to by the apologists for Christianity; which answers the allegation of the objection.

I am ready, however, to admit, that the ancient Christian advocates did not insist upon the miracles in argument, so frequently as I should have done. It was their lot to contend with notions of magical agency, against which the mere production of the facts was not fufficient for the convincing of their adversaries: I do not know whether they themselves thought it quite decisive of the controversy. But since it is proved, I conceive, with certainty, that the sparingness with which they appealed to miracles, was owing neither to their ignorance, nor their doubt of the facts, it is, at any rate, an objection, not to the truth of the history, but to the judgment of its defenders.

CHAP. VI.

:

Want of univerfality in the knowledge and reception of Chriftianity, and of greater clearness in the evidence.

a

OF revelation which really came from God, the proof, it has been said, would in all ages be so public and manifeft, that no part of the human species would remain ignorant of it, no understanding could fail of being convinced by it.

The advocates of Christianity do not pretend that the evidence of their religion possesses these qualities. They do not deny that we can conceive it to be within the compass of divine power, to have communicated to the world a higher degree of afsurance, and to have given to his communication a stronger and more extensive influence. For any thing we are able to difcern, God

1

God could have fo formed men, as to have perceived the truths of religion intuitively; or to have carried on a communication with the other world, whilst they lived in this; or to have seen the individuals of the fpecies, instead of dying, pass to heaven by a sensible tranflation. He could have presented a feparate miracle to each man's fenfes. He could have established a standing miracle. He could have caused miracles to be wrought in every different age and country. These, and many more methods, which we may imagine, if we 'once give loose to our imaginations, are, fo far as we can judge, all practicable.

The question, therefore, is not, whether Christianity possesses the highest poffible degree of evidence, but whether the not having more evidence be a sufficient reafon for rejecting that which we have.

Now there appears to be no fairer method of judging, concerning any dispensation which is alledged to come from God, when a question a question is made whether such a dispensation could come from God or not, than by comparing it with other things which are acknowledged to proceed from the same council, and to be produced by the fame agency. If the difpenfation in question labour under no defects but what apparently belong to other dispensations, these seeming defects do not justify us, in fetting afide the proofs which are offered of its authenticity, if they be otherwise entitled to credit.

Throughout that order then of nature, of which God is the author, what we find is a fyftem of beneficence, we are seldom or ever able to make out a system of optimism. I mean, that there are few cases in which, if we permit ourselves to range in poffibilities, we cannot suppose something more perfect, and mon unobjectionable, than what we fee. The rain which defcends from heaven is confefsedly amongst the contrivances of the Creator, for the fuftentation of the animals and regetables which subsist upon the furface one earth. Yet how partially and

A

and irregularly is it supplied! How much of it falls upon the sea, where it can be of no use; how often is it wanted where it would be of the greatest! What tracts of continent are rendered deserts by the scarcity of it! Or, not to speak of extreme cases, how much, sometimes, do inhabited countries fuffer by its deficiency or delay !-We could imagine, if to imagine were our bufiness, the matter to be otherwise regulated. We could imagine showers to fall, just where and when they would do good; always seasonable, everywhere sufficient; so distributed as not to leave a field upon the face of the globe scorched by drought, or even a plant withering for the lack of moifture. Yet does the difference between the real cafe and the imagined cafe, or the feeming inferiority of the one to the other, authorize us to say, that the present disposition of the atmosphere is not amongst the productions or the defigns of the Deity? Does it check the inference which we draw from the confefsed beneficence of the provision ? or does it make us cease to admire the contrivance?

The