not to depend upon the thing called a miracle, but upon the credit of the reporter who says, that he saw it." If this were the true and only form of evidence afforded by miracles; if I were called upon to admit any extraordinary circumstance, or believe any strange doctrine, or model my moral and religious conduct upon no other authority than a man's telling me, that he had witnessed a miracle in proof of it, or its necessity, I would spurn the report, and laugh at the reporter: Did Moses invite a belief to his assertions? No. He performed the same miracles before the people that had carried conviction to his own mind. Did our blessed Lord affirm his divinity, and merely say, that he had miraculous proof of it himself, without giving that proof to those whom he wished to believe it? No such thing. "If ye believe not me, believe the works." The belief in every case rested upon the evidence of miracle; an evidence afforded to thousands of persons; to enemies as well as friends. If it be objected, that we see no miracles in attestation of the truths of religion, that objection admits of a direct contradiction. We have before our eyes, the miraculous fulfillment of prophecy in the desolation of Jerusalem, and the extraordinary dispersion of the Jews; and the universal diffusion of Christianity &c. We have, besides these, a miraculous preservation of the Scriptures themselves. A doctrine, hostile to the worldly interests of mankind, received by every diversity of people; preserved by nations at enmity with each other; regarded as sacred by individuals who deduce from it different systems of faith; and even in a little society, surrounded by tribes of idolaters, still kept in its original purity. These are miraculous.

How feeble, then, are the objections of Mr. Paine, when fairly examined! It is only when his dogmas are received for truths; his carricature for a faithful portrait, that Religion presents the incongruous form, that he has given it in this pamphlet.

I now proceed to the second paragraph. His first

question he properly answers in the negative; but, after what has already been said, it would be superfluous to say again, that the miracles recorded in the Bible, are miracles of a different kind from that here imagined by Mr. Paine. Nor is it a fair logical deduction, that because a miracle seen by one person cannot gain credit with others to whom he tells it, that therefore a miracle is not to be believed by those who see it. Indeed, so far from a deduction of that kind being fairly deduced from the premises, the very opposite naturally flows from them. For, if all had seen, "the hand in the air &c." they would have believed it, as Mr. Paine implies the individual believed it. It is a most disingenuous, as it is an illogical, mode of reasoning, to raise a particular conclusion into a general principle and when it is employed to invalidate the evidence of Religion, it is as wicked as it is illogical.

Therefore, as it has been proved, that a miracle is a sufficient evidence, it might have been said to be the highest evidence, of truth; it follows, that it "would answer its intended purpose" and, consequently, would be a suitable means, in the hands of the Almighty, to communicate his will to mankind.

"If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it; and we see an account given of such miracle by the person who said he saw it; it raises a question in the mind, very easily decided, which is, is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course, but, we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time. It is, therefore, at least millions to one that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.

The story of a whale swallowing Jonah, though a whale is large enough to do it, borders greatly on the marvellous; but it would have approached nearer to the idea of a miracle, if Jonah had swallowed the whale. In this, which may serve for all cases of miracles, the matter would de

cide itself, as before stated, namely: is it more probable that a man should have swallowed a whale, or told a lie?

But, supposing that Jonah had really swallowed a whale, and gone with it in his belly to Nineveh, and to convince the people that it was true, have cast it up in their sight of the full length and size of a whale, would they not have believed him to have been the devil, instead of a prophet? or if the whale had carried Jonah to Nineveh, and cast him up in the same public manner, would they not have believed the whale to have been the devil, and Jonah one of his imps?"

The first of these paragraphs supposes, what Mr Paine has already supposed, namely, that a miracle is an act or exhibition seen by one person only, and merely told by him to others; and that they who hear it, are upon such telling required to believe it. This fallacy has been explained in the preceeding comments. There is no instance recorded in the Bible where men are called upon to receive extraordinary truths, without the concurrence of extraordinary evidence.

If Mr. Paine meant, that the Apostles of our Lord, were not to be believed, when they preached to the Jews his resurrection &c. because it is more probable that they, to use his own language, would tell a lie, than that nature would go out of her course, he has drawn a false conclusion from imperfect premises. For, if nature, or human experience never furnished us with an example of the resurrection of a person from the dead, so, neither has experience furnished us with an example of ten or twelve persons voluntarily suffering death for preaching a belief in such a fact, and thatwithout any assignable motive whatever; and especially a belief attested by their eyes, their ears, and their hands; and, therefore, the latter is as much a miracle as the former; and the true state of the question is, which of these miracles is the more likely to be true? And since, whichever is affirmed to be true, establishes the truth of the other, it therefore follows, that they are both true, and Mr. Paine's calculation of probability, a nullity. Without descending to a minute explanation of the.

manner in which Jonah was rescued from destruction, there is abundant evidence on the face of the narrative, to prove the interposition of a miracle. A man cast into the sea during a storm that threatened" to break" the vessel, must inevitably have been drowned, without divine assistance. But this miracle, which Mr. Paine says, "may serve for all cases of miracles," was designed to confirm no truth to any one, except Jonah. He told it to no one; and if he had, they would not have been "obliged to believe him", unless he gave them other proofs than "his bare word for it," which, as Jonah was a Prophet, it is highly probable that he did. But instead of" serving for all cases of miracles," it had this peculiarity, that it was not public : yet, like all miracles it "answered its end;" for Jonah was convinced by it, and it was performed for his conviction.

If this miracle had had no other voucher than the allusion made to it by our Lord, it would then rest upon unquestionable ground.

The merriment of Mr. Paine in the last paragraph, if it make the injudicious smile, it will make the judicious grieve: it declares either a very wicked heart, or a very perverse mind.

"The most extraordinary of all the things called miracles, related in the New Testament, is that of the devil flying away with Jesus Christ, and carrying him to the top of a high mountain; and to the top of the highest pinnacle of the temple, and showing him, and promising to him, all the kingdoms of the world. How happened it that he did not discover America? or is it only with kingdoms that his sooty highness has any interest?

I have too much respect for the moral character of Christ, to believe that he told this whale of a miracle himself; neither is it easy to account for what purpose it could have been fabricated, unless it was to impose upon the connoisseurs of miracles, as is sometimes practised upon the connoisseurs of Queen Anne's farthings, and collectors of relics and antiquities; or to render the belief of miracles ridiculous, by out-doing miracle, as Don Quixote out-did Chivalry: or to embarrass the belief of miracles by making it doubtful by what power, whether of God, or of the devil,

any thing called a miracle was performed. It requires, however, a great deal of faith in the devil to believe this miracle."

In reply to the former of these paragraphs, it may be observed, that things appear "extraordinary" to us in proportion as their cause and end are unknown. The miracle to which Mr. Paine here refers, and of which he afterwards complains as being without either purpose or meaning, very obviously declares both; and it appeared "extraordinary" to him, because he did not understand it. Had he been acquainted with the typical prefigurations of Jesus Christ's forty days fasting in the wilderness, he would have discovered in them one reason for it; had he known that the "Prophet like unto" whom our Saviour was to be, fasted forty days, he would have seen the correspondence of the circumstance with the prediction; had he read his new Testament with that care he ought to have done before he ventured to object to any part of it, he would have found, that in the temptation of our blessed Lord, was exemplified the important truth, that no man is tempted beyond his power to escape. Again; had Mr. Paine traced in the Jewish ceremony of the scapegoat, and the liberation of one of the sacrifical birds, the expiring effort of the adversary of mankind, he would have seen for what purpose the miracle happened, and why it was related. He would also have seen what was the meaning of it; which, as some of his disciples may not understand, I will briefly explain.

It may be necessary to bear in mind what has been already stated, (namely,) that Jesus Christ was both God and man; as man, he partook of all our infirmities; as man, he was exposed to temptation; and the temptation of which we are now speaking, was almost the last struggle that the tempter of mankind had power to make for the retention of his dominion. Had he succeeded with the second Adam, as he had done with the first, man would, irrecoverably, have laid under divine displeasure. The Prince of the air was about to lose his sovereignty for ever;