the difficulties spring from his limited capacity, or imperfect
glimpses of a very small segment of the universal plan. Nor are those
difficulties less upon the opposite hypothesis: and they are there
further burdened with two or three additional absurdities. The
preponderant evidence, far from removing the difficulties, scarcely
touches them,--yet it is felt to be sufficient to justify faith, though
most abundant faith is required still.

Are the evidences, then, in behalf of Christianity less of a nature
which man can appreciate? or can the difficulties involved in its
reception be greater than in the preceding cases? If not, and if,
moreover, while the evidence turns as before on principles with which we
are familiar, the more formidable objections, as before, are such that
we are not competent to decide upon their absolute insolubility, we
see how man ought to act; that is, not to let his ignorance control his
knowledge, but to let his reason accept the proofs which justify his
faith, in accepting the difficulties. In no case is he, it appears,
warranted to look for the certainty which shall exclude (whatever the
triumphs of his reason) a gigantic exercise of his faith. Let us briefly
consider a few of the evidences. And in order to give the statement a
little novelty, we shall indicate the principal topics of evidence, not
by enumerating what the advocate of Christianity believes in believing
it to be true, but what the infidel must believe in believing it to
be false. The a priori objection to Miracles we shall briefly touch
afterwards.

First, then, in relation to the Miracles of the New Testament, whether
they be supposed masterly frauds on men's senses committed at the time
and by the parties supposed in the records, or fictions (designed
or accidental) subsequently fabricated--but still, in either case,