moral, physical, or mathematical. In fact, this should be the case, judging from the nature of all things a priori; for the Creator of the minds of men, and of all material existence, can, as he is omnipotent, and must, we should infer from his attributes, give a revelation,-if he gave one at all, with that fulness of evidence which is perfect in its kind and degree, and capable of producing, when properly examined and understood, as perfect a conviction, as can be felt for any other abstract truth which we may please to call mathematical or scientific. To suppose that there is any imperfection in the nature of the evidence which he has given of the revelation of his will, is to suppose the Deity either imperfect in his attributes, or imperfect in the manifestations which he gives of them to his creatures.

There are two ways, I said, in which the discussion may be conducted. The first, by commencing with what is called the external evidence for the truth of the Scriptures, and then examining the internal; the second, by exactly reversing this order. The first method, which opens into a wide, varied, and no doubt interesting field of observation, and which requires or implies an extensive course of reading, is less adapted to our present meeting than the latter; and were I to

attempt it, their curiosity and patience would be exhausted before we arrived at the most important part of the inquiry, namely, the nature and tendency of the truths revealed in the Scriptures; and our discussion, I feared, might probably terminate in an increased disinclination, on their part, to examine its doctrines. The best plan, therefore, it appeared to me, was first to endeavour to convey to them a clear account of the nature of the truths revealed in the Bible, their consistency with the attributes of the Deity, and the state of mankind in every age and under every variety of circumstances; their tendency, when clearly comprehended and embraced, and the peculiar evidence of miracles and prophecy, by which they are supported, an evidence, which no other sort of truth possesses, and which it is in the power of no one but God to furnish. After having gone over those grounds, I should, I said, give them a summary view of all those topics which the external evidence embraces, with as much fulness as they might wish or deem necessary. This method would be attended with the additional advantage, that if they obtained a clear and correct idea of the doctrines which real and sound Christians believed and maintained, many of those objections which they would bring forward, were the external evidence to be first investigated, would be set aside, and the prejudices which arise from ignorance be removed; and they would be prepared with more impartiality to decide upon the combination of the whole evidence, both external and internal.

I told them that I did not undertake to make them real Christians: this was far beyond my power, for they might give a firm and rational assent to the truth of the Scriptures, might view their doctrine as a whole, complete and perfect in all its relations, might perceive the irresistible weight of their evidence, and the weakness of all objections, and might with ability explain and defend them, and yet not be real Christians. To make a man a real Christian, was in the power of God alone, by the operation of his Holy Spirit. But there was one thing which I might undertake to do, and that was, to display to them the varied and extraordinary mass of evidence in support of the divine origin of the Scriptures, and show that no other books, facts, systems, principles, or truths, of any description, possessed evidence so great and of so peculiar a nature; and that whoever rejected it, must do so from ignorance, misapprehension, or prejudice, in violation of every rule of sound and logical reasoning.

the company of deists, and yet joining in the ridicule against those who were more severe in regulating their lives and conversation by its doctrines. Circumstances at last led me seriously to reflect on the subject; and after two years of almost exclusive study and investigation of religious points, I took upon me the name and profession of a Christian, determined to participate in the lot, both in this world and in the next, of the sincere and humble followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.

My habits of study and reflection, I said, had led me to investigate the subject with a severe scrutiny, and I examined every book which fell in my way that seemed likely to afford any elucidation of the truth. I did not confine myself to the books written by professed Christians, but was even more eager to read those which were written by their enemies; and from the time I could read, to the present time, I had perused every work against Christianity which fell in my way, and had read a greater number of infidel productions than is usually done by most laymen. From the wide and circuitous mode in which I had investigated the subject, I had become well acquainted and familiar with the writings of

C

deists and infidels, knew the nature and value of their objections, and had found that I was much better acquainted with this class of writers than many of their most ardent followers whom I had known. It was this consideration that had induced me, with such confidence, to enter upon the present discussion, knowing, on the one hand, the strength of Christianity, and, on the other, the weakness of its assailants, especially of those with whom I had originally undertaken the discussion. To show you, therefore, I said, the grounds on which I demand your attention to what I may say on the nature and evidences of Christianity, I shall mention the names of some of the authors whose works I have read or consulted. When I had mentioned all their names, Lord Byron asked me if I had read Barrow's and Stillingfleet's works. I said I had seen them, but that I had not read them.

The task, I said, that I had undertaken was attended with some peculiar difficulties; that I should have to talk of a change in my own mind and feelings, which I was conscious they had never felt in theirs, and that I could only convince them of this, not in the way of direct demonstration, but by testimony and analogy. The way in which this discussion was to be conducted,