this book and I cannot but hope to find it convincing But even should I be left unsatisfied as to the continuity of the chain of evidence, yet of one thing I am persuaded, it has probed the disease of the human heart to the bottom; it has laid bare the source of its aberration from moral good and true happiness; and it has propounded a remedy which carries in itself the proof of its efficiency. The cause seems worthy of the interposition of God: He did once certainly display his own direct and immediate agency in the creation of the world; and shall I deem it inconsistent with his gracious character, that he has made another immediate manifestation of himself in a work which had for its object the restoration of innumerable immortal spirits to that eternal happiness, from which, by their moral depravation, they had excluded themselves?"

The external evidence is strong enough, if duly considered, to convince any man of any fact which he has not in the first place shut out from the common privilege of proof, by pronouncing it to be an impossibility. Tas idea of impossibility, when attached to the gospel, arises generally, as was before observed, from some mistaken notion respecting the matter contained in it. A very few remarks may be sufficient to show that this is the case. Those who hold this opinion, do not mean to say absolutely that it is impossible to suppose,, in consistency with reason, that God ever would make a direct manifestation of his own immediate agency in any case whatever; be

cause this would be in the very face of their own general acknowledgments with regard to the creation of the world: They must therefore be understood to mean no more, than that, considering the object and structure of Christianity, it is unreasonable to suppose that it could be the subject of a direct interposition from Heaven. We are thus brought precisely to the argument which it has been the intention of this Essay to illustrate.

Now, if we suppose that it was one of the objects of the Creator, in the formation of the world, to impress upon his intelligent creatures an idea of his moral character-or, in other words, to teach them natural religion (and that it was one of his objects, we may presume, from its having in some measure had this effect,)-it follows, that a direct and immediate agency on the part of God, is closely connected with the design of manifesting his moral character to man; and we may expect to meet these two things linked together in the system of God's government. If, therefore, the gospel contains a most vivid and impressive view of the Divine character, harmonizing with the revelation of nature, but far exceeding it in fullness and in power, are we to be surprised at an interposition in its behalf of the same agency which was once before exhibited for a similar purpose? Thus, the object of the gospel, and its adaptation to that object, become the great arguments for its truth; and those who have not studied it in this relation, are not competent judges of the

question. Indeed, if we take the truth of the gospel for granted, we must infer that this distinct and beautiful adaptation of its means to its end, was intended by its Divine author as its chief evidence; since he must have foreseen that not one out of a hundred who should ever hear of it could either have leisure or learning to weigh its external evidence. And this will explain a great deal of infidelity; for freethinkers in general are not acquainted with the substance of revelation; and thus they neglect that very point in it on which God himself rested its probability, and by which he invites belief.

There may be also, for any thing that the reasoners of this world know, cycles in the moral world as well as in the natural; there may be certain moral conjunctures, which, by the Divine appointment, call for a manifestation of direct agency from the great First Cause; and in this view, a miraculous interposition, though posterior to the creation, cannot be considered as an infringement of the I original scheme of things, but as a part, and an essential part of it. When the world was less advanced in natural science than it is at present, a comet was considered an infringement on the original plan. And the period may arrive, and will assuredly arrive, when the spirits of just men made perfect shall discern as necessary a connexion between the character of God and the work of redemption by Christ, as the philosopher now discerns between the properties of matter and the move

ments of the various bodies belonging to our planetary system.

If the gospel really was a communication from heaven, it was to be expected that it would be ushered into the world by a miraculous attestation. It might have been considered as giving a faithful delineation of the Divine character, although it had not been so attested; but it could never have impressed so deep a conviction, nor have drawn such reverence from the minds of men, had it not been sanctioned by credentials which could come from none other than the King of kings. As this conviction and this reverence were necessary to the accomplishment of its moral object, the miracles which produced them were also necessary. Under the name of miraculous attestations, I mean merely those miracles which were intrinsic to the gospel, and did not form an essential part of it; for the greatest miracles of all-namely, the conception, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord--constitute the very substance of the Divine communication, and are essential to the development of that Divine character which gives to the gospel its whole importance.

The belief of the miraculous attestation of the gospel, then, is just so far useful as it excites our reverence for and fixes our attention on the truth contained in the gospel. All the promises of the gospel are to faith in the gospel, and to those moral qualities which faith produces; and we cannot believe that which we do not understand. We may believe that

there is more in a thing than we can understand; or we may believe a fact, the causes or modes of which we do not understand; but our actual belief is necessarily limited by our actual understanding. Thus, we understand what we say when we profess our belief that God became man, although we do not understand how. This how, therefore, is not the subject of belief; because it is not the subject of understanding. We, however, understand why,—namely, that sinners might be saved and the Divine character made level to our capacities; and therefore this is a subject of belief. In fact, we can as easily remember a thing which we never knew, as believe a thing which we do not understand. In order, then, to believe the gospel, we must understand it; and in order to understand it, we must give it our serious attention. An admission of the truth of its miraculous attestation, unaccompanied with a knowledge of its principles, serves no other purpose than to give a most mournful example of the extreme levity of the human mind. It is an acknowledgment that the Almighty took such a fatherly interest in the affairs of men, that he made a direct manifestation of himself in this world, for their instruction; and yet they feel no concern upon the subject of this instruction. Nevertheless, they say, and perhaps think, that they believe the gospel. One of the miraculous appearances connected with our Saviour's ministry places this matter in a very clear light. When, on the Mount of Transfiguration, he for a short