that can properly be called natural religion, and to trace all our just ideas of God and his Providence, and of our duties both to him and to each other, to those two great Revelations, which are contained in the Bible '. Not that reason, when at all enlightened, does not afford us many clear intimations of what is right and wrong; nor that conscience is not in general a very faithful monitor, and a safe guide for our conduct: but that reason alone is quite unable to establish the great fundamental principles of religion: and that conscience frequently requires to be controlled, by positive precepts which rest upon Divine authority. Were this otherwise, had God enabled us by the light of nature and reason only to frame a true system of religion, though it would not invalidate any positive proofs which we might have of an actual Revelation having been vouchsafed to us, it would certainly destroy the strong argument for such Revelation, founded upon its utility or necessity. It would afford much support to the reasonings of those who dispute the

1

See the Review of Bishop Gleig's Letters on Theology in the British Critic for October, 1827.

truth of Revelation. It would be extremely difficult to comprehend, why the Almighty should so frequently have disturbed the general laws of nature; and have performed such mighty prodigies for the establishment of true religion in the world, if he had already accomplished the same end, by more simple and equally efficacious means.

And this will lead me to notice (but very shortly) that other objection of professed unbelievers, that no testimony is sufficient to prove a miracle. It is not my intention now to repeat the general arguments in proof of the Christian miracles, but simply to reply to this specific objection, which, if it be well founded, overthrows at once both the miracles and the religion. For they rest precisely upon the same grounds, and are inseparably connected. And it would not be a little extraordinary, if the religion which could only have been founded upon the belief of their performance, established by the testimony of numerous eye-witnesses, could after the lapse of eighteen centuries be destroyed, not by the production of evidence or arguments to disprove their performance, but simply by the assertion that they were originally unworthy

of credit. For the possibility of the miracles is not denied that there was an adequate cause for them is not disputed-neither the motives nor the characters of the witnesses to them are impeached-but it is nevertheless contended, that they upon whom they were performed, ought not to have been believed, when they asserted the fact at the hazard of their lives, and sealed its truth with their blood. I think it sufficient to let one of these reply for himself. St. John relates the history of a man who was born blind, but to whom sight was imparted by our Saviour.— The Jews were unwilling to believe this, and consulted his parents upon the subject. They being afraid of the Pharisees, contented themselves with affirming that he was born blind, and referring them to their son, for an account of the manner in which he acquired sight.— Not that the Pharisees doubted the fact, but they would not allow that Jesus had been the author of it. Give God the praise (said they) we know that this man is a sinner. His answer has an air of nature and truth about it, that is quite irresistible. Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.

U

And

the conversation was continued in the same natural and artless strain. They said to him again, What did he to thee? How opened he thine eyes? He answered them, I have told you already and ye did not hear: Wherefore would ye hear it again? Will ye also be his disciples? Then they reviled him and said, thou art his disciple: but we are Moses' disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow we know not whence he is. The man answered and said unto them-Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened my eyes. Since the world began, was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God he could do nothing.

Such is the difference between the honest simplicity of a plain man, and the overweening conceit of a subtle philosopher. Testimony however extraordinary may be supported by facts. The religion of Mahomet exists, and no one doubts that he was the founder of it. So the religion of Jesus exists, nor can it be denied that it began with him. Yet this might almost as well be disputed as the miracles. There is, and there never has, been but

one account of the matter. The miracles and all the other facts of our Lord's history are so interwoven, that it is almost impossible to separate them. From the first his pretensions had nothing else to stand upon. The belief that he was the Messiah, could only be founded upon the supernatural power displayed by him. But for this (as it has been well observed) he "could not have excited so much as a doubt amongst the Jews, whether he was the person in whom a long series of ancient prophecies terminated." By this he convinced a sufficient number of his countrymen, to enable them to lay a foundation for the conversion of almost all the then known world. Their testimony was believed which we are now told ought to have been rejected. That falsehood which is now declared to be apparent, could not be detected, when the events to which it related were still recent.The Christian miracles were credited upon a principle laid down by the author himself, to whom I have been alluding. "That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless it be of such a kind, that its falsehood