SECTION I.
The Deſign.

THERE is ſcarce any criterion of Truth, leſs ambiguous than this, That it gains evidence by being placed in a variety of lights. There is gene⯑rally one ſituation in which error ad⯑mits a ſpecious diſguiſe; and, by be⯑ing artfully ſhown only in that ſitua⯑tion, it often impoſes on the under⯑ſtanding: but ſet it in another point of view, it is immediately detected, [2] and men wonder how they came to be deceived. There have been impoſ⯑tures in religion, which, if you conſider them only on one ſide, ſeem capable of a very plauſible defence; but none of them can bear to be accu⯑rately inſpected on all ſides. The Chriſtian religion proves itſelf to be no impoſture, by its ſhining forth with new evidence in every light in which it can be placed: there is ſcarce any circumſtance attending it, which is not found on trial to give teſtimony to its truth.

The nature of the principal eviden⯑ces of Chriſtianity, has been often ex⯑plained; their ſtrength has been fully illuſtrated and vindicated: The man⯑ner in which they were propoſed by Chriſt and his apoſtles has not been ſo carefully attended to. Infidels have inſinuated, that this manner is in ſome reſpects exceptionable: it is however [3] truly ſuch as adds weight to the evi⯑dences themſelves. It contains ſeve⯑ral ſeparate preſumptions of the truth of Chriſtianity; and therefore merits a particular examination.

Both Chriſt and his apoſtles pro⯑poſed the evidences of their miſſion, in two very different ſituations: they propoſed them to thoſe who had not yet expreſſed prejudice againſt the goſ⯑pel, or againſt the proofs of its divinity which were offered: and they propo⯑ſed them to thoſe who were already engaged in oppoſition, and had actu⯑ally moved objections. In theſe oppo⯑ſite ſituations, they propoſed them in different manners, which it will be neceſſary to examine ſeparately. Each was proper in the circumſtances in which it was uſed. Each has pecu⯑liar advantages, by means of which it affords collateral evidence of the truth of the goſpel. When we con⯑ſider [4] both together, we ſhall perceive, that the evidence of our religion was propoſed in a manner which is ab⯑ſolutely complete, and which bears the ſtrongeſt marks of a divine ori⯑ginal.

SECTION II.
The manner in which the Evidences of Chriſti⯑anity were originally propoſed.

WE ſhall begin with examining the manner in which Chriſt and his apoſtles propoſed the eviden⯑ces of the goſpel to thoſe who had not yet oppoſed it, or expreſſed preju⯑dice againſt it. This we may call their original manner. The New Teſta⯑ment affords us the means of aſcer⯑taining it with preciſion. In addreſ⯑ſing thoſe who did not raiſe objec⯑tions againſt the goſpel, it was their uniform method, to ſatisfy themſelves with barely exhibiting its evidences. They laboured not to prove by ar⯑gumentation, that theſe evidences were ſufficient; they were not at [6] pains either to prevent or to remove every objection which might be ſtart⯑ed; they explained not minutely the particular manner in which each evi⯑dence ſupports their miſſion.

THE excellence of Chriſtianity, is alone a conſiderable evidence of its divinity. Our Saviour exhibited this evidence in its full ſtrength; but he never urged it, except when he was led to urge it, by oppoſition. He delivered doctrines which were really excellent, and bore clear marks of truth and divinity: but he did not ſtudiouſly point out their ſeveral per⯑fections; he did not multiply aſſer⯑tions, either that they were excellent, or that their excellence proved their divinity. He left his hearers to feel the excellence of his religion, and from their feeling of its energy, to conclude for themſelves, that it was [7] of heavenly original. It was not by means of his encomiums, but by means of their own perceptions, that great numbers diſcovered the features of di⯑vinity in his diſcourſes.

He exhibited the proof of his miſ⯑ſion ariſing from miracles, with equal ſimplicity. He made no commenta⯑ry on the very firſt miracle, which he wrought in Cana; he left it to mani⯑feſt forth his glory ^* merely by its na⯑tural force. When he entered more profeſſedly upon his miniſtry in Ga⯑lilee, his manner was entirely ſimilar: he taught in their ſynagogues, and preached the goſpel of the kingdom, and caſt out de⯑vils, and healed all manner of ſickneſs, and all manner of diſeaſes among the people ^†. He publiſhed his doctrine, he perform⯑ed miracles ſufficient for proving that it was from God: but we are not in⯑formed that he employed arguments [8] for evincing that his miracles were proper and concluſive evidences. Through his whole public life, he re⯑ceived them that followed him, and ſpake unto them of the kingdom of God; and, to induce them to believe him, healed them that had need of healing ^*. He did miraculous works of the moſt various and the moſt ſtupendous kinds: he ſatisfied himſelf with having done them; he entered into no laboured detail of the circumſtances which ſhow⯑ed their reality, into no nice reflections on the ſtrength of theſe circumſtances, into no ſubtile explications of the con⯑nexion between miracles and doctrines: he left his miracles to ſpeak for him in their own language, and to ſupport both their reality and their force by their own internal characters of truth and divine power. Read the New Teſtament, and you will find that this [9] account ſuits far the greateſt part of the miracles which are recorded. He caſt out an unclean ſpirit in the ſynagogue of Capernaum^*; he caſt out a legion of devils, and permitted them to enter into a herd of ſwine^†; he looſed the tongues of perſons dumb by reaſon of the poſſeſſion of evil ſpirits^‡; he caſt out a devil from the daughter of a Syro⯑phenician woman, without going near to the place where ſhe was^‖; he cu⯑red a lunatic whoſe diſtemper was in⯑veterate, obſtinate, and extreme^**; he reſtored ſight to many blind per⯑ſons^††; he reſtored vigour to a lame man, at the pool of Betheſda^‡‡; he re⯑moved [10] the palſy from a centurion's ſervant, by a word ſpoken at a diſ⯑tance^*; a fever left Peter's mother-in-law, on his only touching her hand^†; a woman was cured of an iſſue of blood, by touching the hem of his gar⯑ment^‡; at different places and on different occaſions, in the ſeveral pe⯑riods of his miniſtry, multitudes afflict⯑ed with almoſt all poſſible ſorts of diſ⯑eaſes were brought to him, or came in his way, and he cured them all^‖; he raiſed the widow of Nain's ſon, and the daughter of Jairus, from the dead^**; at one time, he fed above five thouſand, with five loaves and two [11] fiſhes^*; and at another time, four thou⯑ſand, with ſeven loaves and a few little fiſhes^†; at one time, he rebuked the ſea, and turned the ſtorm into a calm^‡, at another, he walked upon the wa⯑ters when they were toſſed with waves, and afterwards compoſed the winds^‖; once he directed Simon and his com⯑panions to a draught of fiſhes, miracu⯑lous on account both of their number, and of their being found when they had toiled all night without catching any thing^**; and again he directed the ſame Simon to catch a ſingle fiſh, which equally ſhowed his miraculous power, becauſe it brought the preciſe ſum of the tribute demanded from [12] him^*. In all theſe inſtances, and in many others, he wrought miracles without making any reflections on their credibility or on their force. In⯑deed, miracles can prove nothing till their own reality be eſtabliſhed. But how is the reality of a miracle eſta⯑bliſhed moſt effectually? Doubtleſs by its being wrought in ſuch circum⯑ſtances as render men attentive to it, and force them to perceive it by their own ſenſes. Without this, the moſt peremptory aſſertions that it was wrought, will not ſatisfy thoſe who muſt have ſeen it if it had been wrought; and if it was attended with ſuch circumſtances as we have ſuppo⯑ſed, aſſertions of its reality are ſuper⯑fluous. It was by the manner of his working them, that our Saviour ren⯑dered the reality of his miracles obvi⯑ous and undeniable; they were in themſelves appeals to the ſenſes of [13] men; and when he found it neceſſa⯑ry to take any notice of their certain⯑ty, he generally did no more but put them upon judging by their own ſen⯑ſes: when he had cleanſed a leper, by putting forth his hand, and touching him, ſaying, I will, be thou clean; he did not expatiate on the undeniable certainty of the miracle: he needed not: but, that men might of themſelves judge concerning its certainty, he ſimply ſaid, ſhow thyſelf unto the prieſt, and offer the gift that Moſes commanded for a TES⯑TIMONY unto them ^*. Miracles are proofs of a doctrine, only when they are performed with a profeſſed inten⯑tion to anſwer this purpoſe. It was therefore neceſſary for our Saviour to declare, that his miracles were intend⯑ed to be evidences of his divine miſ⯑ſion, in order to eſtabliſh a connexion between them and his doctrine. But [14] it was by no means neceſſary, that he ſhould make this declaration at the time of working every miracle. As he laid claim to a divine miſſion, and con⯑ſtantly delivered his doctrines in the name of God, a general declaration of the intention of his miracles, with an appeal to them on ſome particular oc⯑caſions, was ſufficient for rendering them vouchers of his miſſion; and, from the evangelical hiſtory, he ap⯑pears to have done no more. It is not improbable that he appealed to his mi⯑racles in ſome inſtances where it is not taken notice of by the evangeliſts: but his appeals to them in almoſt all the inſtances which are recorded, were oc⯑caſioned by oppoſition and objections; and this gives us abundant reaſon for concluding that he was at leaſt very ſparing in enlarging even on their ge⯑neral intention. He inſiſts, that, when he had wrought his miracles, he had gi⯑ven [15] ſufficient evidence of his doctrine, and done all that was incumbent on him for the conviction of mankind. He repreſents it as enough to render Cho⯑razin, Bethſaida, and Capernaum in⯑excuſable, that mighty works had been DONE in them ^*. They had ſeen his miracles: this alone, he telIs them, ought to have convinced them of his miſſion.

Our Saviour proved himſelf to be a divine teacher, by miracles of know⯑lege, as well as by miracles of power. He ſhewed himſelf to be a prophet: he foretold future events with great exactneſs; and he gave proof that he was perfectly acquainted with things as remote from a diſcovery by mere hu⯑man ſagacity, as futurity itſelf. He told Nathanael, for inſtance, his in⯑ward diſpoſition and his ſecret behavi⯑our^†. He ſhowed the Samaritan wo⯑man [16] whom he met at Jacob's well, that he knew all the events of her life, though he had never ſeen her before^*. He frequently foretold his own ſuffer⯑ings in the moſt circumſtantial man⯑ner^†. His predictions of the calami⯑ties which were haſtening on the Jews, were not leſs frequent, nor leſs pre⯑ciſe^‡. He ſhowed, in like manner, that he had full foreknowlege of what would be the ſtate of his diſciples and of his religion after his departure from the earth^‖. But, conſcious that theſe inſtances of ſupernatural knowlege ought to gain credit to all his doc⯑trines, he was at no pains to diſplay their force. I can recollect but two occaſions on which we are informed [17] of his having obſerved, that his pre⯑dictions were evidences of his miſſion: when he had pointed out Judas as the perſon who would betray him, he add⯑ed, Now I tell you before it come, that when it is come to paſs, ye may believe that I am he ^*. He concluded one of the predic⯑tions of his own death, with a ſimilar intimation of the intention of it, ex⯑preſſed in almoſt the ſame words^†.

Jeſus often proves his miſſion from the predictions of the Old Teſtament. He claimed to be not a prophet only, but the Meſſiah. The characters of the Meſſiah were very particularly deter⯑mined by ancient predictions: and theſe characters were ſo numerous, and in ſome inſtances ſo ſeemingly incom⯑patible, that they could not poſſibly meet in one perſon by accident: if Jeſus had actually united them all in himſelf, this would have ſhown him to [18] be the Meſſiah, tho' he had never al⯑moſt appealed to any of them. And ſo far is he from oſtentatiouſly diſplay⯑ing the teſtimonies of the prophets, that often he refers to them only in general, without pointing out par⯑ticular paſſages; that, when he men⯑tions a particular prediction, he gene⯑rally barely repeats it, and applies it to himſelf; that he ſeldom uſes any rea⯑ſoning, never any ſubtile reaſoning, to juſtify the application^*. He always urges the proof from prophecy with the like ſimplicity, as that from miracles. We have one very remarkable inſtance of the manner in which he exhibited both theſe proofs. When John the Bap⯑tiſt ſent his diſciples to aſk, Art thou he that ſhould come, or do we look for another? he did not declaim concerning the evi⯑dences [19] of his miſſion; he argued not at all: In that ſame hour, ſay the hiſtorians, he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil ſpirits; and unto many that were blind he gave ſight: And he ſaid unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have ſeen and heard, how that the blind ſee, the lame walk, the lepers are cleanſed, the deaf hear, the dead are raiſed, to the poor the goſpel is preached; and bleſſed is he whoſoever ſhall not be offended in me ^*. He wrought miracles in the preſence of the meſſengers; he ſaid what ſuffici⯑ently implied that he wrought them with an intention to prove his miſſion; and he left them to determine by theſe, whether or not he really had a divine miſſion. He deſigned that John and his diſciples ſhould diſcover him to be not merely a prophet, but the Meſſiah: for this reaſon, the particular miracles which he choſe to work at that time, [20] were ſome of thoſe by which the pro⯑phetic ſpirit had of old characteriſed the Meſſiah; and, for this reaſon too, he alluded in what he ſaid, to the words of Iſaiah's predictions; Then the eyes of the blind ſhall be opened, and the ears of the deaf ſhall be unſtopped; then ſhall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb ſing ^*. The ſpirit of the Lord God is upon me, becauſe the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath ſent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to pro⯑claim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the priſon to them that are bound ^†. By alluding to theſe predictions he applied them to prove that he was the Meſſiah; but applied them in the ſimpleſt man⯑ner, without entering on a nice expli⯑cation of their accompliſhment.

Thus, whatever be the particular evidence of his miſſion, which our Saviour gives at any time to thoſe who [21] had not yet raiſed objections againſt him, he exhibits that evidence; but he does not ſhow any eagerneſs to reaſon upon it, to analyſe it into its principles, to eſtimate its force, or to prevent all the cavils which might be raiſed a⯑gainſt it.

HE directed his diſciples to uſe the very ſame method. When he ſent forth the twelve apoſtles, he command⯑ed them to deliver their doctrine, and ſimply to work miracles in confirma⯑tion of it: his inſtructions to them were, Preach, ſaying, The kingdom of hea⯑ven is at hand, and heal the ſick, cleanſe the lepers, raiſe the dead, caſt out devils ^*. When the ſeventy diſciples were ſent out, he gave them ſimilar inſtructions^†. The working of miracles was all the evidence which he directed them to produce. Inſtead of teaching them arguments [22] by which they might prove that this evidence was ſufficient, he commands them, if the miracles themſelves did not convince thoſe who ſaw them wrought, to be ſatisfied that they had done their part notwithſtanding, and to pronounce the unbelievers inexcu⯑ſable: Whoſoever ſhall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that houſe, or city, ſhake off the duſt of your feet; verily I ſay unto you, it ſhall be more to⯑lerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for that city ^*. They executed the commiſſion with all the ſimplicity of manner that had been preſcribed: They departed and went thro' the towns, preaching the goſpel, and healing every where ^†. On all other occaſions, as well as on that, it was in this man⯑ner that the diſciples of Jeſus originally propoſed the evidences of his religion.

[23] The evangeliſts might have found many occaſions, in giving the hiſtory of our Saviour's life, to enter into diſ⯑cuſſions concerning the nature and the ſtrength of the proofs of his miſſion: But they write in the ſame ſpirit of ſimplicity, in which their maſter ſpake. They record his diſcourſes as they real⯑ly were; they do not in their own per⯑ſons give us deſcriptions of the man⯑ner of his teaching, or panegyrics on it; they do not boaſt of the excellence of his documents, or labour to diſplay it, or ſet themſelves to draw conclu⯑ſions from it. When they at all touch upon it, it is only by relating the in⯑fluence which his doctrine actually had upon his hearers, or the acknowledg⯑ments which it extorted from them. They tell it as a matter of fact, which fell naturally within their province as hiſtorians, that, when he taught in the ſynagogue of Capernaum, they were [24] aſtoniſhed at his doctrine, for his word was with power, and he taught them as one that had authority ^*. It is in the ſame manner they introduce the ſame remark, after his ſermon on the mount^†. When one of them ſays, Never man ſpake like this man ^‡, he ſimply records the anſwer which the officers made to the chief prieſts and phariſees. Concerning the miracles of Jeſus, the evangeliſts, for the moſt part, as appears from what hath been already ſaid, merely inform us that he wrought them, and men⯑tion the ſituation in which they were wrought, and the circumſtances which attended them; tho' theſe circumſtan⯑ces rendered them not only credible, but even undeniable, they ſcarce ever make this remark. They do not even enumerate all his miracles^‖. They ſometimes tell us, that he declared his [25] deſign in working them to be, that they might prove his miſſion: but they add no reflections of their own^*. In the ſame ſimple hiſtorical manner, they at other times relate the effects which Chriſt's miracles produced, and the opinions which they led men to form: they tell us, for inſtance, that they excited wonder in thoſe who ſaw them, and forced from them various expreſſions of their aſtoniſhment^†; that they ſpread the fame of Jeſus, and made multitudes to flock to him^‡; that many followed him, and became his frequent hearers^‖; that they aſcri⯑bed his miracles to a divine power^**; [26] that they glorified the true God on ac⯑count of them^*; that from them ma⯑ny concluded that he was a prophet^†; that on account of them many believed him to be the Meſſiah^‡; that ſome who doubted whether he was the Meſſiah, yet ſaid, When Chriſt cometh, will he do more miracles than theſe which this man hath done ^‖? They ſometimes relate parti⯑cular inſtances of his knowlege of the hearts of men, and of future events: but, ſatisfied that theſe were the plain⯑eſt indications of a divine commiſſion, they ſeem to have reckoned it ſuperflu⯑ous to draw any inference from them^**. In proving that he was the Meſſiah, from the prophecies of the Old Teſta⯑ment, [27] they ſimply mention the events of his life, or events belonging to the goſpel-diſpenſation, and quote the predictions which were applicable to them^*. When they relate applications of the prophecies made by others, to Chriſt, or to perſons connected with him, it is in the ſame ſimple manner^†.

After Chriſt's aſcenſion into heaven, his apoſtles began, in execution of the commiſſion which they had received from him, to preach the goſpel every⯑where. Before this time, the Jews had raiſed many cavils and objections a⯑gainſt its evidences: and the crucifixion of its author had produced a new pre⯑judice againſt it, and thrown a dark [28] ſhade over all its proofs. On this ac⯑count, the apoſtles were obliged very frequently, to prove the truth of Chri⯑ſtianity by more formal arguments than had been generally uſed by their Maſter. Yet they appear to have had recourſe to that method, only when it was abſolutely neceſſary. They were contented with ſimply exhibiting its evidences, unattended with any parade of argument, whenever the occaſion could at all bear it, whenever ſome ve⯑ry immediate and particular oppoſition did not require their doing otherwiſe. They alledge the miracles which Jeſus wrought; they inſiſt particularly on his reſurrection from the dead; they relate occaſionally the circumſtances which attended them, and which need⯑ed only to be related, in order to put their reality out of doubt: they do not philoſophiſe on the moment of theſe circumſtances, or on the force of the [29] miracles themſelves: they ſpeak of them as of what they knew to be true, and as of what they doubted not but ſincere inquirers would likewiſe find to be true; and they ſeem to reckon this e⯑nough^*. The apoſtles performed ma⯑ny miracles themſelves; they healed diſeaſes, caſt out devils, raiſed the dead, exerciſed the ſeveral gifts which the effuſion of the Holy Ghoſt had con⯑ferred upon them: They gave their miracles a connexion with the goſpel, by working them with a profeſſed de⯑ſign to confirm the doctrine which they preached, and by declaring, as often as it was neceſſary, that they wrought them in the name of Jeſus Chriſt. They were ſatisfied with this; they did not call in the aid of ſubtile arguments, to enable their miracles to work convic⯑tion. In relating their miracles, and [30] the effects produced on men, both by miracles, and by the other evidences which they exhibited, the ſame hiſtori⯑cal ſimplicity is conſtantly preſerved, which, we have already ſeen, takes place remarkably in the hiſtories of the miracles of Jeſus^*. The apoſtles often appeal to the prophecies of the Old Teſtament; and often they do no more but appeal to them^†.

Such is the manner in which Chriſt and his apoſtles originally propoſed the evidences of the goſpel. They barely exhibited proper evidences; they did not indulge themſelves either in nice reaſonings, or in rhetorical declama⯑tions, on their credibility, or their force; they left them to ſpeak for themſelves, and to produce conviction [31] in the minds of men, by their own o⯑peration upon the natural principles of belief. We cannot affirm, that they would never have propoſed the eviden⯑ces of the goſpel in another manner, if no objections had been raiſed: but we may affirm, becauſe it is clear from the New Teſtament, that in fact they never did deviate from the manner which has been explained, except when ſome particular objection or immediate op⯑poſition rendered it neceſſary. It ſeems to be the only manner which they ever uſed of choice.

WE may add, that they propoſe, even in this manner, only the princi⯑pal and moſt direct evidences of Chri⯑ſtianity. There are many preſumptions of its truth, many collateral evidences of its divinity, which they do not urge in any manner. They only give a han⯑dle for men's obſerving them: they fur⯑niſh [32] the materials out of which an ar⯑gument may be wrought up; they mention circumſtances from which an attentive perſon may deduce it: but it is generally incidentally that they mention them, with a view to ſome other end than confirming the goſpel, and without drawing an argument from them, for its truth. Thus, the character of our Saviour, the characters of ſome of his apoſtles, the quick and extenſive progreſs of the goſpel, and many other topics, have been ſucceſs⯑fully improved into arguments for the divinity of our religion. The New Teſtament contains what may natural⯑ly ſuggeſt theſe arguments; but they are ſcarce ever profeſſedly urged in it. The inſpired writers are ſo far, for in⯑ſtance, from inſiſting on all the argu⯑ments for a divine miſſion, which may be deduced from our Saviour's charac⯑ter, or thoſe of his apoſtles, that they [33] never draw their characters, but leave us to collect what they were upon the whole, from ſcattered hints, and from ſome of their particular actions. The progreſs of the goſpel is frequently mentioned: ſometimes it is predicted; ſometimes it is related in a hiſtorical way; ſometimes perſons are exhorted to thankfulneſs, becauſe the knowlege of it had been extended to them: but it is ſeldom, if ever, applied to the proof of the divine original of Chriſti⯑anity.

SECTION III.
The propriety of the manner in which the EVIDENCES of CHRISTIANITY were originally propoſed.

‘"BUT may not this ſimple, unar⯑gumentative manner of propo⯑ſing the evidences of the goſpel, be urged as an objection againſt it? Is it not diſhonouring Chriſtianity, to aſſert that it is not founded on argu⯑ment? And does not this manner of propoſing its evidences, give too great countenance to that aſſertion?"’ The aſſertion, that Chriſtianity is not founded on argument, will be diſho⯑nourable to our religion, or not, ac⯑cording to the ſenſe in which it is un⯑derſtood. [35] It is a very old objection^*: when ancient infidels urged it, they meant, that Chriſt and his apoſtles did not, like the Greek philoſophers, prove each particular doctrine by a diſtinct train of argument deduced from firſt principles, but proved them all from the authority of the revelation in which they are taught. This is true: but it is no objection, provided the authority of that revelation be fully eſtabliſhed: on the contrary, it is one of the excel⯑lencies of the goſpel; it promotes its u⯑tility, it renders it fit for the bulk of mankind. Modern infidels turn the objection into another form: they aſ⯑ſert, and endeavour to prove, that our Saviour and his apoſtles neither ‘"made nor intended any appeal to the un⯑derſtanding^†."’ This would be a [36] real and ſtrong objection, if it had any foundation in truth. But every per⯑ſon who has read the New Teſtament, knows, that it contains many paſſages in which men are commanded to exer⯑ciſe their reaſon in judging of Chriſti⯑anity, commended for exerciſing it, or blamed for neglecting to exerciſe it: and when he knows this, needs he to inquire, what arguments are brought to prove the objection? Whatever they are, they muſt be mere ſophiſms. When we are certain, by ſeeing poſi⯑tive inſtances of it, that perſons do actually addreſs the underſtanding, an attempt to prove by ſubtile ratiocina⯑tions, that they do not, is as ridiculous as it would be to undertake to prove that the ſun ſhines not, when we ſee him ſhining. Indeed a perſon may addreſs the underſtanding, and yet addreſs it improperly. It is addreſſed improper⯑ly, if no real evidence be offered: if [37] you endeavour to convince me, and yet propoſe no ſolid or concluſive ar⯑guments, you either inſult me, or be⯑tray your own weakneſs. It might be ſaid, that Chriſtianity is not founded on, or, to ſpeak more properly, ſup⯑ported by argument, if the evidences which its author profeſſes to bring, were not rational and juſt^*. But in order to prove that they are not, it muſt be evinced, that Chriſtianity is not re⯑commended by the excellence of its doctrines, by miracles, and by prophe⯑cies, or that all theſe have no degree of fitneſs for convincing the underſtand⯑ing, of its truth and divinity. This will be, at leaſt, a laborious taſk: the aſſertion, in this ſenſe of it, has no ten⯑dency to ſhorten the work of infidels; it is not one expeditious and deciſive [38] argument againſt Chriſtianity; but it is the very concluſion which they muſt ultimately prove. All the objections of the moſt various kinds, which infi⯑dels have ever moved, are but ſo many attempts to prove it: all the defences of Chriſtianity, which have ever been made, are intended to confute it. It can receive no ſhadow of countenance from any thing which we have ſaid: we have been ſpeaking only of the manner in which the evidences of the goſpel were originally propoſed, not at all of the nature or ſtrength of the evidences themſelves. The preſent queſtion is not, whether the evidences of the go⯑ſpel be ſuch in themſelves, that, when properly propoſed, they will prove it to be a divine revelation; but it is, whether, ſuppoſing them real and ſuf⯑ficient evidences, that which we have deſcribed, was a proper manner of pro⯑poſing them? Theſe queſtions are to⯑tally [39] diſtinct. The manner in which they were actually propoſed, may total⯑ly exclude the diſplay of curious and ſubtile argument; and yet the eviden⯑ces themſelves may be truly rational, ſuch that the utmoſt efforts of argument cannot invalidate them, and even ca⯑pable of being ſupported by the niceſt reaſonings. Suppoſe excellence of doc⯑trine, the working of miracles, the te⯑ſtimony of the ſpirit of prophecy, to be evidences of a divine miſſion; and from the whole account which we have given of our Saviour's manner, it is not more obvious, that he declined amuſing men with intricate reaſonings, than it is, that he preſented real and ſtrong evi⯑dence to them on every occaſion.

EVIDENCE ought, no doubt, to be propoſed in a proper manner: argu⯑ments of real ſtrength may be ſtated in ſo imperfect a manner, that they ſhall [40] produce no conviction. If it could be proved, that this was the caſe of Chri⯑ſtianity, it would give ſome reaſon for ſaying, that it was not ſupported by argument. IT may be thought, that this receives ſome colour from the re⯑preſentation which has been given of the manner of our Saviour and his apo⯑ſtles: but it is only in appearance. Re⯑mote as this manner is from an oſten⯑tation of reaſoning, it may notwith⯑ſtanding be the propereſt that could have been employed. It has often hap⯑pened, that infidels have deduced ob⯑jections from topics which are ſo far from yielding them ſupport, that they anſwer juſt the contrary purpoſe, when they are attentively examined, and pur⯑ſued through their genuine conſequen⯑ces. It happens in the preſent caſe: the manner in which the evidences of the goſpel were originally propoſed, is no ſort of preſumption againſt the divine [41] miſſion of Jeſus; it is, on the contrary, a preſumption for it, a collateral proof of it.

No preſumption againſt Chriſtianity, can ariſe from that manner, becauſe it is ſufficient for producing belief. Sup⯑poſe the evidences of the goſpel in themſelves proper and concluſive; it admits the cleareſt proof, that, in or⯑der to convince thoſe who attended to them without prejudice, or whoſe pre⯑judice had not yet engaged their inge⯑nuity to contrive objections againſt them, no more was neceſſary, but merely to exhibit them. This appears in ſome degree from matter of fact: that they were barely exhibited to per⯑ſons in this ſtate, has been already ſhown; that multitudes were convin⯑ced, and embraced the goſpel, is un⯑deniable. ‘"Perhaps theſe believed without evidence."’ We allow that [42] men often do believe without reaſon, and therefore we enlarge not on this topic. But, that the manner in que⯑ſtion was ſufficient for conviction, may be proved from the conſtitution of the human mind, and the nature of evi⯑dence. If the evidences of the goſpel be in themſelves ſolid, it was by no means neceſſary for the founder of it, by a nice analyſis of them, or by an abſtract explication of their principles and force, ſtudiouſly to point out their ſolidity. Natural evidence is, by the original conſtitution of the human ſoul, adapted to the underſtanding; there are principles of belief eſſential to man, on which it inſtantly lays hold, and by means of which, without the need of deep reflection, of laborious illuſtra⯑tions, or of intricate reaſonings, it will produce conviction in all who are not perverted by the ſophiſtry of falſe ſcience, or vitiated by unnatural re⯑finement. [43] Evidence is different from reaſoning: evidence perceived is the immediate cauſe of belief; reaſoning is but one mean of bringing men to perceive the evidence; and it is a mean which is far from being ne⯑ceſſary in every caſe. The ſtrongeſt conviction poſſible is produced by ſim⯑ple intuition, which leaves no room for reaſoning. There are ſome pro⯑poſitions, mathematical truths, for in⯑ſtance, the evidence of which can be perceived only by a chain of rea⯑ſoning, conſiſting of ſeveral ſteps, and deducing the concluſion gradually from firſt principles. But the evi⯑dence of natural and moral truths, and in general of all matters of fact, is of a totally different ſort: it requires not a long proceſs of reaſoning, in or⯑der to its being perceived: a fact is exhibited, and from that, a concluſion concerning another fact, is directly in⯑ferred; [44] the natural conſtitution of the mind determines it to make the infe⯑rence, and to adopt it, without any compariſon of ideas, or the interven⯑tion of any middle terms. We can give no reaſon for it, but that our conſtitution determines us to it, and renders it impoſſible for us to do otherwiſe. In ſubjects of this kind, therefore, there is much leſs need of reaſoning, and much leſs ſcope for it, than in ſome others. Often the evi⯑dence is perceived without any reaſon⯑ing at all; and when it is, it would be ſuperfluous to employ reaſoning. Fire will burn a human creature who ap⯑proaches too near it, is a natural truth; we do not prove it by any proceſs of reaſoning concerning the qualities of fire, and thoſe of human bodies; our experience of the effects of fire in paſt inſtances, is the natural evidence of this truth; and we per⯑ceive [45] that evidence in an inſtant, and are convinced by it without argument. Now the evidences of the goſpel are of this kind; they are facts, the percep⯑tion of which leads the mind naturally to infer the truth of the goſpel. The facts may be perceived without reaſon⯑ing; the concluſion is likewiſe deduced without reaſoning. They who ſee an inveterate diſtemper cured, or a dead perſon raiſed, by a ſingle word of a man claiming a divine miſſion, will need no arguments to convince them, that he has wrought miracles; and being convinced of this, if their natu⯑ral principles of belief be not obſtruc⯑ted, or perverted, they will readily conclude, We know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do theſe miracles which thou doſt, except God be with him ^*. Though, then, the goſpel, in the original publication of it, was not ſupported by reaſoning, it by no means [46] follows, that it was not ſupported by evidence. The nature of its evidences is ſuch as fits them for being perceived, and producing conviction, without reaſoning upon them.

But though the evidence of matters of fact does not neceſſarily require rea⯑ſoning, yet it often admits reaſoning. Reaſoning may be uſed in ſome caſes, for aſcertaining the real circumſtances of the fact from which we draw our inference, that it may give the mind an impulſe to draw it. When there are oppoſite probabilities, reaſoning may be uſed for determining which of them ought to preponderate. When objections are raiſed againſt the juſt⯑neſs of a particular inference, it may be vindicated by reaſoning. Reaſoning may be employed for inveſtigating the general principles of belief in mat⯑ters of fact, for giving an account how we come to yield to theſe principles, [47] for explaining the theory of evidence, and for ſhowing that our concluſion, in a particular inſtance, is agreeable to that theory, and ſupported by it. But it is by no means neceſſary that a per⯑ſon enter into all theſe reaſonings, in order to his obtaining conviction in any caſe. If evidence be preſented ſuitable to the caſe, it will beget con⯑viction, tho' we attend not to any of theſe ſorts of reaſoning, tho' we have never reflected how we come to be convinced, tho' we be not aware of all the objections which may be raiſed againſt the ſufficiency of the evidence, tho' we be not able to anſwer them all particularly, if they were propoſed to us. It is enough that the evidence be in its nature fit for operating on the human underſtanding: then con⯑viction will ariſe ſpontaneouſly on the exhibition of it. This holds with re⯑ſpect to all ſubjects. Metaphyſical [48] acuteneſs hath raiſed ſeveral objections againſt the certainty of mathematical evidence. Is it not, nevertheleſs, ſuf⯑ficient for convincing a man, that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, to make him acquaint⯑ed with the ordinary demonſtration of that propoſition? Is not the conviction produced in this way, perfectly ra⯑tional? Will any perſon pretend, that it is moreover neceſſary, to inform him of all the metaphyſical difficulties, and to obviate them, before he can rea⯑ſonably yield to the force of the de⯑monſtration? Every man is fully ſatis⯑fied, that bread will nouriſh him, that arſenic will poiſon him, by ſimply re⯑flecting that theſe ſubſtances have uni⯑formly produced theſe effects, in all former trials. Would you think it ne⯑ceſſary for promoting his conviction in this caſe, or for rendering it rational, firſt to inform him of all the doubts [49] which may be raiſed concerning the certainty, that the future courſe of na⯑ture will be ſimilar to the paſt, or that bodies having the ſame ſenſible quali⯑ties, have alſo the ſame powers and virtues; and then to remove theſe doubts, and to prove that they ought not to obſtruct his belief? Or would the drawing out of the argument from experience, in this philoſophical form, render the belief of an ordinary man, either firmer or more rational than it was before? To perceive evidence, is one thing; to account for evidence, is quite a different thing: the former on⯑ly is neceſſary for conviction. In like manner, to propoſe evidence proper in a particular caſe, is totally different from laying down a theory of evidence, or from giving an abſtract proof of the ſufficiency of it, or an explication of the manner in which it works convic⯑tion: the former is all that is fit, or neceſ⯑ſary, [50] in addreſſing the bulk of mankind on any ſubject. Our Saviour and his a⯑poſtles addreſſed mankind in that very manner. They wrought miracles, for inſtance, and cited prophecies, in proof of their miſſion. If theſe be at all evi⯑dences of a divine miſſion, they are ſuch evidences, that the ſimple exhibi⯑tion of them is ſufficient for producing conviction. It muſt be remembered, that theſe evidences do not appear to us in the very ſame light, as they did to thoſe to whom the goſpel was origi⯑nally propoſed. In order to judge what was ſufficient for them, we muſt carefully diſtinguiſh their ſituation from our own; we muſt ſuppoſe ourſelves placed in their circumſtances. Who⯑ever attends to the controverſy con⯑cerning the truth of Chriſtianity, will perceive that circumſtances peculiar to us, have occaſioned far the greateſt part of the reaſoning uſed on either [51] ſide. On this account, though a va⯑riety of arguments may be neceſſary for convincing us of the truth of Chri⯑ſtianity, it by no means follows, that the ſame arguments were neceſſary for their conviction, to whom our Saviour and his apoſtles ſpoke. With reſpect to them, there was ſcarce even ſcope for reaſoning. Almoſt all the reaſon⯑ings, for inſtance, which have been in⯑troduced concerning the proof from prophecy, are employed in ſhowing, that the prophecies of the Old Teſta⯑ment were intended of the Meſſiah. Ought our Saviour to have entered in⯑to theſe reaſonings, in preaching to the Jews? To us, they may be neceſſary: but to them, they would have been ſuperfluous: they were perſuaded al⯑ready that theſe prophecies related to the Meſſiah; if they were really fulfil⯑led in Jeſus, the fulfilment would be perceived whenever they were atten⯑tively [52] compared with the correſpondent events; a ſimple appeal to the predic⯑tions, was ſufficient for exciting their attention. Our reaſonings concerning miracles likewiſe, are employed chiefly in proving, that the works aſcribed to Chriſt and his apoſtles, were really done by them: in the firſt publication of the goſpel, there was no room for theſe reaſonings; if the works were at all done, they ſaw them with their eyes. No perſon who is fully perſuaded, that the extraordinary facts recorded in the goſpel, really happened, will heſitate to pronounce them miraculous; but the ſight of them could not fail to ſtrike the mind more vigorouſly, than any conception of them which we can form by the force of imagination; and, by reaſon of the ſuperior ſtrength and vi⯑vacity of their impreſſion, they who ſaw them, would pronounce them mi⯑raculous, more quickly and confident⯑ly [53] than we do. Beſides, the ſcruples which have been moved on this head, ariſe from ſuppoſitions, that we may be ignorant of ſome circumſtances of theſe facts, neceſſary for determining their real nature: having only a relation of them, we may find room for doubts, and diſputes, and reaſonings; but they could find none; they were eye⯑witneſſes of the facts with all their real circumſtances; if theſe did render them plainly miraculous, they needed no arguments to prove that they did, they muſt perceive it by their own ſenſes; if theſe circumſtances did leave the mira⯑cle equivocal, no arguments could prove that they did not. We may add, that they to whom our Saviour and his apoſtles propoſed the evidences of their miſſion without reaſoning, al⯑lowed miracles to be a proof of a divine miſſion; theſe teachers had not this conviction to produce by argumenta⯑tion; [54] they found their hearers already in poſſeſſion of it, and had nothing to do but to lay hold of it by working mi⯑racles. If then it be ſuppoſed, that the goſpel really had the evidences al⯑ledged, and that theſe evidences are in their nature proper proofs of a reve⯑lation, it is certain, that the bare ex⯑hibition of them was originally ſuffi⯑cient: there was no need of refined reaſonings, or ſubtile deductions: the manner of propoſing them is liable to no exception. If there be any defect, it muſt ly either in this, that the go⯑ſpel was not really attended with the evidences alledged; or in this, that theſe evidences, ſuppoſing them real, are not proper or ſufficient proofs of a revelation: let either of theſe be evin⯑ced, if it can be; but ſtill the argu⯑ments urged, will ſtrike only at the mat⯑ter of the evidence, not at the manner in which it was propoſed.

[55] It is almoſt only inattention to the nature of that evidence by which the goſpel is ſupported, that beſtows any plauſibility on the aſſertion, that the firſt publication of the goſpel was in a manner unfit for producing a rational conviction of its truth, or on the topics which are urged in proof of that aſſer⯑tion. It has been urged, for inſtance, that a ready aſſent to the goſpel was demanded; that no time was allowed for doubt or deliberation; and that therefore a rational aſſent neither was expected, nor was poſſible^*. There is here a groſs miſrepreſentation of the matter of fact: but, tho' there were none, the argument would avail little: the evidence offered for the goſpel, was not intricate reaſoning in proof of each of its doctrines ſeparately, which would have required long time for [56] examination: miracles were wrought, and led them to conclude, at one ſtep, the divine miſſion of thoſe who wrought them, and conſequently the truth of all the doctrines which they delivered in the name of God. It has been ob⯑ſerved with the ſame view, that a ready acquieſcence was greatly approved, but could not admit deliberate examina⯑tion^*. But ſuppoſing the evidence offered, ſuch in its own nature as to require no long examination, as to be fit to work immediate conviction in thoſe to whom it was exhibited, was it not really commendable to attend to it without prejudice, and to yield to it readily? It might be perceived in an inſtant: and a captious caviller, who will raiſe thouſands of difficulties in the plaineſt caſe, is not a very approveable character. We are apt to regard nice⯑ty in admitting evidence, and ſcrupu⯑loſity in canvaſſing every poſſible diffi⯑culty [57] attending it, as a mark of ſupe⯑rior underſtanding, and to repreſent an aſſent yielded without this, as on that account irrational. But this deci⯑ſion is not altogether juſt. What ren⯑ders our aſſent rational in any caſe, is its being yielded to real and proper e⯑vidence, not our being acquainted with the foundations of that evidence, or with all the objections that may be rai⯑ſed againſt it. Aſſent is irrational on⯑ly when it is yielded to improper evi⯑dence, not when it is yielded readily and at once to ſuch as is proper. Its being yielded readily, is a ſign of a ſound underſtanding: its being with⯑held till the evidence has been enforced by a multitude of arguments, and clear⯑ed from a multitude of cavils, is truly a ſymptom of a diſeaſed underſtanding. It is when the ſtomach digeſts whole⯑ſome food eaſily, by its own force, that it is ſound and ſtrong: it is diſtemper⯑ed, [58] when it cannot digeſt it without ar⯑tificial preparations and aſſiſtances. We dread the imputation of credulity: but incredulity is as truly an intellectual weakneſs. To be impoſed upon by inſufficient evidence, ſhows a defect in underſtanding; but to reject ſufficient evidence, or to yield to it with difficul⯑ty, ſhows a defect equally great and real, tho' not ſo univerſally acknow⯑ledged. No doubt, a talent for raiſing difficulties and objections, and con⯑triving ingenious ſolutions of them, ſhows acuteneſs: but it is a ſpecies of acuteneſs which, if it be indulged, de⯑ſtroys true ſtrength of underſtanding; for this conſiſts in the ability to diſtin⯑guiſh ſufficient from inſufficient evi⯑dence, quickly, and without any more arguments than the nature of the caſe renders abſolutely neceſſary. If we could perceive evidence on all ſubjects by ſimple intuition, without any argu⯑ments, [59] our underſtanding would be much more perfect than it is: it is its imperfection, that renders reaſoning at all neceſſary for our perceiving evi⯑dence, or being convinced by it. When natural evidence is preſented, it is al⯑ways an imbecillity of underſtanding, that renders ſubtile reaſoning neceſſary for its operating on the mind: the greater real ſtrength of underſtanding a perſon poſſeſſes, the leſs reaſoning will be neceſſary for bringing him to aſſent. When men are backward to aſſent to ſuitable evidence, it proceeds from a perverſion, miſtaken indeed for an improvement, of underſtanding, ac⯑quired by application to falſe know⯑ledge, and foſtered by intellectual va⯑nity. The generality of mankind are not naturally ſubject to this perverſion; it would be ſuperfluous labour to mul⯑tiply reaſonings, after evidence has been exhibited to them. Our Saviour [60] exhibited evidence ſufficient to extort their aſſent, if their natural principles of belief were not perverted: more was needleſs: laboured arguments concern⯑ing that evidence, might have been neceſſary medicines for the diſtempered underſtanding; but it was Chriſt's in⯑tention, in the caſes now under conſi⯑deration, to give food to the ſound. Thus, the manner in which the evi⯑dences of the goſpel were originally propoſed, was altogether ſufficient for the conviction of thoſe in addreſſing whom it was uſed: it therefore affords no preſumption againſt the truth of Chriſtianity.

IT even affords ſtrong preſumptions for it. A preſumption of its truth a⯑riſes even from what has been already ſaid. If the evidence of the goſpel was ſuch, that the bare exhibition of it, without arguments, was ſufficient for [61] conviction, this alone may lead us to favourable ſentiments of the goſpel; for this could proceed only from the ſtrength of its evidence. The ſtrongeſt evidence, in every kind, is that which operates moſt immediately on the un⯑derſtanding: it is when evidence is weak or doubtful, that much reaſon⯑ing is neceſſary for making its force to be perceived. A full proof from ex⯑perience not only produces aſſurance, but alſo produces it in an inſtant: pro⯑bability produces only opinion, and produces not even that without ſome deliberation and reaſoning; and the weaker the probability is, the longer and more intricate is the reaſoning by which it may be determined, whether it ought to produce aſſent, or not. Had the evidence of the goſpel been weak, it could not have produced conviction, without the need of reaſoning: it was only its being ſtrong and clear, that [62] rendered the ſimple exhibition of it ſuf⯑ficient. The ſtrength of that evidence is perceived by the direct view of it: but the circumſtance now conſider⯑ed, preſents a new indication of its ſtrength, which is diſcerned by reflec⯑tion, and adds aſſurance to the direct perception of it, and conſequently to the belief of the goſpel. This preſump⯑tion reſts indeed on the ſuppoſition, that the evidence of the goſpel, is in its nature ſufficient for begetting convic⯑tion: to all, however, who admit this ſuppoſition, it will be an additional ar⯑gument for the truth of the goſpel; it will have real force with every Chri⯑ſtian who attends to it, and will ſerve to confirm his faith. But it may be thought, that it can have no weight with infidels. It cannot, we acknow⯑ledge, have the ſame weight with them as with Chriſtians: but even with them, it ought to have ſome weight. They [63] will not allow, that the evidences of the goſpel are in their nature ſufficient grounds of belief: but they cannot deny, that they did actually prevail on many to believe; and it is certain that they were originally merely exhibited; the exhibition of them, therefore, was in fact ſufficient for working conviction in many. This is an undeniable pre⯑ſumption, that its evidence was very ſtrong. Let all reaſonable allowances be made for the credulity of mankind, let it be owned, that they have often believed without ſufficient evidence, yea without any real evidence at all: yet this never happens, but it may be accounted for; ſlender evidence is ſtu⯑diouſly ſet off by ſpecious reaſonings, men are artificially diverted from at⯑tending to the want of evidence, ſome method is uſed for giving the appear⯑ance of evidence where there is none, or for giving an appearance of greater [64] evidence than there really is. But in the original propoſal of the goſpel, there was nothing of this kind. All that was done was, ſimply to preſent the eviden⯑ces of the goſpel, naked and unadorn⯑ed. Is it poſſible that this method could have ſucceeded, if there had been no real evidence? Muſt not the defect have been quickly perceived, when no means at all were employed to conceal it? If the evidence had not been very ſtrong, could it in this way have been effectual? Is there any thing that can account for the original reception of Chriſtianity, except the ſtrength and fulneſs of its evidence? There are very certain truths, which have failed of ob⯑taining belief, becauſe their evidence has been only propoſed, not fully ur⯑ged, or particularly illuſtrated: but there never was a falſehood ſucceſsfully inculcated by a bare exhibition of pre⯑tended evidence, without any art or [65] pains employed for colouring the de⯑fect, and impoſing on the underſtand⯑ing. Since a ſimple exhibition, there⯑fore, of the evidences of the goſpel, did confeſſedly bring multitudes to the belief of it, this is undoubtedly a ſtrong preſumption of its truth.

Further, the method in which our Saviour and his apoſtles propoſed the evidences of the goſpel, was not only ſufficient for bringing men to believe the goſpel: it was the fitteſt for this pur⯑poſe. The more ſimply evidence can be, in any caſe, propoſed, conſiſtently with clearneſs, the more readily it will produce conviction: nice reaſonings, if they be not abſolutely neceſſary, on⯑ly burden the evidence, and perplex the underſtanding. With reſpect to mathematical truths, the evidence of which can be rendered perceptible on⯑ly by a chain of reaſoning, the more minutely the demonſtration is purſued, [66] the fewer the ſteps omitted, the evi⯑dence generally ſtrikes the more eaſily, and is the more irreſiſtible. But even here, there are certain limits: a de⯑monſtration may be drawn out ſo mi⯑nutely as to weaken the conviction; the ſteps may be rendered ſo many, that the difficulty of retaining them, overbalances the effect of the clearneſs with which the connexion of ideas is perceived in each ſeparate ſtep. It is certainly in learning thoſe mathemati⯑cal truths which require the longeſt ſeries of ſteps in a demonſtration of them, that the generality find the greateſt difficulty. Thus, even in ſub⯑jects which belong to its proper pro⯑vince, reaſoning may be carried to a degree of preciſion which obſtructs its end, and obſcures the evidence. This will happen ſtill more readily in mat⯑ters of fact, which we are naturally formed for inferring, without a long [67] chain of reaſoning, from the ſimple view of what affords evidence for them. In delivering a ſcience, and that too to ſtudious perſons, it is juſtly reckon⯑ed a method improper for producing conviction, to obſerve every difficulty or objection, and to confute it parti⯑cularly, as you go along. Few will diſpute the propriety of the cenſure which Bacon paſſes on the ſcholaſtics, for purſuing this very method. ‘"The manner amongſt them was this, ſays he; upon every particular poſition or aſſertion, to frame objections, and to thoſe objections ſolutions; which ſolu⯑tions were for the moſt part not confu⯑tations, but diſtinctions: whereas in⯑deed the ſtrength of all ſciences is, as the ſtrength of the old man's faggot, in the band. For the harmony of a ſcience ſupporting each part the other, is and ought to be the true and brief confutation and ſuppreſſion of all the [68] ſmaller ſort of objections. But, on the other ſide, if you take out every axiom, as the ſticks of the faggot, one by one, you may quarrel with them, and bend them, and break them at your pleaſure: ſo that, as was ſaid of Seneca, Verborum minutiis rerum frangit pondera; ſo a man may truly ſay of the ſchoolmen, Quaeſti⯑onum minutiis ſcientiarum frangunt ſolidita⯑tem. For were it not better for a man in a fair room, to ſet up one great light, or branching candleſtick of lights, than to go about with a ſmall watch⯑candle into every corner? And ſuch is their method, that reſts not ſo much upon evidence of truth proved by ar⯑guments, authorities, ſimilitudes, ex⯑amples, as upon particular confuta⯑tions and ſolutions of every ſcruple, cavillation, and objection; breeding for the moſt part one queſtion, as faſt as it ſolveth another; even as in the former reſemblance, when you carry [69] the light into one corner, you darken the reſt^*."’ It is the very method re⯑commended by this great philoſopher, that Jeſus took in propoſing the evi⯑dences of his religion: The repreſen⯑tation here given of the contrary me⯑thod, is, with little variation, applica⯑ble to that which infidels affect to think it reaſonable, that he ſhould have ta⯑ken. This method would be improper even in delivering a ſcience; but it would have been much more improper in laying down the evidences of the Chriſtian religion. This religion, it muſt be remembered, was intended, not for the entertainment of the ſpe⯑culative, but for the uſe of the whole of mankind: the propereſt manner, therefore, of propoſing its evidences, was that which was fitteſt for the con⯑viction of the bulk of mankind; and what was fitteſt for this purpoſe, there [70] is little difficulty in determining. Pro⯑poſe to an ordinary man, evidence really ſuited to the nature of the ſub⯑ject, and to the principles of human underſtanding; he aſſents without he⯑ſitation. Inform him of all the excep⯑tions to which that evidence is liable; prove that theſe exceptions are not ſuf⯑ficient to deſtroy its force; aſcertain its preciſe degree of ſtrength; point out its foundation in human nature; explain the manner in which it produ⯑ces belief: he cannot underſtand you, he is bewildered; if he continues to be convinced, it is owing to your firſt ſimple repreſentation of the evidence, not to your ſubſequent refinements; theſe tend rather to make him loſe ſight of the point which ought to be belie⯑ved. All men are formed capable of being convinced by real evidence; but all men are not capable of reflect⯑ing on the manner in which their con⯑viction [71] is wrought, or of underſtand⯑ing the theory of evidence: to attempt to teach them this, in order to their conviction in a particular inſtance, is not only unneceſſary, but improper al⯑ſo; with reſpect to the generality of mankind, it in no degree promotes the end, it anſwers no purpoſe at all. In any ordinary caſe, every ſenſible man would chuſe the former method, as the only proper one. If you want to convince a perſon of the probability of any future event, you will naturally mention the ſimilar paſt events from which it derives its probability. You will not ſurely think it neceſſary or proper, to explain the foundation of our believing that the future will re⯑ſemble the paſt, to prove the ſtability of the laws of nature, or to enlarge on the other topics which are very proper⯑ly diſcuſſed in philoſophical ſpecula⯑tions concerning the nature of our rea⯑ſonings [72] from experience. The abſur⯑dity of taking this method, would be perceived at one glance. If by the former method you fail of convincing a plain man, you ſhall in vain hope to accompliſh it by having recourſe to the latter. That is indeed the method which is always employed by ordinary men, and which ſucceeds beſt with them: nay, it is conſtantly employed even by the moſt ſubtile logicians, not only in ordinary life, but in all caſes of ſcience where their logical principles are not directly in their view; and it is a method ſo perfectly adapted to the human underſtanding, that it often produces ready and unreſerved aſſent in thoſe whoſe logical principles would, by being recollected, tend to ſuggeſt objections and create doubts. Rea⯑ſoning of a ſimpler kind than what we have deſcribed, is ſometimes employed in proving matters of fact. When the [73] evidence is only probable in a ſlight degree, there muſt be an induction of many circumſtances, and many excep⯑tions muſt be removed, before it can at all appear: but ſo unfit are reaſon⯑ings of any conſiderable length or in⯑tricacy, for convincing the generality, that they can ſcarce enter into ſubjects of this kind. When multitudes of pro⯑babilities muſt be accurately balanced againſt their contraries, it is almoſt im⯑poſſible to bring the generality to con⯑ceive any evidence, or to form any opinion in the caſe. Reaſoning of all the kinds which have been menti⯑oned, has in courſe of time been un⯑avoidably introduced into the defence of Chriſtianity: When unbelievers at⯑tempted to ſhow that Chriſtianity is improbable, it then became neceſſary to collect and eſtimate, both the cir⯑cumſtances from which its proof ariſes, and thoſe which are ſuppoſed to be [74] contradictory; when they deduced ob⯑jections from abſtract theories of evi⯑dence, it became neceſſary to anſwer them, by arguments ariſing likewiſe from a juſt theory of evidence. But in originally proving the truth of the goſpel, this would have been abſolute⯑ly unfit, becauſe by no means adapted to the conviction of the generality of mankind. Jeſus choſe the propereſt, nay the only proper method. He ſim⯑ply propoſed the evidences of the go⯑ſpel as they were; he reaſoned not con⯑cerning their force; he did not ſearch out every difficulty which a captious ſpirit might lead men to apprehend in them, and give a particular anſwer to it. The method which he uſed, is the fitteſt method for leading mankind to believe the goſpel; the contrary me⯑thod would have been abſolutely im⯑proper. In this manner propoſed, the evidence of the goſpel would moſt ef⯑fectually [75] produce belief, if it was real and ſuited to human nature: if it was not fit to produce belief when thus pro⯑poſed, no reaſoning could enable it to produce it in the bulk of mankind. Lay before an ordinary man, the evi⯑dences of the goſpel, in a plain man⯑ner; if he be not convinced by this, it will be to little purpoſe, to endeavour to convince him by a ſubtile diſcuſ⯑ſion of their force. To be convinced by the former, requires only his being a man; to gain conviction by the lat⯑ter, requires that he ſhould have more⯑over become a philoſopher. The latter manner may give greater entertain⯑ment to the curious; but the former is the beſt and ſhorteſt way to conviction. It hath been ſaid, with a deſign to de⯑preciate the goſpel, that ‘"the apoſtles knew nothing of reaſoning, and would have been eaſily entangled in a ſyllogiſm^*."’ Be it ſo. But is not [76] this true of the generality of mankind, as well as of the apoſtles? Intricate rea⯑ſoning would, therefore, have been improper in proving a religion intend⯑ed for the generality. Our Saviour's manner was ſuch as enabled unlearned apoſtles, to addreſs the unlearned in a way the fitteſt poſſible for producing conviction. If the evidences of the goſpel are ſufficient for conciliating belief, attention to the manner of pro⯑poſing them, will naturally ſtrengthen that belief, for it is the beſt manner that could have been choſen. God has adapted the evidence of the goſpel to the powers of the generality: Chriſt has propoſed it in a manner ſuited to its nature, and to their apprehenſions: by this the goſpel is declared, not ob⯑ſcurely, to be the offspring of the ſame wiſdom which fixed the human conſti⯑tution.

[77] It is not the only recommendation of our Saviour's manner, that it is the propereſt for producing conviction, and thus making evidence to anſwer its end. This manner is, likewiſe, moſt ſuitable to the character of Jeſus as a divine teacher. It forms a ſtriking contraſt to the manner of impoſtors: it ſets Jeſus in direct oppoſition to thoſe who have attempted to deceive man⯑kind into the belief of falſe religions. Impoſtors ſtudiouſly magnify very ſlen⯑der evidence: they can produce no ſtronger; and therefore they labour to perſuade men, by every art, that what they have produced, is conſiderable. We would naturally expect, that a teacher really ſent from God, ſhould on the contrary give evidence of his miſſion, fit in its own nature for pro⯑ducing belief; and that, conſcious of its inherent ſtrength, he ſhould pro⯑poſe it without ſhow. In Mahomet [78] we find the former manner, in Chriſt, the latter, in perfection. Mahomet was able to produce but very lame cre⯑dentials; and he endeavoured to give them weight by confident aſſertions. He reſted his credit almoſt entirely on the excellence of the Alcoran; he left not men to judge of this for them⯑ſelves: to procure an acknowledgment of its excellence, he made the moſt pompous encomiums on its perfection. He ventured not to work open mira⯑cles in confirmation of his miſſion: to ſupply this defect, he boaſted of many ſecret miracles wrought for him, of which there were no witneſſes, which therefore could be no evidence at all of his pretenſions, but needed evidence in order to gain credit to themſelves: and having, in a ſingle inſtance, done what he imagined might be magnified into a miracle, he repeatedly gloried in this, and uſed all his art to exagge⯑rate [79] it. He laid claim, in the moſt oſtentatious manner, to the teſtimo⯑nies of former prophets, not one of which however he was able to pro⯑duce^*. Is not this very manner of ſupporting his claim, a mark of im⯑poſture, far from being equivocal? Can we avoid applying on this occa⯑ſion, what Jeſus ſaid to the Jews: If I bear witneſs of myſelf, my witneſs is not true ^†? He who, like Mahomet, re⯑quires men to believe his miſſion from God, wholly on his own teſtimony, without giving them evidence of it, is plainly an impoſtor. How naturally mankind run into this judgment, we may perceive by recollecting the ſlight occaſion on which the phariſees ſaid to Chriſt, Thou beareſt record of thy ſelf; thy [80] record is not true ^*. It was a juſt ſenti⯑ment applied improperly; their being ſo forward to adopt it, when ſufficient occaſion was not given, proves that it would have been very natural, if there had been an occaſion. In every reſpect the manner of Jeſus, already deſcribed, is perfectly the reverſe of Mahomet's. He gave real and ſtrong evidences of his miſſion; and he was not ſtudious to ſet them off: he ſpoke no more of them than was abſolutely neceſſary for ſhowing, that he intended they ſhould anſwer this very purpoſe of proving his miſſion: he claimed only what he fully proved to belong to him: he a⯑vowed his real character, only ſo far as was neceſſary for the inſtruction of his hearers: he often even declined aſ⯑ſerting that he was the Chriſt, and wanted that they ſhould collect it from what they ſaw and heard. Do we not [81] here perceive the true features of a di⯑vine miſſion? When a man diſcovers too great anxiety to gain credit, he is naturally ſuſpected of an intention to deceive: one who is conſcious of the goodneſs of his cauſe, and deſigns not to bias the judgment, does not aſſert on every occaſion the ſtrength of his arguments; he propoſes them, and leaves them to ſhow their own ſtrength. Simplicity of manner is always an evi⯑dence of truth; and Jeſus poſſeſſed it in the higheſt degree.

Chriſt's manner of proving his miſ⯑ſion, ſhows that he was conſcious of his title to the character which he claimed, and ſecure of the ſufficiency of the e⯑vidence which he gave. A perſon who knows that he intends to deceive, is naturally ſuſpicious, careful to ſet off his arguments by every artifice, ready to foreſee objections, and conſtantly ſollicitous to guard againſt them. This [82] is diſcernible in almoſt every chapter of the Alcoran. This would have been the practice of Jeſus, if he had been an impoſtor: and there can be little doubt, that the ſame abilities which were adequate to the invention of ſuch a ſyſtem as the Chriſtian, would have been ſufficient for acting this part with great plauſibility. But the prac⯑tice both of Jeſus, and of his apoſtles, is perfectly the reverſe: he ſhows no artifice, no forwardneſs to obviate e⯑very difficulty; and they relate things as they knew them to be, without any concern about the conſequences, with⯑out any anxiety to conceal ſuch cir⯑cumſtances, or to avoid ſuch repreſen⯑tations, as ſeemed even to give a han⯑dle for objections. This conduct bears the ſtrongeſt marks of that honeſt con⯑fidence which ſprings only from a con⯑ſciouſneſs of integrity, and is not con⯑ſiſtent with an intention to deceive. It [83] proves theſe perſons to be what they ſaid they were.

Simplicity of manner is an indica⯑tion, likewiſe, of genuine dignity. The Son of God appearing in this world, could not but diſdain a labour⯑ed and pompous diſplay of the eviden⯑ces of his miſſion. This ſuits only a perſon who is prompted by ambition to pretend, that he is a divine meſſen⯑ger. ‘"There is no majeſty at all, ſays a great writer^*, in the laws of the lower empire; princes are made to ſpeak like rhetoricians. When the ſtile of laws is tumid, they are look⯑ed upon only as a work of parade and oſtentation."’ The obſervation is judicious; and it is as applicable to parade of every kind, as to the parade of ſtile. If parade and oſtentation be unſuitable to the majeſty of princes, and of human laws, it is much more [84] unſuitable to a divine meſſenger, and a divine law. Mahomet affected dig⯑nity; but it was of a falſe kind: he re⯑fuſed what was abſolutely incumbent upon him, he deigned not to give evidence of his miſſion: but, at the ſame time, he made an oſtentation of evidence, which ſhowed a littleneſs of mind, inconſiſtent with the character which he aſſumed: his dignity ought to have appeared in diſdaining this; be⯑ing miſplaced as it was, it proclaimed it⯑ſelf to be only pride, put on purpoſely to hide the want of evidence. Jeſus, on the contrary, ſupported the high character which he claimed, with na⯑tural and genuine dignity: he readily gave evidence; he diſdained only to be oſtentatious of it. Truly this was the ſon of God ^*! The ſimplicity of his manner is one internal evidence, that the dignity which he claimed, did be⯑long [85] to him: it was an obvious ex⯑preſſion of it.

THUS we have endeavoured to aſ⯑certain the manner in which the evi⯑dences of the goſpel were originally propoſed: that manner appeared, on a ſuperficial view, to be exceptionable; it was therefore fit to enquire into its propriety. It has been found, on ex⯑amination, to be abſolutely unexcep⯑tionable, and conſequently to yield no preſumption againſt the truth of Chri⯑ſtianity. It has moreover been found to contain, in ſeveral ways, real pre⯑ſumptions for the truth of Chriſtianity. Suppoſe this religion true, and its evi⯑dences ſufficient; then the manner in which theſe evidences were propoſed, is in every reſpect the beſt and fitteſt poſſible: but ſuppoſe the contrary, and it muſt appear ſurpriſing that ever that manner ſhould have been adopted, [86] and abſolutely impoſſible that ever it could have ſucceeded. The truth of Chriſtianity is the only hypotheſis on which the original manner of propoſing its evidences, can be accounted for: this manner, therefore, is by itſelf one ſeparate and entire argument for the truth of that religion.

SECTION IV.
The manner in which the EVIDENCES of CHRISTIANITY were propoſed by Chriſt and his apoſtles, in conſequence of objections raiſed againſt them.

AS it is only in appearance that the manner of propoſing the eviden⯑ces of the goſpel, is liable to excep⯑tion; ſo it is only the manner in which they were originally propoſed, that is exceptionable ſo much as in appear⯑ance. The vices and the prejudices of the Jews led them to form objections againſt theſe evidences, very early in our Saviour's miniſtry, and very fre⯑quently through the courſe of it. In addreſſing the perſons who formed theſe objections, or liſtened to them, [88] our Saviour departed from his ordinary method of ſimply exhibiting evidence: he illuſtrated the evidence which he had given, he urged it, he returned direct anſwers to their cavils. On ſi⯑milar occaſions, his apoſtles had re⯑courſe to a ſimilar method. The ob⯑jections raiſed were either intended to invalidate the truth of his miſſion in general, or urged directly againſt ſome one evidence of it. But we ſhall per⯑haps obtain the diſtincteſt view of the manner which Chriſt and his apoſtles adopted, in conſequence of oppoſition, by conſidering thoſe objections toge⯑ther, which gave occaſion to their en⯑forcing the ſame proof of Chriſtianity, or to their urging its truth and divine original in the ſame way.

THOUGH Jeſus was very ſparing in aſſerting his miſſion, and claiming the high character which belonged to him, [89] when men ſhowed no diſpoſition to re⯑ſiſt the evidence by which he ſupported it; yet, on occaſion of oppoſition, he often avowed it in very peremptory and explicit terms; he affirmed that he was ſent by God, called God his Father, and himſelf the Son of God, aſ⯑ſerted the neceſſity of believing him, and warned men of the danger of re⯑jecting him. When Nicodemus ſhow⯑ed himſelf diſſatisfied with his doctrine, he aſſerted his authority with the great⯑eſt boldneſs: Verily, verily, I ſay unto thee, We ſpeak that we do know, and teſtify that we have ſeen; and ye receive not our witneſs: And no man hath aſcended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven ^*: and he gave the plaineſt warning of the danger of not receiving his reli⯑gion; He that believeth not, is condemned already, becauſe he hath not believed in the [90] name of the only begotten Son of God ^*. When the Jews took exceptions againſt the miracle which he had performed in healing the infirm man, at the pool of Betheſda, he readily avowed his high character, calling God his Father, and ſaying, What things ſoever the Father doth, theſe alſo doth the Son likewiſe, for the Father loveth the Son, and ſhoweth him all things that himſelf doth ^†: he told them expreſly that the Father had ſent him^‡; and intimated, that it was criminal not to believe him^‖. When their pre⯑judices led them to miſunderſtand what he meant by the meat which en⯑dureth unto everlaſting life; he immedi⯑ately affirmed, that God had ſent him, and that it was the will of God, that they ſhould believe on him:^** And [91] when, deſpiſing all the evidences which he had already given of his miſſion, they aſked a ſign, and heaped one ex⯑ception on another, he repeatedly aſ⯑ſerted, that he came down from hea⯑ven, and was ſent by God^*; and found fault with them for not believing him^†. The Phariſees accuſed him of vain-glorious boaſting, ſufficient to prove him an impoſtor, for having ſaid, I am the light of the world: He per⯑ſiſted in his claim; he expreſsly affirm⯑ed that he was not of this world, that he was from above, that he proceeded forth, and came from God, and was ſent by him^‡; and aſſured them that they were unreaſonable in rejecting him, and expoſed themſelves to puniſhment by it it^‖. Many other inſtances might be produced of his being led by the [92] oppoſition of the Jews, to aſſert his miſſion, in the moſt expreſs terms, and in every proper manner. I ſhall only add, that their prejudices, miſtakes, and objections, led him on ſeveral occaſions, either directly to acknow⯑ledge and aſſert, or ſufficiently to indi⯑cate that he was the Chriſt or Meſſiah. The different opinions which, by the account of the apoſtles, men enter⯑tained concerning him, gave occaſion to Peter's confeſſion of this, and to Je⯑ſus's explicit approbation of it^*. Some of the Jews gave this reaſon, why they did not believe him to be the Meſſiah; We know this man, whence he is; but when Chriſt cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. His anſwer plainly implies that he claim⯑ed the character: Then cried Jeſus in the temple as he taught, ſaying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am [93] not come of myſelf, but he that ſent me is true, whom ye know not: but I know him, for I am from him, and he hath ſent me ^*. At the feaſt of the dedication, when the Jews traduced him as a poſſeſſed perſon and a lunatic, and ſhowed that they did not yet own his pretenſions, by ſaying, How long doſt thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Chriſt, tell us plainly; he not only allowed that he was the Chriſt, but intimated likewiſe, that he had given ſufficient proof of it, and that their unbelief proceeded not from want of evidence; Jeſus anſwered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witneſs of me: but ye believe not, becauſe ye are not of my ſheep ^†.

THE internal evidence of Chriſtiani⯑ty, ariſes from its excellence: Jeſus al⯑ways [94] exhibited this evidence; all that he taught, had ſtriking characters of perfection. But, notwithſtanding the abſolute purity of his doctrine, the Jews frequently found fault with it: and their cavils, ſometimes with re⯑ſpect to this, and ſometimes too with reſpect to other topics, led him to il⯑luſtrate, to vindicate, and to urge, the excellence of the goſpel. Even when he anſwered them in the ſimpleſt manner, they gave him occaſion to en⯑large more fully and clearly on parti⯑cular points, than he had done before; to rectify miſtakes; by the confuta⯑tion of them to inſtil juſter principles; and thus to give a more ample exhibi⯑tion of internal evidence, to render the excellence of his religion more conſpicuous. Sometimes their objec⯑tions proceeded merely from their miſ⯑taking his meaning. He took occaſion from them to deliver his ſentiments [95] more plainly; and thus taught doctrine; the excellence of which was more ob⯑vious, and therefore ſitter for leading them to conclude of themſelves, that it was divine. When he aſſerted, that he was the bread of life, and told them, that he would give them his fleſh for meat, and that they muſt eat his fleſh and drink his blood ^*, they fooliſhly under⯑ſtood his words in a literal ſenſe, and in this miſapprehenſion were greatly offended at his doctrine^†. The me⯑taphor was perfectly familiar to them; therefore he thought it not neceſſary to relinquiſh it: but he abundantly il⯑luſtrated his meaning, tho' he conti⯑nued to uſe the ſame figurative terms^‡; he told them plainly, that by eating and drinking he intended believing on him^‖; he informed them that his diſ⯑courſe [96] was figurative throughout^*; and he gave them a key to it, by fore⯑telling his aſcenſion into heaven^†, which might have naturally led them to conceive his meaning, which inſi⯑nuated at once the real nature of his kingdom, and which would be an il⯑luſtrious evidence of his having come from heaven, and that both in itſelf, and by being the accompliſhment of his predictions. On one occaſion, when he was ſpeaking of his death, and his ſubſequent exaltation, they imagined that he intended to kill him⯑ſelf. He corrected their miſtake, and ſaid all that was neceſſary for their comprehending his true meaning; he pointed out the ſource of their miſtake, he intimated that he came from hea⯑ven, that he was ſent by God, and e⯑ven that he was the Meſſiah, whom it was dangerous to reject; he informed [97] them pretty plainly of his crucifixion, than which nothing could have a ſtronger tendency to rectify their wrong opinion of a temporal Meſſiah; and all this in ſuch a way, that many believed on him ^*.

The Jews were inveterately tainted with the expectation of a temporal Meſ⯑ſiah. This was often the immediate ſource, or the remote cauſe of their miſtakes of his meaning; what he ſaid, was in its obvious ſenſe contra⯑dictory to this expectation: In correct⯑ing their miſtakes, therefore, in the in⯑ſtances already remarked, he general⯑ly gave ſome hints of the real character and office of the Meſſiah. Often like⯑wiſe, when they underſtood his mean⯑ing, the ſame prejudice hindered them from perceiving the excellence of his doctrine, or even led them to raiſe ob⯑jections againſt it, as inconſiſtent with [98] what they took it for granted, was the truth. In both caſes, Chriſt took an opportunity from their exceptions, to inſinuate, in different ways, juſt ſenti⯑ments of the ſpiritual nature, and the ſeveral real circumſtances of his king⯑dom. I ſhall give a few inſtances more. He ſaid in the very beginning of his miniſtry, Except a man be born again, he cannot ſee the kingdom of God ^*. Nicode⯑mus would have readily underſtood the expreſſion, if it had been uſed of a hea⯑then converted to Judaiſm. But he imagined that it was the office of the Meſſiah, to bring all the world to em⯑brace the religion of Moſes, not to call the Jews themſelves to embrace a new religion; and he was ſo much biaſſed by the imagination, that he could not at all comprehend the ſenſe of the maxim, but anſwered, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the ſe⯑cond [99] time into his mother's womb, and be born ^*? Our Saviour, in return, not only explained the doctrine which had given riſe to the queſtion, by telling him very plainly, that he meant a ſpiri⯑tual, not a natural birth, and that the latter, tho' it were poſſible, could have no fitneſs for anſwering the end of which he ſpoke^†; but alſo informed him, that he had in view converſion to a religion different from Judaiſm, and explained the nature and deſign of the whole goſpel, in ſuch a way that its conformity to the Old Teſtament, and its intrinſic excellence, appeared very ſtrikingly, and produced full convic⯑tion in Nicodemus^‡. His own diſci⯑ples were, for a long time, deeply tinctured with the ſame prejudices as the reſt of the Jews, and were led by them to take exceptions on particular occaſions. When he firſt began to in⯑form them of his approaching ſufferings [100] and death, they were, in reſpect of theſe, perfect unbelievers; and Peter was ſo much offended, that he blamed his maſter in a very indecent manner. On this occaſion, Chriſt not only re⯑buked Peter, but taught them all, that the nature of his undertaking was very different from what they imagined it to be, and that the ſituation of his diſciples would be quite unlike to what they expected; and ſtrongly inculca⯑ted the duties which that ſituation would require^*. By reaſon of the ſame miſtaken notion of a temporal kingdom, preferment was aſked of Je⯑ſus, for the two ſons of Zebedee. On this occaſion too, he intimated the true nature of his kingdom; and likewiſe delivered the moſt excellent inſtruc⯑tions, diſſuading them from pride in all its forms, and teaching them that [101] true greatneſs conſiſts only in genuine goodneſs, uſefulneſs, and humility^*. The excellence of ſome of his docu⯑ments, on theſe and other occaſions, will be eaſily perceived: but it is not perhaps unneceſſary to remark, that, whenever he rectified their falſe notions of the Meſſiah, and declared the true nature of his kingdom, he by this ad⯑ded great force to the argument for the truth of Chriſtianity, drawn from its excellence. Had the kingdom of the Meſſiah been ſuch as the Jews con⯑ceived it to be, it would have contain⯑ed no internal characters of divinity: it was a ſcheme ſcarce worthy of God. But the real ſcheme for the redemption of the world, to execute which the Meſſiah came, and to explain and pub⯑liſh which was the deſign of his goſpel, was every way worthy of God, and [102] bears in its eſſential features, the ſtrongeſt marks of divine contrivance. His apoſtles, as well as himſelf, had frequent occaſions, by reaſon of the oppoſition which it met with, to en⯑large upon this topic, and by doing ſo, to diſplay the excellence of the go⯑ſpel.

The excellence of doctrine is found⯑ed upon truth. No evidence can prove a doctrine to be from God, which plain⯑ly contradicts what we already know to be true. It was neceſſary, there⯑fore, that our Saviour's doctrine ſhould be conſiſtent both with former revela⯑tions, and with the genuine dictates of reaſon. During our Saviour's own life, the real nature of the goſpel was not ſo perfectly underſtood by the Jews, as to beget an opinion of its inconſiſtence, except perhaps in ſome minute particulars, with the law of Moſes. They began, however, very [103] ſoon after his aſcenſion, to ſuſpect that the goſpel was deſigned to overthrow the law: their accuſation againſt Ste⯑phen, was, We have heard him ſay, that this Jeſus of Nazareth ſhall deſtroy this place, and ſhall change the cuſtoms which Moſes de⯑livered us ^*. But when the Gentiles were admitted into the Chriſtian church, without being ſubjected to the Jewiſh ceremonial, it was clearly perceived that the religion of Jeſus was different from that of Moſes. This was a capi⯑tal objection of the unbelieving Jews: a conſiderable part of the apoſtolical writings has a reference to it. The a⯑poſtles ſhow, that, tho' Chriſtianity be indeed different from Judaiſm, and does abrogate it, yet it is not inconſi⯑ſtent with it, in any ſenſe that can affect the truth of either. The law was not intended to be perpetual; intimations were all along given, that it would be [104] in due time ſucceeded by the goſpel. Theſe are ſtrictly connected as parts of the ſame great ſcheme: the law was the preparatory, the goſpel, the ulti⯑mate diſpenſation; that was the ſha⯑dow, this the ſubſtance; that was the type, this the antitype. By enlarging on theſe and ſimilar topics, the apoſtles give, not only a full view of the nature of Chriſtianity, but alſo juſter concep⯑tions of the nature of the law than the Jews had formerly; and they diſ⯑play the excellence of both. Some⯑times the Jews found fault with our Saviour's doctrine, as inconſiſtent with the dictates of reaſon. A remarkable inſtance of this ſort is recorded by the evangeliſts. When a paralytic man was brought to Chriſt at Capernaum, and let down by the roof of the houſe, he ſaid to him, Thy ſins are forgiven thee. The Scribes and Phariſees cenſured this expreſſion as blaſphemous, as im⯑plying [105] an invaſion of the prerogative of God. Chriſt's anſwer is a ſatisfying vindication of his doctrine. He ſhow⯑ed that the doctrine was true, becauſe the very miracle which he had wrought, was a plain proof and exemplification of it^*. And when its truth was once eſta⯑bliſhed, the more extraordinary it was, the more ſtrikingly it diſplayed the dignity of his character, the greatneſs of his undertaking, and the excellence of his goſpel.

When the goſpel came to be preach⯑ed by the apoſtles to the Gentiles, they raiſed objections againſt it, which, though they were different in them⯑ſelves, proceeded from cauſes ſimilar to thoſe which influenced the Jews in the inſtances juſt now mentioned. They had a high conceit of the anti⯑quity [106] and extent of their own reli⯑gion: it contained nothing which could directly lead them to expect, that an alteration would be made in it by a divine revelation: they therefore objected againſt Chriſtianity, that it was an innovation, a new doctrine, bring⯑ing ſtrange things to their ears ^*. In anſwering this objection, the apoſtles delivered doctrine which had real ex⯑cellence: they pointed out the falſe⯑hood and abſurdity of Paganiſm; they ſhowed that, on account of this, it ought certainly to be abandoned, and that therefore it ought not to obſtruct their receiving another religion, eſpe⯑cially a religion ſo far ſuperior as the Chriſtian^†.

When the Jews could find no fault with what our Saviour had already ſaid, they often put queſtions to him, on [107] purpoſe to lead him to utter ſuch ſenti⯑ments as were cenſurable, and might thus give them an opportunity of rai⯑ſing objections againſt his doctrine. On all theſe occaſions he baffled their ma⯑lice, by delivering doctrines ſo excel⯑lent as reflected new luſtre on the truth of his religion. A lawyer came to him with an inſidious intention to diſ⯑cover, whether he would teach any thing inconſiſtent with the law of Mo⯑ſes, and ſaid, What ſhall I do to inherit e⯑ternal life? Jeſus not only gave an an⯑ſwer with which he could find no fault, but explained the extent of our duty to others, ſo juſtly, and in a manner ſo wonderfully fit for touching the heart, as ſignally diſplayed his divine wiſdom^*. The Phariſees aſked him, with the like malicious intention, con⯑cerning the lawfulneſs of divorce. He proved the unlawfulneſs of this abuſe, [108] which, by reaſon of the love of pleaſure, had become very general among them, in the moſt convincing manner; from the original inſtitution of marriage, ac⯑knowledged by themſelves, and rela⯑ted in their own ſcriptures; by aſſign⯑ing the true reaſon why Moſes had gi⯑ven any permiſſion to this practice in the law; and by informing them that his goſpel enjoined the ſtricteſt mora⯑lity on this head^*. After he had en⯑tered publicly into Jeruſalem, all his enemies, in concert, aſſaulted him with ſubtile queſtions. The Phariſees and the Herodians together, began with aſking him, Is it lawful to give tribute un⯑to Ceſar, or not? ſecure that he would either expoſe himſelf to the reſentment of the Roman Governor, by forbid⯑ding it, or appear to the people to re⯑nounce the character of the Meſſiah, by allowing it. But he ſhowed his divine [109] wiſdom, by giving ſuch an anſwer as not only diſappointed their deſigns, but alſo fixed the real bounds between their duty to God, and their duty to the Emperor, which did not at all in⯑terfere, except in their imagination, and reproved each of them for the ex⯑treme into which they were apt to run, and by which they both trangreſſed one of theſe duties, under colour of fulfilling the other: and they could not take hold of his words before the people; and they marvelled at his anſwer, and held their peace ^*. Next the Sadducees attacked him, by propoſing an argument againſt a future ſtate, which they thought was founded in the law, and which they reckoned unanſwerable. Far from being per⯑plexed by their ſubtlety, he ſhowed at once that it had not the leaſt degree of force, but proceeded altogether [110] from a miſtake; he gave a juſt concep⯑tion of the nature of a future ſtate, an important doctrine, concerning which men had always formerly run into ab⯑ſurdities; and he ſhowed that a future ſtate was directly implied in the ſcrip⯑tures which the Sadducees themſelves received; and when the multitude heard this, they were aſtoniſhed at his doctrine ^*. To make a farther trial, a Phariſee aſked him, Which is the firſt and great commandment? By his anſwer, he ſet a⯑ſide all the ſuperſtitious determinations of the Scribes in favour of one ceremo⯑nial precept, or another; he repre⯑ſented real piety and virtue as the ſub⯑ſtance of religion; he took occaſion, tho' the queſtion did not render it ab⯑ſolutely neceſſary, to inculcate the love of our neighbour, as preferable to all duties, except love to God; he thus [111] gave a noble ſummary of morality, which extorted the approbation of the Scribe who had propoſed the queſtion^*. In a word, whenever any perſons endeavoured to entangle him, he ſhowed ſuch divine wiſdom, that they found all their attempts to be in vain, and he delivered inſtructions ſo pro⯑per and uſeful, as heightened the ex⯑cellence of his goſpel.

The internal evidence of Chriſtiani⯑ty, ariſes not only from the excellence of its doctrine, but alſo from the per⯑fection of Chriſt's character. The Jews often took exceptions, however, againſt his character, by blaming his behavi⯑our, or the behaviour in which he al⯑lowed his diſciples. They wanted to ſhow, that no evidence could prove his claim, that it was unneceſſary to examine or confute the evidences which he pretended to give, or ſo much as [112] to attend to them; for his tranſgreſſing the law of God, rendered it plain that he was not ſent from God, whatever plauſible appearances of a miſſion he might exhibit. They were ſollicitous that men ſhould argue thus: This man doth what God forbids; therefore he cannot know the will of God, or be commiſſioned to reveal it: ſuppoſe his doctrine good, yet it cannot prove him to be from God, for his practice is bad; if his doctrine be good, it is only in ſome reſpects, it is not uniformly good, for he himſelf doth, and he teacheth his diſciples to do, ſome things that are wrong; whatever ſigns he ſhows, they cannot evince that he is ſent by God to diſcover his will, there muſt be ſome fallacy, for he is a ſinner. The argument, it muſt be owned, would have had conſiderable force, if there had been only any juſt founda⯑tion for it; a divine teacher of reli⯑gion [113] muſt be ſuppoſed exempt from all errors in matters of religion. His an⯑ſwers to objections of this ſort, were always at leaſt a full vindication of the actions blamed, they therefore re⯑moved the objections, and left the in⯑ternal evidence of the goſpel unimpair⯑ed by them; they proved the innocence and ſinleſs integrity of his life, which is an internal evidence of Chriſtianity. The fault which they moſt frequently found with him, was, the tranſgreſſion of the law of the Sabbath, according to their ſuperſtitious notions of it. As he went into the houſe of one of the chief Phari⯑ſees to eat bread on the Sabbath day, they watched him. And there was a certain man before him which had the dropſy: and Jeſus ſaid, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day? And they held their peace; and he took him, and healed him, and let him go; and anſwered them, ſaying, which of you ſhall have an aſs or an ox fallen into a pit, and [114] will not ſtraightway pull him out on the Sab⯑bath day? The vindication was ſo com⯑plete, that they could not anſwer him again to theſe things ^*. But generally his vin⯑dication of the action blamed, was at⯑tended with ſuch illuſtrations and ſen⯑timents as had great excellence, and were therefore new inſtances of inter⯑nal evidence. When he went thro' the corn fields on the Sabbath day, and his diſciples were an hungred, and plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands; the Phariſees blamed him for permitting his diſciples to do what was not lawful. He abundantly juſtified them, by the example of David, and by the practice of the prieſts, which the law itſelf authorized. He likewiſe inculcated in general the ſuperior ex⯑cellence of moral duties; he aſſured them, that God requires us, not to ne⯑glect works of mercy, tho' the per⯑formance [115] of them ſhould interfere with the moſt ſacred ceremonial inſtitutions, but expreſsly declares, I will have mer⯑cy, and not ſacrifice. He informed them, particularly; that the Sabbath was ap⯑pointed for the advantage of man, and that therefore to hurt men by means of the obſervance of it, is directly to counteract its end^*. A doctrine ſo repugnant to all ſuperſtition, and which condemns it on principles ſo truly reaſonable, and ſo univerſally ap⯑plicable, is a conſpicuous inſtance of the excellence of the Chriſtian religion. This alone renders it wholly unreaſon⯑able to draw objections againſt this re⯑ligion, from the poſitive duties which it enjoins, to charge it with any ten⯑dency to promote ſuperſtition, or once to compare it with thoſe religions which have multiplied and extolled ce⯑remonies. [116] On another Sabbath, when Chriſt had healed a man, in the ſyna⯑gogue, whoſe right hand was withered, and when the Phariſees charged him with a profanation of the Sabbath; he vindicated himſelf by ſhowing that the occaſion was far more urgent than ma⯑ny others which confeſſedly juſtified labour on the Sabbath; and he inter⯑wove with his vindication a ſtriking and noble recommendation of benefi⯑cence^*. The ruler of the ſynagogue, on another Sabbath, expreſſed great indignation, becauſe Chriſt had cured a woman who had been bowed down eighteen years: he repeated the ſame ſatisfying defence, and inſinuated the ſame important recommendation^†. It was on the Sabbath too that our Saviour cured a man, who had been lame thirty [117] eight years, at the pool of Betheſda. This miracle was performed in the moſt public manner, within the walls of Jeruſalem itſelf, at the time of the paſſover, and it was attended with this particular circumſtance, that he com⯑manded the man whom he had healed, to carry his bed. The Jews expreſſed the greateſt rage againſt Jeſus, and were even intent on putting him to death, for authorizing ſuch a profanation of the Sabbath. But he refuted their ſu⯑perſtitious notion by the example of God himſelf, who, tho' the obſervance of the Sabbath was founded on his ha⯑ving reſted from the works of creation on the ſeventh day, yet carried for⯑ward the works of his providence on that day, as well as on every other, for the benefit of mankind: My Father worketh hitherto, and I work ^*. As the circumſtances attending this miracle, [118] rendered it very remarkable, the Jews recurred to their cenſures of it a con⯑ſiderable time after it was performed. On that occaſion, he gave ſuch a vindi⯑cation of it from their own law, as not only was unanſwerable, but alſo caſt great light on the general nature of the Jewiſh ceremonial, and implied the ſuperiority of humanity and good works to all ritual obſervances^*. On another Sabbath, Jeſus cured a man who had been blind from his birth, by making a little clay with his ſpittle, putting it on the blind man's eyes, and commanding him to waſh in the pool of Siloam^†. From this miracle, the Phariſees argued expreſly, This man is not of God, becauſe he keepeth not the Sab⯑bath day ^‡. Their objections gave him occaſion to deliver a great variety of in⯑ſtructions, [119] which we need but read, in order to perceive that they bear plain marks of truth and excellence^*. The Jews accuſed Jeſus of other crimes, beſides the breach of the Sabbath; and that with the ſame view, to invalidate all the proofs of his miſſion together. They found fault with him, for in⯑ſtance, for keeping company with pu⯑blicans and ſinners. In ſhowing that he was not blameable for this, he inſi⯑nuated the true end of his coming, and nature of his office; inculcated the im⯑portant maxim, I will have mercy, and not ſacrifice, and aſſerted the ſuperiori⯑ty of moral virtue, particularly of be⯑nevolence, to ceremonial duties; and thus gave inſtructions which were both neceſſary and excellent^†. They bla⯑med him becauſe he and his diſciples [120] did eat with unwaſhed hands, and by this trangreſſed the traditions of the elders. He not only evinced, in an⯑ſwer to them, that his conduct was faultleſs, becauſe real impurity ariſes from the mind, not from the body; he alſo ſtruck at the root of their ſuperſti⯑tions, by proving that their traditions had no authority, nor could be a pro⯑per rule of action, ſince they not on⯑ly multiplied inſignificant precepts of human invention, but alſo gave coun⯑tenance to the moſt unnatural vices, nay taught men how to perpetrate them under an appearance of piety, and therefore, inſtead of being a fence to the divine law, truly ſubverted it^*. In every inſtance, he in this manner proved his innocence; and in moſt in⯑ſtances he moreover delivered ſuch ſen⯑timents, as made the excellence, and conſequently the truth of his religion [121] to ſhine forth with the brighteſt luſtre. Their cenſures proceeded for the moſt part from ſuperſtition; and his confu⯑tations of them were powerful anti⯑dotes againſt this abject ſpirit.

Thus, the objections of unbelievers led our Saviour and his apoſtles, to ex⯑hibit in the greateſt perfection, that ex⯑cellence which is an internal character of divinity. It led them further; it led them to aſſert that the goſpel is ex⯑cellent, and to ſet its excellence in va⯑rious lights. Thus, the doubts of Ni⯑codemus, of which we took notice al⯑ready, led Jeſus to intimate the excel⯑lence of the goſpel, by repreſenting it as directly ſubſervient to the eternal happineſs of mankind, by affirming, that it was the deſign of his coming that the world through him might be ſaved, and that whoſoever believeth on him ſhall not periſh, but have everlaſting life ^*. The [122] cavils of the Jews againſt his miracu⯑lous cure of the lame man, gave occa⯑ſion to a ſimilar aſſertion; He that hear⯑eth my word, and believeth on him that ſent me, hath everlaſting life, and ſhall not come into condemnation; but is paſſed from death unto life ^*. Their exceptions on an⯑other occaſion, led him to expatiate on the ſame topic: Jeſus ſaid unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me ſhall never hunger, and he that believeth on me ſhall never thirſt. And this is the will of him that ſent me, that every one which ſeeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlaſting life; and I will raiſe him up at the laſt day. Verily, verily, I ſay unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlaſting life. He that eateth my fleſh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him: as the living Father hath ſent me, and I live by the Father, ſo he that eateth me, even he ſh ll live by me ^†. [123] When he was in the temple, ſome Pha⯑riſees brought a woman caught in a⯑dultery, aſking his judgment in the caſe, and prepared to take advantage againſt him, whatever his determina⯑tion were. But, having diſconcerted their malice by his wiſdom, and con⯑founded them, he took occaſion to aſ⯑ſert the excellence of his office and doctrine: I am the light of the world; he that followeth me ſhall not walk in darkneſs, but ſhall have the light of life ^*. When the people, underſtanding one of his predictions of his own death, objected that this was inconſiſtent with the cha⯑racter of the Meſſiah, deſcribed in the Old Teſtament, Jeſus claimed his pro⯑per dignity, and expreſſed the excel⯑lence of his goſpel, under the ſame fi⯑gure of light: Yet a little while is the light with you: walk while you have the light, leaſt darkneſs come upon you: for he that walk⯑eth in darkneſs, knoweth not whither he goeth: [124] while ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light ^*. In the days of the apoſtles, both Jews and Greeks continued to oppoſe the goſpel; the Jews required a ſign, and the Greeks ſought after wiſdom ^†. The latter were great⯑ly attached to the ſubtilties of their philoſophy, and the pomp of their rhe⯑toric; and they deſpiſed the goſpel, becauſe it contained no abſtruſe inve⯑ſtigations or curious reaſonings, becauſe it inculcated only practical doctrines, which reſted wholly on the authority of a revelation, and becauſe it deliver⯑ed them without ſtudied eloquence. The apoſtle Paul owns the facts from which their objection is deduced; he acknowledges, that, if their notion of wiſdom were juſt, the goſpel would be fooliſhneſs; and that he preached it not with wiſdom of words, nor with excellence [125] of ſpeech or of wiſdom ^*. But he ſhows that the goſpel had nevertheleſs real excellence; not of the kind which they deſired, but of a far ſuperior kind; that it effectually led men to the knowledge of the true God, tho' their boaſted wiſdom never could: It pleaſed God, ſays he, by the fooliſhneſs of preaching to ſave them that believe: We preach Chriſt crucified, unto the Jews, a ſtumbling block; and unto the Greeks, fooliſhneſs; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Chriſt, the power of God, and the wiſdom of God; becauſe the fooliſhneſs of God is wiſer than men, and the weakneſs of God is ſtrong⯑er than men: Chriſt Jeſus is of God made un⯑to us wiſdom, and righteouſneſs, and ſanctifi⯑cation, and redemption: We ſpeak wiſdom among them that are perfect ^†. In this re⯑preſentation of the excellence of Chri⯑ſtianity, the apoſtle has an eye not on⯑ly [126] to the objection of the Greeks, but alſo to that of the Jews: and with a ſtill directer view to them, he declares the goſpel to be a clear diſcovery of what it was the principal excellence of the law to have pointed out obſcurely: We ſpeak the wiſdom of God in a myſtery, even the hidden wiſdom which God ordained before the world unto our glory; which none of the princes of this world knew; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory: but God hath revealed it un⯑to us by his ſpirit ^*. Thus, the apoſtle both aſſerts and proves that the goſpel is excellent. The oppoſition of thoſe, whom attachment to Judaiſm render⯑ed enemies of the croſs of Chriſt ^†, led the ſame apoſtle, on another occaſion, to a ſtrenuous aſſertion of the excellence of the goſpel, and of its ſuperiority to the law: What things were gain to me, [127] thoſe I counted loſs for Chriſt: yea doubtleſs, and I count all things but loſs, for the excel⯑lency of the knowledge of Chriſt Jeſus my Lord; and I do count them but dung, that I may win Chriſt, and be found in him ^*.

Our Saviour and his apoſtles were led by the objections of unbelievers to aſſert, not only that the goſpel is ex⯑cellent, but alſo that its excellence is a real evidence of its divinity. This is at leaſt implied in ſome of the declara⯑tions, of which we have taken notice already: on ſome of the occaſions too, which led to theſe declarations, this was urged pretty explicitly. Thus, in conſequence of the objections which the Jews moved againſt Chriſt, for ha⯑ving called himſelf the light of the world, and of the exceptions which they took at ſome parts of his ſucceeding diſ⯑courſe, he urged the perfect purity of his doctrine and innocence of his life, [128] very expreſsly, as an evidence of his miſſion: Becauſe I tell you the truth, ye be⯑lieve me not: which of you convinceth me of ſin? And if I ſay the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God, heareth God's words ^*. We have already mentioned the cenſures which the Jews paſſed up⯑on Jeſus for having healed a lame man on the Sabbath: on occaſion of them, he urged the excellence of his own cha⯑racter and conduct, as an argument for his miſſion, in the parabolical diſcourſe concerning the good ſhepherd^†. There is a remarkable inſtance which has not yet been taken notice of. The Jews were greatly prejudiced againſt Jeſus on account of the meanneſs of his birth and education; and they urged this as a reaſon againſt believing on him. When he was come into his own country, he taught them in thier ſynagogue, and many hearing him were aſtoniſhed, and ſaid, [129] Whence hath this man this wiſdom, and theſe mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's ſon? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joſes, and Simon, and Judas, and his ſiſters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all theſe things? And they were offended in him ^*. So far was Jeſus from being forward to take an occaſion from objections, of oſtentatiouſly diſplaying or multiply⯑ing proofs of his miſſion, that he only reproved the unreaſonableneſs and ob⯑ſtinacy of their prejudice, by a prover⯑bial expreſſion: and the evangeliſts copy the ſimplicity of their maſter ſo exactly, that they make no remark upon it^†. It was eaſy to retort the objection, and to ſhow that it was a ſtrong argument for him: That he had uncommon wiſdom and power, was [130] confeſſed; that he could not have it in a natural way, was plain from the cir⯑cumſtances of which they took notice; the obvious concluſion was, the very contrary of what their prejudice ſuggeſt⯑ed, that therefore he muſt have recei⯑ved it in a ſupernatural way. But Je⯑ſus did not urge this concluſion at that time. When a ſimilar objection, how⯑ever, was repeated, and urged very publicly in the temple, in a great con⯑courſe of people, at the paſſover of the year before he ſuffered, he drew this very concluſion, and urged the excel⯑lence of his doctrine as a ſtrong proof of his divine miſſion. The Jews marvel⯑led, ſaying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned. Jeſus anſwered them, and ſaid, My doctrine is not mine, but his that ſent me: if any man will do his will, he ſhall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I ſpeak of myſelf: he that ſpeaketh of himſelf, ſeeketh his own glory; [131] but he that ſeeketh his glory that ſent him, the ſame is true, and no unrighteouſneſs is in him ^*. He thus informed them, that the ſuperior knowledge, which they ſaw that he poſſeſſed, and which ap⯑peared in his doctrine, and which they were certain he had had no opportuni⯑ty of either learning from maſters, or acquiring by his own ſtudy, ought to lead them to conclude that he had re⯑ceived it immediately from God, and to own that he was, as he aſſerted, a divine meſſenger. The excellence of his doctrine, he told them, directed them ſo plainly to this concluſion, that nothing but an impartial deſire to find the truth and comply with it, was ne⯑ceſſary for their arriving at it; for his doctrine was not calculated for promo⯑ting any of thoſe ends which an impo⯑ſtor could be ſuppoſed to have in view, but was totally ſubſervient to the ho⯑nour [132] of God, and therefore bore plain marks of coming from him. We ſhow⯑ed formerly, how the apoſtle Paul aſ⯑ſerts and evinces the excellence of the goſpel, in oppoſition to the cavils both of Jews and Greeks: and we may now obſerve, that he at the ſame time urges its excellence as a proof of its divinity. This is indeed implied all along in his manner of expreſſion. When he ſpeaks of the goſpel in the terms of their ob⯑jections, he ſtill intimates that it was of ſuch a nature as ſhowed it to be from God: IT PLEASED GOD by the fooliſhneſs preaching to ſave them that believe: ^* if it wanted that ſort of wiſdom and power which they demanded, and might, on this account, be called in ſome ſenſe fooliſhneſs and weakneſs; yet it was the fooliſhneſs OF GOD, wiſer than men, and the weakneſs OF GOD, ſtronger than men ^†. He intimates that it appeared plainly [133] to be of divine original, becauſe, not⯑withſtanding the ſeeming weakneſs of the means which it employed, it pro⯑ved itſelf ſo truly excellent as to have accompliſhed a reformation in the world, with which all the effects pro⯑duced by human wiſdom, and by the moſt likely means, could not bear to be compared^*. As it thus appeared from matter of fact, that it was of wiſe contrivance, and of great efficacy, ſo on this account he without heſitation aſcribes it to God, calling it the power OF GOD, and the wiſdom OF GOD^†, and aſſerting it to be OF GOD, that Chriſt Jeſus is made unto us wiſdom, and righteouſ⯑neſs, and ſanctification, and redemption ^‡. Under this head, we might take no⯑tice of many of the reaſonings which the apoſtle uſes, for proving to the He⯑brews, that the goſpel is more excel⯑lent [134] than the law, and therefore at leaſt as plainly from God: but we have already enlarged ſufficiently.

As the objections which were raiſed by unbelievers, gave Chriſt and his apoſtles ſometimes occaſions of illuſtra⯑ting and arguing from the internal marks of divinity, which Chriſtianity contains; ſo, at other times, they led them to appeal to the miracles which were wrought in proof of it, and to reaſon from them in ſupport of it. We may begin with obſerving, that the ob⯑jections which were raiſed, led Chriſt on many occaſions to aſſert that his miracles were wrought with an expreſs deſign of proving his miſſion, to urge them as proofs of it, and thus to eſta⯑bliſh a connexion between them and his doctrine. On occaſion, for inſtance, of thoſe exceptions which took their riſe from the cure of the infirm man at [135] the pool of Betheſda, he appealed di⯑rectly to his miracles: The works which the Father hath given me to finiſh, the ſame works that I do, bear witneſs of me, that the Father hath ſent me ^*. Their charging him with boaſting like an im⯑poſtor, occaſioned his making a ſimi⯑lar appeal: the Father that ſent me, bear⯑eth witneſs of me ^†. Some of the Jews ſaid, at another time, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him? and others inſinuated that he had not yet put it out of doubt, that he was the Chriſt: in con⯑futation of both, he ſaid; The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear wit⯑neſs of me ^‡. When the Jews charged him with blaſphemy, for having ſaid, I and my Father are one, and were prepa⯑ring to ſtone him on that account, he inſiſted that his miracles were ſufficient evidences of his miſſion from God, and [136] conſequently of the truth of all his doc⯑trines: If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not: but if I do, tho' ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him ^*. It was the ſtrong propenſity of his own diſciples, as well as of others, to incredulity, which moved him to declare beforehand the deſign of his miraculouſly raiſing Lazarus from the dead: Lazarus is dead; and I am glad for your ſakes, that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheleſs let us go unto him ^†. It was, he tells us, becauſe of the unbelief of the people who were preſent, and on purpoſe to conquer it, that he declared in the moſt ſtriking manner, by a direct ad⯑dreſs to God, before he commanded Lazarus to ariſe, that his miracles were wrought by the power of God, and proved his miſſion from him: Jeſus lift [137] up his eyes, and ſaid, Father, I thank thee that thou haſt heard me; and I knew that thou heareſt me always: but becauſe of the people which ſtand by, I ſaid it, that they may believe that thou haſt ſent me ^*. It is not neceſſary to take notice particu⯑larly of the inſtances in which the apo⯑ſtles, in conſequence of oppoſition, urged the miracles wrought by Jeſus, as proofs of his miſſion; or inſiſted on the circumſtances which rendered them undeniable, their public nature, for inſtance, and their own knowledge of them: for as they preached in the name of Jeſus, not in their own name, this was unavoidable, tho' no objec⯑tions had been moved againſt them. As the apoſtles wrought miracles them⯑ſelves, ſo it was obſerved before, that they generally wrought them in the ſame ſimple manner as their maſter: but the unbelief of thoſe who ſaw them, and the oppoſition and cavils which it [138] produced, led them ſometimes to urge them as proofs of the religion of Jeſus, which they publiſhed. When the peo⯑ple who had ſeen two apoſtles heal a lame man, only wondered, inſtead of believing, Peter made an explicit de⯑claration of the intention and force of the miracle: Ye men of Iſrael, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye ſo earneſtly on us, as tho' by our own power or holineſs we had made this man to walk? The God of Abra⯑ham, and of Iſaac, and of Jacob, the God of our Fathers, hath glorified his Son Jeſus, whom ye delivered up,—whom God hath raiſed from the dead, whereof we are wit⯑neſſes: And his name through faith in his name, hath made this man ſtrong, whom ye ſee and know; yea the faith which is by him, hath given him this perfect ſoundneſs in the preſence of you all ^*. When the rulers called them to give an account of this miracle, Peter made a ſimilar declara⯑tion: [139] Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Iſrael, if we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Iſrael, that by the name of Jeſus Chriſt of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raiſed from the dead, even by him doth this man ſtand here before you whole; neither is there ſalva⯑tion in any other ^*. When the Jews not on⯑ly raiſed objections againſt Paul's doc⯑trine, but alſo turned them into accu⯑ſations of him before the Roman Go⯑vernor, with a deſign to take away his life, he largely urged his own miracu⯑lous converſion as an evidence of the truth of Chriſtianity, firſt before the chief captain^†, and again before Feſtus and Agrippa^‡. The objections of the Jews and Greeks at Corinth, which we [140] have formerly mentioned, led the ſame apoſtle to aſſert that his ſpeech, and his preaching was in demonſtration of the ſpirit, and of power, that their faith ſhould ſtand in the power of God ^*: and the oppoſi⯑tion made to himſelf in particular, led him to an explicit appeal to the miracles which he had wrought, in confirma⯑tion of his apoſtleſhip: Truly the ſigns of an apoſtle were wrought among you, in ſigns, and wonders, and mighty deeds ^†.

Men were eye-witneſſes of the mira⯑cles which Chriſt performed; they could not therefore call their reality in queſtion: but they objected againſt their force; and thus gave him occa⯑ſion, by anſwering their objections, to ſtate the evidence for the truth of Chri⯑ſtianity, which miracles contain. They oftener than once aſſerted, that his mi⯑racles were performed by magic, not [141] by the power of God, and therefore were no proofs of a divine miſſion. When he had healed one poſſeſſed with a devil, blind and dumb, all the people were amazed, and ſaid, Is not this the ſon of Da⯑vid? But when the Phariſees heard it, they ſaid, He doth not caſt out devils, but by Beel⯑zebub the prince of the devils. And Jeſus knew their thoughts, and ſaid unto them, E⯑very kingdom divided againſt itſelf, is brought to deſolation; and every city or houſe divided againſt itſelf, ſhall not ſtand: and if Satan caſt out Satan, he is divided againſt himſelf; how ſhall then his kingdom ſtand? And if I by Beelzebub caſt out devils, by whom do your children caſt them out? therefore they ſhall be your judges. But if I caſt out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or elſe, how can one en⯑ter into a ſtrong man's houſe, and ſpoil his goods, except he firſt bind the ſtrong man? And then he will ſpoil his houſe. He that is not with me, is againſt me; and he that [142] gathereth not with me, ſcattereth abroad ^*. The reaſoning is ſtrong and unanſwer⯑able, and demonſtrates that their aſ⯑ſertion was even abſurd. If the devil had enabled a perſon to work miracles, they would not have been ſuch mira⯑cles as Jeſus wrought, for many of theſe conſiſted in diſpoſſeſſing devils; nor would they have been wrought in con⯑firmation of ſuch doctrine as Jeſus taught, for it was moſt oppoſite to all that an evil ſpirit would wiſh to be propagated in the world. Chriſt's mi⯑racles could not be performed by the aſſiſtance of the devil, for if they were, the devil muſt have been intent on the deſtruction of his own power, and the ſubverſion of his own intereſts. The aſſertion was therefore abſurd in itſelf, but it was peculiarly abſurd in the mouth of Jews: they affirmed that ma⯑ny [143] of their own nation had performed miracles by the power of God, and, on the teſtimony of theſe miracles, ac⯑knowledged theſe to be divine meſſen⯑gers: it was the groſſeſt inconſiſtence after this to aſcribe Chriſt's miracles to the devil; for his doctrine was as holy as theirs, and his miracles were much greater and more numerous, and con⯑ſequently more undeniably derived from omnipotence. They ought with⯑out heſitation to aſcribe them to the Almighty, and to regard them as a full proof that Jeſus was, what he claim⯑ed to be, the Meſſiah. They plainly proceeded from power ſuperior to that of Beelzebub, and able to vanquiſh him; for they tended directly to overthrow his dominion. If it be a juſt maxim, that he is to be regarded as an enemy who with-holds aſſiſtance, much more ought Chriſt to be conſidered as an e⯑nemy to the devil, when he was doing [144] every thing to ruin his kingdom, both by his miracles themſelves, and by the doctrine for which he wrought them; the accomplice of the devil he could not poſſibly be.

One of the apoſtles was obliged, not properly to prove the force, but to point out the real intention of a mira⯑cle which he had wrought, by a mi⯑ſtake of the ſpectators which was very groſs, but into which Pagans might na⯑turally run. The occaſion was of a ve⯑ry peculiar nature; the illuſtration of the miracle was exactly ſuited to it. There ſat a certain man at Lyſtra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked. To him Paul ſaid, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked. When the people ſaw what Paul had done, they lift up their voices, ſaying in the ſpeech of Lycaonia, The Gods are come down to us in the likeneſs of men: And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and [145] Paul, Mercurius, becauſe he was the chief ſpeaker. Then the prieſt of Jupiter which was before their city, brought oxen and gar⯑lands unto the gates, and would have done ſa⯑crifice with the people. They acknow⯑ledged the miracle; they were ſenſible that it ſhowed a divine power reſiding in the perſons by whom it was per⯑formed: but they had been inattentive to the doctrine which they preached; inſtead of conſidering the miracle juſt⯑ly as a proof of that doctrine, they haſtily explained it according to their own preconceived opinions. Certain that the miracle implied divine power, and accuſtomed to think only of the pagan deities, they immediately con⯑cluded that Paul and Barnabas were two of theſe. The apoſtles perceived their miſtake, and ſet themſelves to rectify it. They had no need to inſiſt on the reality or the force of the mi⯑racle; theſe were acknowledged: the [146] particular point deſigned to be proved by it, was what had been miſtaken; they therefore explicitly determined this: they aſſured the people that they were no divinities, that the miracle proceeded not from any of the heathen gods, who indeed had no exiſtence: they declared that its ſole intention was to atteſt the doctrine which they preached, that it proved its truth and divinity, and therefore ought to lead them to embrace it, renouncing their former idolatry and ſuperſtition: They rent their cloaths, and ran in among the peo⯑ple, crying out, and ſaying, Sirs, why do ye theſe things? We alſo are men of like paſſions with you, and preach unto you, that ye ſhould turn from theſe vanities unto the living God ^*.

[147] Miracles prove immediately the di⯑vine miſſion of the perſon who works them; and that miſſion once proved, gives authority to all the doctrines which he teaches in the name of God. But the Chriſtian miracles have more⯑over a direct and natural connexion with the particular doctrines of Chriſti⯑anity, as they are exemplifications of them: and the objections which were raiſed by the Jews, led Chriſt on ſeve⯑ral occaſions to point out this very con⯑nexion. [148] One of the great doctrines of the goſpel is, That there is forgive⯑neſs of ſin through Chriſt, and that he is empowered by God to diſpenſe this forgiveneſs to men. Chriſt proves this doctrine, by actually forgiving ſin. Diſeaſes are the conſequences of ſin, and part of the puniſhment of it; they are among thoſe effects of it, which lie moſt open to the obſervation of men at preſent, and the removal of which they can moſt readily perceive. Ma⯑ny of Chriſt's miracles conſiſted in heal⯑ing various diſeaſes, and were thus the moſt natural ſpecimens which he could give of his power to forgive ſin. One of them is repreſented in this ve⯑ry light by himſelf. He ſaid to a man ſick of the palſy, Thy ſins be forgiven thee. This expreſſion implied, that the mira⯑culous cure was an inſtance of his for⯑giving ſin, and intended to be an ex⯑emplification of his power to forgive it. [149] And certain of the Scribes ſaid within them⯑ſelves, This man blaſphemeth; who can for⯑give ſins but God alone? This miſconſtruc⯑tion led him to ſtate the connexion between the miracle and the doctrine, explicitly and profeſſedly: Whether is it eaſier to ſay, Thy ſins be forgiven thee? or to ſay, Ariſe and walk? But THAT YE MAY KNOW THAT THE SON OF MAN HATH POWER ON EARTH TO FOR⯑GIVE SINS, Ariſe (ſaid he to the ſick of the palſy) take up thy bed, and go unto thine houſe ^*. He thus affirmed, that his healing diſeaſes was intended to prove this truth, That the Son of man is em⯑powered to forgive ſin: and it was the directeſt proof poſſible; it made men to ſee with their eyes, that he did for⯑give it^†.

[150] The reſurrection of the dead, is a fundamental doctrine in Chriſtianity. Our Saviour gave men the ſame direct evidence of this doctrine by ſeveral of [151] his miracles; he raiſed the dead: and, that they were intended to prove this doctrine, and to prove it preciſely by being exemplifications of it, the objec⯑tions of the Jews led him to declare, on one occaſion, in the moſt expreſs terms. The Jews concluded that he had not a divine miſſion, and even perſecuted, and ſought to kill him, becauſe he was, in their apprehenſion, guilty of groſs impiety, in not only healing an infirm man on the Sabbath day, but alſo com⯑manding him to carry his bed: they moreover charged him with blaſphemy, becauſe in his defence of this miracle he had ſaid, that God was his Father. Chriſt, having firſt inſiſted that his mi⯑racles were truly performed by the power of God, and ought to ſatisfy them, both that he was ſent by God, and that he had a title to the high cha⯑racter of the Son of God, which he aſ⯑ſumed; adds, in order to render that [152] proof the ſtronger, and the Father will ſhow the Son greater works than theſe, that ye may marvel; for as the Father raiſeth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even ſo the Son quickeneth whom he will ^*. In the next words he intimates that this ſort of miracles, the raiſing of the dead, had a peculiar uſe; they not only pro⯑ved his miſſion, and conſequently the truth of his religion in general, but they were direct evidences of one im⯑portant doctrine of it, and were in⯑tended peculiarly to eſtabliſh it: the Son quickeneth whom he will, FOR the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son ^†: but, for the ex⯑ecution of judgment, the reſurrection of the dead was previouſly neceſſary; and therefore he goes on to inform them, that the Son was alſo impower⯑ed to accompliſh this, and that of his [153] being thus impowered, the raiſing of dead perſons miraculouſly, was intend⯑ed to be a ſpecial proof: Verily, verily, I ſay unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead ſhall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear ſhall live ^*. He had already raiſed the daughter of Jairus, and the widow of Nain's ſon, and he was afterwards to raiſe Laza⯑rus: he has theſe miracles in his eye; and he intimates a ſtrong connexion betwen them and the doctrine of a ge⯑neral reſurrection; THE HOUR IS CO⯑MING, AND NOW IS; you may be aſſured that the hour will come, for you ſee it is come already, at leaſt in part; you may believe that there ſhall be a gene⯑ral reſurrection, for, as a pledge of it, many dead are raiſed at preſent. The general reſurrection will take place; for the Son, who promiſes it, has pow⯑er to effect it; and that he has this [154] power, he proves undeniably by actu⯑ally exerting it in the miraculous re⯑ſurrection of ſeveral individuals: for as the Father hath life in himſelf, ſo hath he given to the Son to have life in himſelf ^*. To make them the more attentive to the evidence with which this doctrine was eſtabliſhed by his miracles, and to enforce the doctrine itſelf, he almoſt immediately ſubjoins, The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves ſhall hear his voice, and ſhall come forth; they that have done good, unto the reſurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the reſur⯑rection of damnation ^†. On occaſion of the doubts and the miſapprehenſion of Martha, when he was about to raiſe Lazarus, Jeſus inſinuated the ſame view of the miracle, tho' not quite ſo explicitly as in the preceeding inſtance: Jeſus ſaith unto her, Thy brother ſhall riſe a⯑gain. [155] Martha ſaith unto him, I know that he ſhall riſe again in the reſurrection at the laſt day. Jeſus ſaid unto her, I am the re⯑ſurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, tho' he were dead, yet ſhall he live; and whoſoever liveth and believeth on me ſhall never die ^*. Thus Chriſt aſſures us that there ſhall be a reſurrection of the dead; he aſſures us that he himſelf has power to raiſe them, and will raiſe them: he gives the moſt natural proof of this, he exerciſes the very power with which he aſſerts that he is inveſt⯑ed: and can there be better evidence that a perſon has any talent or ability, than his exerting it? He tells us, that he raiſes dead perſons, on purpoſe to ſhow that he will raiſe the dead: to bring us to believe that we ſhall live in another world, he calls back ſeveral of the inhabitants of that world, and men ſee them, and converſe with them.

[156] Concerning ſeveral of the kinds of miracles wrought by Chriſt, it is at leaſt inſinuated on one occaſion or an⯑other, that they were intended to be exemplifications, either of ſome parti⯑cular doctrine of his religion, or of ſome general quality and virtue of it. Diſeaſes may be conſidered in ſeveral lights, beſides that of their being the conſequences, and the chaſtiſements of ſin: they are hurtful to the perſon who is ſubject to them, in various ways according to their different natures; and they are natural emblems of the ſeveral depravations of the ſoul: and therefore the miraculous cures of par⯑ticular diſtempers, were likewiſe natu⯑ral emblems of the power of the goſpel to remove the depravations of mind correſpondent to them; and in ſome inſtances they are repreſented as ſuch. Thus, Chriſt aſſerted, that he would remove the ignorance of men, and [157] that his goſpel is the proper mean of il⯑luminating their underſtandings: to prove this, he frequently reſtored ſight to thoſe who wanted it. To convince men, that he could, as he affirmed, re⯑move the ſpiritual blindneſs of igno⯑rance and error, he cured that bodily blindneſs which is the moſt natural image of it: and that the miracles of this kind, were peculiarly deſigned for convincing men of that, he inſi⯑nuates plainly enough on one occaſion. On a Sabbath day, he ſaw a man which was blind from his birth, and intended to cure him: as the Jews had often found fault with miracles wrought on the Sabbath day, he obſerved, before he performed the cure, that the ſhort time he would remain on earth, made it neceſſary for him to take every op⯑portunity which occurred, of confirm⯑ing his divine miſſion by miracles: I muſt work the works of him that ſent me, [158] while it is day: the night cometh when no man can work ^*. In alluſion to the par⯑ticular nature of the preſent miracle, he added; As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world ^†. By this he di⯑rected them to conſider his reſtoring ſight to the blind man, as a direct evi⯑dence of his being, in a ſpiritual ſenſe, the luminary of the world. He had aſſumed the title in this ſenſe, ſo often before, that they could ſcarce overlook it: his principal intention in aſſuming it on this occaſion, was, to repreſent the miracle as an emblem of it, and a proof that it belonged to him; it is for this reaſon he inſerted the clauſe, as long as I am in the world; which, tho' it does not hinder the expreſſion from be⯑ing applied to his general character, yet ſhows that it was moſt directly in⯑tended of thoſe miracles, of giving [159] ſight to the blind, which were ſenſible ſpecimens of that truth. He thus in⯑timates, that the fitneſs of his doctrine to enlighten the ſoul with knowledge, and his reſtoring the bodily eye to the perception of light, were cloſely con⯑nected, that the former was the thing ſignified and confirmed, the latter the emblem and the proof, that the for⯑mer was in a manner the figurative meaning, the ſpiritual import of the latter, or rather the conſequence natu⯑rally deducible from it. This view of the ſame miracle, is likewiſe naturally ſuggeſted by what Chriſt ſaid to the blind man himſelf, when he met him at the feaſt of Dedication, after the Jews had gone ſo far as to excommuni⯑cate him: I am come into the world, that they which ſee not, might ſee, and that they which ſee might be made blind ^*; he plainly ſpeaks in alluſion to the miracle.

[160] Many of the miracles of Chriſt con⯑ſiſted in caſting out devils: theſe mi⯑racles were in like manner proofs by example of what he taught concern⯑ing his having come to overthrow the kingdom, and deſtroy the works of the devil, and of the victory over ſin, which he promiſed his true diſciples. That they were deſigned for this pur⯑poſe, is hinted in his reply to the ſeven⯑ty, when they ſeemed to be ſurpriſed at the greatneſs of the power which had accompanied them: And the ſeventy re⯑turned again with joy, ſaying, Lord, even the devils are ſubject unto us through thy name. And he ſaid unto them, I beheld Satan as lightening fall from heaven: behold I give unto you power to tread on ſerpents and ſcor⯑pions, and over all the power of the enemy ^*. He has both the ſpiritual conqueſt over Satan, and the miraculous power of diſpoſſeſſing evil ſpirits, which was a pledge of it, in his eye.

[161] We are taught by the Chriſtian reli⯑gion, that Jeſus is the author of eternal ſalvation, and that the goſpel is the great mean of nouriſhing the ſoul to eternal life: and to prove that he can give ſpiritual and eternal life, he ſhow⯑ed that he could miraculouſly ſupport the preſent life; he oftener than once fed ſeveral thouſands with a very few loaves and fiſhes: and on one of theſe occaſions he plainly inſinuated that he wanted the miracle to be conſidered in that very light. The multitude, ſtruck with the greatneſs of it, followed him to Capernaum. Jeſus knew that they were not convinced by it of his real character; but either deſired merely to be fed again in the ſame manner, or at moſt conſidered it only as a pre⯑lude to the temporal advantages which they expected from the Meſſiah: Veri⯑ly, verily, I ſay unto you, Ye ſeek me, not be⯑cauſe ye ſaw the miracles, but becauſe ye did [162] eat of the loaves, and were filled. To lead them therefore to better conceptions, to make them perceive the real lan⯑guage of the miracle, to intimate that it was not periſhing food which he came to give, but the food of the ſoul, eternal life and the means of it, he ſaid, Labour not for the meat which periſheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlaſting life, which the Son of man ſhall give unto you: and he added, for him hath God the Fa⯑ther ſealed ^*, that is, God has by this very miracle given a ſecurity that he has authoriſed the Son to bleſs man⯑kind with this. It is remarkable, that, when the Jews underſtood not the fi⯑gurative expreſſion which he uſed, and proceeded to raiſe difficulties occaſion⯑ed by their miſunderſtanding it, he ne⯑vertheleſs perſiſted in the uſe of it, through his whole diſcourſe. It was not without deſign; it was on purpoſe [163] to urge the connexion between the doc⯑trine couched under that figure, and the miracle which he had wrought. By dropping the metaphor, he might have explained the doctrine perhaps more clearly; but then he would not have kept in view ſo perfectly the confirma⯑tion which it derived from the miracle. This advantage is gained by continu⯑ing the metaphor, and at the ſame time he renders his meaning ſo plain, that nothing but prejudice could lead them to miſtake it^*.

This kind of connexion between par⯑ticular miracles and particular doc⯑trines, [164] is ſo natural, that it might have been diſcovered, tho' Chriſt had never pointed it out. But his having pointed it out, is of great advantage. It ſhows moſt of the cavils of infidels, againſt the force of miracles for proving the truth of doctrines, to be frivolous and wholly beſide the purpoſe. It enables believers to reſt in the connexion be⯑tween the Chriſtian miracles and the Chriſtian doctrines, with perfect confi⯑dence. It leads us to diſcern the force of ſuch miracles as are not in this man⯑ner illuſtrated by Chriſt himſelf: it leads us, for inſtance, to conſider his cures of lameneſs, palſies, and other bodily infirmities, as ſpecimens of the power which he affirmed that he had to remove the impotence of ſoul pro⯑duced by vice; his cures of leproſies, and other loathſome diſeaſes, as ſpeci⯑mens of his power to cleanſe the ſoul from the pollution of ſin; and the few [165] hurtful miracles which he wrought, as ſamples of his power to deſtroy the im⯑penitent, as well as to ſave the peni⯑tent.—Thus the oppoſition that was made to Chriſt, led him to appeal to his miracles, to prove by argument that they evinced his divine miſſion, and to ſhow that they were at the ſame time immediate evidences of ſome of the principal doctrines of his goſpel, as being actual exertions of the very powers which theſe doctrines aſcribed to him, or of the moſt ſimilar powers that could be rendered objects of ſenſe.

THERE is one evidence of Chriſt's miſſion, which, we obſerved formerly, he ſcarce ever profeſſedly urged or ap⯑pealed to, as an evidence, tho' he of⯑ten exhibited it; his knowledge of men's hearts and of future events. It may be remarked, that the prejudices and objections of men, were generally [166] the occaſions of his exhibiting it. It was on occaſion of Nathanael's excep⯑tions againſt Philip's account of Jeſus, that he ſhowed himſelf to be acquaint⯑ed with his inward character, and moſt ſecret actions: Philip findeth Nathanael, and ſaith unto him, We have found him of whom Moſes in the law and the prophets did write, Jeſus of Nazareth, the ſon of Joſeph; and Nathanael ſaid unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip ſaith unto him, Come and ſee. Jeſus ſaw Nathanael coming to him, and ſaith of him, Behold an Iſraelite indeed, in whom is no guile. Natha⯑neal ſaith unto him, Whence knoweſt thou me? Jeſus anſwered and ſaid unto him, Be⯑fore that Philip called thee, when thou waſt under the fig-tree, I ſaw thee ^* The Sama⯑ritan woman's expreſſing a diffidence of his pretenſions, and miſtaking his meaning^†, gave occaſion to his diſ⯑playing [167] ſupernatural knowledge, by ſhowing himſelf to be acquainted with her whole paſt life^*. It was the pro⯑penſity of the Phariſees to charge him with blaſphemy, for pretending to for⯑give the ſins of the paralytic man, that gave him an occaſion of ſhowing by his vindication, that he perceived their thoughts ^†. The inſidious and malici⯑ous diſpoſition of the Phariſees in the ſynagogue, when he was about to heal the man with the withered hand^‡; Si⯑mon's miſconſtruction of his indul⯑gence to the woman who had been a ſinner^‖; the Phariſees aſcribing his miracles to Beelzebub^**; and their endeavouring to enſnare him by a que⯑ſtion about paying tribute^††; were [168] all occaſions of his exhibiting ſpeci⯑mens of his knowledge of the human heart, ſufficient to prove that he came from God.

Many of Chriſt's predictions alſo were occaſioned by oppoſition and objec⯑tions. The relation which the diſciples gave him of ſeveral miſtaken notions of his character, entertained by the Jews, occaſioned, at leaſt partly, his explicit prediction of his own death and reſurrection^*. Peter's finding fault with this prediction, led him to fore⯑tell his ſubſequent glory^†. The ob⯑ſtinate unbelief of his diſciples in the article of his ſufferings, occaſioned his predicting them frequently afterwards. When the Phariſees denied his being the Meſſiah, ſo explicitly, as to deſire him to rebuke thoſe who in acknow⯑ledgment of it cried out, Bleſſed be the [169] king that cometh in the name of the Lord, he very plainly, and in the moſt pathetic manner foretold the deſtruction of Je⯑ruſalem^*. The continued and irre⯑claimable infidelity of the Jews, led him to repeat the prediction ſome days after^†. When the Jews perſiſted in infidelity, and formed multitudes of objections againſt Chriſtianity, the a⯑poſtle Paul not only plainly declared their rejection, but alſo foretold that it will have a period, and that their re⯑ſtoration will be very beneficial to the whole Chriſtian world^‡.

IT was from the prophecies of the Old Teſtament that Jeſus could be proved to be the Meſſiah. It was therefore neceſſary that he ſhould make ſome ſort of appeal to them, even [170] when there was no oppoſition: but he was led by oppoſition to urge this ar⯑gument more expreſsly and fully. His appeals to particular predictions as ful⯑filled in events relating to the goſpel diſpenſation, were frequently occaſion⯑ed by oppoſition made to him. On one occaſion he expreſsly aſſerted that John the Baptiſt was the very perſon whom Malachi predicted, under the character of the forerunner of the Meſ⯑ſiah: But what went ye out for to ſee? A prophet? Yea I ſay unto you, and more than a prophet: for this is he of whom it is writ⯑ten, Behold I ſend my meſſenger before thy face, which ſhall prepare thy way before thee ^*. And that this aſſertion was oc⯑caſioned by the perverſe infidelity of the Jews, both under John's miniſtry, and under his own, we learn from the concluſion of his diſcourſe^†. They [171] had derived the idea of the Meſſiah whom they expected, from a partial view of the prophecies concerning him, eſpecially from a literal interpre⯑tation of the ſeveral figurative expreſ⯑ſions in which his kingdom is deſcri⯑bed. On this account, they wholly overlooked ſome predictions relating to the times of the Meſſiah, and many eſſential and important circumſtances of ſuch predictions as they applied to theſe times: they were not compatible with the idea of the Meſſiah which they had haſtily formed, and they did not ſuſpect that idea to be faulty. Jeſus therefore took frequent occaſions from their oppoſition, of pointing out pre⯑dictions and circumſtances of this kind. The prophets had plainly enough fore⯑told, that the body of the Jewiſh na⯑tion would reject the Meſſiah; but the Jews attended not to this: our Saviour, therefore, often turns their attention [172] to it, particularly when they ſhowed the violence of their prejudices. See⯑ing, they ſaw not, and hearing, they heard not, neither did they underſtand: This led him to apply to them a prediction of Iſaiah: In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Eſaias, which ſaith, By hearing ye ſhall hear, and ſhall not underſtand; and ſeeing, ye ſhall ſee, and ſhall not perceive: for this people's heart is waxed groſs, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have cloſed, leſt at any time they ſhould ſee with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and ſhould underſtand with their heart, and ſhould be converted, and I ſhould heal them ^*. After his public entrance into Jeruſalem, the chief prieſts and the elders not only called his authority in queſtion, but were intent on taking away his life: this led him, after having foretold their approaching ruin, by two parables, to put them in mind of a prediction of [173] David, and to apply it cloſely to them⯑ſelves: Jeſus ſaith unto them, Did ye never read in the ſcriptures, The ſtone which the builders rejected, the ſame is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore ſay I unto you, The kingdom of God ſhall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof: and whoſoever ſhall fall on this ſtone, ſhall be broken; but on whom⯑ſoever it ſhall fall, it will grind him to pow⯑der ^*. The irreconcileable hatred of the Jews led him to point out to his diſ⯑ciples another clear and expreſs pre⯑diction to the ſame purpoſe: Now have they both ſeen and hated both me and my Fa⯑ther: but this cometh to paſs, that the word might be fulfilled, that is written in their law. They hated me without a cauſe ^†. The va⯑rious queſtions which were put to Chriſt in the temple, tho' not immediately re⯑lative [174] to prophecy, led him to prove from a paſſage which they underſtood of the Meſſiah, but a remarkable cir⯑cumſtance of which they overlooked, that he could not be merely a tempo⯑ral prince, as they expected, but ſome⯑thing totally different, and far ſupe⯑rior: While the Phariſees were gathered to⯑gether, Jeſus aſked them, ſaying, What think ye of Chriſt? whoſe Son is he? They ſay un⯑to him, The Son of David. He ſaith unto them, How then doth David in ſpirit call him Lord, ſaying, The Lord ſaid unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footſtool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his Son ^*? He cites this prophecy, and he reaſons from it: the argument is obvious: had the Meſſiah been merely a temporal prince, go⯑verning the Jews who were contempo⯑rary with him, he could not have been [175] the Lord of David, who was dead ma⯑ny ages before, and who was the founder of the kingdom to which he only ſucceded; it followed neceſſarily from this prediction, that his character was totally different from what they imagined it to be.

The Jews having formed a wrong notion of the Meſſiah, they found ſe⯑veral things in Jeſus different from, or inconſiſtent with that notion, and con⯑ſequently unſuitable to the prophecies in their apprehenſion of them; and thence concluded that he was not the Meſſiah. This led him to ſhow, that the circumſtances of which they form⯑ed this judgment were really foretold of the Meſſiah, tho' their prejudice hin⯑dered them from perceiving them in the prophets, or that at leaſt they were not inconſiſtent with the predictions of the Old Teſtament. The Jews took it for granted, that Jeſus was the real [176] ſon of Joſeph, and they reckoned this inconſiſtent with ſome ancient prophe⯑cies concerning the Meſſiah; probably with this prediction, Behold, a virgin ſhall conceive, and bear a ſon ^*; or with this, Who ſhall declare his generation ^†? therefore they thought that Jeſus could not be the Meſſiah: they ſaid, Howbeit we know this man whence he is, we know who is his father; but when Chriſt cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jeſus in the temple as he taught, ſaying, And do ye know me? (for thus his reply ſhould be tranſlated) And do ye know whence I am? And I am not come of myſelf, but he that ſent me is true, whom ye know not: but I know him, for I am from him, and he hath ſent me ^‡. Thus he very plainly denied that they knew whence he was, or who was his father, and intimated [177] that he was the Son of God, as well as his meſſenger, and thus informed them that he wanted not the character of the Meſſiah, which they had in their eye. Sufferings and death were what their prejudice would not allow them to con⯑ceive to belong to the Meſſiah; he therefore ſeveral times told his diſci⯑ples that they were predicted by the ancient prophets^*; and, when the time of them approached, and the diſci⯑ples were, by means of their prejudices, quite diſconſolate, he pointed out a particular prediction of them: For I ſay unto you, that this that is written, muſt yet be accompliſhed in me, And he was reckoned among the tranſgreſſors ^†.

The prejudices of the Jews led them alſo to miſs in Jeſus, ſome of the cha⯑racters which they imagined were pre⯑dicted concerning the Meſſiah; and [178] thus gave him occaſion to ſhow, either that theſe characters did belong to him, or that they were not predicted cha⯑racters of the Meſſiah. They collected from a plain prophecy, that the co⯑ming of the Meſſiah ought to be pre⯑ceeded by that of Elias; and becauſe Elias had not come in the manner they expected, they thought that Jeſus could not be the Meſſiah. This very diffi⯑culty was propoſed to our Saviour, and removed by him. His diſciples aſked him, ſaying, Why then ſay the Scribes, that Elias muſt firſt come? And Jeſus anſwered and ſaid unto them, Elias truly ſhall firſt come, and reſtore all things: but I ſay unto you, that Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him what⯑ſoever they liſted: likewiſe ſhall alſo the Son of man ſuffer of them. Then the diſciples underſtood that he ſpake unto them of John the Baptiſt ^*. There is a very remarkable [179] inſtance which, it will appear probable on examination, falls under this head. The Jews aſked a ſign from Jeſus at ſe⯑veral different times. At the firſt paſ⯑ſover after he began his public mini⯑ſtry, when he had driven the ſellers of cattle, and the changers of money out of the temple, the Jews ſaid unto him, What ſign ſhoweſt thou unto us, ſeeing that thou doſt theſe things? Jeſus anſwered and ſaid unto them, Deſtroy this temple, and in three days I will raiſe it up.—But he ſpake of the temple of his body ^*. After he had performed a miraculous cure, ſo re⯑markable that all the people were amazed, and ſaid, Is not this the ſon of David? and after he had proved by the moſt con⯑vincing reaſoning, that his miracles were wrought by the power of God, and therefore were evidences that the kingdom of God was come unto them; cer⯑tain of the Scribes and Phariſees anſwered, [180] ſaying, Maſter, we would ſee a ſign from heaven from thee. But he anſwered and ſaid unto them, An evil and adulterous generation ſeeketh after a ſign, and there ſhall no ſign be given to it, but the ſign of the prophet Jo⯑nas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, ſo ſhall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth ^*. Soon after our Saviour had for the ſecond time fed a great multitude by a miracle, the Phariſees afraid, it would ſeem, leſt all men ſhould follow him, and eager to diſ⯑credit him, by demanding what he had oftener than once declined giving, and what they therefore thought them⯑ſelves certain that he could not give, came with the Sadducees, and tempting, de⯑ſired him that he would ſhow them a ſign from heaven. He anſwered and ſaid unto them, When it is evening, ye ſay, It will be fair weather, for the ſky is red; and in the [181] morning, It will be foul weather to day, for the ſky is red and lowering: O ye hypocrites, ye can diſcern the face of the ſky; but can ye not diſcern the ſigns of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation ſeeketh after a ſign, and there ſhall no ſign be given unto it, but the ſign of the prophet Jonas ^*. In the firſt inſtance, the demand was made imme⯑diately after an action which implied his aſſuming very great and extraordi⯑nary authority; and before this time he had been declared to be the Son of God by the miraculous teſtimony at his baptiſm, he had been pointed out for the Meſſiah by John, who was owned to be a prophet, he had himſelf wrought ſome miracles, and he had juſt done what may not improperly be conſider⯑ed as partaking of the nature of a mi⯑racle. In the other two inſtances, the demand was almoſt immediately occa⯑ſioned by very ſtupendous miracles, [182] which he had performed. Theſe cir⯑cumſtances, as well as the manner in which the demand itſelf is expreſſed, naturally lead us to think, that it was not a great miracle in general, but ſome one determinate ſign, which they had in their eye, and which was pecu⯑liarly reckoned the ſign of the Son of man. It is ſometimes called a ſign from heaven, and we can ſcarce doubt, that they meant the very ſame ſign in all their different demands: this having been once refuſed, they repeatedly aſked it with an air of triumph, as if they ex⯑pected that it would be refuſed, and thought that no evidence without it, could prove Jeſus to be the Meſſiah. It is remarkable too, that Jeſus con⯑ſtantly refuſed the ſign which they aſk⯑ed; and that his anſwer is always to the ſame purpoſe, tho' expreſſed in dif⯑ferent ways, and never fails to include an intimation of his own reſurrection [183] from the dead. This laſt circumſtance is the more remarkable, becauſe he ſcarce ever intimated his reſurrection in ſpeaking to the promiſcuous multi⯑tude, except when a ſign was aſked. In order to account for theſe circum⯑ſtances, and to underſtand the real im⯑port, as well as the propriety, of Chriſt's anſwers to their repeated demand, let us endeavour to aſcertain, what was moſt probably the real nature of the ſign which they expected. Daniel had ſaid concerning the Meſſiah, I ſaw in the night-viſions, and behold one like the Son of man, came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him: and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages ſhould ſerve him ^*. The Jews miſtook the ſenſe of this prediction; they ſeem to have concluded from it, [184] that the Meſſiah would come down from heaven in viſible glory, in the character of a temporal prince, put himſelf at their head, and lead them forth to conquer all their enemies, and to erect an univerſal empire: and when⯑ever they aſked a ſign from Jeſus, their meaning was, that he ſhould appear in this very manner. Indeed they had come to reckon ſuch an appearance ſo proper and determinate a mark of the Meſſiah, that it was a common peri⯑phraſis for his name. This is plain from what happened at our Saviour's trial: The high prieſt ſaid, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Chriſt the Son of God. Jeſus an⯑ſwers in terms equivalent to thoſe of Daniel's prediction, Thou haſt ſaid: ne⯑vertheleſs, I ſay unto you, Hereafter ſhall ye ſee the Son of man ſitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven ^*. [185] This was intended to be a direct anſwer to the queſtion, and it was underſtood to be ſuch. If this was their meaning, we may perceive how naturally they made the demand immediately after he had aſſumed extraordinary authority, or wrought great miracles: they were aſtoniſhed by theſe, they could ſcarce help ſuſpecting that Jeſus was more than an ordinary perſon, though they were very unwilling to ſuppoſe it: yet ſtill they miſſed in him, what they reckoned an eſſential character, nay the preciſe characteriſtic of the promi⯑ſed Meſſiah, his coming down from hea⯑ven in the manner defined by their in⯑terpretation of Daniel's prediction: they therefore aſked him to put his claim out of doubt, by exhibiting this ſign. They might have been led to make this demand, not only by their unbelief, but alſo by ſome degrees of ſuſpicion, that Jeſus would perhaps [186] give this proof of his being the Meſſiah afterwards, though the time for it was not yet come: the latter of theſe cauſes had, it may be, ſome influence upon them when they made the demand at firſt; but in the ſucceeding inſtances they were actuated ſolely by the other. Our Saviour's refuſing a ſign when it was demanded, has been a great ſubject of objections, and has particularly been alledged as a proof, that he was unwil⯑ling to give all the evidence of his miſ⯑ſion, which he might have given, or to ſatisfy the underſtandings of men. ‘"The Phariſees, it is ſaid, tempting him, aſked a ſign; that is, ſome teſtimonial of the truth of his declared miſſion: And what did this requeſt produce? Why, he ſighed deeply at their per⯑verſeneſs, who were ſo hard to be convinced, and ſtiled them a fooliſh and adulterous generation for their pre⯑ſumption. Now this deſiring a ra⯑tional [187] evidence for their diſcipleſhip, the ſeeking after a ſign, as the ſcripture terms it, had, if he had indeed appeal⯑ed to their underſtandings, been ſo far from any thing criminal or blame⯑worthy, that it had been in all rea⯑ſon their indiſpenſible duty; where⯑as it was, it ſeems, in Faith, an un⯑warrantable, preſumptuous, and wanton curioſity^*.—The coming deſirous to canvaſs the evidence, though from no other principle per⯑haps, originally, than that of grati⯑fying a light curioſity, were, one would imagine, a turn of mind to be favourably entertained, and care⯑fully cheriſhed in a novice, by any who was ſollicitous to gain proſelytes by ſuch means, and conſcious of ha⯑ving any thing of the kind to pro⯑duce to him. But, on the contrary, we find our Maſter ever diſclaiming, [188] with the ſevereſt reſentment, all fol⯑lowers of that complexion; and no temper check'd and diſcourag'd with ſo conſtant an averſion, as this of, as it is opprobiouſly termed, ſeeking a ſign ^*."’ This objection almoſt re⯑futes itſelf, though we take not in the peculiar nature of the ſign which they demanded: The aſſertions, that they aſked only ſome teſtimonial of his decla⯑red miſſion, that they deſired a rational evidence for their diſcipleſhip, that they came deſirous to canvaſs the evidence, that this was the diſpoſition which Je⯑ſus held criminal, are all ſo directly contradictory to the real circumſtances in which the demand was made, that they can ſcarce be imputed to other principles than want of candour, and an intention to miſlead: From theſe circumſtances it is plain, that far from being poſſeſſed of this laudable temper, [189] they were not impelled to make the demand even by a principle ſo little blameable as light curioſity, but were ac⯑tuated by perverſeneſs and prejudice, which had already made them with⯑ſtand the cleareſt evidence, and the greateſt miracles, and which it was in vain to expect to conquer by working more miracles: It was therefore as rea⯑ſonable to refuſe to work more, as it is, not to perſiſt in reaſoning with a man who ſhows that he reaſons only for the ſake of contention, without any con⯑cern to diſcover truth. But when we recollect what was the ſign which they deſired, the objection is even abſurd. It was a ſign which they were led to ex⯑pect, only by their falſe notions of a temporal Meſſiah; it was abſolutely in⯑conſiſtent with the truth of the Meſſiah's character; to have given it, would have been to become juſt ſuch a deli⯑verer as the Jews expected; it was [190] therefore impoſſible that it could be gi⯑ven. Inſtead of giving it, it was proper to affirm expreſsly, as Jeſus did affirm, that it never would be given, and that it did not belong to the Meſſiah juſtly conceived. Whenever a ſign was aſked, he appealed for the certainty of his miſſion, to his own reſurrection from the dead. So far was he from refuſing any rational evidence of his miſſion, that even their perverſeneſs hindered him not from voluntarily pointing out the ſtrongeſt. His reſurrection was in itſelf the moſt ſtupendous miracle; and its force was increaſed by its being in this manner appealed to, for it thus became the accompliſhment of prophecies ut⯑tered by him. But there is a farther propriety in his foretelling it, when they required a ſign: it was a plain in⯑ſinuation, that their opinion of the manner of the Meſſiah's appearance was wrong, that he was not ſuch a [191] prince as they expected; for by it he informed them expreſsly, that he muſt be put to death, before he entered on his kingdom. His anſwer was therefore fit for leading them to a juſter interpre⯑tation of Daniel's prophecy, and for preventing their rejecting the Meſſiah, becauſe he wanted a character which was never predicted of him. There is another occaſion on which the Jews demanded a ſign. We have not yet taken notice of it, becauſe it may now be examined with greater advantage by itſelf. The day after he had firſt miraculouſly fed a great multitude, while he was teaching them in expreſ⯑ſions borrowed from that miracle, and urging them to believe on him, they ſaid unto him, What ſign ſhoweſt thou then, that we may ſee and believe thee? what doſt thou work ^*? They thus intimated, that it would be ſoon enough to receive him as the Meſſiah, when he aſſumed the [192] kingdom, in the manner which, they imagined, was fixed by Daniel's pre⯑diction, that without this, no miracles of another ſort could prove his claim; and they particularly inſinuated that his having given one meal to a multi⯑tude by miracle, was nothing extraor⯑dinary, but far inferior to Moſes's ha⯑ving fed many more, for a longer time, with manna from heaven^*. His diſcourſe on this occaſion, is much larger and more complex than any of the anſwers which he gave to the ſame demand at other times. There are many reaſons for this; they expreſſed their contempt of the miracle of the loaves, as well as aſked a ſign; he ſpake figuratively, in alluſion to that miracle, on purpoſe to inculcate its fitneſs for proving that he was impowered to be⯑ſtow eternal life; ſeveral particular difficulties were moved in the courſe of his ſermon; ſo that his anſwer to [193] the demand of a ſign, is interſperſed with a variety of other ſubjects. Many things, however, which he ſaid, tend directly to ſhow them that they were miſtaken in the nature of the ſign which they expected, and to lead them into right apprehenſions of the man⯑ner and deſign of the Meſſiah's coming. Thus, tho' he came not down in the manner which, they imagined, Daniel had foretold, he aſſures them ſeveral times, that he actually came from hea⯑ven^*: particularly, when they inſinu⯑ated that this could not poſſibly be, becauſe he was deſcended of earthly parents, he affirms very expreſsly that, this notwitſtanding, he did come down from heaven, and intimates that, by the ancient prophets, the Meſſiah ought not to come from heaven in ſuch a way as they expected, which would have made the Jews flock to him ea⯑gerly, without the need of any extra⯑ordinary [194] means: The Jews then murmu⯑red at him, becauſe he ſaid, I am the bread which came down from heaven: and they ſaid, Is not this Jeſus the ſon of Joſeph, whoſe father and mother we know? how is it then that he ſaith, I came down from hea⯑ven? Jeſus therefore anſwered and ſaid unto them, Murmur not among yourſelves: no man can come to me, except the Father which hath ſent me draw him; ſo far am I from coming with viſible pomp, and con⯑ſpicuous majeſty, and ſtriking ſigns: and I will raiſe him up at the laſt day: This is in a manner foretold, for, It is written in the prophets, and they ſhall be all taught of God ^*. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me: not that any man hath ſeen the Father, ſave he WHICH IS OF GOD, he hath ſeen the Father.—I am that bread of life: your fathers did eat manna in the wilderneſs, and are dead; this is the bread which COMETH [195] DOWN FROM HEAVEN, that a man may eat thereof and not die; I am the living bread, which CAME DOWN FROM HEA⯑VEN^*: he uſes ſuch expreſſions as may at the ſame time imply, that they ex⯑aggerated [196] the miracle of the manna, moſt extravagantly. In order to lead them to rectify their miſtake, he fur⯑ther informs them plainly, that the ſal⯑vation and life which he would beſtow [197] was very different from the temporal deliverance and proſperity which they expected under the Meſſiah; whence they might eaſily collect that the man⯑ner of the Meſſiah's appearance would likewiſe differ from their notion, which ſuited only a temporal king: he con⯑ſtantly repreſents what he promiſes, as ſalvation and life which would be gi⯑ven, only at the laſt day, in conſe⯑quence of their being raiſed again from their graves, and therefore obvi⯑ouſly as wholly ſpiritual and eternal; he ſeems even anxiouſly to keep this in view^*. Nay, he tells them expreſs⯑ly, that, far from being ſuch a triumph⯑ant Meſſiah as they looked for, he was to die; and that, from his death, the bleſſings which he promiſed would re⯑ſult: the meat that I will give, is my fleſh, which I will give for the life of the world ^†. He aſſures them, likewiſe, that he would [198] aſcend again into heaven; what and if ye ſhall ſee the Son of man aſcend up where he was before? ^* This is equivalent to the mention of his reſurrection, on ſi⯑milar occaſions; it is an intimation, that he would be proved to be the Meſ⯑ſiah by an appearance as remarkable as the ſign which they demanded; and it is an intimation of the ture nature of his kingdom, and of the manner of his entering on it. Finally, to this inti⯑mation he ſubjoins the following cau⯑tion, It is the ſpirit that quickeneth, the fleſh profiteth nothing; the words that I ſpeak unto you, they are ſpirit, and they are life ^†. This certainly implies a warning, that his preſent diſcourſe was deſignedly fi⯑gurative, and therefore ought not to be groſsly interpreted: but it may like⯑wiſe imply a hint, that their miſtakes about the Meſſiah, and particularly their expectation of what they called a ſign from heaven, proceeded from [199] their underſtanding the figurative ex⯑preſſions of the ancient prophecies, in too ſtrict and literal a ſenſe; and, that his account of himſelf and his kingdom, was really agreeable to the ſpirit and the true meaning of them. Thus the ſubſtance of his diſcourſe, on this oc⯑caſion, is the ſame with that of his an⯑ſwers to the demand of a ſign at all o⯑ther times, tho' the form be different; and it has the directeſt tendency to ſhow them that they were miſtaken, to warn them againſt ſuſpending their ſaith on a ſign, the expectation of which had no foundation, except in their own imaginations, and againſt rejecting him, in oppoſition to the ſtrongeſt evidence, merely becauſe this fancied ſign attend⯑ed him not.—As the expectation of a temporal Meſſiah, and that interpreta⯑tion of the prophecies, from which it had been deduced, were deeply im⯑bibed by the Jews, ſo even the apoſtles [200] retained them, till they were fully illu⯑minated by the effuſion of the Holy Ghoſt, after Chriſt's aſcenſion. They believed him to be the Meſſiah, but they never doubted that he would ſome time or other aſſume the character which they ſuppoſed to belong to the Meſſiah; and that, at that time, whenever it ſhould happen, the ſign from heaven would be given. In this temper, and with the ſame notions which the Jews had in all their demands, it was that, after his lamentation over Jeruſalem, they aſked him privately, When ſhall theſe things be? and what ſhall be the ſign of thy coming? ^* In anſwer to theſe queſti⯑ons, Jeſus foretels very particularly the calamities and ruin which were coming upon Jeruſalem; after an account of many of them, he deſcribes the total ſubverſion of the Jewiſh polity, which would be the iſſue of them, in terms highly figurative, but very familiar in [201] the prophetic ſtile; Immediately after the tribulation of thoſe days, ſhall the ſun be darkened, and the moon ſhall not give her light, and the ſtars ſhall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens ſhall be ſhaken ^*. He adds, And then ſhall ap⯑pear the ſign of the Son of man in heaven; and then ſhall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they ſhall ſee the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory ^†. Here we find that the ſign which was aſked ſo often, was indeed what we have ſuppoſed it to be, and that the expectation of it was derived from that very prophecy of Daniel, which we have pointed out: the two clauſes of the verſe are equivalent, and the laſt of them is expreſſed in Da⯑niel's very words; then ſhall appear the ſign of the Son of man in heaven, and thus they ſhall ſee the accompliſhment of what Daniel really intended by the fi⯑gurative [202] expreſſions which he uſes, they ſhall ſee the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with the dominion or power and the glory which was given him by the Ancient of days. By the manner in which he alludes to the prediction on this occaſion, he expreſsly contra⯑dicts their interpretation of it, as being inconſiſtent with Daniel's real mean⯑ing. For, firſt, he gives ſuch intima⯑tions of the time when this ſign would be exhibited, as plainly ſhowed that they were totally miſtaken in expecting it at his entering on his kingdom: and, ſecondly, he lets them know that they likewiſe miſtook its nature. They ex⯑pected that the Son of man would de⯑ſcend viſibly from heaven, to take up⯑on him the government of the Jews, and to lead them out to victory over all their enemies, and that he would come cloathed with ſuch majeſty and ſplendour as ſhould make all know him [203] for the Meſſiah, and follow him: But he informs them that they ought to ex⯑pect ſomething almoſt totally the re⯑verſe of this, the Son of man, not de⯑ſcending viſibly, but interpoſing pow⯑erfully and irreſiſtibly, not for raiſing the Jews to univerſal empire, but for executing dreadful judgment and de⯑ſtruction on them. They could ſcarce fail to perceive that coming in the clouds of heaven implied executing judgment, for the expreſſion is uſed ſeveral times in their own ſcriptures, and always means no more than this^*; they not⯑withſtanding ſtrained it to a literal ſenſe, to the meaning of a viſible ap⯑pearance, in Daniel's prediction, and, tho' they underſtood it to imply the execution of judgment, yet it was on⯑ly upon their enemies, not upon them⯑ſelves. But Jeſus informed them that [204] it did not here, any more than in other paſſages, denote a viſible appearance, that it meant ſimply the execution of judgment, and that the Jews them⯑ſelves were the objects of that judg⯑ment. ‘"A ſign, ſays Jeſus, has fre⯑quently been aſked of me; I will now tell you, what ſign ought to have been expected: if the Jews had known what it is, they would not have been ſo ſollicitous for it; it is very different from what they ſup⯑poſe it to be: the whole Jewiſh na⯑tion ſhall be utterly diſſolved by the ſevere vengeance of God; this is the ſign of the Son of man which ſhall ap⯑pear in heaven, for this is all that Da⯑niel means by the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, in the paſſage on which they found their expectation of a ſign."’ On this occaſion, then, Jeſus not only aſſured them that the ſign which they looked for, would not [205] be given, but alſo pointed out where their miſtake lay, and explained the true meaning of the prophecy on which they founded it.

Thus Jeſus, in conſequence of the oppoſition made to him, occaſionally illuſtrated the proof of his miſſion from prophecy, frequently during his life. But after his reſurrection, he fully ex⯑plained all the ancient prophecies con⯑cerning his ſufferings and death, and his religion, oftener than once to his diſciples. The ſame day that he roſe from the dead, he came up to Cleophas and another diſciple, going from Jeru⯑ſalem to Emmaus. They had hither⯑to believed him to be the Meſſiah: but now their faith was almoſt totally ſub⯑verted, becauſe he had been crucified, and they had not yet been ſatisfied con⯑cerning the truth of his reſurrection; the chief prieſts and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified [206] him: but we truſted that it had been he which ſhould have redeemed Iſrael: and beſide all this, to day is the third day ſince theſe things were done. Having heard their doubts, and the grounds of them, he ſaid, O fools, and ſlow of heart to believe all that the prophets have ſpoken! Ought not Chriſt to have ſuffered theſe things, and in this man⯑ner to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moſes, and all the prophets, he expounded un⯑to them in all the ſcriptures, the things con⯑cerning himſelf ^*. In order to confirm the faith of the apoſtles and other di⯑ſciples, and to inform their under⯑ſtandings, he pointed out the applica⯑tion of the ancient prophecies to him⯑ſelf, likewiſe on another occaſion: Theſe are the words which I ſpake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things muſt be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moſes, and in the pro⯑phets, and in the pſalms, concerning me. Then opened he their underſtanding that they might [207] underſtand the ſcriptures, and ſaid unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Chriſt to ſuffer, and to riſe from the dead the third day, and that repentance and re⯑miſſion of ſins ſhould be preached in his name, among all nations, beginning at Jeruſalem: and ye are witneſſes of theſe things ^*. This ſerved not only for the conviction of the diſciples themſelves; it anſwer⯑ed another purpoſe. Being thus in⯑ſtructed by Chriſt himſelf, in the true meaning of the prophecies, their know⯑ledge of which was perfected by the ef⯑fuſion of the holy Spirit at Pentecoſt, they were qualified for ſupporting Chriſtianity by appeals to them, and reaſonings from them, and all their ap⯑plications of them bear the authority of Chriſt himſelf. The oppoſition which had been made to the goſpel, before they began to preach, prevent⯑ed its being ever improper for them to explain, and reaſon from, the prophe⯑cies which they quoted; it made it even [208] neceſſary: but they were very often called to it by immediate objections and marks of prejudice. On the day of Pentecoſt, Peter ſpoke to an aſſem⯑bly of thoſe who had oppoſed Chriſt ſo inveterately as even to be acceſſary to his death, who had already taken him, and by wicked hands crucified and ſlain him^*; and he ſpoke in an aſſembly in which ſome, on ſeeing the miraculous gifts beſtowed on the apoſtles, ſaid mocking, Theſe men are full of new wine ^†. After having ſimply quoted, with a particu⯑lar view to theſe latter, a prophecy of Joel, of which what they miſrepreſent⯑ed as drunkenneſs was ſo obvious a completion, that it needed no com⯑mentary^‡; he was naturally led by his knowledge of the diſpoſition which the generality of his audience had ful⯑ly ſhown, to quote two prophecies of David, and to prove by the juſteſt rea⯑ſoning, [209] that they were never properly fulfilled in David himſelf, that they related to the Meſſiah, and that they were literally and exactly fulfilled in Jeſus, and therefore demonſtrated that he was the Meſſiah there predicted: David ſpeaketh concerning him, I foreſaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I ſhould not be moved; there⯑fore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad: moreover alſo, my fleſh ſhall reſt in hope, becauſe thou wilt not leave my ſoul in hell, neither wilt thou ſuffer thine holy one to ſee corruption: thou haſt made known to me the ways of life; thou ſhalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely ſpeak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his ſepulchre is with us unto this day: there⯑fore being a prophet, and knowing that God had ſworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the fleſh, he would raiſe up Chriſt to ſit on his throne; [210] he ſeeing this before, ſpake of the reſurrection of Chriſt, that his ſoul was not left in hell, neither his fleſh did ſee corruption: this Je⯑ſus hath God raiſed up, whereof we all are witneſſes. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promiſe of the holy Ghoſt, he hath ſhed forth this, which ye now ſee and hear: for David is not aſcended into the heavens; but he ſaith himſelf, The Lord ſaid unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footſtool. Therefore let all the houſe of Iſrael know aſſuredly, that God hath made that ſame Jeſus whom ye have cru⯑cified, both Lord and Chriſt ^*. As the Jews only expreſſed their ſurpriſe at the cure of the lame man, by Peter and John, but were not convinced by it; and as they had already denied the holy one and the juſt, and killed the prince of life ^†; Peter, after having pointed out the intention and the force of the mi⯑racle, [211] naturally took occaſion to ob⯑ſerve that many prophecies had been emitted, in all the preceeding ages, concerning the Meſſiah, ſome of which he quotes particularly, and that they were all exactly fulfilled in Jeſus; and thence concluded that the Jews, who were the children of the prophets, and of the covenant, ought readily to acknowledge him as the promiſed Saviour^*. When he was queſtioned by the council, con⯑cerning the ſame miracle, he applied another particular prophecy to Chriſt's being crucified by them, and exalted by God^†: and their threatenings gave occaſion to the company of Chriſtians, when Peter and John returned to them, to take notice of the accuracy with which another prediction was accom⯑pliſhed in Jeſus: Thou by the mouth of thy ſervant David haſt ſaid, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? [212] The kings of the earth ſtood up, and the rulers were gathered together againſt the Lord, and againſt his Chriſt: For of a truth againſt thy holy child Jeſus, whom thou haſt anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Iſrael, were ga⯑thered together, to do whatſoever thy hand and thy counſel determined before to be done ^*. When Philip came up to the Ethiopian Eunuch, he found him reading this place of ſcripture; He was led as a ſheep to the ſlaughter, and like a lamb dumb before his ſhearer, ſo opened he not his mouth: in his humiliation his judgment was taken away; and who ſhall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth: and not un⯑derſtanding it, he aſked Philip, Of whom ſpeaketh the prophet this? of himſelf, or of ſome other man? We are not informed of the particulars of Philip's anſwer, but we are told that he began at the ſame ſcripture, and preached unto him Jeſus ^†. [213] The objections of the Jews who belie⯑ved the goſpel indeed, but underſtood its nature very imperfectly, inflamed no doubt by the clamours of the un⯑believing Jews, againſt granting the gentile Chriſtians immunity from the obſervance of the ceremonial law, led James to recollect and to urge a pre⯑diction which indicated this very thing: To this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will ſet it up; that the reſidue of men might ſeek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, ſaith the Lord, who doth all theſe things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world ^*. It is with a direct view to remove the miſtakes of the unbelie⯑ving Jews, who inflexibly oppoſed the goſpel, in relation to the ſame ſubject, that the apoſtle Paul proves from ſeve⯑ral [214] paſſages of the prophets, that the Gentiles ought to be admitted into the Meſſiah's kingdom, without any other condition but believing in Chriſt. This, he obſerves, is plainly implied in what Iſaiah ſays, ſpeaking of the Meſſiah, Whoſoever believeth on him, ſhall not be a⯑ſhamed; for the expreſſion, he argues, is unlimited, whoſoever, ſo that here there is no difference made between the Jew and the Greek, and nothing is required but believing ^*. He further confirms this, by quoting a ſimilar intimation of Joel, WHOSOEVER ſhall call upon the name of the Lord, ſhall be ſaved ^†. He af⯑terwards proves that their cavils againſt preaching the Goſpel to the Gentiles, were perfectly unreaſonable, ſince they might have known that it would be ſo, becauſe it was all along foretold: Did not Iſrael know that the Gentiles would be called? If they did not, it [215] was their own fault, for firſt, Moſes ſaith, I will provoke you to jealouſy by them that are no people, and by a fooliſh nation I will anger you. But Eſaias is very plain in foretelling both the calling of the Gen⯑tiles, and the rejection of the Jews themſelves; and ſaith, I was found of them that ſought me not, I was made manifeſt unto them that aſked not after me: but to Iſrael he ſaith, All day long have I ſtretched forth my hands unto a diſobedient and gainſaying people ^*. At Theſſalonica, the Jews who believed not, were ſo violent in their oppoſition to Paul, that they at laſt raiſed a tu⯑mult againſt him^†: There Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reaſoned with them out of the ſcriptures, opening and alledging, that Chriſt muſt needs have ſuffered, and riſen again from the dead; and that this Jeſus whom I preach unto you is the Chriſt ^‡. Apollos uſed the ſame method in ſimilar circumſtances: [216] he not only helped them much which had believed through grace; but alſo mightily convinced the Jews who oppoſed the go⯑ſpel, and that publicly, ſhowing by the ſcrip⯑tures, that Jeſus was Chriſt ^*. Before Agrippa, Paul affirmed that, in preach⯑ing the goſpel, he ſaid none other things than thoſe which the prophets and Moſes did ſay ſhould come; that Chriſt ſhould ſuffer, and that he ſhould be the firſt that ſhould riſe from the dead, and ſhould ſhow light unto the peo⯑ple, and to the Gentiles ^†. When Paul was a priſoner at Rome, the Jews ſaid to him, As concerning this ſect, we know that every where it is ſpoken againſt ^‡ In order to remove the prejudice which they thus expreſſed, and to anſwer their objections, he expounded and teſtified the kingdom of God, perſuading them concern⯑ing Jeſus, both out of the law of Moſes, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening ^‖, [217] and when, notwithſtanding all his pains, ſome believed not, he ſhowed that this very obſtinacy was foretold by Iſaiah^*.

THUS we have largely explained the manner in which Chriſt and his apoſtles illuſtrated and urged the ſeveral parti⯑cular evidences of the truth of Chriſti⯑anity. The ſmalleſt degree of atten⯑tion to what has been ſaid, will enable us to perceive, that, on ſeveral occa⯑ſions, the objections of thoſe who belie⯑ved not, led them to collect ſeveral of theſe evidences together, and to enforce them at once. It will not be neceſſary to review the inſtances which have been already produced, in order to prove this. It will be ſufficient to recollect, that we have frequently had occaſion to introduce paſſages of ſcripture in conſidering one of the evidences of the goſpel, which had been formerly exa⯑mined [218] in part, when we were conſider⯑ing other evidences of it. Sometimes in anſwering an objection which had been raiſed, Chriſt or his apoſtles in⯑ſiſted on ſeveral diſtinct proofs of their miſſion. Sometimes when an objec⯑tion was made, they anſwered it by diſ⯑playing one evidence of the goſpel; an exception was taken againſt their an⯑ſwer; this led them to urge another evidence of it; and thus they were brought to touch on ſeveral or all of its principal proofs. We ſhall take no⯑tice only of a few inſtances, which are full to the purpoſe, and have not been formerly pointed out. We ſhall not re⯑peat any of the illuſtrations of the truth of Chriſt's miſſion, to which it has been already ſhown that the cavils of the Phariſees againſt the miracle wrought at the pool of Betheſda, gave riſe: but we may obſerve, that it moreover led Jeſus to give a ſummary of all the prin⯑cipal [219] proofs of his miſſion. Having claimed very high dignity, he thought proper to produce at once the ſeveral vouchers for it. He deſires them not to take it on his own word; If I alone, ſays he, bear witneſs of myſelf, my witneſs, you will ſay, is not true. Be it ſo; you ſay right; had you only my own aſſer⯑tion for my miſſion and dignity, it would not be ſufficient to render it credible. But this is not my caſe; I want not abundance of the moſt un⯑exceptionable evidence: there is an⯑other that beareth witneſs of me, and I know that he is really a prophet of God, and that therefore the witneſs which he witneſſeth of me, is true, and ought to ob⯑tain credit. Ye certainly ought to be determined by it; he is a witneſs cal⯑led by yourſelves; ye acknowledged him to be a prophet, ye even were not certain that he was not the Chriſt; ye ſent unto John, and what was his anſwer [220] to you? He bare witneſs unto the truth; he confeſſed that he was not the Chriſt, and he declared expreſsly that I am the Chriſt. This teſtimony from a prophet, might alone prove my claim; but I re⯑ceive not teſtimony from man, I am under no neceſſity of reſting my cauſe on this declaration alone, but I would not omit it, becauſe it ought in all reaſon to have great weight with you, for it will be groſs inconſiſtence in you to reject it; and therefore theſe things I ſay, that ye may believe and thus be ſaved. Ye ought ſeriouſly to ponder the force of this proof: it is very conſiderable, for he was a burning and a ſhining light; and ye were willing for a ſeaſon to rejoice in his light: ye had once a high opinion of him, and he fully deſerved it. But de⯑ciſive as his teſtimony is, it is not my principal voucher; I have greater witneſs than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finiſh, the ſame works [221] that I do, bear witneſs of me, that the Father hath ſent me: my miracles are the teſti⯑mony of God himſelf; they are very numerous, and, in every one of them, this teſtimony is repeated. And the Fa⯑ther himſelf which hath ſent me, hath born witneſs of me, in even a more direct and definite manner, if poſſible, than by mi⯑racles: have ye never at any time heard his voice, or ſeen his ſhape, a viſible ſymbol of his preſence? Did ye not ſee the Spirit of God deſcend like a dove, and light upon me at my baptiſm? And did ye not hear a voice from heaven declare, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleaſed? Yet ye have not his word a⯑biding in you; remarkable as this voice and declaration was, it has made no laſting impreſſion on you, for whom he hath ſent, and declared ſo plainly and ſtrikingly that he hath ſent, him ye believe not. I can produce more evidence ſtill; ſearch the ſcriptures, for in them ye think ye [222] have eternal life, they are the foundation of all your hopes, their authority ſhould be ſacred with you; and they are they which teſtify of me, they contain many expreſs predictions of the Meſſiah, all which, if you will but attend, you may perceive to be accurately fulfilled in me. Yet ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. I know that ye are prejudiced againſt me, becauſe I purſue not that ſecular glory, which your own pride and ambition have induced you to be⯑lieve to be the objects of the Meſſiah's miſſion; I receive not honour from men. I avow it. But is this any real preſump⯑tion againſt my being the Meſſiah? By your perſiſting ſo obſtinately in think⯑ing that it is, I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you; it is principally your wickedneſs that has dictated your idea of the Meſſiah, and makes you to hold it ſo pertinaciouſly. The event will prove it; I am come in my Father's [223] name, with the ſtrongeſt evidences of a commiſſion from him, and ye receive me not, merely becauſe my appearance and profeſſed deſign agrees not with your prejudices: if another ſhall come in his own name, without ſo much as a ſhadow of evidence of a divine miſſion, and ſhall only make pretenſions which fall in with your depraved notions, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and ſeek not the honour which cometh from God only? While you continue intent upon the applauſe of men, it is impoſſible that you can re⯑receive me as the Meſſiah, for this would diſgrace all the pretences to deep knowledge of the ſcriptures, on which you have built your reputation; it would be an acknowledgment of the groſſneſs of your ignorance and miſ⯑takes; and before you can make it, you muſt learn to value the approba⯑tion of God above all things. This [224] however you cannot obtain without it; your rejecting the evidences which I produce, will be ſufficient to condemn you in his ſight: but do not think that I alone will accuſe you to the Father, if you perſiſt in unbelief; there is another that accuſeth you, even Moſes in whom ye truſt; for had ye believed Moſes, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me: but if ye believe not his writings, how ſhall ye be⯑lieve my words ^*. Thus, in a train of the cloſeſt and juſteſt reaſoning, he gives a conciſe and ſimple, but clear and ner⯑vous repreſentation of all the principal evidences of his religion.—There are ſeveral paſſages in which the apoſtles, either on occaſion of immediate objec⯑tions, or at leaſt in conſequence of the general oppoſition which Chriſtianity met with, urge at once, the miracles of Chriſt, his reſurrection, the miraculous gifts which he beſtowed upon his diſci⯑ples, and the teſtimony of the ancient [225] prophets, as containing a full proof of the truth of his religion^*. I ſhall take notice only of two inſtances. When Pe⯑ter was called to Cornelius, he in a ve⯑ry ſimple manner, without reaſoning, as there was no immediate oppoſition; but with natural energy, takes notice, that the teſtimony of John^†; the great⯑neſs, the number, the beneficial ten⯑dency, and the public nature of the miracles which Jeſus wrought^‡; his reſurrection from the dead, of which there was the cleareſt evidence^‖; and the predictions of the ancient pro⯑phets^**; all concurred in proving that Jeſus was indeed the Meſſiah. In the ſynagogue at Antioch, where there were many ſo ill diſpoſed, that they ſoon came to ſpeak againſt thoſe things which were ſaid, contradicting and blaſpheming ^††, Paul urged the witneſs of John, who [226] preached before his coming, and declared in expreſs terms that he was the Meſ⯑ſiah^*; his reſurrection from the dead^†; and the prophecies of the Old Teſta⯑ment, concerning his family^‡, his death^‖, and his reſurrection^**, which were all fulfilled in Jeſus^††, and ſome of which he quotes particularly and reaſons from^‡‡; as concurring and in⯑diſputable proofs of the truth of his miſſion and his religion.

WE have now ſeen, in what manner Chriſt and his apoſtles ſupported the truth of Chriſtianity in conſequence of oppoſition made to them, and objec⯑tions raiſed againſt them. In this ſitu⯑ation, they did not ſatisfy themſelves with ſimply exhibiting the evidences of their miſſion. Chriſt himſelf aſſerted [227] both his miſſion and his dignity, in the moſt unreſerved manner: He not only gave a more ample exhibition of excel⯑lent doctrine, but he likewiſe affirmed, both that his religion is excellent, and that its excellence proves it to be di⯑vine: He urged his miracles as illuſtri⯑ous vouchers of his being ſent from God, he vindicated them from the ex⯑ceptions that were taken againſt their force, and he appealed to them as di⯑rect proofs of his particular doctrines, as facts which ſhowed an actual exer⯑tion of the very powers which theſe doctrines aſcribed to him: He took oc⯑caſion to ſtrengthen the evidence of his being a divine teacher, by giving many plain inſtances of ſupernatural knowledge: He ſhowed that the anci⯑ent prophecies were accompliſhed in himſelf; he pointed out ſome whole predictions, and ſome important cir⯑cumſtances in other predictions, which [228] they overlooked, and by overlooking which they were led into miſtakes, and hindered from perceiving that he was the Meſſiah; by theſe means he account⯑ed for ſuch circumſtances relating to himſelf, as gave them offence, and ſhow⯑ed that, tho' they ſuited not the idea which they had formed of the Meſſiah, yet they were plainly foretold by the prophets, from whom they ought to have derived their idea of him; he e⯑vinced that no eſſential character of the Meſſiah was wanting in him, and that it was, in ſome inſtances, their inatten⯑tion to him, and in others their igno⯑rance of the true ſenſe of the prophe⯑cies, that led them to imagine it: Fi⯑nally, he collected the ſeveral eviden⯑ces of his miſſion, joined them into one proof, and enforced this proof up⯑on his hearers. The apoſtles exactly copied the example of their maſter, when they found proper opportunities.

SECTION V.
The advantages of their having uſed this man⯑ner in conſequence of oppoſition.

SEVERAL advantages redound to Chriſtianity, from Jeſus and his a⯑poſtles having ſometimes departed from their original manner of propoſing the evidences of the goſpel, and adopted the more argumentative manner which has been now explained; and theſe advantages are the greater, becauſe it was only on occaſion of oppoſition that they made this alteration.

THIS manner contributes in various reſpects to facilitate the defence of Chri⯑ſtianity: it removes ſeveral difficulties which would have otherwiſe attended [230] this; it cuts off all colour for ſeveral objections which might have otherwiſe been in a conſiderable degree plauſible; it gives great advantages for anſwering them, if they ſhould be notwithſtanding moved. It was in ſome meaſure ne⯑ceſſary for theſe purpoſes, that, in the publication of the goſpel, the evidences of Chriſtianity ſhould be not only ex⯑hibited, but likewiſe appealed to, illu⯑ſtrated, vindicated, and enforced by reaſoning. Jeſus and his apoſtles often did all this, on occaſion of the oppoſi⯑tion which was made to them. It would be raſhneſs to pretend to decide, in what preciſe degree a true revela⯑tion muſt ſtand clear of difficulties: but it is certainly a preſumption in fa⯑vour of Chriſtianity, that it does ſtand clear of many difficulties to which a different manner of publication would have left it expoſed.

[231] It was very neceſſary that Chriſt ſhould put it beyond doubt, that he delivered his doctrine as a divine reve⯑lation, every part of which ſtood on the authority of God. If he had not deli⯑vered it in this manner, he could have been conſidered only as a wiſe man who publiſhed his own ſentiments, and taught what appeared to him to be true and uſeful: it might have been admit⯑ted that he gave many excellent inſtruc⯑tions, but ſtill there would have been no obligation upon men to receive all that he taught: his religion would have been like the ſyſtems of the phi⯑loſophers, in which we are at liberty to reject whatever we diſlike: every ſeparate principle of Chriſtianity muſt have been adopted only ſo far as it could be proved true by a direct and peculiar train of reaſoning. It was e⯑ven neceſſary that Chriſt ſhould be ve⯑ry explicit in claiming a divine miſſion, [232] elſe it might have been pretended by ſome, that he deſigned his religion to be conſidered merely as a human ſy⯑ſtem, and it might have coſt ſome pains to render it abſolutely undeniable that he did not. As explicit as he has been, ſome have been ſo abſolutely inatten⯑tive to the import of his claim, as to profeſs themſelves Chriſtians, and even to complain loudly that groſs injuſtice was done them by refuſing them the name, while notwithſtanding they a⯑vowedly reject many things which they acknowledge to be expreſsly contained in the New Teſtament itſelf^*. Indeed moſt infidels have ſhown a ſtrong pro⯑penſity to examine the articles of the [233] Chriſtian faith, in a manner that ſup⯑poſes them not to ſtand on the autho⯑rity of a divine revelation, and to re⯑ject them, not becauſe they can be proved to be falſe, but becauſe rea⯑ſon could not, by its own light a⯑lone, prove them to be true. But all who are not either very un⯑thinking, or very much prejudiced, may eaſily perceive that this proceeds from a perfect miſapprehenſion of the nature of the goſpel. For Chriſt was led, by the oppoſition which he met with, to aſſert expreſsly and repeated⯑ly, that he was a teacher ſent from God, and to appeal for proof of it, to the evidences which he had produced. He thus delivered all his doctrines in the name of God; he claimed that all of them, without exception, ſhould be received and believed; he left not e⯑very article to derive its credibility from a ſeparate and peculiar proof; he [234] gave one common proof for them all, the authority of a divine revelation. It is on this footing that his religion muſt be tried: all the parts of it demand our belief, as being truths revealed by God; the rejection of any one article clearly taught in the goſpel, can be juſtified only by proving, that the go⯑ſpel is not a divine revelation, at leaſt that we have not ſufficient evidence of its being ſuch. In examining, whether it be a revelation or not, its particular doctrines muſt doubtleſs be conſidered: but they ought to be conſidered only in one light: you muſt prove them to be poſitively falſe and abſurd, elſe you can draw no argument from them, a⯑gainſt the truth of Chriſtianity. If it be but poſſible that, conſidered in them⯑ſelves, they may be true, they leave the di⯑rect evidences of Chriſt's miſſion, in their full ſorce; and whenever this miſſion is proved, it follows of courſe, that all [235] the doctrines contained in the goſpel are true. All objections againſt theſe doctrines, which do not infer their ab⯑ſolute abſurdity, are beſide the pur⯑poſe. You ſay that reaſon gives no e⯑vidence of their truth; that, when you conſider them ſimply in themſelves, you can perceive no probability at⯑tending them: Be it ſo; it is not neceſ⯑ſary that it ſhould be otherwiſe; it is affirmed only that they are revealed; and objections of this kind cannot prove that they are not, tho' they might juſtify your not embracing them, if they were propoſed merely as human opinions. You think that there are principles of reaſon, from which it may be inferred that they are impro⯑bable: but before you reject them on this account, you ought to be ſatisfied, that there is greater certainty both of the truth of thoſe principles, and of the legitimacy of the conſequences de⯑duced [236] from them, than of the truth of the revelation which contains the doc⯑trines objected againſt. You cannot ſee that a revelation for diſcovering them was neceſſary, nor perceive what good end the diſcovery of them has anſwered: but this is not what you are called to judge of: the proper que⯑ſtion is, Have they been in fact reveal⯑ed? Has Chriſt, who taught them, pro⯑ved a miſſion from God? The ſimple ſtate to which Chriſt has reduced the queſtion concerning the truth of his religion, by claiming a divine miſſion ſo explicitly, is, Whether there be ſuf⯑ficient evidence that he actually had that miſſion? If there be, all his doc⯑trines muſt be received at once. He had ſo frequent occaſions of inſiſting on his having been ſent by God, that it ſcarce can be honeſtly overlooked: and attention to it, would confine the controverſy with Infidels within very [237] narrow limits; it would enable them to perceive, that many of their moſt ſpecious and popular reaſonings, their arguments, for inſtance, againſt the neceſſity of revelation, and moſt of their objections againſt particular Chri⯑ſtian doctrines, are nothing to the pur⯑poſe; it would ſhow them that, in or⯑der to overturn Chriſtianity, they muſt evince, either that it has not the evidences which it pretends to have, or that, ſuppoſing it to have them, they are not ſufficient to prove its di⯑vinity; and that they muſt evince this, not by nice ſpeculations on general to⯑pics, or by ſtudied deductions from diſtant principles, but by a direct and cloſe examination, and confutation of theſe evidences themſelves. Attention to this, would indeed ſhorten all theo⯑logical controverſies; it would cut off many ſpecies of argumentation which all parties have employed in defence of [238] their peculiar tenets: for when Chriſt's miſſion is once acknowledged, the on⯑ly queſtion that can properly ariſe concerning any religious doctrine, is, Whether it be taught in ſcripture, or not? To acknowledge that any doc⯑trine is taught in the goſpel, and yet to diſbelieve that doctrine, is truly to deny the goſpel to be a divine revela⯑tion.

Miracles conſidered ſimply in them⯑ſelves, are only exertions of a ſuper⯑natural power, and prove nothing but that the perſon who works them, is poſ⯑ſeſſed of that power. It is when he delivers ſome doctrine, when he aſſerts that God revealed it to him, and ſent him to teach it, and gave him the pow⯑er of working theſe miracles on pur⯑poſe to confirm it, that they become proofs of the truth of that doctrine. Without this, a perſon might perform miracles, or works exactly reſembling [239] miracles in their whole outward ap⯑pearance, and yet have no [...]ommiſſion from God to make any revelation^*. It was very neceſſary, therefore, that the intention of the Chriſtian miracles ſhould be plainly declared. Infidels have been forward in all ages, to re⯑preſent them as mere exertions of pow⯑er or ſkill, which do not infer the truth of the Chriſtian religion. With this view chiefly, Celſus collected the fabu⯑lous miracles of Ariſteas, Abaris, Her⯑motimus, Cleomedes, and remarked that they were not, on account of theſe, conſidered by any as gods or divine perſons^†: and with the ſame [240] view, Hierocles compared Chriſt to Apollonius Tyanaeus, and extolled the judgment of the Pagans, who, tho' they believed the marvellous exploits of the latter, did not therefore reckon him a God^*. If Chriſt had never profeſſed [241] that he wrought his miracles with a deſign to confirm his doctrine, they would indeed have had no connexion with its truth: if he had not aſſerted this very frequently and explicitly, In⯑fidels might have diſſembled that con⯑nexion [242] with ſome degree of plauſibili⯑ty. But the oppoſition which he met with, gave him ſo many occaſions of aſſerting it, and inſiſting upon it, that it cannot poſſibly be overlooked by a⯑ny man of candour, and needs no o⯑ther [243] proof, but an appeal to the plain expreſſions of the goſpel hiſtory. When therefore a late writer^* has aſſerted that Chriſt's miracles were never in⯑tended by him for evidences of his miſſion, we can only wonder at his [244] boldneſs: he pretends to prove it by arguments; but we may be certain that they cannot poſſibly be conclu⯑ſive: It is a plain fact, that Chriſt did, in many inſtances, urge his miracles as proofs of his miſſion and doctrine: no [245] reaſonings from any topic can prove, then, that he did not; to propoſe ar⯑guments in this caſe, is an inſult upon reaſon.

[246] That Jeſus was a divine teacher, might have been proved by other ar⯑guments; that he was the promiſed Meſſiah, could be proved only from the prophecies of the Old Teſtament. The agreement of theſe to him and his religion, is ſo accurate, and extends to ſo many particulars, that it might have convinced an attentive inquirer, that he was indeed the Meſſiah, tho' he had never affirmed it, or made an appeal to prophecy. But his neglect⯑ing this altogether, would have been in ſome meaſure unaccountable; it would have rendered this proof of his miſſion ſomewhat feeble, and conſide⯑rably intricate; there might have been a ſhow of reaſon for aſſerting, that he only claimed to be an ordinary divine teacher, but aſſumed not the high cha⯑racter of the Chriſt. But he did in fact, on occaſion of the objections which were made, appeal very frequently to [247] the ancient prophets, apply their ora⯑cles to himſelf, reaſon from them, ſhow that they were accompliſhed in him⯑ſelf, and affirm that he was the very perſon intended by them. It cannot, therefore, be even pretended, that he ought to be regarded only as a common prophet: if he be at all a divine teach⯑er, he muſt be the Meſſiah; the proof that this character belongs to him, ſtands in full ſtrength, and is as ſhort and clear as it poſſibly could be.

Thus if our Saviour and his apoſtles had never employed that manner which they did employ on occaſion of oppo⯑ſition, it might have given a handle for ſome plauſible objections againſt the goſpel: it is a great advantage that there remains no colour for theſe; it ren⯑ders the truth of Chriſtianity more im⯑mediately evident, and the defence of it eaſier. Infidels are forward to lay hold of every difficulty attending revela⯑tion, [248] and to turn it into an argument againſt its truth. A true revelation, they argue, if there ever was one, is of ſo great and general importance, that it would not be conſiſtent with the goodneſs and perfection of God, to leave it expoſed to difficulties, which may be inſuperable to ſome men, and occaſion their rejecting it. The argu⯑ment is perfectly fallacious; it runs counter to the whole analogy of na⯑ture. It is however in ſome degree ſpecious: and its being ſo, ſhows that the principles of human nature diſpoſe us to regard a freedom from difficul⯑ties, as one reaſon for thinking fa⯑vourably of any ſcheme of religion. When, therefore, Chriſtianity ſtands clear of ſo conſiderable difficulties, by the manner of its publication, it is rea⯑ſonable to conſider this as ſome indi⯑cation of its truth. It is, at leaſt to a certain degree, what men would wiſh [249] a true revelation to be, and what Infi⯑dels judge it reaſonable to expect that it ſhould be. This is an indication of its truth, the ſtronger becauſe the dif⯑ficulties effectually prevented, are ſuch as would have unavoidably ariſen from the ſole uſe of that method which was originally and moſt ordinarily employ⯑ed, and becauſe they are prevented in a conſiſtence with the advantages re⯑ſulting from that original manner.

FURTHER, as the manner in which Chriſt and his apoſtles ſupported their miſſion, when they met with oppoſi⯑tion, prevents ſome objections, ſo it re⯑moves others. In conſequence of it, we have their own repreſentation of the nature and force of the evidences pro⯑duced by them, and their own anſwers to ſeveral of the objections which have been moved againſt the truth of Chri⯑ſtianity. This cannot fail to be high⯑ly [250] agreeable to the curious and inqui⯑ſitive. It is not only agreeable. By means of it, conſiderable progreſs is made in the defence of Chriſtianity. Its evidences cannot fairly be rejected, till the repreſentations of their force, gi⯑ven by Chriſt and the apoſtles, be firſt invalidated; the ſame objections cannot fairly be repeated, till the an⯑ſwers which they have already given to them, be firſt refuted. This has, how⯑ever, been ſcarce at all attempted by Infidels. There can be no ſtronger evi⯑dence of want of candour. Indeed, ſince there have been ſo many defences of Chriſtianity, it would not be altogether unreaſonable to expect, that Infidels ſhould not revive any objection, with⯑out ſhowing all the anſwers already given, to be inſufficient: But it is pe⯑culiarly inexcuſeable, to overlook thoſe anſwers to objections, which the New Teſtament contains. They cannot be [251] ignorant of theſe, if they only read the New Teſtament; it is in it that Chriſtianity is taught, and therefore to oppoſe Chriſtianity without reading it, is alike abſurd and diſingenuous. To know theſe anſwers, and yet to take no notice of them, is as little conſiſtent with the love of truth. Had Infidels purſued the track which this principle naturally points out, it would have probably prevented ſome of their ob⯑jections; for Chriſt and his apoſtles gave anſwers to the objections which were propoſed to them; and in every inſtance, it may be ſafely left to any perſon who will examine them, to de⯑termine on which ſide the ſtrength of argument lies. But if they thought not theſe anſwers ſufficient, it was plainly incumbent on them to have confuted them, before they could be at liberty to urge the ſame objections. If they have declined this labour, it ſhould in rea⯑ſon [252] prejudice their cauſe; it cannot promote it. It expoſes their impartia⯑lity to juſt ſuſpicion; it intimates a conſciouſneſs of their inability to reply; it is an acknowledgment of the ſolidity of the anſwers: at any rate, it renders their oppoſition faulty in its very foun⯑dation. They have left a ſtrong enemy behind, in poſſeſſion of a fortreſs which they found impregnable, and, on that account, all their advances are inſecure, and their ſucceſſes but apparent. Till the original anſwers be fairly confuted, the repetition of the objections is mere trifling. But when they are repeated, ſo long as the New Teſtament remains, Chriſtians have the ready means, both of removing them, and of ſhowing the impropriety of their being urged. They have not this advantage only. The anſwers recorded in the New Te⯑ſtament are ſo natural, that they would have no doubt occurred, whenever the [253] objections had been raiſed; and they are ſo full, that they could ſcarce have failed to ſatisfy the reaſon of men, by whomſoever they had been given: But being given by Jeſus and his apoſtles, Chriſtians, who are already convinced of their miſſion by diſtinct and inde⯑pendent arguments, muſt reſt in them with peculiar aſſurance, and be, by means of them, greatly confirmed in their faith. Their utility extends be⯑yond the confutation of the particular objections which gave riſe to them; they are models to Chriſtians for an⯑ſwering many others; and they pro⯑ceed upon principles of ſo general in⯑fluence, that they are even immediate⯑ly applicable to many objections which had not then been profeſſedly urged. In every defence of Chriſtianity, we may find numerous inſtances, in which the reaſonings of the New Teſtament have been made, in this very manner, [254] to contribute greatly to the illuſtration of the truth of our religion. In a word, in conſequence of Jeſus having been led to ſupport and enforce the eviden⯑ces of his miſſion by reaſoning, we have an opportunity of ſeeing him riſe ſupe⯑rior to all oppoſition, of ſeeing the vic⯑tory of argument over ſophiſtry and cavil, of obſerving, in the goſpel, the genuine triumphs of divine truth.

THE manner of propoſing the evi⯑dences of Chriſtianity, which Chriſt and his apoſtles adopted on occaſion of oppoſition, not only contributes to fa⯑cilitate the defence of our religion; it was neceſſary for doing full juſtice to its evidence. There are two ways in which the ſtrength of evidence may be made to appear. It ſhows its ſtrength directly, when it produces ready and firm belief. But it cannot always ſhow its ſtrength in this manner; prejudice [255] or ſome other cauſe may prevent the ſtrongeſt evidence from producing its effects on ſome men, and may ſuggeſt objections againſt it. It is proved to be, notwithſtanding, ſtrong, when it is ſhown by reaſoning, that it ought to have produced belief. This is the on⯑ly way in which its power can be made known to thoſe, who do not feel it by its operation on their underſtandings. Strong evidence requires not a great deal of reaſoning, to enable it to gain the aſſent of a ſound underſtanding; but evidence muſt be ſpurious, if it ad⯑mit not a vindication by reaſoning, from all the objections that can be raiſed againſt it. The evidences of Chriſtiani⯑ty were called in queſtion; objections were formed againſt them; attempts were made to elude their force, by ca⯑villing at ſome of the circumſtances which attended them. Jeſus confuted the objections, by argument; he ex⯑poſed [256] the weakneſs of the cavils; he ſhowed that they affected not his cre⯑dit, and that, in ſpite of them, the evi⯑dences which he had given, remained concluſive and ſufficient. By theſe means he made it plain, that the faith which the ſimple exhibition of them had produced, was not the offspring of credulity, that it was perfectly legi⯑timate, and that the unbelief of others proceeded altogether from themſelves, not from any defect of evidence. It is often impoſſible to convince a perſon, who may yet be proved to be undeni⯑ably in the wrong: the reaſonings of Chriſt and his apoſtles ſhow that this was the caſe with thoſe who oppoſed them.

REASONINGS in ſupport of the evi⯑dences of the goſpel, were in ſome re⯑ſpect neceſſary, likewiſe, for procuring it a reception. The exhibition of theſe [257] evidences was ſufficient for the con⯑viction of the honeſt and attentive; it was the propereſt for their conviction. But the mere exhibition of evidence is not, in any caſe, ſufficient for the con⯑viction of all. Some are inattentive; ſome are prejudiced; ſome love ex⯑ceedingly to be amuſed with reaſoning, and ſet a high value upon it; we find ſome men even ſo much addicted to doubt and diſputation, that they will ſcarce be convinced by the ſtrongeſt e⯑vidence, except it be enforced by rea⯑ſoning. By an argumentative diſplay or vindication of evidence, many may be convinced, who would not have be⯑lieved without it. Medicine is as ne⯑ceſſary to the diſeaſed, as food is to the ſound. The incredulous labour under an intellectual diſtemper which can be removed only by explaining the force of the evidence, and anſwering their objections. If Chriſt and his apoſtles [258] had not ſometimes taken this way, it would have been regarded by many as a very ſtrong prejudice againſt their miſſion. The objection would not have been ſubverſive of Chriſtianity, provi⯑ded they had exhibited real and natu⯑tural evidence; for we are not qualifi⯑ed for determining, what preciſe degree of proof, it is fit that God ſhould give in matters of religion. But the objec⯑tion would have had ſome force; it would have ſeemed to imply a neglect of the ſick who need a phyſician. When men think that they have reaſons a⯑gainſt believing on any ſubject, after the natural evidence has been preſent⯑ed to them, the only poſſible way of o⯑vercoming their unbelief, is, to prove that their reaſons are not good. When heedleſsneſs, prejudice, or a captious ſpirit, hinder men from perceiving the force of clear evidence, the natural means of enabling them to perceive it, [259] are, to excite their attention, to direct them to conſider it in the proper point of view, and to ſolve their difficulties. Had not Chriſt and his apoſtles uſed theſe means, when the oppoſition of argument naturally demanded it, there would have been ſome cauſe to ſay, that they did not all they might have done for the conviction of thoſe who were unhappily prejudiced againſt them. But, be the objection ever ſo ſtrong, be it inſurmountable, if you pleaſe; Chri⯑ſtianity has no concern with it. The oppoſition raiſed by unbelievers, gave the founder and the firſt publiſhers of this religion, many opportunities, the propereſt that could be, for confirming the truth of their miſſion by reaſoning; and they uſed theſe opportunities for that very purpoſe. It is not more plain, that they made no oſtentation of argu⯑ment when it was not neceſſary, than it is, that they never neglected to uſe it [260] when it was neceſſary: they thus did all that could poſſibly be done for the conviction of men; if any notwith⯑ſtanding remained in unbelief, it was wholly owing to themſelves^*. The New Teſtament contains ſo many in⯑ſtances of their having actually reaſon⯑ed in defence of their miſſion, as muſt ſatisfy every perſon who only reads it, [261] that all the advantages which any ſy⯑ſtem can derive from its being ſupport⯑ed by reaſoning, actually belong to Chriſtianity. That Jeſus ſhowed an in⯑capacity for reaſoning; that he owed his ſucceſs to his having addreſſed only the weak and credulous; that he ſatis⯑fied himſelf with impoſing upon theſe; that, whenever he met with men of pe⯑netration, who diſcovered the impo⯑ſture, and were willing to expoſe it, he was glad to be ſilent, and to make no attempt to convert them; that he knew he could not ſatisfy them, and was a⯑fraid leſt, by contending with them, [262] he ſhould only render the weakneſs of his cauſe the more notorious; theſe are aſſertions in which infidels would have triumphed. But if they will venture on them, they muſt have boldneſs enough to fly in the face of clear matter of fact; the frequent oppoſition with which he met, and the manner in which he al⯑ways ſupported his miſſion when he met with it, afford a direct proof of the contrary. Evidence of the truth of the goſpel, was given in abundance; it was enforced and vindicated by reaſoning, whenever there was occaſion. Is not ſome credit due to the teacher who de⯑clines no proper means of convincing? Is it no preſumption in favour of our religion, that, in its firſt publication, e⯑very thing was done, that could in any caſe poſſibly be done, for the convic⯑tion of mankind?

BUT is not Chriſt's having been at [263] ſo great pains to ſupport the evidences of his miſſion, inconſiſtent with the ac⯑count formerly given, of the manner in which he originally propoſed them, and ſubverſive of the concluſions de⯑duced from it? It has been ſhown, that his ordinary reſerve, his not being for⯑ward to multiply aſſertions of the reali⯑ty of his miſſion, his not boaſting of his dignity, his not ſtudiouſly diſplaying the greatneſs of the evidence which he had produced, afford in many ways ſtrong preſumptions of the truth of his religi⯑on. That this is in general his manner, is undeniable. Yet there are ſeveral inſtances recorded by the evangeliſts, which bear another face. There are inſtances in which he moſt expreſs⯑ly aſſerts his miſſion; in which he claims very high dignity; in which he purpoſely enumerates the evidences of his religion; or diſplays the ſtrength of ſome particular evidence of it; in [264] which he pronounces men inexcuſable for not being convinced of it, and threatens them with perdition on ac⯑count of their unbelief. But when theſe inſtances are examined, it appears that they all, without exception, were oc⯑caſioned, at leaſt by a very violent ge⯑neral oppoſition to Chriſt, and for the moſt part too by particular objections againſt him. This gives a full and ſa⯑tisfactory account of them. In this ſi⯑tuation they are wholly unexception⯑able; no juſt preſumption againſt the goſpel can ariſe from them. Nay, in this ſituation, to explain, to urge, and to vindicate the proofs of his miſſion, had as great propriety as the ſimpler method of barely exhibiting them, had in the circumſtances in which he adhe⯑red to it: it was even expreſſive of the very ſame characters; it gives new aſ⯑ſurance of the reality of his miſſion.

[265] By doing no more at firſt, but pre⯑ſenting the evidences of his miſſion, he ſhowed, in a ſtriking manner, his ſenſe of the truth of his claim, and of the au⯑thenticity of his credentials. But did that ſenſe require, that he ſhould not enforce theſe evidences, when men ac⯑tually reſiſted them, and called their ſolidity in queſtion? On the contrary, it required that he ſhould. This was e⯑ven abſolutely neceſſary for ſhowing that he was ſincere in claiming a divine miſſion, and ſecure of his title to it. If he had neglected it, it would have na⯑turally been conſtrued into an acknow⯑ledgment that his miſſion was falſe, and that the evidences of it, which he pretended to give, were indefenſible; it would have undeniably implied the want of juſt concern for the ſucceſs of his undertaking, and an indifference unſuitable to its importance, and re⯑pugnant to the character of a divine [266] teacher. When a man's title to any thing is called in queſtion, not to aſ⯑ſert it, is in fact to relinquiſh it. Af⯑ter all the evidence which Chriſt had exhibited, his miſſion was called in queſtion; not to affirm it, would have been to renounce it. He himſelf thought ſo. On one occaſion, the Jews found fault with him for aſſerting his real character; they affirmed it not only to be vain-glorious, but alſo to be an indication of impoſture: in his anſwer, he intimates that not to have born te⯑ſtimony to himſelf, in the circumſtances in which he bare it, would have im⯑plied a conſciouſneſs that he came not with the authority of God, nor had a title to the dignity which he aſſumed, that he knew not whence he came, and whither he went: tho' I bear record of my⯑ſelf, ſays he, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go ^*. Can any impartial man conſider, that [267] he bare record to himſelf only in con⯑ſequence of oppoſition, and attend to the manner in which he bare it, and not admit the defence? Spontaneous anxiety to foreſee and prevent every poſſible difficulty, is a ſign of that ſu⯑ſpiciouſneſs which commonly attends deceit: but a readineſs to liſten to ob⯑jections and to obviate them, when they are actually propoſed, is an indi⯑cation of a very oppoſite temper. We can deſire no ſtronger evidence, that a man is convinced himſelf, and willing to refer his claim to the reaſon of man⯑kind. Jeſus gave the moſt unqueſti⯑onable evidence of this, and on ac⯑count of his having given it, his reli⯑gion deſerves the greateſt credit.

In being contented at firſt with only preſenting evidence in great abun⯑dance, he ſignally diſplayed that ge⯑nuine dignity, that true greatneſs of ſoul, which deſpiſes parade and oſten⯑tation. [268] But it was in no way incon⯑ſiſtent with the perfection of this tem⯑per, to illuſtrate that evidence when it had been miſunderſtood, and to incul⯑cate it by reaſoning, on thoſe who, of themſelves, perceived not its force. He had exhibited the ſtrongeſt eviden⯑ces of a divine miſſion; yet men had not attended and yielded to them: in this ſituation, to remind them that he had exhibited them, to appeal to them as deſigned and valid proofs of his miſſion, to point out where their force lay, and to inſiſt that men ought on account of them to receive him in the character to which he laid claim, was neither meanneſs nor oſtentation. It was the very oppoſite; to have declined it, would have ſhown an ill-placed af⯑fectation of the ſame falſe dignity, which might lead an impoſtor ſuperci⯑liouſly to refuſe to give any evidence at firſt. It would have been an expreſ⯑ſion [269] of that pride and haughtineſs which mimics majeſty, but really im⯑plies a great degree of meanneſs. Con⯑deſcenſion is an eſſential ingredient in natural majeſty; it mixes with all the exertions of it; it is ſo obviouſly pre⯑dominant in them, that pride never fails to put on the appearance of it on ſome occaſions; but it cannot practiſe it ſo gracefully as to hide the deſign. When Jeſus met with oppoſition, his readineſs to ſatisfy every ſcruple, evi⯑denced the moſt unaffected condeſcen⯑ſion; it was a plain expreſſion of that benevolence which conſtitutes the di⯑vineſt character.

Thus, the manner in which Jeſus inculcated the evidences of his reli⯑gion, upon thoſe who withſtood the exhibition of them, weakens none of the preſumptions for Chriſtianity, ari⯑ſing from his original manner; the op⯑poſition which was made to him, ac⯑counts [270] for every thing in the goſpel, that could be ſuſpected to have this tendency. It even contains new pre⯑ſumptions in favour of our religion. It is expreſſive of the ſame dignity, conſcious ſincerity, and honeſt confi⯑dence, which ſhone ſo conſpicuous in his original manner; it ſhows the very ſame character, only ſet in a different light, or thrown into a new attitude. The oppoſition of his contemporaries, gave him an opportunity of diſplaying this character in various ways; in the moſt contrary ſituations, he maintain⯑ed it uniform and conſiſtent: this adds to its luſtre; this heightens our aſſu⯑rance that it truly belonged to him; this ſtrengthens every indication of the truth of Chriſtianity, which can reſult from its author having really poſſeſſed this character.

By the manner in which Chriſt ju⯑ſtified the evidences of his miſſion, and [271] inculcated them on thoſe who oppoſed him, no leſs than by the manner in which he originally preſented them, he is a perfect contraſt to impoſtors. Ma⯑homet runs ſpontaneouſly into vaunt⯑ing; he abounds in it, when no natu⯑ral occaſion is given for the leaſt ap⯑proach to it; he ſeeks out occaſions for it: it proves itſelf to be the genuine offspring of preſumption, ambition, or ſome other principle equally unhallow⯑ed. Without giving any evidence, he is continually talking in the moſt mag⯑nificent terms of the certainty of his miſſion. When he is charged with ha⯑ving produced no evidence, he neither produces any, nor proves that he had already produced what was ſufficient; ſometimes he denies that it was neceſ⯑ſary to produce any, ſometimes he ex⯑aggerates the few ſhadows of evidence, which he had luckily found means of giving, and always he multiplies aſſer⯑tions [272] of his miſſion, and boldly de⯑nounces judgment againſt all who aſk a proof of it. When objections were raiſed, which would have required a particular confutation, if he had had it in his power, he deigns not to enter on it; he ſatisfies himſelf with the re⯑petition of his confident aſſertions, his arrogant boaſts, and his preſumptuous comminations. It is not by argument that he enforces or juſtifies his claim; that would have required evidence as a foundation on which it might have been reared: but it is by declamation; this, being deſtitute of a foundation, is indeed wholly unſubſtantial, but it tends to conceal the want of evidence, and upon the inconſiderate it counter⯑feits the effects of evidence; of all that he had in his power, it was the method beſt ſuited to his purpoſe. Jeſus was of a very different ſpirit. He never uſes expreſſions which can be even miſ⯑conſtrued [273] into boaſting, except when he is conſtrained to it by the moſt na⯑tural and preſſing occaſions. Even then, his aſſertions of his miſſion and his real character, cannot be juſtly termed oſtentatious; whatever he claims, he likewiſe proves to belong to him: he claims it only in conſequence of proof; it is always to evidence undeniably produced, that he appeals; and on it he reſts his cauſe; which of you, ſays he, convinceth me of ſin ^*? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not ^† : If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had ſin ^‡. He never exaggerates the evidences which he had given; he inculcates the ſuffi⯑ciency of them much ſeldomer than he preſents evidence without being at any pains to ſet it off. Yet he never de⯑clines anſwering ſuch objections as re⯑quire an anſwer: he does not reſt ſa⯑tisfied [274] with affirmations that they are frivolous; he actually removes them by juſt and ſtriking arguments from e⯑vidence which he had before exhibited; he generally too exhibits further evi⯑dence; and, when he has done both, he leaves men to feel it, he is not ſolli⯑citous to affirm that he has. The evi⯑dences which Chriſt produced were ſtrong, they were ſuitable to the ſenti⯑ments of thoſe to whom they were pro⯑poſed, they were ſimilar to thoſe evi⯑dences on which they gave credit to their own religion, but far ſuperior in degree: theſe circumſtances ſhowed, that their reſiſting them proceeded from vicious temper, or prejudice wil⯑fully indulged; the abſolute futility of their exceptions confirmed it. Was it improper, to warn them of the danger to which this expoſed them? The warning was given in ſevere threaten⯑ings: but it could not be fairly given [275] in another way; and therefore in this ſi⯑tuation, ſevere threatenings had entire propriety. Are theſe ſimilar to the denunciations of impoſtors? In no o⯑ther particular doth it ſeem that Chriſt reſembles them ſo much as in his threat⯑enings: but even in theſe, it only ſeems; there is a wide and eſſential difference. Mahomet threatens men, if they will not believe without any evidence, he employs this engine to terrify men from aſking a proof of his miſſion; this is mere arrogance and effrontery: Chriſt threatens only thoſe who obſti⯑nately and wickedly reſiſted the ſtrong⯑eſt evidence; this was no more than what a real concern for their happi⯑neſs rendered neceſſary.

THIS whole argument will acquire ſtill greater force, if we conſider the nature of Chriſt's anſwers to the objec⯑tions propoſed to him, and of his rea⯑ſonings concerning the truth of his re⯑ligion. [276] His arguments were always ſuitable to the divinity of his character. They were not calculated for merely confounding and ſilencing men; they had a direct tendency to remove their miſtakes; they both enlightened and ſatisfied the underſtanding. They are not in any degree intended to make a ſhow of ingenuity; they always lead to conviction by the ſhorteſt road, with⯑out ſo much as the appearance of any other view. The argument is never deduced from abſtruſe or diſtant prin⯑ciples, it is never carried on by ſubtile and intricate reaſoning: it is always conciſe, clear, and cogent; it is dedu⯑ced from obvious principles, and ſuch as will be moſt readily admitted; it is, in all its parts, level to common capa⯑cities, and proper for begetting imme⯑diate conviction; it is by a happy, but artleſs, addreſs, ſet in ſuch a point of view, that, while it convinces, it both [277] engages the attention, and touches the heart. In the reaſonings by which the truth of Chriſtianity is ſupported in the New Teſtament, there is nothing mean, nothing artificial, nothing in a⯑ny reſpect weak or ſuſpicious. They are at once ſuch as tend naturally to the illuſtration of real and ſtrong evi⯑dence; ſuch as are beſt fitted for over⯑coming the prejudices of men, and working conviction in them; and ſuch as are worthy of a divine teacher. But are all the reaſonings in the New Te⯑ſtament, of this ſort? Are there not ſome, eſpecially in Paul's writings, which appear to be in a conſiderable degree ſubtile and intricate? I will not affirm, that there are none to which this character may be applied. But a great part of the intricacy of ſuch rea⯑ſonings as ſeem moſt to deſerve the character, is only apparent, ariſing from our ignorance of ſome things [278] proper for throwing light upon them, from our affixing mere modern ideas to ſome of the expreſſions employed, or from other cauſes which had no in⯑fluence upon thoſe to whom the apo⯑ſtles wrote. Beſides, they are compa⯑ratively very few; and theſe few are employed, not in proving the truth of Chriſtianity, but for other purpoſes: ſtill therefore the deſcription which has been given, holds generally of the ſcripture reaſonings, and univerſally of thoſe by which the truth of the goſpel is ſupported. But if, among the many conciſe and ſimple arguments for the truth of Chriſtianity, which are con⯑tained in the New Teſtament, one or two intricate and ſubtile reaſonings ſhould be found, they would not be ſufficient to invalidate what we have ſaid; they would rather ſerve to ſhow, that our religion is capable of a defence [279] in every ſtile and manner which has any degree of propriety.

THUS the manner which Chriſt and his apoſtles adopted on occaſion of op⯑poſition and objections, in all the lights in which we can conſider it, not only gives great advantage for the vindica⯑tion of Chriſtianity, but alſo carries on and compleats a ſeparate and col⯑lateral proof of the truth of this reli⯑gion; a proof of it ariſing from this, that its evidences were propoſed, tho' differently in different ſituations, yet always with entire propriety. In Chriſt's manner of ſupporting his miſ⯑ſion, the genuine marks of a divine teacher ſhone forth, but naturally va⯑ried juſt as the caſe required. Cun⯑ning will ſometimes enable a man who only affects a character, to eſcape de⯑tection in one ſituation, in which he has carefully practiſed his part: but [280] if a perſon ſuſtain a character with e⯑qual propriety in oppoſite ſituations, eſpecially in ſudden changes of cir⯑cumſtances, there can be no ſurer proof that it is his natural charac⯑ter.

SECTION VI.
The perfection of the manner in which the EVIDENCES of CHRISTIANITY were propoſed.

ORIGINALLY Chriſt ſupported his miſſion in the ſimpleſt manner, by merely preſenting the evidences of it: oppoſition gave him a natural oc⯑caſion of ſuperadding the argumenta⯑tive manner. By the union of theſe, the proof of Chriſtianity was propoſed in a manner altogether entire and perfect. In order to evince this, little more will be neceſſary, but to bring into one view the ſubſtance of what has been already ſaid. Each of theſe manners has ſome diſadvantages: in the goſpel, one corrects the inconveniences, and [282] ſupplies the defects, which would have attended the other, if it had been uſed alone. Each of them too has peculiar advantages: the goſpel has ſecured thoſe of the one kind, without forfeit⯑ing any of the oppoſite. Had Chriſt confined himſelf to either of theſe manners, it might have been pro⯑ved notwithſtanding, that Chriſtianity is true. This ariſes from the ſingular fulneſs of its evidence, and is indeed a very ſtriking indication of it: but he uſed both, and he uſed each in its pro⯑per place; this makes the divinity of his religion more indiſputable. The manner in which the evidences of our religion were propoſed, may be conſi⯑dered either in reference to thoſe whoſe conviction was intended, or in relation to the character which the employing of it, ſhows Jeſus to have been poſſeſ⯑ſed of. In both reſpects, it is proper and perfect.

[283] JESUS began with ſimply exhibiting the evidence of his miſſion. This was ſufficient for convincing the attentive and the unprejudiced, provided the e⯑vidence was in its nature ſolid: it was in addreſſing thoſe who had not yet ſhown themſelves deſtitute of theſe cha⯑racters, that he contented himſelf with this. He ſaved them the labour of at⯑tending to exceptions which had no weight with them, and ſolutions for which they had no need; he led them to faith by the direct road. But all were not of that diſpoſition; many neglect⯑ed the evidence which he gave, or cal⯑led its force in queſtion: whenever they did, the evidence was pointed out, and ſhown to be concluſive. Objections were formed againſt the evidence: im⯑mediately they were anſwered, and that in ſuch a manner, that men would ne⯑ver have repeated them, if they had, as was certainly incumbent on them, firſt [284] refuted the anſwers already made. The exhibition of the evidence of the go⯑ſpel, without any illuſtration, convin⯑ced many of its truth; by this, that e⯑vidence proved itſelf to be very ſtrong, and ſtrictly natural. Had it been al⯑ways illuſtrated when it was exhibited, there would have been no opportunity given for its ſhowing in this way, how ſtrong it really was; it would have been taken for granted, that its weakneſs or obſcurity abſolutely required all this il⯑luſtration, in order to make it to be perceived. But many cauſes may hin⯑der the ſtrongeſt evidence from produ⯑cing belief in individuals; they did hinder the evidence of the goſpel from bringing all to whom it was exhibited, to believe: in this caſe, it was ſhown by juſt reaſoning, that the evidence was notwithſtanding ſtrong, and that its not prevailing univerſally, was ow⯑ing only to the indiſpoſition of men's [285] minds. A ſimple exhibition of it, ſuc⯑ceeded in convincing many; here its ſtrength was exerted, and, by the ex⯑ertion, diſplayed: on occaſion of the in⯑credulity of others, its ſtrength was ex⯑amined, and, by the examination, juſti⯑fied. If its ſtrength had not been real, it could in neither way have appeared ſo conſpicuous. The generality of man⯑kind are not capable of entering into long trains of argument; they are per⯑plexed by a ſeries of reaſons, objections, and anſwers; they are rendered inca⯑pable of determining any thing. In or⯑der to obtain a rational conviction of the truth of Chriſtianity, they need not attempt what they are unequal to; plain evidence is preſented to them; there is no need of intricate reaſoning to enable them to perceive it: they are deſired only to attend to it; if they do, they will ſuſtain no loſs by not enter⯑ing into the labyrinths of controverſy; [286] if they be but honeſt, it will by its own power force their aſſent. But ſome are prone to argumentation, ready to ſtart difficulties, fond of canvaſſing them, and diſpoſed to ſuſpend their aſſent, till they be cleared. Chriſt often met with ſuch perſons; he liſtened to eve⯑ry difficulty which they propoſed, he gave a patient hearing even to the mereſt cavils; he offered ſolutions of them all; the ſolution had always ſoli⯑dity enough to ſilence the acuteſt, and to convince the impartial that all ought to have been ſatisfied: at the ſame time, the argument exceeded not the com⯑prehenſion of the moſt ordinary man; it never failed to have a ſurprizing, and almoſt ſingular degree of conciſe⯑neſs and perſpicuity. If Chriſt had found no opportunity for this, his revelation would have given Chriſtians no direct aſſiſtance in anſwering objections which might have been afterwards raiſed a⯑gainſt [287] it. The defect would not have been of very fatal conſequence: if the evidence was real, it is enough that it was addreſſed to reaſonable creatures; they had already, by the conſtitution of their nature, faculties proper for di⯑ſtinguiſhing real evidence from ſpuri⯑ous, and for detecting the fallacy of ſuch cavils as prejudice or ſcepticiſm may oppoſe to the former. But even ſo immaterial a defect adheres not to the Chriſtian revelation. Jeſus had op⯑portunities, of preventing objections which might have had a ſpecious ap⯑pearance, if room had been left for them; of anſwering others, and, in anſwering them, of producing princi⯑ples ſo extenſively applicable, that we have not only examples which we may imitate, but alſo materials which we may ſucceſsfully employ, in the defence of our religion. There are very diffe⯑rent characters among men; but Chriſt [288] proved his miſſion in a way ſuited to them all: the manner in which he o⯑riginally proved it, is the fitteſt poſſible for the conviction of the attentive, the candid, and men of ordinary capacity; but he propoſed it likewiſe in a way fit to ſatisfy the ſpeculative, the inqui⯑ſitive, the captious, and the prejudiced. His manner is nicely adapted to uni⯑verſal conviction; the objections muſt be very ſtrong, which can ſhow that there was no real evidence given, where a manner ſo ſuitable to very bright evidence was preſerved, and purſued through all its natural varia⯑tions; there is ſcarce a poſſibility that there ſhould be ſuch objections. That the evidences of the goſpel were given in a way ſo fit, in all reſpects, for pro⯑ducing faith, is a very ſtrong preſump⯑tion, that they are ſufficient, that Chri⯑ſtianity is true, and that infidelity is [289] not excuſeable in perſons of any turn of underſtanding.

IT is not the only excellence of the manner in which Chriſt proved his miſ⯑ſion, that it is equally adapted to the conviction of the moſt oppoſite ſorts of men: it is moreover a natural expreſ⯑ſion of that character which he aſſumed. He ſpontaneouſly and readily exhibi⯑ted evidence in the greateſt abundance. To have done otherwiſe, would have been a ſtrong preſumption that he could produce none; it would have left his claim without any real foun⯑dation; it would have betrayed, either a conſciouſneſs of impoſture, or ſuch an indifference to ſucceſs, as is not conſiſt⯑ent with a real miſſion for any import⯑ant purpoſe. By readily giving evi⯑dence, he ſhows, that he was conſcious of the truth of his miſſion, and of his power to ſupport it; and that he deſi⯑red [290] to ſupport it only by the moſt le⯑gitimate means, that he ſought to bring men to believe, only by a copious and undiſguiſed addreſs to the natural prin⯑ciples of belief; he ſhows, that, with the condeſcenſion eſſential to true great⯑neſs, he was willing to do every thing really neceſſary for promoting the end of his coming. He never of his own accord laboured to ſet off the evidence which he had given. This ſhowed his ſenſe of the ſtrength of that evidence; it ſhowed that he underſtood well in what way the bulk of mankind ought to be addreſſed; it ſhowed that he was free from the artifice by which perſons of a ſubtilizing and diſputatious turn, often confound plain men, and hide the want of evidence from others; it ſhowed that he was remote both from the meanneſs of oſtentation, and from the ſuſpiciouſneſs attendant upon falſe⯑hood and cunning. But whenever the [291] evidence of his miſſion was called in queſtion, he readily defended it, illu⯑ſtrated it, and frequently too made an addition to it. This was a new and well-placed expreſſion of conſcious ſin⯑cerity: it was in this ſituation that rea⯑ſoning and diſputing became conſiſtent with dignity of character; here indeed, true dignity required it; and in the manner of all his reaſonings, dignity was uniformly preſerved. Impoſtors act a part in all reſpects the reverſe of this. In exhibiting evidence, they are very ſparing; by this alone they forfeit all right to credit, and betray their falſehood; to require that we ſhould believe, and yet not to give evidence, is to mock us, and inſult our under⯑ſtandings. They attempt to juſtify their ſparingneſs, by pretending that they diſdain to gratify the perverſe and incredulous: this is a mere affec⯑tation of dignity intended to conceal [292] their inability to ſatisfy a rational en⯑quirer; it can proceed from no better ſource, for dignity is ſo ill put on, that haughtineſs is miſtaken for it. In aſ⯑ſerting that they ought to be believed, in magnifying any appearances of evi⯑dence which they think they have gi⯑ven, they are liberal, they are immode⯑rate. It is in deſpiſing this, that true dignity would have expreſſed itſelf: this is the greateſt meanneſs; it is the ſillieſt vanity, it is the moſt diſingenu⯑ous artifice. They ſupport their cauſe, not by reaſoning, but by declamation; they employ it moſt when they are not among thoſe who oppoſe them: when they are preſſed with objections, they ſometimes divert men's attention from the real queſtion as well as they can, and ſometimes their haughtineſs re⯑turns, and aſſuming the name of maje⯑ſty becoming a divine meſſenger, for⯑bids them to condeſcend to anſwer. [293] Jeſus has not a ſingle feature which is not the oppoſite of theirs: is it poſſible that he ſhould nevertheleſs be one of them? Every part of his manner gives ſome evidence of the divinity of his miſſion, as every point of the ſun e⯑mits a ray of light: when we take in his whole manner at one view, the in⯑dications of divinity reſulting from it, act on the underſtanding with an irre⯑ſiſtible force, like rays collected into a focus, againſt the heat of which no combuſtible materials can be proof.

WE may add to all that has been ſaid, that Chriſt's manner, not only is the fitteſt for the conviction of men, and the moſt expreſſive of the character of a divine teacher, but alſo ſhows the greateſt ſtrength of underſtanding, and the higheſt powers of reaſon. Intellec⯑tual vigour appears in the original ex⯑hibition of the evidences of the goſpel; [294] for only ſolid evidence is exhibited. A perſon of weak underſtanding betrays his weakneſs, not only when he at⯑tempts to purſue an argument through all its ſteps, but alſo by never failing to build on ſome unſubſtantial principle, or to employ a wrong kind, or an im⯑perfect degree of evidence. By preſent⯑ing only ſuch evidence as is ſolid, by appealing only to principles from which concluſive arguments are deducible, ſtrength of underſtanding is diſplayed, as really as by purſuing the argument minutely through the moſt regular train of reaſoning. Indeed not to be able to urge an argument cloſely and particularly, when this is proper, would ſhow an imperfection of underſtand⯑ing. But it is likewiſe an imperfection, not to be able to render an argument convincing, by placing it at once in a ſtriking point of view, without minute⯑ly urging it. In the few inſtances in [295] which it was proper or neceſſary for Chriſt to enter into reaſonings of any length, he gives ſufficient evidence that he laboured not under the former im⯑perfection: all his reaſonings are proofs that he was free from the latter, that he poſſeſſed the oppoſite talent in great perfection; none of them are intricate, very few are particular or minute, they are generally immediate deductions from juſt principles; yet all of them are ſatisfying. This manner is acknow⯑ledged to be a mark of ſuperior pene⯑tration. There are many of Newton's demonſtrations, a ſingle ſtep of which it would require ſeveral propoſitions to evince minutely: this never was ſup⯑poſed to imply any intellectual defect; it ſhows plainly an uncommon reach of thought. In proſecuting an argu⯑ment particularly, imagination receives many aſſiſtances; attention to the in⯑termediate ideas, both facilitates the [296] diſcovery of juſt principles, and leads to a gradual diſcernment of the influ⯑ence which they have upon the conclu⯑ſion. A weak underſtanding needs theſe aſſiſtances. It is vigour of mind that enables a man to conceive and expreſs the whole force of the argu⯑ment, without having recourſe to them. In every argument for the truth of Chriſtianity, urged either by Jeſus or by his apoſtles, that vigour of mind ap⯑pears remarkably. It may be added, that they have ſatisfied themſelves with exhibiting evidence, whenever no more was neceſſary, and have always enfor⯑ced it when that was proper; and all this, throughout an addreſs to man⯑kind continued for years. This is a pitch of excellence which perſons or⯑dinarily attain, only when great natu⯑ral penetration is united with the hap⯑pieſt opportunities of intellectual im⯑provement. But when we conſider [297] how few opportunities either Chriſt or his apoſtles had of attaining it by na⯑tural means, their having poſſeſſed it in ſo eminent a degree, and exerted it with ſo uniform propriety, in very dif⯑ferent, and even contrary ſituations, can ſcarce fail to lead us to conclude, that they owed it to ſupernatural cau⯑ſes, and that they were, as they affirm⯑ed themſelves to be, perſons commiſ⯑ſioned and inſpired by God. In this way, a new preſumption of the truth of Chriſtianity, ariſes from the manner in which its evidences were propoſed.

THUS, in every light in which this manner can be conſidered, it is abſo⯑lutely faultleſs: there is nothing want⯑ing, nothing ſuperfluous, nothing miſ⯑placed. It is throughout an applica⯑tion of evidence, the completeſt, the beſt adapted to the human underſtand⯑ing, and the moſt expreſſive of a di⯑vine [298] original, that can be even ima⯑gined. The preſumptions of the truth of Chriſtianity, which ariſe from this topic, are very ſtrong; they imply ve⯑ry plainly that the evidence which was thus propoſed, muſt have been natural and ſound: they have therefore the directeſt tendency to excite all who have any candour, to the diligent ex⯑amination of it; and the view of them muſt add great ſtrength to the faith of thoſe who already believe the goſpel.

In the moſt finiſhed works of art, there are ſome defects; even in the works of nature, many particulars ap⯑pear exceptionable to a haſty and ſu⯑perficial obſerver. Divine contrivance is ſo deep, and ſo far ſurpaſſes the ſkill of men, that it is reaſonable to expect in every thing which comes from God, ſome circumſtances unaccountable and ſeemingly exceptionable. When fur⯑ther acquaintance teacheth us, that [299] what we imagined a defect, is really an excellence, that what we reckoned a blemiſh, is a beauty, that what we thought pernicious, is highly uſeful; the diſcovery fills us with the moſt a⯑greeable ſurpriſe, ſtrikes us with the livelieſt admiration of the divine wiſ⯑dom, and works the firmeſt conviction that God is indeed the author of the work. Thoſe circumſtances in the manner of the firſt publication of Chri⯑ſtianity, which proclaim its truth, are, in ſome inſtances, ſuch as we would be apt to find fault with, on a ſuperficial view: the perception of their real force, will have the greater effect on this very account; the ſurpriſe which it excites, mixing with our aſſent, will render it the firmer and the more vigorous.

There is no ſubject on which diffi⯑culties may not be raiſed, in ſome of the lights in which it is poſſible to place it. Difficulties have been raiſed with re⯑ſpect [300] to the truth of the goſpel. There are ſome men who have a natural pro⯑penſity to fix their attention upon dif⯑ficulties; and there are moments in which moſt men are apt to conceive difficulties ſtrongly, to be much affect⯑ed with them, and inclined on account of them to doubt of what is ſupported by the directeſt proof. It is ſufficient for recovering men from this ſituation, to reflect on the weakneſs of human underſtanding, which prevents our at⯑taining a perfect comprehenſion of a⯑ny ſubject, and puts it out of our power to give a poſitive account of e⯑very difficulty. To perceive, that thoſe difficulties which occur in the defence of Chriſtianity, ſuppoſing them real, do not infer its falſity; or, that the difficulties which ſeem to preſs it, are not real, but capable of a direct ſolution; contributes ſtill more to ba⯑niſh uncertainty concerning its divini⯑ty. [301] But nothing has a more powerful tendency to compoſe the mind, to place it in complete ſerenity and aſſu⯑rance, to give entire peace in believing, than to obſerve, how many circumſtan⯑ces of the moſt various kinds, concur in proclaiming the truth of the goſpel. When a perſon diſcerns, that its prin⯑cipal evidences, natural and ſtrong in themſelves, are ſupported and confirm⯑ed by collateral arguments, innume⯑rable, and derived from very diſſimilar ſources, he cannot entertain any ſuſ⯑picion that it is not true and divine; he cannot reckon it poſſible that, if it were falſe, there could have been a concurrence of ſo many indications of truth. None of theſe arguments con⯑tributes more largely to the production of this effect, than that which ariſes from the manner in which the eviden⯑ces of Chriſtianity were propoſed. It adds greatly to the ſplendor of that [302] blaze of evidence which overpowers the ſoul when one conceives all the proofs of the goſpel together, which ſuffers him not to doubt that it is from God, which makes all ſmall difficulties and trivial objections to be forgotten as unworthy of regard; juſt as bright ſunſhine cauſes thoſe clouds to diſap⯑pear, which before were clearly viſi⯑ble, and covers the whole face of the heavens with uniform and unbroken radiance.

SECTION I.
The Subject propoſed.

IT is by ſuch friction as ſeems at firſt ſight likely to break it, that the dia⯑mond is poliſhed and receives its luſtre. In like manner, it is by being fretted, as it were, with every difficulty and objection, that truth is made to ſhow the full brightneſs of its evidence. The trial diſtinguiſhes the true gem from the ſuppoſed one, which in the [306] lump promiſed, perhaps, as fair as it: And plauſible falſehoods are often as well received as real truths, till both have been ſubjected to an exact and ſe⯑vere examination; but the oppoſition of argument overturns the former, and renders the certainty of the latter more undeniable.

NO ſpecies of truth has been ſubject⯑ed to a ſtricter ſcrutiny, or tried by ruder oppoſition, than the evidences of our holy religion. As ſoon as this heavenly gem was preſented to the world, both Jews and Heathens fell upon it with ſo great violence, that, if it had had the ſmalleſt flaw, it muſt have been ſhattered into pieces. It has been in the poſſeſſion of the world for many centuries; and numberleſs attempts have been ſucceſſively made, to prove that it is a worthleſs counter⯑feit: but all theſe attempts have only [307] contributed to evince with ſtronger evidence, that it is genuine.

THAT perſecution promoted, inſtead of obſtructing, the progreſs of Chriſti⯑anity, has been very commonly remark⯑ed. Sometimes too, it has been aſſert⯑ed in general, that the oppoſition of unbelievers in the way of argument, has confirmed the divinity of the Chri⯑ſtian religion, and thrown new light upon its evidences. It is worth while to undertake a profeſſed examination of this aſſertion. If it ſhall appear to be true, it will afford a ſtrong preſump⯑tion of the truth of Chriſtianity: it will ſhow, that Chriſtianity gains, not only by being viewed in various lights, but alſo by being narrowly inſpected in every light. That the aſſertion is true, will be beſt proved by inquiring, in what particular ways the oppoſition of infidels has contributed to the illu⯑ſtration [308] and confirmation of the evi⯑dences of the goſpel.

Of the advantages which Chriſtiani⯑ty has derived from oppoſition, ſome are peculiarly owing to the oppoſition of infidels in early ages; others ariſe from oppoſition in general. We ſhall begin with the conſideration of the former.

SECTION II.
The advantages which CHRISTIANITY has derived from the oppoſition of early INFIDELS.

IN the preceeding diſſertation, we have fully explained the manner in which the evidences of the goſpel were at firſt propoſed, and pointed out the excellence of that manner. But this excellence could not poſſibly have been attained, if Chriſt and his apoſtles had not met with oppoſition. All the indications of truth, which it implies, may therefore be juſtly aſcri⯑bed, in a great meaſure, to the oppo⯑ſition of Infidels. If none had raiſed objections againſt the divine miſſion of Jeſus, he and his apoſtles muſt have [310] either confined themſelves to their ori⯑ginal manner of ſimply exhibiting evi⯑dence, or they muſt have ſpontaneouſly illuſtrated and vindicated the evidence. If they had choſen the former, their manner would have indeed contained ſeveral preſumptions of the truth of Chriſtianity; but it would have been in ſome reſpects lame and imperfect, and all the advantages ariſing from their reaſonings, would have been loſt. If they had preferred the latter, this would have deſtroyed all thoſe proofs of their miſſion, which reſult from the ſimplicity of their original manner. It would have likewiſe rendered their rea⯑ſonings of leſs weight than they now are. Oppoſition gives the moſt natu⯑ral occaſion of pointing out the force of the evidence produced, and it gives almoſt the only natural occaſion of an⯑ſwering the objections to which that evidence is liable. It enables a perſon [311] to introduce illuſtrations and defences without any appearance of deſign or artifice. It put it in the power of our Saviour to ſupport and vindicate his claim by argument, as often as any good purpoſe required; and, by giving as many opportunities for this as were neceſſary, it left him at liberty, in all his ordinary addreſſes to men, to pur⯑ſue that original manner which is ſo full of divinity. It made way for a delicate union of oppoſite manners in oppoſite ſituations, which beſtows on his whole manner a degree of perfec⯑tion, and conſequently beſtows on his religion a brightneſs of evidence, un⯑attainable by any other means. Thus the aſſaults of ancient infidels contri⯑buted greatly to the confirmation of Chriſtianity, merely by the influence which they had on the manner of its author in propoſing the proofs of it. But this, tho' very conſiderable, is not [312] the only advantage reſulting from them. This advantage is peculiar to the oppoſition of the contemporaries of Jeſus: but the ſame prejudices and vices which produced that oppoſition, moved ſucceeding unbelievers in the early ages, to contrive new objections againſt the goſpel, or to repeat the former ones. Theſe too have been the occaſions of throwing new light upon the evidences of our religion, and of rendering their ſtrength more conſpicuous.

MODERN Infidels have often endea⯑voured to gain advantage to their cauſe from the unbelief of ſo many in ancient times. ‘"The contemporaries of Chriſt and his apoſtles, ſay they, and thoſe who lived in the next age, had great advantages for examination, and could not fail to perceive the evi⯑dence of the Chriſtian religion, ſo [313] far as it was real: if they neverthe⯑leſs believed not, no wonder that unbelievers ſhould be multiplied in later ages, when the diſtance of time muſt have burdened the evidence with many difficulties additional to thoſe which had force enough to pro⯑duce infidelity at firſt. Nay, the infidelity of multitudes in the earli⯑eſt ages, is itſelf a ſtrong reaſon for our rejecting the goſpel; for if its e⯑vidence had been ſo great as is pre⯑tended, they who had that evidence ſet before them in its full force, could not have been ſo unreaſonable as to perſiſt in infidelity. If they had not found good cauſe for unbelief, if there had not been ſome flaw in the grounds of Chriſtianity, which their favourable ſituation gave them the means of detecting, they muſt have all become Chriſtians."’ If this reaſoning be ſpecious, it is no [314] more. It can have no degree of real force, except it be ſuppoſed that all in thoſe ages, who reſiſted the goſpel, were influenced purely by the love of truth. But this cannot be ſuppoſed. Every perſon knows, that oppoſition to a new doctrine ariſes frequently from very different, and even oppoſite cau⯑ſes. Attachment to opinions which have been inſtilled by education, and confirmed by habit, often produces pre⯑judice ſo inveterate as to hinder men from ſo much as examining opinions contradictory to them, or beſtowing the leaſt attention on any thing that is urged in ſupport of theſe opinions. Ac⯑tuated by it, men obſtinately reject un⯑doubted truths, and can perceive no force at all in the ſtrongeſt arguments. This is notorious from univerſal expe⯑rience: what then can be more unrea⯑ſonable than to take it for granted, that the unbelief of early infidels proceeded [315] only from their diſcovering a real fal⯑lacy in the evidences of the goſpel? But we need not reſt the matter on a gene⯑ral principle: their oppoſition itſelf is ſuch as ſhows that it did actually pro⯑ceed from other cauſes, and that it can⯑not poſſibly afford the ſlendereſt pre⯑ſumption againſt the truth of Chriſtia⯑nity.

We are informed of many of the oc⯑caſions on which both Jews and Gen⯑tiles took exception; and theſe ſhow that they were under the power of the groſſeſt prejudices. How often, for in⯑ſtance, did the Jews oppoſe Jeſus upon no other pretence but this, that it was the Sabbath-day when he healed the diſeaſes of men? This will be acknow⯑ledged to be the moſt abject ſuperſti⯑tion. At Thyatira, the multitude roſe up together againſt Paul and Silas, and the ma⯑giſtrates interpoſed their authority to ſi⯑lence them: from what principle did [316] this general oppoſition ariſe? From ſtrong affection to the idolatry and ſu⯑perſtition of Paganiſm: the accuſation which occaſioned it, was, Theſe men teach cuſtoms which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to obſerve, being Romans ^*. At Epheſus a violent uproar was raiſed againſt Paul: for what reaſon? He hath perſuaded much people, that they be no gods, which are made with hands, ſo that there is danger that the temple of the great goddeſs Diana ſhould be deſpiſed, and her magnifi⯑cence ſhould be deſtroyed, whom all Aſia and the world worſhippeth ^†. With modern In⯑fidels, ſuperſtition is the object of the moſt inveterate hatred; in caſes where it is neither ſo groſs nor ſo indiſputable as in theſe, they affirm that it neceſſa⯑rily blindeth reaſon. Can they then take ancient Infidels for their models? Can they pretend, that the judgment of men ſo deeply immerſed in ſuper⯑ſtition, affords the ſlendereſt preſump⯑tion [317] in favour of the cauſe which they eſpouſed?

Further, from the nature of the objec⯑tions which ancient unbelievers urged, it appears, what were the very reaſons for which they rejected Chriſtianity. If you hold their oppoſition to be of any authority, you muſt maintain, that the declared reaſons of it are ſolid and ſufficient. If you own that their objections were inſufficient, you muſt likewiſe own that they acted an unrea⯑ſonable part in allowing theſe objec⯑tions to prevent their becoming Chri⯑ſtians; for tho' the concluſion ſhould happen to be true, yet if it be embra⯑ced on falſe or abſurd principles, this ſhows as great an intellectual weakneſs, as would appear in adopting a falſe concluſion: and if you allow that their infidelity was unreaſonable, you can⯑not conſiſtently draw any concluſion from it, againſt the goſpel. Take the [318] objections therefore which they mo⯑ved; weigh them fairly; can you ſay that they alone could juſtify the rejec⯑tion of the Chriſtian religion? A mo⯑dern Infidel can ſcarce affirm it; for they proceed on principles directly re⯑pugnant to his moſt favourite maxims. Far from giving countenance, for in⯑ſtance, to the objections of the Deiſt a⯑gainſt revelation in general, they are founded on the contrary ſuppoſition. All ancient Infidels allowed, both that a revelation is poſſible, and that revela⯑tions had been often given; they either believed the Moſaic revelation on evi⯑dences which had been exhibited thou⯑ſands of years before, and tranſmitted through a long ſucceſſion of ages, or they gave credit to the fables, the ora⯑cles, and the preſages of Paganiſm; and it was on principles ariſing from this belief, that they reaſoned againſt Chriſtianity. Will any Deiſt adopt [319] their reaſonings, or affirm that the ſmalleſt deference is due to the judg⯑ment which, on theſe principles, they were pleaſed to form? Can it be ho⯑neſtly affirmed, that to receive either Paganiſm or Judaiſm, and yet reject Chriſtianity, is not partial, perverſe, and inconſiſtent?—The Jewiſh ſcrip⯑tures contained many prophetical de⯑ſcriptions of the Meſſiah; yet the Jews would not acknowledge Jeſus to be the Meſſiah. If modern Infidels will avail themſelves of their authority, it muſt be by maintaining that the Jews could not but underſtand their own ſcriptures beſt, and by concluding that they per⯑ceived that the prophecies were not fulfilled in Jeſus. A very little atten⯑tion to the grounds of their oppoſition will make it evident that there is no room for ſuppoſing this. They appli⯑ed the very ſame predictions to the Meſ⯑ſiah, which Chriſtians underſtand of [320] him; the proofs that they did ſo, are numerous and irrefragable: they un⯑derſtood the fifty-third chapter of Iſaiah, for inſtance, to refer to the Meſſiah; one of their objections recorded in the goſpel^*, is moſt probably founded on a part of that chapter^†: yet they reck⯑oned it incredible, that the Meſſiah ſhould ſuffer and die before he entered into his kingdom. It is in a paſſage of Daniel that the Redeemer of the world is foretold under the name, MESSIAH, which the Jews uſed very frequently; there it is expreſsly ſaid, that he ſhall be cut off ^‡: yet they expected not that he ſhould be put to death. To believe theſe to be inſpired predictions of the Meſſiah, and yet to reckon a mean con⯑dition, ſufferings, and death, incon⯑ſiſtent with the character of the Meſ⯑ſiah, is a degree of abſurdity hardly credible. It makes it plain that they were warped by prejudices, which ren⯑dered [321] them totally blind to the obvi⯑ous meaning of their own prophecies. Their judgment is ſo groſsly perverſe, that it can poſſeſs no authority, nor merit the leaſt regard.—The ſentiments of ancient Infidels concerning the Chri⯑ſtian miracles, can ſerve as little to bring them into diſcredit, or to leſſen their force, at leaſt in the opinion of modern Deiſts. Can we conclude, that, if ſo many miracles had been wrought in confirmation of Chriſtianity as are ſaid to have been wrought, none of thoſe who ſaw them, could have reſiſt⯑ed their force? Can it be inſinuated, that the oppoſition of early Infidels gives any reaſon to ſuſpect that the Chriſtian miracles were fictions? No⯑thing can be more remote from the truth: they who rejected Chriſtianity, owned notwithſtanding the reality of all the miraculous facts to which it ap⯑pealed. On occaſion of the reſurrection [322] of Lazarus. the Jewiſh rulers aſſembled in council, gave a remarkable teſtimo⯑ny to the miracles of Chriſt: Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had ſeen the things which Jeſus did, believed on him: but ſome of them went their ways to the Phariſees, and told them what things Je⯑ſus had done. Then gathered the chief Prieſts and the Phariſees a council, and ſaid, What do we? For THIS MAN DOTH MANY MIRACLES; if we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him ^*. In the ſame public and authentic manner, and af⯑ter the minuteſt examination of it, they afterwards gave teſtimony to a great miracle wrought by Peter and John: Beholding the man which was healed ſtanding with them, they could ſay nothing againſt it: but, when they had commanded them to go a⯑ſide out of the council, they conferred among themſelves, ſaying, What ſhall we do to theſe men? For that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifeſt to all them that [323] dwell in Jeruſalem, and we cannot deny it ^*. Not only on the authority of the New Teſtament and of the writings of Chri⯑ſtians, but alſo by the confeſſion of Jews and Pagans, even in their profeſſed at⯑tacks upon Chriſtianity, it is indiſpu⯑table, that for ſeveral ages the reality of the goſpel miracles was not denied, but in the moſt explicit manner acknow⯑ledged, by all ſorts of unbelievers. You muſt either allow, therefore, that it was perfectly reaſonable to believe, that all the miracles recorded in the goſpel, were really wrought in the manner there deſcribed, and yet that the goſpel is abſolutely falſe; or you muſt grant, that the judgment of theſe men was altogether wrong and incon⯑ſiſtent, and conſequently unfit for ſup⯑porting any concluſion againſt Chriſti⯑anity. But no modern Infidel will chuſe to avail himſelf of the authority of ancient unbelievers, on the condi⯑tion [324] of approving and adopting their judgment. It would ſuit the genius of modern infidelity much better, to re⯑ceive the Chriſtian doctrine without the miracles, than to believe the mira⯑cles and yet reject the doctrine.

From the oppoſition of ancient Infi⯑dels, no preſumption of the falſehood of Chriſtianity can be collected, except ſo far as the reaſons of their oppoſition are reckoned ſolid: but theſe are ſuch as no modern Infidel will affirm to be ſolid; they are palpably weak and in⯑conſiſtent. Will this be aſcribed to want of abilities in the adverſaries of our re⯑ligion, or to the influence of the preju⯑ces which they laboured under? If theſe cauſes can account for the futility of their arguments, yet they leſſen the authority of their oppoſition in the ſame proportion. They lead us to conſider them as weak and prejudiced men, who obſtinately withſtood the goſpel, [325] and yet could produce only inconclu⯑ſive or inconſiſtent objections againſt it, and whoſe judgment therefore can merit no regard. But ſince their reaſon⯑ings are confeſſedly inſufficient, they e⯑ven afford a preſumption for the truth of Chriſtianity. There can be no doubt that theſe men gave the beſt reaſons which they could find, for their unbe⯑lief; if there had been better reaſons, it is highly probable that they would have diſcovered them. They had all poſſible advantages for examining the evidences of Chriſtianity, and percei⯑ving their defects; if their exceptions be notwithſtanding frivolous, the rea⯑ſon muſt be, that there were none of greater conſequence. This is a gene⯑ral preſumption, that the evidences of Chriſtianity are not liable to juſt objec⯑tions, and that therefore its truth is fully eſtabliſhed; and, by affording this preſumption, the oppoſition of [326] early Infidels has contributed to the confirmation of Chriſtianity.

THEIR oppoſition has not only in this manner afforded a general pre⯑ſumption in favour of Chriſtianity; it has likewiſe given additional ſtrength to many of its direct and principal e⯑vidences. The proof of the truth of Chriſtianity from prophecy, derives no inconſiderable acceſſion of force and clearneſs from this conſideration, that the prophecies to which Jeſus and his apoſtles appealed, and which Chriſti⯑ans urge, were underſtood of the Meſ⯑ſiah, by the ancient Jews; it derives the greater acceſſion, becauſe they not⯑withſtanding rejected Jeſus. They re⯑jected him, only becauſe they pretend⯑ed that he anſwered not to the prophe⯑tical deſcriptions of the Meſſiah: they never pretended that he or his apoſtles applied to him any predictions which [327] did not truly relate to the Meſſiah. The predictions themſelves are ſtill ex⯑tant; we have the ſame opportunities of determining, what is the character delineated in them, that the Jews had. Let them be examined as they ſtand: do they naturally indicate ſuch a per⯑ſon as Jeſus was, or ſuch a perſon as the Jews expected? a perſon who ſhould have ariſen about the time when Jeſus lived, or a perſon who has not yet ariſen? This is a queſtion which can be determined only by an attentive ex⯑amination of the ſeveral particular pre⯑dictions, and in which authority has no weight. The Jews had formed an idea of the Meſſiah inconſiſtent with the prophecies which they themſelves applied to him; they were led by it to reject Jeſus; they were reduced to the greateſt difficulties in defending their infidelity; theſe could have been re⯑moved by their denying that ſeveral [328] predictions related to the Meſſiah. Would they not have denied it, if they had found it in their power? But they perſiſted in acknowledging it, tho' the acknowledgment rendered their infi⯑delity abſurd and inexcuſeable. Can there be a ſtronger proof, that it was extorted from them by evidence which they could not reſiſt? Their judgment concerning the general intention of the prophecies, would not have meri⯑ted ſo great regard in any other ſitua⯑tion. The modern Jews apply to other perſons, many predictions which their fathers had univerſally applied to the Meſſiah; and their opinion is urged as an objection againſt the proof of Chri⯑ſtianity from prophecy. But it can have no authority: it is contrary to the uniform judgment of their anceſtors, who were as obſtinate in their unbelief, and as anxious to defend it, as they can be; they have been led to adopt it, [329] only by a determined ſpirit of oppoſi⯑tion to the goſpel, after they found it impoſſible to vindicate their infidelity on any other principles; and, after having made the attempt, they were never able to diſcover any proper ac⯑compliſhment of theſe predictions. Their conduct implies an acknowledg⯑ment, that if the predictions to which Chriſtians appeal, be truly predictions of the Meſſiah, the argument for Chri⯑ſtianity from prophecy, is clear, con⯑cluſive, and indiſputable.

That the miracles recorded in the goſpel, were really wrought, is proved by evidence ſtronger and of more va⯑rious kinds, than perhaps any other ancient facts. Part of that evidence muſt have been wanting, if none in that age had reſiſted the goſpel. The teſtimony of an enemy is one of the moſt convincing proofs: the reality of the Chriſtian miracles is not only al⯑lowed, but in many inſtances explicit⯑ly [330] aſſerted, by the ancient enemies of Chriſtianity, both Jews and Heathens: nothing can add greater ſtrength to the argument from miracles, ſo far as that argument depends on the reality of the miracles. Even when Infidels were moſt eager to depreciate the power by which the miracles of Chriſt were wrought, they could not deny that they were wrought. To what could their acknowledgment of the facts be owing, but to their firm belief of them? and from what could their belief of them proceed, but from their certain know⯑ledge of their truth? Their violent op⯑poſition ſhows that they wanted not inclination to diſpute them; their own⯑ing them notwithſtanding, proves that it was not in their power. Yet it is when a forgery is recent, that men have the beſt opportunities of detecting it: they who had the beſt opportunities of examining the Chriſtian miracles, [331] were forced by the notoriety of their evidence, to own that the relations of them were no forgeries, but authentic hiſtories: to what purpoſe is it then for modern unbelievers to deny their truth? The evidence of their truth was com⯑pleated many ages ago; it extorted the acknowledgment of enemies; their acknowledgment renders the miracles of Chriſt as undeniable as any fact can be, and conſequently renders the truth of his religion, ſo far as it is ſupported by theſe miracles, as certain as it was poſſible to render it.

The quick and extenſive propaga⯑tion of Chriſtianity, is a ſtriking argu⯑ment of its truth and divinity; and it acquires a great acceſſion of ſtrength from the early and continued oppoſi⯑tion of Infidels. That Chriſtianity made ſo great and rapid progreſs in ſpight of the crueleſt perſecutions, adds great weight to this argument; its having [332] ſpread in ſpight of the keeneſt oppoſi⯑tion in the way of reaſoning, adds no leſs weight to it. It ſhows that the ſucceſs of the goſpel was not owing to credulity. It cannot be pretended, that it was embraced merely becauſe its evidences were not examined: the acuteneſs of the philoſopher, and the art of the orator, were employed to confute them: but their ſolidity baffled all the efforts of both: the goſpel roſe ſuperior to all exceptions, it prevailed every where by the force of its conſpi⯑cuous truth. As it could not be cruſh⯑ed by violence, ſo neither could it be overturned by argument.

THE advantages which Chriſtianity derives from the oppoſition of ancient Infidels, extend ſtill farther; their at⯑tacks do not merely confirm ſome of its principal evidences: the manner in which they were carried on, has [333] been improved into a diſtinct argu⯑ment for the truth of Chriſtianity. Its truth may be directly inferred from the teſtimonies and conceſſions of its an⯑cient adverſaries. I intend not to enu⯑merate theſe, or to urge the proof a⯑riſing from them, minutely or at large; for this has been done already^*: but to give a ſhort repreſentation of the force of the argument, will be neceſſa⯑ry for our preſent purpoſe. That the Jews believed the time of the Meſſiah's appearance to be at hand when Jeſus aroſe; that he lived in the period in which the writers of the New Teſta⯑ment place him; that he was put to death at Jeruſalem; that his followers conſtantly affirmed that he had riſen from the dead and aſcended into hea⯑ven, [334] and produced ſeveral evidences of it; that he claimed a divine miſſion, and the character of the Meſſiah, and delivered his doctrine in the name of God; that he taught thoſe doctrines which the New Teſtament aſcribes to him; that he and his apoſtles perform⯑ed many wonderful works in ſupport of theſe doctrines, and communicated to others the power of performing ſi⯑milar works; that his diſciples, after his death, publiſhed his religion thro' a great part of the world, reſolutely encountering the greateſt hardſhips and the crueleſt perſecutions; that, notwithſtanding this, the goſpel, un⯑ſupported by any worldly power, ob⯑tained a reception from multitudes: theſe are the principal facts of the go⯑ſpel hiſtory, and theſe are put beyond doubt, by the confeſſion of the ene⯑mies of the goſpel. Ancient Infidels give the moſt expreſs teſtimony to the [335] truth of many of them: they admit them, and reaſon from them in de⯑fending their infidelity. They often acknowledge the facts which relate to the birth, the life, and the death of Jeſus, and thence draw arguments againſt his religion. They aſcribe his miracles to his ſkill in magic; but, by endeavouring to account for them in this manner, they plainly acknowledge that they were really performed by him. They either directly quote, or profeſſedly hint at, many doctrines, ſentiments, and expreſſions contained in the New Teſtament; they endea⯑vour to turn them to the diſadvantage of Chriſtianity: but by this they ren⯑der it undeniable, that the New Teſta⯑ment contains the very religion which Chriſt and his apoſtles taught. They ſometimes pervert facts, they torture them into a ſhape unfavourable to the goſpel; by this they ſhow, that they [336] could do no more, that it was not in their power to deny them. Sometimes, when they cannot, by any plauſible miſrepreſentation, wreſt them to the diſadvantage of Chriſtianity, they inti⯑mate ſuſpicions of their truth, or they affect to deny them: but they deny them in ſuch a way as indeed confirms them. Inſtead of detecting their falſe⯑hood by legitimate means, they ſhow that they could produce no evidence againſt them. They give us their rea⯑ſons for denying them: but theſe are ſuch as cannot invalidate direct teſti⯑mony for any matter of fact; they are ſometimes built on falſe principles, at other times deduced by manifeſt ſophi⯑ſtry, always precarious concluſions from general topics. To the affirma⯑tions of eye-witneſſes, contradicted by no other witneſſes, corroborated by a long train of connected events, they oppoſe abſtract reaſonings and arbitra⯑ry [337] conjectures. Such attempts to diſ⯑prove any matter of fact, made by thoſe who muſt have had in their pow⯑er, the proper means of confuting it, if any ſuch there were, eſtabliſh the rea⯑lity of the fact even more ſtrongly than admitting it in ſilence. The enemies of the goſpel would not have combated its facts with objections of this kind, if they could have found any of another kind. Such efforts demonſtrate their inclination to overturn theſe facts; yet they are employed only againſt ſome of them: the facts, therefore, which they do not once attempt to deny, muſt be accounted ſo indiſputable, that, a⯑gainſt them, all their ingenuity could not invent any exception. There are ſome facts, perhaps, related in the go⯑ſpel hiſtory, of which they take no no⯑tice: but even theſe are confirmed by the teſtimony which they give to other facts, for they are connected with [338] them, and in a manner implied in them. It is only in matters of fact, that either the acknowledgment or the denial of contemporary perſons is of importance; and in theſe, all ancient Infidels bear witneſs to the goſpel. Their concluſions from the facts, and their conjectures concerning the cauſes of them, are unfavourable to the go⯑ſpel: but they have no authority, they are only matters of judgment or opi⯑nion, which may be freely canvaſſed and rejected; and they give weight to their teſtimony for facts, they render it a teſtimony in oppoſition to their prejudices and their principles; ſuch a teſtimony, nothing but the force of notorious and inconteſtible truth could have extorted from them. The con⯑ceſſions, then, of ancient Infidels ſhow that the hiſtory of the New Teſtament is true. The New Teſtament is no forgery of later ages; it is the original [339] hiſtory of Chriſt and his apoſtles; it was extant from the beginning of Chri⯑ſtianity: it contains the very facts which the earlieſt Infidels mention, the very doctrines which they aſcribe to Chriſtians, the very expreſſions which they quote, or to which they allude. That it is the genuine record of the re⯑ligion which Jeſus taught, all thoſe un⯑believers who had opportunities of judging concerning that point, amply and explicitly bear witneſs. The facts related in it, are ſuch as really happen⯑ed: as long as they were recent, they were ſo notoriouſly true, that even thoſe perſons who would not admit their moſt obvious conſequences, ſel⯑dom attempted to deny any of the facts themſelves, and only expoſed their own prejudice in the few inſtances in which they attempted it. Having been once ſo notorious, they muſt remain for ever indiſputably certain: all mo⯑dern [340] objections againſt them muſt be frivolous: diſtance of time may render the abſurdity of calling them in que⯑ſtion, leſs palpable and ſtriking than at firſt, but the abſurdity itſelf it can⯑not leſſen. On the authority of anci⯑ent Infidels, the facts of the goſpel hi⯑ſtory ought to be held abſolutely incon⯑teſtible: but, if they be true, Chriſti⯑anity muſt be likewiſe true. Ancient Infidels perceived not this conſequence; it is ſurpriſing how they could over⯑look what is ſo obvious: there were, however, principles deeply imbibed by them, which may account for their blindneſs; but it is not neceſſary for our preſent purpoſe to point out theſe. Modern Infidels too urge ſome objec⯑tions which ſeem to go on the ſuppo⯑ſition, that this conſequence is diſpu⯑table; but that they really are not in⯑ſenſible of its force, is plain from the pains they take, and the various topics [341] they employ for overturning the goſpel hiſtory. In truth, no man who firmly believes the whole goſpel hiſtory, can find any difficulty in concluding, that the Chriſtian religion came from God. If the hiſtory be true, the whole of this religion muſt be equally true: the prin⯑cipal doctrines of Chriſtianity, are im⯑plied in the hiſtory itſelf: they are but parts of it: the whole ſyſtem of Chri⯑ſtianity, claims a reception on the au⯑thority of the teacher; the evidence of his authority, ariſes from the very facts recorded in the hiſtory, which, if they indeed happened, render it certain that he came from God.

THUS, if there had not been Infidels in early ages, we ſhould have wanted ſome part of the evidence which we now have, for the truth of Chriſtianity. At any rate, there would have doubt⯑leſs been ſufficient evidence: but this [342] addition is very conſiderable. It is when an impoſture has been ſuffered to go on for ages, before it is inquired into, that it becomes difficult to detect it. In this caſe, the real circumſtan⯑ces which attended its riſe and progreſs, are forgotten; all means of bringing a direct proof of deceit, are ſometimes neceſſarily loſt by length of time: men may ſtill find reaſon to reject it, but it is only becauſe its nature renders it ſuſpicious, becauſe it contains internal marks of falſehood. But there never was an impoſture which eſcaped detec⯑tion, when it was examined at its very riſe: if it was carried on with ſo great ſecrecy and art, as to elude a full con⯑futation, yet there have always occur⯑red ſome poſitive preſumptions of falſe⯑hood. Chriſtianity was examined in its earlieſt infancy, it grew up under the watchful eye of oppoſition; all the ſteps of its progreſs were obſerved with [343] the ſtricteſt attention, by its moſt inve⯑terate enemies: the aſſaults of ancient unbelievers are everlaſting monuments of all this. Nevertheleſs, it was not confuted; there were not even produ⯑ced any direct preſumptions of its be⯑ing an impoſture; nay all attempts to detect it, iſſued in affording, in many ways, new evidence of its truth. If it had been an impoſture, could its fate have been ſo ſignally the reverſe of the fates of all the impoſtures which ever the world knew? The whole que⯑ſtion concerning the truth of Chriſti⯑anity, may almoſt be fairly reduced to this ſingle point: Did ancient Infi⯑dels give full proof that it was an im⯑poſture, by detecting the methods of deceit and artifice, by which it was carried on, and rendered ſucceſsful? If they did not, Chriſtianity could be no impoſture. That all their attempts failed, that they contributed, in con⯑tradiction to their intention, to the [344] confirmation of Chriſtianity, is a poſi⯑tive proof of its truth. If you would, after this, convict it of impoſture by internal characters, they muſt be ſuch as render its truth abſolutely impoſſi⯑ble, they muſt be inſtances either of plain abſurdity or of immorality: any thing ſhort of this, cannot overbalance the evidence of truth ariſing hence, that no impoſture was detected by the moſt laborious and invidious ſcrutiny, on the firſt appearance of Chriſtianity; it is only precarious reaſoning, plauſible ſpeculation, and indirect preſumption, oppoſed to direct proof and indubita⯑ble facts. So great is the advantage which Chriſtianity derives from the op⯑poſition of its ancient adverſaries, that this oppoſition at once affords a ſtrong argument for the divinity of Chriſtiani⯑ty, and renders all internal objections againſt it, of little force, except they amount to a ſtrict demonſtration of its falſity.

SECTION III.
The advantages which CHRISTIANITY has derived from oppoſition in general.

THE advantages of which we have hitherto taken notice, are pecu⯑liar to the oppoſition of ancient Infidels. But, from oppoſition, Chriſtianity has derived advantages of a more general nature. The attacks which have been made upon it by Infidels in every age, have contributed to render its truth the more conſpicuous.

INFIDELS have always urged their objections in a way which ſtrongly im⯑plies the goodneſs of the cauſe oppoſed by them, and which heightens the ef⯑fect [346] produced on the mind, by the di⯑rect evidences of the truth of the go⯑ſpel. It is univerſally allowed, that diſ⯑honeſt methods of defence are preju⯑dicial to any cauſe: they infuſe a ſu⯑ſpicion that it is a bad cauſe; and when they are adopted by all without exception, who patronize that cauſe, the ſuſpicion is rarely groundleſs. Such conduct proceeds from the impoſſibili⯑ty of defending the cauſe by better means. If, then, diſhoneſt arts have been employed by the whole tribe of infidel writers, this will yield a gene⯑ral preſumption, that infidelity is in⯑defenſible, and conſequently that Chri⯑ſtianity is true; a preſumption which will operate powerfully on the princi⯑ples of human nature. But that this has been the conduct of Infidels, is e⯑vident from their writings. Partial and unfair quotations from the ſcrip⯑tures; groſs miſrepreſentations of the [347] nature of Chriſtianity; exaggerations of whatever can be wreſted to the diſ⯑advantage of it; overlooking or ex⯑plaining away what tends to ſupport it; confident aſſertions or arbitrary ſuppoſitions of what it is incumbent on them to prove; demands that Chri⯑ſtians ſhould produce evidence which the nature of the thing admits not, or prove what ought to be taken for granted till it be diſproved: theſe and many ſuch as theſe, are arts of contro⯑verſy made uſe of by all infidel wri⯑ters^*. They have been occaſionally [348] pointed out by the defenders of Chri⯑ſtianity, and fully aſcertained. Many ſpecies of ſuch artifices might be enu⯑merated, and many inſtances collected under each head. But we decline en⯑tering [349] on the detail. Merely to men⯑tion the various arts of ſophiſtry em⯑ployed, would not produce conviction of the juſtice of the charge; and to col⯑lect multitudes of particulars in ſup⯑port of it, would be tedious and un⯑pleaſant. We ſhall, therefore, enlarge only on a few obſervations ſo obvious from the whole tenor of the infidel writings, that there will be no need to quote examples for ſupporting them.

It would be curious to trace the ob⯑jections againſt Chriſtianity, from the earlieſt ages to the preſent time. This connected view of the ſucceſſive efforts of unbelievers, might ſuggeſt many re⯑flections which would confirm our faith. No perſon who has at all conſidered the oppoſition of Infidels in this point of view, can have failed to remark, that they have, one after another, re⯑peated the ſame objections very often, varied perhaps in form, but without [350] being at any pains to confute the an⯑ſwers which Chriſtians have returned to them. That there is no degree of force or plauſibility at all in theſe an⯑ſwers, the moſt confirmed Infidel, if he be not deſtitute of candour, will not be hardy enough to affirm. If they deſtroy not the objections altogether, they certainly in many inſtances weak⯑en them very conſiderably. Yet, with⯑out taking any notice of them, the ob⯑jections are repeatedly urged. The defenders of Chriſtianity have acted an oppoſite part: they take notice of eve⯑ry new objection that is raiſed againſt the goſpel; they at leaſt endeavour to ſhow by a particular examination of it, that it is not ſufficient to overturn the goſpel; they thus provide mankind with the means of judging fairly be⯑tween them and their adverſaries. This difference of manner will be obvious to every perſon who has the leaſt ac⯑quaintance [351] with the controverſy; and a thorough ſcrutiny will render it ſtill more ſtriking. Did ſuch a difference appear between two diſputants in any one inſtance, it would induce every conſiderate ſpectator, previous to a mi⯑nute examination of the ſeveral argu⯑ments produced, to believe that he who uſes the latter method, is the abler, as well as the fairer advocate. But, in the queſtion concerning the truth of Chriſtianity, this difference takes place univerſally: the former manner characteriſeth the defenders of infidelity, almoſt without exception^*; [352] the latter manner is preſerved by Chri⯑ſtian apologiſts, at leaſt by all of them whom ſenſible and rational Chriſtians eſteem. The natural concluſion is, that this characteriſtical difference ariſes from a difference between the cauſes which they maintain: and certainly we will not be diſpoſed to think moſt favourably of that cauſe which leads its votaries to a method of defence, ſtrong⯑ly marked with negligence at leaſt, if not with diſingenuity. An uniform care to avoid entering into a confuta⯑tion of the reaſonings for Chriſtianity, ſeems to imply a confeſſion that they cannot be confuted.

Again, every perſon who peruſes the writings of Infidels, muſt perceive [353] that not only different perſons, but e⯑ven the ſame perſons, employ inconſiſt⯑ent principles in reaſoning againſt Chri⯑ſtianity. Men vary ſo much in their apprehenſions of things, that different perſons, arguing on almoſt any ſubject, adopt incompatible principles. Chri⯑ſtians have ſometimes given advantage to Infidels, by the falſehood of the prin⯑ciples on which ſome of them have built their reaſonings, as well as by the weakneſs of the reaſonings themſelves. Were no more chargeable on Infidels, than that they are in their arguments inconſiſtent with one another, a con⯑cluſion to the diſadvantage of their cauſe, could not with juſtice be inferred. One remark, however, may be made even on this view of the caſe. The miſtaken principles of one Chriſtian writer have been detected and expoſed by other Chriſtian writers, without re⯑ſerve. But Infidels, in diſſolubly leagued [354] together by the ſingle tie of unbelief, ſtudiouſly avoid confuting one ano⯑ther: this conduct ſhows a determined reſolution to ſupport a beloved cauſe by all poſſible means; and the cauſe which inſpires all its votaries with ſuch a reſolution, is not likely to be the cauſe of truth. But what chiefly de⯑ſerves attention is, that there is ſcarce any Infidel writer who, in reaſoning a⯑gainſt Chriſtianity, does not without ſcruple admit principles contradictory to one another. Were this conduct pe⯑culiar to a few, it would only ſhow that certain individuals were weak enough not to diſcern the contradiction, or diſingenuous enough not to own it. But it is ſo general, that one Infidel author of a few pages, cannot perhaps be na⯑med, who is innocent of the charge^*. [355] A good cauſe needs not to be ſupport⯑ed by ſuch means; it does not natu⯑rally put men on the uſe of them. This is not the kind of attachment which truth inſpires; it is the bigotry which error uſually begets. Truth leads [356] forward its votaries in a plain road; it is error that involves men in a la⯑byrinth, and bewilders them in crook⯑ed paths. The principles of the beſt defenders of Chriſtianity, are conſiſtent with themſelves; among all the prin⯑ciples from which its truth is deduced in the New Teſtament, the avowed ſtandard of our religion, there ſubſiſts the moſt perfect harmony.—What has been ſaid, may ſerve as a ſpecimen of the ways in which the evidence of Chri⯑ſtianity has been corroborated by the methods in which Infidels have mana⯑ged their attacks upon it.

BUT the oppoſition of Infidels has contributed, ſtill more directly, to add light and force to the evidences of Chri⯑ſtianity, by the conduct which it has led Chriſtians to purſue. It gives Chri⯑ſtians a natural occaſion to explain the real ſtrength of the evidences of their [357] religion, to point out the ſeveral cir⯑cumſtances from which that ſtrength ariſes, to ſhow in what particular man⯑ner each circumſtance promotes it, and to detect the fallacies of all the reaſon⯑ings which are employed againſt the goſpel. The New Teſtament informs us of a very early inſtance in which oppoſition produced this effect. It led an illiterate perſon, by the mere force of his own underſtanding, without in⯑ſpiration, to a ſolid confutation of an objection againſt a particular proof of our Saviour's miſſion, and to a convin⯑cing explication of the force of that proof. When the council had exami⯑ned a blind man to whom our Saviour had reſtored ſight, concerning all the circumſtances of the cure, they decla⯑red that Jeſus muſt be an impoſtor; be⯑cauſe, in performing it, he had broken the law of the Sabbath; This man is not of God, becauſe he keepeth not the Sabbath⯑day. [358] ^*. They aſked the blind man his opinion concerning Jeſus: he inſiſted, that, notwithſtanding their exception, the miracle proved him to be a prophet ^†. When they ſtill urged that he was cer⯑tainly an impoſtor, the man anſwered and ſaid unto them, Why, herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes: Now we know that God heareth not ſinners, but if any man be a worſhipper of God, and doth his will, him he heareth: Since the world began, was it not heard, that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind: If this man were not of God, he could do nothing ^‡. The force of this reaſoning was ſo irreſiſtible, that it utterly ſilenced the rulers. They con⯑feſſed its force, and ſhowed that they were unable to anſwer it, by betaking themſelves to reproach and violence, the ordinary conſequence of want of argument.

[359] The various objections which have been raiſed againſt the evidences of Chriſtianity, have always produced ſi⯑milar effects. By the publication of them, every exception that can, with any ſhow of reaſon, be taken againſt theſe evidences, is gradually brought forth; every doubt concerning them, is propoſed; every difficulty attending any of them, is ſtated: An opportuni⯑ty is thus given of removing every thing which ſeems to weaken their force, or can hinder the mind from yielding its aſſent to them. Chriſtians have never declined embracing this op⯑portunity: they have readily taken no⯑tice of the arguments of Infidels, and examined them; they have pointed out the falſe principles from which they are deduced, and the ſophiſtical reaſonings by which they are carried on; they have evinced, that, notwith⯑ſtanding them, the evidence of Chriſti⯑anity [360] remains entire. The natural tendency of all this is, that every thing of importance to the proof of Chriſtia⯑nity ſhall be accurately canvaſſed; e⯑very poſſible objection moved, and ei⯑ther directly anſwered, or obviated ſo far as the weakneſs of the human facul⯑ties permits, and ſo far as ſimilar ob⯑jections on other ſubjects can be obvi⯑ated: and this has been, in a great meaſure, the actual effect. In what pre⯑ciſe degree this effect has already taken place, they are beſt qualified to judge, who have deliberately conſidered all that has been ſaid for and againſt Chri⯑ſtianity, and impartially compared the reaſonings on one ſide with thoſe on the other. If a perſon has attended on⯑ly to objections againſt the truth of Chriſtianity, but has been at no pains to learn what anſwers have been re⯑turned to them, or has not weighed the anſwers with the ſame candour as [361] the objections; and ſhould neverthe⯑leſs determine, that all the arguments of Infidels have not been ſolidly con⯑futed, that the ſeveral evidences of Chriſtianity have not been fully vindi⯑cated, after allowing every difficulty and objection its real weight, and that theſe evidences together do not conſti⯑tute a proof of the truth of Chriſtiani⯑ty, perfectly ſuited to the nature of the ſubject, the higheſt that the caſe can poſſibly admit, fully ſatisfying to the underſtanding, and ſuperior, by many circumſtances of advan⯑tage, to the proofs of numberleſs concluſions which are adopted with unreſerved aſſurance; ſuch a perſon is undeniably an incompetent judge; for he is ignorant of many things ne⯑ceſſary for deciding the queſtion with underſtanding. Whether any Infidels have gone through all the examination requiſite for their giving a juſt deci⯑ſion, [362] it muſt be left to their conſcien⯑ces to judge: their writings bear ma⯑ny marks of their having neglected it, of ſome of which we have already ta⯑ken notice. It is certain that many Chriſtians have made a full examina⯑tion; their writings ſhow that they have; and yet they have continued Chriſti⯑ans. This is ſome preſumption, that the evidences of Chriſtianity are alrea⯑dy brought wholly or nearly to the ſtate into which oppoſition to truth tends to bring its evidence; every ma⯑terial objection urged, and fully an⯑ſwered. If any perſon doubts of this, let him examine without prejudice. Whether, on a full examination, every perſon will perceive this to be the ſtate of the controverſy, and find reaſon to become a Chriſtian, I will not take it upon me to pronounce: men are in⯑fluenced in their judgments by ſo va⯑rious principles, that it is impoſſible [363] to ſay, what will be the iſſue of their application to any ſubject. But we may aſſert, that there is no contradic⯑tory inſtance: thoſe Infidels who have boaſted moſt confidently of fair exami⯑nation and deep inveſtigation, have notwithſtanding betrayed either groſs ignorance or wilful inattention, with reſpect to many things moſt eſſential to the evidence of Chriſtianity, and to the vindication of it from objections. But it is by the general principles of reaſoning, that a compariſon ought to be ſtated between the attacks upon Chriſtianity, and the defences of it: and, judging by theſe, nothing can be clearer than that the evidences of Chriſtianity have not, in the courſe of a long and eager controverſy, been confuted; that, on the contrary, all the exceptions againſt them have been obviated by juſt argument, and that conſequently the force of theſe eviden⯑ces [364] has been farther aſcertained and juſtified, than it was at firſt, and new light thrown upon the truth of our re⯑ligion. No argument employed by Chriſt or his apoſtles, in ſupport of their miſſion, has been overthrown by Infi⯑dels. Many of their objections have been proved to be frivolous, all of them to be inconcluſive. Arguments have been advanced for Chriſtianity, which Infidels have not ſo much as attempted to anſwer, and which muſt therefore be held ſolid and legitimate. In con⯑ſequence of the exceptions of unbelie⯑vers, many arguments have been ſhown to advantage, have received new illu⯑ſtrations, and have been proſecuted with greater preciſion and depth. No⯑where can there be found greater con⯑fuſion of thought or weaker reaſoning, than in the writings of Infidels; no⯑where more accurate and unexception⯑able argumentation, than in the an⯑ſwers [365] of Chriſtians. For the truth of all this, we appeal to the works of both. If it be an advantage to Chri⯑ſtianity, to have its evidence clearly explained, fully illuſtrated, carefully vindicated, and traced up to the gene⯑ral principles of human nature, there can be no doubt that it has derived advantage from the oppoſition of un⯑believers.

THEIR oppoſition has not only pro⯑duced a full defence of the evidences of Chriſtianity, but likewiſe occaſioned their being ſet in a great variety of lights. Men differ ſo much in the turn of their underſtandings, that truth muſt be placed in many different atti⯑tudes, in order to its being either con⯑ceived or embraced by all. An argu⯑ment, by being turned into a particu⯑lar form, will often inſtantly ſtrike a perſon on whom it had no influence [366] when it was proſecuted under a diffe⯑rent form. When a man propoſes an argument, in which he has no ſuſpi⯑cion of obſcurity or uncertainty, and againſt which he has no particular ex⯑ceptions in view, he ſatisfies himſelf with expreſſing it in the manner which appears moſt natural to himſelf, or which happens firſt to occur. But when he finds that its force is not per⯑ceived, eſpecially when particular ex⯑ceptions are taken againſt it, he endea⯑vours to ſet it in different lights, and to turn it into every poſſible ſhape, that, in ſome one of them, its force and the futility of the exceptions againſt it, may come to be acknowledged. If an⯑other perſon adopts the argument, he may be able to give it a turn which the former never thought of, and which may render it peculiarly fit for con⯑vincing ſome who would have other⯑wiſe withſtood it. At firſt, the evi⯑dences [367] of the goſpel were propoſed in a very ſimple manner: but the objec⯑tions raiſed againſt them, led Chriſtians to turn them into various ſhapes. E⯑very new objection, and even every old objection urged in a different man⯑ner, gave occaſion to ſome new illu⯑ſtration of the proof of Chriſtianity af⯑fected by it. In how many ſtriking lights, for inſtance, is Origen alone led by the ſeveral objections of Celſus, to exhibit the argument for Chriſtiani⯑ty, deduced from its quick and exten⯑ſive propagation? The reality of the Chriſtian miracles was originally aſſert⯑ed by a naked rehearſal of the miracles themſelves, and of the circumſtances in which they were wrought: but, when objections againſt this evidence were multiplied, they led men to many new methods of repreſenting it. In conſequence of one objection, the weight of the ſeveral real circumſtances [368] attending theſe miracles, was eſtimated, and ſhown to be ſufficient to exclude all ſuſpicion of deceit. Another ob⯑jection led men to examine the preciſe force of that teſtimony by which we are aſſured that theſe miracles were wrought. Other objections have been the occaſions of pointing out the diffe⯑rence between the Chriſtian miracles and thoſe falſe wonders, by compari⯑ſon with which, attempts have been made to depreciate them; of aſcertain⯑ing the nature and degree of that aſ⯑ſent which is due to teſtimony; of at⯑tending to all the principles and pro⯑penſities of the human mind, which can be ſuppoſed in any way to affect our belief of extraordinary or miracu⯑lous facts. The objections which have been ſucceſſively raiſed againſt the con⯑nexion between miracles and doctrines, and the ſeveral hypotheſes which have been contrived for accounting for the [369] wonderful works aſcribed to Chriſt and his apoſtles, without allowing them to be proofs of a divine miſſion, have gi⯑ven occaſion to repreſent that connex⯑ion in almoſt as great a variety of lights, in ſome one or other of which it can ſcarce fail to appear undeniable to eve⯑ry perſon who takes the pains to under⯑ſtand it, and gives ſcope to his natural principles of belief. The excellence of the Chriſtian religion has been called in queſtion; objections of all poſſible kinds, have been formed againſt its doc⯑trines and its laws: the conſequence has been, a diſplay of its excellence in every poſſible point of view. It has been ſhown that it contains no tenet which reaſon can evince to be falſe, no precept which conſcience can diſap⯑prove. It has been ſhown that it re⯑publiſhes a ſyſtem of natural religion, perfectly conformable to the ſoundeſt deductions of reaſon, and teaches it [370] with ſingular purity, perſpicuity, and authority; that its peculiar doctrines not only are conſiſtent with all that reaſon teaches us, but form a well connected ſcheme of principles; agree⯑able to the analogy of nature; for con⯑firmation of which, after they are re⯑vealed, we can diſcover many argu⯑ments; which account for facts, and clear up difficulties in the actual ſtate of things, otherwiſe inexplicable; which convert many dubious conjectures of reaſon into certainty; which fall in with, and ſupport the wavering expec⯑tations of nature; which ſuit the hopes and the fears of mankind; which ex⯑tend our proſpect and brighten our views where the light of nature fails us; which diſcover to us a ſcheme of things, the exact counterpart of that with which reaſon and experience bring us acquainted, and, together with it, ma⯑king up one plan of providence. It [371] has been evinced, that all its doctrines are uſeful and important in the higheſt degree, calculated for the nobleſt end, for promoting the preſent improvement and joy, and the eternal perfection and felicity of mankind, directly ſubſervient to this end, affording motives to vir⯑tue, the ſtrongeſt in themſelves, the beſt adapted both to our conſtitution and to our ſtate, and of the moſt various kinds, fit to lay hold on every princi⯑ple of action, and to influence the moſt oppoſite tempers. It has been proved, that its moral precepts are abſolutely proper, pure, and complete, and its poſitive precepts immediately condu⯑cive to real goodneſs; that its laws aſ⯑certain our duty with the greateſt pre⯑ciſion, and impreſs a ſenſe of its obli⯑gation with the greateſt force, while its doctrines give us the moſt powerful inducements to fulfil it, and provide us with the moſt natural means of ful⯑filling [372] it. Chriſtianity has been compa⯑red with other religions, and with the nobleſt diſcoveries of the beſt philoſo⯑phers, and demonſtrated to be vaſtly ſuperior to them all. In a word, it has been ſhown to have all the excellence which can be derived from ſubſervi⯑ence to the moſt important end, and to have every ſort of excellence conſi⯑ſtent with its being immediately ſub⯑ſervient to that end, every ſort of ex⯑cellence which can ſatisfy the under⯑ſtanding, ſtrike the imagination, or en⯑gage the heart. It is ſufficient, and all which can be reaſonably deſired, that real evidence be diſplayed in one proper light; but when it is ſet in va⯑rious lights, it becomes much fitter for convincing all, and for heightening the aſſurance of each. That the evidence of Chriſtianity has been propoſed in this advantageous manner, the op⯑poſition of Infidels has been the prin⯑cipal [373] occaſion: it has led many diffe⯑rent perſons to ſtate that evidence, e⯑very one in the way which was moſt ſuitable to his own turn of thinking; and different repreſentations of it have been naturally ſuggeſted by the variety of objections urged againſt it.

THERE is a very great difference of abilities among mankind; and they who have the leaſt ſhare, are very apt to make a falſe eſtimate of their own powers. On this account, as well as on many others, when any queſtion is long agitated, many weak arguments will unavoidably be employed. Some Chriſtians have, no doubt, made fri⯑volous obſervations, and uſed incon⯑cluſive arguments, in explaining and ſupporting the evidences of their reli⯑gion, and refuting the objections of un⯑believers. They have appealed to e⯑vidence which could yield no proof of [374] truth or divinity; and they have repre⯑ſented real and juſt evidence in an im⯑proper manner. Were there no oppo⯑ſition, this might not be taken notice of. It ſeems unneceſſary to expoſe the weakneſs of others, when the detection of it can ſerve no good purpoſe: the benevolent only pity it, and the more rigid ſatisfy themſelves with deſpiſing it. But the ſpirit of infidelity fails not to lay hold of every thing of this ſort. However ſparing unbelievers are, in undertaking a regular confutation of ſolid anſwers made to their objections, their writings ſhow, that they are not backward to make all the advantage poſſible of the miſtakes of Chriſtians. When Infidels are awake to obſerve theſe, Chriſtians come likewiſe to have a ſtrong motive to expoſe and rectify the falſe reaſonings of one another; it is conducive to a valuable end; it is neceſſary for preventing their being [375] unfairly turned againſt Chriſtianity it⯑ſelf; and conſequently it is perfectly conſiſtent with the meekeſt benevo⯑lence. By theſe means, the oppoſi⯑tion of Infidels has a very powerful tendency to baniſh inconcluſive rea⯑ſonings from the defence of Chriſtia⯑nity.

It has been often aſſerted, that moſt of the ancient Chriſtian writers uſe ſe⯑veral weak arguments in their apolo⯑gies. Infidels triumph in the obſerva⯑tion, and repreſent theſe inſtances of falſe reaſoning as even ſubverſive of the goſpel. That there are ſuch in⯑ſtances, believers readily acknowledge; and, on account of them, ſome enter⯑tain a much lower opinion of theſe an⯑cients, than can be fairly juſtified from their writings. Suppoſe that many of their ſentiments and reaſonings are ſo weak, that a modern of very mode⯑rate abilities would avoid them; yet [376] an excuſe may be pleaded for this: it is common to them with almoſt all the philoſophers of antiquity. There is not perhaps any difference between ancient and modern writers, more characteriſtical than this; the moderns, when poſſeſſed of any conſiderable de⯑gree of excellence, preſerve an uni⯑formity and equality, in matter, ſenti⯑ment, and reaſoning, which is want⯑ing in the ancients. In theſe latter, there is a ſurpriſing mixture of the fi⯑neſt ſentiments with the meaneſt or the falſeſt, of the juſteſt reaſonings with the ſillieſt cavils. In the writings of Plato, of Cicero, of almoſt any one of the moſt admired philoſophers, innu⯑merable inſtances may be pointed out. If few moderns riſe to their excellence in ſome parts of their works, it is cer⯑tain however that defects and abſurdi⯑ties, ſo groſs as may be found in other parts, are not chargeable on any mo⯑dern [377] author, who has, in the judgment of the world, even reached mediocrity. Whatever defects are obſervable in the Chriſtian fathers, I know few of their apologies for their religion, in which the juſt reaſonings do not bear as great a proportion to the puerile cavils, as in almoſt any work of the ſame length, of any the moſt celebrated ancient. It may be added, that very many of their falſe ſentiments and inconcluſive rea⯑ſonings, were derived from the pre⯑vailing opinions of the times, were common to them with the moſt emi⯑nent of their contemporaries, and be⯑long to ſubjects which are foreign to Chriſtianity, and on which it was not its buſineſs to give them light. This is in reaſon ſufficient for their vindication: and what has happened to their puerilities and cavils, exempli⯑fies the topic on which we are now in⯑ſiſting. Chriſtians have concurred with [378] Infidels in detecting them; they are ge⯑nerally exploded. They would per⯑haps have been abandoned, tho' Infi⯑dels had given no occaſion: but they would not probably have been ſo ex⯑preſsly diſclaimed, or ſo profeſſedly confuted. It often happens, that ve⯑ry exceptionable poſitions are not ſo quickly baniſhed as they ought to be; there will always be ſome perſons inju⯑dicious enough to adopt the weakeſt things that have been advanced by o⯑thers: but this happens on all ſubjects, and can on no ſubject be juſtly aſcri⯑bed to any other cauſe, but the folly of theſe individuals. It is no wonder that it ſometimes happens likewiſe with reſpect to the evidences of Chriſtianity. But the oppoſition of Infidels has a ve⯑ry ſtrong tendency to make all ſenſible Chriſtians extremely cautious in chu⯑ſing their weapons, wary in examining the propriety of every principle on [379] which they build, attentive to the ſound⯑neſs and ſtrength of every argument which they urge, ſcrupulous about the truth of every deduction which they make; in a word, careful that the de⯑fences which they offer for their religi⯑on, be in all reſpects beyond reaſonable exception. A ſiege not only proves the ſtrength of ſome parts of a fortification, but alſo diſcovers the weak parts, and ſhows what eminences command, or give advantage againſt any part of it; and thus ſuggeſts the neceſſity and the means of improving what is inſuffici⯑ent, and removing what is dangerous, ſo that the whole may become ſtronger than before. In like manner, while the attacks of Infidels give fuller convic⯑tion of the ſolidity of the proof of Chri⯑ſtianity in general, and of the force of many of the particular arguments uſed in ſupport of it, they at the ſame time expoſe the frivolous arguments which [380] the weakneſs of individuals has intro⯑duced, lead to the ſubſtitution of better in their place, and to the removal of all the rubbiſh by which the defence of Chriſtianity was obſtructed. Falſe prin⯑ciples, which have been injudiciouſly adopted, are laid aſide; lame reaſon⯑ings from true principles, are abandon⯑ed. When the oppoſition of Infidels is continued for a conſiderable time in enlightened ages, the natural reſult is, a diſplay of the ſeveral evidences of Chriſtianity, and a vindication of it from all objections, more pure and un⯑mixt, more conſiſtent, and more uni⯑formly ſolid, than could have otherwiſe been expected. By the weakneſs of hu⯑man nature, and the partial and diſ⯑cordant views of men, this effect will be hindered from taking place all at once. An entire defence of Chriſti⯑anity againſt all kinds of objections, and in reſpect of all its evidences, e⯑qually [381] unexceptionable in every part, is a work too large and multifarious for the abilities of moſt men. But there are ſeparate defences of its ſeveral dif⯑ferent evidences, each of which is ab⯑ſolutely unexceptionable, and all of which put together may form a com⯑plete and faultleſs apology for our re⯑ligion. Nay, there are general defen⯑ces of it, conſidered in every point of view, as uniformly ſolid as any work on any ſubject of the ſame compaſs and variety. When we look back, and obſerve how great progreſs has been made in this argument within a ſhort period paſt, a much purer and com⯑pleter defence of the truth of our reli⯑gion, than yet exiſts, will not appear too much to be expected from the con⯑tinuance of the efforts of unbelievers, in an age affording all advantages for every branch of learning, and encou⯑raging freedom of inquiry. But even [382] before the tendency of oppoſition to make all weak reaſonings be univerſal⯑ly abandoned, have time to take entire effect, the cenſures of them which it produces, give men of abilities the means of ſelecting for themſelves ſuch proofs as are valid, without a mixture of any others. A man who has not ge⯑nius enough to invent the ſtrongeſt ar⯑guments on a ſubject, yet has often judgment enough to prefer them to the weaker, when both are ſet before him. It is a great advantage to have a large collection of arguments, and of exceptions againſt them, in our view at once: the compariſon aſſiſts our choice, and enables us to reject many things with which we would have been ſatisfied, if we had not ſeen all.

THE rejection of which we have been treating, is not confined to things abſolutely weak and frivolous; it ex⯑tends [383] to all ſuch principles and argu⯑ments, however plauſible or ingenious, as are in any the leaſt degree excep⯑tionable. A man is not always aware of every difficulty affecting either the principles on which he founds his ar⯑guments, or his reaſonings from theſe principles: And different men exami⯑ning a ſubject without any knowledge of each others ſentiments, ſeldom fail to view it in different lights. From theſe cauſes it proceeds, that Chriſti⯑ans, even of the greateſt abilities, have explained the ſeveral evidences of their religion, on different principles, and in different ways. The oppoſition of Infidels gives occaſion to a communica⯑tion of ſentiments among Chriſtians. One enjoys the labours of his predeceſ⯑ſors: he can obſerve to what difficul⯑ties any of their principles have been liable, and guard againſt them; what fallacies have been chargeable on any [384] of their reaſonings; and either, by ſet⯑ting the argument in a more ſtriking light, ſhow them to be imaginary; or, if they be real, correct them. Infidels will canvaſs the defects at leaſt, of all the different hypotheſes adopted. In con⯑ſequence of their eagerneſs to take all advantages, Chriſtians likewiſe will be ready to obſerve them. The blemiſhes of each will be gradually diſcovered, and at length acknowledged; and the argument will be ſtated in ſuch a way as to ſtand clear of them all. This may be exemplified in the two principal e⯑vidences of our religion. Tho' all Chri⯑ſtians agree that the wonderful works aſcribed to our Saviour, are properly miracles, yet they have given different definitions of a miracle. Some have a⯑dopted definitions, which, once admit⯑ted, render the argument from mira⯑cles very ſhort and obvious: others have preferred ſuch definitions as in⯑deed [385] leave the deduction from them ſomewhat more intricate, but will be more readily admitted. The ar⯑gument from miracles, ſo far as Chri⯑ſtianity is concerned, may perhaps be rendered concluſive on any definition of a miracle, that has the ſmalleſt de⯑gree of propriety. It would be an ad⯑vantage, however, that ſome one un⯑exceptionable definition were univer⯑ſally received. The oppoſition of Infi⯑dels leads to a ſcrupulous examination of every one that is offered, and has thus a ſtrong tendency to ſuggeſt a de⯑finition in all reſpects blameleſs, and to obtain it ſo univerſal a reception, that only men of a very peculiar caſt of mind ſhall refuſe to adopt it. The writings of Chriſtians ſhow, indeed, that they are already brought to agree very generally in every material part of the deſcription of a miracle, that they differ only in ſome circumſtances [386] of ſmall importance. They have ſo far given up all extremes, that, taking that in which they agree for the notion of a miracle, there is no difficulty in pro⯑ving, either that our Saviour's works were truly miracles, or that ſuch mira⯑cles as his, prove a divine miſſion. In like manner, Chriſtians have differed very conſiderably in their explications of the prophecies of the Old Teſtament, and in the principles on which they ſhow the application of many of them to Jeſus. Some, conceiving nothing peculiar to the prophetic ſtile, have thought it neceſſary to maintain, that the ſeveral prophecies were intended of him in their ſole literal ſenſe; and, in their eagerneſs to maintain this, they have ſtretched particulars, and in⯑troduced arbitrary ſuppoſitions, and rules of interpretation ſcarce defenſi⯑ble. Others, aſcribing peculiar quali⯑ties to the ſtile of prophecy, have al⯑lowed [387] that ſome of the prophecies re⯑lating to the age of the Meſſiah, predict it in an indirect and allegorical man⯑ner, prefiguring it by other analogous events, ſpeaking of it along with theſe, or repreſenting it by various types; but they too have ſometimes been un⯑able to build their doctrine on ſuch principles as might give it entire ſoli⯑dity and firmneſs. The former have been led to ſuppoſe corruptions with⯑out evidence, and inſtances of incohe⯑rence without neceſſity: the latter have conſidered predictions as applicable, in ſome degree, to other events, which were intended of the Meſſiah alone. Infidels have not failed to triumph in the diverſity of ſuch opinions, and to accumulate againſt each of them, all the difficulties to which it was liable. Chriſtians too have, without reſerve, ex⯑amined both hypotheſes, and endea⯑voured to find out the truth. In the [388] courſe of the examination, the difficul⯑ty has been in a great meaſure remo⯑ved. It has appeared that, when men ſeemed to eſpouſe the moſt oppoſite principles, they often differed only in words; and that, ſo far as their differ⯑ence was real, it proceeded chiefly from their explaining principles juſt in them⯑ſelves, in an improper manner, or from their extending them too far. It has been fairly proved, not only that Chriſtians apply the ancient prophecies to the ſame events, and in the ſame way as the Jews applied them before their fulfilment; but alſo, that this ap⯑plication is perfectly agreeable to the natural genius of prophetic writing; that it is reducible to as fix'd general rules as any ſpecies of criticiſm whate⯑ver; that theſe rules ariſe from princi⯑ples founded in the nature and deſign of the Moſaic diſpenſation, in the un⯑queſtionable manners and uſages of the [389] times when the prophecies were pro⯑nounced, nay in the very nature of language, and juſtified both by the hi⯑ſtory and by the philoſophy of its riſe, progreſs, and gradual improvements. In a word, it has been ſhown, that the interpretation of prophecy is, as much as any thing elſe, reducible to a regu⯑lar and conſiſtent ſyſtem, built on the moſt rational and ſolid principles; and that the difficulties with which it ſeem⯑ed to be preſſed, aroſe only from mens having conceived that ſyſtem imper⯑fectly, and are therefore chargeable only on the weakneſs of individuals, but do not in the leaſt diminiſh the real force of this evidence of our reli⯑gion.

WHEN objections are raiſed againſt Chriſtianity, which ſeem to be deduced from deep and ſolid principles, and to be purſued by cloſe reaſoning, which [390] are therefore very plauſible, and make a great ſhow of ſtrength; the weak are alarmed, as if the truth were in dan⯑ger of being overthrown. The fear is vain: theſe are only the violent rubs which the natural ſolidity of the dia⯑mond renders neceſſary for giving it its proper luſtre: a much ſlighter touch would give a ſofter ſtone the higheſt poliſh of which it is ſuſceptible, or would perhaps even break it into pieces; but were the diamond tried with weaker friction, it would never diſplay all its brightneſs, nor would it be ever known how ſolid and how ſtrong it is. When only trivial objections are moved againſt a truth, they ſcarce ſeem to require any anſwer at all; at any rate, the anſwer is obvious, a ſmall de⯑gree of attention is ſufficient for re⯑moving them, and they excite not to a thorough examination of the ſubject; when they are confuted, the confuta⯑tion [391] contributes very little to ſhow the ſtrength of the argument againſt which they were directed. On the contrary, ſtrong objections cannot be removed without a careful examination of the ſubject, without ſtrict attention to the principles from which they are dedu⯑ced, and accurate knowledge of the ſciences to which theſe principles be⯑long: and the view of ſtrong objec⯑tions leads the mind to give the neceſ⯑ſary application. But intenſe appli⯑cation of mind beſtows uncommon vi⯑gour on the exerciſe of all the faculties, and enables a man to diſcover truths, which otherwiſe he would never have ſo much as conjectured. When, there⯑fore, intenſe application of mind, and the invigorated exerciſe of underſtand⯑ing thence reſulting, are employed a⯑bout the evidences of Chriſtianity, they naturally produce a diſplay of the full force of theſe evidences, and an inve⯑ſtigation [392] of the profoundeſt ſources of them. The ſtronger the objections are, the more ſtrongly they prompt men to the exertion of their powers; and, as ſoon as they are anſwered, the more conſpicuous the ſolidity of the eviden⯑ces of Chriſtianity becomes, ſince even by ſo formidable objections they are not overcome. It requires abilities to anſwer a ſtrong objection: but to thoſe who have the neceſſary abilities, a ſtrong objection points out the road which leads to a proper anſwer. The cavils of dulneſs ſerve no other purpoſe but to perplex a ſubject, and involve it in confuſion: but even the errors of true genius give hints of farther diſco⯑veries, by proſecuting which they may be corrected. This obſervation might be confirmed by many inſtances on all kinds of ſubjects: I ſhall give only one on a ſubject nearly allied to the preſent theme; the theory of evidence. [393] The firſt attempts of philoſophers a⯑mounted to little more than the taking notice of ſome of the characters of thoſe arguments which in fact produce belief, and of ſome of the rules by which ſuch arguments may be con⯑ſtructed. By degrees, a greater variety of concluſive forms of ſyllogiſms were pointed out, and the rules for diſtin⯑guiſhing theſe from mere ſophiſms, were rendered more preciſe and determinate. At length, genius, diſdaining to be confined to the mere mechaniſm of rea⯑ſoning, ſet about inveſtigating the ge⯑neral principles, and the different kinds of evidence. The difficulty of the ſubject, joined to an exceſſive de⯑ſire of ſimplicity, rendered the firſt attempts imperfect. From their im⯑perfections, ſucceeding philoſophers were led into concluſions which ſub⯑vert all belief and introduce ſcepticiſm. But theſe concluſions being deduced [394] with great ingenuity, their very errors point out in ſome meaſure where the fallacy lies, and ſuggeſt the means by which a juſter theory may be eſtabliſh⯑ed. Whatever diſcoveries there have been on this head, are in a conſidera⯑ble degree owing to the preparation made for them, by the acuteneſs of thoſe who have fallen into capital miſtakes, and have been hit upon by only car⯑rying to a greater length, and purſuing with greater caution, the very method of inveſtigation of which they had ſet an example. In like manner, every objection truly ingenious, urged a⯑gainſt any of the evidences of Chriſti⯑anity, has always ſtarted hints, the proſecution of which leads not only to a ſatisfying anſwer to that particular objection, but alſo to a clearer view of the principles from which the ſtrength of thoſe evidences ariſes. Thus ſtrong objections tend to produce proportion⯑ably [395] ſtrong defences of Chriſtianity, both by exciting to an intenſer appli⯑cation, and a more vigorous exertion of underſtanding, and by opening a way for deeper diſcoveries concerning the nature and force of the evidences of that religion. In aſcribing this ten⯑dency to ſtrong objections, we ſpeak the language of experience. Every age, ſince the publication of the goſpel, has witneſſed the truth of it; every new aſſault of infidelity has given occaſion to new and ſtronger defences of Chri⯑ſtianity. Moſt of the objections, for example, that have been raiſed againſt the credibility of the Chriſtian miracles, have only pointed out ſome ſeparate circumſtances which ſeemed to weaken or to deſtroy part of the poſitive proof of their reality. It has indeed been always pretended, that every the moſt frivolous objection ſubverted their cre⯑dibility altogether: but this is mere [396] aſſertion, in no way juſtified by the real ſtrength of the objections. Moſt of the anſwers returned, only ſhowed that the objections had not the weight aſcribed to them, that there was ſuffi⯑cient evidence, notwithſtanding them, of the reality of the Chriſtian miracles: and ſuch anſwers were all that the ob⯑jections required, and all that they na⯑turally led to. If, on occaſion of them, any of the general principles on which the evidence of theſe miracles depends, were pointed out, this was not ſo much the reſult of the objections urged, as the effect of uncommon penetration in particular men. But ſome objec⯑tions of greater depth have been raiſed againſt miracles, and propoſed with more than ordinary acuteneſs: their incredibility has been deduced from an ingenious theory of evidence, and from this has ſeemed to derive a conſi⯑derable degree of ſolidity^*. This view [397] of the matter has led naturally to an inveſtigation of the foundation of that evidence which belongs to matters of fact; it has led to an examination, whe⯑ther the evidence of teſtimony ariſes ſolely from our experience of the vera⯑city of mankind, or whether teſtimony is, independent of experience, a natu⯑ral cauſe of belief? it has led to a proof that, ſince the latter is the caſe, the credibility of the Chriſtian miracles a⯑riſes from original and unalterable qua⯑lities of human nature. It is thus not only ſhown that we muſt give credit to theſe miracles, but explained alſo to the ſatisfaction of the moſt inquiſitive, whence it ariſes that we muſt^*. To place the evidences of Chriſtianity in this light, to trace them up to their ſource, to deduce their force from ul⯑timate qualities in the human mind, cuts off at once multitudes of particu⯑lar [398] objections againſt them: it has as great advantages above any other kind of vindication of them, as a direct de⯑monſtration in mathematics has above an indirect one.

It is ordinary for Infidels, to aſcribe their objections againſt Chriſtianity to philoſophy, and to repreſent them as the effects of deep reſearches into the ſciences. There is ſome colour for the pretence; but it is ſuch as, when tho⯑roughly examined, will contribute lit⯑tle to its credit. In the firſt ſtage of philoſophy, when it contains only the natural hiſtory of things, with a few general concluſions obviouſly ariſing from facts, it falls in with the common ſenſe of mankind, and it will lead phi⯑loſophers to judge of the evidences of religion, in the ſame way with an or⯑dinary man of good ſenſe. When men endeavour to raiſe philoſophy from this ſtate of imperfection, and to inveſtigate [399] more general principles, they will be able to accompliſh it only in part, and their concluſions may contain ſome⯑thing favourable to irreligion, ſcepti⯑ciſm, and infidelity. But when men puſh their inquiries ſtill farther, ren⯑der their concluſions more accurate, and their theory more perfect, philo⯑ſophy loſes every thing of a pernicious tendency; it appears to be altogether friendly to religion, and by the depth and the unexceptionable juſtneſs of its principles, it renders its evidence the brighter, and ſupports it the more powerfully. Some ſteps of this pro⯑greſs, as many as are neceſſary for ſhowing it to be natural, may be ob⯑ſerved in every part of philoſophy: and in thoſe parts of it, which have al⯑ready arrived at a conſiderable degree of perfection, natural philoſophy for inſtance, this whole progreſs has been exemplified. To every perſon who [400] examines them, it will appear that thoſe objections of ancient Infidels, and even of unbelievers of the laſt age, which ſeemed to have the deepeſt foun⯑dation in philoſophy, were built only on ſome falſe or imperfect ſyſtem of philoſophy, which has been exploded in conſequence of new diſcoveries in the ſciences. The preſent race of In⯑fidels boaſt much of their philoſophic ſpi⯑rit, and to it aſcribe all their oppoſition to the goſpel: but if their objections truly ariſe from philoſophy in the ſtate in which it now is, it is only becauſe it is hitherto in an imperfect ſtate; a ve⯑ry few improvements in the ſciences will ſhow, that unbelievers either poſ⯑ſeſs the philoſophic ſpirit only in a ſu⯑perficial degree, or are perverted by falſe and crude theories; and that, in order to their perceiving the truth of Chriſtianity, they need no more but to correct their errors in the ſciences, [401] and penetrate deeper into the princi⯑ples of true philoſophy.

THE oppoſition of Infidels not only produces a full diſplay of the leading evidences of the goſpel, and a thorough inveſtigation of the principles from which they derive their force; but alſo leads Chriſtians to diſcover additional preſumptions and collateral proofs of the truth of their religion. Our Sa⯑viour and his apoſtles profeſſedly urged only the moſt direct evidences of the goſpel. There are many particulars in its ſtructure, and many circumſtan⯑ces attending it, which truly indicate its divinity, but which are not applied to the confirmation of it, in the New Teſtament. It only ſupplies the ma⯑terials from which ſuch arguments may be collected by reflection; it only ſug⯑geſts the topics from which ſuch pre⯑ſumptions may be deduced. The op⯑poſition [402] of Infidels has contributed greatly to make Chriſtians attentive to every thing of this kind, and has led them to proſecute many collateral proofs of Chriſtianity, with great di⯑ſtinctneſs and energy. It forces Chri⯑ſtians to ſtudy every part of their reli⯑gion carefully, that they may defend it againſt the objections of its enemies: and when they ſurvey it on every ſide, and view it in every light, they diſco⯑ver many ſtrong indications of its divi⯑nity, which undeniably belong indeed to Chriſtianity, but might for ever have eſcaped their notice, if they had not been rouſed by oppoſition, to extraor⯑dinary accuracy in examining it. Be⯑ſides, there are many things which have at firſt ſight the appearance of ob⯑jections againſt Chriſtianity, but which, when they are thoroughly examined, turn out very ſtrong preſumptions of its truth. Infidels, taking theſe in the [403] moſt obvious point of view, have often urged them as formidable objections: this has excited Chriſtians to ſearch deeper into them, and, by purſuing them through their remoter conſe⯑quences, to ſhow that they are real confirmations of the goſpel. Further, when one preſumptive argument for Chriſtianity, is diſcovered, the proſe⯑cution of it often naturally ſuggeſts o⯑thers; as one improvement in any ſci⯑ence generally opens a way for new improvements. Should the oppoſition of Infidels ceaſe for ever, the additions which they have long ago been the oc⯑caſions of making to the proofs of Chri⯑ſtianity, will gradually lead forward to the view of many other confirmations of its truth. Very early apologies for the Chriſtian religion, afford inſtances of collateral arguments for its truth, ſuggeſted by ſuch means. Later wri⯑ters have pointed out ſeveral evidences [404] of the ſame ſort, which ariſe from cir⯑cumſtances eſſential to the Chriſtian re⯑ligion, or implied in the ſcripture hi⯑ſtory, and which greatly corroborate the direct and principal evidences of the goſpel. Theſe had not appeared at all, or had appeared but faintly to the ancient apologiſts, on the ſlighter attention which the feebler efforts of the old unbelievers awakened in them: but the repeated and invigorated at⯑tacks of modern Infidels have excited attention ſufficient for the diſcovery of them, and have even in many inſtances ſuggeſted them^*. There are, no doubt, many circumſtances of this ſort, which have not even yet been profeſ⯑ſedly urged; the longer and the more [405] minutely Chriſtianity is canvaſſed, the more indications of divinity, it will be found to contain. But, as the matter ſtands already, there is not one of its principal evidences which has not been ſhown to be ſupported and confirmed by collateral preſumptions. This is of very conſiderable moment. The e⯑vidence of Chriſtianity is of the proba⯑ble kind; and in every probable argu⯑ment, the ſtrength of the evidence de⯑pends not only on the ſtrength of each ſeparate probability, but alſo on the number of probabilities. Any new preſumption makes an addition to the evidence, often a greater addition than in proportion to its own force, by fal⯑ling in with the others, and compleat⯑ing a connected train of circumſtances. Nay, there are inſtances in which the want of a ſingle circumſtance, ſeeming⯑ly of no great importance by itſelf, would deſtroy the whole evidence, by [406] breaking one link in the chain. But preſumptions, each of which alone is very weak, may, by being numerous and by tallying exactly with one an⯑other, compoſe a proof whoſe force is irreſiſtible, and which begets the high⯑eſt poſſible degree of conviction, the firmeſt and the moſt indubitable aſſu⯑rance. Let the ſeveral direct eviden⯑ces of the truth of Chriſtianity, together with all the additional preſumptions by which it has been ſhown that each of them is corroborated, be attentively conſidered in their natural order and dependence; and then let impartiality pronounce, whether the proof of Chri⯑ſtianity is not indubitable and irreſiſti⯑ble.

IT deſerves to be mentioned, that the oppoſition of Infidels produces an effect which makes ſome real addition to the original evidence of Chriſtianity: [407] it gives Chriſtians an opportunity of bearing teſtimony to their religion. The profeſſion of Chriſtianity, when it meets with no oppoſition either by force or by argument, can ſcarce be regarded as bearing teſtimony to it. It may be only an indolent acquieſcence in the principles which education has inſtilled, an unthinking aſſent to the e⯑ſtabliſhed faith, or an implicit compli⯑ance with the faſhion of the times. But to adhere to Chriſtianity in the face of perſecution, to perſiſt in the belief, or undertake the defence of it, when at⯑tempts are made to ſubvert it by rea⯑ſoning, is an authentic teſtimony of our firm perſuaſion of its divinity. Mere authority of fallible men, is far from being a ſufficient ground for our be⯑lieving any doctrine: yet experience ſhows that it has ſome force, and rea⯑ſon allows that it ought to have ſome force. All men, even they who moſt [408] expreſsly diſclaim regard to authority, are ready to value themſelves on great names who have held the ſame opinions with themſelves. They are conſcious that the authority of ſuch names adds ſome credit to their own tenets; and therefore they eagerly ſeize every han⯑dle for repreſenting men of eminence, as of their party. Infidels themſelves are not averſe from this: they never miſs an opportunity of filling their works with quotations from ſuch Chri⯑ſtian writers as have advanced any ſen⯑timents or principles which they think may be turned to the advantage of their cauſe; they boaſt of the concurrence of theſe in their opinions: on very ſlender pretences, they have often laid claim to perſons who were by no means unbelivers. In every caſe, when we have communicated our opinions to others, and found them approved by them, we thence acquire additional [409] aſſurance of their truth. There muſt be a real foundation in human nature for a deference to authority, which is ſo ſtrictly univerſal. Regard to autho⯑rity may very readily become exceſ⯑ſive, it often does: but when it is not exceſſive, when it is moderate and du⯑ly regulated, it is a natural and rea⯑ſonable foundation for ſome degree of aſſent. When a perſon of abilities, one eſpecially who is remarkable for juſt reaſoning, has examined an opinion carefully, and after examination holds it, this gives a preſumption that he found it fully proved; we immediately conclude that, if there had been any defect in its evidence, his acuteneſs would have very probably enabled him to diſcover it. This alone is far from being a full proof of the truth of an o⯑pinion: but it affords a real, frequent⯑ly a ſtrong, probability for its truth. It may be ſet aſide or overbalanced in [410] many different ways: but it is a real preſumption which, till it be actually deſtroyed, ought to have ſome degree of weight with every man. When it is joined to other evidences, it always makes ſome addition to their force. Suppoſe a man to have fairly examined the evidences of Chriſtianity, accord⯑ing to the beſt of his abilities, and in conſequence of that examination to be⯑lieve it; when he finds that great num⯑bers of perſons, many of them men of the higheſt abilities, have likewiſe be⯑lieved it, and given teſtimony to it, this will produce, at leaſt, greater con⯑fidence in his own judgment, and make him leſs ſuſpicious that he may poſſibly be miſtaken; it will by theſe means contribute to ſtrengthen his faith.

THE brightneſs with which the evi⯑dence of the Chriſtian religion ſhines, will always bear a proportion to the [411] purity in which that religion is pre⯑ſerved. It may be ſo much corrupted, that the compounded, adulterated form which aſſumes the name of Chriſtiani⯑ty, cannot be defended. Chriſtians have in many inſtances loaded their religion with abſurdities to which rea⯑ſon cannot be reconciled, and which, by being confounded with the goſpel, obſcure its evidence. Corruptions of Chriſtianity ſtain its evidence, as it were, with a dim varniſh, which is of the more dangerous conſequence, be⯑cauſe it is not ſuſpected to be a var⯑niſh, but miſtaken for the genuine co⯑lour, and even reckoned by ſome the moſt beautiful part of the Chriſtian ſy⯑ſtem. The oppoſition of Infidels has a tendency to prevent the corruption of Chriſtianity, and to lead Chriſtians to reject by degrees all ſuch adulterations as have already been admitted. It was after Chriſtianity had been pretty much [412] eſtabliſhed, it was when the profeſſors of it were little expoſed to the obſerva⯑tion of Pagans, or to oppoſition from them, that the corruptions of Popery invaded the church: it was in ages of darkneſs and ignorance, when every thing paſſed without examination, when the greateſt abſurdities met with no oppoſition, that theſe corruptions grew to a height. Oppoſition from Infidels would have naturally checked their progreſs, or even prevented their ap⯑pearance altogether. Had Chriſtians continued, for inſtance, as they were at firſt, to be intermixed with Pagans, had they continued to have frequent occaſions of repreſenting to them the abſurdity of making images of their gods, or of worſhipping thoſe who had once, by their own confeſſion, been mortal men; this muſt have preſerved ſo conſtant a ſenſe of the truth in their minds, as could not have failed to re⯑ſtrain [413] them from ever thinking of in⯑troducing the worſhip of images and of ſaints; or, if they could have been ſo inconſiſtent as to attempt it, the Pa⯑gans would have retorted their own ar⯑guments upon them, and made them to perceive very quickly the abſurdity of the attempt. Every perſon who is at all acquainted with the ſubject, knows that Infidels have derived their moſt plauſible objections againſt the excel⯑lence and utility of the goſpel, from the corruptions with which Chriſtiani⯑ty is blended in the Popiſh religion, and from the remains of the tenets and ſpirit thence ariſing, which ſtill adhere to many Proteſtants. Theſe have given them an occaſion to repre⯑ſent the goſpel, as a diſputatious ſy⯑ſtem of dry, ſpeculative, intricate, ab⯑ſtruſe opinions; as promoting a ſpirit of ſuperſtition as irrational and abject as any that was ever cheriſhed by any [414] ſpecies of Paganiſm; as giving coun⯑tenance to prieſt-craft and uſurpation over the conſciences of men: in a word, have given them an occaſion to affirm, that the goſpel has been productive of no advantages to mankind, that, on the contrary, it has been on the whole per⯑nicious. Taking it for granted, that every thing belongs to Chriſtianity, which has been at any time maintain⯑ed by any number of Chriſtians, Infi⯑dels have repreſented its internal evi⯑dence as nothing, nay have repreſented it as containing many things which it requires great pains to juſtify, and which it would need very ſtrong argu⯑ments for proving to have been reveal⯑ed by God. By means of this, and likewiſe by pretending evidences for the ſuperadditions to Chriſtianity, ſi⯑milar to thoſe which were exhibited for Chriſtianity itſelf, the corrupters of the goſpel have given unbelievers a pre⯑tence [415] for making large deductions from the force even of its external evidences. When Infidels lay hold of theſe advan⯑tages in their oppoſition to the goſpel, this has a ſtrong tendency to puſh Chriſtians forward in reforming their religion from all corruptions. When we find plauſible or ſtrong objections raiſed againſt what has been at any time reckoned a part of Chriſtianity, when we can ſcarce give a rational and ſatisfying defence of it, it is natural to examine carefully, whether this be tru⯑ly a part of the original goſpel, or only an addition to it. Many of thoſe arti⯑cles againſt which Infidels have erected their ſtrongeſt batteries, and which they have attacked with the faireſt pro⯑ſpect of ſucceſs, have appeared, on exa⯑mination, to be of the latter kind, and have been very generally abandoned. By many cauſes, the complete refor⯑mation of our religion from all corrup⯑tions, [416] may be retarded for a conſider⯑able time: but nothing can counteract the influence of thoſe cauſes more ſtrong⯑ly, than continued oppoſition from un⯑believers. This has a tendency to u⯑nite all true Chriſtians in the deſire of putting their religion in the beſt ſtate of defence againſt the common enemy, to make them concur in giving up all opinions and practices which do not undeniably belong to the goſpel. By theſe means, Chriſtianity will be gra⯑dually brought back to its original pu⯑rity and ſimplicity: in ſome periods, the advances may be ſlow; in ſome, they may be interrupted; but as long as Infidels are eager to turn the private ſentiments of individuals, and the over⯑ſtrained tenets of parties, to the diſcre⯑dit of the goſpel, there will be ſome tendency to return by degrees to the unadulterated religion of Jeſus. Pure notions of Chriſtianity, once introdu⯑ced, [417] will naturally diffuſe themſelves. They will by degrees recommend themſelves ſo generally, that all Chri⯑ſtians muſt in time imbibe ſomewhat of the ſpirit which they raiſe. Even Popery has become conſiderably dif⯑ferent from what it once was, and it would have been ſtill more reformed, if artificial and political reſtraints had not oppoſed the tendency of examina⯑tion and inquiry. Since Chriſtianity began to be depraved by adventitious mixtures, there never was an age in which there has appeared ſo generally, as in the preſent, a diſpoſition to embrace whatever fair inquiry diſcovered to be the real doctrine of ſcripture, without any regard to the authority of men, or to the eſtabliſhed diſtinctions of ſects: and nowhere has this liberal ſpirit pre⯑vailed ſo much as in thoſe countries in which infidelity has been ſuffered, for the longeſt ſpace of time, to propoſe [418] all its objections freely, and without the fear of perſecution or legal penalties. But the effect of its oppoſition has hi⯑therto taken place only in part. The heart of a good man triumphs in con⯑ceiving the period when it ſhall have fully taken place; in anticipating the time when Chriſtianity ſhall become in the writings and in the apprehenſions of Chriſtians, as it truly is in the New Teſtament, not a ſyſtem of nice ſpecu⯑lations and contentious ſubleties, but a ſeries of plain principles, evidently founded in ſcripture, unmixt with the arbitrary explications, and precarious concluſions of fallible men, all natural⯑ly touching the heart, commanding congruous affections, and, by their joint force, directly inculcating piety and vir⯑tue, and promoting the reformation and happineſs of mankind. Let the Chriſtian religion be univerſally and ſteadily kept in this point of view by [419] Chriſtians: then it will appear that the moſt formidable objections of Infi⯑dels have been directed, not againſt this religion itſelf, but againſt ſome⯑thing totally different, tho' unhappily confounded with it; then the excel⯑lence of Chriſtianity will ſhine conſpi⯑cuous and indiſputable; then all its e⯑vidences will operate on the under⯑ſtanding with their full force; then its truth will be ſtrikingly perceived, like the beauty of a fine picture placed in a proper light: Then too Chriſtianity will have its native influence on the temper and practice of mankind; it will be a vital principle of real good⯑neſs. Virtue and joy, its amiable chil⯑dren, will ſtand up, and declare with a voice of irreſiſtible perſuaſion, that it is of heavenly extraction, that it is truly the offspring of the Moſt High. Every man who is actuated by the goſpel, will feel its truth from his own expe⯑rience [420] of its efficacy, and will have the witneſs in himſelf ^*, that it is the word of God, the incorruptible ſeed ^† of holineſs and felicity. All men will ſee with their eyes ſuch marks of its power, as cannot ſuffer them to doubt of its truth and divinity. How glorious a teſtimo⯑ny would this ſtate of things give to our religion! What ſplendor would it confer upon its evidences! The go⯑ſpel maintained in its purity, and vigo⯑rouſly conceived, tends to produce this ſtate of things: And the vigilance and oppoſition of Infidels is one very pow⯑erful mean of exciting Chriſtians to maintain the goſpel in its purity.

SUCH are the advantages ariſing to Chriſtianity from thoſe objections by which Infidels intended to ſubvert it. The force of its evidences has been pointed out and aſcertained; every exception againſt them has been exa⯑mined, [421] and ſhown to be groundleſs; the proofs of its divinity have been fully illuſtrated, and ſet in a variety of ſtriking lights; trivial or queſtionable arguments have been by degrees aban⯑doned; ſeemingly jarring arguments have been explained with greater pre⯑ciſion, and by ſuch explication recon⯑ciled; the ſtrongeſt objections have on⯑ly produced a deeper and more ſatisfy⯑ing inveſtigation of the principles from which the evidences of Chriſtianity de⯑rive their force; the defence of this re⯑ligion has been rendered in a great meaſure pure, conſiſtent, and uniform⯑ly ſolid; many collateral proofs of it have been attended to and proſecuted; Chriſtians have been led to the moſt ex⯑plicit declarations of their belief of it; and they have been excited to avoid or to remove thoſe corruptions which would eclipſe the ſplendor of its evi⯑dence. In all theſe ways, the trial to [422] which Infidels have put the truth of Chriſtianity, has been the occaſion of its receiving new light and confirma⯑tion. The obſervations which have been made, are the reſult of a review of the controverſy between Chriſtians and Infidels; it is only by attention to the progreſs and the actual ſtate of this controverſy, that they ought to be ex⯑amined; and by ſuch attention they will be fully juſtified.

THERE is, however, an objection which ſeems to ariſe from matter of fact. The continuance and the growth of infidelity proves, it may be thought, either that the evidence of Chriſtianity is not brought, by the oppoſition of Infidels, into the ſtate which we have ſuppoſed, or that its being brought into that ſtate, is not an advantage upon the whole. But it really proves neither. It is not my deſign to exa⯑mine [423] all the cauſes of the riſe or of the growth of infidelity: but it will not be pretended that all Infidels become ſuch, on a deliberate inquiry into all the rea⯑ſonings for and againſt Chriſtianity. Infidels themſelves diſclaim this as a drudgery, too mean for their great abi⯑lities: they boaſt of having diſcovered a ſhorter way to truth; and the wri⯑tings of moſt of them demonſtrate, that they have ſpared themſelves the pains of beſtowing any attention on the defences of Chriſtianity. From their opinion, then, no concluſion can be drawn concerning the ſtate in which the controverſy really ſtands. What that ſtate is, they cannot poſſibly know, who have never inquired into it. Tho' every argument for Chriſtianity were rendered irreſiſtible, and every objec⯑tion againſt it fully confuted, theſe can thence derive no advantage. The clear⯑eſt illuſtration of the evidences of this [424] religion, cannot prevent infidelity from ſpreading among thoſe who are not determined by evidence, but led by faſhion, or an affected ſuperiority to vulgar belief, or who take up with any ſpecious argument upon one ſide. That the infidelity of ſome ſhould lead others into infidelity, is by no means ſurpri⯑ſing: that it ſhould, and yet the ef⯑forts of infidelity have as great a ten⯑dency as we have aſcribed to them, to add ſtrength to the evidences of the goſpel, is far from being marvellous. Almoſt every thing produces mixt ef⯑fects. That will ſeduce the thought⯑leſs, the prejudiced, and the vicious, which contributes powerfully to the confirmation of the honeſt and conſi⯑derate. The firſt and moſt obvious ef⯑fects may often be of the pernicious kind; and yet, if time be allowed, the conſequences may be on the whole highly beneficial. An age or two [425] appears very conſiderable to us, but it is not conſiderable in the eye of God: for many ages he permitted rude⯑neſs and idolatry to prevail among all the nations; and, in many nations, it ſtill continues to prevail. Need we won⯑der, then, that he has permitted infide⯑lity to grow ſo long as it has yet grown, or that he ſhould even ſuffer it to ſub⯑ſiſt much longer and to ſpread much wider? or can we thence conclude, that it will be in the end triumphant? All the diſpenſations of providence are progreſſive; they are often un⯑folded by very ſlow degrees; from their appearance for an age or two, we cannot determine what will be the fi⯑nal iſſue. All the oppoſition of Infidels to Chriſtianity, has been unſucceſsful; their objections have been anſwered; every new attempt has only afforded a new proof of their weakneſs: they are obſtinate enough to repeat their at⯑tempts [426] with hopes of better ſucceſs, and they who take not the pains to learn how often and how ſhamefully they have been baffled, reckon their obſtinacy the effect of victory, and are ſeduced to their party: but the natural conſequence is, that infidelity ſhould ceaſe at laſt, and the truth of Chriſtian⯑ity be acknowledged by all. An ene⯑my may beſiege a fortreſs that is in truth impregnable, tho' he has former⯑ly met with a repulſe; he may for a long time entertain the hope of making an impreſſion on ſome quarter or an⯑other: much more may they renew the ſiege, who have not been informed of the defeats of other aſſailants: but cer⯑tainly the direct tendency of frequent repulſes is, to convince all of the folly of the enterpriſe, and to make the ſtrength of the place to be confeſſed; if in every aſſault it be found impreg⯑nable, this will at laſt be the actual ef⯑fect. [427] It is in many caſes impoſſible to convince a man, tho' you render it plain that he ought to have been con⯑vinced. The beſt defence of Chriſti⯑anity will not infallibly produce belief in every man; it is enough that it be defended in ſuch a way as to ſhow, that they are unreaſonable who diſbe⯑lieve it. This can be ſhown only by an eſtimate of the real merit of the de⯑fence, not by the degree of ſucceſs which it happens to have in fact. In a word, the truth of the obſervations which we have made, depends wholly on the intrinſic nature of the objections againſt Chriſtianity, and of the defen⯑ces of it: it is by a fair compariſon of theſe, that they muſt be judged of; if by that compariſon they be ſupported, the unbelief of multitudes can no more invalidate them, than it can render the ſtronger argument the weaker, or alter the nature of things; it can only ſhow [428] that theſe multitudes either form their opinions without examination, or have not ſkill to diſcern the ſuperior evi⯑dence, or are led by vice or preju⯑dice to ſtiffle the conviction of their minds.

SECTION IV.
The advantages which CHRISTIANITY has derived from OPPOSITION, afford a ſeparate argument for its truth.

IT has now been ſhown, that all the reaſonings of Infidels, have been ſo far from overturning the Chriſtian re⯑ligion, that they have contributed to throw new light on its evidences, to make the ſolidity and ſtrength of each of them to be more clearly perceived, and to lead to the diſcovery of many collateral arguments for the divine ori⯑ginal of the goſpel. Tho' no general concluſion could be drawn from the induction of particulars, which we have attempted, the attempt would have [430] nevertheleſs been worth our labour. Every ſtep of it ſets the evidences of the goſpel in ſome point of view which gives ſatisfaction to the underſtanding, additional to what it receives from the mere propoſal of the evidences them⯑ſelves. If attention to theſe evidences has produced belief, obſervation of any one of the effects of oppoſition, will naturally convince us that we had rea⯑ſon to believe, and will by this reflec⯑tion confirm our faith. But the detail which we have made, anſwers a farther purpoſe. The ſeveral advantages enu⯑merated, may be collected into one point; they form premiſſes from which the truth of Chriſtianity may be direct⯑ly inferred. This fact, that the oppo⯑ſition of Infidels, inſtead of overturning Chriſtianity, has greatly confirmed it, and, in the ſeveral ways taken notice of, been the occaſion of illuſtrating its evidences, affords a new preſumption, [431] a ſeparate and ſtrong proof of its divi⯑nity.

INFIDELS have ſometimes drawn the oppoſite concluſion, from the multi⯑tude of objections which have been raiſed againſt the truth of Chriſtianity, and from the labour of argument which has been employed in vindicating it from theſe objections: they have inti⯑mated, that, if its evidences had been entirely clear and ſolid, they would not have afforded ſcope for this. Their concluſion ſuppoſes, that certain and evident truths will never be called in queſtion. But no ſuppoſition can be falſer. The moſt evident truths are thoſe againſt which ſceptics are gene⯑rally moſt eager to direct their cavils. They think, perhaps, that the leſs a principle is liable to objections, the greater ingenuity it ſhows to find out objections againſt it. But whatever be [432] the motive, experience proves the fact. The principles of common ſenſe, for inſtance, are abſolutely undeniable; they extort the aſſent of every perſon; they have ſo deep a foundation in the original conſtitution of our nature, that no man could ever ſeriouſly doubt of them. But this has not preſerved them from oppoſition: ſome have invented very ſubtle arguments for proving that we ought to doubt of them; and theſe cannot be confuted without great in⯑genuity, and copious reaſonings. Ob⯑jections have been urged againſt the demonſtrations, and even againſt the axioms of geometry; it requires conſi⯑derable attention and pains to anſwer them: but, ſince they may be fully anſwered, they cannot juſtly lead us to call in queſtion the force either of demonſtrative or of intuitive evidence: they may confound a perſon who does not readily perceive the fallacy of [433] them; but if a ſelf-evident truth or a ſtrict demonſtration be propoſed to him, they cannot prevent his being convinced. There is no ſubject on which doubts and difficulties may not be ſtarted by ingenious and diſputa⯑tious men: and therefore, from the number of their objections, and the length of the controverſy to which they give occaſion, we cannot in any caſe conclude, that the original evidence is weak, or even that it is not obvious and ſtriking. Were we to preſume that every principle is dubious, againſt which ſpecious objections may be con⯑trived, we ſhould be quickly led into univerſal ſcepticiſm. The two ways in which the ingenuity of ſpeculative men has been moſt commonly employ⯑ed, are dogmatical aſſertions of doubt⯑ful opinions, and ſubtle cavils againſt certain truths. It is therefore abſolute⯑ly unreaſonable to conceive any ſuſpi⯑cion [434] unfavourable to the truth of Chri⯑ſtianity, merely on account of the mul⯑tiplied reaſonings of captious men a⯑gainſt its evidences, and the various and large defences of it, to which theſe have given occaſion. No degree of ſtrength or clearneſs can prevent ob⯑jections from being framed; when they are framed, ſolutions become neceſſa⯑ry: they are neceſſary only for remo⯑ving the cavils of unbelievers, not for enabling the unprejudiced to perceive the force of the original evidences. That many objections have been ur⯑ged, and that the anſwers have in⯑creaſed in proportion, and been ſome⯑times conducted with great ſubtlety, is no preſumption of the falſity of Chri⯑ſtianity: if the objections have been ſhown to be in concluſive, if the anſwers have evinced the ſolidity and ſtrength of the evidences of the goſpel, this is ſufficient for putting the truth of [435] Chriſtianity beyond all reaſonable doubt.

IN the beginning of Chriſtianity, Gamaliel, uncertain whether it came from God or not, referred the deter⯑mination to this very trial. When the Jewiſh council wanted to put the apo⯑ſtles to death, he ſaid, Refrain from theſe men, and let them alone: for if this counſel or this work be of men, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, ye cannot over⯑throw it ^*. The judgment was ſolid; it was founded on the nature of truth: Chriſtianity has undergone the trial, and ſhown itſelf to be divine. We may now determine with the greateſt confidence; This counſel and this work has not come to nought, tho' the moſt eager endeavours to bring it to nought, have been repeatedly employed; therefore it is not of men: men have not been a⯑ble by the utmoſt efforts of argument [436] to overthrow it, all their efforts have, on the contrary, confirmed it; there⯑fore it is of God. The force of this proof of the divinity of our religion, will ap⯑pear from the following obſervations.

The evidences of Chriſtianity can⯑not properly be rendered ſtronger in themſelves, by means of the oppoſition of Infidels, than they originally were. They were from the firſt poſſeſſed of all the ſtrength which the moſt thorough examination diſcovers in them; it is their having been poſſeſſed of it, that renders them capable of bearing a tho⯑rough examination. Examination does not create any part of their ſtrength, but it greatly diſplays it. Evidence can anſwer no purpoſe except it be per⯑ceived; it cannot operate with its full force, except its force be perfectly un⯑derſtood: the oppoſition of Infidels gives a clearer conception and firmer aſſurance of the ſufficiency of the evi⯑dence which Chriſtianity had from the [437] beginning, than could have been other⯑wiſe obtained. Thus, tho' gold be as truly gold before it is tried as after⯑wards, yet when it has undergone eve⯑ry ſort of trial, and in each of them diſplayed the characteriſtics of that me⯑tal, its purity becomes more evident and certain than it was. If a fortifi⯑cation be found impregnable on a ſiege, it truly was impregnable before; but it is its having ſuſtained the ſiege, that diſcovers its having been ſuch.

Indeed there cannot be an higher or a more undeniable proof of the truth of any principle or ſyſtem, than this, that it has not been diſproved by ſe⯑vere and repeated examinations. In many caſes, the evidence may be ſo full, and the proof ſo clear and deci⯑ſive, that the very firſt time ſufficient attention is beſtowed, there remains no rational ground of doubt. If the firſt examination, however, ſhould leave a ſuſpicion of any fallacy, what [438] method could we naturally take for determining, whether the ſuſpicion be juſt or groundleſs, but to examine the proof anew? If, after reiterated exa⯑minations, it ſtill appeared to be unex⯑ceptionable, our aſſurance of the truth of the concluſion would neceſſarily be⯑come much firmer. Tho' its eſſential evidence continues the ſame, yet the effect of that evidence on our under⯑ſtanding, is heightened by every exa⯑mination. If we moreover ſet our⯑ſelves to find out all the difficulties which attend the evidence, and all the exceptions which can be taken againſt it, if we learned from thoſe who re⯑ject it, all the grounds of their unbe⯑lief; and if, after all this, we ſtill found the evidence ſatisfying and con⯑cluſive, and could diſcern no real fal⯑lacy in any part of it, this would raiſe our aſſurance to a height which no⯑thing can exceed. There are many [439] caſes in which we have not all the op⯑portunities, and many more in which we take not all the pains, neceſſary for obtaining this high degree of aſſurance concerning the truth of our principles. This is the reaſon why men of haſty judgments, hold ſo many doubtful or [...]alſe opinions, and why we have no⯑thing but opinion on ſubjects where we might have certainty. But the e⯑vidences of Chriſtianity have ſtood the teſt of a ſeverer examination than ever was beſtowed on any other ſubject. Every difficulty has been repreſented in the ſtrongeſt colouring, every ob⯑jection urged, all the evidences can⯑vaſſed if poſſibly there could be found a fallacy in any part of them; their ſtrength has been tried by one after another, and tried in every poſſible way: but after all, the evidences of our religion appear to be ſound, and ſatisfying, as high as the nature of the [440] ſubject can admit, as high as could be expected on ſuppoſition of its truth. When they are ſimply propoſed, they are convincing to the unprejudiced mind: when all that can be advanced againſt them, and all that can be ur⯑ged in ſupport of them, are fairly ba⯑lanced, ſtill they are convincing. This gives new aſſurance of their ſtrength; no perſon who enquires, and finds on enquiry that this is the caſe, can entertain a doubt of it. There can be no more certain mark for diſtinguiſhing between truth and falſe⯑hood than this, that the former with⯑ſtands all the aſſaults of reaſoning, but the latter, tho' it may maintain itſelf by ſpecious pleas for a while, yet never fails to be plainly detected and confu⯑ted, if the ſcrutiny be long continued. By this mark, the goſpel is proved to be truth. If it were not truth, is it poſ⯑ſible, that all the efforts of early unbe⯑lievers, [441] inſtead of detecting any impo⯑ſture, ſhould have produced only fri⯑volous objections, added ſtrength to its ſeveral evidences, and laid a foun⯑dation for new proofs of its divinity? Is it poſſible that Infidels, in every age, ſhould have been driven to all the me⯑thods of chicane and ſophiſtry in mana⯑ging their oppoſition to the goſpel? Is it poſſible that they ſhould have been able to diſcover only ſuch arguments againſt it, as are for the moſt part weak or unfair, as without exception loſe their plauſibility, in proportion to the attention with which they are exami⯑ned, and have been fully anſwered?

If it could be aſſerted, merely that Chriſtianity has ſtood the trial without being confuted, this would be ſuffici⯑ent to infer its truth: but by the trial, its evidence has been illuſtrated, and has received an acceſſion of ſtrength; this renders its truth ſtill more undeni⯑able. [442] There may be falſe principles which we cannot abſolutely confute; we may want the means of proving that they are certainly falſe: but there can⯑not be a falſe principle of whoſe falſe⯑hood, examination frequently repeated and eagerly proſecuted, will not infuſe a reaſonable or probable ſuſpicion. Ex⯑amination generally produces ſeveral ſubordinate effects before it iſſues in a full confutation: it firſt diſcovers that ſome part of the proof has not all the ſtrength which it was ſuppoſed to have, and thus leads us to maintain the opi⯑nion with a lower degree of aſſurance than before: when the examination is carried farther, it ſhows ſome argument on which we laid conſiderable ſtreſs, to be fallacious and unſound, and, by means of this, it renders us ſuſpicious of the ſolidity of the other evidences, and dubious in our judgment of the whole: and even when a continued ex⯑amination [443] cannot afford poſitive proofs that a principle is falſe, it ſhows at leaſt that there is no ſufficient reaſon to believe it true. This is matter of experience: you cannot name any falſe opinion which did not loſe by being examined, and loſe in proportion to the accuracy with which it was exami⯑ned. But Chriſtianity has, on the con⯑trary, gained by examination. Can there poſſibly be a more ſatisfying proof that it is altogether true? Seeming evi⯑dence looks ſpecious only in one lucky attitude; if the evidence of the truth of Chriſtianity were not real, could it have born to be ſet in ſo great a varie⯑ty of lights as it has been ſet in? Eve⯑ry one of its evidences has been exa⯑mined ſeparately: but none of thoſe evidences to which Chriſt or his apo⯑ſtles ever appealed, has been ſhown to be either wanting, or inconcluſive. On the contrary, additional evidences have [444] been perceived, and the force of all of them has been ſet in ſo clear a light as to ſhow that, if they who diſbelieve the goſpel, would act conſiſtently, they muſt run into univerſal ſcepticiſm, and renounce principles of belief, to which it is neceſſary that they yield implicitly every hour in common life, elſe ſpee⯑dy ruin is the conſequence; but which indeed the kind author of our nature has rooted ſo deeply in our conſtitu⯑tion, that in common life the moſt de⯑termined ſceptic cannot reſiſt their force for a ſingle moment; and which, by conſequence, it is the plaineſt folly and the groſſeſt abſurdity to attempt to reſiſt in matters of religion. Had the evidences of Chriſtianity been ei⯑ther fictitious or improper, it muſt have been impoſſible to point out ſo deep a foundation for them in human nature.

[445] In Chriſtianity, as in every ſyſtem, whether of nature or of art, there are ſome parts which, to a ſuperficial obſer⯑ver, appear more exceptionable than the reſt. If this religion be falſe, it is reaſonable to expect, that on examina⯑tion, thoſe parts would be found ſtill more exceptionable, and that by atten⯑tion to them we ſhould be led moſt readily to a detection of the cheat. If the reverſe has happened, if it has ap⯑peared on a full examination, that thoſe parts of Chriſtianity, and thoſe circum⯑ſtances in its evidence, which are moſt exceptionable to a ſuperficial obſerver, turn out, when they are ſufficiently underſtood, ſignal indications of ex⯑cellence, truth, and divinity, there can be no ſtronger confirmation of that re⯑ligion. A defect in any hypotheſis, or in any machine, which is ſo obvious as to ſtrike at firſt ſight, if it be real, is perceived more clearly by the atten⯑tive [446] inquirer, but, if it be only appa⯑rent, recommends the ſkill of the in⯑ventor. The ſame concluſion ought to be adopted with reſpect to Chriſtiani⯑ty: the defects which ſeemed to be⯑long to it, have been ſcrupulouſly can⯑vaſſed, and found to be only imagina⯑ry. They are therefore like thoſe deli⯑cate ſtrokes in works of art, which diſ⯑pleaſe the uncultivated taſte, but gain the higheſt and the moſt permanent ap⯑probation from thoſe who have impro⯑ved their taſte; or they are like thoſe parts of nature, which the ignorant reckon deformed or uſeleſs, but which the reſearches of the curious diſcover to be both beautiful and beneficial: theſe ſhow the higheſt ſkill; thoſe in like manner evidence the moſt unque⯑ſtionable truth. For inſtance, the mean condition of Jeſus while he lived on the earth, is a circumſtance which Infi⯑dels have always eagerly laid hold up⯑on, [447] and endeavoured to turn to the diſcredit of the goſpel; but it has been proved that this circumſtance not only is incapable of being fairly turned to the diſcredit of the goſpel, but alſo in numberleſs ways promotes the deſign of the goſpel, and renders its truth un⯑queſtionable, and that far more effec⯑tually than could have been accom⯑pliſhed by his appearing in a more ex⯑alted ſphere. When Infidels have cen⯑ſured any of the evidences of the go⯑ſpel, and pointed out the objectons to which they judged them liable, they have ſometimes condeſcended likewiſe to inform us, by what means theſe evi⯑dences might, in their apprehenſion, have been rendered convincing, and ſuitable to a revelation truly divine: but it has always appeared that the e⯑vidences propoſed by them, would have been leſs ſatisfying, and expoſed to much juſter objections, than the moſt [448] exceptionable of thoſe by which our religion is actually ſupported Chri⯑ſtianity in ſome of its features bears ſome reſemblance to falſe religions; In⯑fidels are eager to obſerve theſe fea⯑tures, they triumph in pointing them out, they think that theſe will ſuggeſt an eaſy proof of its being likewiſe falſe. But by no track are we led to a clear⯑ere diſcovery or a firmer conviction of the truth of Chriſtianity. The reſem⯑blance is preciſely ſuch as might natu⯑rally be expected to take place between a true religion and falſe religions. Sup⯑poſe a religion really revealed by God, we may be certain that it would be a⯑dapted to human nature: and ſuppoſe a revelation of a new religion to be pre⯑tended, we may be certain that the impoſtor would both do his utmoſt to adapt it to human nature, and copy after ſuch revelations as had proved ſucceſsful. There is no greater ſimili⯑tude [449] between Chriſtianity and any falſe religion, than is eaſily accounted for by this obvious reflection. The reſem⯑blance, however great it may ſeem in ſome particulars at firſt ſight, grows al⯑ways fainter and fainter, the more cloſe⯑ly it is traced; and on an exact compa⯑riſon, Chriſtianity is found to be in its whole ſpirit and evidences the very op⯑poſite of every falſe religion. Thus two faces may be miſtaken for each other when they are ſeen ſeparately and little attended to, between which ſcarce a⯑ny reſemblance can be perceived when they are deliberately viewed together. In a word, Chriſtianity has been ſo much confirmed by examination, that even whatever ſeemed to be exception⯑able in it, has been converted into a new preſumption of its truth.—No ſubject has undergone ſo free or ſo fre⯑quent examination, as Chriſtianity; and no ſubject ever gained ſo much [450] by examination. Every book that e⯑ver was written againſt this religion, has, in the courſe of the controverſy to which it gave riſe, occaſioned ſome improvement in the defence of Chriſti⯑anity. Every objection that has been ſtarted, has produced anſwers which ſhowed the ſtrength of ſome of the e⯑vidences of the goſpel, in a new and ſtriking point of view. And ſince Chri⯑ſtianity, far from being confuted, has been ſo much confirmed by an oppoſi⯑tion of argument ſo often renewed, ſo long continued, and ſo eagerly proſe⯑cuted, the inference is ſhort and clear. This is peculiar to truth; it leaves no room for the leaſt ſuſpicion of falſe⯑hood.

If Chriſtianity were a falſe religion notwithſtanding all the trials which it has undergone, and the manner in which it has ſuſtained them, it would be abſolutely ſingular and without a [451] parallel on earth. Many falſe tenets and falſe religions have ſubſiſted for a long time; it is acknowledged: yet if Chriſtianity were falſe, it would ſtill be without a parallel. For has any of theſe falſehoods been examined and canvaſ⯑ſed in the ſame manner as Chriſtianity has, and been retained notwithſtand⯑ing? None of them has. In number⯑leſs ways, falſe opinions may gain ground; and when they have been once adopted, they may be for ages tranſmitted from ſome to others, with⯑out being at all ſuſpected or examined: but an opinion's ſubſiſting ever ſo long while it is not examined, affords no ſort of preſumption of its truth. The Pto⯑lemaic ſyſtem of the world was long the received hypotheſis: but its reception was no proof of its truth. During all that time, it was taken for granted without examination: moſt men want⯑ed the means of bringing it to a pro⯑per [452] trial; if a few had them, and uſed them, they diſbelieved it; and as ſoon as it was generally examined, it was generally exploded. It did not require repeated examinations to confute it; it fell at once, upon the firſt ſcrutiny of unprejudiced reaſon. Many falſe hypotheſes have reigned in every ſci⯑ence, through long periods of time. Attend to ſuch of them as are now a⯑bandoned: you will find that they were eſtabliſhed on falſe principles which, du⯑ring their reign, were never called in queſtion. Their prevalence, therefore, truly proceeded from men's having ne⯑ver examined theſe principles: as ſoon as theſe were examined, it appeared that they had been all along taken for granted without evidence; that, there⯑fore, however well the ſeveral parts of the ſuperſtructure hung together, the whole hypotheſis was nevertheleſs a mere baſeleſs fabric. The ſame has [453] happened in religion, as in ſcience. The Pagan religion was of very long duration: but every one knows that many cauſes prevented its being tho⯑roughly examined; that, as imperfect⯑ly as it was examined, it did not ſtand unconfuted all the time it continued to ſubſiſt; and that, when it came to be fully canvaſſed, no rational defence was offered for it. Mahometaniſm has ſubſiſted for ſeveral ages: but it is be⯑cauſe its evidence has never been exa⯑mined by thoſe who profeſs it. By all who have examined it, it has been pro⯑nounced deſtitute of evidence: many have embraced it from other motives; but it does not appear that any ever turned to it in conſequence of a deli⯑berate inquiry into its truth. The fate of Popery is no exception againſt this argument. It roſe in dark times, and therefore without examination. It ac⯑quired its preſent form by a gradual [454] corruption of Chriſtianity; each ſtep prepared the way for another; and therefore it advanced imperceptibly and without ſuſpicion. It forbids free inquiry, and therefore has never been examined by thoſe who hold it. At leaſt, if any of them have examined it to a certain degree, they have never⯑theleſs ſtopped ſhort before they ſearch⯑ed it thoroughly: they ſtill took for granted certain firſt principles on which it is founded, the authority, for in⯑ſtance, of Popes, Councils, Fathers, and Doctors; principles which ought not to have been taken upon truſt, but proved very clearly, for which however no ſolid proof has been produced. Po⯑pery has been examined by thoſe who believed it not: and whether they have not attacked it in a fairer way than that in which Infidels have oppoſed the go⯑ſpel; whether they have not readily ta⯑ken notice of all the pleas of its pa⯑trons, [455] and undertaken to confute them; or whether their objections againſt it, have been anſwered ſo fully, ſo freely, upon ſo unexceptionable principles, or by ſo ſtrong reaſonings, as the objec⯑tions of Infidels againſt Chriſtianity, we may appeal to every impartial per⯑ſon who takes the trouble to examine both the controverſies. At any rate, it will not be pretended, that Popery has gained by examination, or been confirmed by the oppoſition of Prote⯑ſtants: on the contrary, its votaries have been induced to alter their ſyſtem, to refine upon their principles, to re⯑nounce or explain away tenets expreſs⯑ly taught in books to which they ſtill in words aſcribe the higheſt authority, and which they even profeſs to believe infallible. ‘"But has not the ſame hap⯑pened to the Chriſtian religion? Have not doctrines which were once reckoned a part of this religion, [456] been abandoned in conſequence of the inquiries occaſioned by infidelity?"’ That this has happened, we readily ac⯑knowledge; but this is not the ſame that has happened to Popery; nay, tho' on a ſuperficial view, it ſeemeth ſomewhat like, it is in reality directly contrary. Chriſtians have never given up as indeſenſible, any doctrine plain⯑ly taught in ſcripture; Papiſts have gi⯑ven up doctrines moſt indiſputably in⯑culcated by Popes, Councils, and Doc⯑tors. Chriſtians have renounced on⯑ly errors which had inſinuated them⯑ſelves into their religion, but really made no part of it; if they be likewiſe errors which inquiry has forced Papiſts to renounce, yet they are ſuch errors as compoſe the very ſubſtance of Pope⯑ry, ſo far as it differs from the religion of other Chriſtians. The ſcripture is the avowed ſtandard of Chriſtianity, by which whatever is aſſerted to be⯑long [457] to it, may be tried; the oppoſi⯑ſition of Infidels has only excited Chriſtians to ſtudy the ſcripture with greater care, and to render their o⯑pinions more conformable to it: Po⯑pery owns ſome ſtandards additional to the ſcriptures; the oppoſition of Proteſtants has reduced its profeſſors to the neceſſity of deviating from theſe additional ſtandards. In a word, that Chriſtianity has been examined, there are the moſt unqueſtionable documents, the writings of unbelievers: it has not fallen before one or a few attacks: ob⯑jections of all kinds have been raiſed a⯑gainſt it: the firſt principles on which its evidences reſt, as well as the reaſon⯑ings by which they are ſupported, have been tried, and found to be the very principles of belief natural to the hu⯑man underſtanding, to which men ne⯑ceſſarily yield in innumerable caſes: many have inquired into its grounds [458] with the greateſt freedom, and after all embraced it as divine with higher aſſurance than before: by oppoſition, none of its proofs has been invalidated, all of them have been illuſtrated and ſtrengthened. There is therefore an eſſential difference between Chriſtiani⯑ty, and all the falſe doctrines which e⯑ver obtained a durable reception. If that be falſe, it is the only falſehood that ever ſuſtained ſo accurate an exa⯑mination. Its having ſuſtained this examination, its having even derived advantage from it, ſets it in direct op⯑poſition to falſehood and impoſture, and proves that it is, what it claims to be, true and divine.

THE argument for the truth of Chri⯑ſtianity, which we have endeavoured to illuſtrate, depends on two propoſi⯑tions; the firſt, That Chriſtianity, far from being overthrown by the oppoſi⯑tion [459] of argument, has been confirmed by it; the other, That not to be over⯑thrown, much more to be confirmed, by the oppoſition of argument, and by free inquiry, is a certain and un⯑equivocal characteriſtic of truth. The latter propoſition is both obvious and undeniable. Were the evidence of the former equally clear and immediate, or capable of being rendered as abſo⯑lutely incontrovertible, the argument could not fail to be perfectly ſatisfying to every man; the concluſion, That Chriſtianity is true, would ſtrike the mind with a degree of force nowiſe in⯑ferior to that of the ſtricteſt demonſtra⯑tion. But the former propoſition re⯑lates to a matter of fact, which, in its very nature, admits only ſuch evidence as muſt appear different to different men, and can never be rendered whol⯑ly unexceptionable to every individual. The fact muſt be aſcertained by a com⯑pariſon [460] of the writings of Infidels, with thoſe of Chriſtians, and will be admit⯑ted or denied, and that with greater or leſs aſſurance, according to the judgment which any perſon forms on the compariſon. The fact is not ſuſ⯑ceptible of any other ſort of evidence; and by this ſort it has been proved, in the preceeding ſections, as clearly as could be expected on ſuppoſition of its truth. But ſince the only poſſible evi⯑dence is of this kind, it muſt be owned, that the argument will appear incon⯑cluſive to ſome, and will be thought by others to fall ſhort of demonſtration. This does not render the argument void either of force, or of utility; but it renders it proper to examine what pre⯑ciſe degree of force ought to be aſcri⯑bed to it.

That Chriſtianity has not been con⯑ſuted, but eſtabliſhed, by the oppoſi⯑tion of its adverſaries, Infidels will not [461] acknowledge; they cannot conſiſtent⯑ly acknowledge it, and yet continue Infidels. On Infidels therefore, it may be thought, the argument can make no impreſſion. Indeed, while they deny the fact on which the argument is founded, it cannot immediately and directly tend to their conviction: yet it ought to have ſome ſort of influence even upon them, by means of which it may contribute indirectly to their con⯑viction. The impoſſibility of an Infi⯑del's allowing the fact from which the preſent argument is deduced, and yet continuing an Infidel, ſhows, that, on ſuppoſition of the truth of the fact, the argument is perfectly deciſive. If, on that ſuppoſition, it be deciſive, it muſt be incumbent on Infidels, to examine carefully and impartially, whether the fact be true or not. This is the method of obtaining ſatisfaction, to which both curioſity and candour prompt men in [462] other controverted ſubjects, tho' in many of theſe they are not ſo deeply intereſted as in religion. If Infidels decline this examination, they can have no right to deny the fact; it may be true for any thing they know: they have been at no pains to inquire about it; and therefore their denial of it, can merit no regard, and ought not to be allowed by any man to infuſe into his mind the fainteſt ſuſpicion of its truth. If they decline the examination, they cannot approve themſelves in their un⯑belief; they muſt be conſcious of wil⯑ful negligence. They have no juſt claim to the favourable ſentiments of Chriſtians: theſe are due only to thoſe who have uſed all the means of diſco⯑vering the truth, which impartiality requires, and which God has put in their power, and after all are ſo unhap⯑py as not to find ſufficient reaſon for believing the goſpel; they are not at [463] all due to them who eagerly adopt a concluſion againſt the goſpel, without ever taking into conſideration, the principles on which its truth or its falſe⯑hood depends. However impoſſible it may be in fact to convince theſe per⯑ſons, either that Chriſtianity is true, or that it has gained by oppoſition; it is notwithſtanding plain, that, even ſup⯑poſing theſe propoſitions falſe, they cannot reaſonably believe them falſe. Be⯑fore they can reaſonably commence In⯑fidels, they muſt conſider, What the evidences of the goſpel truly are? Whe⯑ther they have real ſolidity and force? Whether they have been overturned by the objections which have been raiſed againſt them? Whether, on the con⯑trary, theſe objections have not been fully anſwered, and even turned, in many inſtances, into arguments for cor⯑roborating the evidences of the goſpel?—On what principles can it be denied, [464] that it is incumbent on every perſon to go through this whole inquiry, before he can reaſonably reject the goſpel? A religion is propoſed to men, as reveal⯑ed by God: if it be really revealed by him, without queſtion it merits the greateſt regard. It builds its claim to a divine original, on certain evidences to which it explicitly appeals: theſe ought certainly to be canvaſſed with the ſtricteſt impartiality, before they be declared inſufficient. If they do not ſatisfy you, you ought to know why they do not, and wherein they fail. If you publiſh to the world, that you are not ſatisfied with them, you ought alſo to publiſh your reaſons, and to point out the defects which you have obſerved in them. Many have done ſo; anſwers have been offered to their objections; of moſt of theſe anſwers, no confutation has been ſo much as attempted; they muſt therefore in all [465] fairneſs be reckoned ſolid. Since the controverſy is already brought to this ſtate, the natural and the only way of attacking Chriſtianity, is to confute the anſwers which have been returned to the objections raiſed againſt it. In conſequence of this, Infidels ought to purſue a method perfectly the reverſe of that which they have hitherto pur⯑ſued; they ought to ſet themſelves to examine and to overturn the defences of Chriſtianity; this, the love of truth abſolutely requires of them. It is a⯑mong the young, the thoughtleſs, and the diſſipated, that infidelity has chief⯑ly prevailed: but from the obſervations juſt now made, it is plain that among them infidelity never can prevail on principles of reaſon: Suppoſe that there were good reaſon for infidelity, yet, as matters now ſtand, an attentive and careful inquiry is neceſſary, before that good reaſon can be diſcovered; and [466] to ſuch an inquiry theſe perſons have not ſubmitted. In the preſent ſtate of things, the very greateſt abilities, without this inquiry, are not ſufficient for enabling a man to perceive, that Chriſtianity has no juſt foundation: af⯑ter ſo many objections have been mo⯑ved againſt it, and after it has been ſo often and in ſuch various ways vindi⯑cated from them, a rational determi⯑nation that it is not true, neceſſarily depends on the knowledge of many points which cannot be learned by the greateſt abilities in an inſtant, or with⯑out a deliberate and extenſive inveſti⯑gation. Whatever be the objection which ſtartles you, tho' you can ſee no way of removing it, yet an anſwer has been perhaps made to it by others, with which you would be fully ſatisfied: it is neceſſary at leaſt that you ſhould inquire, whether there has not, before you can reaſonably hold your objection [467] to be unanſwerable. Thus all men are obliged, before they can reaſonably diſbelieve the goſpel, to go through an inquiry which will put it in their pow⯑er to decide with underſtanding, con⯑cerning the fact on which our preſent argument depends. If they decline the inquiry, they may deny the force of the argument; but they act a raſh and unreaſonable part in denying it. If they make the inquiry, and find the fact to be as we have repreſented it, the argument will ſtrike into their minds a conviction of the truth of Chriſtianity, with the irreſiſtible force of demonſtration. If, after a careful and impartial inquiry, any perſon ſhould be of opinion, that Chriſtianity has been overthrown by the objections of Infidels, and clearly proved to be falſe, he muſt doubtleſs be left to fol⯑low his own judgment. But it may nevertheleſs be very plain, that he is [468] in an error. On every other ſubject, as well as on this, it is impoſſible to force conviction on thoſe who are diſ⯑poſed to deny; the underſtanding of each individual muſt ultimately deter⯑mine for him in every caſe: yet it does not follow, that there is no difference between truth and error, or that there is not any truth which can be ſaid to be fully proved, becauſe there is almoſt no truth which will not be denied by ſome. In like manner, tho' there may be perſons who will perceive no force in the preſent argument, it by no means follows that it is not in itſelf a juſt and a ſtrong argument for the truth of our religion.

THE argument which I have now urged, cannot naturally be that which will firſt convince a man of the truth of Chriſtianity. On the contrary, it ſuppoſes that a perſon has already ex⯑amined the ſeveral more direct eviden⯑ces [469] of this religion, perceived their force, and found them ſufficiently vin⯑dicated from all exceptions. Till he has done ſo, he cannot feel the force of this argument. Its proper deſign is, to ſtrengthen the faith which has been already produced by more direct proofs. This purpoſe, it will very powerfully promote. When a perſon attends to the ſeveral evidences of the goſpel, he is convinced by them; con⯑ſcious that they are in fact convincing, he has not naturally any propenſity to ſuppoſe, that they may notwithſtanding be liable to objections which can inva⯑lidate them, or, on account of the poſ⯑ſibility of ſuch objections, to heſitate in yielding his aſſent: But when he has examined the objections which have been moved againſt theſe evidences, when he finds that they do not invali⯑date the evidences, that they leave them in their full force, that they even [470] diſplay the ſtrength of the proof, that they have iſſued in the confirmation of the goſpel, his aſſent neceſſarily be⯑comes more aſſured. Now he does not merely ſuppoſe that there are no va⯑lid objections againſt the evidences of the goſpel; he has poſitive proof that there are none. When we attend to the evidences of any truth, they ope⯑rate directly on the underſtanding, as the natural cauſes of belief; they do convince, and this is a ſufficient foun⯑dation for our aſſent: but when we examine the objections againſt them, and the defences of them, the mind exerts a reflex act, by which it per⯑ceives that they ought to convince us; this cannot fail to make us acquieſce in their ſufficiency with the moſt en⯑tire and explicite complacence.

‘"BUT ſuppoſe this argument to have all the force which has been a⯑ſcribed [471] to it, yet is Chriſtianity,"’ it will perhaps be ſaid, ‘"really the bet⯑ter on the whole, for that examina⯑tion to which the oppoſition of In⯑fidels has given occaſion, and on the reſult of which the argument is founded? Does its evidence become clearer, is it not, on the contrary, rendered intricate, and involved in confuſion, by ſo great a multitude of arguments, objections, and re⯑plies? Can the generality at leaſt de⯑rive any advantage from them, for are not they incapable of going thro' ſo long and complicated trains of reaſoning; and yet, if it be true that an Infidel cannot reaſonably disbelieve till he has gone through them, muſt it not be equally true, that, in the preſent ſtate of things, without going through them, no Chriſtian can reaſonably believe? And muſt not the aſſent even of [472] ſpeculative men, who can trace the whole progreſs of the controverſy, and comprehend and balance the arguments on both ſides, be never⯑theleſs weakened by their paſſing through ſo many ſteps before they come to the concluſion? Is not all the ſeeming light and confirmation, therefore, which Chriſtianity has derived from oppoſition, rather de⯑trimental than beneficial to it? And, if it be, how can any preſumption of its truth be thence deduced?"’

It is readily allowed, that the gene⯑rality of mankind are not capable of taking in a minute detail of objections and anſwers, or of accompliſhing a critical or ſpeculative diſcuſſion of evi⯑dence. But it is not neceſſary that they ſhould. The evidences of the goſpel propoſed, as they were original⯑ly, in the ſimpleſt manner, will ſatis⯑fy thoſe whoſe underſtanding is not [473] debauched by the falſe refinements of ſcience, or warped by prejudice or vi⯑cious paſſions, who retain the natural propenſity to yield to the principles of belief implanted in the human conſti⯑tution, and who have not acquired a diſpoſition to elude evidence, or to per⯑plex themſelves by ſtudiouſly ſearching for difficulties. A perception of the evidences in that manner propoſed, is ſufficient to render their belief reaſon⯑able, tho' unbelief, as was lately proved, cannot be reaſonable in any man who is not acquainted both with the objec⯑tions againſt Chriſtianity, and with the anſwers which have been returned to them. The reaſon of this difference will be obvious on a little attention, and indeed ariſes naturally from ſome of the principles which were formerly eſtabliſhed and fully illuſtrated^*. The goſpel offers poſitive evidence of its truth; in the perſon who yields to it on a [474] ſimple propoſal, this evidence produces its proper effect by operating on the natural principles of the underſtanding; and, if the evidence be really ſolid, this of itſelf renders his aſſent rational and ſuitable to the conſtitution of the human mind, tho' an hundred objec⯑tions againſt that evidence may poſſibly be ſtarted by the ſceptical, which he could neither underſtand nor anſwer. But, when a perſon reſiſts the poſitive evidence which is produced, and moves objections, the caſe is very different: it is incumbent on him to point out ſome real failure in it; if it has been already charged with the ſame failure and vindicated from it, he muſt exa⯑mine whether the vindication be ſuffi⯑cient, and, if not, he muſt be able to ſhow where the defect lies; otherwiſe he counteracts the principles of the hu⯑man conſtitution, which naturally lead us to yield to evidence, when it has [475] force enough to produce aſſent, and we perceive no fallacy in it. This dif⯑ference between their ſituation, who yield to poſitive evidence, and their's who reſiſt it, takes place in every caſe. A propoſition in Euclid's elements is demonſtrated; if a perſon comprehend the demonſtration, he neceſſarily gives credit to it; and he is perfectly ratio⯑nal in giving credit to it, tho' he be not acquainted with any of the objections which ſome Metaphyſicians have rai⯑ſed againſt the exactneſs of mathemati⯑cal reaſoning, nor with the ſolutions of them. But if a perſon, on the con⯑trary, after comprehending the demon⯑ſtration, refuſes to admit the propoſi⯑tion, he certainly acts unreaſonably, except he can clearly perceive the de⯑fect of the demonſtration, and the in⯑ſufficiency of what has been urged for vindicating it from the imputation of that defect. Univerſally, a more ex⯑tenſive [476] inquiry is incumbent upon him who reſiſts the poſitive evidence offer⯑ed in a caſe, and thus holds himſelf ca⯑pable of ſcrutinizing it, than upon him who, owning its force, readily yields it the aſſent which it demands: the for⯑mer muſt always be able to give the reaſons of his unbelief; of the belief of the latter, it is a ſufficient reaſon, that the conſtitution of his nature leads him to be convinced, tho' he cannot explain the grounds of his conviction in a philoſophical manner. None will aſſert that an ordinary man acts an un⯑reaſonable part, in readily believing, that food will continue to nouriſh, ſleep to refreſh, and the ſun to riſe and ſet at ſtated hours: but all would laugh at the unreaſonableneſs of a ſceptical philoſopher, who ſhould deny theſe propoſitions, and yet refuſe to explain wherein he thought that their evidence failed, or to liſten to a vindication of [477] it. To render a perſon reaſonable in believing any propoſition for which po⯑ſitive proof is offered, it is not neceſſa⯑ry that he be acquainted with all the evidences of it; he may perceive evi⯑dence enough to ſatisfy him, tho' he perceive not all: but he cannot be reaſonable in rejecting it, unleſs he has attended to the whole of the proof that is offered; tho' one part of it does not ſatisfy him, another may. To pre⯑tend that a Chriſtian is not reaſonable in believing, unleſs he has diſcuſſed all the objections of Infidels, is to beg the queſtion, to take it for granted that the evidences of the goſpel are not real; for, on ſuppoſition that they are, it is entirely rational to yield readily to their force. But, tho' Chriſtianity ſhould happen to be falſe, and its evidences fallacious, the Infidel muſt be unrea⯑ſonable in rejecting it, without a full examination of the anſwers which have [478] been returned to objections; for poſi⯑tive evidence can never fairly be ſet a⯑ſide without being poſitively confuted. Infidels make high pretenſions to a ſpi⯑rit of inquiry; but they muſt puſh their inquiries farther than they generally do, before their infidelity can be in a⯑ny degree reaſonable. They are eager to charge Chriſtians with credulity; but the charge would not be juſt, tho' Chriſtians had not examined the argu⯑ments of Infidels ſo minutely as many of them have. To give a quick aſſent to evidence real and natural in itſelf, never can be blameable credulity; to refuſe it, or to give it with difficulty, is always faulty ſcepticiſm. Thus the oppoſition of Infidels, and the mani⯑ſold defences of Chriſtianity occaſion⯑ed by it, are of no detriment even to the generality; they do not render it more difficult or laborious to become a rati⯑onal believer, than it was before. Nay [479] even to the generality, conſiderable ad⯑vantages are derived from them.

In the firſt place, by means of them, they are excited to attend to the grounds and evidences of their religion, and are naturally led, tho' not to enter into all the intricacies of argument concern⯑ing them, yet to examine them, at leaſt, ſo far as to acquire a diſtinct concep⯑tion of their nature and force, as they are propoſed in the New Teſtament: and, if theſe evidences propoſed in this manner, be ſufficient for begetting conviction, the generality, being thus led to attend to them, will come to be poſſeſſed of a truly rational faith in the goſpel. Had no oppoſition been made by Infidels, Chriſtians would run a riſk of becoming inattentive to the evi⯑dences of the goſpel, and negligent in their endeavours to underſtand them: that oppoſition is a continual antidote againſt this. In the beginning of Chri⯑ſtianity, [480] many things contributed to prevent this: the evidences of the go⯑ſpel, from their very nature, excited attention in that age; in the firſt exhi⯑bition, many of them were preſented to the very ſenſes of men; they could not be overlooked; every perſon who yielded aſſent to them, was unavoid⯑ably conſcious of the reaſons on which his aſſent was founded; and conſe⯑quently his faith was neceſſarily ratio⯑nal: beſides, the prejudices ariſing from their education in other religions, and the dangers to which they were expo⯑ſed by becoming Chriſtians, could not fail to render them ſcrupulous in exa⯑mining the evidence propoſed to them, and careful to be fully ſatisfied of its ſufficiency, before they admitted it, or profeſſed their faith in conſequence of it. But the circumſtances of the world are now ſo much altered, that men may be ſometimes led to profeſs Chri⯑ſtianity, [481] and even to embrace it, with⯑out any examination of its evidences, without ſo much as a tolerable appre⯑henſion of them, as they ly in the Bi⯑ble. It is unneceſſary to ſpend words in pointing out the feebleneſs, the in⯑efficacy, the diſadvantages of various kinds, which muſt attend a faith ſo ſlen⯑derly, ſo imperfectly ſupported: they are extremely obvious. Now the con⯑tinual oppoſition of Infidels has a na⯑tural and ſtrong tendency to hinder men from thus taking their religion al⯑together upon truſt: and, except the exiſtence of other religions, it is per⯑haps the only external cauſe by which Chriſtians are prompted to examine the foundations of their religion. It leads thoſe who have been educated in Chri⯑ſtianity, to reflect, whether this reli⯑gion may not nevertheleſs be falſe: If they have either ſeriouſneſs or curioſi⯑ty, this reflection will make them ſolli⯑citous [482] to examine, whether it is or not; and all who have ordinary abilities and honeſty of heart, may determine this point without any very difficult or in⯑tricate inquiry: and when, in conſe⯑quence of attentive inquiry, they de⯑termine that it is a true and divine re⯑ligion, when they believe it with the ſubſtance of its evidence full in their view, their faith is truly rational, it has ſtrength and firmneſs, by means of which it may produce a concern to comply with the goſpel, and conſtancy in adhering to it. There will always, no doubt, be ſome Chriſtians who have not attended to the evidences of the goſpel, nor can give any reaſon for their embracing it: but where its truth is openly attacked by Infidels, this will be the caſe much leſs generally than it would otherwiſe have been. There may be ſenſible Chriſtians at preſent, who could not perhaps give a direct [483] anſwer to every objection urged by In⯑fidels; but there are very few of them who are not believers in conſequence of attention to the evidences of the go⯑ſpel, and real conviction of their ſuffi⯑ciency. At whatever period oppoſi⯑tion from Infidels ſhall ceaſe, the re⯑membrance of it will continue to pro⯑duce this effect in ſome meaſure, to ex⯑cite Chriſtians to obtain a rational faith; and at the ſame time, its having been defeated, will be a ſtrong argument of the truth of Chriſtianity, and will con⯑tribute to render their faith firm, in like manner as the original propaga⯑tion of the goſpel is one ground of be⯑lief to us.

Again, the oppoſition of Infidels is of real advantage even to the generali⯑ty, by leading to ſuch a manner of pro⯑poſing the evidences of the goſpel, as will moſt effectually produce convic⯑tion in them. In order to convince [484] any perſon, the evidences of the go⯑ſpel muſt be properly propoſed. If in the propoſal they were loaded with un⯑eſſential or precarious circumſtances, a man's natural ſagacity might ſuggeſt difficulties, and occaſion doubts, and thus weaken his belief. But an ac⯑quaintance with the ſeveral objections of Infidels, will naturally lead one to propoſe them in a preciſe and guarded manner, and to repreſent every evi⯑dence in that juſt and ſtriking point of view, in which it will moſt quickly and certainly lay hold of the underſtand⯑ing. The ſupernatural knowledge of Chriſt and his apoſtles, enabled them, previous to all oppoſition, to propoſe the evidences of their miſſion in an ex⯑act and convincing manner, even when they propoſed them moſt ſimply: but no uninſpired perſon could even col⯑lect and put together the ſeveral evi⯑dences to which they occaſionally ap⯑pealed, [485] ſo as to preſerve them in their greateſt force, without a diſtinct com⯑prehenſion of their nature, of the cir⯑cumſtances on which their ſtrength de⯑pends, and of the objections to which they are moſt liable; and this can be acquired only by an extenſive acquain⯑tance with the oppoſition which Infi⯑dels have actually made.—Thus even the generality derive real advantage for their eſtabliſhment in Chriſtianity, from the oppoſition of Infidels, and from the manner of exhibiting the evidences of the goſpel, to which it naturally leads. But to ſome men the advantage thence reſulting, is much greater and more eſſential.

Some are naturally captious; they have a propenſity to raiſe objections on every ſubject; they have a turn of un⯑derſtanding, which makes them apter to doubt than to believe; they have a greater capacity for raiſing difficulties, [486] than for removing them. This is an intel⯑lectual diſtemper; but it is no uncom⯑mon one; and to the oppoſition of In⯑fidels it is owing, that medicine pro⯑per for this diſtemper, is continually in readineſs. In conſequence of that op⯑poſition, anſwers have been made to multitudes of objections againſt the go⯑ſpel: when, therefore, any of theſe ob⯑jections occur to a perſon, he can eaſily diſcover what has been advanced for the ſolution of it; and if that prove ſa⯑tisfying to him, he is delivered from his doubts. If it prove not ſatisfying, he can point out the fallacy which he obſerves in the ſolution; and this con⯑duct will either give occaſion to a bet⯑ter ſolution, or make the objection to be acknowledged in the end ſolid and unanſwerable. An inſtance in which the latter effect has taken place, has not hitherto occurred; the former there⯑fore may moſt naturally be expected. [487] Every objection propoſed, has been ſo often and ſo fully anſwered, that the moſt exceptious perſon, if he has only candour, cannot entertain a doubt con⯑cerning the truth of Chriſtianity, ex⯑cept he has either diſcovered an objec⯑tion that is new, or examined the an⯑ſwers to old objections and found them inſufficient. But indeed, if no objec⯑tion were publiſhed but what is new, or if no objection were repeated till the anſwers already given were firſt confuted, far the greater part of the volumes of Infidels had never ſeen the light.

There are ſome men whoſe abilities and improvements enable them to take in a diſtinct conception of the eviden⯑ces of the goſpel, to comprehend the whole ſeries of proofs, exceptions and anſwers. To ſuch men, that particular diſplay of thoſe evidences, which the efforts of infidelity have occaſioned, [488] renders them more ſatisfying, and ca⯑pable of impreſſing a deeper faith, than if they had been more ſimply propo⯑ſed. Their aſſent will not be altogether ſo quick or ready, but it will in the iſ⯑ſue be much more aſſured. No ſuſpi⯑cion of fallacy remains to diſturb their full acquieſcence in the concluſion, or to diminiſh the firmneſs of their faith. Whatever could breed ſuſpicion, has been already examined, and explicitly renounced. ‘"But would it not have been ſtill better, if no objections had been raiſed, and if conſequently no anſwers had been neceſſary?"’ While men continue men, that is impoſſible. There is no ſubject on which ſpecula⯑tive men can employ their attention or indulge their ingenuity, but difficul⯑ties will occur upon it, and objections will be raiſed. If a ſubject be capa⯑ble of being perfectly freed from the hazard of diſputation, yet this can hap⯑pen [489] only after all poſſible objections have been actually propoſed and an⯑ſwered. There is thus a certain courſe of trial which truth muſt go through, before it be ſo fully aſcertained as to gain an univerſal reception without further queſtion; and when it comes near to the end of this courſe, it is in a more advantageous ſituation, than it could be in, when it had its pro⯑greſs yet to begin. When the vin⯑dication of it is completed, this re⯑ſtores not the truth merely to its ori⯑ginal ſituation; it moreover renders it leſs liable to be again denied: many of the arts by which ſcepticiſm might attack it, are already detected, and many of its cavils expoſed; ſo that fewer arts remain, by which they who are acquainted with the controverſy, can be again debauched from the ac⯑knowledgment of it.

[490] Tho' the light and confirmation which the evidences of Chriſtianity have received from the oppoſition of Infidels, had not been in theſe ways of actual advantage to that religion; yet ſtill its having received them, would afford the ſtrong preſumption of its truth, which I have endeavoured to ſtate. For this preſumption ariſes from the eſſential difference between truth and falſehood, and therefore cannot be deſtroyed by any accidental conſe⯑quences to which the weakneſs or the perverſeneſs of men may give occaſion. That is undoubtedly falſe, however ſpecious, which a fair examination o⯑verthrows: that is certainly true, which, by the moſt rigid examination of its e⯑vidences, is not confuted, but confirm⯑ed. This will always remain an infal⯑lible criterion, to whatever bad purpo⯑ſes men may happen to abuſe the exa⯑mination from which it ariſes. But [491] when the oppoſition of Infidels has not only contributed to the illuſtration of the evidences of the goſpel, conſider⯑ed abſtractly, but alſo, as has been juſt now ſhown, actually puts men of all different characters, provided they will only ſeriouſly inquire, into a better ſi⯑tuation for obtaining faith in the go⯑ſpel, or for rendering their faith firm, than they could have been in, without it; this makes the argument in favour of Chriſtianity, to appear to ſtill great⯑er advantage. It makes it indiſputa⯑ble, that the confirmation which its e⯑vidences have received, is real: it ſhows it to be not only real, but important: it gives the mind a propenſity to be⯑lieve the goſpel, which will enable both this preſumption and every other evi⯑dence of its truth, to operate more ſtrongly on it, to lay faſter hold of it, and to produce fuller and more ſteady belief.

[492] To confirm us in the belief of Chri⯑ſtianity, is the purpoſe to which the argument of this diſſertation, is moſt directly ſubſervient. But it likewiſe naturally ſuggeſts a very ſtrong reaſon for moderation and forbearance to⯑wards thoſe who diſbelieve the goſpel, and freely propoſe their objections a⯑gainſt it. Chriſtianity is ſo evidently true, and ſo highly conducive to the moſt important intereſts of mankind, that we can ſcarce fail to regard thoſe with pity, who are ſo unhappy as to reject it. At the ſame time, their op⯑poſition to evidence which we reckon ſo clear and convincing, and the ma⯑ny miſchievous conſequences which ſpring immediately from the propaga⯑tion of infidelity, are very apt to raiſe indignation in thoſe who are warmly concerned for truth and goodneſs. If this ſentiment be kept from exceeding due bounds, and from exerting itſelf [493] in an improper manner, if it prompt us only to uſe our utmoſt endeavours to convince the unbelieving by argu⯑ment, and to fortify others againſt the infection of their principles, it is na⯑tural and worthy. But it too frequent⯑ly degenerates into anger, and prompts to illegitimate methods of curbing in⯑fidelity; it has led Chriſtians to attack unbelievers by force, and violence, and penal laws. There are many ar⯑guments againſt this. It is unlawful in itſelf, and therefore abſolutely to be avoided: however pernicious the im⯑mediate conſequences of propagating infidelity are, it muſt always be wrong to endeavour to prevent them by means that are unlawful. Beſides, this me⯑thod of oppoſing infidelity will always prove ineffectual; force may make men diſſemble their unbelief, or ren⯑der them more cautious in avowing it; but it will never move them to aban⯑don [494] it, and it will make them more eager to inſtil it into others whenever they can with ſafety, and more artful in the manner of inſtilling it: it would therefore be fooliſh, tho' it were not unlawful, to have recourſe to violence. This would be not only ineffectual for repreſſing infidelity, but even really detrimental to Chriſtianity. Zeal for this religion, is the pretended motive to the uſe of violence againſt unbelie⯑vers; but true and reaſonable zeal for it, would be the moſt powerful re⯑ſtraint from this conduct, becauſe it hurts it in many ways. It ſeems to betray a diffidence of the truth of Chri⯑ſtianity. It gives an appearance of boldneſs and intrepidity to the oppo⯑ſition of Infidels, which makes the un⯑thinking more prone to liſten to them, and more ſuſceptible of a deep impreſ⯑ſion from their arguments. It gives them a handle for pretending, after [495] they have publiſhed all the objections which they can, that they have ſtrong⯑er in reſerve, but that it is not ſafe for them to produce them: they have not failed to avail themſelves of this pre⯑tence, tho' they have often conducted their oppoſition in a way that ought to take all credit from it; the greateſt ſtrength of argument could neither have ſo well deſerved, nor ſo directly provoked, the uſe of violence, as the diſingenuous arts which they have, in many inſtances, fearleſsly employed in ſetting off very frivolous cavils, and the indecent ſcurrility which they have indulged, when there was no ſhadow of argument mixt with their abuſe. But attempts to reſtrain infidelity by force, hurt Chriſtianity in a way ſtill more direct and eſſential, which I have principally in my eye. Suppoſe they ſhould be effectual for hindering Infi⯑dels from at all propoſing their objec⯑tions: [496] this is the very utmoſt that could be expected from them: but would this really be of advantage to Chriſtia⯑nity? If the preceeding reaſonings be juſt, it would not; it would on the contrary be prejudicial to it. It would prevent the evidence of this religion from ever ſhining with that brightneſs which it has acquired by having ſtood the ſevereſt trial of reaſon, and which it could not poſſibly have acquired by any other means. Infidels, tho' they intend far otherwiſe, are truly inſtru⯑ments in the hand of divine provi⯑dence, for the confirmation of Chriſti⯑anity. If it be true, as we believe it is, all the attacks which can be made upon it, will infallibly iſſue in render⯑ing its truth the more unqueſtionable. No doubt they may produce very bad effects in the mean time: but theſe we have no authority from God, to pre⯑vent by methods of violence, and by [497] ſuch methods they cannot be in fact prevented. By betaking ourſelves to them, we thereby obſtruct the good purpoſes to which infidelity will be o⯑verruled, without redreſſing the tem⯑porary evils which immediately reſult from it; we deſtroy the wheat, with⯑out being able to root out the tares. That the acceſſion of evidence which Chriſtianity acquires by ſtanding the teſt of inquiry, may appear with the greateſt advantage, it is neceſſary that the objections againſt it be propoſed with as great ſecurity, as the arguments for it: without this, the trial which it ſuſtains, is not abſolutely fair; and, till the oppoſite reaſons be carefully bal⯑lanced, there is room left for a ſuſpi⯑cion, that it has ſuſtained the trial, not by the force of its truth alone, but partly alſo by the protection of human power. It is not every degree of re⯑ſtraint that will juſtify this ſuſpicion; [498] but it is pity that, by any degree of reſtraint, a pretence was ever given for it. Let never Infidels be diſcouraged from reaſoning freely againſt the evi⯑dences of Chriſtianity, as well as on o⯑ther ſubjects; their ſtrongeſt reaſonings againſt it, will do it the greateſt ſer⯑vice; they will be like heroes, whoſe bravery renders the victory more diffi⯑cult, but whoſe captivity adds greatly to the ſplendour of the triumph. If they even betake themſelves to cavils and miſrepreſentations, let theſe be on⯑ly pointed out with calmneſs; they will, in the end, not only diſgrace their au⯑thors, but alſo hurt the cauſe which they were intended to ſerve. Infideli⯑ty allowed to do its utmoſt, tends ulti⯑mately to deſtroy itſelf, by making the truth of Chriſtianity to appear the more evident and unqueſtionable. If then we really believe our religion to be of divine original, and be not under the [499] power of a contracted and undiſcerning ſpirit; concern for its ſucceſs, will con⯑cur with many other principles, in lead⯑ing us to wiſh moſt earneſtly, that infi⯑delity may never be oppoſed by any o⯑ther weapons, but that of juſt reaſon⯑ing. Gold is refined in the furnace; it is only the worthleſs droſs that is con⯑ſumed; let Chriſtians never act as if they ſuſpected their religion to be droſs. Let penal laws be invariably appropriated to crimes, concerning which fallible men can judge with preciſion, which are the natural objects of human cognizance, which may be effectually reſtrained by puniſhment, and which are ſo immedi⯑ately deſtructive to ſociety, as to render puniſhment neceſſary for its preſerva⯑tion. Let never the intereſts of truth be obſtructed, by ill-judged or unlaw⯑ful attempts to promote them.