of the globe, so far as we can ascertain it, but directly contrary to it: such as raising the dead to life, controlling the elements, and many others. Certainly we cannot be expected to believe these to have been done upon light grounds or for trivial purposes. But if an adequate motive can be assigned for them, and strong grounds can be alleged in their support there is no reason why we should refuse them our belief. Now this applies completely both to the miracles of Moses and of Christ. If to be informed of the nature and attributes of God, of the purposes of our own being, and whether that being is to end here or to be renewed hereafter; if these be objects of great moment to us, yet not discoverable but by Divine Revelation: and if Divine Revelation can only be manifested by the performance of miracles, surely we have assigned a sufficient motive for them. And if the fact of their performance be certified by the senses of very numerous witnesses, and were indeed matter of the greatest publicity, and corroborated by national monuments and commemorative institutions, commencing at the time, and continued to the present hour, we cannot reasonably enter

tain any doubts upon that point'. But that true religion is of the highest moment to us, yet that it never has existed any where, nor does yet exist, if not in the Mosaic and the Christian dispensations, cannot be disputed: nor has any one yet been able to conceive any mode not miraculous, by which a communication from heaven can be made to mankind. And since the miracles of Moses were submitted to the senses of great multitudes of people, in fact to the whole of the then generation of the Jews; and were commemorated by the whole body of their civil laws, and religious rites and ceremonies, their yearly passover, their weekly sabbath, their new moons, and all their feasts, fasts, and ordinances; which have continued down to the present day; and since the very same things may be affirmed of the miracles of Christ, that they were not done in a corner, but in the presence of multitudes, reported by eye-witnesses, and confirmed by contemporaneous institutions; such as Baptism and the Lord's Supper; in short-by the whole Christian religion, which then commenced, and

See Leslie on Deism for this argument at length.

subsists at this moment: we have every reason which the nature of the case admits, to establish the probability of the performance of the miracles.

Again, that the Mosaic and the Christian dispensations were not of men but of God, I take to be clear from their internal evidence, independent of their external proofs. Not to enter more than is necessary into their respective doctrines, I will appeal but to one from each of them in confirmation of this point. That Moses first taught the unity, the eternity, and the spirituality of the Deity cannot be disputed. That the notions of the heathen world in general upon this subject, on the contrary, were polytheistical, absurd, and contemptible, cannot be denied. And if a few philosophers made any approach to the truth upon this point, there is every reason to think that their conjectures (for they were nothing else) must be traced to a Jewish original. In like manner the Christian Doctrine of a future state, with its rewards and punishments, founded upon Christian ideas of virtue and vice, was absolutely unknown to the Pagan world, and but imperfectly understood

in the latter part of the Jewish history. I know that in modern times many able Christian writers have endeavoured to prove the unity, and the attributes of God, and the doctrine of a future state by arguments drawn (as they suppose) from their own minds: such as the necessity for a first cause, the unity of design in the works of creation, the laws of matter and motion, the irregularities in human affairs and many others. But (as I lately had occasion to observe) I am persuaded that in all this, they have mistaken the light of Revelation for the light of reason, and have been more indebted than they themselves were aware of, to the doctrines and the influence of Christianity. And that upon their own principles merely, there is not one of their arguments that is not liable to serious objections. In our total ignorance of the manner of existence of that Being, whom we call the first cause, (which all those writers fully admit) how can we conclude with certainty, that there is but one such Being? And unable as we are from reason to account for the existence of so much evil in the world, (which they also admit) how can we solidly refute the

we suppose

Manichean notion of two independent principles, the one of good, and the other of evil1? And with respect to a future state, why should that our arguments in favour of it, built upon reason only, are more conclusive than were those of the most celebrated ancient, and we may add, modern philosophers, which evidently produced no permanent conviction even upon their own minds? For I fear that this doctrine even now seldom forms any part of the creed of a Deist. Because if he really believes it, and is possessed of a mind of only ordinary intelligence and candour, it must go far towards making him a Christian. But his real impediment to its reception, arises from his not forming correct ideas of the nature and attributes of that Divine Being, in whose existence he professes to believe. How this can be done, but by the help of those intimations respecting himself, which he has afforded us in the Sacred Volume, it is impossible for any man to say. Canst thou (says Zophar to Job) by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? If then these doc

'Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 239–245.