a God has been for numerous ages the subject of dispute among the most learned of his own country; does he account this a sufficient reason for suppressing this doctrine? We know that he does not. Why then should he omit the doctrines of Christ and his Apostles, because men have made them the subject of dispute?" For a direct answer to this question I beg to refer the Reverend Editor to the Appeal of the Compiler, page 27, wherein he will find that he assigns not one, but two circumstances, as concurring to form the motive of his having omitted certain doctrines of Christianity in his selection.-1st, that they are the subject of disputes and contention.2ndly, that they are not essential to religion.* It is therefore obvious, that the analogy between the omission of certain dogmas, and that of the being of a God, has been unfairly drawn by the Editor. Admitting that the doctrines of Christianity and the existence of a God are equally liable to disputes, it should be recollected that the former are, in the estimation of the Compiler, not essential to religion; while the latter is acknowledged by him, in common with the professors of every faith, to be the foundation of all religion, as distinctly stated in his Introduction to the selected Precepts of Jesus. Every system of religion adopts the idea of a God, and avows this as its fundamental principle, though they differ from one another in representing the nature

* [See above, p. 125.]

and attributes of the Deity. The Compiler therefore could have no motive for suppressing the doctrine of the being of a God, though disputed by a few pretended literary men; and he has consequently never hesitated to inculcate with all his power the idea of one God to the learned and unlearned of his own country, taking care at the same time as much as possible not to enter into particulars as to the real nature, essence, attributes, person, or substance of the Godhead, those being points above his comprehension, and liable to interminable disputes. The Reverend Editor thus expresses his surprise at the conduct of the Compiler, in omitting in his selection the miraculous relations of the Gospel :-"We cannot but wonder that his miracles should not have found greater favour in the eyes of the Compiler of this selection, while the amazing weight which Jesus himself attached to them could scarcely have escaped his notice:" and in order to prove the importance of the miracles ascribed to Jesus, the Editor quotes three instances, in the first of which Jesus referred John the Baptist to his wonderful miracles; in the second, he called the attention of unbelieving Jews to his miraculous works as a proof of his divine mission; in the third, he recommends Philip the Apostle to the evidence of his miracles. But after a slight attention to the circumstances in which those appeals were made, it appears clearly, that in these and other instances Jesus referred to his miracles those persons only who either scrupled to believe, or doubted him

as the promised Messiah, or required of him some sign to confirm their faith. Vide Matthew, ch. xi. vers. 2—4: “When John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another? Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John those things which ye do hear and see." John, ch. x. vers. 37 and 38, Jesus says to those Jews who accused him of blasphemy, "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works." In reply to the request of Philip, who, being discontented with the doctrines Jesus inculcated, said, "Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us;" Jesus answered and said, "Believe me, that I am in the Father and the Father in me, or else believe me for the very works' sake." (John, ch. xiv. ver. 11,) Jesus even speaks in terms of reproach of those that seek for miracles for their conviction as to his divine mission. Matthew, ch. xii. ver. 39: "But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign." Moreover he blesses them, who, without having recourse to the proofs of miracles, profess their belief on him. John, ch. xx. ver. 29: "Jesus said unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

Under these circumstances, and from the experience that nothing but the sublimity of the Precepts

of Jesus had at first drawn the attention of the Compiler himself towards Christianity, and excited his veneration for the author of this religion, without aid from miraculous relations, he omitted in his compilation the mention of the miracles performed by Jesus, without meaning to express doubts of their authenticity, or intending to slight them by such an omission.

I regret therefore, that the Editor should have suffered any part of his valuable time to be spent in advancing several arguments, in the concluding part of his Review, to establish the truth of the miraculous statements of the New Testament. But as this discussion applies to the evidence of miracles generally, it may be worth considering. Arguments adduced by the Editor amount to this: "If all social, political, mercantile, and judicial transactions be allowed to rest upon testimony; why should not the validity of Christian miracles be concluded from the testimony of the Apostles and of others, and be relied upon by all the nations of the world?" The Editor must be well aware, that the enemies to revelation draw a line of distinction on the subject of proofs by testimony, between the current events of nature familiar to the senses of mankind, and within the scope of human exertions; and extraordinary facts beyond the limits of common experience, and ascribed to a direct interposition of Divine power suspending the usual course of nature. If all assertions were to be indiscriminately admitted as facts, merely because

they are testified by numbers, how can we dispute the truth of those miracles which are said to have been performed by persons esteemed holy amongst natives of this country? The Compiler has never placed the miracles related in the New Testament on a footing with the extravagant tales of his countrymen, but distinctly expressed his persuasion that they (Christian miracles) would be apt at best to carry little weight with those whose imaginations had been accustomed to dwell on narrations much more wonderful, and supported by testimony which they have been taught to regard with a reverence that they cannot be expected all at once to bestow on the Apostles. See Introduction to the Precepts, and Appeal, p. 17.* The very same line of argument indeed pursued by the Editor would equally avail the Hindoos. Have they not accounts and records handed down to them relating to the wonderful miracles stated to have been performed by their saints, such as Ugustyu, Vushistu, and Gotum; and their gods incarnate, such as Ram, Krishnu, and Nursingh; in presence of their contemporary friends and enemies, the wise and the ignorant, the select and the multitude?-Could not the Hindoos quote in support of their narrated miracles, authorities from the histories of their most inveterate enemies the Jeins, who join the Hindoos entirely in acknowledging the truth and credibility of their miraculous

* [Present edition, page 115.]