posed assurance, than the testimony of the eyewitnesses, and to be to every fair and candid mind overpowering and irresistible *.

Nor is it that the argument from miracles is not equally certain and satisfactory in itself, as that of prophecy; but because they differ in the time and the manner and circumstances of their operation and of their effect: they affect and influence mankind in different periods of the world, and in different states of the mind; miracles are absolutely necessary in order to prove an original revelation, and to establish it in the first instance; and, till it is once received, the argument from prophecy cannot be adduced; it has no weight and no foundation. But the previous revelation being once admitted, the argument from prophecy is then in full strength and operation, and is more persuasive and influential than that from miracles, because THEY might be supposed to introduce and to recommend a system of religion contrary to that already believed, in which case there would be a conflict of not only system with system, but of former miracles with latter miracles; and it is easy to see that the old system, like the old wine, would be in most instances pronounced better, and would exclude the new; until the argument from prophecy had evinced their mutual union

* See the Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection by Bishop Sherlock, and Jeremy Taylor's Moral Demonstration of Christianity.

and conformity with each other, and had confirmed the subsequent by the preceding revelation.

As in the case of the Jews, who were neither required nor expected to give up the Old Testament for the New, nor Moses for Jesus Christ, merely on account of the miracles which attended and attested the first preaching of Christianity; because they had been forewarned that miracles not only might be, but would positively be wrought by false prophets, as they had been in Egypt before for the purpose of trying their sincerity, and proving their fidelity in adhering to the truth, and abstaining from idolatry. And hence the argument from prophecy, though not better in itself, yet, from the peculiar state and condition of those to whom it is addressed, and for whom it is intended, is more applicable and more indispensable to remove doubt and suspense, and to overcome difficulty and objection, than that of miracles; because it not only proves the truth of the Gospel, but shews, moreover, that it is so far from being inconsistent with the Law, that it corresponds with it, that it fulfils it, and perfects it.

And hence St. Paul took especial care to announce that he did not destroy the Law, but that he established it, as his Lord and Master had done before him; whilst to the Gentiles this mode of reasoning could not be adopted, and did not apply; and to them, as the argument from miracles was the only argument they were capable of

E

posed assurance, than the testimony of the eyewitnesses, and to be to every fair and candid mind overpowering and irresistible *.

Nor is it that the argument from miracles is not equally certain and satisfactory in itself, as that of prophecy; but because they differ in the time and the manner and circumstances of their operation and of their effect: they affect and influence mankind in different periods of the world, and in different states of the mind; miracles are absolutely necessary in order to prove an original revelation, and to establish it in the first instance; and, till it is once received, the argument from prophecy cannot be adduced; it has no weight and no foundation. But the previous revelation being once admitted, the argument from prophecy is then in full strength and operation, and is more persuasive and influential than that from miracles, because THEY might be supposed to introduce and to recommend a system of religion contrary to that already believed, in which case there would be a conflict of not only system with system, but of former miracles with latter miracles; and it is easy to see that the old system, like the old wine, would be in most instances pronounced better, and would exclude the new; until the argument from prophecy had evinced their mutual union

See the Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection by Bishop Sherlock, and Jeremy Taylor's Moral Demonstration of Christianity.

and conformity with each other, and had confirmed the subsequent by the preceding revelation.

As in the case of the Jews, who were neither required nor expected to give up the Old Testament for the New, nor Moses for Jesus Christ, merely on account of the miracles which attended and attested the first preaching of Christianity; because they had been forewarned that miracles not only might be, but would positively be wrought by false prophets, as they had been in Egypt before for the purpose of trying their sincerity, and proving their fidelity in adhering to the truth, and abstaining from idolatry. And hence the argument from prophecy, though not better in itself, yet, from the peculiar state and condition of those to whom it is addressed, and for whom it is intended, is more applicable and more indispensable to remove doubt and suspense, and to overcome difficulty and objection, than that of miracles; because it not only proves the truth of the Gospel, but shews, moreover, that it is so far from being inconsistent with the Law, that it corresponds with it, that it fulfils it, and perfects it.

And hence St. Paul took especial care to announce that he did not destroy the Law, but that he established it, as his Lord and Master had done before him; whilst to the Gentiles this mode of reasoning could not be adopted, and did not apply; and to them, as the argument from miracles was the only argument they were capable of

E

posed assurance, than the testimony of the eyewitnesses, and to be to every fair and candid mind overpowering and irresistible *.

Nor is it that the argument from miracles is not equally certain and satisfactory in itself, as that of prophecy; but because they differ in the time and the manner and circumstances of their operation and of their effect: they affect and influence mankind in different periods of the world, and in different states of the mind; miracles are absolutely necessary in order to prove an original revelation, and to establish it in the first instance; and, till it is once received, the argument from prophecy cannot be adduced; it has no weight and no foundation. But the previous revelation being once admitted, the argument from prophecy is then in full strength and operation, and is more persuasive and influential than that from miracles, because THEY might be supposed to introduce and to recommend a system of religion contrary to that already believed, in which case there would be a conflict of not only system with system, but of former miracles with latter miracles; and it is easy to see that the old system, like the old wine, would be in most instances pronounced better, and would exclude the new; until the argument from prophecy had evinced their mutual union

* See the Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection by Bishop Sherlock, and Jeremy Taylor's Moral Demonstration of Christianity.