pale of the church, been at hand, to substantiate his allegations? In one word, was not Lazarus yet living? perhaps too the son of the widow of Nain? (for ecclesiastical writers say, that Lazarus lived fifteen years after his resuscitation) were not also multitudes of those who had been healed, many of the five hundred who saw Christ after his resurrection, among whom was Quadratus mentioned by Eusebius, still in existence? and were they not irrefragable proofs of the Divinity of Christ, and of the truth of his Gospel? were they not actual and perceptible demonstrations of the reality of his miracles?

Before we further proceed, it may be necessary to define a miracle. It may simply be defined, as any sudden event, emanating from the Deity, contrary to the course of nature. If a miracle be defined a wonder, then the whole creation is a miracle; wonderful, however, as creation is to our minds, it is, correctly speaking, no miracle, according to the definition which we have just given, because we conceive that a miracle consists not in the act of creating, but in a deviation from the established order of nature. It is true that miracles were performed in the patriarchal ages, and more especially in the days of Judaism, but these were performed for the purpose of establishing the existence and providence of God. The men who performed them,

however, were merely agents or instruments in the hands of Jehovah, and received their power immediately from Him, which was withdrawn as soon as the miracle was performed. Christ, on the contrary, inherently possessed that power which always remained with Him. Thus, for instance, the Mosaic miracles were wrought at the command and instigation of Jehovah, the Christian miracles at the sole will of the Author.

Whenever miracles of the former kind were performed, they were performed by virtue of a commission, which was generally expressed, for definite purposes; but Christ acted by virtue of an inherent power, not by commissions given to Him at intervals, and confined in their object: as the occasion was presented, the miracle was achieved instantaneously, and often at his mere word was his omnipotent and miraculous energy extended to a distance, as in the instance of the nobleman's son. To the one the miraculous agency was communicated by God; but the power by which Christ acted, in dignity and irresistible might, was inherent in Himself, and was an evidence of the invisible Divinity of his nature operating in his visible manhood. The cases are distinct the operations in the one were by Divine power communicated for especial purposes to the operators; those in the other were not communicated, but essentially flowed from the omnipotence

of the Performer, as an attribute inseparable from HIM.

Miracles have been said to be contrary to reason, because they are contrary to comprehension; it is that very contrariety to comprehension that renders the work a miracle. Mr. Hume thought that he had gained a complete victory over Christianity, when he declared, "that it is contrary to experience, that a miracle should be true, but not contrary to experience that testimony should be false." The fallacy of which is clear by answering, that it is that very contrariety that proves the miracle: therefore so far from Mr. Hume having succeeded to decrease the evidences of Christianity, he has unintentionally added considerably to their weight. And as this testimony is one from an adversary, it is the more valuable.

It is very true, that miracles require strong and substantial evidence to prove their reality; that evidence however they have, the strongest, perhaps, that can be desired. We can suppose, that nothing would so soon convert the heathens to Christianity, as witnessing the miracles instantaneously performed by our Lord. The fulfilment of prophecy might fail, the interpretation of types might deceive, but miracles could not; and thus thousands were converted to the faith of the Son of God. Besides the

thousands of witnesses who beheld the miracles of our Lord, there were with Him twelve chosen Apostles, illiterate men, but still able to judge of the reality of his miracles, who afford the most ample testimony to their truth. These men had nought to expect but persecutions, dangers, and at last death, by becoming Apostles of our Saviour, who assured them that these things must necessarily come upon them. Would they then have persisted in their Apostleship, had they not been convinced that Jesus was the Son of God, by the miracles He performed? If prophecy and types had been sufficient to convert that age, miracles would not have been wrought. The former were but shadows, the latter the substance, which by embodying the reality caused the conviction. And although the evidence of all is valuable, miracles, when performed, were the most likely to accomplish one great object of our Lord's advent.

There is an importance attached to the design of miracles, that we must not omit to observe. The design was to execute the plan, which God had laid for the salvation of his creatures. Miracles were performed in different ages to show, as we have observed, the existence of God, and the Divine Providence; the revelation under the Law was only delivered in part, yet it shadowed forth the Messiah when He appeared, that shadow was turned

into the substance, and miracles were wrought in corroboration of his Divinity. Thus was a system of hope and belief established, which was adapted to the wants of the world, which afforded substantial and enduring consolation to those who embraced the life-giving tenets of the Son of God. The patriarchs saw darkly and prophetically the day of Christ; saw by the eye of faith, by means of prophecy and types, the shadow of the Messiah; the people under the New Dispensation saw the Divine glory resting on Christ, and the substance of their Scriptures in the miracles which He performed, and consequently acknowledged Him to be God. The miracles were worthy of the Author, and bore ample evidences of his mercy and compassion. Two, however, apparently bear the marks of severity; but, when we shall examine them, every mark of severity will disappear. We can safely affirm that, upon no occasion did our Saviour manifest his Divinity, for the sole purpose of exercising his power. If He performed a miracle, that miracle invariably brought consolation to the object to whom his goodness was vouchsafed. His permitting the demons to enter the swine, and the withering of the fig-tree appear exceptions, but they are not. Our Saviour's object was as manifest in them, as in his more unquestioned miracles of mercy. They only require that investigation, which we propose to give, to overcome every difficulty, that at first sight appears to rest upon them.