and there a semblance of arguing in a circle—­from the miracle to the doctrine, and from the doctrine to the miracle.  Add to this a too little advertency to the distinction between the evidence of a miracle for A, an eye-witness, and for B, for whom it is the relation of a miracle by an asserted eye-witness; and again between B, and X, Y, Z, for whom it is a fact of history.  The result of my own meditations is, that the evidence of the Gospel, taken as a total, is as great for the Christians of the nineteenth century, as for those of the Apostolic age.  I should not be startled if I were told it was greater.  But it does not follow, that this equally holds good of each component part.  An evidence of the most cogent clearness, unknown to the primitive Christians, may compensate for the evanescence of some evidence, which they enjoyed.  Evidences comparatively dim have waxed into noon-day splendour; and the comparative wane of others, once effulgent, is more than indemnified by the ‘synopsis’ [Greek:  tou pantos], which we enjoy, and by the standing miracle of a Christendom commensurate and almost synonymous with the civilized world.  I make this remark for the purpose of warning the divinity student against the disposition to overstrain particular proofs, or rest the credibility of the Gospel too exclusively on some one favourite point.  I confess, that I cannot peruse page 179 without fancying that I am reading some Romish Doctor’s work, dated from a community where miracles are the ordinary news of the day.

P. S. By the by, the Rev. Philip Skelton is of the true Irish breed; that is, a brave fellow, but a bit of a bully.  “Arrah, by St. Pathrick! but I shall make cold mutton of you, Misther Arian.”

Ib. p. 182.

  If in this he appears to deal fairly by us, proving such things as
  admit of it, by reason; and such as do not, by the authority of his
  miracles, &c.

Are ‘we’ likely to have miracles performed or pretended before our eyes?  If not, what may all this mean?  If Skelton takes for granted the veracity of the Evangelists, and the precise verity of the Gospels, the truth and genuineness of the miracles is included:—­and if not, what does he prove?  The exact accordance of the miracles related with the ideal of a true miracle in the reason, does indeed furnish an argument for the probable truth of the relation.  But this does not seem to be Skelton’s intention.

Ib. p. 185.

But to remedy this evil, as far as the nature of the thing will permit, a genuine record of the true religion must be kept up, that its articles may not be in danger of total corruption in such a sink of opinions.

Anything rather than seek a remedy in that which Scripture itself declares the only one.  Alas! these bewilderments (the Romanists urge) have taken place especially through and by the misuse of the Scriptures.  Whatever God has given, we ought to think necessary;—­the Scriptures, the Church, the Spirit.  Why disjoin them?