disposed of in a way that we deem to be unsatisfactory. Each has been met by the assertion of a distinct and original principle in our intellectual constitution, that we believe had been previously unheard of the one an instinctive perception of design apart from experience; the other, an instinctive faith in testimony equally apart from experience. This was certainly a great homage to the ingenuity of Hume on the part of his opponents-being, in

objects when several pieces of glass are interposed---a very small number of pieces sufficing to intercept the view of an object which a single piece would allow us to perceive in a distinct manner. Historians do not appear to have attended enough to this reduction in the probability of facts, when they are looked to across a great number of successive generations: several historical events now reported certain, would become at least doubtful, if submitted to this proof."It is thus that by the glare of a false analogy, and having in it much at least of the semblance of science, the evidence for the miracles of the gospel might be represented as having undergone successive abstractions, till now attenuated to a shadow. Now what do we find to be the true state of the matter, when we abstain from bringing the vague analogies of one science or one subject into contact with another, to which it is in no way applicable? We at this moment enjoy a much greater sufficiency and splendour of historical evidence for the narratives of the gospel, than the christian world did three hundred years ago from the discovery since that period of innumerable documents then unknown, and from the results of that laborious investigation by which they have been made to cast the light of a constantly increasing confirmation on each other. The geologists of the present day are in infinitely better circumstances for guessing at the past history of the globe, than the geologists of five hundred years back; and that, because they know infinitely more of those fossile characters and remains, which may be regarded as so many vestiges or inscriptions by the hand of nature, and because they can now read these records of hers with a better exercised discernment than before. In like manner the sacred eruditionists of the present day see much clearer and farther than their forefathers did into the records of Christianity; and since the invention of printing, the discoveries which are perpetually being made by them, invest the credentials of our faith with a lustre that always increases and never decays after they have been consigned to the "immortal custody of the press.'

fact, a full admission of the soundness of his reasoning on the then only existent data, that is, on all which had yet been known of the mental philosophy. Insomuch, that to stem his infidelity in both its branches, they had to discover what was before unknown; or rather, we think, to invent or imagine what was before unthought of. We hold both the cause of Natural Theology, and the cause of Christianity, to be independent of any such device-and that without complicating and mystifying the science of human nature, or having recourse to questionable novelties, there might, on the ground of experimental evidence alone, be raised a defence against each of his two sophistries, more effective than any which has been hitherto attempted, and certainly far more luminous.

12. One main advantage of such a refutation as we have attempted, is, that if effective, it goes conclusively to establish the experimental character of the evidence for the truth of Christianity-the only appropriate evidence for a religion of facts. We feel anxious for the removal of all from the christian side of the controversy which might obliterate that character—and we did feel an obliteration, so long as no other argument could be devised, by which to meet the sophistry of Hume, but such as recognised our faith in testimony to be distinct from our faith in experience. I hold it a most important demonstration, if it have really been made out, that the historical argument for the truth of Christianity has a purely inductive basis to rest upon; and that all the strength and glory which modern science has taken to herself, because of

her firm standing on the groundwork of observation, belongs, without mixture and without attenuation, to the faith which we profess. The characteristic thing which gives such vigorous and enduring staple to the philosophy of our age, is, that she now builds up all her doctrine on the findings of experience and, no longer as before, on the fancies of a creative imagination. What we hold then a most desirable thing in argumenting the cause of Christianity, is to preserve this strictly experimental character to the reasonings on which her authority is founded—and we ever felt this subtlety of Hume, not as argued by him, but as redargued by his opponents, to be an obstacle in the way. It seemed a giving up of the authority of experience, to affirm of testimony, a character sui generis, and which owned no fellowship with the other— and we do feel, as if restored to comfort and to confidence, when, on the premises of our antagonist, that testimony is reducible to experience, we can nevertheless make good an overwhelming superiority of proof, for the miracles of Christ and his immediate followers. We now, in reference to our gospel and our faith, hold ourselves to be as firmly posted, as the disciples of modern science, on the evidence, the purely observational evidence of ascertained facts. It only remains, to follow the investigation consistently out, from the evidence of Christianity to the substance of Christianity-and to take our lessons from the volume of revelation, just as every sound experimental philosopher takes his from the volume of nature. They hold the authority of one natural observation to be of more

weight than the goodliest theory however plausible. And we, with our well accredited record, should hold one scriptural observation taken from its pages, to be of surpassing authority and value over all gratuitous imaginations of our own. The question of sound philosophy is, what findest thou? The question of sound theology is, what readest thou? There have been repeated attempts to put these two at variance and to oppose the lessons taken from the works, to the lessons taken from the word of God. But there is the same reigning spirit that actuates the true disciple in each of these departments, and a harmony of principle in both.

BOOK II.

ON THE MIRACULOUS EVIDENCE FOR THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.

CHAPTER I.

On the Principles of Historical Evidence, and their Application to the Question of the Truth of Christianity.

1. WERE a verbal communication to come to us from a person at a distance, there are two ways in which we might try to satisfy ourselves, that this was a true communication, and that there was no imposition in the affair. We might either sit in examination upon the substance of the message, and then, from what we knew of the person from whom it professed to come, judge whether it was probable that such a message would be sent by him; or we may sit in examination upon the credibility of the messengers.

2. It is evident, that in carrying on the first examination, we might be subject to very great uncertainty. The professed author of the communication in question may live at such a distance from us, that we may never have it in our power to verify his message by any personal conversation