age preceding and this not only because the same arguments of infidelity are constantly shifting their structure or form, and require therefore to be obviated by different methods of proof; but also because we can almost always detect some weak point, or some unconsidered assertion, in the processes adopted by former writers. Thus the tract of Grotius on the truth of the Christian religion, though it may be made a mine of intellectual wealth to the student, may often betray him into notorious mistakes. It is the same in general as to all similar works. As far as we can see, it is the Scripture alone, and this though written at a period very remote, and among a proud and bigotted people, on which that power of investigation and criticism, which time and circumstances have since bestowed, does not enable us to fix any charge of error.

If I am right in supposing that it is thus almost the order of nature, that every age should possess a literature of its own, even on subjects which are to all ages one common

concern, it can scarcely be necessary for me to make an apology for offering to the public a new treatise on miracles. If it be the fact, not only that writers are ambitious of substituting new treatises in the place of the old : (this ambition of theirs, if no public end could be gained by it, would be only a useless or even a mischievous vanity :) but also that few, if any, treatises are to be found, on perhaps any subject whatever, which come up to our notions of attainable excellence: in this case, every man, who has thought long and frequently, on such a subject as this, may hope to do something towards the general benefit; may be justly solicitous, even though he cannot do all, yet to furnish some materials which a wise master builder, either of his own age, or a subsequent one, may be able to dispose in their proper place.

I may be permitted to add, also, that this great question of miracles is a question which not only may be thus supposed to admit of, but which also appears to me very eminently

to require, a new and accurate explication. The works on the subject which are now best known to the public are chiefly intended as mere refutations of that sophism by which Hume attempted to destroy the credibility of all miracles whatsoever. That sophism is now, I believe, almost exploded. To say the least, it has been very clearly confuted by every writer who has taken the pains to examine it. Nor have the pains so taken been unwisely bestowed. For though I know not that another case could be assigned, in which any man of Hume's splendid abilities has surrendered his understanding to such obvious fallacies as those adopted by him in his Essay on Miracles, yet the effect of those fallacies was very lasting and general, and from the nature of the soil in which they took easy root, demanded for their eradication a far more active industry than their inherent strength could deserve.

I have nothing to object therefore against those works on miracles, which have been directed primarily against the error of Hume. Se

veral of those works are very ably written, and contain observations of much real importance on many of the bearings of the whole question. Still they are of necessity rather controversial than didactic, and can scarcely be expected to give a complete view of the subject to a reader unbiassed either by the infection or the dread of the particular error which they are meant to oppose.

In general treatises on the evidences of revelation, this defect, as I must here call it, of viewing the subject of miracles with too exclusive a reference to the sophism of Hume, does not appear to exist. The general evidence of the real performance of the miracles has often been in such treatises very clearly unfolded; and if it had suited the object of Paley's work on the evidences to treat of miracles with no less detail of particulars, as to the nature and character of the miracles performed, than that which he has given of the deductive testimony which we possess that the history of our religion has been transmitted

faithfully from its origin, little would now, probably, remain to be added to the clear exposition which he would have made of the subject. But even the evidence of the real performance of the miracles it was not his object to state in detail, and still less to introduce into his very general treatise any discussion whatever of the nature of miracles; though this is an enquiry of great importance and interest, on which no man of reflection can fail to speculate; and without entering into which we can have no definition of miracles, nor be able with precision to understand what they mean; nor to appreciate the cogency of this strongest and most popular of all the evidences for the truth of our religion, and that which is most appealed to by our Saviour himself.

Of the particular treatises which engage professedly in the consideration of the nature of miracles, or of their exact import and character, Fleetwood's two short dialogues, and the Essay by Farmer, appear to me on the whole the most worthy attention :-the first on account of