inquirer, or to afford such a reasonable presumption as was adapted to strike the mind of the thoughtless and indolent sceptic, the present circumstances of the Christian profession amply supply the want of miraculous proof in both these respects. First, as regards sufficient evidence to the inquirer, there was never, it may be safely affirmed, an honest infidel who remained such, as to the general truth of the Scripture history, after an examination of all the external proofs of its genuineness and authenticity, or who asked for miracles to render his belief rational. Those who have obstinately rejected the Scripture records, have never complained of the deficiency of the evidence by which they are authenticated, but have maintained the insufficiency of any degree of evidence to authenticate facts a priori incredible; a mode of reasoning which would have applied with equal force to miracles themselves, if wrought in attestation of doctrines which these philosophers had deemed a priori inconsistent with the perfections of Deity. In precisely this spirit of determined scepticism, a leading abettor of that modification of Deism which claims to be distinguished as Christian, avowed that could he be convinced that the doctrine of the Atonement was the doctrine of the New Testament, it would in his mind outweigh all the external evidence for its Divine authority. No degree of evidence could in the nature of things avail to overcome this previous determination to disbelieve.

But secondly, as regards the indolent, the illiterate and unreasoning sceptic, the miserable objectors of the class to which such men as Carlile belong,-miracles have ceased, and what means of proof, short of the obtrusive, palpable evidence which they forced upon the attention of the stupid multitude, could arrest these persons in their incredulity, and give a check to their blasphemous boldness? But we ask again, Had miracles any such effect? Who were the persons who composed the infuriated rabble that cried out, "Away with him, crucify him?" The spectators of our Lord's miracles. And was not Paul stoned by the very people who, on witnessing the cure wrought by him on the cripple at Lystra, exclaimed, that the gods were come down in the likeness of men?

A reasonable presumption in favour of Christianity, equally strong with that afforded by miracles-one that renders a contempt previous to examination equally inexcusable—is supplied, it appears to us, by the exhibition of Christianity as a practical reality in the characters of devout believers. We say, that not