Charles P. M'Ilvaine 
(Episcopalian Chaplain at West Point, 1825-1828, 
later Episcopalian Bishop of Ohio)

LECTURE I

INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS

... Is the religion of Jesus Christ as exhibited in the New Testament, a revelation from God, and consequently possessed of a sovereign right to universal faith and obedience? ... 

... Are we believers in Christianity because we were born of believing parents, and have always lived in a Christian country; or because we have considered the excellence and weighed the proofs of this religion, and are intelligently persuaded that it deserves our reliance? I am well aware that there are many truly devoted followers of Christ who have never made the evidences of Christianity their study, and in argument with an infidel, would be easily confounded by superior skill and information; but whose belief nevertheless is, in the highest degree, that of rational conviction, since they possess in themselves the best of all evidence that the gospel of Christ is "the power and wisdom of God," having experienced its transforming, purifying, elevating, and enlightening efficacy upon their own hearts and characters. Did such believers abound, Christianity would be much less in need of other evidence. ...

We must have the religion of Christ or none. A little reflection will make it apparent, that the question as to the truth of Christianity is not one of preference between two rival systems of doctrine, having conflicting claims and nearly balanced arguments and benefits; it is not whether the gospel is more true and salutary than some other mode of religion, which though inferior would still secure many of the most essential and substantial benefits for which religion is desirable. But it is no other than the plain and solemn question, shall we believe in the faith of Christ, or in none? ...

LECTURE V.

MIRACLES

Now, the grand question is, what are the evidences that the religion contained in the New Testament is a divine revelation? ...

I. There is nothing unreasonable or improbable in the idea of a miracle being wrought in proof of a divine revelation. I know not but that all persons, of ordinary information, have a sufficiently correct idea of what is meant by a miracle, without the aid of a definition. No one would mistake the restoration of sight to the blind, by the use of human skill, however wonderful it might be considered, for a miracle. No one could mistake the sudden communication of sight to one born blind at the mere word of another, without any intervening cause, for any thing else than a miracle. The former result, though astonishing, would be according to the common course of nature, or to what are called the laws of nature. The latter would be beyond, or different from those laws. One would be a natural, the other a supernatural event, or a miracle. 

Now the idea of a revelation from God, and the idea of a miracle to attest the divine commission of those who make it, are essentially connected. If one or more individuals be sent to communicate the revelation, they must prove their mission by some credentials. What can their credentials be but miracles? ...

II. If miracles were wrought in attestation of the mission of Christ and his apostles, they can be rendered credible to us by no other evidence than that of testimony. There are various descriptions of evidence, as the evidence of sense -- the evidence of mathematical demonstration -- the evidence of testimony. Each of these has its own department of subjects. A question of morals cannot be demonstrated by mathematics, or proved by the senses. A question of historical fact can be settled only by testimony. ...

III. Miracles are capable of being proved by testimony. This I consider as true and obvious as that miracles are capable of being proved by the evidence of the senses. That a certain person was dead and buried yesterday; and that he is alive and walking the streets to-day; the senses are perfectly competent to decide. I never heard of this being questioned. But if I and twenty others saw these facts, is there no way of making them credible to my neighbor who did not see them? Will it be pretended, that if twenty men of unquestionable honesty and intelligence, should solemnly and by every means of conviction in their power, assure me that they saw the man dead, buried, and in corruption, I would have no sufficient reason to believe their assertion? Will it be pretended, that if the same men should in the same way assure me, that subsequently they saw the same man alive, and conversed with him; I would have no reason to believe their assertion? I think there are none among us who could avoid belief in such a case. It would evidently be a case of miracle, believed on testimony; and to maintain that it would be believed without reason, and that no conceivable addition of honest testimony could furnish reason for the belief of those two simple facts, that the man was dead yesterday and is alive to-day, would seem an absurdity too gross to be touched by argument. ...  [TO READ THE REPLY TO HUME, CLICK HERE]

IV. Let us pass to our fourth proposition. The testimony in proof of the miracles of the gospel has not diminished in force by the increase of age. It is not an uncommon idea that the transmission of remote events, by successive testimony, from generation to generation, weakens their evidence in proportion to the time. It is supposed, that had we lived in the fourth instead of the nineteenth century, we should have possessed the testimonial evidence of the Christian miracles in much greater force than it is now enjoyed. But we deny that there is any reason for this supposition. Mere oral tradition must weaken with age. But written testimony cannot suffer loss as long as the genuineness of the document containing it is unimpaired, and the character of the witnesses is substantiated. For example: suppose it be recorded on the minutes of the Young Men's Society of New York, that on the 13th day of January, 1832, this lecture was delivered to its members, on the Evidences of Christianity, and those minutes be laid up among its records; and the society exist from generation to generation, keeping a regular account of its transactions, for 400 years; and at the end of that time, some one, searching into its early papers, should read the minutes of the above event; the evidence of the fact would be considered as conclusive, as if instead of 400 years, only 50 had elapsed since its occurrence. The event would be as certain as the genuineness of the record, and would have no reference to the age of either. Let the society continue 1000 years, and its records being still preserved uncorrupted, the evidence will remain undiminished. We rely upon the testimony in proof of the invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar, or of Italy by Hannibal, with quite as much confidence as we read of the wars of Charles the First in England. And if our present accounts of those widely remote events shall be preserved to the end of the world, the confidence of our posterity at that time in their historical correctness, caeteris paribus, will be as complete as ours. ...

LECTURE VI.
MIRACLES [Summary from the Table of Contents]

Have we satisfactory Evidence that genuine Miracles were wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles? This Question is settled by the Proof of Credibility. Another line of Argument adopted.

The Religion of the Bible is the only one which, in its first Introduction, appealed to Miracles for Evidence of the Divine Authority of its Teachers.

I. Supposing the Works related of Christ to have actually occurred, many of them must have been genuine Miracles.

II. The alleged Miracles of Christ were such as admitted at once of the Test of the Senses.

III. They were performed in the most public Manner.

IV. They were very Numerous and of great Variety.

V. The Success was in every Instance Instantaneous and Complete.

VI. There is no Evidence of an Attempt on the part of Christ or His Apostles to perform a Miracle in which they were accused of a Failure.

VII. The Length of Time during which they professed to perform miraculous Works.

VIII. Their Works underwent the most rigid Examination from those who had every Opportunity of ascertaining their Character.

IX. Their Adversaries had every Advantage in the Fact that these Miracles were published and appealed to immediately after, and in the Places where they occurred.

X. These Arguments derive important Aid from a Consideration of time Agents whose Works were subjected to such Scrutiny.

XI. None of those who were Eyewitnesses of what Jesus or His Apostles wrought, were ever induced to confess themselves deceived, or that they hail ever seen anything but Truth in those miraculous Gifts by which they had been persuaded to embrace the Gospel. ...