chosen for my text, was the language of common sense; the force of which all the sophistry in the world cannot weaken. "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest except God be with him." The chief priests, and the Pharisees also, had the same conviction, "This man," saith they, "doeth many miracles: if we let him alone, all will believe on him." It is also highly worthy of remark, that none of the early opposers of the Christian religion ever disputed that Christ performed miracles. On the other hand, Celsus and Porphyry, who flourished so early as the second century, the most violent opposers which Christianity perhaps ever had, both admit that miracles were wrought; and consistently with this, likewise, the early Christian writers and apologists appeal to them in the most express terms. it not then well be asked, whether modern infidels, who have presumed to call in question the miracles of Christ, a weapon which Celsus himself was afraid to take up, have estimated duly the rashness of their enterprize. Will they contend, that the lapse of more than eighteen

May.

hundred years has enabled them to discern as false that which Celsus and Porphyry, who flourished so early as the second century, were compelled to admit. Thus it appears, that we have the most direct testimony of the friends, and the concessions of the enemies of revealed religion, in favour of those miracles, which were performed in order to prove that the religion came from God; and this testimony and these concessions were delivered so near the period in which the miracles were wrought, that they cannot possibly be accounted for in any other way than by admitting, that both Christians and unbelievers, in the early ages, were convinced that miracles had occurred. But the defence of miracles, against the objections of infidels, need not be thrown wholly upon what I have advanced. We may confidently assert, that there are arguments, arising from the nature of the miracles themselves, considered as matters of fact, that make it utterly impossible that men should have been either deceived at the time, or imposed upon afterwards. These arguments, however, our limits will only admit of my entering upon very briefly. Those

who are desirous of pursuing them further, will find them stated at large in the works of Dr. Campbell, Mr. Leslie, and Bishop Douglas.

In the arguments arising from the nature of miracles, considered as matters of fact, it is contended by these writers, that where certain criteria, or rules, are found to meet in any matter of fact whatever, such matter of fact cannot be false; that such rules are found to meet in the facts recorded in scripture; and therefore, that the miracles of Christ and his apostles are true; and consequently, that the religion he came to establish is of divine appointment. These criteria or rules are four. First, it is required that the fact be an object of sense; such as men's outward senses, their eyes and their ears, may judge of. Secondly, that the fact be notorious; that it be performed in the presence of witnesses. Thirdly, that there be memorials of the fact; certain observations kept up in commemoration of it: and Fourthly, that such observances commence with the fact itself. For if a fact be an object of sense, such as men's eyes and ears may judge of; if it also be notorious, performed in the presence of witnesses;

these two rules must make it impossible, for any such matter of fact to be imposed upon men, at the time when it was said to be done; because every man's eyes and senses would contradict it. Such, however, were the miracles of our Lord: they not only appealed to the senses, but were performed publicly, in the presence of the people. For example, take the miracles of the feeding of the multitudes. Can we possibly conceive, that five thousand men at one time, and four thousand at another, could have been persuaded that they fed upon a few loaves and a few fishes, if Christ had not performed these miracles. Is it possible to conceive, that the blind could have been persuaded that they saw; the lame, that they walked; the deaf, that they heard; the lepers, that they were cleansed; and the dead, that they had been restored to life :-if such miraculous works had not been done. The two first rules, then, effectually secure us from any cheat or imposture at the time the facts occurred. It therefore only remains to suppose, that such matter of fact might have been invented afterwards, when the men of that generation, in which the

D

thing was said to have been done, were passed away; and that the credulity of after ages might have been imposed upon to believe, that things were done formerly, which were not. Against this supposition, however, the two last rules secure us as effectually as the two first in the former case. For if it had been affirmed, that there were memorials of the fact; certain observances kept up in commemoration of it; and that such observances commenced with the fact itself; then it is obvious, that whenever such matter of fact came to be invented, the deceit must have unavoidably been detected, by no such monuments appearing; and by the experience of every man, woman, and child, who must have known, that no such observances were ever used.

This will appear still more plainly by applying these rules to the Gospel history. Baptism and the Lord's Supper were instituted as perpetual memorials of that religion, which it was the object of Christ's miracles to confirm. They were instituted, not in after ages, but at the very time when the circumstances to which they related took place; and they have been observed, without interruption,