Jesus, "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 credentials of the apostles, as subordinate agents of divine revelation, are expressed in like manner. "God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost." None can question the absolute certainty of such credentials. This has been acknowledged even by the most famous advocates of infidelity. Woolston says, “I believe it will be granted on all hands, that the restoring a person indisputably dead to life is a stupendous miracle, and that two or three such miracles, well attested and credibly reported, are enough to conciliate the belief that the author of them was a divine agent, and invested with the power of God." Make good therefore the evidence, that the Saviour and his apostles 'wrought miracles in attestation of their divine mission, and the Christian religion, as contained in the New Testament and taught by them, must be a divine revelation.

Our way, therefore, is plain. We must inquire into the evidence on which it can be established, THAT THE SAVIOUR AND HIS APOSTLES DID WORK MIRACLES. TO this inquiry we should proceed immediately, were it not for the peculiar circumstances which meet us in the way. The adversaries of the gospel have had wit enough to see that either the evidence of miracles must be overthrown, or they must surrender the

John 3:2.

↑ Heb. 2: 4.

+ Scheme of Literal Prophecy, pp. 321, 322.

contest. Unable to meet the direct and abounding testimony by which the wonderful works of Christ and his apostles are proved, they have taken position and entrenched themselves upon the advanced and desperate ground of the insufficiency of any testimony to prove a miracle. Thus have we a redoubt in our way, commanding the whole field of controversy, which,' though easily carried when properly assailed, would be of great damage if left in our rear. The present lecture will be occupied, therefore, with the discussion of certain preliminary subjects, anticipating a direct application to the evidence of miracles in our next. We commence with the following proposition :

1. There is nothing unreasonable or improbable in the idea of a miracle being wrought in proof of a divine revelation. I know not but that all persons of ordinary information have a sufficiently correct idea of what is meant by a miracle, without the aid of a definition. No one would mistake the restoration of sight to the blind by the use of human skill, however wonderful it might be considered, for a miracle. No one could mistake the sudden communication of sight to one born blind, at the mere word of another without any intervening cause, for any thing else than a miracle. The former result, though astonishing, would be according to the common course of nature, or to what are called the laws of nature. The latter would be beyond, or different from those laws. One would be a natural, the other a supernatural event, or a miracle.*

Now the idea of a revelation from God, and the idea of a miracle to attest the divine commission of those who make it, are essentially connected. If one or more individuals be sent to communicate the revelation, they must prove their mission by some credentials. What can their credentials be but miracles? The necessity of these will be evident from a little consideration. They can appeal to but three sorts of proof: the internal excellence and fitness of their communications, their own integrity and judgment, and the miraculous works attendant on their ministry. With regard to the two former, it is manifest that in the most favorable circumstances, they would need too much time and evidence and discrimination for their establishment; and that they would always remain of a character too uncertain to permit their being used with any effect in proof of a divine revelation. They would answer well as auxiliaries, but it would require something of a much more positive nature to sustain the chief burden of proof. The claim to be received as a messenger of God, for the purpose of making a reve lation to the world, could never be substantiated on such grounds. Evidence is needed which all minds may appreciate. It must be something that has only to be seen to be understood and acknowledged. When a plenipotentiary presents himself at the seat of government, intrusted with certain communications from a foreign power of great importance on both sides, and requiring to be immediately acted upon, it would not answer for him to plead in evi

dence of his delegated authority, that his personal integrity is unimpeached and his communications are such as might be expected from his government. The time for action would be lost while such proof was being proved. He must exhibit credentials which carry on their face the direct evidence of his commission. He must show the broad seal of his sovereign stamped upon their handwriting. So must an ambassador from God. What then can he show but miracles? What else can set to his communications the seal of God? "In fact, the very idea of a revelation includes that of miracles. A revelation cannot be made but by a miraculous interposition of Deity."*

So that the idea of miracles can be unreasonable or improbable only so far as it is unreasonable or improbable that God should commission one or more persons to make a revelation of his truth and will. That such a revelation was needed in the world at the time when Christ appeared, can be denied only by asserting that the additional light now possessed, in consequence of the gospel, is superfluous and useless. This denial can only be maintained by showing that the world, sunk in idolatry, vice, and darkness, as it was universally before the gospel came, had all the knowledge of God, and all the assurance of his will and of the retributions of a future state, that were important to its happiness. A matter of proof which I suppose no one here imagines to be possible. Then if it cannot be shown that a revela

tion was not needed, it cannot be proved that the idea of a revelation from a God of infinite goodness and mercy, was either unreasonable or improbable. But a revelation can be attested only by miracles. They are inseparable. Consequently, in the idea of miracles being wrought in proof of divine revelation, it cannot be proved that there is any thing either unreasonable or improbable.

It would not be difficult to show, that in the circumstances of the world at the Christian era, a revelation was not only probable, but necessary; and by manifest consequence that miracles, as its necessary attestations, were also not only probable, but necessary.

Having thus endeavored to show that there is no presumptive evidence against a miracle, except as it lies equally against a revelation, and that the one is probable in proportion as the other may be expected, let us proceed to our second proposition.

2. If miracles were wrought in attestation of the mission of Christ and his apostles, they can be rendered credible to us by no other evidence than. that of TESTIMONY. There are various descriptions of evidence, as the evidence of sense, the evidence of mathematical demonstration, and moral evidence including that of testimony. Each of these has its own department of subjects. A question of morals cannot be demonstrated by mathematics, or proved by the senses. A question of historical fact can be settled only by testimony. It might as well be put to the tests of chemistry, as to have applied to it