perience, when it is said to have taken place at a time, and in a situation, where we, looking on, did not perceive it to exist.

Q. Is this the experience and contrariety to which Hume intended to object?

A. No; there is one other signification which can be affixed to these terms, and that is, that of not having ourselves experienced any thing similar to the kind related, or such things being not generally experienced by others.

Q. Is it probable, that if miracles were wrought, as necessary for the first promulgation of Christianity, that they would be so frequently repeated as to become objects of experience ?

A. No; for it is not like alleging a new law of nature, where it is expected that the same results will universally follow like circumstances; for this would destroy the miracle itself.

Q. On what presumption is the force of experience objected to miracles ?

A. On one of these; 1st, That the course of nature is invariable; or, 2nd, if it be ever varied, variations will be frequent and general.

Q. How are these refuted ?

A. By calling the course of nature the agency of an intelligent being, and supposing, that on occasions of peculiar importance, though they occur seldom, and are confined to a few witnesses, he would interrupt that course.

Q. How do you answer the objection, that in

accounts of miracles we assign effects without causes, or attribute effects to causes inadequate to the pur pose?

A. By saying that we attribute no virtue to the second causes of raising the dead by a word, &c.; but ascribe it to the volition of the Deity. We have, then, all we seek for in rational agents, a sufficient power, and an adequate motive.

Q. How has Hume represented the question?

A. In a way that miracles are alike incredible to him who is previously assured of the agency of a God, and to an Atheist.

Q. How are you convinced that there is no solid foundation in the conclusion?

A. By acting as a mathematician does, who tries a proposed theorem on a simple case, and concludes, if it produce a false result, that there must be a mistake in the demonstration.

Q. Can you thus prove Hume's theorem ?

A. Yes; if twelve men of known probity and good sense should severally consent to be tortured to death, rather than deny the truth of a miracle which they had seen; if his rule be correct, we must still not believe them. But no sceptic exists who would not believe them, or who would defend such incredulity.

Q. Is there any weight in the principle of Hume's examples of spurious miracles?

A. No; only in their strength or circumstance of evidence.

PART I.

Q. Of what does the first part treat?

A. The direct historical evidence of Christianity. Q. Mention the two propositions intended to be established ?

A. 1st, That there is satisfactory evidence that many professing to be original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motive, to new rules of conduct; 2nd, That there is not satisfactory evidence, that persons professing to be original witnesses of other miracles, in their nature as certain as these are, have ever acted in the same manner in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and properly in consequence of their belief in these accounts.

CHAPTER I.

Q. WHAT points are necessary to support the first proposition?

A. 1st, That the Founder and his associates acted the part imputed to them; and, 2nd, That they did

so in attestation of the miraculous history of the Scriptures, and in consequence of their belief in it. Q. What probability does the assertion derive from the nature of the case?

A. Christianity exists, and therefore must have been established by some means; and it is little less than certain, that if the publication of it by the Founder had not been followed up by the industry of his immediate disciples, the attempt must have expired.

Q. What was probably the kind and degree of industry thus exerted?

A. It may be reasonably supposed to be similar to that of other missionaries of a new faith. Laborious preaching, and a sequestration from the pleasures of life; in this manner of living any enjoyment must spring from sincerity, as nothing but conviction, ordinarily speaking, can overcome the love of society, of personal ease and freedom.

Q. As addressed to the Jews, would not some proof arise from the nature of the case?

A. Yes; since it was a system hostile to their opinions, their hopes, and their pride. They had expected that their country would have been emancipated by a long-promised messenger from heaven. When, instead of victories and triumphs, they found a religion that was to raise nations that they despised, to a level with themselves, its doctrines were equally harsh and novel.

Q. Was Christianity in any other respects ungrateful to Jewish habits and principles.

A. Yes; the Christian scheme denied the efficacy of the ceremonial law, and without formally repealing the Levitical code, lowered its estimation. The new sect preached faith, well-regulated affections, and inward purity, instead of ritual zeal and punctuality.

Q. What inference do you draw from the crucifixion of Christ by the ruling party at Jerusalem, which is a fact that will not be disputed ?

A. That the office of those who preached his religion would be perilous, since they must necessarily reproach their rulers with an unjust and cruel execution.

Q. Is it probable that the Roman government of Judea would have interfered with regard to the new religion?

A. Probably not, for if left to itself, it would have considered it as a Jewish sect, but as Christ had been foretold as a king, this circumstance might be misrepresented to the Romans; as at the examination of Christ by Pontius Pilate. The Christian preachers thus had to contend with prejudice backed by power, and being entirely destitute of force, authority, or protection, must have hazarded their personal ease and safety.

Q. What might Christians expect from the Heathen public?

A. As the religion, if it prevailed, must have overthrown their mythology entirely, since it admitted no compromise, so bold an attempt could not have been made with impunity.