tian miracles, and because, under the influence of that belief, they acted and fuffered and even facrificed their lives-it is inferred that therefore the chriftian miracles were real; and from their reality the truth of the chriftian revelation is inferred.

In oppofition to this may be put the ignorance of the age, relative to the subject under confideration, and particularly of the people in the first place concerned. To the jews, a miracle feems to have been nothing very extraordinary: and, with the more enlightened part of mankind, prodigies feem not at all to have been inadmiffible. The philofophical and fcrutinizing fpirit of modern times did not exift. And when it has been faid, with triumph, that Julian, (who, indeed, lived fome centuries after Chrift) although the accomplished and the determined enemy of christianity, did not deny the reality of the christian miracles, it seems to have been forgotten that,

that, with all his accomplishments and great abilities, Julian was remarkable as a believer in prodigies and miracles.

Further, whereas it has been afferted that, on fuppofition the chriftian miracles were not real, the ftate of mind and conduct of the first chriftians had no adequate natural cause, and therefore were greater miracles than any mentioned in the New Teftament:-now they muft, indeed, be admitted to have been miracles if the affertion be true: but that cannot be admitted, fince it does not follow that there was no adequate natural caufe, because we are unable to discover any. A fincere and cordial belief, in whatever way generated, was quite fufficient to produce the conduct of the perfons in queftion. How far weak, and ignorant, and superftitious men, who are yet honeft and upright, may be impofed on, I will not undertake to fay: but it must be granted that fuch men are liable to im

pofition: and, I think, it will not be denied that men of a fuperior character, amiable PHILANTHROPISTS, prompted by generous fentiments, and afpiring to become the BENEFACTORS of their fpecies, may be induced to impose both on others and on themfelves. This leads me to fuggeft to philofophical unitarians, who believe Jefus Chrift to have been merely a human being, that it may be worth while for them to reconfider the very striking and abfolutely fingular style used by that extraordinary perfonage when speaking of himself.

With refpect to the opinion, that the jews were familar with the idea of a miracle, it is derived from the evangelical hisftory. John fays, that the brethren of Christ did not believe in him, though they were no ftrangers to the works which he performed; for they advised him to render himself more confpicuous thereby, and fhew himself

I

himfelf to the world *. The fame writer declares, that though Chrift had done fo many miracles before them (the jewish people) yet they believed not on him †.Now, if we reflect on the nature of a miracle, we must see that it cannot fail to excite the utmost aftonishment in thofe prefent at it, unless they be familiarized to fuch things or unless the Supreme Being, (as the hiftorian would have us believe) at the fame time that he, by his prophet, works miracles, blinds the eyes of the perfons in whofe prefence they are wrought, and hardens their hearts, so that the miracles cannot produce their effect.

That the jews did not think a miracle to be a very strange thing, feems evident, likewise, from the story which John relates at the beginning of his 5th chapter:"There is (faith he) at Jerufalem, by the "fheep-market, a pool, which is called in

* John, 7th chapter. † John, 12th chapter.

"the

"the Hebrew tongue, Bethesda, having "five porches. In these lay a great mul❝titude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, "withered, waiting for the moving of "the water. For an angel went down,

at a certain feason, into the pool, and "troubled the water. Whofoever, then, "first after the troubling of the water step

ped in, was made whole of whatsoever "difeafe he had*." On this ftory it is

* A philofophical clergyman, on a certain occafion, declared to me, that he fhould as foon beFieve a Perfian tale as this extraordinary narrative. The hiftory of the Devil's temptation of Chrift in the wilderness + feems, however, to bear more refemblance to a Perfian tale. Now, I would obferve that, whatever abfurdity an unprejudiced reader may find in these two ftories, they are both related with the fame fimplicity as that whereby the writings of the evangelifts are generally diftinguifhed. Simplicity of style, it is therefore prefumed, does not neceffarily imply truth. Nevertheless, it is well known how much ftrefs has been laid on the fimple ftyle of the evangelical hiftories. + See Apendix, No. 1.

obvious

i