ufficient grounds for _accepting_ a professed revelation, would open too
wide a field of enquiry for our present purpose, and would necessitate a
discussion of that very difficult branch of metaphysics which relates to
the laws which regulate our belief. Without, however, attempting to
discuss the subject fully, a few points may be indicated for
consideration.

It is clear that the evidence, with regard to the record of a professed
revelation, _will vary in its character at different times_. The
evidence will be more direct, and, in this respect, more clear, at an
earlier period of the record, than at a later: while, on the other hand,
a record which has been translated into different languages, and has
exercised a widely spread influence, will possess a peculiar force of its
own. On the supposition that God made a revelation to Moses, it is not
difficult to suppose that convincing evidence, as to the truthfulness of
what he might say, or write about it, might readily be afforded to those
who lived in his times. If such miracles, as those recorded in the
Pentateuch really occurred--and certainly if God so far transcended the
usual course of nature as to give a revelation, it does not seem hard to
believe that He might also so far transcend it, as to authenticate it in
some special manner--the evidence would be of a very strong kind. To
say, however, that no reasonable conviction of the reality of a
revelation could be afforded, without the aid of miracles, is an
assertion which we are not prepared to hazard; though we certainly think
that, as calculated to excite attention, and implying a power superior to
that of man, they would serve as excellent credentials. To human view,
in fact, a miracle does not necessarily imply the agency of the one God.
It might, for anything that can be proved to the contrary, be the work of
some power, inferior to that God whom we are bound to obey, and yet
superior to man. The various circumstances therefore, connected with the
miracle, would be properly taken into account by the person who was
investigating a professed revelation. He would not only examine with
care the evidence as to the reality of the miracle itself, but also the
circumstances under which it was worked, and its aspect. The character
of the person who professed to have received the revelation would very
fairly come under consideration. Inquiries would be made as to whether
he was one whose word could be safely t