To assent to a religious proposition _solely_ in obedience to an outward miracle, would be Belief; but would not be Faith, any more than is scientific conviction.

Bishop Butler and all his followers can insist with much force on this topic, when it suits them, and can quote most aptly from the New Testament to the same effect.

They deduce, that a really overpowering miraculous proof would have destroyed the moral character of Faith: yet they do not see that the argument supersedes the authoritative force of outward miracles entirely.

It had always appeared to me very strange in these divines, to insist on the stupendous character and convincing power of the Christian miracles, and then, in reply to the objection that they were _not_ quite convincing, to say that the defect was purposely left "to try people's Faith." Faith in what?
Not surely in the confessedly ill-proved miracle, but in the truth as discernible by the heart _without aid of miracle._ I conceived of two men, Nathaniel and Demas, encountering a pretender to miracles, a Simon Magus of the scriptures.

Nathaniel is guileless, sweet-hearted and of strong moral sense, but in worldly matters rather a simpleton.