vidence, without beginning with the study of them. An atheist is a perfon who believes that there is no Being who eftablished the prefent order of nature, but that all things have always been as they now are, and that all deviations from this order are abfolutely impoffible, and therefore incredible. Confequently, any clear proof of an actual deviation from this order of nature overturns his whole system. The atheist says that, fince we must fuppofe fomething to have been uncaused, we may just as well content ourfelves with faying that the present visible fyftem had no caufe, as fuppofe that fomething ftill greater than this system, and the cause of it, had no caufe; fince by ascending higher, we get no nearer to the folution of our great difficulty, viz. the cause of what exifts. But the proof of any miracle is decifively in favour of the actual existence of a power unquestionably above the common courfe of nature, and different from it. This is no lefs than a demonstration, that the reafoning of the atheift, however fpecious, is in fact wrong; and that, difficult as it may be to conceive the self-existence, as we say, of a Being greater than the visible universe, such a Being certainly does exift. I fhall endeavour to make this argument ftill plainer by an illustration. Let a perfon unacquainted with clocks, watches, and other machines, be introduced into a room containing many of them, all in regular motion. He fees no maker of these machines, and knows nothing of their internal ftructure; and as he fees them all to move with perfect regularity, he may fay, on the principles of the atheistical system, that they are automata, or felfmoving machines; and fo long as all these machines continue in regular motion, and he knows nothing of the making of them, or the winding of them up, this theory may appear plausible. But let us fuppofe that, coming into this room again and again, and, always attending to the machines, he fhall find one of them much out of order, and that at length its motion fhall intirely cease; but that after continuing in this state fome time, he shall again find it in perfect order, moving as regularly as ever. Will he not then conclude that fome perfon, whom he has not feen, but probably the maker of the machines, had been in the room in his abfence? The restoration of motion to the difordered machine would imprefs his mind with the idea of a maker of them in a much more forcible manner than his obferving the regular conftruction, and uniform motion of them. It must convince him of the existence of fome perfon capable of regulating, and therefore probably of making, these machines, whether he fhould ever fee this perfon or not. Thus do miracles prove the exiftence of a God in a fhorter and more fatisfactory manner than the obfervation of the uninterrupted courfe of nature. If there be a Being who can control the course of naturc, there must be one who originally eftablished it, in whatever difficulty we may fill be left with refpect to his nature, and the manner of his exiftence. We are compelled by a greater difficulty to admit a lefs, though acknowledged to be great. At At all events, we fee in miracles that there certainly exifts a Being fuperior to ourselves, or any thing that is the object of our fenfes. And thus is demonftrated the wifdom of the general plan of Divine Providence, int ordering that the laws of nature should not always proceed without interruption, but in providing that the attention of mankind. fhould fometimes be arrefted by miraculous, events; fince they are eminently calculated to lead the minds of men to the confideration of a fuperior Being, as the cause of all events, ordinary and extraordinary. Thus alfo is evident the folly and ignorance of thofe who think all miraculous events to be fo abfurd as to be in their own nature incredible, and therefore that no evidence in their favour can deferve the leaft attention. If the reverence of mankind for their Maker be of any use, or of any confequence to their happiness, which undoubtedly it is, occafional miracles have the greatest propriety, and therefore great antecedent credibility, though all the par ticular ticular facts require very circumftantial evidence, because they are not of frequent occurrence. I now come to draw fome practical inferences from the doctrine of the refurrection of Jesus. Such is the evidence of the refurrection of Jefus, exclufive of the general evidence of christianity, or of the miracles of Jefus, and those of the apoftles after him, which are also another confirmation of the truth of this one great event. And, surely, it appears that the circumftances attending the refurrection of Jefus were fo ordered by Divine Providence, that it is not in the power of man to imagine any change in them that, according to the known laws of evidence, would make it more credible than it is with refpect to diftant ages. Every objection that has hitherto been made to this evidence has led to a more rigorous examination of the circumftances; and the confequence of this has always been an addition of light upon the evidence, and a greater confirmation of it. We are therefore abundantly authorized to confider our |