either the product of jugglery or are wrought by supernatural evil beings whose force surpasses that of men, and who are, therefore, able to counterfeit the works of divine power.

In accordance with the tendency of this principle, is the reply of Jesus to the charge that his miracles were wrought by the power of Satan. He does not deny that works, surpassing the power of men, may be done through the aid of devils; but he responds to the charge by a moral consideration. An evil being would not work against himself and exert power against his own minions.

So much is clear, then, that a doctrine must be negatively unobjectionable on the score of morality or of moral tendency, in order to challenge our faith, whatever wonderful works may attend the annunciation of it.

But a still more positive and important place belongs to doctrine in the evidence for the divine origin of Christianity. The foregoing discussion has evinced that in order to prove miracles, the anterior presumption adverse to their occurrence must be set aside. The necessity of Revelation and of a method of Salvation which man is unable to originate, partially prepares the mind to expect miracles. But the contents of the professed Revelation are of not less moment in their bearing on this anterior expectation. The more excellent the doctrine, the more it seems to surpass the capacity of the unaided human faculties; the more it appears adapted to the necessities of our nature; in fine, the more worthy it is to have God for its author, so much the more credibility is given to the miracles which, it is claimed, have accompanied it. The doctrine and the miracles are two mutually supporting species of evidence. The more the mind is struck with the divine excellence of the doctrine, the more likely does it seem that this doctrine should be attended with miracles. If the doctrine is noble, and worthy, and sufficient, we naturally look for miracles, and only require that they shall be recommended to belief by faithful testimony.

In these remarks we have compared the doctrine with the miracles, as sources of proof. The moral proofs of Christianity, however, comprehend much more than what is under

stood by Christian doctrine. As affecting the presumption relative to the occurrence of miracles, we must take into view the character of Jesus, the entire spirit and plan of his life, all the circumstances connected with the planting of Christianity in the world. It is unwarranted and unwise to isolate one element of Christianity, as the miracles, or the doctrine, from the other elements which are connected with it, and form, as it were, one vital whole. Christ and Christianity, as they are presented in the New Testament Scriptures, stand out as one complex phenomenon, which we are called upon to explain. Nothing can be appreciated by itself, but everything must be looked at in its organic relation. The moral evidence of the supernatural origin of Christianity includes the teaching of Christ and the Christian system of doctrine, but it embraces much more-much that is inseparably associated with the doctrine.

Farther still, we are required to consider Christianity in the light of a mighty historic movement, beginning in the remote past, extending in a continuous progress through many ages, culminating in the advent and life of Christ, and in the estab lishment of his church, but flowing onward in its effects, through an ever widening channel, down to the present day. We have to contemplate the striking peculiarity of this great historic movement, which embraces the unfolding, through successive stages, or epochs, of a religion distinct in its spirit as well as in its renovating power from all other religions known among men. And we have to connect with this view a survey of its subsequent diffusion and leavening influence in human society. Comparing this religion with the native characteristics of the people among whom it appeared, and from whose hands the priceless treasure was at length delivered to mankind, we are to ask ourselves if this religion, so pure and salutary, so enduring and influential, so strong as to survive temporary eclipse and withstand through a long succession of ages, before the full light appeared, an adversary as powerful as human barbarism and corruption, can be the product of man's invention. And whatever reason there is for re

jecting this supposition as irrational, is so much argument for the Christian miracles.

It deserves remark that miracles appear especially at the signal epochs in the progress of the gradually developing system of religion. This circumstance has been pointed out by Christian apologists.* In connection with Moses, who marks an era in the communication of the true religion; then, after a long interval, in connection with the prophets who introduce an era not less peculiar and momentous, and then, after a long suspension of miraculous manifestation, in conjunction with the final and crowning epoch of Revelation, with the ministry of Christ and the founding of the Church, the supernatural is seen to break into the course of history. There is an impressive analogy between the spiritual creation or renewal of humanity, and the physical creation, where successive eras are inaugurated by the exertion of supernatural agency in the introduction of new species, and after each epoch history is remanded, as it were, to its natural course in pursuance of an established order. Miracle would seem to be the natural expression and verification of an opening era in the spiritual enlightenment of mankind, when new forces are introduced by the great Author of light and life, and a new development sets in.

It is sometimes urged that if miracles are necessary in the original communication of Christianity, they are not less to be expected in the propagation of it. And the question is asked why we refuse to give credit to reports of more modern miracles, or why such miracles are not wrought now in conjunction with missionary labor? We do not consider the supposition that miracles have been wrought since the Apostolic age to be so absurd as many seem to regard it. So thorough a historical critic as Neander hesitates to disbelieve the testimony to the miracles said to be performed by that devout and holy preacher, St. Bernard, and so great a man as Edmund Burke takes the same ground in respect to the miracles attributed to early

* See Dr. A. P. Peabody's Christianity, the Religion of Nature.

Saxon missionaries in Britain. But there is generally a defect in the character of the testimony, in the habits of careful observation, or of trustworthy reporting, which, apart from other considerations, prevents us from giving credit to the Catholic miracles. Besides this, however, there is another consideration of almost decisive weight. The origination of Christianity, a method of salvation, is beyond human power; not so the propagation of the religion which is once communicated. We agree that the general method of the divine government is that of leaving men to discover for themselves what the unaided human faculties are competent to find out. The laws of astronomy, the physical structure and history of the globe, with all the sciences and arts which belong to civilization, it is left for human investigation, in the slow toil of cen. turies, to develop. But the true knowledge of God was practically inacessible; salvation was something which fallen man could not achieve of himself. It accords, therefore, with the method of God to leave the diffusion of the blessings of Christianity, when they are once communicated, to the agency of men, withholding miraculous (though not supernatural) assistance to their endeavors.* It is plain that in the divine administration there is what has been called an economy, or sparing use, of miracle. The Saviour's whole manner of speaking on the subject, as well as the course which he pursued, appears to indicate that miracles are an accommodation to human weakness, and are granted in response to an unwonted exigency. Comparing ourselves, or any heathen nation, with the age contemporary with Christ, we find ourselves in possession of other proofs derived from the operation of Christianity in the world, which may well stand in the room of any ocular demonstration of its heavenly origin.

* That supernatural agency of God which is not manifestly supernatural, but which is so connected with the operation of natural causes that its presence is not palpable, we do not style miraculous. To this supernatural, but not miraculous, agency, belongs the Regeneration and Sanctification of the soul. Providential answers to prayer may fall under the same head-to prayer, for instance, for the restoration of the sick.

an

The foregoing remarks will prepare the reader for the observation that miracles are an inferior species of proof, compared with the moral evidence of the divine origin of Christianity, and, independently of the impression made by this last kind of evidence, must fail to convince. Such is undeniably the rank assigned to miracles by the Saviour himself. Apart from miracles, there was proof of his divine mission, as he considered, which ought to satisfy the mind. But if this proof left the mind still skeptical, he pointed to the miracles. "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works' sake."* A weak faith, an inchoate faith, miracles might confirm. Where there was a receptive temper, some degree of spiritual susceptibility, miracles were a provocative and aid of faith. But where there was entire insensibility to the moral side of the Gospel, or an absence of any such craving for the truth as gave it a degree of self-evidencing power, the Saviour refused to work miracles. Miracles have for such minds no convincing ef ficacy. They would be referred either to occult natural causes or to diabolical agency. Miracles could develop and reinforce the faith which moral evidence had partially awakened. They could not create that faith outright. They could not serve as a substitute for the proofs which touch directly the reason and conscience. They could not kindle spiritual life under the ribs of death. They were an appeal to the senses, symbolizing the spiritual operation of the Gospel, and subordinately aiding the confidence of the darkened soul in the divine reality of the Gospel. All the teaching of Christ concerning the place and use of his miracles, and concerning the comparative value and dignity of the proof from miracles and from the moral evidence of his divine mission, corroborates the doctrine we have laid down, that the former are subsidiary and secondary, and are due to the condescension of God, who affords an extraordinary prop, and one we have properly no right to demand, to that hesitating, incomplete faith which has been excited by the superior appeals flowing directly from the Christian system itself and the character of its Author.

John xiv. 11.