because miracles had been wrought on some rare occasions, different from those recorded in the Bible, that therefore these were of no validity as evidence of divine revelation? Would not the fact that other miracles had been wrought, rather confirm our belief in those which were performed with so important a design? Mr. Hume does, indeed, artfully insinuate, that the various accounts of miracles which exist cannot be true, because the religions which they were wrought to confirm are opposite; yet not one of those which he brings forward as being best attested, was performed in confirmation of any new religion, or to prove any particular doctrine, therefore they are not opposed to Christianity. If they had actually occurred, it would not in the least disparage the evidence for the facts recorded in the New Testament. And, especially, it is a strange conceit that miracles performed within the bosom of the Christian church, should furnish any proof against Christianity.

This

It is, however, no part of the object of those who bring forward such an array of testimony in support of certain miracles, to prove that such facts ever occurred. is diametrically opposite to their purpose. Their design is to discredit all testimony in favour of miracles, by showing that facts, acknowledged to be false, have evidence as strong as those on which revealed religion

rests. But they have utterly failed in the attempt, as we have shown; and if they had succeeded in adducing as strong testimony for other miracles, then we would readily admit their truth, and that in perfect consistency with our belief in Christianity.

SECTION VIII.

The Bible contains internal evidence that its origin is divine.

As the Old and New Testaments are intimately connected, and form parts of the same system, it is unnecessary to make any distinction between them in considering this branch of the evidence of divine revelation.

A late writer* of great eminence and popularity, has represented this species of evidence as unsatisfactory, as not capable of being so treated as to produce conviction in the minds of philosophical infidels, and as opening a door to their most specious objections to Christianity. But, certainly, this is not the most effectual method of supporting the credit of the Scriptures. Another popular writert has gone to the other extreme, and seems to set little value on the external

* Dr. Chalmers.

+ Soame Jenyns.

evidences of Christianity, while he exhibits the internal in a light so strong, that his argument assumes the appearance of demon

stration.

But these two species of evidence, though distinct, are harmonious, and strengthen each other. There is, therefore, no propriety in disparaging the one for the purpose of enhancing the value of the other. I believe the fact is, however, that more instances have occurred of skeptical men being convinced of the truth of Christianity by the internal than the external evidences. It is the misfortune of most infidels that they have no intimate acquaintance with the Bible, and even many of those who have undertaken to write against it, appear never to have read it with any other view than to find some ground of objection.

No doubt it is necessary to come to the examination of this species of evidence with a candid and docile disposition. If reason be permitted proudly to assume the seat of judgment, and to undertake to decide what a revelation ought to contain in particular; in what manner and with what degree of light it should be communicated; whether it should be made perfectly at once, or gradually unfolded; and whether, from the beginning, it should be universal: no doubt the result of an examination of the contents of the Bible, conducted on such principles, will prove un

satisfactory, and inseparable objections will occur at every step in the progress. It was wise in Dr. Chalmers to endeavour to discourage such a mode of investigation, as being most unreasonable; for how is it possible that such a creature as man should be able to know what is proper for the infinite God to do, or in what way he should deal with his creatures upon earth? To borrow the language of this powerful writer,* «We have experience of man, but we have no experience of God. We can reason upon the procedure of man in given circumstances, because this is an accessible subject, and comes under the cognizance of observation; but we cannot reason on the procedure of the Almighty in given circumstances." But when he speaks of disclaiming all support from what is commonly understood by the internal evidence," and "of saving a vast deal of controversy by proving that all this is superfluous and uncalled for," I am constrained to think, that instead of aiding the cause of Christianity, the excellent author has attempted to take away one of its firmest props. The internal evidence of revelation is analogous to the evidence of the being and perfections of God from the works of creation: and the same mode of reasoning which the deist adopts relative to the doctrines and

*Chalmers' Evidences.

institutions of the Bible, the atheist may adopt, with equal force, against the existence of a God. If men will be so presumptuous as to determine that, if God makes a world he will form it according to their ideas of fitness, and that the apparent imperfections and incomprehensibilities in the material universe. could never have proceeded from a Being of infinite perfection, atheism must follow of course. But if, notwithstanding all these apparent evils and obscurities, there is in the structure of the world, the most convincing evidence of the existence of an all-wise and all-powerful Being, why may we not expect to find the same kind of evidence impressed on a revelation from God? Upon Dr. Chalmers' principles, we ought to depend simply on historical testimony for the fact that God created this world; and "disclaim all support" from what may, without impropriety, be termed the internal evidence of the existence of God, derived from the contemplation of the work itself. The truth, however, is, that every thing which proceeds from God, whatever difficulties or obscurities accompany it, will contain and exhibit the impress of his character. As this is resplendently visible in the heavens and the earth, it is reasonable to think that it will not be less manifest in his word. ed in a revelation be will be stamped with

If the truths containworthy of God, they his image; and if this