does not require evidence of the description you lay down. I grant it
wants to be satisfied and it has a right to expect it; it feels under
no obligation to evidence which comes short of conviction; but it does
not require all _possibility_ to be taken into its account. This would
seem to go beyond the limits of faith and enter into the regions of
certainty. If the evidences in support of faith be sufficient to give
rest, peace, and consolation to the mind, and if the faith be strong
enough to effect the conduct of the believer in a proper manner, the
object of faith is obtained.

The hopes of the husbandman may serve to illustrate this particular.
He does not know for certainty that his fields will produce him any
thing; he does not know that the coming season will be favourable to
his crops, yet he plants and sows in comfortable expectation. He rises
early and labours cheerfully, his expectations are full of comfort, he
sleeps quietly and enjoys content. But if you ask him whether he views
it _impossible_ that he should fail of a harvest? he will with but
very little concern answer in the negative.

"The just shall live by faith, we walk by faith and not by sight."
All, therefore, that we can reasonably expect in the case before us,
is to find a decided _balance_ of evidence in favour of the religion
of the gospel. And to _review_ the evidences of this religion, it
seems necessary first to allow that there are evidences in existence
which go to prove it, if their validity be allowed. For instance, the
four evangelists, the acts of the apostles, together with the epistles
of the apostles are considered evidences of the truth of this
religion. And can you reasonably require more until you are able to
show that all these come short of establishing the credibility of the
facts which they relate with apparent honesty and simplicity not to be