for us his own life, so that we may judge of his opportunities of knowing what he tells?  To which of their histories is such external testimony given as that of Tacitus to Josephus, in spite of the contempt felt by the polished Roman towards the whole Jewish race?  Nothing can be more misleading than to speak of Josephus and of the Evangelists as though their writings stood on the same level; every mark of authenticity is present in the one; every mark of authenticity is absent in the other.

We shall argue as against the miraculous accounts of the Gospels—­first, that the evidence is insufficient and far below the amount of evidence brought in support of more modern miracles; secondly, that the power to work miracles has been claimed by the Church all through her history, and is still so claimed, and it is, therefore, impossible to mark any period wherein miracles ceased; and, thirdly, that not only are Christian miracles unproven, but that all miracles are impossible, as well as useless if possible.

Paley, arguing for the truth of Christian miracles, and of these only, endeavours to lay down canons which shall exclude all others.  Thus, he excludes:  “I.  Such accounts of supernatural events as are found only in histories by some ages posterior to the transaction....  II.  Accounts published in one country of what passed in a distant country, without any proof that such accounts were known or received at home....  III. Transient rumours....  IV. Naked history (fragments, unconnected with subsequent events dependent on the miracles)....  V. In a certain way, and to a certain degree, particularity, in names, dates, places, circumstances, and in the order of events preceding or following....  VI.  Stories on which nothing depends, in which no interest is involved, nothing is to be done or changed in consequence of believing them....  VII.  Accounts which come merely in affirmance of opinions already formed....  It is not necessary to admit as a miracle, what can be resolved into a false perception (such miracles as healing the blind, lame, etc., cannot be reduced under this head), ... or imposture ... or tentative miracles (where, out of many attempts, one succeeds) ... or doubtful (possibly explainable as coincidence, or effect of imagination) ... or exaggeration” ("Evidences,” pp. 199-218).  Paley then criticises some miracles alleged by Hume, and argues against them.  He very fairly criticises and disposes of them, but fails to see that the same style of argument would dispose of his Gospel ones.  The Cardinal de Retz sees, at a church in Saragossa, a man who lighted the lamps, and the canons told him “that he had been several years at the gate with one leg only.  I saw him with two.”  Paley urges that “it nowhere appears that he (the Cardinal) either examined the limb, or asked the patient, or indeed any one, a single question about the matter” ("Evidences,”