See other formats

Full text of "A dissertation on miracles : containing an examination of the principles advanced by David Hume in an Essay on miracles"

CO 






DISSERTATION ON MIRACLES 



CONTAIN INC 



AN EXAMINATION OF THE PRINCIPLES ADVANCED BY 

DAVID HUME, ESQ., 

IN 

AN ESSAY ON MIRACLES; 

WITH A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE SUBJECT BY MR. HUME, 
DR. CAMPBELL, AND DR. BLAIR. 

TO WHICH ARE ADDED, 

SERMONS AND TRACTS, 



BY GEORGE CAMPBELL, D.D., 

PRINCIPAL OF THE MARISCHAL COLLEGE, AND ONE OF THE MINISTERS OF ABERDEEN- 
AUTHOR OF THE TRANSLATION OF THE FOUR GOSPELS, ETC. 



The works that I do in my Father s name, they bear witness of me. JOHN x. 25. 



tuition. 



LONDON: 
PRINTED FOR THOMAS TEGG, 73, CHEAPSIDE ; 

R. GRIFFIN AND CO., GLASGOW ; TEGG AND CO., DUBLIN ; AND 
J. AND S. A. TEGG, SYDNEY AND HOBART TOWN. 

MDCCCXXXIX. 



WILLIAM TYLER, 

PRINTER, 
5, BOLT COURT, LONDON. 



G48960 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



IT is not the only, nor even the chief design of these sheets, 
to refute the reasoning and objections of MR. HUME with 
regard to miracles : the chief design of them is, to set the 
principal argument for Christianity in its proper light. On 
a subject that has been so often treated, it is impossible to 
avoid saying many things which have been said before. It 
may, however, with reason be affirmed, that there still re 
mains, on this subject, great scope for new observations. 
Besides, it ought to be remembered, that the evidence of any 
complex argument depends very much on the order into 
which the material circumstances are digested, and the man 
ner in which they are displayed. 

The Essay on Miracles deserves to be considered as one 
of the most dangerous attacks that have been made on our 
religion. The danger results not solely from the merit of 
the piece : it results much more from that of the author. The 
piece itself, like very other work of Mr. Hume, is ingenious ; 
but its merit is more of the oratorial kind than of the philo 
sophical. The merit of the author, I acknowledge, is great. 
The many useful volumes he has published of history, as well 
as on criticism, politics, and trade, have justly procured him, 
with all persons of taste and discernment, the highest repu 
tation as a writer. What pity is it that this reputation should 
have been sullied by attempts to undermine the foundation 
both of natural religion, and of revealed / 

For my own part, I think it a piece of justice in me to 
acknowledge the obligations I owe the author, before I enter 
on the proposed examination. I have not only been much 
entertained and instructed by his works ; but if I am pos 
sessed of any talent in abstract reasoning, I am not a little 
indebted to what he has written on Human Nature, for the 
improvement of that talent. If, therefore, in this Tract, I 
have refuted Mr. Hume s Essay, the greater share of the merit 
is perhaps to be asoribed to Mr. Hume himself. The compli- 



IV ADVERTISEMENT. 

ment which the Russian monarch, after the famous battle of 
Poltowa, paid the Swedish generals, when he gave them the 
honourable appellation of his masters in the art of war, I may, 
with great sincerity, pay my acute and ingenious adversary. 

I shall add a few things concerning the occasion and form 
of the following Dissertation. 

Some of the principal topics here discussed were more 
briefly treated in a sermon preached before the Synod of Aber 
deen, and are now made public at their desire. To the end 
that an argument of so great importance might be more fully 
and freely canvassed than it could have been, with propriety, 
in a sermon, it was judged necessary to new-model the dis 
course, and to give it that form in which it now appears. 

The edition of Mr. Hume s Essays, to which I always refer 
in this work, is that printed at London, in duodecimo, 1750,* 
entitled, Philosophical Essays concerning Human Understand 
ing. I have, since finishing this tract, seen a later edition, in 
which there are a few variations. None of them appeared 
to me so material as to give ground for altering the quotations 
and references here used. There is indeed one alteration, 
which candour required that I should mention : I have ac 
cordingly mentioned it in a note.f 

The arguments of the Essayist I have endeavoured to re 
fute by argument. Mere declamation I know no way of 
refuting but by analyzing it ; nor do I conceive how incon 
sistencies can be answered otherwise than by exposing them. 
In such analysis and exposition, which I own, I have attempted 
without ceremony or reserve, an air of ridicule is unavoid 
able : But this ridicule, I am well aware, if founded in mis 
representation, will at last rebound upon myself. It is pos 
sible, that, in some things, I have mistaken the author s 
meaning ; I am conscious that I have not, in any thing, de- 
designedly misrepresented it. 

* As this advertisement was prefixed to the first edition of the Dissertation, I 
was not a little surprised to observe, that the French translator declared, in the 
first sentence of his Avis au Lecteur, that he did not know what edition of Mr. 
Hume s Essays I had used in this work. On proceeding, I discovered that my 
advertisement has not been translated by him, which makes me suspect, that, by 
some accident, it had been left out of the copy which he used. 

f Page 101. 






CONTENTS. 



Page 

PREFACE .......... 1 

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . .11 

PART I. 

MIRACLES ARE CAPABLE OF PROOF FROM TESTIMONY, AND RELIGIOUS 
MIRACLES ARE NOT LESS CAPABLE or THIS EVIDENCE THAN OTHERS. 

SECT. 

I. Mr. Hume s favourite argument is founded on a false hy 

pothesis . . . . . . . . .15 

II. Mr. Hume charged with some fallacies in his way of manag 

ing the argument . . . . . . .29 

III. Mr. Hume himself gives up his favourite argument . .39 
IV. There is no peculiar presumption against such miracles as are 

said to have been wrought in support of religion . . 43 
V. There is a peculiar presumption in favour of such miracles 

as are said to have been wrought in support of religion . 49 
VI. Inquiry into the meaning and propriety of one of Mr. Hume s 

favourite maxims . . . . . . .51 

PART II. 
THE MIRACLES ON WHICH THE BELIEF OF CHRISTIANITY is FOUNDED, 

ARE SUFFICIENTLY ATTESTED. 

I. There is no presumption arising from human nature, against 
the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of Chris 
tianity .... ..... 66 

II. There is no presumption arising from the history of mankind, 

against the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of 
Christianity 63 

III. No miracles recorded by historians of other religions are sub 

versive of the evidence arising from the miracles wrought 
in proof of Christianity, or can be considered as contrary 
testimony ......... 80 



VI CONTENTS. 

SECT. Page. 

IV. Examination of the PAGAN miracles mentioned by Mr. Hume 88 
V. Examination of the POPISH miracles mentioned by Mr. Hume 100 
VI. Abstracting from the evidence for particular facts, we have 
irrefragable evidence that there have been miracles in 
former times ; or such events as, when compared with 
the present constitution of the world, would by Mr. 
Hume be denominated miraculous . . . .117 
VII. Revisal of Mr. Hume s examination of the Pentateuch . 122 
Conclusion ...... .131 



CONTENTS OF SERMONS, &c. 

Sermon I. . . . . . . . . .135 

Sermon II. 197 

Sermon III 231 

Sermon IV. 249 

Advertisement . . . . . . . . .251 

Summary of the particulars of Sermon IV. .... 299 

Address to the People of Scotland, &c. .... 303 

Advertisement ......... 304 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . 305 

Chapter I. ......... 307 

Chapter II. 323 

Chapter III. ....... . 343 



PREFACE, 



I HERE offer to the Public a new and improved edition of 
my Dissertation on Miracles, first printed in the year 1762, 
together with some other Tracts related to it, as supplying 
additional evidences of the truth of our religion, displaying 
its amiable spirit, and manifesting its beneficial tendency, in 
respect, not only of individuals, but of communities and states. 

The first of these is a Sermon on the Spirit of the Gospel, 
preached before the Synod of Aberdeen in 1771. The se 
cond, a Sermon preached before the Society in Scotland for 
Propagating Christian Knowledge in 1777 ; the scope of 
which is to show, that the success of the first publishers of 
the gospel is a proof of its truth. The third is a Sermon 
preached at the Assizes at Aberdeen, on the happy Influence 
of Religion on Civil Society. The fourth also is a Sermon, 
on the Duty of Allegiance, preached at Aberdeen in 1776, 
on the Fast-day, on account of the Rebellion in America ; 
and the fifth, an Address to the People of Scotland on the 
Alarms that had been raised in regard to Popery. 

On the Dissertation itself I have made a few amendments, 
not very material I acknowledge, yet of some use for obvi 
ating objections and preventing mistakes. It has been ob 
served by several, that Mr. Hume has, since the Dissertation 
first appeared in print, once and again republished the Essay 
to which it was intended as an answer ; not only without 
taking the smallest notice that any thing reasonable, or even 
specious, had been urged in opposition to his doctrine, but 
without making any alteration of any consequence on what 
he had advanced. I know but one exception, if it shall be 
thought of moment enough to be called an exception, from 
this remark. What, in former editions, had been thus ex 
pressed, as quoted in the Dissertation,* " Upon the whole it 
appears, that no testimony for any kind of miracle can ever 

* Part I., Sect. 1. 



PREFACE. 

possibly amount to a probability, much less to a proof," is 
made in the octavo edition, published in 1767, " Upon the 
whole it appears, that no testimony for any kind of miracle 
has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof." 
By this more moderate declaration, Mr. Hume avoids the 
contradiction there was in the sentence to the concession he 
had subjoined in a note. But no correction is given to many 
other sentences, which needed correction not less glaringly 
than this. For this conduct it is not easy to account, unless 
on the hypothesis, that he had never read the Dissertation, 
or that he had so low an opinion of it, as not to think it con 
tained any thing which either required an answer, or deserved 
his notice. What follows will probably satisfy the reader that 
neither of these suppositions was the fact. That Mr. Hume 
had read this attempt to confute his argument, and did not 
think contemptuously of it, I have his own authority to affirm ; 
for, soon after its publication, I was honoured with a letter 
from him, one great purpose of which was to assign his rea 
sons for not intending a reply. What he writes on this sub 
ject shows sufficiently, though incidentally, that contempt was 
not the passion which the perusal of this tract had raised in 
his mind. As there is nothing in the letter which can lead 
to an unfavourable reflection, either on the understanding 
or on the disposition of the writer, (for to me it appears to 
have an opposite tendency,) and as it assigns his own reasons 
for not engaging farther in the controversy, I have been in 
duced, in justice both to him and to myself, to publish it. I 
say, in justice to him ; for I am convinced that Mr. Hume 
would not have considered it as redounding to his honour, to 
have the construction above mentioned put upon his silence. 
Yet it must be owned, that, to those who have never heard 
himself on the subject, it is by far the most plausible con 
struction. The letter is word for word as follows: 

" SIR, 

" It has so seldom happened, that controversies in philo 
sophy, much more in theology, have been carried on without 
producing a personal quarrel between the parties, that I must 
regard my present situation as somewhat extraordinary, who 



PREFACE. 3 

have reason to give you thanks for the civil and obliging man 
ner in which you have conducted the dispute against me, on 
so interesting a subject as that of miracles. Any little symp 
toms of vehemence, of which I formerly used the freedom to 
complain, when you favoured me with a sight of the manu 
script, are either removed, or explained away, or atoned for 
by civilities, which are far beyond what I have any title to 
pretend to. It will be natural for you to imagine, that I will 
fall upon some shift to evade the force of your arguments, 
and to retain my former opinion in the point controverted be 
tween us ; but it is impossible for me not to see the ingenuity 
of your performance, and the great learning which you have 
displayed against me. I consider myself as very much ho 
noured in being thought worthy of an answer by a person of 
so much merit ; and, as I find that the public does you jus 
tice, with regard to the ingenuity and good composition of 
your piece, I hope you will have no reason to repent engag 
ing with an antagonist, whom perhaps, in strictness, you 
might have ventured to neglect. I own to you, that I never 
felt so violent an inclination to defend myself as at present, 
when I am thus fairly challenged by you ; and I think I 
could find something specious, at least, to urge in my own 
defence : But as I had fixed a resolution, in the beginning of 
my life, always to leave the public to judge between my ad 
versaries and me, without making any reply, I must adhere 
inviolably to this resolution, otherwise my silence, on any 
future occasion, would be construed to be an inability to 
answer, and would be matter of triumph against me.* 

" It may perhaps amuse you, to learn the first hint which 
suggested to me that argument which you have so strenuously 

* As far as I recollect, Mr. Hume, whose curious theories have raised many 
able opponents, has, except in one instance, uniformly adhered to this resolution. 
But what no attack on his principles, either religious or philosophical, could 
effectuate, has been produced by a difference on an historical question, a point 
which has indeed been long and much controverted ; but as to which we may 
say, with truth, that it would not be easy to conceive how the interests of indi 
viduals, or of society, could at present be affected by the decision, on whichever 
side it were given. I believe Mr. Hume s best friends wish, for his own sake, 
as I do sincerely, (for I respect his talents,) that he had given no handle for this 
exception. 

A 



4 PREFACE. 

attacked. I was walking in the cloisters of the Jesuits Col 
lege of La Fleche, (a town in which I passed two years of my 
youth,) and was engaged in conversation with a Jesuit of some 
parts and learning, who was relating to me, and urging some 
nonsensical miracle performed lately in their Convent when 
I was tempted to dispute against him ; and as my head was 
full of the topics of my Treatise of Human Nature, which I 
was at that time composing, this argument immediately oc 
curred to me, and I thought it very much gravelled my com 
panion. But at last he observed to me, that it was impossible 
for that argument to have any solidity, because it operated 
equally against the Gospel as the Catholic miracles ; which 
observation I thought proper to admit as a sufficient answer. 
I believe you will allow, that the freedom at least of this 
reasoning makes it somewhat extraordinary to have been the 
produce of a Convent of Jesuits ; though perhaps you may 
think that the sophistry of it savours plainly of the place of 
its birth. I beg my compliments to Mrs. Campbell ; and am, 
with great regard, 

SIR, 

" Your most obedient humble Servant, 
" Edin. June 7, 1762. DAVID HUME." 

The reader will perceive, from this letter, that Mr. Hume 
had not only read my book since the publication, but had 
perused the manuscript before. The fact was, I had sent my 
papers to a very respectable clergyman in Edinburgh, still 
living, who was well acquainted with that author, and who has, 
since that time, eminently distinguished himself in the world 
by his own writings ; of whose judgment, as I had a high and 
just esteem, I was desirous to have his opinion of my piece, in 
respect both of argument and of composition, before I should 
venture to lay it before the Public. This gentleman, in re 
turn, after giving his opinion in a candid and friendly manner, 
added, that as he knew I was myself a little acquainted with 
Mr. Hume, there would be at least no impropriety, if I con 
sented, in his showing him the manuscript. To this I heartily 
agreed ; and did it the more readily, as I thought it very pos 
sible that, in some things, I might have mistaken that author s 



PREFACE. 5 

meaning ; in which case, he was surely better qualified than 
any other person to set me right. That, however, had not 
been the case ; for though Mr. Hume remarks very freely on 
my examination of his Essay, he does not, in a single in 
stance, charge me with either misunderstanding or misre 
presenting him. In returning the manuscript, Mr. Hume 
accompanied it with a letter to my friend, containing such 
observations as had occurred to him in the perusal. This 
letter, with the writer s permission, was transmitted to me. 
It is to it he alludes in the second sentence of that which 
he afterwards wrote to me, and which is inserted above. 

It cannot be denied, that, in the first letter, he appeared 
not a little hurt by the freedom of the manner in which his 
principles and reasoning had been canvassed. To complaints 
of this kind a few hints are subjoined, as suggesting topics 
from which a sufficient answer might be drawn to some of my 
refutations and objections. In regard to a few particular 
expressions complained of, I have, as he justly observes, either 
removed or softened them, that I might, as much as possible, 
avoid the offence, without impairing the argument. For the 
hints he has thrown out, by way of reply, I consider myself 
as indebted to him. They have suggested objections which 
had not occurred to me, and which required to be obviated, 
that the argument might have all the weight, and all the 
illustration of which it is capable. I did accordingly, where 
it appeared requisite, introduce, and, in my judgment, refute 
the suggested answer. Thus I was enabled to anticipate ob 
jections, and remove difficulties, which might have occurred 
to other readers, and been thought by some very momentous. 
But as the manuscript had, before then, been put into the 
hands of the printer at Edinburgh, I could not, at Aberdeen, 
avail myself of those hints so easily, as by making them the 
subject of notes which I could soon transmit to the printer, 
with directions in regard to the passages to which they refer. 
I was not a little surprised, that I could find nothing in reply 
to my refutation of his abstract and metaphysical argument 
on the evidence of testimony, displayed with so much osten 
tation in the first part of his Essay, the production of which 
argument, to the public, seems to have been his principal 

A 2 



PREFACE. 

motive for writing on the subject. All his observations of 
any moment were levelled against the answers which had been 
given to his more familiar and popular topics, employed in 
the second part. The letter, which is addressed to Dr. Hugh 
Blair, Edinburgh, is as follows : 

" SIR, 

" I have perused the ingenious performance which you 
was so obliging as to put into my hands, with all the atten 
tion possible ; though not perhaps with all the seriousness 
and gravity which you have so frequently recommended to 
me. But the fault lies not in the piece, which is certainly 
very acute, but in the subject. I know you will say it lies 
in neither, but in myself alone. If that be so, I am sorry to 
say that I believe it is incurable. 

" I could wish that your friend had not chosen to appear 
as a controversial writer, but had endeavoured to establish 
his principles, in general, without any reference to a parti 
cular book or person ; though I own he does me a great deal 
of honour, in thinking that any thing I have wrote deserves 
his attention : For, besides many inconveniences which at 
tend that kind of writing, I see it is almost impossible to 
preserve decency and good manners in it. This author, for 
instance, says sometimes obliging things of me, much beyond 
what I can presume to deserve ; and I thence conclude, that 
in general he did not mean to insult me : yet I meet with 
some other passages more worthy of Warburton and his fol 
lowers, than of so ingenious an author. 

" But as I am not apt to lose my temper, and would still 
less incline to do so with a friend of yours, I shall calmly con- 
municate to you some remarks on the argument, since you 
seem to desire it. I shall employ very few words, since a 
hint will suffice to a gentleman of this author s penetration. 

" Sect. 1. I would desire the author to consider, whether 
the medium by which we reason concerning human testimony, 
be different from that which leads us to draw any inferences 
concerning other human actions : that is, our knowledge of 
human nature from experience ? Or why it is different ? I 
suppose we conclude an honest man will not lie to us, in the 



PREFACE. 7 

same manner as we conclude that he will not cheat us. As 
to the youthful propensity to believe, which is corrected by 
experience ; it seems obvious, that children adopt, blindfold, 
all the opinions, principles, sentiments, and passions of their 
elders, as well as credit their testimony : Nor is this more 
strange, than that a hammer should make an impression on 
clay. 

" Sect. 2. No man can have any other experience but his 
own. The experience of others becomes his only by the 
credit which he gives to their testimony ; which proceeds from 
his own experience of human nature. 

" Sect. 3. There is no contradiction in saying, that all the 
testimony which ever was really given for any miracle, or ever 
will be given, is a subject of derision ; and yet forming a 
fiction or supposition of a testimony for a particular miracle, 
which might not only merit attention, but amount to a full 
proof of it : for instance, the absence of the sun during 48 
hours : But reasonable men would only conclude from this 
fact, that the machine of the globe was disordered during 
the time. 

" Page 28. I find no difficulty to explain my meaning, and 
yet shall not probably do it in any future edition. The proof 
against a miracle, as it is founded on invariable experience, 
is of that species or kind of proof, which is full and certain 
when taken alone, because it implies no doubt, as is the case 
with all probabilities ; but there are degrees of this species, 
and when a weaker proof is opposed to a stronger, it is over 
come. 

" Page 29. There is very little more delicacy in telling a 
man he speaks nonsense by implication, than in saying so 
directly. 

" Sect. 4. Does a man of sense run after every silly tale of 
witches, or hobgoblins, or fairies, and canvass particularly the 
evidence ? I never knew any one that examined and delibe 
rated about nonsense, who did not believe it before the end 
of his inquiries. 

4t Sect. 5. I wonder the author does not perceive the reason 
why Mr. John Knox and Mr. Alexander Henderson did not 
work as many miracles as their brethren in other churches. 



8 PREFACE. 

Miracle-working was a popish trick, and discarded with the 
other parts of that religion. Men must have new and oppo 
site ways of establishing new and opposite follies.* The 
same reason extends to Mahomet. The Greek priests, who 
were in the neighbourhood of Arabia, and many of them in 
it, were as great miracle-workers as the Romish ; and Maho 
met would have been laughed at for so stale and simple a 
device. To cast out devils, and cure the blind, where every 
one almost can do as much, is not the way to get any extra 
ordinary ascendant over men.-f- I never read of a miracle in 
my life, that was not meant to establish some new point of re 
ligion. There are no miracles wrought in Spain to prove the 
gospel ; but St. Francis Xavier wrought a thousand well at 
tested ones for that purpose in the Indies. The miracles in 
Spain, which are also fully and completely attested, are wrought 
to prove the efficacy of a particular crucifix or relic, which 
is always a new point, or, at least, not universally received.^ 
" Sect. 6. If a miracle proves a doctrine to be revealed 
from God, and consequently true, a miracle can never be 
wrought for a contrary doctrine. The facts are therefore as 
incompatible as the doctrines. 



* On the observation, page 120, &c. that none of the Reformers, either abroad 
or at home, had ever pretended to the power of working miracles, notwithstanding 
the enthusiasm with which the Essayist charges them in his history, and notwith 
standing the great facility which he affirms there is in this way of imposing upon 
mankind. To this he replies as above, " / ivonder the author does not perceive" &c. 
My return to this will be found in a note in the Dissertation. 

f- The reply to the observation with regard to Mahomet, will be found in the 
place referred to, partly in the text, and partly in the note at the bottom of the 
page. 

1 In page 94 of the former edition I had asserted, that the oracular predictions 
among the Pagans, and the pretended wonders performed by Capuchins and Friars, 
by itinerant or stationary teachers among the Roman Catholics, could not be deno 
minated miracles ascribed to a new system of religion. This remark drew from 
Mr. Hume the reply as above, " / never read" &c. To this objection the note 
on that passage is intended as an answer : whether it be a sufficient one, the 
reader will judge. In any event, he will, I persuade myself, do me the justice to 
own, that I have not weakened my adversary s plea by my manner of stating it. 
To avoid this, I have kept .as close to the objector s own words as I could pro 
perly, without naming and quoting him. Beside these observations, I hardly find 
any thing in the letter, having the appearance of argument, which affects my 
reasoning. 



PREFACE. 9 

" I could wish your friend had not denominated me an 
infidel writer, on account of ten or twelve pages which seem 
to him to have that tendency ; while I have wrote so many 
volumes on history, literature, politics, trade, morals, which, 
in that particular at least, are entirely inoffensive. Is a man 
to be called a drunkard, because he has been seen fuddled 
once in his lifetime ? 

" Having said so much to your friend, who is certainly a 
very ingenious man, though a little too zealous for a philo 
sopher ; permit me also the freedom of saying a word to 
yourself. Whenever I have had the pleasure to be in your 
company, if the discourse turned upon any common subject 
of literature or reasoning, I always parted from you both 
entertained and instructed. But when the conversation was 
diverted by you from this channel towards the subject of 
your profession ; though I doubt not but your intentions 
were very friendly towards me, I own I never received the 
same satisfaction : I was apt to be tired ; and you to be 
angry. I would therefore wish for the future, wherever my 
good fortune throws me in your way, that these topics should 
be forborne between us. I have, long since, done with all 
inquiries on such subjects, and am become incapable of in 
struction ; though I own no one is more capable of conveying 
it than yourself. 

" After having given you the liberty of communicating to 
your friend what part of this letter you think proper, I 
remain, 

" SIR, 
" Your most obedient humble Servant, 

" DAVID HUME." 

It may not be improper, in order, as much as possible, to 
prevent misapprehension, to add, that though I know that 
several pieces on the same subject have been published since 
the first edition of my Dissertation, I have not had the good 
fortune to see any of them, except one printed along with 
other Tracts by the late learned and accurate Dr. Price. 
There is one in particular by Dr. Farmer, which I have 
oftener than once inquired about, but have not yet been 



10 PREFACE. 

lucky enough to meet with. This, perhaps, is imputable to 
the lateness of my inquiries ; for I acknowledge that I was 
so much engrossed by other studies at the time of its first 
appearing, that I did not think of reading more on that 
article, till an application to myself, for a new edition of the 
Dissertation, suggested the propriety of consulting what 
may have been written by learned men on the subject, poste 
rior to the first edition. From some other works I have read 
of Dr. Farmer s, I have reason to believe that the piece 
alluded to is both ingenious and acute; and from some 
account of it, which I remember to have perused in a Review, 
I have ground to suspect that his principles and mine on 
that subject do not in all things correspond. At the same 
time I recollect to have thought, when reading the account, 
that, on some points, the difference between us was more in 
expression than in sentiment. My only reason for men 
tioning this circumstance here, is to prevent the misconstruc 
tion of my silence in regard to him and other writers on the 
same subject, whose sentiments may either coincide with 
mine, or stand in opposition to them. My silence in such 
cases proceeds neither from contempt nor frompolicy. They 
will come nearer the truth, and do me more justice, who 
shall ascribe it to ignorance. 

I shall only add, with respect to the gentleman who did 
me the honour to translate my Dissertation into French, that 
though, upon the whole, he has acquitted himself admirably 
of the task he had undertaken, and has, in many things, 
improved upon his original, there are a few places in which 
he seems not perfectly to have apprehended my meaning. 
The cause of his mistake I find to have sometimes been an 
ambiguity or obscurity in the English expression I had em 
ployed. In such cases I have endeavoured to correct the 
fault in this edition, and give to the diction all the perspi 
cuity possible. There is no quality in style more important, 
whatever be the subject; but in argumentative writings it is 
indispensable. 



INTRODUCTION. 



" CHRISTIANITY," it has been said, " is not founded in 
argument." If it were only meant by these words, that the 
religion of JESUS could not, by the single aid of reasoning, 
produce its full effect upon the heart, every true Christian 
would cheerfully subscribe to them. No arguments, unac 
companied by the influences of the Holy Spirit, can convert 
the soul from sin to God ; though, even, to such conversion, 
arguments are, by the agency of the Spirit, rendered subser 
vient. Again, if we were to understand, by this aphorism, 
that the principles of our religion could never have been dis 
covered by the natural and unassisted faculties of man ; this 
position, I presume, would be as little disputed as the former. 
But if, on the contrary, under the colour of an ambiguous 
expression, it is intended to insinuate, that those principles, 
from their very nature, can admit no rational evidence of 
their truth, (and this, by the way, is the only meaning which 
can avail our antagonists,) the gospel, as well as common 
sense, loudly reclaims against it. 

The Lord JESUS CHRIST, the author of our religion, often 
argued, both with his disciples and with his adversaries, as 
with reasonable men, on the principles of reason. "With 
out this faculty, he well knew, they could not be susceptible 
either of religion or of law. He argued from prophecy, and 
the conformity of the event to the prediction.* He argued 
from the testimony of John the Baptist, who was generally 
acknowledged to be a prophet.")* He argued from the mira 
cles which he himself performed,;}; as uncontrovertible evi 
dences that God Almighty operated by him, and had sent 
him. He expostulates with his enemies, for not using their 

* Luke auriv. 25, &c. ; John v. 39 and 46. f John v. 32, 33, 

t John y. 36; x. 25, 37, 38 ; xiv. 10, 11. 



INTRODUCTION. 

reason on this subject. Why, says he, even of yourselves, 
judge ye not what is right ? * In like manner we are called 
upon by the apostles of our Lord, to act the part of wise men, 
and judge impartially of what they say.^ Those who do so, 
are highly commended for the candour and prudence they 
discover in an affair of so great consequence. J We are 
even commanded, to be always ready to give an answer to 
every man that asketh us a reason of our hope ; in meekness 
to instruct them that oppose themselves ;\\ and earnestly to 
contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. *^ 
God has neither in natural nor in revealed religion left him 
self without witness ; but has in both given moral and exter 
nal evidence, sufficient to convince the impartial, to silence 
the gainsayer, and to render inexcusable the atheist and the 
unbeliever. This evidence it is our duty to attend to, and 
candidly to examine. We must prove all things, as we are 
expressly enjoined in holy writ, if we would ever hope to 
holdfast that which is good.** 

Thus much I thought proper to premise, not to serve as an 
apology for the design of this Tract, (the design surely needs 
no apology, whatever the world may judge of the execution,) 
but to expose the shallowness of that pretext, under which 
the advocates for infidelity, in this age, commonly take shelter. 
Whilst therefore we enforce an argument, which, in support 
of our religion, was so frequently insisted on by its divine 
founder, we will not dread the reproachful titles of dangerous 
friends, or disguised enemies of revelation. Such are the titles 
which the writer, whose sentiments I propose in these papers 
to canvass, has bestowed on his antagonists ;f f not, I believe, 
through malice against them, but as a sort of excuse for him 
self, or at least a handle for introducing a very strange and 
unmeaning compliment to the religion of his country, after 
a very bold attempt to undermine it. We will however do 
him the justice to own, that he hath put it out of our power 

* Luke xii. 57. t 1 Cor. x. 15. J Acts xvii. 11. 

1 Pet. iii. 15. || 2 Tim. ii. 25. H Jude Hi. 

** 1 Thess. v. 21. ft Page 204. 



INTRODUCTION. 13 

to retort the charge. No intelligent person, who hath care 
fully perused the Essay on Miracles, will impute to the 
author either of those ignominious characters. 

My primary intention in undertaking an answer to the 
aforesaid Essay hath invariably been, to contribute all in my 
power to the defence of a religion, which I esteem the great 
est blessing conferred by Heaven on the sons of men. It is 
at the same time a secondary motive of considerable weight, to 
vindicate philosophy, at least that most important branch of 
it which ascertains the rules of reasoning, from those absurd 
consequences which this author s theory naturally leads us to. 
The theme is arduous. The adversary is both subtle and 
powerful. With such an adversary, I should on very unequal 
terms enter the lists, had I not the advantage of being on the 
side of truth. And an eminent advantage this doubtless is, 
as it requires but moderate abilities to speak in defence of a 
good cause. A good cause demands but a distinct exposi 
tion and a fair hearing ; and we may say, with great pro 
priety, it will speak for itself. But to adorn error with the 
semblance of truth, and make the worse appear the better 
reason, requires all the arts of ingenuity and invention ; arts 
in which few or none have been more expert than Mr. Hume. 
It is much to be regretted, that, on some occasions, he has so 
applied them. 



DISSERTATION ON MIRACLES 



PART I. 

MIRACLES ARE CAPABLE OF PROOF FROM TESTIMONY, AND 
RELIGIOUS MIRACLES ARE NOT LESS CAPABLE OF THIS 
EVIDENCE THAN OTHERS. 

SECTION I. 

Mr. Humes favourite argument is founded on a false 
hypothesis. 

IT is not the aim of this author to evince, that miracles, if 
admitted to be true, would not be a sufficient evidence of a di 
vine mission : his design is solely to prove, that miracles which 
have not been the objects of our own senses, at least such as 
are said to have been performed in attestation of any religious 
system, cannot reasonably be admitted by us, or believed on 
the testimony of others. "A miracle," says he, " supported by 
any human testimony, is more properly a subject of derision 
than of argument."* Again, in the conclusion of his Essay, 
" Upon the whole it appears that no testimony for any kind 
of miracle can ever possibly amount to a probability 3 much 
less to a proof."j* Here he concludes against all miracles : 
" Any kind of miracle" are his express words. He seems, 
however, immediately sensible, that, in asserting this, he has 
gone too far ; and therefore, in the end of the same paragraph, 
retracts part of what he had advanced in the beginning : " We 
may establish it as a maxim, that no human testimony can 

* Page 194. t Page 202. See Preface, p. 2. 



16 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 

have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a just 
foundation for any system of religion." In the note on this 
passage he has these words : " I beg the limitation here made 
may be remarked, when I say, that a miracle can never be 
proved, so as to be the foundation of a system of religion ; 
For I own that otherwise there may possibly be miracles, or 
violations of the usual course of nature, of such a kind as to 
admit of proof from human testimony." 

So much for that cardinal point which the Essayist labours 
so strenuously to evince ; and which, if true, will not only be 
subversive of revelation, as received by us on the testimony 
of the apostles, and prophets, and martyrs, but will directly 
lead to this general conclusion, " That it is impossible for 
God Almighty to give a revelation, attended with such evi 
dence that it can be reasonably believed in after-ages, or even 
in the same age, by any person who hath not been an eye 
witness of the miracles by which it is supported." 

Now by what wonderful process of reasoning is this strange 
conclusion made out ? Several topics have been employed for 
the purpose by this subtle disputant. Among these there is 
one principal argument, which he is at great pains to set off 
to the best advantage. Here indeed he claims a particular 
concern, having discovered it himself. His title to the honour 
of the discovery, it is not my business to controvert ; I con 
fine myself entirely to the consideration of its importance. To 
this end I shall now lay before the reader the unanswerable 
argument, as he flatters himself it will be found ; taking the 
freedom, for brevity s sake, to compendize the reasoning, and 
to omit whatever is said merely for illustration. To do other 
wise, would lay me under the necessity of transcribing the 
greater part of the Essay. 

" Experience," says he, " is our only guide in reasoning 
concerning matters of fact.* Experience is in some things 
variable, in some things uniform. A variable experience gives 
rise only to probability; an uniform experience amounts to 
a proof, j- Probability always supposes an opposition of ex 
periments and observations, where the one side is found to 
overbalance the other, and to produce a degree of evidence 

* Page 174. t Page 175, 176. 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 17 

proportioned to the superiority. In such cases we must balance 
the opposite experiments, and deduct the lesser number from 
the greater, in order to know the exact force of the superior 
evidence.* Our belief or assurance of any fact, from the 
report of eye-witnesses, is derived from no other principle 
than experience ; that is, our observation of the veracity of 
human testimony, and of the usual conformity of facts to the 
reports of witnesses. f Now if the fact attested partakes of the 
marvellous, if it is such as has seldom fallen under our obser 
vation, here is a contest of two opposite experiences, of which 
the one destroys the other, as far as its force goes, and the 
superior can only operate on the mind by the force which 
remains. The very same principle of experience, which gives 
a certain degree of assurance in the testimony of witnesses, 
gives us also, in this case, another degree of assurance against 
the fact which they endeavour to establish ; from which con 
tradiction there necessarily arises a counterpoise, and mutual 
destruction of belief and authority.^ Further, if the fact 
affirmed by the witnesses, instead of being only marvellous, is 
really miraculous : if, besides, the testimony considered apart 
and in itself amounts to an entire proof; in that case there is 
proof against proof, of which the strongest must prevail, but 
still with a diminution of its force, in proportion to that of its 
antagonist. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature ; 
and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these 
laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the 
fact, is as entire, as any argument from experience can possi 
bly be imagine d. And if so, it is an undeniable consequence, 
that it cannot be surmounted by any proof whatever from 
testimony. A miracle, therefore, however attested, can never 
be rendered credible, even in the lowest degree." This, in 
my apprehension, is the sum of the argument on which my 
ingenious opponent rests the strength of his cause. 

IN answer to this I propose first to prove, that the whole is 
built upon a false hypothesis. That the evidence of testimony 
is derived solely from experience, which seems to be an axiom 
of this writer, is at least not so incontestable a truth as he 

* Page 176. f Ibid. J Page 179. Page 180. 



18 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 

supposes it : that, on the contrary, testimony has a natural and 
original influence on belief, antecedent to experience, will, I 
imagine, easily be evinced. For this purpose let it be re 
marked, that the earliest assent, which is given to testimony 
by children, and which is previous to all experience, is in fact 
the most unlimited; that, by a gradual experience of mankind, 
it is gradually contracted, and reduced to narrower bounds. 
To say therefore that our diffidence in testimony is the 
result of experience, is more philosophical, because more 
consonant to truth, than to say that our faith in testimony 
has this foundation. Accordingly, youth, which is inex 
perienced, is credulous ; age, on the contrary, is distrustful. 
Exactly the reverse would be the case, were this author s 
doctrine just. 

Perhaps it will be said, If experience is allowed to be the 
only measure of a logical or reasonable faith in testimony, the 
question, Whether the influence of testimony on belief be ori 
ginal or derived ? if it be not entirely verbal, is at least of no 
importance in the present controversy. But I maintain it is 
of the greatest importance. The difference between us is by 
no means so inconsiderable, as to a careless view it may ap 
pear. According to his philosophy, the presumption is against 
the testimony, or (which amounts to the same thing) there is 
not the smallest presumption in its favour, till properly sup 
ported by experience. According to the explication given 
above, there is the strongest presumption in favour of the tes 
timony, till properly refuted by experience. 

If it be objected by the author, that such a faith in testimony 
as is prior to experience, must be unreasonable and unphilo- 
sophical, because unaccountable ; I should reply, that there 
are, and must be, in human nature, some original grounds of 
belief, beyond which our researches cannot proceed, and of 
which therefore it is vain to attempt a rational account. I 
should desire the objector to give a reasonable account of his 
faith in this principle, that similar causes always produce si 
milar effects ; or in this, that the course of nature will be the 
same to-morrow that it was yesterday, and is to-day : Prin 
ciples, which he himself acknowledges, are neither intuitively 
evident, nor deduced from premises ; and which nevertheless 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 19 

we are tinder a necessity of presupposing in all our reasoning 
from experience.* I should desire Mm to give a reasonable 
account of his faith in the clearest informations of his me 
mory, which he will find it alike impossible either to doubt or 
to explain. Indeed, memory bears nearly the same relation 
to experience that testimony does. Certain it is, that the 
defects and misrepresentations of memory are often corrected 
by experience. Yet should any person hence infer, that me 
mory derives all its evidence from experience, he would fall 
into a manifest absurdity. For, on the contrary, experience 
derives its origin solely from memory, and is nothing else but 
the general maxims or conclusions we have formed, from the 
comparison of particular facts remembered. If we had not 
previously given an implicit faith to memory, we had never 
been able to acquire experience. When therefore we say that 
memory, which gives birth to experience, may nevertheless, in 
some instances, be corrected by experience, no more is im 
plied, but that the inferences, formed from the most lively and 
perspicuous reports of memory, sometimes serve to rectify 
the mistakes which arise from such reports of this faculty as 
are most languid and confused. Thus memory, in these in 
stances, may be said to correct itself. The case is often much 
the same with experience and testimony, as will appear more 
clearly in the second section, where I shall consider the am 
biguity of the word experience, as used by this author. 

BUT how, says Mr. Hume, is testimony then to be refuted ? 
Principally in one or other of these two ways : -first, and 
most directly, By contradictory testimony ; that is, when an 
equal or greater number of witnesses, equally or more credi 
ble, attest the contrary : secondly, By such evidence, either of 
the incapacity or of the bad character of the witnesses, as is 
sufficient to discredit them. What, rejoins my antagonist, 
cannot then testimony be confuted by the extraordinary na 
ture of the fact attested ? Has this consideration no weight at 
all ? That this consideration has no weight at all, it was never 
my intention to maintain ; that by itself it can very rarely, if 
ever, amount to a refutation against ample and unexception- 

* Sceptical Doubts, Part 2. 
B 



20 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 

able testimony, I hope to make extremely plain. Who has 
ever denied, that the uncommonness of an event related is a 
presumption against its reality ; and that chiefly on account 
of the tendency, which, experience teaches us, and this author 
has observed, some people have to sacrifice truth to the love 
of wonder?* The question only is, How far does this^ pre 
sumption extend ? In the extent which Mr. Hume has as 
signed it, he has greatly exceeded the limits of nature, and 
consequently of all just reasoning. 

In his opinion, " When the fact attested is such as has 
seldom fallen under our observation, there is a contest of two 
opposite experiences, of which the one destroys the other, as 
far as its force goes, and the superior can only operate on the 
mind by the force which remains. "f There is a metaphysical, 
I had almost said, a magical balance and arithmetic, for the 
weighing and subtracting of evidence, to which he frequent 
ly recurs, and with which he seems to fancy he can perform 
wonders. I wish he had been a little more explicit in teach 
ing us how these rare inventions must be used. When a 
writer of genius and elocution expresses himself in general 
terms, he will find it an easy matter to give a plausible appear 
ance to things the most unintelligible in nature. Such some 
times is this author s way of writing. In the instance before 
us, he is particularly happy in his choice of metaphors. They 
are such as are naturally adapted to prepossess a reader in his 
favour. What candid person can think of suspecting the 
impartiality of an inquirer, who is for weighing in the scales 
of reason all the arguments on both sides ? Who can suspect 
his exactness, who determines every thing by a numerical com 
putation ? Hence it is, that to a superficial view his reasoning 
appears scarcely inferior to demonstration ; but, when nar 
rowly canvassed, it is impracticable to find an application, of 
which, in a consistency with good sense, it is capable. 

In confirmation of the remark just now made, let us try 
how his manner of arguing on this point can be applied to a 
particular instance. For this purpose I make the following 
supposition. I have lived for some years near a ferry. It 
consists with my knowledge, that the passage-boat has a thou- 

* Page 184. f Page 179. 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 21 

sand times crossed the river, and as many times returned safe. 
An unknown man, whom I have just now met, tells me, in a 
serious manner, that it is lost ; and affirms, that he himself, 
standing on the bank, was a spectator of the scene ; that he 
saw the passengers carried down the stream, and the boat over 
whelmed. No person who is influenced in his judgment of 
things, not by philosophical subtleties, but by common sense, 
a much surer guide, will hesitate to declare, that in such a 
testimony I have probable evidence of the fact asserted. But 
if, leaving common sense, I shall recur to metaphysics, and 
submit to be tutored in my way of judging by the Essayist, he 
will remind me, " that there is here a contest of two opposite 
experiences, of which the one destroys the other, as far as its 
force goes, and the superior can only operate on the mind by 
the force which remains." - I am warned, that " the very 
same principle of experience, which gives me a certain degree 
of assurance in the testimony of the witness, gives me also, in 
this case, another degree of assurance against the fact which 
he endeavours to establish ; from which contradiction there 
arises a counterpoise, and mutual destruction of belief and 
authority."* Well, I would know the truth, if possible ; and 
that I may. conclude fairly and philosophically, how must I 
balance these opposite experiences, as you are pleased to term 
them ? Must I set the thousand, or rather the two thousand 
instances of the one side, against the single instance of the 
other ? In that case it is easy to see, I have nineteen hundred 
and ninety-nine degrees of evidence, that my information is 
false. Or is it necessary, in order to make it credible, that the 
single instance have two thousand times as much evidence as 
any of the opposite instances, supposing them equal among 
themselves ; or supposing them unequal, as much as all the 
two thousand put together, that there may be at least an 
equilibrium ? This is impossible : I had for some of those in 
stances the evidence of sense, which hardly any testimony can 
equal, much less exceed. Once more, must the evidence I 
have of the veracity of the witness, be a full equivalent to the 
two thousand instances which oppose the fact attested ? By 
the supposition, I have no positive evidence for or against his 

* Page 179. 



MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 

veracity, he being a person whom I never saw before. Yet if 
none of these be the balancing which the Essay writer means, 
I despair of being able to discover his meaning. 

Is then so weak a proof from testimony incapable of being 
refuted ? I am far from thinking so ; though even so weak a 
proof could not be overturned by such a contrary experience. 
How then may it be overturned ? First. By contradictory 
testimony. Going homewards I meet another person, whom I 
know as little as I did the former: finding that he comes from 
the ferry, I ask him concerning the truth of the report. He 
affirms, that the whole is a fiction ; that he saw the boat, and 
all in it, come safe to land. This would do more to turn 
the scale, than fifty thousand such contrary instances as were 
supposed. Yet this would not remove suspicion. Indeed, if 
we- were to consider the matter abstractly, one would think, 
that all suspicion would be removed : that the two opposite 
testimonies would destroy each other, and leave the mind en 
tirely under the influence of its former experience, in the same 
state as if neither testimony had been given. But this is by 
no means consonant to fact. J/VTien once testimonies are in 
troduced, former experience is generally of no account in the 
reckoning ; it is but like the dust of the balance, which hath 
not any sensible effect upon the scales. The mind hangs in 
suspense between the two contrary declarations, and considers 
it as one to one, or equal in probability, that the report is true, 
or that it is false. Afterwards a third, and a fourth, and a 
fifth confirm the declaration of the second. I am then quite 
at ease. Is this the only effectual way of confuting false 
testimony ? No. I suppose again) that instead of meeting 
with any person who can inform me concerning the fact, I get 
from some, who are acquainted with the witness, information 
concerning his character. They tell me, he is notorious for 
lying : and that his lies are commonly forged, not with a view 
to interest, but merely to gratify a malicious pleasure which 
he takes in alarming strangers. This, though not so direct a 
refutation as the former, will be sufficient to discredit his re 
port. In the former, where there is testimony contradicting 
testimony, the author s metaphor of a balance may be used 
with propriety. The things weighed are homogeneal ; and 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 23 

when contradictory evidences are presented to the mind, tend 
ing to prove positions which cannot be both true, the mind 
must decide on the comparative strength of the opposite evi 
dences, before it yield to either. 

But is this the case in the supposition first made ? By no 
means. The two thousand instances formerly known, and 
the single instance attested, as they relate to different facts, 
though of a contrary nature, are not contradictory. There 
is no inconsistency in believing both. There is no incon 
sistency in receiving the last on weaker evidence, (if it be 
sufficient evidence,) not only than all the former together, 
but even than any of them singly. Will it be said, that 
though the former instances are not themselves contradictory 
to the fact recently attested, they lead to a conclusion that 
is contradictory ? I answer, It is true, that the experienced 
frequency of the conjunction of any two events, leads the 
mind to infer a similar conjunction in time to come : But 
let it at the same time be remarked, that no man considers 
this inference, as having equal evidence with any one of those 
past events on which it is founded, and for the belief of which 
we have had sufficient testimony. Before, then, the method 
recommended by this author can turn to any account, it 
will be necessary for him to compute and determine, with pre 
cision, how many hundreds, how many thousands, I might say 
how many myriads of instances, will confer such evidence 
on the conclusion founded on them, as will prove an equipoise 
for the testimony of one ocular witness, a man of probity, in 
a case of which he is allowed to be a competent judge. 

There is in arithmetic a rule called REDUCTION, by which 
numbers of different denominations are brought to the same 
denomination. If this ingenious author shall invent a rule 
in logic analogous to this, for reducing different classes of 
evidence to the same class, he will bless the world with a 
most important discovery. Then indeed he will have the 
honour to establish an everlasting peace in the republic of 
letters ; then we shall have the happiness to see controversy 
of every kind, theological, historical, philosophical, receive 
its mortal wound : for though, in every question, we could 
not even then determine, with certainty, on which side the 

8 



MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 

truth lay, we could always determine (and that is the utmost 
the nature of the thing admits) with as much accuracy as 
geometry and algebra can afford, on which side the. proba 
bility lay, and in what degree. But till this metaphysical 
reduction be discovered, it will be impossible, where the evi 
dences are of different orders, to ascertain by subtraction the 
superior evidence. We would not but esteem him a no 
vice in arithmetic, who being asked, whether seven pounds 
or eleven pence make the greater sum, and what is the dif 
ference, should, by attending solely to the numbers, and 
overlooking the value, conclude that eleven pence were the 
greater, and that it exceeded the other by four. Must we 
not be equal novices in reasoning, if we follow the same 
method ? Must we not fall into as great blunders ? Of as 
little significancy do we find the balance. Is the value of 
things heterogeneal to be determined merely by weight ? 
Shall silver be weighed against lead, or copper against iron ? 
If, in exchange foi a piece of gold, I were offered some 
counters of baser metal, is it not obvious, that till I know 
the comparative value of the metals, in vain shall I attempt 
to find what is equivalent, by the assistance either of scales 
or of arithmetic ? 

It is an excellent observation, and much to the purpose, 
which the late learned and pious Bishop of Durham, in his 
admirable performance on the Analogy of Religion to the 
Course of Nature, hath made on this subject. " There is a 
very strong presumption," says he, " against the most ordi 
nary facts, before the proof of them, which yet is overcome 
by almost any proof. There is a presumption of millions to 
one against the story of Caesar, or of any other man. For 
suppose a number of common facts, so and so circumstanced, 
of which one had no kind of proof, should happen to come 
into one s thoughts, every one would, without any possible 
doubt, conclude them to be false. The like may be said of 
a single common fact."* What then, I may subjoin, shall 
be said of an uncommon fact ? And that an uncommon fact 
may be proved by testimony, has not yet been made a ques 
tion. But, in order to illustrate the observation above cited, 

* Part II. chap. ii. s. 3. 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 25 

suppose, first, one at random mentions, that at such an hour, 
of such a day, in such a part of the heavens, a comet will 
appear ; the conclusion from experience would not be as 
millions, but as infinite to one, that the proposition is false. 
Instead of this, suppose you have the testimony of but one 
ocular witness, a man of integrity, and skilled in astronomy, 
that at such an hour, of such a day, in such a part of the 
heavens, a comet did appear ; you will not hesitate one mo 
ment to give him credit. Yet all the presumption that was 
against the truth of the first supposition, though almost as 
strong evidence as experience can afford, was also against 
the truth of the second, before it was thus attested. 

Is it necessary to urge further, in support of this doctrine, 
that as the water in the canal cannot be made to rise higher 
than the fountain whence it flows, so it is impossible that the 
evidence of testimony, if it proceeded from experience, should 
ever exceed that of experience, which is its source ? Yet that 
it greatly exceeds this evidence, appears not only from what 
has been observed already, but still more from what I shall 
have occasion to observe in the sequel. One may safely 
affirm, that no conceivable conclusion from experience can 
possess stronger evidence, than that which ascertains us of 
the regular succession and duration of day and night. The 
reason is, the instances on which this experience is founded, 
are both without number and without exception. Yet even 
this conclusion, the author admits, as we shall see in the 
third section, may, in a particular instance, not only be sur 
mounted, but even annihilated by testimony. 

Lastly, let it be observed, that the immediate conclusion 
from experience is always general, and runs thus: "This is 
the ordinary course of nature." " Such an event may rea 
sonably be expected, where all the circumstances are entirely 
similar." But when we descend to particulars, the conclu 
sion becomes weaker, being more indirect. For though all 
the known circumstances be similar, all the actual circum 
stances may not be similar ; nor is it possible in any case to 
be assured (our knowledge of things being at best but super 
ficial) that all the actual circumstances are known to us. 
On the contrary, the direct conclusion from testimony is 



26 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 

always particular, and runs thus: "This is the fact in such 
an individual instance." The remark now made will serve 
both to throw light on some of the preceding observations, 
and to indicate the proper sphere of each species of evidence. 
Experience of the past is the only rule whereby we can judge 
concerning the future : And as, when the sun is below the 
horizon, we must do the best we can by the light of the 
moon, or even of the stars; so, in all cases where we have no 
testimony, we are under a necessity of recurring to expe 
rience, and of balancing or numbering contrary observa 
tions.* But the evidence resulting hence, even in the clearest 
cases, is acknowledged to be so weak, compared with that 
which results from testimony, that the strongest conviction, 
built merely on the former, may be overturned by the 
slightest proof exhibited by the latter. Accordingly, the 
future has, in all ages and nations, been denominated the 
province of conjecture and uncertainty. 

* Wherever such balancing or numbering can take place, the opposite evidences 
must be entirely similar. It will rarely assist us in judging of facts supported 
by testimony ; for even where contradictory testimonies come to be considered, 
you will hardly find that the chaiacters of the witnesses on the opposite sides are 
so precisely equal, as that an arithmetical operation will evolve the credibility. 
In matters of pure experience it has often place. Hence the computations that 
have been made of the value of annuities, insurances, and several other com 
mercial articles. In calculations concerning chances, the degree of probability 
may be determined with mathematical exactness. I shall here take the liberty, 
though the matter be not essential to the design of this tract, to correct an over 
sight in the Essayist, who always supposes that, where contrary evidences must 
be balanced, the probability lies in the remainder or surplus, when the less num 
ber is subtracted from the greater. The probability does not consist in the sur 
plus, but in the ratio, or geometrical proportion, which the numbers on the op 
posite sides bear to each other. I explain myself thus. In favour of one s in- 
posed event there are 100 similar instances, against it 50. In another ca . 
under consideration, the favourable instances are 60, and only 10 unfavourable 
Though the difference, or arithmetical proportion, which is 50, be the same in 
both cases, the probability is by no means equal, as the author s way of reasoning 
implies. The probability of the first event is as 100 to 50, or 2 to 1. The pro 
bability of the second is as 60 to 10, or 6 to 1. Consequently, on comparing 
the different examples, though both be probable, the second is thrice as probable 
as the first. I am sensible that the precise degree of probability is not entirely 
determined, even by the ratio. There are other circumstances to be considered, 
where the utmost accuracy is requisite : but it does not appear necessary, in the 
present inquiry, to enter deeper into the subject. See Dr. Price s Dissertation, 
Sect. 2. 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 27 

FROM what has been said, the attentive reader will easily 
discover, that the author s argument against miracles has 
not the least affinity to the argument used by Dr. Tillotson 
against tramubstantiation, with which Mr. Hume has intro 
duced his subject. Let us hear the argument, as it is re 
lated in the Essay, from the writings of the Archbishop. " It 
is acknowledged on all hands," says that learned prelate, 
" that the authority either of the scripture or of tradition is 
founded merely on the testimony of the apostles, who were 
eye-witnesses to those miracles of our Saviour by which he 
proved his divine mission. Our evidence then for the truth 
of the Christian religion is less than the evidence for the 
truth of our senses ; because even in the first authors of our 
religion it was no greater ; and it is evident, it must dimin 
ish in passing from them to their disciples ; nor can any 
one be so certain of the truth of their testimony, as of the 
immediate objects of his senses. But a weaker evidence can 
never destroy a stronger ; and therefore, were the doctrine 
of the real presence ever so clearly revealed in scripture, it 
were directly contrary to the rules of just reasoning to give 
our assent to it. It contradicts sense, though both the 
scripture and tradition, on which it is supposed to be built, 
carry not such evidence with them as sense, when they are 
considered merely as external evidences, and are not brought 
home to every one s breast by the immediate operation of 
the Holy Spirit." * That the evidence of testimony is less 

than the evidence of sense, is undeniable. Sense is the 

source of that evidence, which is first transferred to the 
memory of the individual, as to a general reservoir, and 
thence transmitted to others by the channel of testimony. 
That the original evidence can never gain any thing, but 
must lose, by the- transmission, is beyond dispute. What 
has been rightly perceived, may be misremembered ; what 
is rightly remembered, may, through incapacity, or through 
ill intention, be misreported ; and what is rightly reported, 
may be misunderstood. In any of these four ways, therefore, 
either by defect of memory, of elocution, or of veracity in 
the relator, or by misapprehension in the hearer, there is a 

* Page 173, 174. 



28 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 

chance that the truth received by the information of the 
senses may be misrepresented or mistaken : now, every such 
chance occasions a real diminution of the evidence. That 
the sacramental elements are bread and wine, not flesh and 
blood, our sight and touch and taste and smell concur in 
testifying. If these senses are not to be credited, the apostles 
themselves could not have evidence of the mission of their 
Master. For the greatest external evidence they had, or 
could have, of his mission, was that which their senses gave 
them of the reality of his miracles. But whatever strength 
there is in this argument, with regard to the apostles, the 
argument, with regard to us, who, for those miracles, have 
only the evidence, not of our own senses, but of their testi 
mony, is incomparably stronger. In their case, it is sense 
contradicting sense ; in ours, it is sense contradicting testi 
mony. But what relation has this to the author s argument ? 
None at all. Testimony, it is acknowledged, is a weaker 
evidence than sense. But it has been already evinced, that 
its evidence for particular facts is infinitely stronger than that 
which the general conclusions from experience can afford 
us. Testimony holds directly of memory and sense. What 
ever is duly attested, must be remembered by the witness ; 
whatever is duly remembered, must once have been perceived. 
But nothing similar takes place with regard to experience, 
nor can testimony, with any appearance of meaning, be said 
to hold of it. 

THUS I have shown, as I proposed, that the author s rea 
soning proceeds on a false hypothesis. It supposes testimony 
to derive its evidence solely from experience, which is false. 
It supposes, by consequence, that contrary observations have a 
weight in opposing testimony, which the first and most ac 
knowledged principles of human reason, or, if you like the 
term better, common sense, evidently shows that they have 
not. It assigns a rule for discovering the superiority of con 
trary evidences, which, in the latitude there given it, tends 
to mislead the judgment, and which it is impossible, by any 
explication, to render of real use. 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 



SECTION II. 

Mr. flume charged with some fallaeies in his way of 
managing the argument. 

IN the Essay there is frequent mention of the word expe 
rience, and much use made of it. It is strange that the author 
has not favoured us with the definition of a term of so much 
moment to his argument. This defect I shall endeavour to 
supply ; and the rather, as the word appears to be equivocal, 
and to be used by the Essayist in two very different senses. 
The first and most proper signification of the word, which, 
for distinction s sake, I shall call personal experience, is that 
given in the preceding section. " It is," as was observed, 
" founded in memory, and consists solely of the general max 
ims or conclusions that each individual hath formed from the 
comparison of the particular facts remembered by him." In 
the other signification, in which the word is sometimes taken, 
and which I shall distinguish by the term derived, it may be 
thus defined : " It is founded in testimony, and consists not 
only of all the experiences of others, which have through 
that channel been communicated to us, but of all the general 
maxims or conclusions we have formed from the comparison 
of particular facts attested." 

In proposing his argument, the author would surely be 
understood to mean only personal experience ; otherwise, his 
making testimony derive its light from an experience which 
derives its light from testimony, would be introducing what 
logicians term a circle in causes. It would exhibit the same 
things alternately, as causes and effects of each other. Yet 
nothing can be more limited than the sense which is convey 
ed under the term experience, in the first acceptation. The 
merest clown or peasant derives incomparably more know 
ledge from testimony, and the communicated experience of 
others, than, in the longest life, he could have amassed out of 
the treasure of his own memory. Nay, to such a scanty por 
tion the savage himself is not confined. If that therefore must 
be the rule, the only rule, by which every testimony is ulti- 



30 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 

mately to be judged, our belief in matters of fact must have 
very narrow bounds. No testimony ought to have any weight 
with us, that does not relate an event, similar at least to some 
one observation which we ourselves have made. For exam 
ple, that there are such people on the earth as negroes, could 
not, on that hypothesis, be rendered credible to one who 
had never seen a negro, not even by the most numerous and 
the most unexceptionable attestations. Against the admission 
of such testimony, however strong, the whole force of the 
author s argument evidently operates. But that innumerable 
absurdities would flow from this principle, I might easily 
evince, did I not think the task superfluous. 

The author himself is aware of the consequences ; and 
therefore, in whatever sense he uses the term experience in 
proposing his argument, in prosecuting it, he, with great dex 
terity, shifts the sense, and, ere the reader is apprised, insi 
nuates another. " It is a miracle," says he, "that a dead 
man should come to life, because that has never been observed 
in any age or country. There must therefore be an uniform 
experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event 
would not merit that appellation."* Here the phrase, an 
uniform experience against an event, in the latter clause, is 
implicitly defined in the former, not what has never been 
observed BY us, but (mark his words) ivhat has never been 
observed IN ANY AGE OR COUNTRY. Now, what has been 
observed, and what has not been observed, in all ages and 
countries, pray how can you, Sir, or I, or any man, come 
to the knowledge of ? Only I suppose by testimony, oral 
or written. The personal experience of every individual is 
limited to but a part of one age, and commonly to a narrow 
spot of one country. If there be any other way of being 
made acquainted with facts, it is to me, I own, an impene 
trable secret ; I have no apprehension of it. If there be not 
any, what shall we make of that cardinal point, on which 
your argument turns ? It is in plain language, " Testimony 
is not entitled to the least degree of faith, but as far as it is 
supported by such an extensive experience as, if we had not 
had a previous and independent faith in testimony, we could 
never have acquired." 

*Page 181. 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 31 

How natural is the transition from one sophism to another! 
You will soon be convinced of this, if you attend but a little 
to the strain of the argument. " A miracle," says he, " is a 
violation of the laws of nature ; and as a firm and unalterable 
experience hath established these laws, the proof against a 
miracle is as entire as any argument from experience can 
possibly be imagined."* Again, "As an uniform experience 
amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from 
the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle. "(- 
I must once more ask the author, What is the precise meaning 
of the words firm, unalterable, uniform ? An experience that 
admits no exception, is surely the only experience which can 
with propriety be termed uniform, firm, unalterable. Now 
since, as was remarked above, the far greater part of this 
experience, which comprises every age and every country, 
must be derived to us from testimony ; that the experience 
may loejirm, uniform, unalterable, there must be no contrary 
testimony whatever. Yet, by the author s own hypothesis, the 
miracles he would thus confute are supported by testimony. 
At the same time, to give strength to his argument, he is 
under a necessity of supposing, that there is no exception from 
the testimonies against them. Thus he falls into that paralo 
gism, which is called begging the question. What he gives 
with one hand, he takes with the other. He admits, in open 
ing his design, what in his argument he implicitly denies. 

But that this, if possible, may be still more manifest, let us 
attend a little to some expressions, which one would imagine 
he had inadvertently dropt. " So long," says he, " as the 
world endures, I presume, will the accounts of miracles and 
prodigies be found in all profane history. "J Why does he 
presume so ? A man so much attached to experience, can 
hardly be suspected to have any other reason than this be 
cause such accounts have hitherto been found in all the his 
tories, profane as well as sacred, of times past. But we need 
not recur to an inference to obtain this acknowledgment : 
it is often to be met with in the Essay. In one place we learn, 

* Page 180. f Page 181. 

Page 174. In the edition of the Essay, 1767, mentioned in the Preface, 
his words are, in all history, sacred and profane/ 



32 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 

that the witnesses for miracles are an infinite number ;* in 
another, that all religious records of whatever kind abound 
with them.-)- I leave it therefore to the author to explain, 
with what consistency he can assert that the laws of nature 
are established by an uniform experience, (which experience 
is chiefly the result of testimony,) and at the same time allow 
that almost all human histories are full of the relations of 
miracles and prodigies, which are violations of those laws. 
Here is, by his own confession, testimony against testimony, 
and very ample on both sides. How then can one side claim 
a firm, uniform, and unalterable support from testimony ? 

It will be in vain to object, that the testimony in support 
of the laws of nature greatly exceeds the testimony for the 
violations of these laws ; and that, if we are to be determined 
by the greater number of observations, we shall reject all mi 
racles whatever. I ask, Why are the testimonies much more 
numerous in the one case than in the other ? The answer is 
obvious : Natural occurrences are much more frequent than 
such as are preternatural. But are all the accounts we have 
of the pestilence to be rejected as incredible, because, in this 
country, we hear not so often of that disease as of the fever ? 
Or, because the number of natural births is infinitely greater 
than that of monsters, shall the evidence of the former be re 
garded as a confutation of all that can be advanced in proof 
of the latter ? Such an objector needs to be reminded of what 
was proved in the foregoing section that the opposite testi 
monies relate to different facts, and are therefore not contra 
dictory; that the conclusion founded on them possesses not 
the evidence of the facts on which it is founded, but only such 
a presumptive evidence as may be surmounted by the slight 
est positive proof. A general conclusion from experience is 
in comparison but presumptive and indirect ; sufficient testi 
mony for a particular fact is direct and positive evidence. 

I shall remark one other fallacy in this author s reasoning, 
before I conclude this section. " The Indian Prince," says 
he, " who refused to believe the first relations concerning 
the effects of frost, reasoned justly; and it naturally required 
very strong testimony to engage his assent to facts, which 

* Page 190. t Page 191. 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 33 

arose from a state of nature with which he was unacquainted, 
and bore so little analogy to those events to which he had 
had constant and uniform experience : Though they were not 
contrary to his experience, they were not conformable to 
it."* Here a distinction is artfully suggested, between what 
is contrary to experience, and what is not conformable to it. 
The latter he allows may be proved by testimony, but not 
the former. A distinction, for which the author seems to 
have so great use, it will not be improper to examine. 

If my reader happen to be but little acquainted with Mr. 
Hume s writings, or even with the piece here examined, I must 
entreat him, ere he proceed any farther, to give the Essay an 
attentive perusal; and to take notice particularly, whether, in 
one single passage, he can find any other sense given to the 
terms contrary to experience, but that which has not been ex 
perienced. Without this aid, I should not be surprised that 
I found it difficult to convince the judicious, that a man of so 
much acuteness, one so much a philosopher as this author, 
should with such formality, make a distinction, which not only 
the Essay, but the whole tenor of his philosophical writings, 
shows evidently to have no meaning. Is that which is contrary 
to experience, a synonymous phrase for that which implies a 
contradiction? If this were the case, there would be no need 
to recur to experience for a refutation ; it would refute itself. 
But it is equitable that the author himself be heard,who ought 
to be the best interpreter of his own words. " When the fact 
attested," says he, " is such a one as has seldom fallen under 
our observation, here is a contest of two opposite experiences. "-[ 
In this passage, not the being never experienced, but even the 
being seldom experienced, constitutes an opposite experience. 
I can conceive no way but one, that the author can evade the 
force of this quotation ; and that is, by obtruding on us some 
new distinction between an opposite and a contrary experience. 
In order to preclude such an attempt, I shall once more recur 
to his own authority. " It is no miracle that a man in seem 
ing good health should die of a sudden." Why ? Because 
such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, 
hath yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a 

* Page 179. t Ibid. 



34 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 

miracle that a dead man should come to life." Why ? Not 
because of any inconsistency in the thing. That a body should 
be this hour inanimate, and the next animated, is no more 
inconsistent than the reverse, that it should be this hour ani 
mated and the next inanimate ; though the one be common, 
and not the other. But the author himself answers the ques 
tion : " Because that has never been observed in any age or 
country."* All the contrariety then that there is in miracles 
to experience, does, by his own concession, consist solely in 
this, that they have never been observed; that is, they are not 
conformable to experience. To his experience, personal or 
derived, he must certainly mean ; to what he has learned of dif 
ferent ages and countries. To speak beyond the knowledge he 
has attained, would be ridiculous. It would be first supposing 
a miracle, and then inferring a contrary experience, instead 
of concluding, from experience, that the fact is miraculous. 

Now I insist, that, as far as regards the author s argument, 
a fact perfectly unusual, or not conformable to our experience, 
such a fact as, for aught we know, was never observed in any 
age or country, is as incapable of proof from testimony, as mira 
cles are ; that, if this writer would argue consistently, he could 
never, on his own principles, reject one, and admit the other. 
Both ought to be rejected, or neither. I would not by this be 
thought to signify, that there is no difference between a miracle 
and an extraordinary event. I know that the former implies the 
interposal of an invisible agent, which is not implied in the lat 
ter. All that I intend to assert is, that the author s argument 
equally affects them both. Why does such interposal appear 
to him incredible? Not from any incongruity he discerns in the 
thing itself: he does not pretend it : but it is not conformable 
to his experience. "A miracle," says he, "is a transgression 
of a law of nature."-)- But how are the laws of nature known 
to us ? By experience. What is the criterion whereby we 
must judge whether the laws of nature are transgressed ? 
Solely the conformity or disconformity of events to our expe 
rience. This writer surely will not pretend, that we can have 
any knowledge a priori, either of the law, or of the violation. 

* Page 181. f Page 182. in the note. 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 35 

Let us then examine, by his own principles, whether the 
King of Siam, of whom the story he alludes to is related by 
Locke,* could have sufficient evidence, from testimony, of a 
fact so contrary to his experience as the freezing of water. 
He could just say as much of this event, as the author can say 
of a dead man s being restored to life : " Such a thing was 
never observed, as far as I could learn, in any age or country." 
If the things themselves too be impartially considered, and 
independently of the notions acquired by us in these northern 
climates, we should account the first at least as extraordinary 
as the second. That so pliant a body as water should become 
hard like pavement, so as to bear up an elephant on its surface, 
is as unlikely, in itself, as that a body inanimate to-day should 
be animated to-morrow. Nay, to the Indian monarch, I must 
think, that the first would appear more a miracle, more contra 
ry to experience, than the second. If he had been acquainted 
with ice or frozen water, and afterwards seen it become fluid, 
but had never seen nor learned, that after it was melted it be 
came hard again, the relation must have appeared marvellous, 
as the process from fluidity to hardness never had been experi 
enced, though the reverse often had. But I believe nobody will 
question, that on this supposition it would not have appeared 
quite so strange as it did. Yet this supposition makes the in 
stance more parallel to the restoring of the dead to life. The 
process from animate to inanimate we are all acquainted with ; 
and what is such a restoration, but the reversing of this process? 
So little reason had the author to insinuate, that the one was 
only not conformable, the other contrary to experience. If there 
be a difference in this respect, the first, to one alike unacquaint 
ed with both, must appear the more contrary of the two. 

Does it alter the matter, that he calls the former " a fact 
w r hich arose from a state of nature with which the Indian was 
unacquainted?" Was not such a state quite unconformable, or 
(which in the author s language I have shown to be the same) 
contrary to his experience ? Is then a state of nature, which is 
contrary to experience, more credible than a single fact con 
trary to experience ? I want the solution of one difficulty : 
the author, in order to satisfy me, presents me with a thou- 

* Essay on Human Understanding, Book iv. chap. 15. 5. 
C 



3G 



MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 



sand others. Is this suitable to the method he proposes in 
another place, of admitting always the less miracle, and reject 
ing the greater ? * Is it not, on the contrary, admitting with 
out any difficulty the greater miracle, and thereby removing 
the difficulty which he otherwise would have had in admitting 
the less ? Does he forget, that to exhibit a state of nature en 
tirely different from what we experience at present, is one of 
those enormous prodigies, which, in his account, render the 
Pentateuch unworthy of credit ?f "No Indian," says he in the 
note, "it is evident, could have experience that water did not 
freeze in cold climates. This is placing nature in a situation 
quite unknown to him ; and it is impossible for him to tell, a 
priori, what will result from it." This is precisely as if, in 
reply to the author s objection from experience against the rais 
ing of a dead man (suppose Lazarus) to life, I should retort : 
" Neither you, Sir, nor any who live in this century, can have 
experience, that a dead man could not be restored to life at 
the command of one divinely commissioned to give a revela 
tion to men. This is placing nature in a situation quite un 
known to you ; and it is impossible for you to tell, a priori, 
what will result from it. This therefore is not contrary to 
the course of nature, in cases where all the circumstances are 
the same. As you never saw one vested with such a commis 
sion, you are as unexperienced, as ignorant of this point, as 
the inhabitants of Sumatra are of the frosts in Muscovy ; you 
cannot therefore reasonably, any more than they, be positive 
as to the consequences." J Should he rejoin, as doubtless he 
would, " This is not taking away the difficulty; but, like the 
elephant and the tortoise, in the account given by some bar 
barians of the manner in which the earth is supported, it only 
shifts the difficulty a step further back : My objection still 
recurs That any man should be endowed with such power is 
contrary to experience, (or, as I have shown to be the same in 
this author s language, is not conformable to my experience,) 
and therefore incredible:" Should he, I say, rejoin in this 
manner, I could only add, " Pray, Sir, revise your own words 
lately quoted, and consider impartially, whether they be not 

* Page 182. f Page 206. 

J See the latter part of the note on the following paragraph. 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 37 

as glaringly exposed to the like reply." For my part, I can 
only perceive one difference that is material between the two 
cases. You frankly confess, that with regard to the freezing 
of water, beside the absolute want of experience, there would 
be from analogy a presumption against it, which ought to 
weigh with a rational Indian. I think, on the contrary, in the 
case supposed by me, of one commissioned by Heaven, there 
is at least no presumption against the exertion of such a mira 
culous power ; there is rather a presumption in its favour. 

Does the author then say, that no testimony could give the 
King of Siam sufficient evidence of the effects of cold on 
water ? No. By implication he says the contrary : " It re 
quired very strong testimony." Will he say, that those most 
astonishing effects of electricity lately discovered, so entirely 
unanalogous to every thing before experienced will he say, 
that such facts no reasonable man could have sufficient evi 
dence from testimony to believe ? No. We may presume he 
will not, from his decision in the former case ; and if he 
should, the common sense of mankind would reclaim against 
such extravagance. Yet it is obvious to every considerate 
reader, that this argument concludes equally against those 
truly marvellous, as against miraculous events ; both being 
alike unconformable, or alike contrary, to former experience.* 

* I cannot forbear to observe, that many of the principal terms employed in 
the Essay, are used in a manner extremely vague and unphilosophical. I have 
remarked the confusion I find in the application of the words experience, contra 
riety, conformity. 1 might remark the same thing of the word miracle. "A 
miracle," it is said, p. 182, in the note, "may be accurately defined, A TRANS 
GRESSION of a law of nature, by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the in 
terposal of some invisible agent" The word transgression invariably denotes a cri 
minal opposition to authority. Rapine, adultery, murder, are transgressions of 
the laws of nature, but have nothing in common with miracles. The author s 
accuracy in representing God as a transgressor, I have not indeed the perspica 
city to discern. Does he intend, by throwing something monstrous into the defini 
tion, to infuse into the reader a prejudice against the thing defined? But supposing 
that, through inadvertency, he had used the term transgression instead of suspension, 
which would have been more intelligible and proper ; one would at least expect, that 
the word miracle, in the Essay, always expressed the sense of the definition. But 
this it evidently does not. Thus, in the instance of the miracle supposed, (p. 203 in 
the note,) he calls it in the beginning of the paragraph, " A violation of the usual 
course of nature ;" but in the end, after telling us that such a miracle, on the evidence 

c 2 



38 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 

THUS I think I have shown, that the author is chargeable 
with some fallacies in his way of managing the argument ; 

supposed, "our present philosophers ought to receive for certain," he subjoins, (how 
consistently, let the reader judge,) " and ought to search for the causes whence it 
might be derived." Thus it is insinuated, that though a fact apparently miraculous-, 
and perfectly extraordinary, might be admitted by a philosopher, still the reality of the 
miracle must be denied. For if the interposal of the Deity be the proper solution 
of the phenomenon, why should we recur to other causes ? Hence a careless reader 
is insensibly led to think, that there is some special incredibility in such an inter 
posal, distinct from its uncommonness. Yet the author s great argument is built on 
this single circumstance, and places such an interposition just on the same footing 
with every event that is equally uncommon. At one time, he uses the word 
miracle to denote a bare improbability, as will appear in the sixth section ; at another, 
absurd and miraculous are, with him, synonymous terms ; so are also the miraculous 
nature of an event, and its absolute impossibility. Is this the style and manner of a 
reasoner ? 

Let it, however, in further illustration of the question, be observed, that though, in 
one view, miracles may be said to imply a suspension of the laws of nature, by the 
interposition of an invisible agent, yet, in another and more extensive view, it may 
perhaps be affirmed, that, in strictness, nature s laws are never suspended. It will 
serve to remove the apparent inconsistency, to consider that, when we speak of the 
laws of nature, we commonly mean no more than those regarding the material world, 
or the laws of matter and motion with which we happen to be acquainted. Yet 
those which regard spiritual beings are as truly laws of nature as those which concern 
corporeal. Our acquaintance with the former, if we can call it acquaintance, is 
much more confined than with the latter t because the means of knowledge in the 
one case are fewer, more subtle, and less accessible, than in the other. But we have 
reason for analogy to believe, that every thing in the invisible, that is, in the moral 
and intellectual, as well as in the visible or material world, is regulated by permanent 
laws. In this view of the universal system, there is ground to think that the re 
spective powers of the different orders of beings, and their interpositions, and if so, 
divine illuminations themselves, are as really governed by general laws, as the events 
which result from physical causes, and take place in the material creation. In, 
regard to these also, the term suspension is sometimes loosely used, where there 
is an interfering of powers, though it be acknowledged, on all sides, that, in the 
largest and most proper acceptation of the terms, there is no infringement of the 
laws of nature. Thus, by the law of gravitation, a heavy body moves downwards, 
towards the centre of the earth, till it be stopped by some intervening object. By 
the law of magnetism, iron, one species of heavy bodies, may be attracted up 
wards, from the earth, and kept hanging in the air. In familiar discourse we 
might say, that the law of gravity is suspended by the magnetical attraction ; 
which means no more than that, in this instance, gravity proves a less powerful 
attraction than magnetism. In other instances, magnetism may be the weaker 
of the two. A loadstone, which will raise from the ground a piece of iron 
weighing an ounce, will produce no sensible effect upon one of a pound weight. 
But it is evident that, in a more enlarged view, the laws of nature undergo no 
suspension in either case, in as much as one, who is well acquainted with the 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 



that he all along avails himself of an ambiguity in the word 
experience ; that his reasoning includes a petitio principii 
in the bosom of it; and that, in supporting his argument, 
he must have recourse to distinctions, where, even himself 
being judge, there is no difference. 



SECTION III. 

Mr. Hume himself gives up Ms favourite argument. 

t( MR. HUME himself," methinks I hear my reader repeating 
with astonishment, " gives up his favourite argument." To 
prove this point is indeed a very bold attempt : yet that this 
attempt is not altogether so arduous as, at first hearing, he 
will possibly imagine, I hope, if favoured a while with his at 
tention, fully to convince him. If to acknowledge, after all, 
that there may be miracles which admit of proof from human 
testimony ; if to acknowledge, that such miracles ought to be 
received, not as probable only, but as absolutely certain ; or, 
in other words, that the proof from human testimony may be 
such, as that all the contrary uniform experience should not 
only be overbalanced, but, to use the author s expression, 
should be annihilated : if such acknowledgments as these 
are subversive of his own principles ; if, by making them, he 
abandons his darling argument ; this strange part the Essayist 
evidently acts. 

" I own," these are his words, " there may possibly be mi 
racles, or violations of the usual course of nature, of such a kind 
as to admit a proof from human testimony, though perhaps " 
(in this he is modest enough, he avers nothing ; perhaps) " it 
will be impossible to find any such in all the records of history." 

attraction both of the magnet and of the earth, can, in any proposed experiment, tell 
for certain beforehand which will prevail. Thus, when we speak of miracles as sus 
pensions of the laws of nature, the expression is admitted rather in apology for igno 
rance, than as what ought to be accounted philosophical or strictly proper. The in 
tervention of superior agents, the comparative powers of these agents, and their ope 
rations, may be, and probably are, regulated by the immutable laws of the universe, 
as much as whatever concerns the terraqueous globe, and the motions of the heavenly 
bodies. This will serve further to explain my retort upon Mr. Hume in the preced 
ing paragraph, in relation to the freezing of water, which see. 



l MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 

To this declaration he subjoins the following supposition : 
" Suppose all authors, in all languages, agree, that from the 
1st of January, 1600, there was a total darkness over the whole 
earth for eight days : suppose that the tradition of this extra 
ordinary event is still strong and lively among the people; that 
all travellers, who return from foreign countries, bring us ac 
counts of the same tradition, without the least variation or con 
tradiction it is evident that our present philosophers, instead 
of doubting of that fact, ought to receive it for certain, and 
ought to search for the causes whence it might be derived." * 
Could one imagine that the person who had made the above 
acknowledgment, a person, too, who is justly allowed, by all 
who are acquainted with his writings, to possess uncommon 
penetration and philosophical abilities, that this were the same 
individual who had so short while before affirmed, that a "mi 
racle," or a violation of the usual course of nature, " supported 
by any human testimony, is more properly a subject of deri 
sion than of argument ;"f who had insisted, that "it is not 
requisite, in order to reject the fact, to be able accurately to 
disprove the testimony, and to trace its falsehood ; that such 
an evidence carries falsehood on the very face of it ;" J that 
f we need but oppose, even to a cloud of witnesses, the abso 
lute impossibility, or," which is all one, " miraculous nature 
of the events which they relate ; that this, in the eyes of all 
reasonable people, will alone be regarded as a sufficient refu 
tation ;" and who, finally, to put an end to all altercation 
on the subject, had pronounced this oracle) " No TESTIMONY 
FOR ANY KIND OF MIRACLE CAN EVER POSSIBLY 

AMOUNT TO A PROBABILITY, MUCH LESS TO A PROOF." || 

Was there ever a more glaring contradiction ? 

YET for the event supposed by the Essayist, the testimony, 
in his judgment, would amount to a probability ; nay, to more 
than a probability, to & proof: let not the reader be astonished, 
or, if he cannot fail to be astonished, let him not be incre- 

* Page 203, in the note. t Page 194. % Ibid. Page 196, &c. 

II Page 202. There is a small alteration made on this sentence in the edition of 
the Essays in 1767, \yhich is posterior to the 2nd edition of this Dissertation. See 
Preface, page 3. 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 41 

dulous, when I add, to more than a proof ] more than a full, 
entire, and direct proof for even this I hope to make evident 
from the author s principles and reasoning. " And even sup 
posing," says he, that is, granting for argument s sake, " that 
the testimony for a miracle amounted to a proof, it would be 
opposed by another proof, derived from the very nature of the 
fact which it would endeavour to establish."* Here is then, 
by his own reasoning, proof against proof, from which there 
could result no belief or opinion, unless the one is conceived 
to be in some degree superior to the other. " Of which 
proofs," says he, " the strongest must prevail, but still with 
a diminution of its force, in proportion to that of its antago- 
nist."f Before the author could believe such a miracle as he 
supposes, he must at least be satisfied that the proof of it from 
testimony is stronger than the proof against it from experience. 
That we may form an accurate judgment of the strength he 
here ascribes to testimony, let us consider what, by his own 
account, is the strength of the opposite proof from experience. 
" A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature ; and as a firm 
and unalterable experience has established these laws, the 
proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as 
entire as any argument from experience can possibly be ima 
gined."}; Again, " As an uniform experience amounts to a 
proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of 
the fact, against the existence of any miracle. " The proof 
then which the Essayist admits from testimony, is, by his own 
estimate, not only superior to a direct and full proof, but even 
superior to as entire a proof as any argument from experience 
can possibly be imagined. Whence, I pray, doth testimony 
acquire such amazing evidence ? " Testimony," says the au 
thor, " hath no evidence, but what it derives from experience. 
These differ from each other only as the species from the ge 
nus." Put then for testimony the word experience, which in 
this case is equivalent, and the conclusion will run thus : Here 
is a proof from experience, which is superior to as entire a 
proof from experience as can possibly be imagined. This 
deduction from the author s words, the reader will perceive, 
is strictly logical. What the meaning of it is, I leave to Mr. 
Hume to explain. 

* Page 202. f Page 180. J Ibid. Page 181. 



4*2 



MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 



What has been above deduced, how much soever it be ac 
counted, is not all that is implied in the concession made by 
the author. He further says, that the miraculous fact, so at 
tested, ought not only to be received, but to be received for 
certain. Is it not enough, Sir, that you have shown that your 
most full, most direct, most perfect argument may be over 
come ? Will nothing satisfy you now but its destruction ? 
One would imagine, that you had conjured up this demon, 
by whose irresistible arm you proposed to give a mortal blow 
to religion, and render scepticism triumphant, (that you had 
conjured him up, I say), for no other purpose, but to show 
with what facility you could lay him. To be serious, does not 
this author remember, that he had oftener than once laid it 
down as a maxim, That when there is proof against proof, 
we must incline to the superior, still with a diminution of 
assurance, in proportion to the force of its antagonist ?* But 
when a fact is received for certain, there can be no sensible 
diminution of assurance, such diminution always implying 
some doubt and uncertainty. Consequently the general proof 
from experience, though as entire as any argument from ex 
perience can possibly be imagined, is not only surmounted, 
but is really in comparison as nothing, or, in Mr. Hume s 
phrase, undergoes annihilation, when balanced with the par 
ticular proof from testimony. Great indeed, it must be ac 
knowledged, is the force of truth. This conclusion, on the 
principles I have been endeavouring to establish, has nothing 
in it but what is conceivable and just ; but, on the principles 
of the Essay, which deduce all the force of testimony from 
experience, serves only to confound the understanding, and to 
involve the subject in midnight darkness. 

It is therefore manifest, that either this author s principles 
condemn his own method of judging with regard to miracu 
lous facts ; or that his method of judging subverts his princi 
ples, and is a tacit desertion of them. Thus that impregna 
ble fortress, the asylum of infidelity, which he so lately glo 
ried in having erected, is in a moment abandoned by him as 
a place untenable. 

* Page 178. 180. 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 43 



SECTION IV. 

There is no peculiar presumption against such miracles as are 
said to have been wrought in support of religion. 

Is it then so, that the decisive argument the Essayist flat 
tered himself he had discovered,* which, with the wise and 
learned, was to prove an everlasting check to all kinds of su 
perstitious delusion, and would consequently be useful as long 
as the world endures ; is it so, that this boasted argument has 
in fact little or no influence on the discoverer himself ? But 
this author may be well excused. He cannot be always the 
metaphysician. He cannot soar incessantly in the clouds. 
Such constant elevation suits not the lot of humanity. He 
must sometimes, whether he will or not, descend to a level 
with other people, and fall into the humble track of common 
sense. One thing however he is resolved on : If he cannot 
by metaphysic spells silence the most arrogant bigotry and 
superstition ; he will at any rate, though for this purpose he 
should borrow aid from what he hath no liking to, trite and 
popular topics he will at any rate free himself from their 
impertinent solicitations. 

There are accordingly two principles in human nature, by 
which he accounts for all the relations that have ever been 
in the world, concerning miracles. These principles are, the 
passion for the marvellous, and the religious affection ;-\ against 
either of which singly, the philosopher, he says, ought ever to 
be on his guard ; but incomparably more so, when both hap 
pen to be in strict confederacy together : "For if the spirit 
of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of 
common sense ; and human testimony in these circumstances 
loses all pretensions to authority. "J Notwithstanding this 
strong affirmation, there is reason to suspect that the author 
is not in his heart so great an enemy to the love of wonder 
as he affects to appear. No man can make a greater con* 
cession in favour of the wonderful, than he hath done in the 
passage quoted in the preceding section. No man was ever 
* Paee 174. f Page 184, 185. % Page 185. 



44 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 

fonder of paradox, and, in theoretical subjects, of every notion 
that is remote from sentiments universally received. This 
love of paradoxes, he owns himself, that both his enemies and 
his friends reproach him with.* There must surely be some 
foundation for so universal a censure. If therefore, in respect 
of the passion for the marvellous, he differ from other people, 
the difference arises from a particular delicacy in this gentle 
man, which makes him nauseate even to wonder with the 
crowd. He is of that singular turn, that where every body 
is struck with astonishment, he can see nothing wondrous 
in the least ; at the same time he discovers prodigies, where 
no soul but himself ever dreamed that there were any. 

We may therefore rest assured of it, that the author might 
be conciliated to the love of wonder, provided the spirit of re 
ligion be kept at a distance, against which he hath unluckily 
contracted a mortal antipathy, against which he is resolved to 
wage eternal war. When he but touches this subject, he loses 
at once his philosophic equanimity, and speaks with an acri 
mony unusual to him on other occasions. Something of this 
kind appears from the citations already made. But if these 
should not satisfy, I shall produce one or two more, which 
certainly will. There is a second supposition the author 
makes, of a miraculous event, in a certain manner circum 
stanced and attested, which he declares, and I think with par 
ticular propriety, that he would " not have the least inclina 
tion to believe."f At his want of inclination the reader will 
not be surprised, when he learns, that this supposed miracle 
is concerning a resurrection ; an event which bears too strong 
a resemblance both to the doctrine and to the miracles of holy 
writ, not to alarm a modern Pyrrhonist. To the above de 
claration he subjoins, "But should this miracle be ascribed to 
any new system of religion, men in all ages have been so much 
imposed on by ridiculous stories of that kind, that this very 
circumstance would be a full proof of a cheat, and sufficient, 
with all men of sense, not only to make them reject the fact, 
but even reject it ivithout further examination." Again, a 
little after, "As the violations of truth are more common 
in the testimony concerning religious miracles, than in that 

* Dedication to the four Dissertations. f Page 204, in the note. 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 45 

concerning any other matter of fact," (a point in which the 
author is positive, though he produces neither facts nor ar 
guments to support it,) " this must dimmish very much the 
authority of the former testimony, and" (pray observe his 
words) "make us form a GENERAL RESOLUTION, never to 
lend any attention to it, with whatever specious pretext it 
may be covered." 

Never did the passion of an inflamed orator, or the intem 
perate zeal of a religionist, carry him further against his ad 
versary, than this man of speculation is carried by his prejudice 
against religion. Demagogues and bigots have often warned 
the people against listening to the arguments of an envied and 
therefore detested rival, lest by his sophistry they should be 
seduced into the most fatal errors : the same part this author, 
a philosopher, a sceptic, a dispassionate inquirer after truth, 
as surely he chooses to be accounted, now acts in favour of in 
fidelity. He thinks it not safe to give religion even a hearing. 
Nay, so strange a turn have matters taken of late with the ma 
nagers of this controversy, that it is now the FREE-THINKER 
who preaches implicit faith; it is the INFIDEL who warns us 
of the danger of consulting reason. Beware, says he, I ad 
monish you, of inquiring into the strength of the plea, or of 
bringing it to the deceitful test of reason ; for, " those who will 
be so SILLY as to examine the affair by that medium, and seek 
particular flaws in the testimony , are almost sure to be con 
founded."* That religion is concerned in the matter, is 
reckoned by these sages sufficient evidence of imposture. The 
proofs she offers in her own defence, we are told by these can 
did judges, ought to be rejected, and rejected without exami 
nation. Xhe old way of scrutiny and argument must now 
be laid aside, having been at length discovered to be but a 
bungling, a tedious, and a dangerous way at best. What, 
then, shall we substitute in its place ? The Essayist has a most 
admirable expedient ; a shorter and surer method : he re 
commends to us the expeditious way of resolution. " Form," 
says he, " a GENERAL RESOLUTION, never to lend any atten 
tion to testimonies or facts urged by religion, with tvhatever 
specious pretext they may be covered." 

* Page 197, in the note. 



46 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 

I had almost congratulated Mr. Hume, and our enlightened 
age, on this happy invention, before I reflected, that though 
the application might be new, the expedient itself, of resolv 
ing to be deaf to argument, was very ancient, having been 
often, with great success, employed against atheists and here 
tics, and warmly recommended by Bellarmine and Scotus, 
and most others of that bright fraternity the schoolmen : per 
sons, I acknowledge, to whom one could not, perhaps, in any 
other instance, find a resemblance in my ingenious opponent. 

I am afraid that, after such a declaration, I must not pre-. 
sume to consider myself as arguing with the author, who has, 
in so peremptory a manner, resolved to attend to nothing that 
can be said in opposition to his theory. " What judgment 
he has," to use his own expression, " he has renounced by 
principle, in these sublime and mysterious subjects."* If 
however it should prove the fate of these papers, the forbid 
ding title of them notwithstanding, to be at any time honoured 
with the perusal of some infidel, not indeed so riveted in un 
belief as the Essayist, I would earnestly entreat such reader, 
in the solemn style of Mr. Hume, " to lay his hand upon his 
heart, and after serious consideration declare,"f if any of the 
patrons of religion had acted this part, and warned people 
not to try by argument the metaphysical subtleties of the 
adversaries, affirming, that " they who were MAD enough to 
examine the affair by that medium, and seek particular flaws 
in the reasoning, were almost sure to be confounded ; that the 
only prudent method was, to form a GENERAL RESOLUTION 
never to lend any attention to what was advanced on the op 
posite side, however specious; whether this conduct would 
not have afforded great matter of triumph to those gentlemen 
the deists ; whether it would not have been construed by 
them, and even justly, into a tacit conviction of the weakness 
of our cause, which we were afraid of exposing in the light, 
and bringing to a fair trial ? But we scorn to take shelter in 
obscurity, and meanly to decline the combat ; confident as 
we are, that REASON is our ally and our friend, and glad to 
find that the enemy at length so violently suspects her. 

* Page 185. f Page 206. 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 47 

As to the first method, by which the author accounts for 
the fabulous relations of monsters and prodigies, it is freely 
acknowledged, that the Creator has implanted in human 
nature, as a spur to the improvement of the understanding, a 
principle of curiosity, which makes the mind feel a particular 
pleasure in every new acquisition of knowledge. It is ac 
knowledged also, that as every principle in our nature is liable 
to abuse, so this principle will often give the mind a bias to 
the marvellous ; for the more marvellous any thing is, that is, 
the more unlike to all that has formerly been known, the 
more new it is ; and this bias, in many instances, may induce 
belief on insufficient evidence. 

But the presumption that arises hence against the marvel 
lous, is not stronger in the case of miracles (as will appear 
from an attentive perusal of the second section) than in the 
case of every fact that is perfectly extraordinary. Yet how 
easily this obstacle may be overcome by testimony, might be 
illustrated, if necessary, in almost every branch of science, in 
physiology, in geography, in history. On the contrary, what 
an immense impediment would this presumption prove to the 
progress of philosophy and letters, had it in reality one fiftieth 
part of the strength which the author seems to attribute to 
it. I shall not tire my reader or myself by recurring to the 
philosophic wonders in electricity, chemistry, magnetism, 
which, all the world sees, may be fully proved to us by testi 
mony, before we make the experiments ourselves. 

BUT there is, it seems, additional to this, a peculiar pre 
sumption against religious miracles. " The wise," as the 
author has observed with reason, " lend a very academic faith 
to every report which favours the passion of the reporter, 
whether it magnifies his country, his family, or himself, or in 
any other way strikes in with his natural inclinations and 
propensities."* Now, as no object whatever operates more 
powerfully on the fancy than religion does, or works up the 
passion to a higher fervour ; so, in matters relating to this 
subject, if in any subject, we have reason to suspect that the 
understanding will prove a dupe to the passions. On this 

* Page 200. 



48 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 

point, therefore, we ought to be peculiarly cautious that we 
be not hasty of belief. In this sentiment we all agree. 

But there is one circumstance which he has overlooked, and 
which is nevertheless of the greatest consequence in the debate. 
It is this, that the prejudice resulting from the religious affec 
tion, may just as readily obstruct as promote our faith in a 
religious miracle. What things in nature are more contrary, 
than one religion is to another religion ? They are just as con 
trary as light and darkness, truth and error. The affections 
with which they are contemplated by the same person, are just 
as opposite as desire and aversion, love and hatred. The same 
religious zeal which gives the mind of a Christian a propensity 
to the belief of a miracle in support of Christianity, will in 
spire him with an aversion from the belief of a miracle in 
support of Mahometanism. The same principle which will 
make him acquiesce in evidence less than sufficient in one 
case, will make him require evidence more than sufficient in 
the other. 

Before, then, the remark of the author can be of any use in 
directing our judgment as to the evidence of miracles attested, 
we must consider whether the original tenets of the witnesses 
would naturally have biassed their minds in favour of the mira 
cles, or in opposition to them. If the former was the case, the 
testimony is so much the less to be regarded ; if the latter, so 
much the more. Will it satisfy on this head to acquaint us, 
that the prejudices of the witnesses must have favoured the 
miracles, since they were zealous promoters of the doctrine in 
support of which those miracles are said to have been per 
formed? To answer thus would be to misunderstand the point. 
The question is, Was this doctrine the faith of the witnesses, 
before they saw, or fancied they saw, the miracles ? If it was, 
I agree with him. Great, very great allowance must be made 
for the prejudices of education, for principles, early, perhaps 
carefully and deeply rooted in their minds, and for the reli 
gious affection founded in these principles ; which allowance 
must always derogate from the weight of their testimony. But 
if the faith of the witnesses stood originally in opposition to 
the doctrine attested by the miracles ; if the only account that 
can be given of their conversion, is the conviction which the 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 49 

miracles produced in them ; it must be a preposterous way of 
arguing, to derive their conviction from a religious zeal, which 
would at first obstinately withstand, and for some time hinder 
such conviction. On the contrary, that the evidence arising 
from miracles performed in proof of a doctrine disbelieved, 
and consequently hated before, did in fact surmount that ob 
stacle, and conquer all the opposition arising thence, is a very 
strong presumption in favour of that evidence; just as strong 
a presumption in its favour, as it would have been against 
it, had all their former zeal, and principles, and prejudices, 
co-operated with the evidence, whatever it was, in gaining an 
entire assent. 

Hence there is the greatest disparity in this respect, a dis 
parity which deserves to be particularly attended to, betwixt 
the evidence of miracles performed in proof of a religion to be 
established, and in contradiction to opinions generally re 
ceived ; and the evidence of miracles performed in support of 
a religion already established, and in confirmation of opinions 
generally received. Hence also the greatest disparity betwixt 
the miracles recorded by the evangelists, and those related by 
Mariana, Bede, or any monkish historian. 

THERE is then no peculiar presumption against religious 
miracles merely as such : if in certain circumstances there is 
a presumption against them, the presumption arises solely 
from the circumstances, insomuch that, in the opposite cir 
cumstances, it is as strongly in their favour. 



SECTION V. 

There is a peculiar presumption in favour of such miracles as 
are said to have been wrought in support of religion. 

IN this section I propose to consider the reverse of the 
question treated in the former. In the former I proved, that 
there is no peculiar presumption against religious miracles ; I 
now inquire whether there be any in their favour. The ques 
tion is important, and intimately connected with the subject. 



50 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 

THE boldest infidel will not deny, that the immortality of 
the soul, a future and eternal state, and the connexion of our 
happiness or misery in that state with our present good or 
bad conduct, not to mention the doctrines concerning the 
Divine unity and perfections, are tenets which carry no absur 
dity in them. They may be true, for aught he knows. He 
disbelieves them, not because they are incredible in them 
selves, but because he has not evidence of their truth. He 
pretends not to disprove them, nor does he think the task 
incumbent on him. He only pleads, that before he can yield 
them his assent, they must be proved. 

Now, as whatever is possible may be supposed, let us 
suppose that the doctrines above mentioned are all infallible 
truths ; and let the unbeliever say, whether he can conceive 
an object worthier of the Divine interposal, than to reveal 
these truths to mankind, and to enforce them in such a man 
ner as may give them a suitable influence on the heart and 
life. Of all the inhabitants of the earth, man is incomparably 
the noblest. Whatever therefore regards the interests of the 
human species, is a grander concern than what regards either 
the inanimate or brute creation. If man was made, as is 
doubtless not impossible, for an after state of immortality ; 
whatever relates to that immortal state, or may conduce to 
prepare him for the fruition of it, must be immensely supe 
rior to that which concerns merely the transient enjoyments 
of the present life. How sublime then is the object which 
religion, and religion only, exhibits as the ground of super 
natural interpositions ! This object is no other than the in 
terest of man, a reasonable and moral agent, the only being 
in this lower world which bears in his soul the image of his 
Maker ; not the interest of an individual, but of the kind ; 
not for a limited duration, but for eternity; an object at least 
in one respect adequate to the majesty of God. 

Does this appear to the Essayist too much like arguing a 
priori, which I know he detests? It is just such an argument 
as, presupposing the most rational principles of Deism, results 
from those maxims concerning intelligent causes, and their 
operations, which are founded in general experience, and 
which uniformly lead us to expect, that the end will be pro- 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 51 

portionate to the means. The Pagans of Rome had notions 
of their divinities infinitely inferior to the opinions concern 
ing God, which in Christian countries are maintained even 
by those who, for distinction s sake, are called DEISTS. Yet 
such of the former as had any justness of taste, were offended 
with those poets who exhibited the Celestials on slight occa 
sions, and for trivial purposes, interfering in the affairs of 
men. Why ? Because such an exhibition shocked all the 
principles of probability. It had not that verisimilitude which 
is absolutely necessary to render fiction agreeable. Accord 
ingly it is a precept, with relation to the machinery of the 
drama, given by one who was both a critic and a poet, That 
a god must never be introduced, unless to accomplish some im 
portant design which could not be otherwise effected.* The 
foundation of this rule, which is that of my argument, is 
therefore one of those indisputable principles which are found 
every-where among the earliest results of experience. 

THUS it appears, that, from the dignity of the end, there 
arises a peculiar presumption in favour of such miracles as 
are said to have been wrought in support of religion. 



SECTION VI. 

Inquiry into the meaning and propriety of one of Mr. Hume s 
favourite maxims. 

THERE is a method truly curious, suggested by the author, 
for extricating the mind, should the evidence from testimony 
be so great, that its falsehood might, as he terms it, be ac 
counted miraculous. In this puzzling case, when a man is 
so beset with miracles that he is under the necessity of admit 
ting one, he must always take care it be the smallest ; for it 
is an axiom in this writer s DIALECTIC, That the probability 
of the fact is in the inverse ratio of the quantity of miracle 
there is in it. " I weigh," says he, " the one miracle against 
the other, and according to the superiority which I discover, 

Nee Deus iutersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus incident. HORAT. 
D 



MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 

I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater 
miracle."* 

Now, of this method, which will no doubt be thought by 
many to be very ingenious, and which appears to the Essayist 
both very momentous and very perspicuous, I own I am not 
able to discover either the reasonableness or the use. 

First, I cannot see the reasonableness. " A miracle," to 
adopt his own definition, " implies the transgression," or 
rather the suspension, " of some law of nature ; and that 
either by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the inter 
posal of some invisible agent."f Now, as I should think, from 
the principles laid down in the preceding section, that it would 
be for no trifling purpose that the laws of nature would be 
suspended, and either the Deity or an invisible agent would 
interpose ; it is, on the same principles, natural to imagine, 
that the means, or miracle performed, should bear a propor 
tion, in respect of dignity and greatness, to the end proposed. 
Were I therefore under such a necessity as is supposed by 
Mr. Hume, of admitting the truth of a miracle, I acknowledge, 
that of two contradictory miracles, where all other circum 
stances are equal, I should think it reasonable to believe the 
greater. I shall borrow an illustration from the author him 
self. " A miracle," he says, " may either be discoverable by 
men or not. This alters not its nature and essence. The 
raising of a house or ship into the air is a visible miracle ; the 
raising of a feather, when the wind wants ever so little of a 
force requisite for that purpose, is as real a miracle, though 
not so sensible with regard to us."J Surely, if any miracle 
may be called little, the last mentioned is entitled to that 
denomination, not only because it is an undiscoverable and 
insensible miracle, but because the quantum of miraculous 
force requisite is, by the hypothesis, ever so little, or the least 
conceivable. Yet if it were certain, that Grod, angel, or 
spirit, were, for one of those purposes, to interpose in sus 
pending the laws of nature, I believe most men would join 
with me in thinking, that it would be rather for the raising 
of a house or ship, than for the raising of a feather. 

* Page 182. *!* Ibid, in the note. J Ibid, in the note. 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 53 

But though the maxim laid clown by the author were just, 
I cannot discover in what instance, or by what application, 
it can be rendered of any utility. Why ? Because we have 
no rule whereby we can judge of the greatness of miracles. 
I allow that, in such a singular instance as that above quoted 
from the Essay, we may judge safely enough. But that can 
be of no practical use. In almost every case that will occur, 
I may warrantably aver, that it will be impossible for the 
acutest intellect to decide which of the two is the greatest 
miracle. As to the author, I cannot find that he has favour^ ^ 
ed us with any light in so important and so critical a ques 
tion. Have we not then some reason to dread, that the task 
will not be less difficult to furnish us with a measure by which 
we can determine the magnitude of miracles, than to provide 
us with a balance by which we can ascertain the compara 
tive weight of testimonies and experiences ? 

If, leaving the speculations of the Essayist, we shall, in 
order to be assisted on this subject, recur to his example and 
decisions ; let us consider the miracle which was recited in 
the third section, and which, he declares, would, on the evi 
dence of such testimony as he supposes, not only be probable 
but certain. For my part, it is not in my power to conceive 
a greater miracle than that is. The whole universe is af 
fected by it ; the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars. The 
most invariable laws of nature with which we are acquainted, 
even those which regulate the motions of the heavenly bodies, 
and dispense darkness and light to worlds, are violated. I 
appeal to the author himself, whether it could be called a 
greater, or even so great a miracle, that all the writers at 
that time, or even all mankind, had been seized with a new 
species of epidemical delirium, which had given rise to this 
strange illusion. But in this the author is remarkably un 
fortunate, that the principles by which he in fact regulates 
his judgment and belief, are often the reverse of those which 
he endeavours to establish in his theory. 

SHALL I hazard a conjecture ? It is, that the word miracle, 
as thus used by the author, is used in a vague and impro 
per sense, as a synonymous term for improbable ; and that 



O* MIRACLES CAPABLE OF 

believing the less, and rejecting the greater miracle, denote 
simply believing what is least, and rejecting what is most im 
probable f or still more explicitly, believing what we think 
most worthy of belief , and rejecting what we think least wor 
thy. I am aware, on a second perusal of the author s words, 
that my talent in guessing may be justly questioned. He 
has in effect told us himself what he means. " When any 
one," says he, " tells me that he saw a dead man restored to 
life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be 
more probable that this person should either deceive or be 
deceived, or that the fact he relates should really have hap 
pened. I weigh the one miracle against the other ; and, 
according to the superiority which I discover, I pronounce 
my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the 
falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than 
the event which he relates ; then, and not till then, can he 
pretend to command my belief or opinion." * At first, indeed, 
one is ready to exclaim, What a strange revolution is here ! 
The belief of miracles then, even by Mr. Hume s account, is 
absolutely inevitable. Miracles themselves too, so far from 
being impossible, or even extraordinary, are the commonest 
things in nature ; so common, that when any miraculous fact 
is attested to us, we are equally under the necessity of believing 
a miracle, whether we believe the fact or deny it. The whole 
difference between the Essayist and us is at length reduced 
to this single point, Whether greater or smaller miracles are 
entitled to the preference ? This mystery however vanishes 
on a nearer inspection. The style, we find, is figurative, and 
the author is all the while amusing both his readers and him 
self with an unusual application of a familiar term. What 
is called the weighing of probabilities in one sentence, is the 
weighing of miracles in the next. If it were asked, For what 
reason did not Mr. Hume express his sentiment in ordinary 
and proper words ? I could only answer, I know no reason 
but one, and that is, To give the appearance of novelty and 
depth to one of those very harmless propositions which by 
philosophers are called identical ; and which, to say the truth, 

* Page 182. 



PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 55 

need some disguise to make them pass upon the world with 
tolerable decency. 

"What then shall be said of the conclusion which he gives 
as the sum and quintessence of the first part of the Essay ? 
The best thing, for aught I know, that can be said is, that 
it contains a most certain truth, though at the same time, the 
least significant, that ever perhaps was ushered into the world 
with so much solemnity. In order therefore to make plainer 
English of his plain consequence, let us only change the word 
miraculous, as applied to the falsehood of human testimony, 
into improbable, which in this passage is entirely equivalent, 
and observe the effect produced by this elucidation. " The 
plain consequence is, and it is a GENERAL MAXIM worthy 
of our attention, That NO TESTIMONY is SUFFICIENT TO 

ESTABLISH A MIRACLE ; UNLESS THE TESTIMONY BE OF 
SUCH A KIND, THAT ITS FALSEHOOD WOULD BE MORE 

IMPROBABLE THAN THE FACT WHICH IT ENDEAVOURS 
TO ESTABLISH."* If the reader think himself instructed by 
this discovery, I should be loath to envy him the pleasure he 
may derive from it. 

* Page 182. 



PART II. 

THE MIRACLES ON WHICH THE BELIEF OF CHRISTIANITY IS 
FOUNDED, ARE SUFFICIENTLY ATTESTED. 

SECTION I. 

There is no presumption, arising from human nature, against 
the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of Chris 
tianity. 

FROM what has been evinced in the fourth and fifth sections 
of the former Part, with regard to religion in general, two 
corollaries are clearly deducible in favour of Christianity. 
One is, That the presumption arising from the dignity of the 
end, to say the least of it, can in no religion be pleaded with 
greater advantage than in the Christian : The other is, That 
the presumption arising from the religious affection, instead 
of weakening, corroborates the evidence of the gospel. The 
faith ck Jesus was promulgated and gained ground, not with 
the assistance, but in defiance, of all the religious zeal and 
prejudices of the times. 

IN order to invalidate the second corollary, it will possibly 
be urged, that proselytes to a new religion may be gained at 
first, either by address and eloquence, or by the appear 
ances of uncommon sanctity, and rapturous fervours of devo 
tion ; that if once people have commenced proselytes, the 
transition to enthusiasm is almost unavoidable ; and that 
enthusiasm will fully account for the utmost pitch both of 
credulity and falseness. 

Admitting that a few converts might be made by the afore 
said arts, it is subversive of all the laws of probability to ima- 



THE MIRACLES, &C. 57 

gine, that the strongest prepossessions, fortified with that ve 
hement abhorrence which contradiction in religious principles 
rarely fails to excite, should be so easily vanquished in multi 
tudes. Besides, the very pretext of supporting the doctrine 
by miracles, if a false pretext, would of necessity do unspeak 
able hurt to the cause. The pretence of miracles will quickly 
attract the attention of all to whom the new doctrine is pub 
lished. The influence which address and eloquence, appear 
ances of sanctity and fervours of devotion, would otherwise 
have had, however great, will be superseded by the conside 
ration of what is infinitely more striking and decisive. The 
miracles will therefore first be canvassed, and canvassed with 
a temper of mind the most unfavourable to conviction. It is 
not solely on the testimony of the Evangelists that Christians 
believe the gospel, though that testimony appears in all re 
spects such as merits the highest regard ; but it is on the 
success of the gospel ; it is on the testimony, as we may justly 
call it, of the numberless proselytes that were daily made to 
a religion, opposing all the religious professions then in the 
world, and appealing, for the satisfaction of every body, to the 
visible and miraculous interposition of Heaven in its favour. 
The witnesses considered in this light, and in this light they 
ought to be considered, will be found more than a sufficient 
number :" And though perhaps there were few of them, 
what the author would denominate "men of education and 
learning ;" yet, which is more essential, they were generally 
men of good sense, and knowledge enough to secure them 
against all delusion as to those plain facts for which they 
gave their testimony ; men who (in the common acceptation 
of the words) neither did nor could derive to themselves 
either interest or honour by their attestations, but did there 
by, on the contrary, evidently abandon all hopes of both. 

It deserves also to be remembered, that there is here no con 
tradictory testimony, notwithstanding that both the founder of 
our religion and his adherents were from the first surround 
ed by inveterate enemies, who never " esteemed the matter 
too inconsiderable to deserve their attention or regard ;" and 
who, as they could not want the means, gave evident proofs 



58 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

that they wanted not the inclination to detect the fraud, if there 
had been any fraud to be detected. They were jealous of 
their own reputation and authority, and foresaw but too clear 
ly, that the success of Jesus would give a fatal blow to both. 
As to the testimonies themselves, we may permit the author to 
try them by his own rules.* There is here no opposition of 
testimony ; there is no apparent ground of suspicion from the 
character of the witnesses ; there is no interest which they 
could have in imposing on the world ; there is not a small 
number of witnesses they are innumerable. Do the histo 
rians of our Lord deliver their testimony with doubt and he 
sitation ? Do they fall into the opposite extreme of using too 
violent asseverations ? So far from both, that the most amaz 
ing instances of divine power, and the most interesting events, 
are related without any censure or reflection of the writers on 
persons, parties, actions, or opinions; with such an unparal 
leled and unaffected simplicity, as demonstrates that they 
were neither themselves animated by passion like enthusiasts, 
nor had any design of working on the passions of their readers. 
The greatest miracles are recorded with as little appearance 
either of doubt or wonder in the writer, and with as little sus 
picion of the reader s incredulity, as the most ordinary inci 
dents : A manner as unlike that of impostors as of enthusiasts ; 
a manner in which those writers are altogether singular ; and 
I will add, a manner which can on no supposition be tolera 
bly accounted for, but that of the truth, and not of the truth 
only, but of the notoriety, of the events which they related. 
They spoke like people who had themselves been long famili 
arized to such acts of omnipotence and grace. They spoke 
like people who knew that many of the most marvellous ac 
tions they related had been so publicly performed, and in the 
presence of multitudes alive at the time of their writing, as 
to be incontrovertible, and as in fact not to have been con 
troverted, even by their bitterest foes. They could boldly 
appeal on this head to their enemies. Aman, say they, speak 
ing of their Master, Acts ii. 22, approved of God among you, 
by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in 

* Page 178. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 59 

the midst of you, as YE YOURSELVES ALSO KNOW. The 
objections of Christ s persecutors against his doctrine, those 
objections also which regard the nature of his miracles, are, 
together with his answers, faithfully recorded by the sacred 
historians : It is strange, if the occasion had been given, that 
we have not the remotest hint of any objections against the 
reality of his miracles, and a confutation of those objections. 

BUT passing the manner in which the first proselytes may 
be gained to a new religion, and supposing some actually 
gained, no matter how, to the faith of Jesus ; can it be easily 
accounted for, that, even with the help of those early con 
verts, this religion should have been propagated in the world 
on the false pretence of miracles ? Nothing more easily, 
says the author. Those original propagators of the gospel 
have been deceived themselves ; for " a religionist may be an 
enthusiast, and imagine he sees what has no reality."* 

Were this admitted, it would not, in the present case, re 
move the difficulty. He must not only himself imagine he 
sees what has no reality, he must make every body present, 
those who are no enthusiasts, nor even friends, nay, he must 
make enemies also, imagine they see the same thing which he 
imagines he sees : for the miracles of Jesus were acknow 
ledged by those who persecuted him. 

That an enthusiast is very liable to be imposed on, in what 
ever favours the particular species of enthusiasm with which 
he is affected, none, who knows any thing of the human heart, 
will deny. But still this frailty has its limits. For my own 
part, I cannot find examples of any, even among enthusiasts, 
(unless to the conviction of every body they were distracted,) 
who did not see and hear in the same manner as other people. 
Many of this tribe have mistaken the reveries of a heated 
imagination for the communications of the Divine Spirit, who 
never, in one single instance, mistook the operations of their 
external senses. Without marking this difference, we should 
make no distinction between the enthusiastic character and 
the frantic, which are themselves evidently distinct. How 
shall we then account from enthusiasm, for the testimony 

* Page 185, 



60 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

given by the apostles concerning the resurrection of their 
Master, and his ascension into heaven, not to mention innu 
merable other facts ? In these it was impossible that any, 
who in the use of their reason were but one remove from 
Bedlamites, should have been deceived. Yet in the present 
case the unbeliever must even say more than this, and, ac 
cumulating absurdity upon absurdity, must affirm, that the 
apostles were deceived as to the resurrection and ascension 
of their Master, notwithstanding that they themselves had 
concerted the plan of stealing his body, and concealing it. 

BUT this is not the only resource of the infidel. If he is 
driven from this stronghold, he can take refuge in another. 
Admit the apostles were not deceived themselves, they may 
nevertheless have been, through mere devotion and benevo 
lence, incited to deceive the rest of mankind. The religionist, 
rejoins the author, "may know his narration to be false, and 
yet persevere in it, with the best intentions in the world, for 
the sake of promoting so holy a cause." * 

Our religion, to use its own nervous language, teaches us, 
that we ought not to lie, or speak wickedly, not even for God ; 
that we ought not to accept his person in judgment, or talk, 
or act deceitfully for him, Job xiii. 7, 8. But so very little, 
it must be owned, has this sentiment been attended to, even 
in the Christian world, that one would almost think it con 
tained a strain of virtue too sublime for the apprehension of 
the multitude. It is therefore a fact not to be questioned, 
that little pious frauds, as they are absurdly, not to say im 
piously, called, have been often practised by innocent zealots, 
in support of a cause which they firmly believed to be both 
true and holy. But in all such cases the truth and holiness of 
the cause are wholly independent of those artifices. A person 
may be persuaded of the former, who is too clear-sighted to 
be deceived by the latter : for even a full conviction of the 
truth of the cause is not, in the least, inconsistent with either 
the consciousness, or the detection, of the frauds used in sup 
port of it. In the Romish church, for example, there are 
many zealous- and orthodox believers, who are nevertheless 

* Page 185. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 61 

incapable of being imposed on by the lying wonders which 
some of their clergy have exhibited. The circumstances 
of the apostles were widely different from the circumstances 
either of those believers or of their clergy. Some of the mi 
raculous events which the apostles attested, were not only the 
evidences) but the distinguishing doctrines, of the religion 
which they taught. There is therefore in their case an ab 
solute inconsistency betwixt a conviction of the truth of the 
cause, and the consciousness of the frauds used in support of it. 
Those frauds themselves, if I may so express myself, consti 
tuted the very essence of the cause. What were the tenets 
by which they were distinguished, in their religious system, 
particularly from the Pharisees, who owned not only the 
unity and perfections of the Godhead, the existence of angels 
and demons, but the general resurrection, and a future state 
of rewards and punishments ? Were not these their peculiar 
tenets, "That Jesus, whom the Jews and Romans joined 
in crucifying without the gates of Jerusalem, had suffered 
that ignominious death, to make atonement for the sins of 
men ? Rom v. 6, &c. ; that, in testimony of this, and of the 
divine acceptance, God had raised from the dead ? that he 
had exalted him to his own right hand, to be a Prince and a 
Saviour, to give repentance to the people, and the remis 
sion of their sins ? Acts ii. 32, &c., v. 30, &c., x. 40, &c. ; 
that he is now our advocate with the Father ? 1 John ii. 1 ; 
that he will descend from heaven at the last day, to judge 
the world in righteousness, Acts x. 42, xvii. 31 ; and to re 
ceive his faithful disciples into heaven, to be for ever with 
himself?" John xiv. 3. l^These fundamental articles of their 
system, they must have known, deserved no better appellation 
than a string of lies, if we suppose them liars in the testimony 
they gave of the resurrection and ascension of their Master. 
If, agreeably to the Jewish hypothesis, they had, in a most 
wonderful and daring manner, stole by night the corpse from 
the sepulchre, that on the false report of his resurrection 
they might found the stupendous fabric they had projected 
among themselves, how was it possible they should conceive 
the cause to be either true or holy ? They must have known, 
that in those cardinal points on which all depends, they were 



62 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

false witnesses concerning God, wilful corrupters of the re 
ligion of their country, and public, though indeed dis 
interested incendiaries, whithersoever they went. They 
could not therefore enjoy even that poor solace, "that 
the end will sanctify the means ;" a solace with which the 
monk or anchorite silences the remonstrances of his con 
science, when, in defence of a religion which he regards as 
certain, he, by some pitiful juggler- trick, imposes on the 
credulity of the rabble. On the contrary, the whole scheme 
of the apostles must have been, and not only must have been, 
but must have appeared to themselves, a most audacious 
freedom with their Maker, a villanous imposition on the 
world, and, I will add, a most foolish and ridiculous project 
of heaping ruin and disgrace upon themselves, without the 
prospect of any compensation in the present life, or reversion 
in the future. 

ONCE more, can we account for so extraordinary a pheno 
menon, by attributing it to that most powerful of all motives, 
as the author thinks it,* " an ambition to attain so sublime 
a character as that of a missionary, a prophet, an ambassador 
from heaven?" 

Not to mention, that such a towering ambition was but ill 
adapted to the mean rank, poor education, and habitual cir 
cumstances of such men as the apostles mostly had been : a 
desire of that kind, whatever wonders it may effectuate, when 
supported by enthusiasm, and faith, and zeal, must have soon 
been crushed by the outward, and to human appearance in 
surmountable difficulties and distresses they had to encounter; 
when quite unsupported from within by either faith or hope, 
or the testimony of a good conscience ; rather I should have 
said, when they themselves were haunted from within by a 
consciousness of the blackest guilt, impiety, and baseness. 
Strange indeed, it must be owned without a parallel, that in 
such a cause, and in such circumstances, not only one, but 
all, should have the resolution to persevere to the last, in spite 
of infamy and torture ; and that no one, among so many con 
federates, should be induced to betray the dreadful secret. 

* Page 200. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 63 

it appears that no address in the FOUNDER of our 
religion, that no enthusiastic credulity, no pious frauds, no 
ambitious views, in the FIRST CONVERTS, will account for its 
propagation on the plea of miracles, if false ; and that, conse 
quently, there is no presumption arising from human nature 
against the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of 
Christianity. 



SECTION II. 

There is no presumption arising from the history of mankind^ 
against the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of 
Christianity. 

IN the foregoing section, I reasoned only from the know 
ledge that experience aifords us of human nature, and of the 
motives hy which men are influenced in their conduct. I 
come now to the examination of facts, that I may know 
whether the history of mankind will invalidate or corroborate 
my reasonings. 

THE Essayist is confident, that all the evidence resulting 
hence is on his side. Nay, so unquestionable a truth does this 
appear to him, that he never attempts to prove it: he always 
presupposes it, as a point universally acknowledged. " Men 
in all ages," we learn from a passage already quoted, " have 
been much imposed on, by ridiculous stories of miracles as 
cribed to new systems of religion."* Again he asserts, that 
" the violations of truth are more common in the testimony 
concerning religious miracles, than in that concerning any 
other matter of fact."f These assertions, however, though 
used for the same purpose, the attentive reader will observe, 
are far from conveying the same sense, or being of equal 
weight in the argument. The difference has been marked 
in the fourth section of the First Part of this Tract. The 
oracular predictions among the ancient Pagans, and the 
pretended wonders performed by capuchins and friars, by 
itinerant or stationary teachers among the Roman Catholics, 

* Page 204, in the note. t Page 205, in the note. 



64 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

the author will doubtless reckon among religious miracles ; 
but he can with no propriety denominate them miracles 
ascribed to a new system of religion.* Now it is with those 
of the class last mentioned, and with those only, that I am 
concerned ; for it is only to them that the miracles wrought 
in proof of Christianity bear any analogy. 

I shall then examine impartially this bold assertion, That 
" men in all ages have been much imposed on by ridiculous 
stories of miracles ascribed to new systems of religion." For 
my part, I am fully satisfied that there is not the shadow of 
truth in it ; and I am utterly at a loss to conceive what could 
induce an author, so well versed in the annals both of ancient 
and modern times as Mr. Hume, in such a positive manner to 
advance it. I believe it will require no elaborate disquisition 
to evince, that these two, JUDAISM and CHRISTIANITY, are, 
of all that have subsisted, or now subsist in the world, the 
only religions which claim to have been attended in their 
first publication with the evidence of miracles. It deserves 
also to be remarked, that it is more in conformity to common 
language, and incidental distinctions which have arisen, than 
to strict propriety, that I call Judaism and Christianity two 
religions. It is true, the Jewish creed, in the days of our 
Saviour, having been corrupted by rabbinical traditions, 

* Should the author insist, that such miracles are nevertheless meant to estahlish, 
if not a new system, at least some new point of religion ; that those which are 
wrought in Spain, for example, are not intended as proofs of the gospel, but as 
proofs of the efficacy of a particular crucifix or relic which is always a new point, 
or at least not universally received ; I must beg the reader will consider, what is the 
meaning of this expression, a new point of religion. It is not a new system, it is not 
even a new doctrine. We know, that one article of faith in the church of Rome 
is, that the images and relics of saints ought to be worshipped. We know also, 
that, in proof of this article, it is one of their principal arguments, that miracles 
are wrought by means of such relics and images. We know further, that that 
church never attempted to enumerate her relics and other trumpery, and thus to 
ascertain the individual objects of the adoration of her votaries. The producing 
therefore a new relic, image^ or crucifix, as an object of worship, implies not the 
smallest deviation from the faith established; at the same time the opinion, that 
miracles are performed by means of such relic, image, or crucifix, proves in the 
minds of the people, for the reason assigned, a very strong confirmation of the faith 
established. All such miracles, therefore, must be considered as wrought in support 
of the received superstition, and accordingly are always favoured by the popular 
prejudices. See Preface. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 65 

stood in many respects, and at this day stands, in direct op 
position to the gospel. But it is not in this acceptation that 
I use the word Judaism. Such a creed, I am sensible, we 
can no more denominate the doctrine of the Old Testament, 
than we can denominate the creed of Pope Pius the doctrine 
of the New. And truly the fate which both institutions, that 
of Moses, and that of Christ, have met with among men, 
has been in many respects extremely similar. But when, on 
the contrary, we consider the religion of the Jews, not as the 
system of faith and practice which obtains at present, or has 
obtained heretofore, among that people ; but solely as the 
religion that is revealed in the law and the prophets, we must 
acknowledge, that in this institution are contained the rudi 
ments of the gospel. The same great plan carried on by the 
divine providence for the recovery and final happiness of 
mankind, is the subject of both dispensations. They are by 
consequence closely connected. In the former we are ac 
quainted with the occasion and rise, in the latter more fully 
with the progress and completion of this benign scheme. It 
is for this reason that the Scriptures of the Old Testament, 
which alone contain the authentic religion of the SYNAGOGUE, 
have ever been acknowledged in the CHURCH an essential 
part of the gospel revelation. The apostles and evangelists, 
in every part of their writings, presuppose the truth of the 
Mosaic economy, and often found both their doctrine and 
arguments upon it. It is therefore, I affirm, only in proof 
of this one series of revelations, that the aid of miracles has 
with success been pretended to. 

CAN the PAGAN religion can, I should rather say, any of 
the numberless religions (for they are totally distinct) known 
by the common name of Pagan, produce any claim of this 
kind that will merit our attention ? If the author know of any, 
I wish he had mentioned it : for in all antiquity, as far as my 
acquaintance with it reaches, I can recollect no such claim. 
However, that I may not, on the one hand, appear to pass 
the matter too slightly ; or, on the other, lose myself, as Mr. 
Hume expresses it, in too wide a field ; I shall briefly consi 
der, whether the ancient religions of Greece or Rome (which, 



66 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

of all the species of heathenish superstition,, are on many 
accounts the most remarkable) can present a claim of this 
nature. Will it be said, that that monstrous heap of fables 
we find in ancient bards, relating to the genealogy, produc 
tion, amours, and achievements of the gods, are the miracles 
on which Greek and Roman Paganism claims to be founded ? 
If one should talk in this manner, I must remind him, first, 
that these are by no means exhibited as EVIDENCES, but as the 
THEOLOGY itself ; the poets always using the same affirmative 
style concerning what passed in heaven, in hell, and in the 
ocean, where men could not be spectators, as concerning what 
passed upon the earth : secondly, that all those mythological 
tales are confessedly recorded many centuries after they are 
supposed to have happened ; no voucher, no testimony, no 
thing that can deserve the name of evidence having been pro 
duced, or even alleged, in proof of them : thirdly, that the 
intention of the writers seems to be solely the amusement, not 
the conviction of their readers ; that accordingly no writer 
scruples to model the mythology to his particular taste, or 
rather caprice : but, considering this as a province subject to 
the laws of Parnassus, all agree in arrogating here the im 
memorial privilege of poets, to say and feign, unquestioned, 
what they please ; and, fourthly, that at least several of their 
narrations are allegorical, and as plainly intended to convey 
some physical or moral instruction, as any of the apologues of 
./Esop. But to have said even thus much in refutation of so 
absurd a plea, will perhaps to many readers appear superfluous. 

LEAVING therefore the endless absurdities and incoherent 
fictions of idolaters, I shall inquire, in the next place, whether 
the Mahometan worship (which in its speculative principles 
appears more rational) pretends to have been built on the 
evidence of miracles. 

Mahomet, the founder of this profession, openly and fre 
quently, as all the world knows, disclaimed such evidence. 
He frankly owned, that he had no commission nor power to 
work miracles, being sent of God to the people only as a 
preacher. Not indeed but that there are things mentioned 
in the revelation he pretended to give them, which, if true, 



FULLY ATTESTED. 67 

would have been miraculous; such are the nocturnal visits of 
the angel Gabriel, (not unlike those secret interviews which 
Numa, the institutor of the Roman rites, affirmed that he 
had with the goddess Egeria,) his getting from time to time 
parcels of the uncreated book transmitted to him from heaven, 
and his most amazing night-journey. But these miracles 
could be no evidences of his mission. Why ? Because no 
person was witness to them. On the contrary, it was because 
his adherents had previously and implicitly believed his 
apostleship, that they admitted things so incredible on his 
bare declaration. There is indeed one miracle, and but one, 
which he often urges against the infidels, as the main support 
of his cause ; a miracle for which even we, in this distant 
region and period, have not only the evidence of testimony, 
but, if we please to use it, all the evidence which the con 
temporaries and countrymen of this military apostle ever 
enjoyed. The miracle I mean is, the manifest divinity, or 
supernatural excellence, of the scriptures which he gave 
them ; a miracle, concerning which I shall only say, that as 
it falls not under the cognizance of the senses, but of a much 
more fallible tribunal, taste in composition, and critical dis 
cernment, so a principle of less efficacy than enthusiasm, 
even the slightest partiality, may make a man, in this parti 
cular, imagine he perceives what has no reality. Certain it 
is, that notwithstanding the many defiances which the prophet 
gave his enemies, sometimes to produce ten chapters, some 
times one, that could bear to be compared with an equal 
portion of the perspicuous book,* they seem not in the least 
to have been convinced that there was any thing miraculous 
in the matter. Nay, this sublime performance, so highly 
venerated by every Mussulman, they were not afraid to 
blaspheme as contemptible, calling it " A confused heap of 
dreams," and " the silly fables of ancient times. "f 

* Alcoran. The chapter of the cow of Jonas, of Hud. 

f Of cattle of the spoils of the Prophets. That the Alcoran hears a very 
strong resemhlance to the Talmud, is indeed evident; hut I hardly think we can 
have a more striking instance of the prejudices of modern infidels, than in their com 
paring this motley composition to the writings of the Old and New Testament. Let 

E 



68 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

Passing therefore this equivocal miracle, if I may call it so, 
which I imagine was of very little use in making proselytes, 
whatever use it might have had in confirming and tutoring 
those already made ; it may be worth while to inquire, what 

the reader but take the trouble to peruse the history of Joseph by Mahomet, which is 
the subject of a very long chapter, and to compare it with the account of that patriarch 
given by Moses, and if he do not perceive at once the immense inferiority of the former, 
I shall never, for my part, undertake by argument to convince him of it. To me it 
appears even almost incredible, that the most beautiful and most affecting passages of 
holy writ should have been so wretchedly disfigured by a writer, whose intention, we 
are certain, was not to burlesque them. But that every reader may be qualified to 
form some notion of this miracle of a book, I have subjoined a specimen of it, from 
the chapter of the ant , where we are informed particularly of the cause of the visit 
which the queen of Sheba (there called Sabd) made to Solomon, and of the occasion 
of her conversion from idolatry. I have not selected this passage on account of any 
special futility to be found in it, for the like absurdities may be observed in every 
page of the performance; but I have selected it because it is short, and because it 
contains a distinct story which bears some relation to a passage of scripture. I use 
Mr. Sale s version, which is the latest and the most approved, omitting only, for the 
sake of brevity, such supplementary expressions as have been without necessity 
inserted by the translator. " Solomon was David s heir ; and he said, O men, we 
have been taught the speech of birds, and have had all things bestowed on us : 
this is manifest excellence. And his armies were gathered together to Solomon, 
consisting of genii, and men and birds ; and they were led in distinct bands, till they 
came to the valley of ants. An ant said, O ants, enter ye into your habitations, 
lest Solomon and his army tread you under foot, and perceive it not. And he 
smiled, laughing at her words, and said, O Lord, excite me, that I may be thankful 
for thy favour wherewith thou hast favoured me, and my parents ; and that I may 
do that which is right and well-pleasing to thee : And introduce me, through thy 
mercy, among thy servants the righteous. And he viewed the birds ; and said, 
What is the reason that I see not the lapwing? Is she absent? Verily I will 
chastise her with a severe chastisement, or I will put her to death ; unless she bring 
mo a just excuse. And she tarried not long, and said, I have viewed that which 
thou hast not viewed ; and I come to thee from Saba, with a certain piece of news. 
I found a woman to reign over them, who is provided with every thing, and hath 
a magnificent throne. I found her and her people to worship the sun, besides God : 
and Satan hath prepared their works for them, and hath turned them aside from the 
way, (wherefore they are not directed,) lest they should worship God, who bringeth 
to light that which is hidden in heaven and earth, and knoweth whatever they con 
ceal, and whatever they discover. God ! there is no God but he ; the Lord of the 
magnificent throne. He said, We shall see whether thou hast spoken the truth, or 
whether thou art a liar. Go with this my letter, and cast it down to them ; then 
turn aside from them, and wait for their answer. The queen said, O nobles, verily 
an honourable letter hath been delivered to me ; it is from Solomon, and this is 
the tenor thereof, In the name of the most merciful God, rise not up against me ; 
but come, and surrender yourselves to me. She said, O nobles, advise me in my 



FULLY ATTESTED. 69 

were the reasons, that an engine of such amazing influence was 
never employed by one who assumed a character so eminent as 
the chief of God s apostles, and the seal of the prophets ? Was 
it the want of address to manage an imposition of this nature ? 

business : I will not resolve on any thing, till ye be witnesses thereof. They an 
swered, We are endowed with strength, and endowed with great prowess in war ; but 
the command appertaineth to thee : see, therefore, what thou wilt command. She 
said, Verily, kings, when they enter a city, waste the same, and abase the most power 
ful of the inhabitants thereof: and so will these do. But I will send gifts to them ; 
and will wait for what those who shall be sent shall bring back. And when the 
ambassador came to Solomon, that prince said, Will ye present me with riches ? 
Verily that which God hath given me is better than what he has given you : but ye 
glory in your gifts. Return to your people. We will surely come to them with 
forces, which they shall not be able to withstand ; and we will drive them out 
humbled ; and they shall be contemptible. And Solomon said, O nobles, which of 
you will bring me her throne, before they come and surrender themselves to me? 
A terrible genius answered, I will bring it thee, before thou arise from thy place. 
And one with whom was the knowledge of the scripture said, 1 will bring it to thee 
in the twinkling of an eye. And when Solomon saw it placed before him, he said, 
This is a favour of my Lord, that he may make trial of me, whether I will be grate 
ful, or whether I will be ungrateful : and he who is grateful, is grateful to his own 
advantage ; but if any shall be ungrateful, verily my Lord is self-sufficient and mag 
nificent. And he said, Alter her throne that she may not know it, to the end we 
may see whether she be directed, or whether she be of those who are not directed. 
And when she was come, it was said, Is thy throne like this ? She answered, As 
though it were the same. And we have had knowledge bestowed on us before this, 
and have been resigned. But that which she worshipped besides God had turned her 
aside, for she was of an unbelieving people. It was said to her, Enter the palace. 
And when she saw it, she imagined it to be a great water, and she discovered her legs. 
Solomon said, Verily this is a palace evenly floored with glass. She said, O Lord, 
verily I have dealt unjustly with my own soul; and I resign myself, together with 
Solomon, to God, the Lord of all creatures." Thus, poverty of sentiment, mon 
strosity of invention, which always betokens a distempered, not a rich imagination, 
and in respect of diction the most turgid verbosity, so apt to be mistaken by persons 
of a vitiated taste for true sublimity, are the genuine characteristics of the book. 
They appear almost in every line. The very titles and epithets assigned to God are 
not exempt from them : the Lord of the day break, the Lord of the magnificent throne, 
the King of the day of judgment, &c. They are pompous and insignificant. If 
the language of the Alcoran, as the Mahometans pretend, is indeed the language 
of God, the thoughts are but too evidently the thoughts of men. The reverse of this is 
the character of the Bible. When God speaks to men, it is reasonable to think 
that he addresses them in their own language. In the Bible you will find no 
thing inflated, nothing affected in the style. The words are human, but the sen 
timents are divine. Accordingly, there is, perhaps, no book in the world, as has 
been often justly observed, which suffers less by a literal translation into any other 
language. 

E 2 






70 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

None who knows the history of this extraordinary personage 
will suspect, that he wanted either the genius to contrive, or 
the resolution and dexterity to execute, any practicable ex 
pedient for promoting his grand design ; which was no less 
than that extensive despotism, both religious and political, he 
at length acquired. Was it that he had too much honesty to 
concert and carry on so gross an artifice ? Those who believe 
him to have been an impostor in pretending a divine mission, 
will hardly suspect him of such delicacy in the methods he 
would take to accomplish his aim. But in fact there is no 
colour of reason for such a suggestion. There was no pro 
digy, no miraculous interposition, which he hesitated to give 
out, however extravagant, when he saw it would contribute 
to his ends. Prodigies of which they had no other evidence 
but his own allegation, he knew his adversaries might deny, 
but could not disprove. His scruples, therefore, we may well 
conclude, proceeded not from probity, but from prudence; 
and were solely against such miracles as must be subjected to 
the scrutiny of other people s senses. Was it that miracle- 
working had, before that time, become so stale a device, that, 
instead of gaining him the admiration of his countrymen, it 
would have exposed him to their laughter and contempt ? The 
most cursory perusal of the Alcoran will, to every man of 
sense, afford an unanswerable confutation of this hypothesis.* 

* It is observable, that Mahomet was very much harassed by the demands and 
reasonings of his opposers with regard to miracles. They were so far from despising 
this evidence, that they considered the power of working miracles as a never-failing 
badge of the prophetical office ; and therefore often assured him, by the most solemn 
oaths and prostestations, that they would submit implicitly to his guidance in reli 
gion, if he would once gratify them in this particular. This artful man, who does not 
seem to have been of the same opinion with the Essayist, that it was easy for cunning 
and impudence to impose, in a matter of this kind, on the credulity of the multitude, 
even though an ignorant and barbarous multitude, absolutely refused to subject his 
mission to so hazardous a trial. There is no subject he more frequently recurs to 
in his Alcoran, being greatly interested to remove the doubts which were raised in 
the minds of many by his disclaiming this power ; a power which, till then, had ever 
been looked upon as the prerogative of the prophets. The following are some of 
the reasons with which he endeavours to satisfy the people on this head : 1st. The 
sovereignty of God, who is not to be called to account for what he gives or 
withholds. 2nd, The uselessness of miracles, because every man is foreordained 



fULLY ATTESTED. 71 

Lastly, was it that he lived in an enlightened age, and amongst 
a civilized and learned people, who were too quick-sighted 
to be deceived by tricks which among barbarians might have 
produced the most astonishing effects ? Quite the reverse. 
He lived in a barbarous age, and amongst an illiterate people, 
with whom, if with any, he had reason to believe the grossest 
deceit would prove successful. 

What pity was it, that Mahomet had not a counsellor so 
deeply versed in human nature as the Essayist, who could have 
assured him that there needed but effrontery and enterprise ; 
that with these auxiliaries he had reason to hope the most im 
pudent pretences would be crowned with success ? The too 
timid prophet would doubtless have remonstrated against this 
spirited counsel, insisting that it was one thing to satisfy 
friends, and another thing to silence or convert enemies ? that 
it was one thing to impose onmeris intellects, and another thing 
to deceive their senses ; that though an attempt of the last 
kind should succeed with some, yet, if the fraud were detected 
by any, and he might expect that his adversaries would exert 
themselves in order to detect it, the whole mystery of craft 
would be divulged, his friends would become suspicious, and 
the spectators of such pretended miracles would become daily 
more prying and critical ; that the consequences would infal 
libly prove fatal to the whole design ; and that therefore such 
a cheat was on no account whatever to be risked. To this me- 
thinks I hear the other replying with some earnestness, " Make 
but the trial, and you will certainly find, that what judgment, 
nay, and what senses your auditors have, they will renounce by 
principle in those sublime and mysterious subjects : they will 
imagine they see and hear what has no reality, nay, whatever 
you shall desire that they should see and hear : their credulity 

either to believe, or to remain in unbelief; and this decree no miracles could 
alter. 3rd, The experienced inefficacy of miracles in former times. 4th, The 
mercy of God, who had denied them this evidence, because the sin of their incre 
dulity, in case he had granted it, would have been so heinous, that he could not 
have respited or tolerated them any longer. 5th, The abuse to which miracles 
would have been exposed from the infidels, who would have either charged them 
with imposture, or imputed them to magic. See the chapters of cattle, of 
thunder, of Al Hejir, of the night journey, of the spider, of the prophets. 
See Preface. 



THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

(forgive a freedom which my zeal inspires) will increase your 
impudence, and your impudence will overpower their credu 
lity. The smallest spark may here kindle into the greatest 
flame ; because the materials are always prepared for it. The 
avidum genus auricularum swallow greedily, without exami 
nation, whatever soothes superstition and promotes wonder." 
Whether the judicious reader will reckon that the prophet or 
his counsellor would have had the better in this debate, I shall 
not take upon me to decide. One perhaps (if I might be in 
dulged in a conjecture) whose notions are founded in meta 
physical refinements, or whose resolutions are influenced by 
oratorical declamation, will incline to the opinion of the latter. 
One whose sentiments are the result of a practical knowledge 
of mankind, will probably subscribe to the judgment of the 
former, and will allow, that in this instance the Captain-Ge 
neral and Prophet of Islamism acted the more prudent part. 
Shall we then say, that it was a more obscure theatre on 
which JESUS CHRIST appeared ? Were his spectators more 
ignorant, or less adverse ? The contrary of both is manifest. 
It may indeed be affirmed with truth, that the religion of the 
wild Arabs was more repugnant to the doctrine of Mahomet, 
than the religious dogmas of the Jews were to those of Jesus. 
But we shall err egregiously if we conclude thence, that to 
this repugnancy the repugnancy of disposition in the professors 
of these religions must be proportionate. It is a fine observa 
tion of the most piercing and comprehensive genius which has 
appeared in this age, That " though men have a very strong- 
tendency to idolatry, they are nevertheless but little attached 
to idolatrous religions ; that though they have no great ten 
dency to spiritual ideas, they are nevertheless strongly at 
tached to religions which enjoin the adoration of a spiritual 
being."* Hence an attachment in JEWS, CHRISTIANS, and 
MAHOMETANS, to their respective religions, which was never 
displayed by POLYTHEISTS of any denomination. But its spi 
rituality was not the only cause of adherence which the Jews 
had to their religion. Every physical, every moral motive, 
concurred in that people to rivet their attachment, and make 
them oppose with violence whatever bore the face of innova- 
* De 1 Esprit des Loix, liv. 25. chap. 2. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 73 

tion. Their religion and polity were so blended as scarcely 
to be distinguishable : This engaged their patriotism. They 
were selected of God preferably to other nations : This in 
flamed their pride.* They were all under one spiritual head, 
the high-priest, and had their solemn festivals celebrated in 
one temple : This strengthened their union. The ceremonies 
of their public worship were magnificent : This flattered their 
senses. These ceremonies also were numerous, and occupied 
a great part of their time : This, to all the other grounds of 
attachment, superadded the force of habit. On the contrary, 
the simplicity of the gospel, as well as the spirit of humility, 
and moderation, and charity, and universality, (if I may be 
allowed that term), which it breathed, could not fail to alarm 
a people of such a cast, and awaken, as in fact it did, the most 
furious opposition. Accordingly, Christianity had fifty times 
more success among idolaters than it had among the Jews. I 
am therefore warranted to assert, that if the miracles of our 
Lord and his apostles had been an imposture, there could not, 
on the face of the earth, have been chosen for exhibiting them 
a more unfavourable theatre than Judea. On the other hand, 
had it been any-where practicable, by a display of false won 
ders, to make converts to a new religion, no-where could a 
project of this nature have been conducted with greater pro 
bability of success than in Arabia. So much for the contrast 
there is betwixt the Christian MESSIAH and the ORPHAN 
CHARGE of Abu Taleb : So plain it is, that the mosque yields 
entirely the plea of miracles to the synagogue and the church. 

BUT from HEATHENS and MAHOMETANS let us turn our 
eyes to the CHRISTIAN world. The only object here which 
merits our attention, as coming under the denomination of 
miracles ascribed to a new system, and as what may be thought 
to rival in credibility the miracles of the gospel, are those said 
to have been performedin the primitive church, after the times 
of the apostles, and after the finishing of the sacred canon. 
These will probably be ascribed to a new system, since Chris 
tianity, for some centuries, was not (as the phrase is) establish- 

* How great influence this motive had, appears from Luke iv. 25, &c., and from 
Acts xxii. 21, 22. 



74* THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

ed f or (to speak more properly) corrupted by human autho 
rity; and since, even after such establishment, there remained 
long in the empire a considerable mixture of idolaters. We 
have the greater reason here to consider this topic, as it has 
of late been the subject of very warm dispute, and as the cause 
of Christianity itself (which I conceive is totally distinct) seems 
to have been strangely confounded with it. From the man 
ner in which the argument has been conducted, who would 
not conclude, that both must stand or fall together ? Nothing 
however can be more groundless, nothing more injurious to 
the religion of Jesus, than such a conclusion. 

The learned writer who has given rise to this controversy, 
not only acknowledges that the falsity of the miracles mention 
ed by the fathers is no evidence of the falsity of the miracles 
recorded in scripture ; but that there is even a presumption in 
favour of these, arising from those forgeries which he pretends 
to have detected.* The justness of the remark contained in 
this acknowledgment, will appear more clearly from the fol 
lowing observations. 

Let it be observed, 1st, that supposing numbers of people 
are ascertained of the truth of some miracles, whether their 
conviction arise from sense or from testimony, it will surely be 
admitted as a consequence, that, in all such persons, the pre 
sumption against miracles from uncommonness must be great 
ly diminished, in several perhaps totally extinguished. 

Let it be observed, 2dly, that if true miracles have been 
employed successfully in support of certain religious tenets, 
this success will naturally suggest to those who are zealous of 
propagating favourite opinions in religion, to recur to the plea 
of miracles, as the most effectual expedient for accomplishing 
their end. This they will be encouraged to do on a double 
account: first, they know that people, from recent experience, 
are made to expect such a confirmation; secondly, they know, 
that in consequence of this experience, the incredibility, which 
is the principal obstruction in such an undertaking, is in a 
manner removed ; and there is, on the contrary, as in such 
circumstances there certainly would be, a promptness in the 
generality to receive them. 

* Dr. Middleton f? prefatory discourse to his Letter from Rome. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 75 

Add to these, that if we consult the history of mankind, or 
even our own experience, we shall be convinced, that hardly 
has one wonderful event actually happened in any country, 
even where there have not been such visible temptations to 
forgery, which has not given rise to false rumours of other 
events similar, but still more wonderful. Hardly has any per 
son or people achieved some exploits truly extraordinary, to 
whom common report has not quickly attributed many others, 
as extraordinary at least, if not impossible. As fame may, 
in this respect, be compared to a multiplying glass, reasonable 
people almost always conclude in the same way concerning 
both : we know that there is not a real object corresponding 
to every appearance exhibited, at the same time we know that 
there must be some objects to give rise to the appearances. 

I should therefore only beg of our adversaries, that, for 
argument s sake, they will suppose that the miracles related 
in the New Testament were really performed ; and then, that 
they will candidly tell us, what, according to their notions of 
human nature, would, in all likelihood, have been the conse 
quences. They must be very partial to a darling hypothesis, 
or little acquainted with the world, who will hesitate to own, 
that, on this supposition, it is not barely probable, but certain, 
that for a few endowed with the miraculous power, there would 
soon have arisen numbers of pretenders ; that from some mi 
racles well attested, occasion would have been taken to pro 
pagate innumerable false reports. If so, with what colour 
of justice can the detection of many spurious reports among 
the primitive Christians be considered as a presumption 
against those miracles, the reality of which is the most plau 
sible, nay the only plausible account, that can be given of 
the origin of such reports ? The presumption is too evi 
dently on the opposite side to need illustration. 

It is not my intention here to patronize either side of the 
question which the Doctor s free inquiry has occasioned. All 
that concerns my argument is barely to evince, and this I 
imagine has been evinced, that, granting the Doctor s plea to 
be well founded, there is no presumption arising hence, which 
tends in the lowest degree to discredit the miracles recorded 
in holy writ ; nay, that there is a contrary presumption. In 



76 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

further confirmation of this truth, let me ask, Were there 
ever, in any region of the globe, any similar pretensions to 
miraculous powers, before that memorable era, the publica 
tion of the gospel? Let me ask again, Since those pretensions 
ceased, has it ever been in the power of the most daring en 
thusiast to revive them anywhere in favour of a new system ? 
Authentic miracles will for a time give a currency to coun 
terfeits ; but as the former become less frequent, the latter 
become more suspected, till at length they are treated with 
general contempt, and disappear. The danger then is, lest 
men, ever prone to extremes, become as extravagantly incre 
dulous as formerly they were credulous. Laziness, the true 
source of both, always inclines us to admit or reject in the 
gross, without entering on the irksome task of considering 
things in detail. In the first instance, knowing some such 
events to be true, they admit all without examination ; in 
the second, knowing some to be false, they reject all without 
examination. A procedure this, which, however excusable in 
the unthinking herd, is altogether unworthy a philosopher. 

But it may be thought, that the claim to miracles, in the 
early ages of the church, continued too long to be supported 
solely on the credit of those performed by our Lord and his 
apostles. In order to account for this, it ought to be attended 
to, that in the course of some centuries the situation of affairs, 
with regard to religion, was really inverted. Education, and 
even superstition, and bigotry, and popularity, which the 
miracles of Christ and his apostles had to encounter, came 
gradually to be on the side of those wonders said to have been 
performed in after times. If they were potent enemies, and 
such as, we have reason to believe, nothing but the force of 
truth could vanquish ; they were also potent allies, and may 
well be supposed able to give a temporary triumph to false 
hood, especially when it had few or no enemies to combat. 
But in discoursing 011 the prodigies said to have been per 
formed in primitive times, I have been insensibly carried from 
the point to which I propose in this section to confine my 
self. From inquiring into miracles ascribed to new systems, 
I have proceeded to those pleaded in confirmation of systems 
previously established, and generally received. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 77 

LEAVING so remote a period, I propose, lastly, to inquire, 
whether, since that time, any heresiarch whatever, any founder 
of a new sect, or publisher of a new system, has pretended 
to miraculous powers ? If the Essayist had known of any 
such pretender, he surely would have mentioned him. But 
as he has not afforded us any light on this subject, I shall just 
recall to the remembrance of my reader those persons who, 
either as innovators or reformers, have made some figure in 
the church. They were the persons from whom, if from any, 
a plea of this kind might naturally have been expected; 
especially at a time when Europe was either plunged in bar 
barism, or but beginning to emerge out of it. 

Was ever, then, this high prerogative, the power of working 
miracles, claimed or exercised by the founders of the sects of 
the Waldenses and Albigenses ? Did Wickliff in England 
pretend to it ? Did Huss or Jerom in Bohemia ? To come 
nearer modern times, did Luther in Germany, Zuinglius in 
Switzerland, Calvin in France, or any other of the reformers, 
advance this plea ! Do such of them as are authors mention 
in their writings any miracles they performed, or appeal to 
them as the evidences of their doctrine ? Do contemporary 
historians allege that they challenged the faith of their audi 
tors in consequence of such supernatural powers ? I admit, if 
they did, that their miracles might be ascribed to a new system: 
For though they pretended only to re-establish the Christian 
institution in its native purity, expunging those pernicious 
interpolations which a false philosophy had foisted into the 
doctrinal part, and Pagan superstition into the moral and the 
ritual ; yet, as the religion they inculcated greatly differed 
from the faith and worship of the times, it might, in this re 
spect, be denominated a new system ; and would be encoun 
tered by all the violence and prejudice which novelties in reli 
gion never fail to excite. Not that the want of real miracles 
was a presumption against the truth of their doctrine : the 
God of nature, who is the God of Christians, does nothing 
in vain. No new revelation was pretended to ; consequently 
there was no occasion for such supernatural support. They 
appealed to the revelation formerly bestowed, and by all par 
ties acknowledged, as to the proper rule in this controversy : 



78 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

they appealed to the reason of mankind as the judge ; and 
the reason of mankind was a competent judge of the con 
formity of their doctrine to this unerring rule. 

But how, upon the author s principles, shall we account 
for this moderation in the reformers ? Were they, in his 
judgment, calm inquirers into truth ? Were they dispassion 
ate reasoners in defence of it ? Far otherwise. He tells 
us, " They may safely be pronounced to have been univer 
sally inflamed with the highest enthusiasm."* And, doubt 
less, we cannot expect from this hand a more amiable pic 
ture of their disciples. May not we, then, in our turn, 
safely pronounce, this writer himself being judge, that for a 
man to imagine he sees what has no reality, to impose in 
this manner not only on his own understanding, but even 
on his external senses, is a pitch of delusion higher than the 
highest enthusiasm can produce, and is to be imputed only 
to downright frenzy ? f 

* History of Great Britain, James I. chap. 1. 

f Perhaps it will be pleaded, that the working of miracles was considered by the 
leaders in the Reformation as a Popish artifice, and as therefore worthy of being dis 
carded with the other abuses which Popery had introduced. That this was not the 
light in which miracles were viewed by Luther, who justly possesses the first place in 
the list of Reformers, is evident from the manner in which he argues against Muncer, 
the apostle of the Anabaptists. This man, without ordination, had assumed the office 
of a Christian pastor. Against this conduct Luther remonstrates, as being, in his 
judgment, an usurpation of the sacred function. " Let him be asked," says he, " who 
made him a teacher of religion ? If he answers, God ; let him prove it by a visible 
miracle : for it is by such signs that God declares himself, when he gives an extra 
ordinary mission." When this argument was afterwards retorted on himself by 
the Romanists, who desired to know how his own vocation, originally limited and de 
pendent, had become not only unlimited, but quite independent of the hierarchy, 
from which he had received it ; his reply was, That the intrepidity with which he 
had been enabled to brave so many dangers, and the success with which his enter 
prise had been crowned, ought to he regarded as miraculous : and, indeed, most of 
his followers were of this opinion. But whether this opinion was erroneous, or 
whether the argument against Muncer was conclusive,, it is not my business to in 
quire. Thus much is evident from the story : first, That this reformer, far 
from rejecting miracles as a Romish trick, acknowledged that in some religious 
questions they are the only medium of proof: secondly, That notwithstanding 
this, he never attempted, by a show of miracles, to impose on the senses of his 
hearers; (if they were deceived in thinking that his success and magnanimity 
were miraculous, it was not their senses, but their understanding, that was de 
ceived) : lastly, That the Anabaptists themselves, though perhaps the most out 
rageous fanatics that ever existed, did not pretend to the power of working 



FULLY ATTESTED. 79 

Since the world began, there hath not appeared a more 
general propension to the wildest fanaticism, a greater degree 
of credulity in every claim that was made to the illapses of 
the Holy Spirit, or a more thorough contempt of all establish 
ed modes of worship, than appeared in this island about the 
middle of the last century. It is astonishing, that when the 
minds of men were intoxicated with enthusiasm ; when every 
new pretender to divine illuminations was quickly surround 
ed by a crowd of followers, and his most incoherent effusions 
greedily swallowed as the dictates of the Holy Ghost ; that 
in such a Babel of sectaries, none are to be found who ad 
vanced a claim to the power of working miracles ; a claim 
which, in the author s opinion, though false, is easily sup 
ported, and wonderfully successful, especially among enthu 
siasts. Yet to Mr. Hume himself, who has written the history 
of that period, and who will not be accused of neglecting to 
mark the extravagancies effected by enthusiasm, I appeal 
whether this remark be just. 

"Will it be alleged as an exception, that one or two frantic 
people among the Quakers, not the leaders of the party, did 
actually pretend to such a power ? Let it be remembered, 
that this conduct had no other consequences, but to bring 
upon the pretenders such a general contempt, as, in that fa 
natical and gloomy age, the most unintelligible jargon or 
glaring nonsense would never have been able to produce. 

Will it be urged by the Essayist, that, even in the beginning 
of the present century, this plea was revived in Britain by the 
French prophets, a set of poor visionaries, who, by the bar 
barity by which they had been treated in their own country, 
had been wrought up to madness before they took refuge in 
this ? I must beg leave to remind him, that it is manifest, 
from the history of those delirious and unhappy creatures, 
that by no part of their conduct did they so effectually open 
the eyes of mankind naturally credulous, discredit their own 
inspirations, and ruin their cause, as by this not less foolish 
than presumptuous pretence. Accordingly they are perhaps 
the only sect, which has sprung up so lately, made so great a 

miracles. Sleidan, lib. 5. Lutli. De votis monast. $c. Epist. ad Frid. Sax. 

Dncem, ap. Chytraum. See Preface. 



80 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

bustle for a while, and which is nevertheless at this day totally 
extinct. It deserves also to be remarked concerning this 
people, that though they were mad enough to imagine that 
they could restore a dead man to life ; nay, though they pro 
ceeded so far as to determine and announce beforehand the 
day and the hour of his resurrection ; yet none of them were 
so distracted as to imagine that they had seen him rise ; not 
one of them afterwards pretended that their prediction had 
been fulfilled. Thus even a frenzy, which had quite disor 
dered their intellects, could not in this instance overpower 
their senses. 

UPON the whole, therefore, till some contrary example be 
produced, I may warrantably conclude, that the religion of 
the BIBLE is the only religion extant, which claims to have 
been recommended by the evidence of miracles ; that though, 
in different ages and countries, numberless enthusiasts have 
arisen, extremely few have dared to advance this plea ; that 
wherever any have had the boldness to recur to it, it has 
proved the bane, and not the support of their cause. Thus 
it has been evinced, as was proposed, that there is no pre 
sumption arising from the history of the world, which can in 
the least invalidate the argument from miracles, in defence of 
Christianity. 



SECTION III. 

No miracles recorded by historians of other religions are sub 
versive of the evidence arising from the miracles wrought in 
proof of Christianity, or can be considered as contrary tes 
timony. 

tc WHY is a miracle regarded as evidence of a religious doc 
trine ? or, What connexion is there between an act of power 
admitted to be supernatural, and the truth of a proposition 
pronounced by the person who exerts that power?" These 
are questions, which some of our infidels have exulted in as 
unanswerable : And they are questions which it is proper to 
examine a little ; not so much for their own sake, as because 



FULLY ATTESTED. 81 

a satisfactory answer to them may throw light on the subject 
of this section. 

A man, I suppose, of an unblemished character, advances 
doctrines in religion unknown before, but not in themselves 
apparently impious or absurd. We interrogate him about 
the manner wherein he attained the knowledge of those doc 
trines, i. He affirms, That by no process of reasoning, nor in 
any other natural way, did he discover them ; but that they 
were revealed to him by the Spirit of God. It must be owned 
there is a very strong presumption against the truth of what 
he says ; and it is of consequence to inquire, whence that pre 
sumption arises. It is not primarily from any doubt of the 
man s integrity. If the fact he related were of an ordinary 
nature, the reputation he has hitherto maintained would se 
cure him from being suspected of an intended deceit. It is 
not from any absurdity or immoral tendency we perceive in 
the doctrine itself. It arises principally, if not solely, from 
these two circumstances the extreme uncommonness of such 
a revelation, and the great facility with which people of strong 
fancy may, in this particular, impose upon themselves. The 
man, I suppose, acquaints us farther, that God, when he com 
municated to him the truths he publishes, communicated also 
the power of working miracles, such as, of giving sight to the 
blind, and hearing to the deaf, of raising the dead, and mak 
ing whole the maimed. It is evident, that we have precisely 
the same presumption against his being endued with such a 
power, as against his having obtained such a revelation. Two 
things are asserted : There is one presumption, and but one, 
against them : and it equally affects them both. Whatever 
proves either assertion, removes the only presumption which 
hinders our belief of the other. The man, I suppose, lastly, 
performs the miracles before us, which he said he was com 
missioned to perform. We can no longer doubt of a super 
natural communication : we have now all the evidence which 
the integrity of the person could give us, as to any ordinary 
event attested by him, that the doctrine he delivers as from 
God, is from God, and therefore true/j 

Nay, we have more evidence than: for any common fact, 
vouched by a person of undoubted probity. As God is both 



82 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

almighty and all-wise, if he has bestowed on any so uncommon 
a privilege, it is highly probable that it is bestowed for pro 
moting some end uncommonly important. And what more 
important end than to reveal to men that which may be con 
ducive to their present and eternal happiness ? It may be said, 
That, at most, it can only prove the interposal of some power 
superior to human: the being who interposes is perhaps a bad 
being, and intends to deceive us. This, it may be allowed, is 
possible ; but the other is probable. For, first, From the light 
of nature we have no positive evidence of the existence of such 
intermediate beings, good or bad : their existence is therefore 
only possible. Of the existence and perfections of God, we 
have the highest moral assurance. Secondly, If there were 
such beings, that raising the dead and giving sight to the 
blind should come within the verge of their power, is also but 
possible : that they are within the sphere of omnipotence is cer 
tain. Thirdly, Whatever seems to imply a suspension of any 
of the established laws of nature, we may presume, with great 
appearance of reason, proceeds from the Author of nature, 
either immediately, or, which amounts to the same thing, me 
diately ; that is, by the intervention of some agent empowered 
by him. To all these there will also accrue presumptions, not 
only, as was hinted already, from the character of the preacher, 
but from the apparent tendency of the doctrine, and from the 
effect it produces on those who receive it. And now the con 
nexion between the miracle and the doctrine is obvious : the 
miracle removes the improbability of a supernatural communi 
cation, of which communication it is in fact an irrefragable evi 
dence. This improbability, which was the only obstacle, being 
removed, the doctrine has, at least, all the evidence of a com 
mon fact, attested by a man of known virtue and good sense. 
In order to illustrate this further, I shall recur to the in 
stance I have already had occasion to consider, of the Dutch 
man and the king of Siam. I shall suppose, that, besides the 
account given by the former of the freezing of water in Hol 
land, he had informed the prince of the astonishing effects pro 
duced by gunpowder, with which the latter had been entirely 
unacquainted. Both accounts appear to him alike incredible, 
or, if you please, absolutely impossible. Some time afterwards 



FULLY ATTESTED. 

the Hollander gets imported into the kingdom a sufficient 
quantity of gunpowder, with the necessary artillery. He 
informs the monarch of this acquisition ; who having permitted 
him to make experiments on some of his cattle and buildings, 
perceives, with inexpressible amazement, that all the European 
had told him of the celerity and violence with w r hich this de 
structive powder operates, is strictly conformable to truth. 
I ask any considerate person, Would not this be enough to 
restore the stranger to the Indian s good opinion, which, I 
suppose, his former experienced honesty had entitled him to ? 
Would it not remove the incredibility of the account he had 
given of the freezing of water in northern countries? Yet, if 
abstractly considered, what connexion is there between the 
effects of gunpowder and the effects of cold ? But the presump 
tion arising from miracles, in favour of the doctrine published 
by the performer as divinely inspired, must be incomparably 
stronger ; since, from what has been said, it appears to have 
several peculiar circumstances which add weight to it. It is 
evident, then, that miracles are a proper proof, and perhaps 
the only proper proof, of a revelation from Heaven. But it is 
also evident, that miracles may be wrought for other purposes, 
and may not be intended as proofs of any doctrine whatsoever. 

THUS much being premised, I shall examine another very 
curious argument of the Essayist: " There is no testimony," 
says he, " for any prodigy, that is not opposed by an infinite 
number of witnesses ; so that not only the miracle destroys 
the credit of the testimony, but even the testimony destroys 
itself."* In order to illustrate this strange position, he ob 
serves, that, " in matters of religion, whatever is different is 
contrary ; and that it is impossible the religions of ancient 
Rome, of Turkey, of Siam, and of China, should all of them 
be established on any solid foundation. Every miracle there 
fore pretended to have been wrought in any of these religions, 
(and all of them abound in miracles,) as its direct scope is to 
establish the particular system to which it is attributed, so 
it has the same force, though more indirectly, to overthrow 
every other system. In destroying a rival system, it likewise 

*Page 190, &c. 
F 



84 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

destroys the credit of those miracles on which that system was 
established ; so that all the prodigies of different religions are 
to he regarded as contrary facts, and the evidences of these 
prodigies, whether weak or strong, as opposite to each other." 
Never did any author more artfully avail himself of indefinite 
expressions. With what admirable sleight does he vary his 
phrases, so as to make the inadvertent reader look upon them 
as synonymous, when in fact their significations are totally 
distinct? Thus what, by a most extraordinary idiom, is called 
at first " miracles wrought in a religion," we are next to 
regard as " miracles attributed to a particular system," and 
lastly, as " miracles, the direct scope of which is to establish 
that system." Every body, I will venture to say, in begin 
ning to read the sentence, if he forms any notion of what the 
author means by a " miracle wrought in religion," under 
stands it barely as a miracle wrought among those " who 
profess a particular religion;" the words appearing to be used 
in the same latitude, as when we call the traditional tales 
current among the Jews, though they should have no relation 
to religion, Jewish tales ; and those in like manner Mahome 
tan or Pagan tales, which are current among Mahometans 
or Pagans. Such a miracle, the reader, ere he is aware, is 
brought to consider as a miracle attributed to a particular 
system; nay further, as " a miracle, the direct scope of which 
is to establish that system." Yet nothing can be conceived 
more different than the meaning of these expressions, which 
are here jumbled together as equivalent. 

It is plain, that all the miracles of which there is any record, 
come under the first denomination. They are all supposed to 
have been wrought before men, or among men ; and wherever 
there are men, there is religion of some kind or other. Per 
haps, too, all may, in a very improper sense, be attributed to 
a religious system. They all seem to imply an interruption of 
the ordinary course of nature. Such an interruption, wherever 
it is observed, will be ascribed to the agency of those divini 
ties that are adored by the observers, and so may be said to 
be attributed by them to their own system. But where are 
the miracles (those of holy writ excepted) of which you can 
say with propriety, it is their direct scope to establish a par- 



FULLY ATTESTED. 85 

ticular system ? Must we not then be strangely blinded by the 
charm of a few ambiguous terms, if we are made to confound 
things so widely different? Yet this confusion is the very basis 
on which the author founds his reasoning, and rears this tre 
mendous doctrine, That " a miracle of Mahomet, or any of 
his successors," and, by parity of reason, a miracle of Christ, 
or any of his apostles, " is refuted (as if it had been men 
tioned, and had, in express terms, been contradicted) by the 
testimony of Titus Livius, Plutarch, Tacitus, and of all the 
authors, Chinese, Grecian, and Roman Catholic, who have 
related any miracles in their particular religions." Here all 
the miracles that have been related by men of different reli 
gions are blended, as coming under the common denomina 
tion of miracles, the direct scope of which was to establish 
those particular religious systems ; an insinuation in which 
there is not even the shadow of truth. 

That the reader may be satisfied on this point, I must beg 
his attention to the following observations concerning the 
miracles of profane history. First, Many facts are related 
as miraculous, where we may admit the fact without acknow 
ledging the miracle. Instances of this kind we have in rela 
tions concerning comets, eclipses, meteors, earthquakes, and 
such like. Secondly, The miracles may be admitted as genu 
ine, and the manner in which historians account for them re 
jected as absurd. The one is a matter of testimony, the other 
of conjecture. In this a man is influenced by education, by 
prejudices, by received opinions. In every country, as was 
observed already, men will recur to the theology of the place 
for the solution of every phenomenon supposed miraculous. 
But, that it was the scope of the miracle to support the theo 
logy, is one thing ; and that fanciful men thought they dis 
covered in the theology the causes of the miracle, is another. 
The inhabitants of Lystra accounted, from the principles of 
their own religion, for the miracle performed in their city by 
Paul and Barnabas ; Acts xiv. 8, &c. Was it therefore the 
scope of that miracle to support the Lycaonian religion? 
Thirdly, Many miracles are recorded as produced directly 
by Heaven, without the ministration of men : By what con 
struction are these discovered to be proofs of a particular 



86 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

system ? Yet these also, wherever they happen, will be ac 
counted for by the natives of the country, from the principles 
of their own superstition. Had any of the Pagan citizens 
escaped the ruin in which Sodom was miraculously involved, 
they would doubtless have sought for the cause of this de 
struction in the established mode of polytheism, and would 
probably have imputed it to the vengeance of some of their 
deities, incurred by the neglect of some frivolous ceremony. 
Would it therefore have been the scope of the miracle to 
confirm this nonsense ? Fourthly, Even miracles said to have 
been performed by a man, are no evidences of the truth of that 
man s opinions ; such, I mean, as he pretends not to have 
received by revelation, but by the exercise of reason, by edu 
cation, or by information from other men ; no more than a 
man s being endowed with bodily strength greater than ordi 
nary, would prove him to be superior to others in his mental 
faculties. I conclude with declaring, that if instances shall be 
produced of miracles wrought by men of probity, in proof of 
doctrines which they affirm to have been revealed to them from 
Heaven, and which are repugnant to the doctrine of the 
Bible, then I shall think it equitable to admit, that religious 
miracles contradict one another : then will reasonable people 
be reduced to the dilemma, either of disproving the allega 
tions on one side, or of acknowledging that miracles can be 
no evidence of revelation. No attempt however has as yet 
been made by any writer to produce an instance of this kind. 

" But will nothing less satisfy ?" replies the author. " Will 
not the predictions of augurs and oracles, and the intimations 
said to have been given by the gods or saints in dreams and 
visions, of things not otherwise knowable by those to whom 
they were thus intimated; will not these, and such like prodi 
gies, serve in some degree as evidence?" As evidence of what? 
Shall we say, of any religious principles conveyed at the same 
time by revelation ? No, it is not even pretended that there 
were any such principles so conveyed ; but as evidence of 
principles which had been long before entertained, and which 
were originally imbibed from education, and from education 
only. That the evidence here, supposing the truth of the facts, 
is at best but very indirect, and by no means on the same foot- 



FULLY ATTESTED. 87 

ing with that of the miracles recorded in the gospel, might be 
easily evinced, if there were occasion. But there is in reality 
no occasion, since there is no such evidence of the facts as can 
justly entitle them to our notice. Let it be remembered, that 
in the fourth section of the First Part it was shown, that there 
is the greatest disparity, in respect of evidence, betwixt mi 
racles performed in proof of a religion to be established, and 
in contradiction to opinions generally received ; and miracles 
performed, on the contrary, in support of a religion already 
established, and in confirmation of opinions generally received : 
that, in the former case, there is the strongest presumption/or 
the miracles, in the latter against them. Let it also be re 
membered, that in the preceding section it was shown, that the 
religion of the Bible is the only religion extant which claims 
to have been ushered into the world by miracles ; that this 
prerogative, neither the Pagan religion, the Mahometan, nor 
the Roman Catholic, can, with any appearance of reason, ar 
rogate ; and that, by consequence, there is one of the strongest 
presumptions possible for the miracles of the gospel, which is 
not only wanting in the miracles of other religions, but which 
is contrasted by the strongest presumption possible against 
these miracles. And though this presumption should not, in 
all cases, be accounted absolutely insuperable, we must at least 
say, it gives an immense superiority to the proofs of Christi 
anity. It were an endless and a fruitless task, to canvass par 
ticularly the evidence of all the pretended miracles either of 
Paganism or Popery, (for on this head Mahometanism is 
much more modest ;) but as the author has selected some, 
which he considers as the best attested, of both religions, these 
shall be examined severally in the two subsequent sections. 
From this examination a tolerable judgment may be formed 
concerning the pretensions of these two species of superstition. 
But from what has been said it is evident, that the contra 
riety which the author pretends to have discovered in the 
miracles said to have been wrought, as he expresses it, in dif 
ferent religions, vanishes entirely on a close inspection. He is 
even sensible of this himself; and, as is customary with ora 
tors, the more inconclusive his reasons are, so much the more 
positive are his assertions. " This argument," says he, 



88 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

"may appear over subtile and refined;" indeed so subtile 

and refined, that it is invisible altogether ; <( but is not 

in reality different from the reasoning of a Judge, who sup 
poses that the credit of two witnesses maintaining a crime 
against any one, is destroyed by the testimony of two others 
who affirm him to have been two hundred leagues distant, at 
the same instant when the crime is said to have been com 
mitted." After the particle but, with which this clause be 
gins, the reader naturally expects such an explication of the 
argument as will convince him, that, though subtile and re 
fined, it hath solidity and strength. Instead of this, he hath 
only the author s word warranting it to be good to all in 
tents : " But is not in reality different," &c. The analogy 
between his example and his argument seems to be but very 
distant ; * I shall, therefore, without any comment, leave it 
with the reader as I find it. 

THUS it appears, that, for aught the author has as yet 
proved, no miracles recorded by historians of other religions 
are subversive of the evidence arising from the miracles 
wrought in proof of Christianity, or can justly be considered 
as contrary testimony. 



SECTION IV. 

Examination of the PAGAN Miracles mentioned by Mr. 

Hume. 

SHOULD one read attentively the Essay on Miracles, and 
consider it solely as a philosophical disquisition on an abstract 
question, like most of the other pieces in the same collection ; 

* My French translator remarks, that, in a case which he supposes and illustrates 
the analogy would be both close and striking. I admit, that in the case supposed by 
him, it would be so. But of such cases, I had observed before, that no example had 
been produced. The miracles performed by Moses were manifestly in proof of his 
mission, and consequently of the unity of the Godhead, his fundamental doctrine. 
The like may be said of the miracles of Jesus, in regard to the doctrine which he 
taught. But who can be said to have performed miracles in proof of polytheism ? I 
know not any. The remoteness of the analogy in the example adduced by Mr. Hume 
was not meant as affirmed of any case supposable, but of any which had actually 
occurred. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 89 

he could not fail to wonder what had induced the author so 
suddenly to change sides in the debate, and, by doing so, to 
contradict himself in terms the most express. Does he not, 
in the latter part of that performance, as warmly contend for 
the reality of some miracles, as he had pleaded in the former 
part for the impossibility of all ? It is true, he generally con 
cludes concerning those, that they are "gross and palpable 
falsehoods." But this serves only to render his conduct the 
more mysterious, as that conclusion is always preceded by an 
attempt to evince, that we have the greatest reason to receive 
them as " certain and infallible truths." Nay, so entirely 
doth his zeal make him forget even his most positive asser 
tions, (and what inconsistencies may not be dreaded from an 
excess of zeal /) that he shows minutely, we have those very 
evidences for the miracles he is pleased to patronize, which, 
he had strenuously argued, were not to be found in support 
of any miracles whatever. 

" There is not to be found," he affirms,* " in all history, 
a miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such 
unquestioned good sense, education, and learning, as to se 
cure us against all delusion in themselves ; of such undoubted 
integrity, as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design 
to deceive others ; of such credit and reputation in the eyes 
of mankind, as to have a great deal to lose, in case of being- 
detected in any falsehood ; and at the same time attesting 
facts performed in such a public manner, and in so celebrated 
a part of the world, as to render the detection unavoidable." 
We need only turn over a few pages of the Essay, and we 
shall find the author taking great pains to convince us, that 
all these circumstances concurred in support of certain mi 
racles, which, notwithstanding his general resolution^ he has 
thought fit to honour with a very particular attention. 

He has not indeed told us how many witnesses, in his way 
of reckoning, will constitute " a sufficient number;" but for 
some miracles which he relates, he gives us clouds of wit 
nesses, one cloud succeeding another : For the Molinists, who 
tried to discredit them, " soon found themselves overwhelmed 
by a cloud of new witnesses, one hundred and twenty in num- 

* Page 183. 



THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

ber."* As to the character of the witnesses, "most of them 
were persons of credit and substance in Paris :"f again, those 
miracles "were attested by witnesses of credit and distinction, 
before judges of unquestioned integrity; "J and, they were 
proved by witnesses, before the officialty or bishop s court of 
Paris, under the eyes of Cardinal Noailles, whose character 
for integrity and capacity was never contested even by his 
enemies: " again, "the secular clergy of France, particularly 
the rectors or cures of Paris, give testimony to these impos 
tures, than whom no clergy are more celebrated for strictness 
of life and manners. "|| Once more, one principal witness, 
" Monsieur de Montgeron, was counsellor or judge of the 
Parliament of Paris, a man of figure and character ; "^f ano 
ther, "no less a man than the Due de Chatillon, a Duke and 
Peer of France, of the highest rank and family."** It is 
strange, if credit, and substance, and distinction, and capa 
city, are not sufficient securities to us that the witnesses were 
not themselves deluded ; it is strange, if uncontested integrity, 
and eminent strictness of life and manners, cannot remove 
"all suspicion of any design in them to deceive others;" it is 
strange, if one who was counsellor of the Parliament of Paris, 
a man of figure and character, and if another, who was a 
Duke and Peer of France, of the highest rank and family, 
had not " a great deal to lose, in case of being detected in 
any falsehood:" nay, and if all those witnesses & credit and 
distinction " had not also a great deal to lose ;" since the 
"Jesuits, a learned body, supported by the civil magistrate, 
were determined enemies to those opinions, in whose favour 
the miracles were said to have been wrought ;"( f and since 
Monsieur Herault, the lieutenant " de police, of whose great 
reputation, all who have been in France about that time 
have heard ; and whose vigilance, penetration, activity, and 
extensive intelligence, have been much talked of; since this 
magistrate, who by the nature of his office is almost absolute, 
was invested with full powers on purpose to suppress these 
miracles, and frequently seized and examined the witnesses 

* Page 197, in the note. f Ibid. \ Page 195. Page 196, in the note. 
|| Page 199, in the note. f Page 195, in the note. 

** Page 199, in the note. tt Page 195. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 91 

and subjects of them ; though he could never reach any thing 
satisfactory against them."* As to the only remaining cir 
cumstance, " their being performed in a public manner, and 
in a celebrated part of the world," this concurred also. They 
were performed, we are told, " in a learned age, and on the 
most eminent theatre that is now in the world ;"*) besides, 
twenty -two rectors or " cures of Paris, with infinite earnest 
ness, pressed the Archbishop, an enemy to the Jansenists, to 
examine those miracles, which they assert to be known to 
the whole world, and indisputably certain. "J 

Thus the Essayist has laid us under the disagreeable ne 
cessity of inferring, that he is either very rash in his general 
assertions, or uses very great amplification in his particular 
narrations. Perhaps in both inferences we shall find, upon 
inquiry, that there is some truth. In his History of Great 
Britain he gives us notice, that he addressed himself " to a 
more distant posterity than will ever be reached by any local 
or temporary theology." Why did he not likewise, in writ 
ing the Essays, entertain this grand idea ? It would have 
been of use to him. It would have prevented his falling into 
those inconsistencies, which his too great attention and anti 
pathy to what he calls a local or temporary theology only 
could occasion ; and which, when that theology, according to 
his hypothesis, shall be extinct, and when all our religious 
controversies shall be forgotten, must appear unaccountable 
and ridiculous. People will not then have the means of dis 
covering, what is so obvious to us his contemporaries, that he 
only assumes the appearance of an advocate for some mira 
cles, which are disbelieved by the generality of Protestants, 
his countrymen, in order, by the comparison, to vilify the 
miracles of sacred writ, which are acknowledged by them. 

BUT to descend to particulars, I shall begin with consi 
dering those miracles for which the author is indebted to the 
ancient Pagans. First, In order to convince us, how easy a 
matter it is for cunning and impudence to impose by false 
miracles on the credulity of barbarians, he introduces the story 

* Page 197, in the note. t ra g e 195 

J Page 196, in the note. James I. chap, ii. 



92 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

of Alexander of Pontus.* The justness of the account he 
gives of this impostor from Lucian, I shall not dispute. But 
that it may appear how little the Christian religion is affected 
by this relation, notwithstanding some insinuations he has 
intermixed with it, I shall make the following remarks. 

It is of importance to know what was the profession of this 
once so famous, though now forgotten, Paphlagonian. Was 
he a publisher of strange gods ? No.f Was he the founder 
of a new system in religion ? No. What was he then ? He 
was no other than a professed fortune-teller. What were the 
arts by which he carried on this gainful trade ? The Essayist 
justly remarks, that " it was a wise policy in him, to lay the 
first scene of his impostures in a country where the people 
were extremely ignorant and stupid, and ready to swallow the 
grossest delusion." For "had Alexander fixed his residence 
at Athens, the philosophers of that renewed mart of learn 
ing had immediately spread through the whole Roman em 
pire their sense of the matter; which, being supported by so 
great authority, and displayed by all the force of reason and 
eloquence, had entirely opened the eyes of mankind." I shall 
beg leave to remark another instance of good policy in him. 
He attempted not to gain the veneration of the multitude by 
opposing, but by adopting their religious prejudices. His 
whole plan of deceit was founded in the established supersti 
tion. The author himself will acknowledge, it would have 
been extreme folly in him to have acted otherwise : and all 
the world, I believe, will agree in thinking, that in that case 
he could not have had the smallest probability of success. 
What were the miracles which he wrought ? I know of none, 
unless we will dignify with that name some feats of legerde- 

* Page 188. 

f The learned and judicious author of the Observations on t7ie conversion and 
apostlesliip of St. Paul, has inadvertently said of Alexander, that he introduced a new 
god into Pontus. The truth is, he only exhibited a reproduction of Esculapius, a 
well known deity in those parts, to whom he gave indeed the new name GLYCON. 
In this there was nothing unsuitable to the genius of the mythology. Accordingly 
we do not find, that either the priests or the people were in the least alarmed for 
the religion of the country, or ever charged Alexander as an innovator in religious 
matters. On the contrary, the greatest enemies he had to encounter, were not the 
religionists, but the latitudinarians. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 93 

main, performed mostly by candle-light, which in many parts 
of Europe we may daily see equalled, nay far exceeded, by 
those of modern jugglers. Add to these some oracles he pro 
nounced, concerning which, if we may form a judgment from 
the account and specimen given us by Lucian, we should con 
clude, that, like other Heathen oracles, they were generally 
unintelligible, equivocal, or false. Before whom did he exhi 
bit his wonders ? Before none, if he could help it, that were 
not thorough believers in the popular system. His nocturnal 
mysteries were always introduced with an AVAUNT to Atheists, 
Christians, and Epicureans : and indeed it was dangerous for 
any such to be present at them. Mr. Hume says, that "from 
his ignorant Paphlagonians, he was enabled to proceed to the 
enlisting of votaries among the Grecian philosophers." On 
what authority he advances this, I have not been able to dis 
cover. He adds, " and men of the most eminent rank and 
distinction in Rome." Lucian mentions one man of rank, 
Rutilianus, among the votaries of the prophet ; an honest man 
he calls him, but at the same time the weakest, the most super 
stitious that ever lived. As to the military expedition, which 
one would imagine from Mr. Hume s expression the Emperor 
had resolved on in consequence of the encouragement which 
the delusive prophecies of this impostor gave him, we find, 
on the contrary, it was undertaken before those prophecies 
were uttered. But further, Did Alexander risk any thing 
in assuming the character of the interpreter of ESCULAPIUS ? 
Did he lose, or did he suffer any thing in defence of it ? 
Quite the reverse : he enriched himself by this most ingenious 
occupation. I shall say nothing of the picture which Lucian 
gives of his morals, of the many artifices which he used, or 
of the atrocious crimes which he perpetrated. It must be 
owned, that the principal scope for calumny and detraction is 
in what concerns the private life and moral character. Lu 
cian was an enemy, and, by his own account, had received the 
highest provocation. But I avoid every thing, on this topic, 
that can admit a question. 

Where, I would gladly know, lies the resemblance between 
this impostor and the first publishers of the gospel ? Every 
one, on the most superficial review, may discover, that, in all 



94 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

the material circumstances, they are perfect contrasts. There 
appears not therefore to be great danger in the poignant re 
mark with which the author concludes this relation: " Though 
much to be wished, it does not always happen, that every Alex 
ander meets with a Lucian, ready to expose and detect his 
impostures." Lest the full import of this emphatical clause 
should not be apprehended, the author has been still more 
explicit in the note : " It may here perhaps be objected, that 
I proceed rashly, and form my notions of Alexander merely 
from the account given of him by Lucian, a professed enemy. 
It were indeed to be wished, that some of the accounts pub 
lished by his followers and accomplices had remained. The 
opposition and contrast betwixt the character and conduct of 
the same man, as drawn by a friend or an enemy, is as strong, 
even in common life, much more in these religious matters, 
as that betwixt any two men in the world, betwixt Alexander 
and St Paul, for instance." Who can forbear to lament the 
uncommon distress of an author, obliged every moment to 
recur to unavailing wishes ? Mr. Hume, however, in this cala 
mitous situation, solaces himself as well as he can, by suppos 
ing what he cannot assert. He supposes what would have 
been the case, if his wishes could have been gratified ; and 
artfully insinuates in this manner to his readers, that if we 
had the character and conduct of the apostle delineated by 
as able an enemy as Lucian, we should find the portrait as 
ugly as that of Alexander. 

Let us then for once suppose, what the author so ardently 
wishes, that such an enemy had undertaken the history of Paul 
of Tarsus. I can easily conceive what a different representa 
tion we should, in that case, have had, of the mental endow 
ments and moral disposition, as well as of the inducements and 
view r s of this Christian missionary. I can conceive also, that 
both his actions and discourses might have been strangely dis 
figured. But if the biographer had maintained any regard, I 
say not to truth, but to probability, there are are some things, 
we may be absolutely certain, he would never have advanced. 
He would not surely have said of Paul, that he was by pro 
fession a cunning man, or conjurer ; one who, for a little 
money, either told people their fortunes, or taught them how 



FULLY ATTESTED. 95 

to recover stolen goods. He would not, I suppose, have 
pretended, that wherever the apostle went, he flattered the 
superstition of the populace in order to gain them, and 
founded all his pretensions on the popular system. He would 
not have alleged that Paul enriched himself, or that he could 
ever have the prospect of enriching himself, by his vocation ; 
nay, or that he risked nothing, or suffered nothing, by it. 
He could not have said concerning him, that he declined the 
audience or scrutiny of men whose opinions in religion dif 
fered from those on which his mission was founded. He durst 
not have imputed to him the wise policy of laying the scene 
of his impostures only where ignorance, barbarism, and stu 
pidity prevailed : as it is unquestionable, that our apostle tra 
versed great part, not only of Asia Minor, but of Macedonia 
and Achaia ; fixed his residence eighteen months at Corinth, 
a city not less celebrated for the polite arts than for its po- 
pulousness and riches ; preached publicly at Athens, before 
the Stoics and the Epicureans, and even before the Areopa 
gus, the most venerable judicature in Greece ; not afraid of 
what the philosophers of that renowned mart of learning 
might spread through the whole Roman empire concerning 
him and his doctrine ; nay, and lastly preached at Rome 
itself, the mistress and metropolis of the world. 

The reader will observe that, in this comparison, I have 
shunned every thing that is of a private, and therefore of a 
dubious nature. The whole is founded on such actions and 
events as were notorious ; which it is not in the power of con 
temporary historians to falsify ; such, with regard to Alexan 
der, as a votary could not have dissembled ; such, with regard 
to Paul, as an enemy durst not have denied. We are truly 
indebted to the Essayist, who, intending to exhibit a rival to 
the apostle, has produced a character which we find, on mak 
ing the comparison, serves only for a foil. Truth never shines 
with greater lustre, than when confronted with falsehood. 
The evidence of our religion, how strong soever, appears not 
so irresistible, considered by itself, as when by comparison 
we perceive, that none of those artifices and circumstances 
attended its propagation, which the whole course of expe 
rience shows to be necessary to render imposture successful. 



96 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

THE next topic on which the ingenious author has be 
stowed some flourishes, is the miracle " which Tacitus re 
ports of Vespasian, who cured a blind man in Alexandria by 
means of his spittle, and a lame man by the mere touch of 
his foot, in obedience to a vision of the god Serapis, who 
had enjoined them to have recourse to the Emperor for 
these miraculous and extraordinary cures."* The story he 
introduces with informing us, that it is " one of the best 
attested miracles in all profane history." If so, it will the 
better serve for a sample of what may be expected from 
that quarter. " Every circumstance," he tells us, " seems 
to add weight to the testimony, and might be displayed at 
large with all the force of argument and eloquence, if any 
one were now concerned to enforce the evidence of that ex 
ploded and idolatrous superstition." For my part, were I 
concerned to enforce the evidence of that exploded and 
idolatrous superstition, I should not wish the story were in 
better hands than in the author s. He is by no means defi 
cient in eloquence ; and if sometimes there appear a defici 
ency in argument, that is not imputable to him, but to the 
subject, which cannot furnish him with any better: and 
though I do not suspect him to be in the least concerned to 
re-establish Paganism, yet it is well known that hatred to 
his adversary may as strongly animate an advocate to exert 
himself, as affection to his client. 

But to proceed to the story: first, the author pleads " the 
gravity, solidity, age, and probity of so great an Emperor, 
who, through the whole course of his life, conversed in a fami 
liar way with his friends and courtiers, and never affected 
those extraordinary airs of divinity assumed by Alexander 
and Demetrius." To this character, the justness of which I 
intend not to controvert, I beg leave to add, what is equally 
indubitable, and much to the purpose, that no Emperor 
showed a stronger inclination to corroborate his title by the 
sanction of the gods, than the prince of whom he is speaking. 
This, doubtless, he thought the more necessary in his case, as 
he was of an obscure family, and nowise related to any of his 

* Page 192, &c. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 97 

predecessors. How fond he was of pleading visions, and pre 
sages, and auguries, in his favour, all the world knows.* 

The author adds, " The historian, a contemporary writer, 
noted for candour and veracity, and withal the greatest and 
most penetrating genius perhaps of all antiquity, and so free 
from any tendency to superstition and credulity, that he even 
lies under the contrary imputation of atheism and profane- 
ness." This would say a great deal, if the character of the 
historian were of any moment in the question. Doth Tacitus 
pretend that he was himself a witness of the miracle ? No. 
Doth he mention it as a thing which he believes ? No. In 
either case, I acknowledge that the reputation of the relater 
for candour and penetration must have added weight to the 
relation, whether considered as his testimony, or barely as his 
opinion. But is it fair to plead the veracity of the writer in 
proof of every popular rumour mentioned by him ? His 
veracity is only concerned to satisfy us, that it was actually 
reported as he relates ; or that the attempt was made, and 
the miracle pretended ; a point which, I presume, nobody 
would have disputed, although the authority had been less than 
that of Tacitus. Indeed the historian does not say directly 
whether he believes the miracle or not ; but by his manner 
of telling it, he plainly insinuates that he thought it ridicu 
lous. In introducing it, he intimates the utility of such re 
ports to the Emperor s cause: "By which," says he, "the 
favour of Heaven, and the appointment of the Gods, might 
be urged in support of his title."f When he names the god 
Serapis as warning the blind man to recur to Vespasian, he 
adds, in evident contempt and derision of his godship, "who 
is adored above all others by the Egyptians, a people addicted 
to superstition."J Again, he speaks of the Emperor as in 
duced to hope for success by the persuasive tongues of flat 
terers^ A serious believer of the miracle would hardly have 
used such a style in relating it. But to what purpose did he 

* Auctoritas, et quasi majestas qnsedam, ut scilicet inopinato et adliuc novo principi 
deerat, hscc quoque accessit. SUETON. 

+ Queis ccelestis favor, et qusedam in Vespasianum inclinatio numinum ostende- 
retur. 

Quern dedita superstitionibus gens ante alios colit. 

Vocibus adulantium in spem induci. 



98 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

then relate it ? The answer is easy. Nothing could be more 
characteristic of the Emperor, or could better show the arts 
he had recourse to, and the hold which flattery had of him ; 
nothing could be more characteristic of the Alexandrians, the 
people amongst whom the miracle is said to have been wrought. 
" The persons," says the Essayist, t( from whose testimony 
he related the miracle, were of established character for judg 
ment and veracity, as we may well suppose ; eye-witnesses of 
the fact, and confirming their verdict after the Flavian family 
were despoiled of the empire, and could no longer give any 
reward as the price of a lie." Persons of established charac 
ter for judgment and veracity ! Who told Mr. Hume so? It 
was not Tacitus. He only denominates them in general :* 
" They who were present," and " a crowd of bystanders." 
The author, conscious that he advances this without even the 
shadow of authority, has subjoined, in order to palliate the 
matter, as we may well suppose : an admirable expedient for 
supplying a weak plea with those convenient circumstances 
that can give it strength ! When fact fails, which is not sel 
dom the case, we need but apply to supposition, whose help 
is always near. But if this be allowed to take the place of 
argument, I see no reason why I may not avail myself of the 
privilege of supposing as well as the author. The witnesses, 
then, I will suppose, were mostly an ignorant rabble : But I 
wrong my cause ; I have a better foundation than supposal, 
having Tacitus himself, and all antiquity, on my side, when I 
add, deeply immersed in superstition, particularly attached to 
the worship of Serapis, and keenly engaged in support of 
Vespasian, ALEXANDRIA having been the first city of note 
that publicly declared for him. Was it then matter of sur 
prise, that a story, which at once soothed the superstition of 
the populace, and favoured their political schemes, should 
gain ground among them? Can we justly wonder, that the 
wiser few, who were not deceived, should connive at, or even 
contribute to promote, a deceit which was highly useful to the 
cause wherein themselves were embarked, and at the same 
time highly grateful to the many ? Lastly, can we be surprised 
that any, who for seven and twenty years had, from motives 

* Qui interfuere. Quse astabat multitude. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 99 

of interest, and ambition, and popularity, propagated a false 
hood, should not afterwards be willing to expose themselves 
as liars? 

The author finishes the story thus : " To which if we add 
the public nature of the facts related, it will appear, that 110 
evidence can well be supposed stronger for so gross and so 
palpable a falsehood." As to the nature of the facts, we are 
told by Tacitus, that when Vespasian consulted the physicians 
whether such maladies were curable by human art, they de 
clared,* that "in the one the power of sight was not extinct, 
but would return, were the obstacles removed ; that in the 
other, the joints had suifered some dislocation, which by a 
salutary pressure might be redressed." From this account 
we are naturally led to conclude, that the disorders were not 
so conspicuous, but that either they might have been feigned, 
where they were not ; or that cures might have been pre 
tended, where none were performed. I think it is even a 
further presumption of the truth of this conclusion, that Sue 
tonius, the only other Roman historian who mentions the 
miracle, (I know not how he hath been overlooked by Mr. 
Hume,) differs from Tacitus in the account he gives of the 
lameness. The one represents it as being in the hand, the 
other as in the leg.f 

There are other circumstances regarding this story, on 
which I might make some remarks ; but shall forbear, as it is 
impossible to enter into a minute discussion of particulars 
that appear but trivial when considered severally, without 
growing tiresome to the bulk of readers. I shall therefore 
only subjoin these simple questions. First, What Emperor 
or other potentate was flattered in his dignity and pretensions 
by the miracles of our Lord ? What eminent personage found 
himself interested to support, by his authority and influence, 
the credit of these miracles ? Again, What popular super 
stition or general and rooted prejudices were they calculated 

* Huic non exesam vim luminis, et redituram, si pellerentur obstantia : illi elapsos 
in pravum artus, si salubris vis adhibeatur, posse integrari. 

f Manum seger. TACITUS. Debili crure. SUETONIUS. Mr. Hume, in the 
last edition of the Essay, mentions Suetonius, but takes no notice of this difference 
between his account and that of Tacitus. 

G 



100 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

to confirm ? These two circumstances, were there no other, 
make the greatest odds imaginable betwixt the miracles of 
VESPASIAN and those of JESUS CHRIST. 

So much for the PAGAN miracles mentioned by the author. 



SECTION V. 

Examination of the POPISH miracles mentioned by 
Mr. Hume. 

THE author soon descends from ancient to modern times, 
and leaving Paganism, recurs to Popery, a much more fruit 
ful source of lying wonders. 

THE first of this kind he takes notice of,* is a Spanish 
miracle, recorded in the Memoirs of Cardinal de Itetz. The 
story, he says, is very memorable, and may well deserve our 
consideration. " "When that intriguing politician fled into 
Spain, to avoid the persecution of his enemies, he passed 
through Saragossa, the capital of Arragon ; where he was 
shown, in the cathedral church, a man who had served twenty 
years as a doorkeeper of the church, and was well known to 
every body in town that had ever paid their devotions at 
that cathedral. He had been for so long a time wanting a 
leg, but recovered that limb by the rubbing of holy oil upon 
the stump ; and, when the Cardinal examined it, he found it 
to be a true natural leg, like the other." Would not any 
person imagine, from the last words of the sentence, that the 
Cardinal had ordered the man to put off his shoes and stock 
ings, that, by touch as well as by sight, he might be satisfied 
there was no artifice used, but that both his legs consisted of 
genuine flesh and bone ? Yet the truth is, his Eminency did 
not think it worth while to examine any one circumstance of 
this wonderful narration, but contented himself with report 
ing it precisely as it had been told him. His words literally 
translated are, " In that church they showed me a man, 
whose business it was to light the lamps, of which they have a 
prodigious number, telling me, that he had been seen seven 

* Page 193, &c. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 101 

years at the gate with one leg only. I saw him there with 
two."* Not one word of trial or examination, or even so 
much as a single question asked on the subject ; not a syllable 
of his finding the leg to be either true or false, natural or ar 
tificial, like the other or unlike. I have a better opinion, both 
of the candour and of the good sense of Mr. Hume, than to 
imagine he would have designedly misrepresented this story in 
order to render it fitter for Jtiis purpose. I believe the source 
of this error has been solely the trusting to his memory in the 
relation which he gave, and not taking the trouble to consult 
the passage in the Memoirs. This conjecture appears the 
more probable, as he has made some other alterations, which 
are nowise conducive to his design ; such as, that the man 
had been seen in the church twenty years wanting a leg, and 
that he was a doorkeeper ; whereas the memoir writer says 
only seven years, and that he was a lamplighter.^ 

" This miracle was vouched," says the author, " by all the 
canons of the church ; and the whole company in town were 
appealed to for a confirmation of the fact, whom the Cardi 
nal found, by their zealous devotion, to be thorough believers 
of the miracle." It is true, that the company in town were 
appealed to by those ecclesiastics ; but it is also true, that De 
Hetz, by his own account, seems not to have asked any man a 
question on the subject. He acknowledges, indeed, that an 
anniversary festival, instituted in commemoration of the mi 
racle, was celebrated by a vast concourse of people of all ranks. 

" Here," continues the Essayist, " the relater was also con 
temporary to the supposed prodigy, of an incredulous and 
libertine character, as well as of great genius." But of what 
weight, in this affair, is either the genius or the incredulity of 

* L on m y montra un liomme, que servoit a allumer les lampes, qui y sont 
en nombre prodigieux ; et Ton me dit, qu on 1 y avoit vu sept ans a la porte de cette 
eglise, avec une seule jambe. Je 1 y vis avec deux. Liv. 4. Van 1654. 

f Since finishing this tract, I have seen an edition of Mr. Hume s Essays, &c. 
later than that here referred to. It is printed at London, 1760. I must do the 
author the justice to observe, that, in this edition, he has corrected the mistake as 
to the Cardinal s examining the man s leg, of which he only says, " The Cardinal 
assures us, that he saw him with two legs." He still calls him a doorkeeper , and 
says, that he had served twenty years in this capacity. In the edition 1767, men 
tioned in the Preface, he has corrected the latter of these errors, and said seven years, 
but retains the former. 

r- 9 

Or 6 



102 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

the relater, since, by Mr. Hume s confession, lie had no faith 
in the relation? Strange indeed is the use which the Essayist 
makes of this cir^imstance. " What adds mightily " says he, 
(( to the force of the evidence, and may double our surprise 
on this occasion, is, that the Cardinal himself, who relates the 
story, seems not to give any credit to it." It does not in the 
least surprise me that the Cardinal gives no credit to this re 
lation ; but I am beyond measure surprised, that Mr. Hume 
should represent this circumstance as adding mightily to the 
force of the evidence. Is then a story which is reported by a 
man of genius the more credible that he does not believe it ? 
or, Is it the more incredible that he does believe it ? What 
would the author have said, if the Cardinal had told us that 
he gave credit to the relation ? Might he not, in that case, 
have very pertinently pleaded the great genius, and penetra 
tion, and incredulity of the relater, as adding mightily to the 
force of the evidence ? On that hypothesis he surely might, 
for pretty obvious reasons. Uncommon penetration qualifies 
a man for detecting fraud ; and it requires evidence greater 
than ordinary to surmount incredulity. The belief there 
fore of such a person as the Cardinal, who had not only the 
means of discovering an imposture, as he was contemporary 
and on the spot, but the ability to discover it, as he was a 
man of genius, and not over-credulo u ; his belief, I say, 
would evidently have been no small presumption of the truth 
of the miracle. How his disbelief can be in like manner a 
presumption of its truth, is to me incomprehensible. " Ay, 
but," rejoins the author, " as he seems not to give any credit 
to it, he cannot be suspected of any concurrence in the holy 
fraud." Very well. I am satisfied that a man s TESTIMONY 
is the more to be regarded, that he is above being suspected 
of concurring in any fraud, call it holy or unholy ; but I 
want to know why, on the very same account, his OPINION is 
the less to be regarded ? For my part, I find no difficulty in 
believing every article of the narration for which the Cardinal 
gives his testimony : notwithstanding this, I may be of the 
same opinion with him, that the account given by the dean 
and canons, which is their testimony, not his, was all a fiction. 
But it is not with the Cardinal s testimony we are here con- 



FULLY ATTESTED. 103 

cerned about that there is no dispute : it is with his opinion. 
-Are then a man s sentiments about a matter of fact, I must 
insist on it, the- less worthy of regard, either because he is a 
man of genius, and not at all credulous, or because he cannot 
be suspected of any concurrence in a holy fraud ? Are they 
the more improbable on these accounts ? The Essayist, when 
he reflects, will be the last man in the world that would assist 
in establishing a maxim so unfavourable, not only to candour, 
but even to genius and scepticism ; and indeed there are few, 
if any, that would be greater sufferers by it than himself. 

But leaving this, as one of the unfathomable depths of the 
Essay, I proceed to the other circumstances. " The miracle," 
says the author, " of so singular a nature, as could scarce 
admit of a counterfeit." He did well at least to use the word 
scarce ; for if every visitant was as little desirous of prying 
into the secret as the Cardinal, nothing could be more easily 
counterfeited : " And the witnesses very numerous, and all of 
them, in a manner, spectators of the fact to which they gave 
their testimony." By the very numerous witnesses, I suppose 
he means the whole company in town, who were appealed to. 
They were all, in a manner, spectators of the fact. What pre 
cise abatement the author intended we should make from the 
sense of the word spectators, on account of the qualifying 
phrase, in a manner, I shall notjpresume to determine ; but 
shall observe, from the Memoirs, that it was not so much as 
pretended by the canons that any of the citizens had seen the 
miracle performed ; it was only pretended, that they had seen 
the man formerly at the gate of the church wanting a leg. 
Nor is it alleged, that any of them was at more pains in exa 
mining the matter, either before or after the recovery of the 
leg, than the Cardinal was. There were therefore properly 
no spectators of the fact. The phrase, in a manner, ought, I 
imagine, to have been placed in the end of the sentence, 
which would have run thus : " To which they, in a manner, 
gave their testimony :" For no direct testimony was either 
asked of them, or given by them ; their belief is inferred 
from their devotion. 

I have been the more particular in my remarks on the cir 
cumstances of this story, not because there was need of these 



104 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

remarks ; for though to the Essayist the relation appeared 
very memorable) to me, and I believe to most people, it ap 
pears trifling ; but that the reader might have this further 
specimen of the author s talents in embellishing. To the 
above-mentioned, and all other such idle tales, this short and 
simple answer will by every man of sense be thought sufficient : 
The country where the miracle is said to have been wrought , is 
SPAIN; the people who propagated the faith of it were THE 
CLERGY. What comparison, in point of credibility, can be 
made between miracles, which, with no visible support but 
their own evidence, had at once to encounter, and did in fact 
overcome, the abhorrence of the priest and the tyranny of the 
magistrate, the insolence of the learned and the bigotry of 
the superstitious ; what comparison, I say, can be made 
between such, and any prodigies said to have been performed 
in a country, where all the powers of the nation, secular and 
ecclesiastical, the literature of the schools, such as it is, and 
the prejudices of the people, conspire in establishing their 
credit ; a country sunk in the most obdurate superstition that 
ever disgraced human nature ;* a country where the awe of 
the Inquisition is so great, that no person, whatever be his 
sentiments, dares mutter a syllable against any opinion that 
has obtained the patronage of their spiritual guides ? But 

* This perhaps will appear to some to be too severe a censure on a country 
called Christian, and may be thought to recoil on Christianity itself. I do not 
think it fairly capable of such a construction. That the corruption of the best 
things produces the worst, has grown into a proverb ; and, on the most impar 
tial inquiry, I do not imagine it will be found, that any species of idolatry ever 
tended so directly to extirpate humanity, gratitude, natural affection, equity, 
mutual confidence, good faith, and every amiable and generous principle, from 
the human breast, as that gross perversion of the Christian religion which is es 
tablished in Spain. It might easily be shown, that the human sacrifices offered 
by Heathens have not half the tendency to corrupt the heart, and consequently 
deserve not to be viewed with half the horror, as those celebrated among the 
Spaniards, with so much pomp and barbarous festivity, at an auto da fe. It 
will not surely be affirmed, that our Saviour intended any censure on the Mo- 
saic institution, or genuine Judaism, when he said, Woe unto you, Scribes and 
Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when 
he is made, YE MAKE him twofold more (lie child of hell than yourselves. Yet the 
words plainly imply, that even Pagans, by being converted to the Judaism that 
was then professed, were made children of hell, and consequently corrupted in 
stead of being reformed. See Matth. xxiii. 15. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 105 

that I may not be accused of prepossession, or suspected of 
exaggerating, I shall only give the sentiments of two eminent 
foreigners (who were not Protestants, and may therefore be 
supposed the more impartial) concerning that nation, and the 
influence which the Holy Tribunal has both on their cha 
racter and manners. Voltaire,* speaking of the Inquisition 
as established in Spain, says, " Their form of proceeding is 
an infallible way to destroy whomsoever the inquisitor s please. 
The prisoners are not confronted with the informers ; and 
there is no informer who is not listened to. A public crimi 
nal, an infamous person, a child, a prostitute, are credible 
accusers. Even the son may depose against his father ; the 
wife against her husband. In fine, the prisoner is compelled 
to inform against himself, to divine, and to confess, the crime 
laid to his charge ; of which often he is ignorant. This pro 
cedure, unheard-of till the institution of this court, makes the 
whole kingdom tremble. Suspicion reigns in every breast. 
Friendship and openness are at an end. The brother dreads 
his brother, the father his son. Hence taciturnity is become 
the characteristic of a nation endued with all the vivacity na 
tural to the inhabitants of a warm and fruitful climate. To 
this tribunal we must likewise impute that profound igno 
rance of sound philosophy in which Spain lies buried, whilst 
Germany, England, France, and even Italy, have discovered 
so many truths, and enlarged the sphere of our knowledge. 
Never is human nature so debased, as when ignorance is 
armed with power." " It is necessary," says Montesquieu,f 
in the humble remonstrance to the inquisitors of Spain and 
Portugal, " that we advertise you of one thing ; it is, that if 
any person, in future times, shall dare assert, that, in the age 
wherein we live, the Europeans were civilized, YOU will be 
quoted to prove that they were barbarians ; and the idea 
people will form of you, will be such as will dishonour your 
age, and bring hatred on all your contemporaries." 

I COME now to consider the miracles said to have been per 
formed in the church-yard of Saint Medard, at the tomb of 

* Essai sur 1 Histoire Generale, chap. 118. 
f De 1 Esprit des Loix, liv. xxv, chap. 13. 



106 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

Abbe Paris. On these the author has expatiated with great 
parade, exulting that he has found in them, as he imagines, 
what, in respect of number, and nature, and evidence, may 
outvie the miracles of holy writ. Yet should we admit them 
to be true, how they can be considered as proofs of any doc 
trine, or how they can affect the evidence of the miracles 
recorded in Scripture, it will not perhaps be easy to discover. 
But setting that question aside, I propose to examine their 
evidence ; and that, not by entering into a particular inquiry 
concerning each separate fact mentioned in Montgeron s 
Collection, as such an inquiry would appear, to every judi 
cious reader, both tedious and impertinent ; but by making 
a few general observations, founded in unquestionable fact, 
and mostly supported even by the authority of Montgeron, 
that doughty champion of the Jansenist saint.* 

First, Let it be remarked, that it was often objected by the 
enemies of the saint, and scarcely contradicted, never confut 
ed, by his friends, that the prostrations at his sepulchre pro 
duced more diseases than they cured. The ingenious author 
lately quoted, in the account he gives of the affairs of the 
church in the ninth century, taking occasion incidentally 
to mention the miracles of the Abbe, speaks of this circum 
stance as a thing universally known, and undeniable. -j- " I 
should not take notice," says he, " of an epidemical folly 
with which the people of Dijon were seized in 844, occasion 
ed by one Saint Benignus, who threw those into convulsions 
who prayed on his tomb ; I should not, I say, mention this 
popular superstition, had it not been furiously revived in our 
days, in parallel circumstances. It seems as if the same fol 
lies were destined to make their appearance, from time to 
time, 011 the theatre of the world : But good sense is also the 
same at all times ; and nothing so judicious hath been said, 
concerning the modern miracles wrought on the tomb of I 
know not what deacon at Paris, as what a bishop of Lyons 

* The character of his book is very justly and very briefly expressed in Le 
Sieck de Louis XIV., in these words : " Si ce livre subsistait un jour, et que les 
autres fussent perdus, la posterite croirait que notre siecle a etc un terns de bar- 
bane;" chap. 33. 

f Essai sur 1 Histoire Generalc, chap. 21. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 107 

said concerning those of Dijon : A strange saint indeed , that 
maims those who pay their devoirs to him. I should think, 
miracles ought to be performed for the curing) and not for the 
inflicting of maladies ." 

The second observation is, That the instances of persons 
cured are extremely few, compared with the multitudes of 
people in distress, who night and day attended the sepulchre 
imploring in vain the intercession of the saint. The crowds 
of sick and infirm who flocked to the tomb for relief, were by 
all accounts innumerable ; whereas all the cures which the 
zealous and indefatigable Montgeron could produce vouchers 
of, amounted only to NINE.* The author therefore must be 
understood as speaking with great latitude, when he says, 
" There surely never was so great a number of miracles as 
cribed to one person, as those which were lately said to have 
been wrought in France, upon the tomb of Abbe Paris, the 
famous Jansenist, with whose sanctity the people were so long 
deluded."-}- If thousands of diseased persons had applied for 
medicine to some ignorant quack, in the assurance of his 
extraordinary abilities ; would it be matter of surprise to a 
reasonable man, that, of so many, eight or nine should be 
found whose distempers had taken a favourable turn whilst 
they were using his specifics, and had thereby given counte 
nance to the delusion ? I think it would be a matter of sur 
prise that there were so few. 

I shall observe, thirdly, That imposture was actually detect 
ed and proved in several instances. That the reader may be 
satisfied of this, I must entreat him to have recourse to the 
Archbishop of Sens Pastoral Instruction : a book which Mr. 
Hume could not, with propriety, take any notice of, having 
positively asserted, that " the enemies to those opinions in 
whose favour the miracles were said to have been wrought, 

* It must be owned, that the author of the Recueil after-mentioned, hath pre 
sented us with a much greater number : but let it be remarked, that that author 
does not confine himself to the cures performed openly at the tomb of the deacon ; 
he gives us also those that were wrought in the private chambers of the sick, by 
virtue of his relics, by images of him, or by earth brought from under his monument. 
Nor is the Collection restricted only to the cures effected by the saint ; it includes 
also the judgments inflicted by him. 

t Page 195. 



108 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

were never able distinctly to refute or detect them."* This 
prelate, on the contrary, has not only given a distinct refuta 
tion of some of these pretended miracles, but has clearly de 
tected the deceit and little artifices by which their credit was 
supported. I intend not to descend to particulars, and shall 
therefore only refer the reader to the book itself, and beg that 
he will peruse what relates to the cases of Jacques Laurent 
Menedrieux, Jean Nivet, Sieur le Doulx, Laleu, Anne Coulon, 
the widow de Lorme, as well as Mademoiselle le Franc, of 
whom the Essayist has made mention in a note. In this 
perusal, the reader will observe the shameful prevarications 
of some Jansenist witnesses, for whom Mr. Hume would fain 
apologize by telling us pleasantly, they were tampered with.-^ 
I shall only add on this head, that the detection of fraud in 
some instances, justly brings suspicion on all the other in 
stances. A man whom I know to have lied to me on several 
occasions, I shall suspect on every occasion, when I have no 
opportunity of discovering whether what he affirms be true 
or false. It is in the same way we judge of the spirit and 
conduct of parties as of individuals. 

I observe, fourthly, That all the cures recorded by Mont- 
geron as duly attested, were such as might have been effected 
by natural means. There are two kinds of miracles, to which 
Mr. Hume has alluded in a note, though he does not directly 
make the distinction. One is, when the event, considered by 
itself, is evidently preternatural. Of this kind are, raising 
the dead, walking on water, making whole the maimed ; for 
by no natural causes can these effects be produced. The other 
kind is, when the event, considered by itself, is natural, that 
is, may be produced by natural causes, but is denominated 
miraculous, on account of the manner. That a sick person 
should be restored to health, is not, when considered singly, 
preternatural ; but that health should be restored by the com 
mand of a man, undoubtedly is. Let us hear the author on 
this point : " Sometimes an event may not, in itself, seem to 
be contrary to the laws of nature, and yet, if it were real, it 
might, by reason of some circumstances, be denominated a 
miracle; because, in fact, it is contrary to these laws. Thus, 

* Page 195. i Page 197, in the note. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 109 

if a person claiming a divine authority should command a 
sick person to be well, a healthful man to fall down dead, the 
clouds to pour rain, the winds to blow, in short, should order 
many natural events, which immediately follow upon his 
command; these might justly be esteemed miracles, because 
they are really, in this case, contrary to the laws of nature. 
For if any suspicion remain that the event and command 
concurred by accident, there is no miracle, and no transgres 
sion of the laws of nature. If this suspicion be removed, 
there is evidently a miracle, and a transgression of these 
laws ; because nothing can be more contrary to nature, than 
that the voice or command of a man should have such an in 
fluence."* From what has been said it appears, that these 
two kinds of miracles must differ considerably in respect of 
evidence, since the latter naturally gives room for a suspicion, 
which is absolutely excluded from the former. In the former, 
when the fact or event is proved, the miracle is unquestion 
able. In the latter, the fact may be proved, and yet the 
miracle may be justly questioned. It therefore merits our 
attention, that all the miracles recorded in Montgeron s Col 
lection were of the second kind. One of the most considerable 
of those cures was that of Don Alphonso de Palacios, who 
had lost one eye, and was distressed with an inflammation in 
the other. The inflamed eye was cured, but the lost eye was 
not restored. Had there been a reproduction of the member 
which had perished, a sufficient proof of the fact would have 
been a sufficient proof of the miracle. But as the case was 
otherwise, the fact vouched may be admitted, without admit 
ting any miracle. The cures said to have been performed 
on those patients who were afflicted with paralytic or dropsi 
cal disorders, or that performed on Louisa Coirin, who had a 
tumour on her breast, will not appear to be entitled to a rank 
in the first class. As little can the cure of Peter Gautier 
claim that honour. One of his eyes had been pricked with an 
awl ; in consequence of which the aqueous humour dropped 
out, and he became blind of that eye. His sight was restored, 
whilst he paid his addresses to the Abbe. But that a puncture 
in the cornea of the eye will often heal of itself, and that the 

t Page 181, in the note. 



110 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

aqueous humour, after it has been quite lost, will be re 
cruited, and consequently that the faculty of vision will, in 
such a case, be recovered, is what every oculist can assure us 
of. The loss of the watery humour is the constant effect of 
a very common operation in surgery, couching the cataract. 
Hence we may learn how we ought to understand these 
words of the author, " The curing of the sick, giving hearing 
to the deaf, and sight to the blind, were every where talked 
of as the usual effects of that holy sepulchre."* As there 
fore the alleged miracles were all of the second class, it is 
only from the attendant circumstances we can judge, whether 
the facts, though acknowledged, were miraculous or not. 

In order to enlighten us on this point, I observe, fifthly, 
That none of the cures were instantaneous. We have not 
indeed the same hold of the deceased Abbe, as of a living pro 
phet who pretends to work miracles. Those who attend the 
latter, can know exactly to whom he grants the benefit of his 
miraculous aid. They can judge also, whether the suppli 
cant s recovery be coincident with the prophet s volition or 
command. In the former case, we cannot judge of either; and 
consequently there is much greater scope for fancy and cre 
dulity to operate. No voice was ever said to have proceeded 
from the tomb of the blessed deacon, as his votaries styled him. 
They obtained no audible answer to their prayers. There are 
however some circumstances, by which a probable conjecture 
may be made concerning the efficiency of the saint in the cures 
ascribed to him. One is, if the cure instantaneously followed 
the first devotions at the tomb. Supernatural cures differ in 
this particular, as much as in any other, from those which are 
effected by natural means, that they are not gradually, but 
instantly, perfected. Now of which kind were the cures of 
St Medard? From the accounts that are given, it is evident 
that they were gradual. That some of them were sudden is 
alleged ; but that any of them were instantaneous, or imme 
diately followed the first application, is not even pretended. 
All the worshippers at the tomb persisted for days, several 
of them for weeks, and some for months, successively, daily 
imploring the intercession of the Abbe, before they received 

* Page 195. 
8 



FULLY ATTESTED. Ill 

relief from their complaints ; and the relief which was receiv 
ed, is, in most cases, acknowledged to have been gradual. 

I observe, sixthly, That most of the devotees either had 
been using medicines before, and continued to use them dur 
ing their applications to the saint ; or, that their distempers 
had abated before they determined to solicit his help. That 
the Spanish youth had been using, all the while, a medicine 
prescribed by an eminent oculist, was proved by the deposi 
tions of witnesses ; that Gautier had begun to recover his 
sight before he had recourse to the sepulchre, was attested, 
not only by his uncle, but even by himself, when, as the 
Archbishop of Sens inform us, he signed a recantation of 
what he had formerly advanced. With regard to the rest, it 
appears at least probable, from the circumstances of the proof, 
that they were using the prescriptions of the physicians whom 
they had consulted before they applied to the deacon, and who 
were afterwards required to give their testimony concerning 
the nature and malignancy of the different diseases. 

The seventh observation is, That some of the cures attested 
were incomplete. This was manifestly the case of the Spaniard, 
who was relieved only from the most inconsiderable part of 
his complaint. Even the cure of Mademoiselle Thibault, 
which was as great a subject of exultation to the partisans of 
the Abbe as any other, was not complete. Not only was she 
confined to her bed for many days after the decrease of her 
dropsy, but she still remained incapable of moving two of her 
fingers. Silva, physician to the Duke of Orleans, attested this ; 
adding expressly, that he could not look on her as being cured. 
The eighth and last observation I shall make on this subject 
is, that the relief granted some of them was but temporary. 
This was clearly proved to be the case of the Spanish gentle 
man. That soon after his return home, he relapsed into his 
former malady, the prelate I have often quoted has, by the 
certificates and letters which he procured from Madrid, put 
beyond controversy. Among these, there are letters from a 
Spanish grandee, Don Francis Xavier, and from the patient s 
uncle, beside a certificate signed by himself. 

After the above observations, I believe, there will be no 
occasion for saying much on this subject. The author has, in 



THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

a note, artfully enough pointed out his aim, that it might not 
be overlooked by the careless reader.* " There is another 
book," says he, " in three volumes, (called Recueil des Mira 
cles de VAbbe Paris], giving an account of many of these mi 
racles, and accompanied with prefatory discourses, which are 
very well wrote."* He adds, " There runs, however, through 

* Page 196. 

f I am surprised that Mr. Hume has taken no notice of the profound erudi 
tion displayed in the Recueil, as I imagine its author is much more eminent for 
this than for his talent in writing. Besides, his learning deserves our regard 
the more, that it is of a kind rarely to be met with in the present century. 
Where shall we find in these dregs of the ages, to adopt his own emphatical ex 
pression, such an extensive knowledge as he has exhibited, of all the monkish 
and legendary writings of the darkest and most barbarous, or, according to him, 
the most devout ages of the church? Or whence else, but from those produc 
tions, could he have selected such admirable materials for his work ? The lives 
and writings of the saints are an inexhaustible treasure for a performance of 
this kind. It is true, St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John, have said 
little to his purpose, and he makes as litttle use of them. But is not this want 
richly supplied in St. Cudbert, St. Edildride, St. Willibrord, St. Baudri, and five 
hundred others of equal note? One thing, however, I would gladly be informed 
of, being utterly at a loss to account for it, What entitled this author, who 
seems not to be deficient in a veneration truly catholic for ignorance, superstition, 
and barbarism, to speak contemptibly of Capgravius, Colganus, and Jacobus 
de Voragine, author of The golden Legend 1 To be plain with him, this is a 
freedom which does not at all become him ; for, of the few readers in this age 
who happen to be acquainted with the authorities quoted in the Reoueil, most, 
if not all, will, I am afraid, be of opinion, that the writers last mentioned are 
fully as credible, not less famous, and much more ingenious, than many of those 
to whom he is so greatly indebted for his most extraordinary narrative. Was 
it for him then to scandalize these few 1 It is pity that a writer of such un 
common reading and application should act so inconsistently, and undermine 
his own cause. But passing his literature, which is unquestionable, I shall give 
the reader a specimen of his talent in disputation. To the objection that had 
been made, that the miracles of the deacon were gradual, he replies, "So was 
the creation, the first of miracles, which employed no less than six days." As 
all that was done in .that time is comprehended under one name, THE CREATION, 
he concludes, very sagely, that it ought to be denominated one miracle. A 
writer of this stamp would no doubt despise the answer which an ordinary 
reader might make him ; first, That every single production was a perfect mira 
cle ; secondly, That nothing could be more instantaneous than those produc 
tions God said, Let there be light, and there was light, $c. ; and, lastly, That 
the world was not created by the ministration of man, nor in the presence of 
men, nor in order to serve as evidence of any doctrine. I must be forgiven 
to remark, that, in the whole of this author s reply, he has unfortunately mis 
taken the meaning of the objectors, who intend not to say that God may not 



FULLY ATTESTED. 113 

the whole of these, a ridiculous comparison betwixt the mi 
racles of our Saviour and those of the Abbe ; wherein it is 
asserted, that the evidence for the latter is equal to that for 
the former."* At first reading, one is apt, with surprise, to 

perform a miracle gradually, but that what is so performed has not the same evidence 
of its being miraculous as what is done in an instant, and therefore cannot so well 
serve as evidence of any doctrine. Now, that the miracles of Monsieur de Paris 
were intended as evidence of his doctrine, and consequently of that of the appellants 
from the bull Unigenitus, he every where vehemently maintains. Another specimen 
of this author s acuteness and ingenuity I shall give in a literal translation from his 
own words. " But, it will be said, in the earliest times of the church, miraculous 
cures were commonly perfected in an instant. True ; and it is this which confirms 
my doctrine. As it was ordinary then, to convert great sinners all of a sudden, it 
was also ordinary to cure the sick all of a sudden. But such wonders in hoth kinds 
are for the commencement of the church, or for the renovation promised her. In 
these days, which the French clergy have justly styled the dregs of the ages, it is 
much that God convert many sinners, and cure many sick, by slow degrees, at 
the same time that he shows by some more shining examples, that his arm is not 
shortened." 

* I am sorry to be again so soon laid under the necessity of observing, that 
the Essayist, by confiding too much in his memory, often injures the writers whom 
he quotes. It is but doing justice to the author of the Reciteil to ohserve, that he 
has, in no part of his performance, asserted that the evidence for the miracles of 
Monsieur de Paris is equal to that for the miracles of Jesus Christ. Perhaps my 
reader will be surprised when I tell him, for I own I was exceedingly surprised when 
I discovered, that he has not only in the plainest terms asserted, but strenuously 
maintained, the contrary. And for this purpose he has employed no less than twelve 
pages of his work. He introduces the subject (Discourse 2. Part 1.) with observing, 
that he and the rest of his party had been traduced by their adversaries, as equalling 
the miracles of the Deacon to those of our Saviour. The impiety of such a com 
parison he even mentions with horror, and treats the charge as an absolute calumny. 
Hence he takes occasion to enumerate those peculiar circumstances in the miracles 
of our Lord which gave them an eminent superiority, not only over those of his 
saint, but over those of every other saint or prophet whatsoever. To this enumera 
tion he subjoins, Tous ceux qui recourent a Monsieur de Paris ne sont pas gueris, 
nous dit-on ; plusieurs ne le sont qu en partie, ou d une maniere lente, et moins 
e"clatante: il n a point ressuscite" de morts. Que s ensuit-il dela, sinon quo Ics 
miracles que Dieu a ope>es par lui, sont inferieurs a ceux que n6tre Seigneur 
a ope"re"s par lui-m^me? Nous 1 avouons, nous inculquons cette v6rite. " All 
those, we arc told, who recur to Monsieur de Paris are not cured ; several are cured 
but in part, or in a slow and less striking manner : he has raised no dead. What 
follows, unless that the miracles which God wrought by him, are inferior to those 
which our Lord wrought by himself? We acknowledge, we inculcate this truth." 
Afterwards, speaking of evidence, he owns also, that the miracles of the Deacon are 
not equally certain with those of Jesus Christ. The latter, he says, are more certain 
in many respects. He specifies the natural notoriety of some of the facts, the 



114 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

imagine, that the author is going to make some atonement for 
the tenets of the Essay, by turning advocate for the miracles 
of Jesus Christ ; and by showing, that these are not affected 
by his doctrine. But on this point we are not long held in 
suspense. He subjoins, " As if the testimony of men could 
ever be put in a balance with that of God himself, who con 
ducted the pen of the inspired writers." An ingenious piece 
of raillery without question. Is it possible, in a politer man 
ner, or in more obliging terms, to tell the Christian world they 
are fools? and that all who are silly enough to believe the mira 
cles recorded in Scripture, are not entitled to be argued with 
as men. How ? They are so absurd as to believe the Scrip 
tures to be the word of God, on the evidence of the miracles 
wrought by our Lord and his apostles; and that these mira 
cles w r ere wrought, they could not believe on any testimony 
less than that of God, reporting them in the Scriptures : and 

public and instantaneous manner in which most of them were effected, the number, 
the quality, the constancy of the witnesses, and the forced acknowledgment of his 
most spiteful enemies. He concludes this subject in these memorable terms : 
Au reste, ce que je viens d exposer sur la sup6riorit6 des merveilles op6r6s par le 
Sauveur, je 1 avois reconnu avec plaisir dans le premier discours. Ty ai dit en 
propres termes, qu il y avoit une difference infinie entre les miracles de Jesus Christ 
ct ceux de Monsieur de Paris. J ai promis de ne jamais oublier cette difference, 
et j ai tenu parole. J ai remarque", dans le lieu ou il convenoit de le faire, que 
cette difference infinie regardoit Vevidence des prodiges aussi-bien que leur grandeur ; 
ct que les incredules pouvoient nous dire, que ceux que nous produisions n ont point 
le mme eclat qu ont eu ceux de n6tre Seigneur. " Finally, what I have just now 
evinced on the superiority of the wonders performed by our Lord, I had acknow 
ledged with pleasure in the first discourse. I said there, in express terms, that 
there was an infinite difference between the miracles of Jesus Christ and those of 
Monsieur de Paris. I promised never to forget this difference, and I have kept my 
promise. I remarked in its proper place, that this infinite difference regarded the 
evidence as well as the greatness of the prodigies ; and that the incredulous might 
object that those which we produce have not the same lustre with those of our 
Saviour." I have been the more particular on this point, not so much to vindicate 
the author of the Recueil, as to show the sense which even the most bigoted par- 
tizans of the holy Deacon had, of the difference between the miracles ascribed to him, 
and those performed by our Lord. I cannot avoid remarking also another difference ; 
I mean that which appears between the sentiments of this author as expressed by him 
self, and his sentiments as reported by the Essayist. It is indeed, Mr. Hume, a 
judicious observation you have given us, that we ought to " lend a very academic 
faith to every report which favours the passion of the reporter, in whatever way it 
strikes in with his natural inclinations and propensities." Page 200. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 115 

thus, by making inspiration and miracles reciprocally founda 
tions to each other, they, in effect, admit both without any 
foundation at all. After this handsome compliment to the 
friends of holy writ, he thinks himself at liberty to be very ex 
plicit on the comparative evidence of the miracles of the Able 
and those of Jesus : " If these writers indeed were to be con 
sidered merely as human testimony, the French author is very 
moderate in his comparison ; since he might, with some appear 
ance of reason, pretend, that the Jansenist miracles much sur 
pass the other, in evidence and authority." Was ever so 
rough an assault preceded by so smooth, but so insidious a 
preamble ? Is it then still the fate of Jesus to be betrayed with 
a kiss ? But, notwithstanding this author s declaration, no 
Christian will have reason to dread the issue of the comparison. 
Mr. Hume has not entered on particulars, neither shall I enter 
on them. I should not incline to tire my reader with repe 
titions, which in a minute inquiry would be inevitable ; I 
shall therefore only desire him, if he think it needful, to pe 
ruse a second time the eight foregoing observations. Let him 
try the miracles of our Lord by this touchstone ; and I per 
suade myself he will be satisfied, that there is no appearance 
of reason to pretend that the Jansenist miracles much surpass 
the other, or even equal them, in evidence and authority. 

The author triumphs not a little in the observation, that 
the reports of the prodigies performed by the Deacon were 
violently opposed by the civil magistrate, and by the Jesuits, 
the most learned society in the kingdom. He could see the 
importance of this circumstance in the case of Abbe Paris, 
though not in the case of Jesus Christ. But that the differ 
ence of the cases, as well as their resemblance, may better ap 
pear, it ought likewise to be observed, that Jansenism, though 
not the ruling faction, was at that time the popular faction ; 
that this popularity was not the effect of the miracles of the 
Abbe, but antecedent to these miracles ; that, on the contrary, 
the Jesuits were extremely unpopular ; and that many, who 
had no more faith in the miracles of Saint Medard than Mr. 
Hume has, were well pleased to connive at a delusion, which 
at once plagued and mortified a body of men that were be 
come almost universally odious. 

H 



116 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

I shall only add, that nothing could more effectually expose 
the folly of these pretensions, than the expedient by which 
they were made to cease. In consequence of an order from 
the King, the sepulchre was enclosed with a wall, and the 
votaries were debarred from approaching the tomb. The 
author says in relaton to this,* " No Jansenist was ever em 
barrassed to account for the cessation of the miracles, when 
the churchyard was shut up by the King s edict. Certain it 
is, that God is master of his own graces and works." But 
it is equally certain, that neither reason nor the gospel leads 
us to think, that any human expedient will prove successful, 
which is calculated to frustrate the decrees of Heaven. Both, 
on the contrary, teach us, that men never more directly pro 
mote the designs of their Maker, than when they intend di 
rectly to oppose them. It was not thus that either Pharisees or 
Sadducees, Jews or Gentiles, succeeded in their opposition to 
the miracles of Jesus and his apostles. The opinion of Ga 
maliel, Acts v. 38, 39, was undoubtedly judicious : If this 
counsel, or this work, be of men, it will come to nought ; but if 
it be of God, ye CANNOT overthrow it : beware, therefore, lest 
ye be found fighting even against God. To conclude, Did 
the Jansenist cause derive any advantage from those pretended 
miracles ? None at all ; it even suffered by them. It is 
justly remarked by Voltaire,f that " the tomb of the Deacon 
Paris proved, in effect, in the minds of all people of sense, 
the tomb of Jansenism." How unlike, in all respects, the 
miracles recorded by the Evangelists ! 

THUS I have briefly inquired into the nature and evidence, 
first of the Pagan, and next of the Popish miracles, mentioned 
by Mr. Hume ; and have, I hope, sufficiently evinced, that 
the miracles of the New Testament can suffer nothing by the 
comparison : that, on the contrary, as, in painting, thejshades 
serve to heighten the glow of the colours ; and, in music, the 
discords to set off the sweetness of the harmony; so the 
value of these genuine miracles is enhanced by the contrast 
of those paltry counterfeits. 

* Page 1 98, in the note. f Siecle de Louis XIV. chap. 33. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 117 

SECTION VI. 

Abstracting from the evidence for particular facts, we have 
irrefragable evidence, that there have been miracles infor 
mer times; or such events as, when compared with the present 
constitution of the ivorld, would by Mr. Hume be deno 
minated miraculous. 

I READILY concur with Mr. Hume in maintaining, that 
when, merely by the force of REASON, we attempt to investi 
gate the origin of worlds,* we get beyond our sphere, and 
must infallibly bewilder ourselves in hypothesis and conjecture. 
REASON indeed (which vainly boasts her all-sufficiency) has 
sometimes pretended to carry men to this amazing height : 
But there is ground to suspect, that, in such instances, the 
ascent of reason, as the author elegantly expresses it,f has 
been aided by the wings of imagination. If we will not 
be indebted to REVELATION for our knowledge of this article, 
we must, for aught I can perceive, be satisfied to live in ig 
norance. There is, however, one question distinct from the 
former, though akin to it, which, even from the principles of 
reason, we may with great probability determine : The ques 
tion I mean is, Whether the world had an origin or not ? 

That there has been an infinite, eternal, and independent 
series of finite, successive, and dependent beings, such as men, 
and consequently that the world had no beginning, appears, 
from the bare consideration of the thing, extremely incredible, 
if not altogether absurd. The abstract argument used on 
this head, might appear too metaphysical and refined : I shall 
not therefore introduce it ; but shall recur to topics which 
are more familiar, and which, though they do not demon 
strate that it is absolutely impossible that the world has ex 
isted from eternity, clearly evince that it is highly improbable, 
or rather, certainly false. These topics I shall only mention, 
as they are pretty obvious, and have been often urged with 
great energy by the learned both ancient arid modern. Such 

* Essay XII. Of the Academical or Sceptical Philosophy, part 3. 
t Essay XI. Of a Particular Providence and Future State. 



118 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

are, the late invention of letters, and of all the sciences and 
arts by which human life is civilized ; the known origin of 
most nations, states and kingdoms ; and the first peopling of 
many countries. It is in our power at present to trace the 
history of every people backwards to times of the greatest 
barbarity and ignorance. Europe, though not the largest of 
the four parts into which the earth is divided, is, on many 
accounts, the most considerable. But what a different face 
does Europe wear at present, from what it wore three thou 
sand years ago ? How immense the odds in knowledge, in 
arts, in policy, in every thing ? How easy is the intercourse, 
and how extensive the acquaintance, which men can now 
enjoy with all, even the remotest regions of the globe, com 
pared with what was, or could have been enjoyed, in that 
time of darkness and simplicity ? A man differs not more from 
a child, than the human race now differs from the human 
race then. Three thousand years ago appear indeed to mark 
a very distant epoch ; and yet it is but as yesterday, com 
pared with eternity. This, when duly weighed, every think 
ing person will acknowledge to be as strong moral evidence 
as the subject can admit, (and that I imagine is very strong,) 
that the world had a beginning. 

I shall make a supposition, which will perhaps appear whim 
sical, but which will tend to elucidate the argument I am en 
forcing. In antediluvian times, when the longevity of man 
was such as to include some centuries, I shall suppose that a 
few boys had been transported to a desert island, and there 
left together, just old enough to make shift to sustain them 
selves, as those in the golden age are fabled to have done, on 
acorns, and other spontaneous productions of the soil. I shall 
suppose, that they had lived there for some hundreds of years, 
had remembered nothing of their coming into the island, nor 
of any other person whatsoever; and that thus they had never 
had occasion to know, or hear, of either birth or death. I 
shall suppose them to enter into a serious disquisition con 
cerning their own duration, the question having been started, 
Whether they had existed from eternity, or had once begun 
to be ? They recur to memory : But memory can furnish 
them with nothing certain or decisive. If it must be allowed, 



FULLY ATTESTED. 119 

that it contains no trace of a beginning of existence, it must 
also be allowed, that it reaches not beyond a few centuries at 
most. They observe besides, concerning this faculty, that 
the farther back it goes, it becomes the more indistinct, ter 
minating at last in confusion and darkness. Some things 
however they distinctly recollect, and are assured of. They 
remember they were once of much lower stature, and of 
smaller size ; they had less bodily strength ; and all their men 
tal faculties were weaker. They know, that, in the powers 
both of body and of mind, they have advanced, by impercep 
tible degrees, to the pitch they are now arrived at. These 
considerations, especially when fortified by some analogous 
observations they might have made on the growth of herbs 
and trees, would have shown the probability to be entirely 
on the side of those who asserted that their existence had a 
beginning : And though, on account of the narrow sphere of 
their knowledge and experience, the argument could not have 
appeared to them in all its strength, we, from our larger ac 
quaintance with nature, even abstracting from our knowledge 
of man in particular, must be satisfied, that it would have been 
strictly analogical and just. Exactly similar, the very same 
I should rather say, is the argument I have been urging for 
the origination of the species. Make but a few alterations in 
phraseology; for memory substitute history and tradition; for 
hundreds of years, say thousands ; for the powers of body and 
mind, put the arts and sciences ; and with these, and perhaps 
one or two more such variations, you will find the argument 
as applicable in the one case as in the other. Now, if it be 
granted, that the human species must have had a beginning, 
it will hardly be questioned, that every other animal species, 
or even that the universe, must have had a beginning. 

But in order to prove the proposition laid down in the title 
of this section, it is not necessary to suppose that the world 
had a beginning. Admit it had not, and observe the conse 
quence : Thus much must be admitted also, that not barely 
for a long continued, but for an ETERNAL succession of gene 
rations, mankind were in a state little superior to the beasts ; 
that of a sudden there came a most astonishing change upon 
the species ; that they exerted talents and capacities, of which 



120 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

there appeared not the smallest vestige during the eternity 
preceding; that they acquired such knowledge as procured 
them a kind of empire, not only over the vegetable and ani 
mal worlds, but even, in some respect, over the elements, and 
all the unwieldy powers of matter; that, in consequence of 
this, they were quickly raised much more above the state they 
had been formerly and eternally in, than such their former 
and eternal state was above that of the brute creation. If 
such a revolution in nature, such a thorough, general, and 
sudden change as this, would not be denominated miraculous, 
it is not in my power to conceive what would. I could not 
esteem it a greater miracle, hardly so great, that any species 
of beasts which have hitherto been doomed to tread the earth, 
should now get wings, and float about in the air. 

Nor will this plea be subverted by that trite objection, 
That mankind may- have been as much enlightened, perhaps 
myriads of years ago, as they are at present; but that by some 
universal calamity, such as deluge or conflagration, which, 
after the rotation of many centuries, the earth possibly be 
comes liable to, all traces of erudition and of science, all traces 
both of the elegant and of the useful arts, may have been 
effaced, and the human race, springing from a few who had 
escaped the common ruin, may have emerged anew out of 
barbarity and ignorance. This hypothesis does but substi 
tute one miracle for another. Such general disorder is 
entirely unconformable to our experience of the course of 
nature. Accordingly, the destruction of the world by a 
deluge, the author has numbered among those prodigies, or 
miracles, which render the Pentateuch perfectly incredible. 

If, on the contrary, we admit, that the world had a begin 
ning, (and will not every thinking person acknowledge, that 
this position is much more probable than the contrary ?) the 
production of the world must be ascribed either to chance, 
or to intelligence. 

Shall we derive all things, spiritual and corporeal, from a 
principle so insignificant as blind chance ? Shall we say, with 
Epicurus, that the fortuitous concourse of rambling atoms has 
reared this beautiful and stupendous fabric ? In that case, per 
haps, we should give an account of the origin of things, which, 



FULLY ATTESTED. 121 

most people will think, could not properly be styled miracu 
lous. But is it, because the formation of a grand and regular 
system in this way is conformable to the experienced order of 
nature ? Quite the reverse. Nothing can be more repugnant 
to universal experience, than that the least organic body, not 
to mention the glorious frame of nature, should be produced 
by such a casual jumble. It has therefore, in the highest de 
gree possible, that particular quality of miracles, from which, 
according to the author s theory, their incredibility results, 
and may doubtless, in this loose acceptation of the word, be 
termed miraculous. But should we affirm, that to account 
thus for the origin of the universe, is to account for it by 
miracle ; we should be thought, I am afraid, to speak both 
weakly and improperly. There is something here, if I may 
so express myself, which is far beyond the miraculous ; some 
thing for which I know not whether any language can afford 
a proper appellation, unless it be the general appellations of 
absurdity and nonsense. 

Shall we then at last recur to the common doctrine, that 
the worl d was produced by an intelligent cause ? On this 
supposition also, though incomparably the most rational, it is 
evident, that in the creation, formation, or first production of 
things, call it by what name you please, a power must have 
been exerted, which, in respect of the present course of nature, 
may be styled miraculous. I intend not to dispute about a 
word, nor to inquire, whether that term can, in strict pro 
priety, be used of any exertions before the establishment of 
the laws of nature. I use the word in the same latitude in 
which the author commonly uses it in his reasoning, for every 
event that is not conformable to that course of nature with 
which we are acquainted by experience. 

Whether, therefore, the world had, or had not a begin 
ning ; whether on the first supposition, the production of 
things be ascribed to chance or to design ; whether, on the 
second, in order to solve the numberless objections that arise, 
we do, or do not, recur to universal catastrophes ; there is no 
possibility of accounting for the phenomena which at present 
come under our notice, without having at last recourse to 
MIRACLES ; that is, to events altogether unconformable, or, 



122 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

If you will, contrary to the present course of nature known to 
us by experience. I cannot conceive an hypothesis, which 
is not reducible to one or other of those above mentioned. 
Whoever imagines that another might be framed, which is 
not comprehended in any of those, and which has not as 
yet been devised by any system-builder ; let him make the 
experiment, and I will venture to prognosticate, that he will 
still find himself clogged with the same difficulty. The con 
clusion therefore above deduced maybe justly deemed, till the 
contrary is shown, to be not only the result of one, but alike 
of every hypothesis, of which the subject is susceptible. 

THUS it has been evinced, as was proposed, that, abstract 
ing from the evidence for particular facts, we have irrefragable 
evidence that there have been, that there must have been, 
miracles in former times, or such events as, when compared 
with the present constitution of the world, would by Mr. 
Hume be denominated miraculous. 



SECTION VII. 

Revisal of Mr. Hume s Examination of the Pentateuch. 

ALLOWING to the conclusion deduced in the foregoing 
section its proper weight, I shall also take into consideration 
the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses ; or rather I shall 
endeavour impartially to revise the examination which those 
books have already undergone by the Essayist.* It is, in 
this case, of the greatest importance to know, whether the 
evidence on both sides has been fairly stated. 

" Here then we are first to consider a book," which is 
acknowledged, on all hands, to be the most ancient record in 
the world, " presented to us," we admit, "by a barbarous 
and ignorant people,"f at the same time exhibiting a system 

* Page 205. 

t The author adds, " wrote in an age when they were still more barbarous." 
These words I have omitted in the revisal, because they appear to me unintel 
ligible. The age iu which the Pentateuch was written, is indirectly compared 



FULLY ATTESTED. 123 

of Theism, or natural religion, which is both rational and 
sublime ; with which nothing that was ever compiled or pro 
duced on this subject, in the most enlightened ages, by the 
most learned and polished nations, who were unacquainted 
with that book, will bear to be compared. 

Mr. Hume himself must allow that this remark deserves 
attention, since his reasoning in another performance, which 
he calls The Natural History of Religion, would lead us to ex 
pect the contrary. He there maintains that Polytheism and 
Idolatry are, and must be the religion of rude and barbarous, 
and consequently of ancient ages ; that the true principles of 
Theism, or the belief of one almighty and wise Being, the 
creator, the preserver, and the ruler of heaven and earth, re 
sults from the greatest improvements of the understanding in 
philosophy and science. To suppose the contrary, says he, 
is supposing, that " while men were ignorant and barbarous, 
they discovered truth ; but fell into error, as soon as they 
acquired learning and politeness."* This reasoning is just, 
wherever religion is to be considered as the result of human 
reflections. What account then will the author give of this 
wonderful exception ? That the reverse is here the case, it is 
impossible for him to dissemble. The people he himself calls 
ignorant and barbarous ; yet they are not idolaters or poly- 
theists. At the time when the book which he examines was 
composed, he seems to think, they even exceeded themselves 
in barbarity ; yet the sentiments of these barbarians, on the 
subject of religion, the sentiments which that very book pre 
sents to us, may well put to silence the wisdom of the politest 
nations on the earth. Need I remind Mr. Hume of his ex 
press declaration, that if a traveller were transported into any 
unknown region, and found the inhabitants " ignorant and 
barbarous, he might beforehand declare them idolaters, and 
there is scarce a POSSIBILITY of his being mistaken ?"f I 
know no satisfactory account that can be given of this excep 
tion on the principles of the Essayist : nevertheless, nothing 
is more easy than to give a satisfactory account of it, on the 

to another age, he says not what : and all we can make of it is, that this people were 
more barbarous at that time than at some other time, nobody knows when. 
* Natural History of Religion, I. t Ibid. 



THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

Christian principles. This account is that which is given by 
the book itself. It is, that the religious tenets of that nation 
were not the result of their reasonings, but proceeded from 
divine revelation. The contrast we discern betwixt the IS 
RAELITES and the ancient GREEKS and ROMANS is remark 
able. The GREEKS and ROMANS, on all the subjects of 
human erudition, on all the liberal and the useful arts, 
reasoned like men; on the subject of religion, they prated 
like children. The ISRAELITES, on the contrary, in all the 
sciences and arts, were children ; but, in their notions of re 
ligion, they were men in the doctrines, for example, of the 
unity, the eternity, the omnipotence, the omniscience, the 
omnipresence, the wisdom, and the goodness of God; in 
their opinions concerning providence, and the creation, 
preservation, and government of the world ; opinions so ex 
alted and comprehensive, as, even by the author s acknow 
ledgment, could never enter into the thoughts of barbarians. 

But to proceed in the revisal : We have here a book, says 
the Essayist, " wrote in all probability long after the facts it 
relates." That this book was written long after some of the 
facts it relates, is not indeed denied ; that it was written long 
after all, or even most of those facts, I see no reason to be 
lieve. If Mr. Hume meant to signify, by the expression 
quoted, that this was in all probability the case, why did he 
not produce the grounds on which the probability is founded ? 
Shall a bold assertion pass for argument ? or can it be ex 
pected, that any one should consider reasons, which are only 
in general supposed but not specified ? 

He adds, " corroborated by no concurring testimony ;" as 
little, say I, invalidated by any contradicting testimony ; and 
both for this plain reason, because there is no human compo 
sition that can be compared with this in respect of antiquity. 
But though this book is not corroborated by the concurrent 
testimony of any coeval histories, because, if there ever were 
such histories, they are not now extant ; it is not therefore 
destitute of all collateral evidence. The following examples 
of this kind of evidence deserve some notice. The division of 
time into weeks, which has obtained in many countries, for 
instance among the Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, and north- 



FULLY ATTESTED. 125 

ern barbarians ; nations whereof some had little or no inter 
course with others, and were not even known by name to the 
Hebrews :* the tradition which in several places prevailed 
concerning the primeval chaos from which the world arose ; 
the production of all living creatures out of water and earth 
by the efficiency of a Supreme Mind ; f the formation of man 

* The judicious reader will observe, that there is a great difference between the 
concurrence of nations in the division of time into weeks, and their concurrence in the 
other periodical divisions, into years, months, and days. These divisions arise from 
such natural causes as are every where obvious ; the annual and diurnal revolutions 
of the sun, and the revolution of the moon. The division into iveeks, on the con 
trary, seems perfectly arbitrary : consequently, its prevailing in distant countries, 
among nations which had no communication with one another, affords a strong pre 
sumption, that it must have been derived from some tradition (as that of the creation) 
which has been older than the dispersion of mankind into different regions. It is easy 
to conceive, that the practice, in rude and barbarous ages, might remain through 
habit, when the tradition on which it was founded was entirely lost ; it is easy to 
conceive, that afterwards, people addicted to idolatry, or who, like the Egyptians, had 
become proficients in astronomy, should assign to the different days of the week the 
names of their deities or of the planets. 

f This in particular merits our attention the more, that it cannot, by any explica 
tion, be made to agree with the doctrine which obtained among the Pagans, commonly 
called ilia mythology. Ovid is so sensible of this, that, when he mentions a deity as 
the efficient cause of the creation, he leaves him, as it were, detached from those of tho 
popular system which it was his business as a poet to deliver, being at a loss what 
name to give him, or what place in nature to assign him : Quisquis fuit ille deoruin ; 
tvhichever oftlie gods it was. He well knew, that, in all the catalogue of their divini 
ties, the god who made the world was not to be found ; that these divinities them 
selves were, on the contrary, produced out of the chaos, as well as men and beasts. 
Mr. Hume, in his Natural History of Religion, IV. remarks this conduct in Ovid, 
and ascribes it to his having lived in a learned age, and having been instructed by 
philosophers in the principle of a divine formation of the world. For my part, I 
very much question whether any nation was ever yet indebted for this principle to 
the disquisitions of philosophers. Had this opinion never been heard of till the 
Augustan age, it might indeed have been suspected that it was the daughter of phi 
losophy and science ; but so far is this from being the case, that some vestiges of it 
may be traced even in the earliest and most ignorant times. Thales the Milesian, 
who lived many centuries before Ovid, had, as Cicero in his first book, De natura 
deorum, informs us, attributed the origin of all things to God. Anaxagoras had also 
denominated the forming principle, which severed the elements, created the world, 
and brought order out of confusion, intelligence, or mind. It is therefore much more 
probable, that these ancients owed this doctrine to a tradition handed down from the 
earliest ages, which even all the absurdities of the theology they had embraced had 
not been able totally to erase, though these absurdities could never be made to 
coalesce with this doctrine. At the same time I acknowledge, that there is some 
thing so noble and so rational in the principle, Tliat the world ivas produced by 
an intelligent came, that sound philosophy will ever be ready to adopt, it, when 



THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

last of all, in the image of God, and his being vested with 
dominion over the other animals ; the primitive state of inno 
cence and happiness ; the subsequent degeneracy of mankind ; 
their destruction by a flood ; and the preservation of one 
family in a vessel. Nay, which is still stronger, I might plead 
the vestiges of some such catastrophe as the deluge, which 
the shells and other marine bodies that are daily dug out of 
the bowels of the earth, in places remote from the sea, do 
clearly exhibit to us : I might urge the traces, which still re 
main in ancient histories, of the migration of people and of 
science from Asia (which has not improperly been styled the 
cradle of the arts) into many parts both of Africa and Europe : 
I might plead the coincidence of those migrations, and of 
the origin of states and kingdoms, with the time of the dis 
persion of the posterity of Noah. 

once it is proposed. But that this opinion is not the offspring of philosophy, may 
be reasonably deduced from this consideration also, that they were not the most 
enlightened or philosophic nations amongst whom it was maintained in greatest 
purity. I speak not of the Hebrews. Even the Parthians, Medes, and Persians, 
whom the Greeks considered as barbarians, were genuine theists ; and, notwith 
standing many superstitious practices which prevailed among them, they held the 
belief of one eternal God, the Creator and the Lord of the universe. If this principle 
is to be derived from the utmost improvement of the mind in ratiocination and sci 
ence, which is Mr. Hume s hypothesis, the phenomenon just now observed is unac 
countable. If, on the contrary, it is to be derived originally from revelation, pre 
served by tradition through successive generations, nothing can more easily, be ac 
counted for. Traditions are always longest retained, and most purely transmitted, in 
or near the place were they were first received, and amongst a people who possess 
strong attachment to their ancient laws and customs. Migrations into distant coun 
tries, mixture of different nations, revolutions in government and manners, yea, and 
ingenuity itself, all contribute to corrupt tradition, and do sometimes wholly efface it. 
This I take to be the only admissible account, why so rational and philosophical a prin 
ciple prevailed most in ages and countries in which reason and philosophy seemed to be 
but in their infancy. The notion, that the Greeks borrowed their opinions on this 
subject from the books of Moses, a notion for which some Jewish writers, some 
Christian fathers, and even some moderns have warmly contended, appears void of all 
foundation. These opinions in Greece, as has been observed, were of a very early 
date ; whereas that there existed such a people as the Jews, seemed scarcely to have 
been known there till about the time of the Macedonian conquests. No sooner 
were they known than they were hated, and their laws and customs universally 
despised. Nor is there the shadow of reason to think, that the Greeks knew any 
thing of the sacred writings till a considerable time afterwards, when that version 
of them was made into their language, which is called T7ie. translation of ih& 
Seventy, 



FULLY ATTESTED. 127 

But to return: the author subjoins "resembling those 
fabulous accounts which every nation gives of its origin." It 
is unluckily the fate of holy writ with this author, that both 
its resemblance, and its want of resemblance, to the accounts 
of other authors, are alike presumptions against it. He has 
not indeed told us wherein it resembles fabulous accounts : 
and, for my part, though the charge were just, I should ima 
gine little or nothing to the disadvantage of the Pentateuch 
could be deduced from it. It is universally agreed among the 
learned, that even the most absurd fables of idolaters derive 
tjheir origin from facts, which having been, in barbarous ages, 
transmitted only by oral tradition, have come at length to be 
grossly corrupted and disfigured. It is nevertheless probable, 
that such fictions would still retain some striking features of 
those truths from which they sprang. And if the books of 
Moses resemble, in any thing, the fabulous accounts of other 
nations, it would not perhaps be difficult to prove, that they 
resemble only whatever is least fabulous in these accounts. 
That this will be found to be the case, we may reasonably 
presume, even from what has been observed already ; and, if 
so, the resemblance, so far from being an argument against 
those books, is evidently an argument in their favour. In 
order to remove any doubt that may remain on this head, it 
ought to be attended to, that, in a number of concurrent tes 
timonies, (where there could have been no previous concert), 
there is a probability independent of that which results from 
our faith in the witnesses ; nay, should the witnesses be of 
such a character as to merit no faith at all. This probability 
arises from the concurrence itself. That such a concurrence 
should spring from chance, is as one to infinite, in other 
words, morally impossible : if therefore concert be excluded, 
there remains no other cause but the reality of the fact. 

It is true, that " upon reading this book, we find it full of 
prodigies and miracles ;" but it is also true, that many of 
those miracles are such as the subject it treats of must un 
avoidably make us expect. For a proof of this position, I 
need but refer the reader to the principles established in the 
preceding section. No book in the world do we find written 



128 



THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 



in a more simple style : nowhere does there appear in it the 
least affectation of ornament ; yet nowhere else is the Al 
mighty represented, as either acting or speaking in a man 
ner so becoming the eternal ruler of the world. Compare 
the account of the CREATION which is given by Moses, with 
the ravings of Sanchoniatho, the Phenician philosopher, 
which he has dignified with the title of COSMOGONY ; or 
compare it with the childish extravagances of the Greek 
and the Latin poets, so justly likened by the author to a sick 
man s dreams ;* and then say, whether any person of can 
dour and discernment will not be disposed to exclaim, in 
the words of the prophet, What is the CHAFF to the WHEAT ? 
Jer. xxiii. 28. The account is what we should call, in re 
ference to our experience, miraculous : but was it possible 
it should be otherwise ? I believe the greatest infidel will 
not deny, that it is at least as plausible an opinion that the 
world had a beginning, as that it had not. If it had, can 
it be imagined by any man in his senses, that that particular 
quality should be an objection to the narrative, which he 
previously knows it must have ? Must not the first produc 
tion of things, the original formation of animals and vege 
tables, require exertions of power, which, in preservation 
and propagation, can never be exemplified ? 

It will perhaps be objected, That if the miracles continued 
no longer, and extended no further, than the necessity of 
creation required, this reasoning would be just ; but that in 
fact they both continued much longer, and extended much 
further. The answer is obvious : it is impossible for us to 
judge, how far the necessity of the case required. Imme 
diately after the creation, things must have been in a state 
very different from that which they are in at present. How 
long that state might continue, we have not the means of dis 
covering : but as, in human infancy, it is necessary that the 
feeble creature should for some time be carried in the nurse s 
arms, and afterwards, by the help of leading-strings, be kept 
from falling, before he acquire strength to walk ; it is not 
unlikely that, in the infancy of the world, such interpositions 

* Natural History of Religion, XV. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 129 

should be more frequent and requisite, till nature, attaining 
a certain maturity, those laws and that constitution should 
be established which we now experience. It will greatly 
strengthen this conclusion, to reflect, that in every species of 
natural productions with which we are acquainted, we inva 
riably observe a similar feebleness in the individuals on their 
first appearance, and a similar gradation towards a state of 
greater perfection and stability. Besides, if we acknowledge 
the necessity of the exertion of a power, which in reference 
only to our experience is called miraculous, the question, as 
is well observed by the judicious prelate formerly quoted,* 
" whether this power stopped immediately after it had made 
man, or went on and exerted itself farther, is a question of 
the same kind as, whether an ordinary power exerted itself in 
such a particular degree and manner, or not." It cannot, 
therefore, if we think reasonably on this subject, greatly 
astonish us, that such a book should give " an account of a 
state of the world, and of human nature, entirely different 
from the present ; of our fall from that state ; of the age of 
man extended to near a thousand years ; and of the destruc 
tion of the world by a deluge." 

FINALLY, if in such a book, mingled with the excellences 
I have remarked, there should appear some difficulties, some 
things for which we are not able to account; for instance, 
" the arbitrary choice of one people as the favourites of 
Heaven; and their deliverance from bondage by prodigies 
the most astonishing imaginable;" is there any thing more 
extraordinary here, than, in a composition of this nature, we 
might have previously expected to find ? We must be im 
moderately conceited of our own understandings, if we 
imagine otherwise. Those favourites of Heaven, it must be 
likewise owned, are the countrymen of the writer ; but of 
such a writer as, of all historians or annalists, ancient or 
modern, shows the least disposition to flatter his countrymen. 
Where, I pray, do we find him either celebrating their vir 
tues, or palliating their vices ; either extolling their genius, 
or magnifying their exploits ? Add to all these, that, in every 

* Analogy of Religion, &c. Part II. chap. ii. sect. 2. 



130 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL 

tiling which is not expressly ascribed to the interposal of 
Heaven, the relation is in itself plausible, the incidents are 
natural, the characters and manners such as are admirably 
adapted to those early ages of the world. In these particu 
lars there is no affectation of the marvellous ; there are no 
" descriptions of sea and land monsters ; no relations of won 
derful adventures, strange men and uncouth manners."* 

When all these things are seriously attended to, I persuade 
myself that no unprejudiced person will think that the Pen 
tateuch bears falsehood on the face of it, and deserves to be 
rejected without examination. On the contrary, every un 
prejudiced person will find (I say not, that its falsehood 
would be more miraculous than all the miracles it relates ; 
this is a language which I do not understand, and which only 
serves to darken a plain question ; but I say, he will find) 
very many and very strong indications of authenticity and 
truth ; and will conclude, that all the evidences, both intrinsic 
and extrinsic, by which it is supported, ought to be impar 
tially canvassed. Abundant evidences there are of both 
kinds : some hints of them have been given in this section ; 
but to consider them fully, falls not within the limits of my 
present purpose. 

* Page 185. 



FULLY ATTESTED. 131 

CONCLUSION. 

WHAT is the sum of all that hath been now discussed ? It 
is briefly this : That the author s favourite argument, of which 
he boasts the discovery, is founded in error,* is managed with 
, sophistry,^ and is at last abandoned by its inventor,^, as Jit 
only for show, not for use: that he is not more successful in the 
collateral arguments he employs; particularly, that there is no 
peculiar presumption against religious miracles ;\\ that on the 
contrary, there is a peculiar presumption in their favour ; 
that the general maxim, whereby he would enable us- to decide 
betwixt opposite miracles, when it is stript of the pompous 
diction that serves at once for decoration and for disguise, is 
discovered to be no other than an identical proposition, which, 
as it conveys no knowledge, can be of no service to the cause of 
truth /If that there is no presumption, arising either from hu 
man nature,** or from the history of mankind,^ against the 
miracles said to have been wrought in proof of Christianity ; 
that the evidence of these is not subverted by those miracles 
which historians of other religions have recorded;^ that 
neither the Pagan t \\ \\ nor the Popish^ miracles, on which 
he hath expatiated, will bear to be compared with those of holy 
writ ; that, abstracting from the evidence of particular facts, 
we have irrefragable evidence that there have been miracles 
in former times j^ffi and, lastly, that his examination of the 
Pentateuch is both partial and imperfect, and consequently 
stands in need of a revisal.*** 

" OUR most holy religion," says the author in the conclu 
sion of his Essay, " is founded on faith, not on reason ; and 
it is a sure method of exposing it, to put it to such a trial as 
it is by no means fitted to endure." If, by our most holy re 
ligion, we are to understand the fundamental articles of the 
Christian system, these have their foundation in the nature 



Sect. 4. 
5 Sect. 5. 



* Part I. sect. 1. 


f Sect. 2. 


J Sect. 3. 


Sect. 5. 


1 Sect. 6. 


** Part II. sect. 1. 


ft Sect 2. 


Jt Sect. 3. 


II || Sect. 4. 


Till Sect. 6. 


*** Sect. 7. 






I 





132 CONCLUSION. 

and decrees of God ; and, as they are antecedent to our faith 
or reasonings, they must be also independent of both. If 
they be true, our disbelief can never make them false ; if they 
be false, the belief of all the world will never make them true. 
But as the only question between Mr. Hume and the defen 
ders of the gospel is, Whether there be reason to believe 
* those articles ? By our most holy religion he can mean only 
our belief of the Christian doctrine : and concerning this 
belief we are told, that it is founded on faith, not on reason ; 
that is, our faith is founded on our faith ; in other words, it 
has no foundation, it is a mere chimera, the creature of a 
distempered brain. I say not, on the contrary, that our most 
holy religion is founded on reason, because this expression, in 
my opinion, is both ambiguous and inaccurate ; but I say, that 
we have sufficient reason for the belief of our religion; or, to 
express myself in the words of an apostle, that the Christian, 
if it is not his own fault, may be ready always to give an an 
swer to every man that asketh him a REASON of his hope. 

So far therefore am I from being afraid of exposing Chris 
tianity, by submitting it to the test of reason ; so far am I 
from judging this a trial which it is by no means fitted to 
endure, that I think, on the contrary, the most violent attacks 
that have been made upon the faith of Jesus, have been of 
service to it. Yes ; I do not hesitate to affirm, that our reli 
gion has been indebted to the attempts, though not to the in 
tentions, of its bitterest enemies. They have tried its strength 
indeed, and, by trying, they have displayed its strength ; and 
that in so clear a light, as we could never have hoped, with 
out such a trial, to have viewed it in. Let them therefore 
write, let them argue, and, when arguments fail, even let them 
cavil against religion as much as they please ; I should be 
heartily sorry, that ever in this island, the asylum of liberty, 
where the spirit of Christianity is better understood (however 
defective the inhabitants are in the observance of its precepts) 
than in any other part of the Christian world ; I should, I say, 
be sorry, that in this island so great a disservice were done 
to religion, as to check its adversaries in any other way than 
by returning a candid answer to their objections. I must 
at the same time acknowledge, that I am both ashamed and 



CONCLUSION. 133 

grieved, when I observe any friends of religion betray so 
great a diffidence in the goodness of their cause, (for to this 
diffidence alone it can be imputed), as to show an inclination 
for recurring to more forcible methods. The assaults of in 
fidels, I may venture to prophesy, will never overturn our 
religion. They will prove not more hurtful to the Christian 
system, if it be allowed to compare small things with the great 
est, than the boisterous winds are said to prove to the sturdy 
oak. They shake it impetuously for a time, and loudly 
threaten its subversion ; whilst, in effect, they only serve to 
make it strike its roots the deeper, and stand the firmer ever 
after. 

One word more with the Essayist, and I have done. 
" Upon the whole," says he, " we may conclude, that the 
Christian religion not only was at first attended with mi 
racles, but, even at this day, cannot be believed by any rea 
sonable person without one. Mere reason is insufficient to 
convince us of its veracity ; and whoever is moved by faith 
to assent to it ;" that is, whoever by his belief is induced to 
believe it, " is conscious of a continued miracle in his own 
person, which subverts all the principles of his understand 
ing, and gives him a determination to believe what is most 
contrary to custom and experience." An author is never so 
sure of writing unanswerably, as when he writes altogether 
unintelligibly. It is impossible that you should fight your 
enemy before you find him ; and if he hath screened himself 
in darkness, it is next to impossible that you should find him. 
Indeed, if any meaning can be gathered from that strange 
assemblage of words just now quoted, it seems to be one or 
other of these which follow : either, That there are not any in 
the world who believe the gospel ; or, That there is no want 
of miracles in our own time. How either of these remarks, 
if just, can contribute to the author s purpose, it will not, I 
suspect, be easy-fc> discover. If the second remark be true, 
if there be no want of miracles at present, surely experience 
cannot be pleaded against the belief of miracles said to have 
been performed in time past. Again, if the first remark be 
true, if there be not any in the world who believe the gospel, 
because, as Mr. Hume supposes, a miracle cannot be believed 

i 2 



134 CONCLUSION. 

without a new miracle, why all this ado to refute opinions 
which nobody entertains ? Certainly, to use his own words, 
" The knights-errant who wandered about to clear the world 
of dragons and giants, never entertained the least doubt con 
cerning the existence of these monsters." * 

Might I presume faintly to copy but the manner of so 
inimitable an original, as the author has exhibited in his con 
cluding words, I should also conclude upon the whole, That 
miracles are capable of proof from testimony, and that there 
is a full proof of this kind for those said to have been wrought 
in support of Christianity : That whoever is moved, by Mr. 
Hume s ingenious argument, to assert, that no testimony can 
give sufficient evidence of miracles, admits for reason, though 
perhaps unconsciously, a mere subtilty, which subverts the 
evidence of testimony, of history, and even of experience it 
self, giving him a determination to deny, what the common 
sense of mankind, founded in the primary principles of the 
understanding, would lead him to believe. 

* See the first paragraph of Essay XII. Of the Academical or Sceptical Philosophy. 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL A SPIRIT NEITHER OF 
SUPERSTITION NOR OF ENTHUSIASM: 



SERMON, 

PREACHED 

BEFORE THE SYNOD OF ABERDEEN, 

APRIL 9, 1771. 



SERMON I. 



2 TIM. i. 7. 

God hath not given us the spirit of fear ; but of potver, and 
of love, and of a sound mind. 

THERE are two ways in which we may be profitably employ 
ed, in considering at large the religious institution of our 
Lord Jesus Christ. Our inquiries may be directed either to 
the proofs by which it is supported, or to the spirit which 
it breathes. In the former, by the discovery of the truth of 
our religion, it is rendered the object of our faith ; in the 
latter, by the contemplation of its beauty, it becomes more 
immediately the object of our love. 

I say, more immediately ; because, though this is the di 
rect, it is not the only consequence of such a contemplation. 
As Christianity claims to be of heavenly extraction, it is rea 
sonable to expect that it should bear some resemblance to the 
original from which it springs. The lineaments of goodness 
and wisdom, of majesty and grace, may be justly looked for 
in the offspring of the Father in heaven, who is unerringly 
wise, and infinitely good, the source and the standard of all 
excellence : And if these lineaments be discovered, they are 
no inconsiderable evidence of the justice of the claim. Be 
tween the child and the parent, there will sometimes be found 
so striking a likeness, as will be sufficient to convey, to a dis 
cerning spectator, a stronger conviction of the relation subsist 
ing between them, than could be effected by any other kind 
of proof. Whatever therefore tends to exhibit our religion, 
as amiable, is, in fact, an intrinsic evidence of its truth ; and 
consequently tends as really, though not so directly, to ren 
der it credible, as arguments deduced from prophecy or mi 
racles. Add to this, that the attacks of infidels are as often 
levelled against the internal character, as against the external 



138 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

evidence of revelation. The vindication of the first is there 
fore as necessary for subverting the cause of infidelity, as the 
illustration of the second. 

Besides, it is not barely by being believed, (though that is 
a most important point,) that religion produces its effect on 
the mind. The devils believe, and tremble, James ii. 19. Their 
faith, so far from conducing to their happiness, becomes an 
instrument of their misery. They hate the doctrine which 
they cannot avoid believing. We must possess the love as 
well as the belief of the truth, if we would be saved by it ; 
2 Thess. ii. 10. For this reason it is assigned as the grand cri 
terion of that faith which is available in God s account, that 
it is SL faith which worketh by love, Gal. v. 6. Every other 
criterion is but the result of this. It is solely in consequence 
of this that it sanctifieth, John xvii. 17, 19, purifying the 
heart, Acts xv. 9, and giving the mind a victory over the 
world, 1 John v. 4. 

It also merits our attention, that where love is wanting, it 
cannot be expected that belief should be durable. Religion 
is an object that can scarcely be viewed by any human crea 
ture with indifference. If it fail to kindle affection in the 
soul, it will not fail to awaken dread, which commonly asso 
ciates with aversion. Now it is the general bent of our na 
ture to disbelieve what we dislike. How easy is the task of 
the declaimer or the witling, when he is employed in decrying 
or ridiculing tenets which his hearers wish to be false ? The 
apostle Paul acquaints us, that the lying wonders, and other 
deceitful arts to be practised by the man of sin, in seducing 
the disciples of Christ, would prove successful only among 
those who harbour not the love of the truth, 2 Thess. ii. 10. 

If therefore the religion of Jesus, on such an examination 
of its spirit as we now propose, shall appear to be altogether 
lovely, we have ground to hope, that, with the blessing of 
God, our faith itself will be strengthened, our love, that ani 
mating principle of obedience, Rom. xiii. 10, without which 
faith is unprofitable and dead, James ii. 14, 17, will be in 
flamed, and our perseverance more effectually secured. 

Nor will it, I hope, be thought by any, that the subject is 
unsuitable either to the occasion or to the audience. It would 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 139 

be difficult to imagine an occasion, on which the spirit of the 
gospel would be an improper topic for a sermon ; and as to 
the audience, I have too high a respect for my fathers and 
brethren present, not to be persuaded that they are as deeply 
sensible as I myself am, that we all stand in need of the same 
means and assistances, for producing, advancing, and secur 
ing our faith, love, and perseverance, that even the meanest 
of our hearers stands in need of. And if the same helps are 
equally necessary to us on our own account, they are of more 
importance on the account of others. To us the ministry of 
reconciliation is intrusted, 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. As Christian 
pastors, we are honoured to be the ordinary instruments of 
conveying the knowledge and the temper of religion to the 
people. That we may reflect light on others, we must our 
selves be previously enlightened : that we may be fitted for 
infusing into the hearts of our hearers the spirit of the gospel, 
we need first to experience its influence on our own. In order 
then to prove successful helpers of the faith and joy of our 
fellow Christians, as by our office we are bound to be, (Rom. 
x. 17 ; 2 Cor. i. 25,) one useful expedient doubtless is, to 
prove faithful assistants and monitors to one another. The 
sketch that I propose to give, considering the dignity of the 
subject, must, I know, have many imperfections. But I will 
not injure my Reverend auditors by an apology; or once 
suppose, that what I have to offer on such a subject will not 
be heard with patience, and weighed with candour. 

The words of Paul to Timothy, now read in your hearing, 
shall serve as the foundation of this discourse : God hat/mot 
given us the spirit of fear ; but ofpoiver, and of love, and of a 
sound mind. On this subject I propose, my brethren, with 
the assistance of Heaven, first, To premise a few things for 
ascertaining the import of the expressions used by the apos 
tle ; secondly, To inquire into the spirit of false religion, as 
here denominated the spirit of fear, and as standing in op 
position to the character given of the true ; thirdly, To in 
quire into the spirit of true religion, here styled the spirit of 
power, and of love, and of a sound mind : showing, as I pro 
ceed, that with the greatest justice this character is ascribed 



140 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

to the religion of Christ ; and to conclude with some reflec 
tions. 

I. IN the first place, I premise a few things in order to 
ascertain the meaning of the apostle s words, particularly of 
the term spirit, as used in my text. 

Is it necessary to observe, that by the spirit is often meant 
in the New Testament the Holy Ghost, the third of the sacred 
Three in whose name we are by baptism initiated into the 
Christian communion ; and that when any of the disciples of 
Jesus are said in Scripture to receive the Spirit, it is always 
meant, that, by the operation of that divine Person on their 
minds, they obtain either the more ordinary graces of faith, 
hope, and charity, which are essential to the Christian life ; 
or the more extraordinary, the power of working miracles, of 
prophecy, of speaking strange languages, and other such-like ? 
These gifts the wisdom of God thought fit to bestow in the 
early times of Christianity, that by means of such incontestable 
evidences of its divinity, its doctrine might be more quickly 
propagated in the world. But as they were intended solely 
for answering a particular and temporary purpose, they were 
but circumstantial and temporary. When once the end was 
effected, there was no further occasion for the means. Ac 
cordingly they have long since ceased in the church of Christ. 
Whereas the first mentioned, though more common in the 
dispensation, yet being of the essence of his religion, and 
therefore more excellent in their nature, must continue whilst 
he has followers on the earth. 

Some have thought, that by the words of my text the apos 
tle intended to signify the spiritual gifts last enumerated, the 
extraordinary and miraculous ; and it must be acknowledged, 
that the word power is often employed in Scripture to denote, 
by way of eminence, the power of working miracles. But that 
this is not the meaning of the term in the passage before us, 
will appear from the following considerations. First, The 
original word, in this verse rendered power, is also often used 
by this apostle to signify the virtues of self-government ; 1 Cor. 
iv. 19 ; Eph. iii. 16; Col. i. 11. Secondly, Power is here 
coupled with love, and with a sound mind ; two qualities 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 141 

which are never ranked among the miraculous gifts of the 
Holy Ghost. Thirdly, The spirit of power stands here in 
opposition to the spirit of fear, which manifestly denotes an 
habitual disposition or temper of soul. From all these it is 
abundantly evident, that, in this place, the inspired penman 
intended, if I may so express myself, to delineate the prin 
cipal features of the Christian character. Accordingly the 
word spirit may very reasonably be understood to denote a 
prevailing disposition of soul. This disposition he exhibits 
to us as the badge of our religious profession, as the gift of 
G od through Jesus Christ our Lord : God hath not given us, 
us the believers in Jesus, distinguished alike by this faith 
from Jews and Gentiles, the spirit of fear ; but he has given 
us the spirit of power , and of love, and of a sound mind. 

The same term is frequently, in the language of holy writ, 
and even in common language, employed to denote both cause 
and effect. Thus the luminary itself, and the rays issuing 
from it, we indiscriminately denominate light: And that in 
Scripture idiom the word spirit often signifies an habitual 
frame or temper, is undeniable. In this way it behoves us to 
understand these phrases, the spirit of meekness, the spirit of 
slumber, the spirit of jealousy, and many others, which fre 
quently occur in sacred writ. We are therefore to conceive 
the apostle as exhibiting here the outline of the Christian 
character, as describing in brief that temper of soul which 
the religion of Jesus is so admirably fitted to inspire into 
those who by faith receive it. This temper, this internal 
signature of genuine Christianity, I shall in the sequel, for 
distinction s sake, denominate the spirit of the gospel. It is 
the same which, in the New Testament, is sometimes called 
the spirit of Christ, and sometimes the spirit of adoption, or 
sonship; Rom. viii. 9, 15 ; Gal. iv. 6. 

Need I add, that by such expressions are not meant either 
the doctrines of our religion or its moral precepts, considered 
severally, its promises or its threatenings, its positive insti 
tutions, or the examples of virtue which it holds up to our 
imitation ; but that temper of mind which is the result of these, 
that character which all the branches of Christianity, each in 
the way suited to its particular nature, conspire to produce 



14/2 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

in the soul of the believer, or, which is the same thing, in 
that person on whom this religion has its proper influence. 
So much for ascertaining the import of the words. 

II. I proceed, as I proposed, in the second place, To in 
quire into the spirit of false religion, as here characterized a 
spirit of fear, and as standing in opposition to the character 
given of the true. 

It hath been long a common artifice of atheistical and in 
fidel authors, industriously to confound, in their writings, the 
words religion and superstition, as if they were synonymous. 
A few indeed of late, more refined in their notions on this 
subject than their predecessors, observing, that into the cha 
racter of religionists of different denominations, there entered 
very different, nay contrary principles, have nicely distin 
guished between these two kinds of false religion, superstition 
and enthusiasm; which, though in some respects opposite in 
their nature and tendency, agree in this, that each lays claim 
to the appellation of religion. Hence those writers have 
taken occasion to consider every thing that comes under this 
name, as a particular mode of one or other, or a certain 
combination of both. 

That there is a foundation in nature for the distinction 
which has been made between these extremes, is not to be 
denied ; but that religion, properly so called, though it has 
been often, through the ignorance and corruption of men, 
blended with these, is in its nature totally distinct from both, 
and participates of neither, I hope in the sequel fully to evince. 

For this purpose I am previously to consider the spirit of 
false religion. Its character may be learnt from my text, both 
from what is directly ascribed to it, and from what is insinuat 
ed concerning it. First, The apostle here ascribes to it, that 
it enfeebles and intimidates the soul. When Paul expressed 
himself in this manner, God hath not given us the spirit of 
fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind, it is ma 
nifest that he meant to mark the difference, in respect of its 
influence on the temper, to be found in that sublime doctrine 
which he taught, as well from every possible species of false 
religion, as from the Judaism that then obtained amongst his 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 143 

countrymen, and from the various forms of polytheism that 
prevailed in the rest of the world. 

Terror then, or unaccountable and unbounded fear, is one 
of the commonest, and at the same time one of the ugliest 
features in false religion. If I might be indulged a little in 
criticising on the apostle s expression, I would remark, that 
the original word, which in my text is rendered fear, occurs 
nowhere else in the New Testament.* It does not signify 
simply the passion of fear, or any particular exertion of that 
passion ; but it is one of those terms that are always em 
ployed in a bad sense, and serve to denote something vicious 
in the mental habit, which, uncontrolled by an enlightened 
conscience, fosters passion into disease. 

There is a fear that is reasonable and proper ; there is a 
fear that is unreasonable and weak. None of the appetites or 
affections belonging to human nature are evil of themselves. 
A little reflection will satisfy the attentive inquirer, that they 
are all admirably calculated to promote the welfare, both of 
the individual and of the species. But then it was the pur 
pose of heaven, we even read it in our frame, that all the in 
ferior powers of the soul should be informed by reason, and 
controlled by conscience. The evil then only takes place, 
when the passion, emancipating itself, and disdaining all re 
straint and control, is directed towards an improper object, 
or cherished in an undue degree. It is this which is in Scrip 
ture aptly styled inordinate affection. The passion of fear 
was implanted in our mind to rouse us on the approach of 
danger. The intention evidently was, that, when to avoid 
danger is both possible and lawful, we may be stimulated 
timely to avoid it ; and when otherwise, that we may be 
suitably prepared to encounter it. It is not in the want of 
fear, or a lively sense of danger, that true fortitude consists. 
On the contrary, were we destitute of the passion, we should 
be incapable of the virtue. No person would call it courage 
in an infant, or a blind man, to move with unconcern on the 
summit of a precipice. Their unconcern would arise, not 
from strength of mind, or any positive quality, but from a 



* The word is <5a\ia. Its conjugates, $a\0, and foiXtaw, occur sometimes in 
the New Testament, but always in a bad sense, 



144 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

defect, ignorance and blindness. It is not therefore in the 
extinction of fear that magnanimity consists. That man is, 
in the best sense of the word, magnanimous, in whom fear 
habitually waits the information of reason, and stoops to the 
command of duty. 

Nor is fear to be excluded altogether from the precincts of 
religion. If the supreme Lord of the universe ought to be 
considered as a lawgiver, there must be danger in violating 
his laws. To affirm that there is none, and that the observ 
ance and the transgression are alike in their consequences, is 
to annihilate the very notion of a law. It is giving and re 
fusing to God the character of lawgiver with the same breath. 
A soul then conscious of the violation, and yet not susceptible 
of the passion, would as manifestly labour under a defect, as 
the blind man or infant in the case supposed. One of the 
greatest motives to reformation and future vigilance, would 
in such a character be totally wanting. If a reverence for the 
laws of our country, and when one is tempted to transgress, 
a fear of incurring their sanction, be qualities essential in a 
good citizen, a reverence for the laws of our nature, and an 
awe of his.sentence who is the righteous Judge of the world, 
are no less essential in a good man. The fear of God, then, 
thus understood and qualified, is not only irreproachable, 
but even incumbent on creatures so constituted and so situ 
ated as we are, conscious of sin and frailty, and daily exposed 
to temptation. It is with reason, therefore, that it is so often 
inculcated in sacred writ. 

It is true, we are there informed, that perfect love casteth 
out fear, 1 John iv. 18. But it ought to be remembered, 
that perfect love also casteth out sin. For love, we are told, 
is the fulfilling of the law, Rom. xiii. 10; and the whole of 
the divine commandments are summed up by our Saviour in 
the love of God, and the love of our neighbour, Matt. xxii. 
35, &c. For this reason, fear, which implies an apprehen 
sion of danger, can never be incumbent on those who, like 
the holy angels, are in absolute security. Hence we discover 
what is the great foundation of religious fear in a rational 
being such as man. It is the consciousness of guilt, or moral 
evil, by violating the law of his nature, which is the law of 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 145 

God. And the reason that this fear is enjoined on men as a 
duty is, that it may serve the upright as a guard to their in 
tegrity, and the corrupt as a monitor to repentance. As from 
the former observation we discover the grounds of pious fear, 
from that now made we perceive its use and influence ; and, 
by means of both, we are enabled to distinguish it from all 
superstitious terrors whatsoever, and consequently from that 
spirit of timidity, which, by the apostle s account, is so far 
from being the spirit of the gospel, that it is a perfect con 
trast to it. 

The panics of superstition of ten arise unaccountably, at least 
from no adequate cause ; and always tend to what is insigni 
ficant, if not pernicious. The cause is often inadequate. An 
eclipse of the sun, or an uncommon appearance in the sky, has 
struck whole nations with amazement and terror. From the 
like blind apprehensions have sprung the absurd doctrine of 
omens, and the illusive arts, now justly exploded, of augury, 
astrology, and divination. Even when there is a real cause 
of fear, the effect often (if any thing on so serious a subject 
ought to excite laughter) we should call ridiculous. A late 
author observes, That " when the old Romans were attacked 
with a pestilence, they never ascribed their sufferings to their 
vices, or dreamed of repentance and amendment. They never 
thought that they were the general robbers of the world, 
whose ambition and avarice made desolate the earth, and re 
duced opulent nations to want and beggary. They only creat 
ed a dictator in order to drive a nail into a door, and by that 
means they thought that they had sufficiently appeased their 
incensed deity."* This is in the true genius of superstition. 
The fears of the people are alarmed by a general calamity : at 
once ignorant, timid, and credulous, they will admit any thing 
as the cause of their suffering, and will recur to any thing as 
an expedient for relieving them, which the knavery or the folly 
of those who have their confidence shall suggest. It is so far 
lucky when nothing more hurtful is suggested than the driv 
ing of a nail into a door. Sometimes this ignoble principle 
leads the infatuated worshippers to seek to propitiate their 
divinity by exercising cruelty on themselves. Thus it was the 

* Natural History of Religion, XIV. 



146 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

manner of Baal s prophets to cut themselves with knives and 
lancets, 1 Kings xviii. 28. Sometimes, which is worse, it leads 
them to exercise cruelty on others. From this baneful origin 
have arisen the most shocking and bloody tragedies that ever 
disgraced the annals of mankind. What crimes hath not su 
perstition sanctified in the eyes of her blinded votaries ! Hence 
human sacrifices and holy wars : hence perfidies and mas 
sacres : hence private assassinations and public persecutions. 
It must be confessed, that it has not been amongst idola 
trous nations only that this spirit has been found. We learn, 
from the complaints of the prophets, that it had great influence 
on the minds even of the chosen people. They had but too 
strong a propensity to imagine, that, for the most atrocious 
crimes, they could atone by numerous and costly victims. 
Nor did they immolate these, agreeably to the intention of 
their law, as symbolical expressions of gratitude or of peni 
tence, and as engagements to reformation ; but as a proper 
equivalent for benefits received, and satisfaction for sins com 
mitted, and consequently as a full discharge of all the debts 
they owed to divine justice. For this reason the prophet 
Asaph introduces Jehovah expostulating with them on the 
grossness and absurdity of their sentiments. They acted pre 
cisely as though they could enrich with their gifts the Lord 
of the universe, or supply a want in him, who, being all-suffi 
cient, stands in need of nothing. Tf I were hungry, saith God, 
/ would not tell tliee ; for the world is mine, and the fulness 
thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of 
goats? Psal. 1. 12, 13. He acquaints them, on the contrary, 
that as long as they continued insensible and impenitent, the 
very oblations they offered served but to aggravate their 
guilt. To the wicked, God saith, What hast thou to do to 
declare my statutes, or that thou shouldst take my covenant in 
thy mouth ? Psal. 1. 16. In the same spirit the prophet Isaiah 
assures the people, that it is in vain they recur to burnt-offer 
ings and the other solemnities of their worship, whilst ava 
rice, injustice, oppression, inhumanity, continued to prevail 
among them. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacri 
fices unto me ? saith the Lord. Who hath required this at 
your hand, to tread my courts ? Bring no more vain oblations, 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 147 

Isa. i. 11 13. To show, after all, that the prophet did not 
mean to drive them to despondency, but to call them to re 
pentance, he concludes, Put away the evil of your doings ; 
cease to do evil, learn to do well, relieve the oppressed, judge 
the fatherless, plead for the widow. Isa. i. 16, 17. 

I shall afterwards have occasion to observe, that many who 
have been more highly favoured than even Israel was, and more 
fully enlightened by the celestial beams of divine truth, have 
not escaped incurring the same imputation. But, alas ! my 
brethren, it is a just, though melancholy reflection, that it is 
not in the conduct or the dogmas of those who call themselves 
Christian, or, to adopt our Saviour s phrase, who say to him, 
Lord, Lord, (Matt. vii. 21,) that we are to look for the spirit 
of the gospel : but it is in what we learn from this sacred 
volume ; it is in the lives of Christ and his apostles ; it is in 
the doctrine they taught, the maxims they inculcated, the 
motives they urged, the institutions they established. 

From what has been said it follows, that there are two 
principal characteristics of the dread infused by superstition, 
that clearly distinguish it from that reverential fear which 
true religion demands of us. The first is in the cause ; igno 
rance, or rather misapprehensions of God, and a perversion 
of the sense of right and wrong : the second is in the effect ; 
something frivolous at best, often flagitious. In either case, 
even in that which to a superficial view may appear quite 
harmless, the tendency is plainly to lull the conscience, and 
give security in sin. The spirit of superstition is in Scripture 
very properly termed a spirit of bondage, Rom. viii. 15. 
Through this medium, the Divine Being appears to the wor 
shippers as a capricious and tyrannical master to his wretched 
slaves. They will not say so ; perhaps they will not believe 
that they think so : But their latent sentiments belie their 
professions, and evince, that when they use a different lan 
guage, they but flatter him with their tongue. If it is true 
of the love which animates the perfect, that it excludes fear, 
it is equally true of the fear which awes the superstitious, 
that it excludes love. For this reason it has been justly ob 
served of superstition, that whatever be the outward appearance 
it assumes, there is always more or less of demonism at bottom. 



148 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

Diametrically opposite in both respects, in cause and effect, 
is the fear of the religious. It is founded in a veneration of 
the perfections and moral government of God, in a sense of 
human frailty and depravity. Its tendency is, to produce vi 
gilance for the preservation and improvement of whatever is 
praiseworthy in the character, and for the reformation of 
whatever is amiss. That the superstitious should be misled 
by the same errors and grossness of imagination in fixing on 
the remedy, that they were misled by in accounting for the 
cause of the horrors raised in their minds, is by no means to 
be wondered at ; but that any person of discernment should 
not perceive, or any person of impartiality should not acknow 
ledge, the difference in this respect between the spirit of re 
ligion and the spirit of superstition, is indeed wonderful. An 
atheist, who admits the distinction between moral good and 
ill, (and this he may admit as well as the distinction between 
beauty and deformity,) must be sensible of the difference now 
pointed out : he must be sensible, that the aspect of the de 
mon Superstition is not more malignant, than that of the 
cherub Religion is friendly to society. 

But it is not by this horrid feature only that false religion 
is distinguished from the true. The apostle, by contrasting 
it with the spirit of power, and of love, and of a sound mind, 
suggests to us, that in the counterfeit there is always weak 
ness in conjunction often with malevolence, and sometimes 
even with a species of insanity. 

From what has been said it is evident, that the terrors of 
superstition imply weakness or imbecility of mind : as they 
arise from ignorance of God, and of one s self, a vitiated un 
derstanding, frequently accompanied with a perverted con 
science. But the same cause produces different effects on the 
temper, as it happens to be differently allied. In the appre 
hensive and timorous, the effect is Superstition ; in the arro 
gant and daring, it is Enthusiasm. Ignorance is the mother 
of both by different fathers. The second she had by Pre 
sumption ; the first by Fear. Hence that wonderful mixture 
of contrariety and resemblance in the characters of the chil-- 
dren. There have been times, and there are places, in which 
some of the priesthood have maintained that ignorance is the 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 149 

mother of devotion. Have not such unwarily betrayed, by 
this adage, to what family their devotion belongs ? Can it 
be related to that religion wherein the knowledge of God is 
of more account than burnt-offerings? Hos. vi. 6. We must 
own indeed, that its affinity to that worship which Pagan 
Athens anciently paid to the unknown God, Acts xvii. 23, 
cannot reasonably be disputed. 

Further, it was remarked, that a degree of malevolence 
often enters into the composition of false religion. It is 
natural to suppose, that the temper of the adorers will take 
a tincture from the character they ascribe to the divinity they 
adore. The more powerful and the more perfect in other 
respects he is conceived to be, the greater is the influence 
which the moral dispositions they attribute to him will have 
upon their own. Nor are we to judge of those dispositions 
by the terms in which the devotees speak of their deity, but 
by the actions and conduct which they impute to him, and 
by the sentiments wherewith they themselves are affected. 
As it has been observed of false religion, that it is founded 
011 injurious apprehensions of the divine nature ; so in super 
stition, particularly where the terrible predominates, these 
must imply a considerable share of malignity. And it merits 
our attention, that, in this respect, the errors of those who 
maintain the unity of the Godhead, are more pernicious than 
even the absurdities of poly theists, in that they have a greater 
influence on the temper of the votaries. With the latter, 
the character of the gods, like human characters, are avow 
edly a mixture of good qualities and of bad ; with the former, 
the deity, in whatever colours they actually paint him, must 
still be celebrated as the pattern of excellence. Conse 
quently, to be similarly affected with him, to hate those 
whom they suppose his enemies, and whom he hates, will be 
regarded by the worshippers even as a duty; and a duty so 
much the more meritorious, the stronger their obligations 
are, on other accounts, to love them. And from hating to 
exterminating, when that is practicable, the transition, as 
fatal experience has shown, is not difficult. 

But however different in some respects the character of the 
enthusiast is supposed to be, there will be found, on exami- 



150 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

nation, a stronger likeness in this very article than could at 
first be imagined. Nothing indeed can be more opposite 
than hope and fear, presumption and timidity; yet nothing 
can be more like than some of the consequences of these upon 
society. The fanatic considers himself as Heaven s favourite ; 
and believes this to be either his peculiar prerogative, or, at 
least, a privilege he enjoys in common with a few. Hence a 
contempt of the far greater part of his species. And as those 
of this stamp are ever ready to canonize their own wildest 
reveries as divine illuminations, and to consider their own 
decisions as the oracles of God ; on finding that they are not 
implicitly received as such by others, their pride instantly 
takes the alarm. And what shall serve to restrain its fury, 
when conscience and religion, the natural checks of passion, 
are corrupted and silenced ? nay, which is worse, when false 
religion, and a misinformed conscience, are made to declare 
in its favour ? Opposition then is branded with the name of 
impiety, and contradiction with that of blasphemy. Their 
own revenge, on the contrary, they dignify with the title of 
zeal; and malice against the person of an antagonist, they 
call love to his soul. 

As to the last criterion mentioned, which stands opposed 
to a sound mind, it but too manifestly results, both in the 
superstitious and in the enthusiastic, from the other criteria 
already mentioned. By both are the dictates of common 
sense and the admonitions of conscience alike vilified and 
neglected. These, as merely human, and therefore fallacious 
guides, are superseded, in the one, by the most frivolous 
observances, which an authority that he calls venerable, or 
immemorial custom, hath imposed ; and in the other, by the 
extravagances of a heated brain. The symptoms of distem 
per are indeed different in the two characters. The su 
perstitious person more resembles the idiot, and the enthu 
siast the madman. But as it will be allowed, that idiocy 
and madness are more nearly related to each other than 
either is to a sound mind ; so the two species of false religion 
mentioned (however much they may be regarded as extremes) 
are more nearly connected with one another, than either is 
with that religion which alone merits the denomination of 
the true. 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 151 

"What has been advanced with regard to superstition, will 
be readily admitted by all who are ever so little acquainted 
with the history of the world. As to what has been said of 
enthusiasm, it may appear more doubtful. Its most extrava 
gant flights are much rarer ; and though its fervours are 
more violent while they last, they are extremely transient ; 
and unless persecution minister fuel, they subside of them 
selves, and die away. Yet the effects of its rage have been 
too frequent not to vouch the truth of what has been affirmed. 
On the other hand, nothing is more inveterate than super 
stition. It insinuates itself silently and slowly ; but is cruelly 
tenacious of its hold, and consequently by far the more 
dangerous of the two. 

I shall only add, that it is not every mistake, even in 
regard to the divine nature, which can with propriety be 
denominated either superstitious or fanatical ; though every 
mistake on this subject is doubtless of dangerous tendency 
in religion. But those errors only can be so denominated, 
which affect the moral attributes and government of God, 
which confound the natural distinctions of right and wrong, 
which inspire confidence where there is no ground of hope, 
or terror where there is no cause of fear. 

So much for an outline of the character of both sorts of 
false religion, superstition and enthusiasm. 

III. I come now, in the third place, to inquire into the 
character of true religion, which is delineated in my text as 
a spirit of power, of love, and of a sound mind : of power, 
implying self-command, or the due government both of pas 
sion and appetite ; of love to God and man, which is the end 
of the commandment, I Tim. i. 5, and the bond of perfectness, 
Col. iii. 14. Each of these I once proposed to consider 
severally, explaining their nature, clearing them from the 
misrepresentations which false glosses have introduced, and 
showing in what manner the religion of Jesus illustrates and 
enforces them. I had even proceeded some way on this 
plan : but sensible at last that it was impossible to compre 
hend the whole in one discourse, I determined to desist, and 
to satisfy myself with the discussion of the third particular in 



152 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

the character, a sound mind. There is one reason, at least, 
for entering more minutely into this part of the subject, that 
it has been less attended to, and that this inattention has been 
the source even of those evils which have affected the other 
part of the character. 

A sound mind is here opposed to a frantic or disordered 
imagination, wherein the light of reason is obscured, if not 
extinguished, by the terrors of superstition, or the arrogance 
of fanaticism. Nor is there any lineament whereby True 
Religion may be more perfectly distinguished from every 
pretender which falsely assumes her name, than this good 
sense, or soundness of mind, that gives the finishing to her 
character. 

In what regards the moral maxims of the gospel, and the 
dispositions which they are fitted to inspire, objectors have not 
found much matter of wrangling. Their consonance to the 
soundest dictates of the understanding, and the clearest in 
timations of conscience, is generally admitted. But it will 
be asked, Can this conformity to reason be affirmed also with 
regard to the speculative truths with which our religion brings 
us acquainted ? Will the bright doctrines of revelation be 
found to have any coincidence with the discoveries we can 
make by the twilight of our natural faculties ? 

Before we can answer these questions intelligibly, it will 
be necessary to premise a few things which may contribute 
to throw light on the subject, and which are but too little 
minded in discussions of this nature. First, then, let it be 
remarked, that it is one thing to say, that the discovery of a 
particular truth is beyond the reach of reason, and another 
to affirm, that there is in such a tenet a contrariety to reason. 
Again, let it be observed, that to say there is something in 
such a proposition above our comprehension, is one thing, 
and to advance, that such a proposition is absurd, is another. 
I add one remark more, which is, that the far greater part 
of the natural knowledge with which a man of science is ac 
quainted, he neither did derive, nor by any exertion what 
ever could derive, from his mental powers ; but that he has 
gotten it by information from without ; and that the only 
legitimate application of the intellectual faculty was, to en 
able him to apprehend the facts, and canvass the evidence. 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 153 

I shall not enter into a separate discussion of the above 
observations ; but shall take notice of some things which may 
serve at once to satisfy us of their truth, and to assist us in 
applying them. The history of past ages we derive solely 
from testimony. Our knowledge of countries which we never 
saw, and the much greater part of natural history, must pro 
ceed to us entirely from the same source. It will be admitted, 
that on these topics, without such extraneous information, a 
man of the most enlightened reason, and the most acute dis 
cernment, could never investigate aught beyond the sphere 
of his corporeal senses. If then we receive from a book, pre 
tending to contain a divine revelation, the account of what 
happened in a period preceding the date of the civil history, 
can it be justly sustained as an objection to the veracity of 
the writer, that he unravels a series of facts, which, by no use 
or improvement of reason, it would have been in our power 
to discover ? This identical objection would operate equally 
against all the histories, natural or civil, foreign or domestic, 
and travels and voyages, that ever were, or ever will be in 
the world. Nor is this reasoning applicable only to such 
events as the creation, the fall, and the deluge. Its applica 
tion to the discoveries revelation brings concerning the de 
signs of Heaven for our recovery and final happiness, stands 
precisely on the same footing. 

On the other hand, Are we to receive, with an undistin- 
guishing credulity, every report without examination ? By 
no means. We have seen what is not the province of reason, 
let us now consider what is. An account is brought me of a 
distant country by one who has had an opportunity to be well 
informed. Many things he relates appear at first incredible, 
because unlike every thing I have seen or known. The in 
habitants, he tells me, after killing their enemies, make a re 
past of them : they scruple not to bury the living child with 
the dead mother, if the infant has not been weaned before the 
parent s death ; and the children suffer the parents to perish 
for want, when, through age and infirmities, they become 
burdensome.* Such manners, though strange, I should not 

* Some of these customs have been ascribed by travellers to some of the wild 
Americans and Greenlanders. Sec Cruntz, C harlcvoix, &c. 



154 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

on reflection pronounce impossible. Who can say, what all 
the possible consequences are of ignorance, barbarity, re 
venge, anarchy, and sloth ? But if the historian or traveller 
should inform me, that their laws were founded on moral 
sentiments the reverse of ours ; that it was criminal to speak 
truth, and meritorious to lie ; laudable to break a promise, and 
culpable to keep it ; that ingratitude was accounted an heroic 
virtue, and gratitude a detestable vice ; I should not hesitate 
a moment to pronounce, that no faith whatever was due to 
his narrative. Society can subsist, notwithstanding many 
vices, which, through a general depravity of manners, human 
laws might be too feeble to restrain. But with such laws and 
maxims as the last-mentioned, the existence of society is in 
compatible. Their effect must be, not to draw men together, 
but to drive them asunder, and make them flee one another like 
wild beasts. Again, suppose the relater should acquaint us, 
that the people of whom he wrote had made some progress 
in abstract knowledge, but that the axioms on which their 
sciences were founded were opposite to ours ; that with them 
two and three were equal to seven, a part was greater than 
the whole, and other such-like : The intuitive discernment 
we have of the moral absurdity of those, and the natural in 
consistency of these positions, is what no evidence could van 
quish. On the other hand, the credibility of the facts related 
is no proof of their truth, though it be a foundation for in 
quiry. The next province of reason is, to examine the evi 
dence by which the veracity of the writer is supported. 

As to the incomprehensibility, or, to speak with greater 
precision, the imperfect comprehension of some infallible 
truths, this holds equally of many of the discoveries of reason 
as of the informations given us by divine revelation. I know 
not a clearer deduction from reason than this : " Something 
has existed from eternity." It is an immediate conclusion from 
two self-evident principles : " Something now exists ;" and, 
" Whatever begins to exist must have a cause." Yet what is 
more incomprehensible than eternal duration, or existence 
without beginning ? To prevent mistakes, let it be observed 
further, that there is a difference between saying, that there 
is something in a doctrine which we cannot perfectly compre- 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 155 

hend, and saying, that such a proposition is unintelligible. A 
sentence which to us is unintelligible, we can neither believe 

nor disbelieve. It is words without meaning. We may, 

through custom, acquiesce in phrases, and even acquire a sort 
of reverence for sounds, which we do not understand a case 
not at all uncommon ; but in such acquiescence, whatever 
name we give it, there is properly nothing of opinion or belief. 
Now, to apply what has been said, it is admitted, that in 
holy writ many grand discoveries are made to which human 
unassisted reason never could have attained, no more than it 
can attain to the knowledge of the inhabitants of Saturn, or 
of any other of the planets. The powers of the mind have 
their limits as well as those of the body. We may as reason 
ably propose to reach the stars with our finger, as to extend 
our mental faculties beyond the bounds which Omnipotence 
has prescribed to them. It is likewise admitted, that many 
things are revealed to us, of which we have but an imperfect 
comprehension. The same holds, as was observed, of many 
of the discoveries of the light of nature. Almost all that 
relates to the eternal, infinite, and independent One, may be 
reckoned of this number. It will be farther admitted by the 
candid, that there are some things in the sacred volume which 
they do not understand. From the revolutions that happen 
in a track of ages, from the great differences to be found in 
the notions and customs which obtain in distant regions, from 
the imperfection of the knowledge which moderns can acquire 
in ancient languages, difficulties must arise as to the import 
of things, which were perfectly intelligible to the people to 
whom they were addressed. Nothing can be clearer from 
Scripture, than that every thing it contains is not given as of 
equal consequence. Some things are introduced incidentally 
in illustration of other things, and circumstances, trivial in 
themselves, require to be mentioned for connecting a narra 
tion of importance. Perhaps in the prophetical writings it 
was intended, that many things should not be understood till 
after their accomplishment. But this we may warrantably 
affirm, that the great truths which require our faith, and the 
precepts which demand our obedience, are put in such a 
variety of lights, and so frequently inculcated, as to leave 
no reasonable doubt about their meaning. 



156 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

The only thing therefore that remains for the vindication 
of the gospel on this article, is to observe, that it presents us 
with nothing contradictory, either to any speculative truth 
deducible from reason, or to any moral sentiment which the 
universal suffrage of mankind shows to have the sanction of 
conscience. I am not ignorant, that our religion has been 
impeached on this head. But is it not manifest, that, in this 
charge, difficulties have been confounded with absurdities, 
things beyond the investigation of reason with things repug 
nant to it, and things imperfectly comprehended with things 
self-contradictory ? 

On the other hand, it is not to be dissembled, that the 
absurd glosses and incoherent comments which have been 
sometimes made on the sacred text, have given too great 
scope to the enemies of the faith, for the charge of inconsis 
tency and nonsense. But let accusations of this kind light 
where they may ; it is with the gospel as we find it pure in the 
fountain, and not as it is but too generally corrupted in the 
streams, that we are concerned. It has fared with the institu 
tion of Jesus, as it did with that of Moses : Corruptions have 
been introduced into both from the same source, and the com 
mandments of God have been made of no effect by the tradi 
tions of men. Superstition and enthusiasm have gone to work, 
and conspired in disfiguring the beauty, and destroying the 
simplicity of the truth as it is in Jesus. Whether men have 
derived their opinions from the reveries of their own fancy, 
or imbibed them implicitly from those in whom they con 
fided, they have commonly had recourse to the Bible, not 
to inquire without prepossession into the doctrine contained 
there, but to seek for arguments in support of the tenets they 
had previously adopted. 

Hence the many curious expedients by which the gospel, if 
I may so express myself, has been put to the torture, to make 
it speak the various and discordant sentiments of the multifa 
rious and jarring sects into which the Christian world is un 
fortunately split. Every party, one would think, fancies itself 
possessed of the only key to the heavenly treasure contained 
in the Bible. Certain it is, that every party finds things there 
which none but themselves can discover. Nevertheless, in 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 157 

the general modes of expounding, almost all seem to be pretty 
well agreed. The true partisan, of whatever party he be, 
neglecting the plain declarations of Scripture (which are far 
the most numerous) as of no moment, recurs chiefly, for the 
support of his system, to those passages wherein there is some 
difficulty. Again, when it suits his purpose, renouncing the 
use of common sense, what the ordinary idioms of language 
and rules of interpretation require to be understood figura 
tively, he explains literally ; what, on the contrary, the scope 
of the context requires to be understood as literal, he explains 
as figurative. By such ingenious methods, which give so 
large a field for imagination to range in, he never fails to 
attain his end. Persons of the most repugnant sentiments 
make the experiment with equal success. The Scripture is 
neither ambiguous nor obscure ; but men s judgments are 
pre-engaged ere they examine it. They do not try other 
teachers by this rule, but this rule by the doctrine of some 
favourite teacher. They admit it only in the sense it pleases 
him. Hence it is made the foundation of various systems. 
But it would be no hard matter to evince, that any perform 
ance whatever, the Alcoran for example, or the Mishna, or 
the Sadder, might be made to support their theories with the 
same facility. 

Where do we now find any attention paid to these impor 
tant lessons of our Lord ? Be not ye called Rabbi : for one is 
your Master, (leader, guide,* as the word imports,) even 
Christ, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father 
upon the earth ; for one is your Father, ivhich is in heaven. 
Neither be ye called masters ; for one is your Master, even 
Christ, Matt, xxiii. 8 10. On the contrary, the Christian 
world has gotten many master sand rabbies, fathers and guides, 
under whom, as their respective leaders and heads, they seve 
rally class themselves, and to whose several tribunals in doc 
trine, we must own, if we speak impartially, they more pro 
perly make Christ himself amenable, than them to his. 

But whence came originally these deviations from good 
sense, from that soundness of mind which shines forth in the 



* The original word is KaS-r/y^r/jc, which has properly this power. It occurs 
thrice in the passage, quoted, and nowhere else in the New Testament. 



158 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

writings of the apostles and the evangelists, and is so rarely 
found (I may say never without some alloy) in the religious 
compositions of after ages ? One great spring of this evil was 
that rage of dogmatizing which so early showed itself in a 
variety of shapes. When the doctrine of Jesus began, to 
spread through all the States of Greece, and to make many 
proselytes among that ingenious, inquisitive, and disputatious 
people, who were then divided into philosophical sects, it 
might naturally be expected that converts from different sects 
who had not thoroughly imbibed the spirit of the religion 
they had so recently been taught, still retaining a tincture of 
their former sentiments in regard to theology and morals, 
and so warped from the truth in different ways, would soon 
disagree among themselves concerning the doctrine of that 
gospel which they had received. Each would exercise his 
ingenuity in giving such a turn to the dictates of revelation 
as would make them appear conformable to his favourite 
opinions, and would conciliate both, where they appeared 
to clash. When the rein is once given to Fancy, she is not 
easily curbed even in her wildest excursions. Subtle and 
inventive heads would be daily publishing their own visions 
as the oracles of God. 

Even in the apostolic age, these seeds of dissension were 
beginning to spring up. Paul perceived the evil ; and hav 
ing traced the cause, gave warning of the danger : Beware, 
says he, lest any man spoil you through philosophy, and vain 
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the 
world, and not after Christ, Col. ii. 8. It is not his view to 
discourage the pursuit of science, or to dissuade from the 
study of the works of G od, which, by his own testimony, 
(Rom i. 19, 20,) are one way of leading to the knowledge of 
their author : But, using words according to their accepta 
tion at the time, he alludes to the philosophic systems then in 
vogue, as is implied in the expression, after the tradition of 



* F. Paul, in his History of the Council of Trent, B. 2. after relating their decrees 
on Justification, says, very pertinently, "In che haveva gran parte Aristotcle coll 
haver distinto essattamente tutti i gcneri di cause ; a che, se egli non fosse adoperato, 
noi mancavano di molti ai ticoli di fede." That synod, however, has not heen singular 
in exposing themselves to an imputation of this sort. 

* 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 159 

Now, what would be the consequences of this presumption 
on the doctrinal part of our religion ? It cannot be doubted 
but that some of the truths of revelation would be explained 
away to make room for the dreams of visionaries. Thus there 
were some, in the infancy of the church, who had so far de 
viated from the faith as to affirm, that the resurrection was 
past already; 2 Tim. ii. 18. Another, and more common 
consequence was, to incorporate into the body of Christian 
doctrine a number of adventitious tenets, to which it had 
no affinity, and with which it was very ill fitted to coalesce. 
This is no doubt that wood, hay, and stubble, which the great 
instructor of the Gentile world, so often quoted, informs 
us that some conceited builders would pile up on the only 
foundation, Jesus Christ ; 1 Cor. iii. 12. A third consequence 
would be, that men, getting beyond the sphere of human 
knowledge, w r ould come at last, in their airy flights, to mis 
take shadows for realities, to substitute signs for ideas, and 
words for things, fighting with one another about names and 
phrases to which no precise meaning can be affixed. This 
is what our apostle warns Timothy to avoid, calling it pro 
fane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so 
called, I Tim. vi. 20 ; 2 Tim. i. 16 ; and in another place, 
vain jangling ; and assures us, that those who had turned 
aside to it, understood neither what they said, nor whereof 
they affirmed, 1 Tim. i. 6, 7. An evil this, which has in 
fested the church from the beginning, and but too plainly 
infests it to this moment. 

The two last consequences seem to have arisen from the 
absurd presumption, to which men have ever shown them 
selves prone, of the all-sufficiency of their own powers. Not 
satisfied with the naked declarations of holy writ, they must 
inquire into the manner in which every promise is to be ful 
filled, and every effect is to be produced, and every operation 
is to be conducted. On all these points, they have dared to 
pronounce dogmatically. Other dogmatists have arisen, no 
less confident in their own abilities, who have entered into 
the question, and given a contrary decision. Then was 
kindled the theologic war. The people were divided. Some 
listed themselves under one captain, others under another. 



160 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

Each party had recourse to Scripture as a common magazine 
for arms wherewith to encounter the adverse party. Each 
imagined he succeeded in the application, and, confident of 
his own prowess and ability, each boasted of the victory. In 
process of time, councils were called to end the strife. 
Councils thought that it suited their dignity on every ques 
tion to be decisive ; and out of their decision of one ques 
tion, several others have arisen. 

Now, the radical error was the notion, that religion was 
concerned on a particular side, or that the Scripture had 
said any thing which could serve to decide the point debated. 
Religion was concerned in the discouragement of such con 
troversies, alike impertinent and presumptuous. But the 
way which was taken was the surest method possible to give 
them weight. 

Methinks I hear it asked with surprise, Is there any ques 
tion relative to religion on which the Scripture is neutral ? 
I must beg leave to ask in return, Was it the intention of 
the Scripture to render man omniscient? Are there not 
many things on every subject which we cannot apprehend? 
And are there not, particularly on the sublimest of all 
subjects, the divine operations, certain things which God 
has not seen meet to communicate to us, and which, conse 
quently, it is neither pious nor modest in us to inquire into ? 
And if one man be audacious enough to overleap the fence, 
and enter on interdicted ground, is it for us to be equally 
impious, and, in order to encounter him, to commit the same 
trespass ? Secret things, says Moses, belong to the Lord our 
God; but those things which are revealed, belong to us, and 
to our children for ever, Deut. xxix. 29. Our Saviour on 
every occasion shows a disposition to check questions of mere 
curiosity about things beyond our sphere, the knowledge of 
which God had reserved to himself: Matt, xviii. 1, &c.; 
Luke xiii. 23, &c.; John xxi. 21, 22 , Acts i. 6, 7. And 
are there not questions from which the apostle Paul admo 
nishes us to abstain altogether ? Foolish and unedifying* ques 
tions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes, 2 Tim. ii. 23. 

* A7ri$ur8, improperly rendered here by our translators unlearned. The 
word occurs often in the Septuagint, and signifies impertinent, uninstructire. 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 161 

The apostle s example was conformable to his precept. 
Some in his time began to dogmatize on the ministry and 
mediation of angels, from which they inferred the propriety 
of worshipping them. As to the inference, he expressly con 
demns whatever might injure the purity and simplicity of 
worship : But as to the dogmas on which those teachers 
founded, Does he think it necessary to establish a theory of 
his own in opposition to theirs, according to the invariable 
policy of succeeding ages ? Does he even so much as say 
whether their opinions be true or false ? He does neither : 
He only informs us, that they are points in which we have 
no concern, and of which we have not the means of arriving 
at the knowledge. Intruding, says the apostle, speaking of 
a teacher of this stamp, into those things which he hath not 
seen. And what is the cause ? Arrogance and self-conceit : 
Vainly puffed up by Ids fleshly mind, Col. ii. 18; fondly elated 
with his own imagined sublime discoveries. 

Happy had it been for the church, if its rulers had con 
tinued to be actuated by that soundness of mind which was 
so well exemplified, and so warmly recommended, by the first 
propagators of the faith. A general sense of the futility of 
such speculations and verbal controversies, and their perni 
cious tendency in subverting charity, the end of all religion, 
in promoting contention, the bane of social life, and in ex 
posing the gospel to the derision of unbelievers, as though it 
were intended solely for a subject of altercation, would have 
quashed those discussions on their first appearance, and put 
their authors out of countenance. If any thing could have 
mortified them, it would have been to find, that they met, I 
say not with contempt, but pity instead of admiration ; and 
that by those very means by which they wanted to display a 
more than ordinary acquaintance with what they termed the 
mysteries of religion, they had only betrayed a more than 
ordinary ignorance of its spirit. 

Heresy, as it is called, or error in points wherein religion 
is supposed to be concerned, has been compared to the hydra, 
a many-headed monster of the poets. In nothing does the 
comparison hold more closely than in this, that when by the 
ecclesiastic sword, wielded by popes or councils, any of those 



162 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

heads have been struck off, at least double the number have 
sprung up in their room. Agreeably to the warning which 
had been given, 2 Tim. ii. 16, they have increased to more 
ungodliness. 

Now, if fanaticism excited the broachers of such imperti- 
nencies, superstition confirmed the attachment of their adhe 
rents. The effects were correspondent to the cause. Hear 
the apostle as to both : If any man consent not to wholesome 
tvords, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the 
doctrine which is according to godliness ; he is proud, knowing 
nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words whereof 
cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disput- 
ings of men of corrupt minds, \ Tim. vi. 3, &c. How far 
church history justifies the observation, let every intelligent 
hearer judge. 

But it is not the doctrine of the gospel only that has been 
thus vitiated. The same spirit of false religion, the declared 
enemy of a sound mind or sober reason, began also to infect 
the morals. What tended only to make men resigned to 
Heaven, and useful to mankind; what tended to promote 
rational piety, temperance, justice, and beneficence, was in 
no estimation at all. Extravagances, the most marvellous 
and the most frantic, such as dishonoured the name of reli 
gion, and rendered men worse than useless, were considered 
as the most sublime attainments in the Christian life. 

Religion prohibits our being the slaves of appetite, com 
mands us to subdue sensual desires, and brings the body into 
subjection to the law of the mind. We must not be the 
votaries of pleasure, if we would be agreeable to God. The 
less pleasure then, says superstition, we admit on any account, 
and the more pain we inflict on ourselves, we are the more 
perfect, and the more acceptable to him. Hence vows of 
abstinence, vows of celibacy, and others of the same kind, by 
which monks and anchorets seclude themselves from the world, 
and take a dispensation from discharging duties, which by 
the irrevocable law of our nature, every man owes to his fel 
lows. Religion forbids covetosneuss, restrains anxiety about 
worldly things, and commands us to seek first the kingdom of 
God. From the same spirit of interpreting, which pays no 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 163 

regard to the meaning or purpose of a precept, have sprung 
vows of poverty, as they are called ; or, as they should be 
called, vows of idleness. As the Pharisees had a commodious 
expedient for releasing children from the duty they owed their 
parents, by what had at least the name of a donation to the 
altar, Matt. xv. 3, &c. ; Mark vii. 9, &c., so these think 
they consecrate themselves to God, by swearing solemnly that 
they shall be unprofitable to men ; rather, indeed, that they 
shall be public nuisances, lay a tax on the sweat of industry, 
and intercept the alms held forth by the hand of charity to 
real indigence. For the gospel acknowledges no poor but 
those who not only are in want, but whom Providence has 
rendered incapable of earning a subsistence to themselves. 
With regard to others, the maxim is, They that will not 
work, neither should they eat, 2 Thess. iii. 10. 

In such absurdities, however, we must do them the justice to 
acknowledge, that they have not been singular. From sacred 
history we learn, that the votaries both of Baal and of Mo 
loch were actuated by the like principle. Similar penances 
and austerities are practised at this day by the Mahometan 
Dervises : nay, a much higher pitch of perfection is attained 
by those Indian mendicants, the Fakiers, devotees of the 
Being with the thousand names. And what shall we say of 
the holy tortures so unmercifully inflicted on their own flesh 
by the Chinese Bonzes, another set of itinerant mendicants, in 
honour of the god Fo ? For him, too, they con over their ro 
saries, and make processions and pilgrimages.* Superstition 
is the same under every denomination. The form and the 
garb may be different, but the spirit is the same. In every 
age and every nation it may be easily distinguished by this 
indelible mark, that it makes the service of its supposed 
divinity the very reverse of a reasonable service, and conse 
quently of the character which Paul gives us of the service of 
the true God, Rom. xii. 1. 

* This eastern superstition, by the account we have of it from Pere du Halde, 
a Jesuit missionary, bears an astonishing resemblance to the corruptions which have 
been introduced into the Christian church. Both have their invocations, in turning 
over their beads. But whether the syllables, O mi to fo, pronounced by a Chinese, 
have more, or less virtue than the syllables Jesu Maria, pronounced by a Romanist, 
let him who thinks a sound mind has any concern in religion, say. 

L 



164 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

Another engine of superstition, by which she has tainted 
the morals of the gospel, is a distinction she has suggested be 
tween the cause of God and the cause of virtue or integrity. 
These, she artfully insinuates, may in certain circumstances 
be found to clash. When that happens, the latter must be 
sacrificed to the former. The immorality of the action, 
considered by itself, is not to be regarded, but the good 
to which it may be rendered conducive. When immoral 
actions are employed to promote the interests of religion, 
the end sanctifies the means, the purity of the motive effaces 
the crime. 

By this accursed casuistry, fraud and perfidy, rebellion, 
murder, and treason, have been sometimes justified, nay, even 
canonized : they have been celebrated as a kind of heroism 
in piety, and a triumph of grace over nature. Wherever 
this doctrine has been learnt, it was never learnt in the school 
of Christ. It strikes at the root of both natural and revealed 
religion, undermines the foundation of the love of God, and 
subverts all the evidence of the essential difference between 
good and ill, right and wrong. 

Such maxims seem to have been imputed to the primitive 
Christians (for what evil was not imputed to them ?) by some 
of the most rancorous of their foes. The apostle Paul treats 
the imputation as a calumny, and speaks of the maxim with 
abhorrence. If, says he, in the character of an objector, the 
truth of God hath more abounded through my lie to his glory, 
why yet am I also judged as a sinner ? and not rather, (as we 
be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let 
us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just, 
Rom. iii. 7, 8. His opinion on this subiect was the same with 
that of the pious Job, who considered it as a wretched apology 
for deceit or lying, to say, that it was in the service of God ; 
Job xiii. 7, 8. In fact, an excuse of this sort is but adding 
absurdity, not to say blasphemy, to wickedness, and repre 
senting purity itself as our corrupter. The cause of God is 
the cause of universal rectitude : that it must ever continue 
such, results from the immutability of God. This is the 
law of our nature, and founded in the moral perfections of 
its author. This, by the concurrent voice of conscience and 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 165 

of revelation, we are taught to revere as the invariable rule 
of our conduct. 

Piety and good sense both require, that we leave the direc 
tion of events to the superintendence of that all-wise Provi 
dence which rules the world, and is constantly employed in 
educing good from evil. Of the remote consequences of 
things, we short-sighted creatures are very incompetent judges. 
Our case would be deplorable indeed, all society must quickly 
go to wreck, if we had not a directory more explicit than 
such a foresight to recur to. The dictates of conscience, 
according to Paul, show the work of God s law written on 
the heart; Rom. ii. 14, 15. It is the same searching spirit 
which Solomon aptly calls the candle of the Lord; Prov. xx. 
27. The voice of conscience, therefore, is the voice of God ; 
and God cannot contradict himself. 

By this monitor I am forbidden to betray a trust. You, 
who are no doubt a subtile casuist, tell me, " The present 
case is particular, and not to be determined by a general rule, 
which may do very well in ordinary cases. In this individual 
instance, even treachery is meritorious, as it may be made 
subservient to the cause of religion." The cause of religion! 
Impossible ! Had you said, the cause of irreligion, the cause 
of the devil, the father of lies and murder, I could have un 
derstood you. You resume, " The interest of the church of 
Christ may be promoted." That we may understand one 
another, and not fight in the dark, permit me, good Sir, to 
ask a plain question, What is the church of Christ? For if 
we recur to the New Testament for an explanation, it is no 
other than the community of his faithful disciples, actuated 
by his Spirit ; for if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, 
he is none of his, Rom. viii. 9. I shall add one question 
more, What is the interest of this church ? In the view which 
our religion gives of it, it is not their wealth, or rank, or fame, 
or even the security of their lives and fortunes ; but it is their 
advancement in faith and purity. Can I, then, by corrupt 
ing one of the members, and hazarding the infection of the 
rest, advance the purity of the whole ? Indeed, if you mean, 
by the church, according to the acceptation of the word with 
many, a certain order of men only ; and if you mean by their 



166 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

interest, their lucrative offices, dignity, and power, and the 
credit of those dogmas on which the whole is founded ; I shall 
admit, that the cause of the church, in your sense of the 
word, and the cause of virtue, which is the cause of God, 
may be as opposite as truth and falsehood, heaven and hell. 

" But you can quote the best authorities, learned theo- 
logues, profound scholars, invincible doctors: You can do 
more ; you can support your opinion by the rescripts of popes, 
and precedents taken from the practice of councils." To a 
mind not blinded by superstition, all your authorities signify 
nothing. On one side is the voice of God; on the other 
are the sophisms of weak, corrupt, and interested men. He 
will reply, Let God be true, and every man a liar, Rom. iii. 4. 
" But you are illuminated by the unerring Spirit of God." 
It is not within the compass of possibility to produce a proof 
of your claim, which shall counterbalance the evidence I 
have, that it is contrary to the will of Heaven to lie, to be 
tray, to murder. Miracles themselves would not answer your 
purpose. Reason and Scripture both teach me, and it is 
allowed on all sides, that these cannot be admitted in proof 
of what is either absurd or impious. Should one work a 
miracle at noon, in order to prove that it is midnight ; could 
his proof have any other effect but to confound ? Before it 
could convince, all the foundations of belief, and consequently 
the evidence of its own reality, must be entirely rased. 

There are doctrines, then, which are not to be admitted 
on the authority of pontiffs and councils. An apostle of 
Christ is our warrant for using a much bolder expression, and 
saying, there are doctrines which, though an apostle of Christ 
or an angel from heaven should preach to us, we ought not 
to receive, Gal. i. 8. And of this sort surely, is that which 
calls evil good, and good evil ; which puts darkness for light, 
and light for darkness ; which puts bitter for sweet, and sweet 
for bitter, Isa. v. 20; which corrupts morality in the foun 
tain, and depraves the discernment that God has given us of 
right and wrong. If the light that is in thee be darkness, 
hoiu great is that darkness ! Matt. vi. 23. 

I now consider another stronghold of superstition, the 
ritual of worship, and the effects which by this article have 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 167 

been produced on the religion of Jesus. If we attend to the 
Christian institution in its native simplicity, as it appears in 
the New Testament, nothing can seem in this respect less 
adapted to furnish a handle to the superstitious. No reve 
rence is inculcated for times or places, no sanctity ascribed to 
utensils or vestments, no distinction made of aliments, as re 
commending more or less to the favour of Heaven. Its cere 
monies were few and simple, calculated for promoting faith 
and purity, Ceremonies, however, there must be, in a reli 
gion intended for man, who is constituted of a body as well 
as a soul the body containing the organs necessary both for 
conveying information to the soul, and for communicating to 
others her sensations. Ceremonies also there must be in a re 
ligion intended for society, which requires a certain external 
order wherein men are to join. And to every thing in which 
men can be occupied, time and place are requisite. The 
noblest things are capable of being perverted to the vilest 
purposes ; and in the general decline of good sense and cha 
rity, folly can never be at a loss for tools to work with, or 
matter to work upon. 

It is difficult to express one s self on this subject with such, 
precision as not to run the risk of being misunderstood one 
way or other, and perhaps of misleading the unwary. As 
the outward institutions are the means devised by infinite 
Wisdom for our improvement in faith and holiness, to depre 
ciate the means must in effect prove injurious to the end ; 
and a general neglect of them has but too manifest a ten 
dency to atheism and irreligion. On the other hand, as they 
are but the means, immoderately to exalt them leads as mani 
festly to superstition and hypocrisy ; and that by bringing 
men either themselves to substitute the means for the end, 
or to seek to raise their character by taking the advantage of 
this error in others. This perhaps, considering the weakness 
of human nature, is that extreme to which the generality of 
mankind are most liable. The tendency of the first is the 
disuse of the means, of the second, the abuse of them. As 
both are subversive of true religion, we ought never, through 
fear of one extreme, which to us may appear the worst, to 
permit men unwarned to run into the other. This fear did 



168 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

not deter the prophets under the old dispensation, nor our 
Saviour and his apostles under the new, from representing 
things plainly as they were, and particularly from remon 
strating in the warmest manner against the superstitious use 
that was often made of the ordinances of religion. The only 
sure chart by which the Christian course can be directed, is 
the truth. We can never safely turn aside from it either to 
the right hand or to the left. 

It is impossible for an unprejudiced mind to examine the 
gospel with attention, and not perceive, that it is repugnant 
to its genius to lay any stress on mere externals. Every cere 
monial performance, however highly venerated by the people 
amongst whom our Lord resided, and to whom the gospel 
was first published, is represented as incapable of recom 
mending the soul to God. God required mercy and not sacri 
fice, Matt. ix. IS ; xii. 7. The Sabbath was made for man, 
and not man for the Sabbath, Mark ii. 27. It was not that 
which went into the mouth that defiled the man, Matt. xv. 1 1 ; 
nor was it their endless ablutions of the body that could 
purify the conscience, Matt. xv. 20 ; Mark vii. 3, &c. It 
was not the worshipping in the Temple, nor on Mount Ge- 
rizim, that was the thing of consequence, John iv. 20 23. 
The apostles talk in the same strain. Circumcision is no 
thing, and uncircumsision is nothing, 1 Cor. vii. 19; Gal. v. 
6; vi. 15. Meat commendeth us not to God, 1 Cor. viii. 8. 
The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, Rom. xiv. 17. 
The Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands, 
Acts vii. 48. Our Lord plainly acquaints his disciples, that 
no pretensions of intimacy with him, zeal in his cause, or 
regard to positive appointments, would be of any avail to a 
worker of iniquity ; Matt. vii. 22, 23 ; Luke xiii. 26, 27. 
As to the Jewish ceremonies, they are termed a yoke of 
bondage, Gal. v. 1 ; a yoke which neither they of that age 
nor their fathers were able to bear, Actsxv. 10. The church, 
or commonwealth of God, whilst under them, was considered 
as in a state of nonage, like a child not arrived at the full 
exercise of reason, under tutors and preceptors, subjected to 
many cumbersome regulations, which derive their utility and 
fitness from his insufficiency. They are therefore styled the 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 169 

elements of this world, Gal. iv. 1 3, and weak and beggarly 
elements, Gal. iv. 9. 

The institution of Christ, on the contrary, is exhibited to 
us as a spiritual law, Rom. viii. 2 ; a law of rational and 
manly liberty, James i. 25 ; ii. 12. The few exterior rites 
which it admits are regarded purely as means ; and conse 
quently the value of the observance must arise, either from 
its being used with a view to improvement, or from its being 
a genuine expression of devout affection, or a sincere engage 
ment to a Christian life. But is there not something more 
in them ? Have we not ground to believe that they are ac 
companied with the divine benediction ? Yes, doubtless, the 
pious and suitable use of them is so accompanied. In any 
other use prayer is abominable, Prov. xxviii. 9, and sacri 
fice profane, Isa. Ixvi. 3. 

Quickly, indeed, did men begin to lose sight of the use, 
when employed in the exercises of religion. Ceremonies 
were daily multiplied ; and, under pretence of being render 
ed more awful, they were gradually disguised by such mum 
meries, that at length it was not possible to conceive any other 
purpose they could answer, but to beget in the ignorant a 
stupid wonder, and in the fearful a superstitious dread. The 
very multiplication of mere rites, which are but secondary 
and instrumental, takes off men s attention from that which 
is primary and essential. But the matter did not rest here. 
It was indeed impossible that it should. Miraculous virtues 
began to be ascribed to the bare celebration of the rites ; and 
astonishing tenets began to be broached about their nature 
and efficacy. Every thing moral, every thing spiritual, in 
the divine service, came to be supplied by things merely sen 
sible. In process of time the understanding was conceived 
to have so little concern in the matter, that it was of no con 
sequence whether the language employed in worship was 
understood by the worshippers or not. Penance was substi 
tuted in lieu of repentance, public worship dwindled into 
pageantry, and private devotion into telling of beads. Thus 
the most sublime, the most manly, the most rational institu 
tion, at length sunk into the most abject, the most puerile, 
the most absurd ; I might add, the most benevolent religion, 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

into the most malignant superstition. O degenerate Chris 
tians ! if yet I can call you Christians, who has bewitched 
you ? Are ye so foolish, having begun in the spirit, are ye 
now made perfect by the flesh ? Dare ye say, that ye have 
stood fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made you free ; 
and that ye have taken care not to be entangled again with a 
yoke of bondage ?* Ye have had warning. Ye see with what 
severity the apostle treated in others the very slightest 
symptoms of this disease, now so inveterate in you, Gal. iii. 
1, &c. ; v. 1, Sec. But what effect have either reproaches or 
admonitions had on yon ? 

I must indeed acknowledge, that so great and so universal 
a defection could not fail to furnish the adversaries of our 
religion with at least a plausible argument against it, if this 
very defection had not been so expressly and so particularly 
foretold, in Scripture. That it has been so foretold, produces 
now a contrary effect, and supplies the friends of Christianity 
with a strong argument in its defence. 

But to return : To ascribe a virtue to an outward form, 
unaccompanied by any disposition that can render it signi 
ficant,-)- I take to be of the essence of superstition, and in a 
great degree subversive of true religion. It represents the 
ordinances of Jesus as no better than magical spells. For 
where is the difference, if the effect in both result purely 
from words and gestures ? Besides, who will think of purity 
of heart, if washing the body will do the business ? who will 
study reformation of life, if punctuality in certain rites will 
cancel his guilt ?J 



* Mt) raXiv %vy<o SsXtiag tve^ffffo. The apostle says, vyo>, without the ar 
ticle. Our translators have not so properly rendered it the yoke, as though it related 
only to the Jewish. Those ceremonies he opposes, not because they were Jewish, but 
because they were a grievous yoke, and gendered to bondage. 

f This is what the council of Trent has called the opus operatum. 

Audio, videoque, plurimos esse qui in locis, vestibus, cibis, jejuniis, gesticula- 
tionibus, cantibus, summam pietatis constituunt ; et ex his proximum judicant contra 
praeceptum evangelicum. Unde fit, ut cum omnia referantur ad fidem et caritatem, 
harum rerum superstitione extinguatur utrumque. Procul enim abest a fide evange- 
lica, qui fidit hujusmodi factis ; et procul abest a caritate Christiana, qui oh potum aut 
cibum, quo recte quis uti potest, exasperat fratrem, pro cujus libertate mortuus est 
Christus. Erasmi IxQvoQayta. The whole dialogue is an illustration of this 
truth, 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEf,. 171 

To enumerate the particular instances of this abuse would 
be endless : I shall only specify one, which is very general. 
Has not the remission of sins been ascribed to the rite of bap 
tism ? and, in consequence of this, has not the indispensable 
necessity of that ordinance to salvation been strenuously main 
tained ? I own I mention this sentiment the rather, because 
it is a remainder of the old leaven, which many of the Re 
formed have not yet entirely purged out. Shall I be deemed 
to derogate from a Christian institution of the greatest uti 
lity, when rightly understood and used, because I would 
clear it from those misrepresentations which tend to pervert 
its nature, and frustrate its design ? On the same principle, 
the prophets and apostles, and even Christ himself, could 
not have escaped the censure of vilifying the most solemn 
rites of divine appointment, when, with some warmth, they 
represented to a superstitious nation, that they ascribed to 
them an efficacy which did not belong to them. On the con 
trary, by acting thus, the ordinance is in the most effectual 
manner honoured, the reasonableness of the service shown, 
and the ways of God vindicated. 

Of such formalists in devotion as can suppose that the most 
precious gifts of Heaven depend upon external rites, allow me 
to ask, Was not the faith and confession of the thief on the 
cross available to his salvation, without baptism ? Lukexxiii. 
39, &c. Was not Cornelius the centurion in a state of ac 
ceptance with God, before his being in this manner admitted 
into the church, and outwardly assuming the yoke of Christ ? 
The demonstration of his being so by the gifts of the Holy 
Ghost, is the very cause assigned by Peter of his admitting 
him, and those with him, though uncircumcised, to baptism : 
Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did to us 
who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I that I could 
withstand God? Acts xi. 17. Afterwards, alluding to the 
same memorable event, he says, God, who knoweth the hearts, 
bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did 
to us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying 
their hearts by faith, Acts xv. 8, 9. Is not this telling us, 
God showed us evidently .by those extraordinary gifts, that 
he had received them into favour as his people ; and could 



172 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

we, after that, without impiety, refuse to admit them by the 
symbol of baptism into our communion as brethren ? 
It will scarcely be pretended by any whose sole rule of 
faith is holy writ, that baptism is of greater efficacy under the 
new economy than circumcision was under the old. That 
this ceremony was essential to a state of acceptance with God, 
was the doctrine of many Jewish Rabbies, and of all the Ju- 
daizing teachers among the Christians ; Acts xx. 1 . Super 
stition, of whatever time or place, and however diversified, is 
uniform in character, and always attends more to the form 
than to the power, to the letter than to the spirit, of every 
institution. The contrary side, with regard to circumcision, 
the apostle Paul has maintained, in a manner which admits 
no reply. Thus he argues concerning Abraham: We say, 
that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How 
was it then reckoned ? when he was in circumcision) or in un- 
circumcision ? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And 
he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness 
of the faith which he had yet been uncircumcised, Rom. vi. 
9 11. But we need not found our reasoning entirely on 
the analogy of the two ordinances. The same argument 
which the apostle here uses will apply literally to the point in 
hand. The fact lately quoted is as apposite in the one case 
as the story of Abraham is in the other. (f We say, then, 
that the hearts of Cornelius, and the other Gentiles who were 
with him, were purified by faith : How were they purified ? 
Was it in baptism, or before being baptized ? Not in baptism, 
but before being baptized. And they received the sign of 
baptism, a seal of the purification by faith, which they had 
yet being unbaptized." 

The doctrine that we are now combating is precisely the 
same with that which Paul so warmly combated in those Ju- 
daizers. The application only is different. It is not against 
the ceremony of circumcision that his arguments are levelled, 
as I propose soon clearly to evince, but against the principle 
by which the ceremony was enforced, and which he considers 
as subversive of the spirit of religion. What was that prin 
ciple ? It was that which attached the pardon of sin and the 
favour of God to external observances. It is a matter of little 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 173 

consequence what the particular observance is. It was the 
spirit of Judaism, and not the form that he so vehemently 
and so successfully opposed. I do not mean, by Judaism, 
the Old Testament dispensation as given by Moses, but as 
adulterated afterwards by the traditions of the elders, and the 
Rabbinical commentaries. The former, the pure Mosaic 
establishment, the apostle vindicates from this charge. Ac 
cording to it, He is not a Jeiv who is one outwardly ; neither 
is that circumcision which is outward in thefiesh : but he is a 
Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the 
heart, in the spirit, whose praise is not of men but of God, 
Rom. ii. 28, 29. The same is the doctrine of the apostle 
Peter, concerning that baptism by which we Christians are 
saved. It is not, he tells us, the washing away of the filth of 
thejlesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God, 
1 Pet. iii. 21. In neither case is it the sign itself; but it is 
that renovation of mind which is stipulated by it. Baptism 
is represented as a sign of regeneration ; and, by a very com 
mon idiom, those qualities are sometimes attributed to the 
sign which belong properly to the thing signified. In this 
place, however, the apostle has so qualified his expression as 
not to leave a colour for mistake. I shall therefore conclude 
this argument by saying, in the spirit of both apostles, and 
almost in the words of the former, " He is not a Christian 
who is one outwardly ; neither is that baptism which is out 
ward in the flesh : but he is a Christian who is one inwardly; 
and baptism is that of the heart, in the spirit, whose praise is 
not of men, but of God." 

Thus I have given a sketch of the most general principles 
of corruption, which, when men seemed to think that a sound 
mind had no concern in religion, tainted the Christian system 
in every part, in doctrine, morals, and worship. I have hi 
therto taken notice only of those causes which hold of the 
spirit of false religion. That other causes co-operated, is but 
too evident. From the turn things quickly took, the decep 
tion of the many came to be regarded as the interest of the 
few. I do not mean by this to charge the whole clerical or 
der, or even the greater part of them, as knowingly sacrificing 
the truth to secular views. I would not affirm, that even in 



174 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 



the leaders themselves, all were to be put to the account of 
priestcraft, and nothing to that of superstition or enthusiasm. 
That motives will operate upon us, whereof we are in some 
respect unconscious, is a truth which I shall soon exemplify 
in two of the disciples. The understanding is too generally 
the dupe of the passions ; and we are easily brought to believe 
what would gratify a predominant inclination. It is with 
peculiar propriety said in Scripture, that a gift blindeth the 
wise, Exod. xxiii. 8. His imagined interest even perverts 
his judgment. A man may be said, in some sense, conscien 
tiously to pursue a course, to which originally avarice, or the 
lust of dominion was the prime mover. But in so great a 
variety of agents, there would no doubt be a variety of mo 
tives, and often a mixture of these in the same person. That 
covetousness and ambition joined their aids, it is impossible 
to doubt, when one considers how uniformly all the abuses 
pointed to the aggrandizement of a particular class. 

How much was Peter shocked at the impiety of Simon 
Magus, who offered him money for the power of conferring 
the Holy Ghost by the imposition of his hands ! Acts viii. 
18, &c. What would have been the apostle s indignation 
to have seen his pretended successors set a price on the par 
don of sin, a gift of Heaven, of infinitely more consequence 
than miraculous powers ! Once he was astonished at his Mas 
ter s declaration, that it was difficult for a rich man to enter 
into the kingdom of God ; Matt. xix. 23, &c ; Mark x. 23, 
&c. ; Luke xviii. 24. &c. ; but how much greater would his 
astonishment have been to find, that the only difficulty now 
was for a poor man to get thither ; and that the woes de 
nounced against the rich, and blessings pronounced upon the 
poor, ( Luke vi. 20, 21, 24, 25,) ought all to be reversed! 

Nor was this the only instance of an opposition in the 
maxims that were afterwards adopted, to those of him, who, 
being the founder and the finisher of the faith, cannot be 
supposed to have left any thing defective for them to supply, 
much less any thing wrong for them to alter. The benign 
language of his doctrine was, I will have mercy, and not sacri 
fice, Matt. ix. 13 ; xii. 7 ; the exercise of the moral virtues, 
rather than any ritual performances. Theirs, on the contrary, 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 175 

clamours loudly in our ears, " I will have sacrifice, and not 
mercy." Christ told his apostles, that he sent them forth as 
sheep in the midst of wolves, strictly charging them to be 
wise as serpents, and harmless as doves, Matt. x. 16. It was 
after the revolution of not many ages, when those who pre 
tended to derive their authority from this celestial source, 
having gotten the power into their hands, showed them 
selves, by the most cruel evidences, to be wolves in the midst 
of sheep. 

What shall I say of that spirit of persecution, the disgrace 
of humanity, the reproach of religion, the poison of life, which 
most preposterously, under the banner of the cross, has tyran 
nized with unrelenting fury ? What is that kingdom of God, 
permit me to ask the persecutor, which you desire to promote 
by such sanguinary methods ? Paul tells us, The kingdom of 
God is righteousness, and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, 
Rom. xiv. 17. To this the knowledge of the truths of the 
gospel is indeed eminently subservient. But are the threats 
of racks and gibbets the evidences of truth, or the means of 
giving conviction to the understanding ? " Perhaps not ; yet 
they may induce people to profess the true faith, whether 
their profession be sincere or hypocritical." Is it then the 
way of promoting truth, to tempt men to become liars ? Do 
you advance righteousness by forcing them to commit iniqui 
ty ? Do you contribute to their peace, by making them give a 
mortal wound to conscience, and rase the foundations of hope 
and joy ? " Ay, but though they should be dissemblers, their 
children may be orthodox believers ; and, by proper examples 
of wholesome severity, others through terror are made sub 
missive to the spiritual powers." I see we differ too widely 
in first principles, to be fit for arguing together. Two things 
you assume, which, in my judgment, are incompatible with 
the Spirit of Christ. One is, That we may do evil to pro 
mote a good end ; the other is, That Jesus came to esta 
blish the most absurd tyranny of a few, bestowing on them 
the extraordinary privilege of trampling on all the most sa 
cred rights of mankind ; for what is more sacred than vera 
city, than probity, than peace of conscience ? I am satisfied, 
on the contrary, that not even the apostles themselves were 



176 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

vested by their Master with any dominion over the faith of 
others. This dominion, though you, forsooth, presume to 
claim it, was explicitly disclaimed by them. Their only mean 
of converting was persuasion ; their weapons, reason, Scrip 
ture, and the demonstration of the Spirit; their only armour, 
wisdom, meekness, fortitude, and patience ; 2 Cor. i. 24 ; 
v. It, 20; 2 Tim. ii. 24, 25. O incorrigible! are you still so 
much in the spirit of Judaism, that no Messiah will suit you 
without a temporal kingdom ? It is not an external profes 
sion, but an internal character, in which the life of Christ s 
religion consists. Whoever aims a blow here, aims it at the 
heart, at the very vitals of his institution. For the kingdom 
of God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, 
Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is 
within you, Luke xvii. 20, 21. Wouldst thou know then, O 
zealot, whether thou pertainest to this spiritual kingdom ? 
Search for its characters in thy own heart ; and be assured, 
that if thou dost not find them there, thou hast neither part 
nor lot in this matter. 

But you do not know the fiend by which you are actuated. 
Shall I attempt the discovery ? Pride is hurt by contradic 
tion. If this contradiction be in things of moment, or things 
we fancy such, and if persisted in, it seems to betray a con 
tempt of our judgment ; a contempt which we cannot easily 
brook, and have commonly but too strong a propensity to 
resent. This propensity is vicious ; and it is what the spirit 
of the gospel, which is a spirit of love and forbearance, tends 
powerfully to correct. But if, unhappily, we be tinctured 
with the venom of superstition or fanaticism, or if we be 
duped by the villany and worldly aims of those in whose 
understanding we put confidence, we begin to view things in 
another manner : we christen our virulence by the name of 
zeal , and a most impure flame, brought originally from hell, 
we think it our duty to cherish as the holy fire of God s altar. 

We have an admirable example in the history of our Lord, 
which so perfectly confirms what has been said, both in rela 
tion to mistaken zeal and the true spirit of the gospel, that 
if aught could surprise us on this head, it would be surpris 
ing, that any who durst call themselves his followers should 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 177 

so flagrantly take up the idea of the disciples against their 
Master. It came to pass, says the Evangelist, Luke ix. 51, 
&c. when the time was come that he should be received up, he 
stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem ; and sent messengers 
before his face. And they went, and entered into a milage of 
the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not 
receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Je 
rusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, 
they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down 
from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did ? But he 
turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner 
of spirit ye are of : For the Son of man is not come to destroy 
men s lives, but to save them. And they went to another 
village. 

The Samaritans, by our Saviour s own account, were in 
the wrong in those articles wherein they differed from the 
Jews ; John iv. 22. In the opprobrious style that is now so 
liberally bandied from sect to sect among Christians, they 
would have been heretics and schismatics. Bigots they cer 
tainly were, as appears from the matter of offence just now 
recited. Yet these pleas could have had no weight with the 
two disciples in support of their argument, had they before that 
time thoroughly imbibed the spirit of the gospel. And have 
not some other passages of the Jewish history, equally foreign 
to the purpose, such as Samuel s hewing Agag before the 
Lord, and the extermination of the Canaanites, been strenu 
ously pleaded by persons of opposite sects for the glorious 
privilege of butchering one another in honour of the God of 
peace ? Infatuated men 1 know your brethren. Your diffe 
rences are merely accidental. A different education, or a 
small change in external circumstances, would have set each 
of you on the side opposite to that on which he now appears. 
And ye may depend upon it, that even in that case the alter 
ation in you would not have been material : it would have 
been more apparent than real, more in garb than in charac 
ter. Ye are essentially one, actuated in every respect by the 
same spirit. 

Is there then such a thing as Christian zeal ? And if there 
be, how shall we distinguish it, that we may not, like the two 



178 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

disciples, mistake our motive, and imagine ourselves zealous 
when we are only proud and vindictive ? There is such a 
thing as Christian zeal; and it is easily distinguished. Being 
the offspring of knowledge, and nourished by love, its great 
object is inward purity: to distinctions merely exterior it 
pays little regard. There is in it an ardour for the truth, 
not that men may be either allured or terrified into a verbal 
profession of what they do not in their hearts believe, (the 
grossest insult that can be offered to truth,) but that they 
may attain a rational conviction. The interest of truth itself 
it desires to promote for a still further end ; that by means of 
it, love may be kindled both to God and man ; that by means 
of it, temperance, and justice, and piety, and peace, may 
nourish on the earth. A man thus minded will not sacrifice 
the end to the means ; nor do a false, unjust, or cruel action, 
even for the sake of truth itself. The persecutor (supposing 
all worldly motives totally excluded) is at best, in the eye of 
true zeal, one who, for the sake of the form of godliness, 
would extirpate its power, and trample all that is most sacred 
and valuable among men. 

To Christian zeal let us contrast the zeal of sectarism. 
Perhaps it will be needful to explain the term. Any person 
who has entered into my sentiments, will not misunderstand 
me so far as to suppose, that I mean to throw an oblique 
reflection on sects which have not the advantage of a legal 
establishment. I know the word is sometimes used in this 
illiberal way. But a man who has a just notion of the dig 
nity of religion, is incapable of the meanness of piquing him 
self on a circumstance merely secular and local, which may as 
readily favour, and does as frequently support error as truth ; 
the grossest superstition, or the wildest fanaticism, as the 
purest and most reasonable worship. I mean, then, by the 
zeal of sectarism in any person, that ardour, which, attending 
chiefly to party distinctions, seeks to increase the number of 
retainers to that sect, established by law or unestablished, 
(the word is applicable to both,) to which he himself happens 
to be attached. Every judicious man will frankly own, that 
a zeal of this kind sometimes appears in characters where 
there never appeared a spark of zeal for the conversion of a 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 179 

soul from sin to God ; for that love, joy, peace, long-suffer 
ing, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance, 
which are the ornaments of our nature, the fruits of the Spirit, 
(Gal. v. 22, 23,) and the glory of the Christian name. I do 
not say that these two kinds are never united. I know the 
contrary. But I say, they are often separate; and that 
therefore there is no necessary connexion between them. As 
to the former, who were more remarkable for the sectarian 
zeal than the Pharisees, that compassed sea and land to make 
one proselyte ? Whether they had an equal share in the lat 
ter kind, let the sequel of the account declare : They made 
him twofold more the child of hell than themselves ; Matt, 
xxiii. 15. And in modern times you will find, in that com 
munion or sect which can boast a legal establishment in most 
kingdoms of Europe, perhaps more zealots on the Pharisaic 
model, than could be collected out of all the other commu 
nions. In fact, this zeal is but a species of party spirit at the 
most. If a community be divided into factions, whatever be 
the ground of division, (it may be different systems in politics, 
different theories in philosophy, as well as differences in reli 
gion,) it is natural for every party -man to wish to augment 
the number of his party. Every additional suffrage is ima 
gined to add something in confirmation of his own judgment. 
This principle operates on religious parties more strongly 
from the conceived importance of the subject. 

If, added to this, there be any of those violent prejudices 
which are so easily infused and cherished in a weak under 
standing and contracted temper, there results that most un 
lovely form we call bigotry, which would fain pass herself on 
the world for zeal, but in disposition has no more resemblance 
to her than superstition bears to religion, or the hatred of man 
to the love of God. We have already taken notice of their 
difference in nature and origin. With regard to the effects, 
we may say, they are not only dissimilar, but in some things 
opposite ; insomuch, that our mistaking the one for the other 
is even matter of astonishment. The object of the first is the 
form, of the second the power of godliness. The means they 
employ are extremely unlike. Bigotry persecutes; Zeal per 
suades. The former, where she cannot exterminate, will 

M 



180 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

create division. She has a bitterness of Spirit that cannot 
brook opposition in the merest trifle. She will not associate 
with those who cannot conform in every thing to her humour. 
A mote she magnifies into a mole-heap, and a mole-heap into 
a mountain. At once jealous and inflexible, and consequently 
of a temper the reverse of that of the peace-maker, she is ever 
discovering a reason for making a breach where there is none, 
and for widening it where it has unluckily been made. The 
latter, in all these particulars, acts a contrary part. Candid 
in judging, and warmed with kindness, she always aims at 
union, assiduously promoting peace. She understands the 
import of moderation and mutual forbearance, and can cor 
dially receive as brethren persons who differ in some senti 
ments ; avoiding matters of doubtful disputation, and what 
ever might prove a cause of stumbling to the weak. In brief, 
as Zeal is constantly attended and inspired by Charity, she 
may at all times be distinguished by the company of her 
amiable friend. This last you cannot fail to know, if you at 
tend to the picture that has been drawn of her by the mas 
terly hand of our apostle, in the most inimitable colours, 
1 Cor. xiii. Who, on the other hand, is the most intimate 
companion of Bigotry, let the uncharitable judgments, ma 
lignity, and calumny, for which she is so remarkable, declare. 
The impartial must see, and the charitable will lament, the 
envenomed misrepresentations which, to the detriment of the 
common cause, the bigoted of every denomination give of 
the opinions and practices of every other. 

I observed that one great engine of false zeal is division. It 
will be worth while to consider this more particularly, and 
inquire into that factious spirit which has so much infested 
the Christian world, to the great scandal of the friends, and 
the no small triumph of the enemies of religion. People are 
commonly ingenious enough to devise excuses for what is the 
natural result of the worst passions of their frame. Let us 
fairly canvass those pleas which are generally used on this 
subject. One is, the danger of contracting impurity by an 
intermixture with the impure. The argument of such ad 
vocates for separation is justly represented by the prophet 
Stand by thyself: come not near to me ; for I am holier than 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 181 

thou, Isa. Ixv. 5. There are two things, (I speak to the au 
thors and promoters of division, whoever they be,) of which 
ye would need to be ascertained, before ye introduce strife 
and dissension among those who live in unity ; knowing, 
that where these are, there is confusion, and every evil work ; 
James iii. 16. The first thing I would have you be assured 
of is, that ye have truth on your side. It is not every spe 
cious deduction by inference from Scripture, that ought to be 
put on the same footing with those doctrines which are clearly 
revealed there. I know that all bigots are equally dogmati 
cal on every point. And it is not difficult to account for this. 
They hold all their opinions by the same tenure of implicit 
faith. But no discerning person, no one who is properly capa 
ble of forming a judgment, ever pretended, that there was 
for every opinion equal evidence. If the apostle of the Gen 
tiles may be credited, there are even in religion matters of 
doubtful disputation, which ought never to disturb the har 
mony of Christians, much less make a rent in their commu 
nion ; Rom. xiv. The second thing of which ye would need 
to be well informed is, that the ground of separation be a 
matter of importance. The consequences of a breach are 
important, and the cause would need to be proportionate. 
" But is not every point important that concerns religion ?" 
Admitted. Yet we have the best authority to affirm, that 
there are weightier and less weighty matters of the law; Matt, 
xxiii. 23. Nay more, as was hinted already, we are autho 
rized to affirm, that there are points regarding religion, about 
which, though we differ in judgment, we ought not to divide. 
Some have, very weakly in my opinion, introduced the 
example of the primitive Christians in separating from Jews 
and Pagans, as furnishing a good defence of separation among 
Christians from one another. Concerning the former it is 
alleged, that the circumstance which most incensed their 
enemies against them was, that they would admit no inter 
community with those of other religions ; that is, say they, 
with those who did not perfectly concur with them in their 
religious sentiments. There is a misunderstanding here, 
which I shall endeavour to unravel. The matter well de 
serves to be traced from the beginning. 

M 2 



182 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

Our Lord Jesus Christ did not only himself attend the ser 
vice in the synagogue every Sabbath, and in the temple on 
the solemn festivals, but commanded his disciples to do the 
same : The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses 1 seat. What 
soever therefore they bid you observe, that observe, and do, 
Matt, xxiii. 3. Yet it is well known, that our Lord had some 
e xc eptions to their doctrine, as well as to their lives. The 
conduct of his apostles, and his other followers of the Jewish 
nation, continued in this, after his ascension, to be conform 
able to his example and instructions. They punctually 
attended both the synagogue-worship, (Acts ix. 20; xiii. 5, 
14, &c. ; xiv. 1 ; xvii. 1, 2, 17. xviii. 4,) and the temple- 
service, (Acts ii. 46 ; iii. 1 ; xxi. 26 ; xxii. 17 ; xxiv. 18,) as 
we learn from the Acts of the Apostles, notwithstanding that 
the nation had openly rejected and crucified the Messiah. 
Their maxim was, that whereto they had attained, they 
should walk by the same rule, Phil. iii. 16. Both Jews and 
Christians had attained to the knowledge of one God, a spi 
rit of infinite perfection ; and the latter found nothing unsuit 
able in the practice of concurring with the former in adoring 
their common Creator, and in hearing those Scriptures read 
which both sides admitted to be divinely inspired ; though 
sometimes the reading was accompanied with explications 
which Christians could not approve. Nor does it appear 
that they desisted from this conformity, till the Jews, by a 
sentence of excommunication, compelled them to desist, as 
our Lord had predicted, John xvi. 2. Were we to examine 
this conduct by modern ideas, I am afraid the apostles them 
selves would not escape the charge of latitudinarian. But, 
in those times, separation, in the way now practised, was 
a thing utterly unknown. Few sects of Christians differ so 
widely in their principles, as the Pharisees and Sadducees 
among the Jews did ; yet it deserves our notice, that both 
attended worship in the same temple, and in the same syna 
gogues. Neither of them became separatists, in the sense in 
which the word is understood amongst us. 

Even the Christians themselves were not wholly without 
diversity of opinions in the apostolic age. The grand ques 
tion which first occupied them was about the Mosaic cere- 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 183 

monies, Acts xv. 1. This point was determined at Jerusa 
lem, in a convention of the apostles, elders, and brethren, 
by a resolve alike moderate and judicious, Acts xv. 6, &c. 
With regard to the Jewish converts there was no dispute : 
they had been in the use hitherto of giving the same punc 
tual obedience to the rites of the law, since their conversion 
to Christianity, as before ; and there was no new injunction 
given them now ; they were left entirely to their freedom. 
As to the Gentile brethren, Acts xix. 23, &c., about whom 
alone the debate was started, they were required only to ab 
stain from a few things, which were particularly scandalous 
to the Jews ; and in other respects were declared free from 
any obligation to the observance of the Mosaic institution. 
There was, it would appear, in that assembly, none of those 
violent sticklers for uniformity, so common in after times, 
when men s zeal began to fix on the exterior part only. I 
cannot help observing by the way, that those who are vested 
with the most undoubted title to authority, are generally 
more moderate in the use of it, than those whose power is 
questionable, at least, if not usurped. In consequence of this 
judgment, both Jewish and Gentile disciples lived in full 
communion together as Christians, notwithstanding that the 
one set observed a multitude of rites not minded by the other. 
The matter did not rest here. Several Jewish brethren, 
who had the most enlarged views of the gospel dispensation, 
began, when they were among Gentiles, and not in hazard of 
scandalising their countrymen, to omit observing the legal 
rites altogether. Others, of weaker minds, and narrower 
views, could not surmount the scruple of abandoning customs 
which, from their infancy, they had been taught to revere ; 
Acts xxi. 20. In neither of these classes was there any dis 
obedience to the decree given at Jerusalem, which did not 
ordain any thing with regard to the Jewish proselytes ; and 
by its silence did indeed permit, but not command, them to 
retain their ceremonies. There was a third class, who, in 
open defiance of that decree, maintained the indispensable 
necessity of circumcision to salvation ; and, consequently, 
wanted to w r rithe this yoke about the necks of all the Gentile 
converts. It is worth while to observe the different manner 
in which Paul treated these different classes. 



184 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

With the first he concurred in opinion ; at the same time 
he enjoined them, not to say or do any thing that might be 
offensive to the weak, who were those of the second class ; 
insisting, that there were opinions which, though true, were 
not of that consequence, that we ought to endanger, the in 
terests of charity by an unseasonable display of them. What 
tenderness does he not show even to the errors of those who, 
though weakly scrupulous, were truly conscientious ? This 
topic he has touched occasionally in almost all his writings : 
but he has fully discussed it in the epistle to the Romans, 
chap. xiv. ; and in such a manner, that it would be impossi 
ble to say, whether the spirit of love, or of a sound mind, 
shines forth most conspicuously in the discussion. 

The third class he treats in a very different manner ; and 
strains every nerve to detect their sophistry, and prevent their 
influence. Was it that the Jewish rites were worse than any 
other ? No ; but it was because that doctrine, which made 
the favour of Heaven depend on mere ceremonies, was totally 
subversive of the spirit of the gospel. And such the doctrine 
of the Judaizing teachers evidently was : Except ye be cir 
cumcised, said they, after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be 
saved, Acts xv. 1 . Nothing could be more contradictory to 
all the rational and generous sentiments which the gospel of 
Jesus inspires, than this slavish and superstitious tenet. We 
have seen already, that no man could make, or require others 
to make, greater allowances than he did for the observance 
of those very rites, when that observance did not proceed 
from this absurd principle ; a principle which tended at once 
to degrade in our conceptions the Divine Majesty, to pervert 
the natural sense which God has given us of right and 
wrong, and to shake, at least, if not overturn, the doctrine 
of our reconciliation by Jesus. The apostle, then, was sen 
sible of the difference between truth and importance even in 
religious matters. 

Without distinguishing these several classes, we shall never 
be able to perceive the consistency of the apostle s conduct 
on this head. When he says at one time, Circumcision is 
nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, I Cor. vii. 19; which 
plainly implies, that we are neither the better nor the worse 
for submitting to this ceremony ; and at another, as he did 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 185 

to the Galatians on whom the Judaizing teachers had made 
an impression, If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you 
nothing, Gal. v. 2 ; it must be owned, there is in these an 
apparent inconsistency. It may be plausibly urged against 
him, If all we have by Christ shall be forfeited by our re 
ceiving this seal of Judaism, and subjecting ourselves to the 
yoke of the law, why did Paul himself, after his conversion, 
circumcise Timothy ? Acts xvi. 1 , &c. Why did he, when he 
was among the Jews, live agreeably to the ordinances of the 
law, and, along with others, go through the ceremonies of 
purification in the temple, Acts xxi. 26, for the discharge of 
a vow ?* "Why doth he treat the distinction of days, and of 
meats, and the other legal observances, as matters of indif 
ference, and enjoin on all sides mutual forbearance on these 
articles ? Rom. xiv. It will be impossible, in a satisfactory 
manner, to answer these questions, without admitting the 
distinction above explained. From the whole, however, it is 
indisputable, that there was not among Christians a perfect 
unanimity on every point, even in the apostolic age ; that, not 
withstanding this, they lived in harmony and unity, and in 
full communion with one another, as became brethren in 
Christ. 

That the church had no intercommunity in sacred matters 
with idolaters, is indeed equally incontestable. Is there then, 

* I know that some have censured the apostle for this step, and considered it 
as a culpable compliance with an advice which savoured too much of the wis 
dom of the world. The bad success of this expedient they look on as a provi 
dential rebuke for temporizing. I am not satisfied of the justice of this censure, 
for the following reasons : 1. Our apostle being of the Jewish nation, was evi 
dently at liberty to use the ceremonies, if he pleased. 2. Though he expressly 
declares them not available to salvation, he never pronounces them either unlaw 
ful or inexpedient for those who were Jews by birth. 3. He avows it to be his 
ordinary method, among the Jews, to live as a Jew ; 1 Cor. ix. 20. 4. If 
Paul had not previously had a vow, and during its continuance observed the ab 
stinences prescribed by the law, can it be imagined , that one who had any regard 
to piety or truth, would have either advised or consented to such dissimulation 
in a solemn act of religion ? 5. That he actually had a vow, and observed the 
precept relating to it, when he had no temptation to temporize, is evident from 
Acts xviii. 18. 6. That the bad success of this expedient should be construed as 
a rebuke from Heaven, is a supposition as arbitrary, as it would be to affirm ^ 
that when Peter was beaten by order of the Sanhedrim, this should be inter 
preted as a divine reproof for his teaching in the temple, where he had been 
apprehended. 



186 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

say modern sectaries, no sufficient ground, except idolatry, 
for breaking from all fellowship in religious matters ? That 
idolatrous worship is a sufficient reason (whether the com 
munity from which we separate be called Christian or not) 
there can be no question. That it is the only reason, I do 
not say. If, as a condition of communion, a positive assent 
to opinions, or approbation of practices, were required, which 
we could not give without falsehood, this also would be a 
sufficient ground. It can never be our duty to lie or dissemble. 
I do not say, that these are all the just grounds of separation ; 
though I cannot at present recollect any other. But this I 
do say, that where it is once made on Christian grounds, it 
is much oftener the effect of pride and passion. 

Allow me to ask, on the other hand, Is there no danger 
from separation ? Is it of no consequence, think ye, to in 
crease so epidemical an evil ? Paul thought not so lightly of 
the matter, when he so warmly checked the first motions of 
this spirit in the Corinthians, though it had no appearance 
of creating an open rupture: 1 Cor. i. 11, &c. iii. 3, &c. 
Is Christ, the head, divided, that ye make so little account 
of disjoining the members ? or is each sect arrogant enough 
to appropriate him to themselves ? Is there no danger of 
giving to your several leaders the honour which belongs only 
to your Lord ? Was any of those teachers crucified for you ? 
or were ye baptized in his name ? It is but too evident, what 
ever ye may pretend, that ye do call men Rabbi and Father; 
that ye do admit other masters than Christ, to whose several 
dictates and glosses ye are blindly devoted. Ye do not say, 
indeed, I am of Paul, and I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas ; 
but ye have gotten names much less respectable, which ye 
substitute in their place. When such contentions subsist 
amongst you, are ye not carnal, and walk as men ? Is not 
your conduct more influenced by the passions of the men of 
this world, than by the example and maxims of Christ ? 

To set this matter in another Light : Is there no danger 
of wounding charity, the end of the commandment, and the 
bond of perfectness ? Is there no danger of narrowing the 
sphere of that brotherly love, which every disciple of Jesus 
owes to every other ? Is there no danger that ye vitiate your 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 187 

own temper ; that your minds rankle against your brethren ; 
that, from attending too close to what ye judge faulty in them, 
ye come at length to be incapable of discovering any good 
in them at all ? This is but too common a progress. The 
mind, uneasy under an antipathy of which it is -become 
unable to get rid, casts about for means to justify it. These 
it will never be difficult to find, when one is in the humour 
of seeking for them. Every ill is then exaggerated, and 
every good misconstrued. It is the character of Charity, that 
it thinketh no evil, 1 Cor. xiii. 5. In the track we would 
warn you against, ye are almost sure of contracting an inti 
macy with her antagonist, Malice, which thinketh no good. 
Were there no danger of these things, it is not your prefer 
ring other pastors, or even some differences in opinion and 
external order, that should ever have induced me to use a 
single expostulation on the subject. 

It was the remark of a late witty author, that " we have 
religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make 
us love one another."* The fact is but too generally expe 
rienced. Yet when we consider the remark, it must at first 
appear a paradox. For if the perfection of religion would 
produce the perfection of love, surely a less degree of the 
former should produce a less degree of the latter ; but that 
it should produce hatred, which is the opposite of love, seems 
inconceivable. The riddle, however, upon attention, is easily 
solved. The religion that produces hatred will not be found 
to differ only in degree from that which produces love, but 
in spirit and in kind. When, therefore, from what we call 
religion, we feel such an effect upon our minds, we have but 
too great reason to suspect that we have more of the sectary 
than of the Christian in us, and that our religion has in it 
more of the false than of the true ; that our zeal is bigotry, 
and our supreme regards no better than a dotage about 
questions and strifes of words, vain j anglings, and oppositions 
of science falsely so called. 

But there is something more here than has been yet ac 
counted for. Weak judgment and ungovernable passions 
may give rise to those differences that breed division ; but 

* Swift. 



188 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

when sects are once formed, political causes co-operate in 
producing that malignity which they so commonly bear to 
one another. * It becomes in some respect the interest or 
credit of their respective leaders, to keep the party together. 
No method is so effectual for attaining this end, as to magnify 
every point on which they differ from others as of the utmost 
consequence, and to make the whole attention of their adhe 
rents centre there. Others are represented as being in the 
high road of perdition. For this purpose every passage in 
Scripture about heathens and idolaters is miserably wrested, 
that it may appear intended for their neighbours of other 
sects. These are sometimes Pharisees and Sadducees, some 
times publicans and sinners, and always They that are without. 
For any of their own fraternity occasionally to join in worship 
with those of another party, is no better than bowing the knee 
to Baal; for they themselves only are the small remnant, the 
elect , the little flock ; and, exactly in the spirit of Judaism, 
they think God has no concern about all the world besides. 
Nothing can equal the dogmatism and arrogance with which 
one sect pronounces sentence against another, except perhaps 
the dogmatism and arrogance with which that other retaliates 
upon them. If this policy have in it of the wisdom of the 
serpent, it is not in conjunction with the innocence of the 
dove. If it have the wisdom of the serpent, it has his venom 
too. It has not the signature of the wisdom that is from 
above, which is pure, peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, 
full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without 
hypocrisy, James iii. 17. On the contrary, earthly in its 
nature, and devilish in its tendency, it is at best but the 
subtlety of the old serpent who beguiled Eve, who has con 
tributed so much to extirpate love from the earth, and to 
sow the seeds of discord in its stead. 

In what words shall I address, those simple ones who allow 
themselves to be deceived by so ill-disguised an artifice ? If 
one of the parties in any common quarrel should, after telling 
you his story, insist with you not to hear his adversary, whom 
he abuses very liberally, assuring you that he would only 
mislead your judgment; could ye entertain a favourable idea 
of that man s cause ? If ye were constituted judges in it, 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 189 

would ye be in this manner induced to give your decision 
without hearing both sides ? Are ye silly enough, then, to be 
gulled in regard to religion, a matter wherein ye yourselves 
are so deeply concerned, by a trick so poor, that it could not 
impose on a person of common sense in the most trifling 
occurrence ? Have ye eyes ? Look around you : Do ye not 
perceive hundreds, nay thousands, seduced by the very same 
methods and sentiments opposite to yours, and made to en 
tertain as horrid a notion of you as it is possible for you to 
entertain of them ? Ye are certain that they are deluded ; and 
they are certain that ye are deluded ;. and both have equal 
reason. Ought not this to make you suspect an expedient, 
which ye must acknowledge is so often used successfully in 
the cause of error ? Properly in that cause only. For is it, I 
pray you, vice or virtue that shuns the light ? Is it truth or 
falsehood that declines an open trial ? Reason will tell you, 
your Lord and Master will tell you, (for ye still call him Mas 
ter and Lord,) that it is vice and falsehood ; John iii. 20, 21. 
But if his word had half the weight with you that the verdicts 
of your Rabbies have, ye could not be imposed on by such a 
contemptible piece of priestcraft. Perhaps ye are of a party 
(for I know there are such parties) which holds the name of 
priest in abhorrence, which detests the term clergy, and all 
other titles of that stamp. It may be so. Words are but 
sounds, and ye may be violently attached to the thing, in 
whatever way ye stand affected to the name. Does any one 
claim or exercise a dominion over the faith of others ? That 
man is a priest in the most odious sense the word bears. Does 
lie support his claim by anathematizing those who do not 
acknowledge it ? He avails himself of one of the most exe 
crable, though at the same time one of the commonest engines 
of priestcraft. " But who," says he, "claims any such domi 
nion ? We know them not." I will tell you them. Who 
ever says, either in so many words, or in what is equivalent, 
"Be guided by me only, and such as concur with me in their 
opinions ; but on the peril of damnation hear no other:" that 
man claims it, whoever he be. It is he that assumes the title 
of Rabbi, that chooses to be called Master and Father upon 
earth, and thus usurps the office of his Lord. As his account 



190 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

only of the doctrine of Jesus is heard by you, as his explica 
tions only are regarded, as his solutions only of every doubt 
are admitted, ye are Christians just so far, and of such a form, 
as it pleases him y e should be : ye inadvertently constitute 
him umpire over your Master himself, and become much more 
properly his followers than the followers of Christ. 

Would it be thought credible, if experience did not vouch 
the fact, that a policy, covered by so thin a disguise, could 
prove successful ; an antiquated and stale device, employed 
alike by men of the most repugnant sentiments and opposite 
interests ; a device which carries the suspicious mark of con 
scious weakness in the front of it ? One thing, however, truth 
compels me to urge in excuse for those who employ these 
secluding, damning, and terrifying methods. It is a case of 
necessity with them. The party cannot dispense with these 
arts. Rob them of this defence, and they are undone. If 
you examine impartially, you will soon be satisfied, that no 
cause ever yet had recourse to such base shifts, which could 
be supported by any better. 

I cannot forbear, whether I am heard or not, addressing a 
few words to those presumptuous men, who thus consign each 
other to damnation for not agreeing with them in opinion on 
every article. It is for your own sakes I speak ; for with me 
it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you, or 
by man s judgment. Thou callest thyself a disciple of Jesus : 
Hast thou no regard to the commandment of thy Lord ? Or 
has he given a more express commandment than this ? Judge 
not, that ye be not judged : For with what judgment ye judge, 
ye shall be judged ; and with what measure ye mete, it shall 
be measured to you again, Matt. vii. 1, 2. Does not he on 
whom thou darest to sit in judgment, profess to be a disciple 
of Jesus as well as thou ? Whether he be really so or not, 
is another s affair, and not thine. Who art thou, says Paul, 
that judgest another mans servant? to his own master he 
standeth or falleth, Rom. xiv. 4. Besides, is there not one 
appointed Judge of all the earth ? and darest thou usurp his 
office ? Why dost thou judge thy brother ? or why dost thou set 
at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judg 
ment-seat of Christ, Rom. xiv. 10. There is one lawgiver, 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 191 

says the apostle James, who is able to save and to destroy : 
Who art thou thatjudgest another? James v. 12. In every 
view this practice is condemned. It is fraught with danger 
to yourselves, with injury to your neighbour, and with impiety 
to your Lord. 

Nothing is more common with polemic writers, than to 
complain of the pride of those who impugn their theories. It 
requires no great penetration to discern, that the pride of the 
writer is the source of the complaint. The charge is com 
monly reciprocal, and just on both sides. Would you know 
which is the proudest ? You will not mistake the matter 
greatly in concluding, that it is he who on this topic makes 
the loudest clamour. But of all the species of pride and 
presumption that have ever yet appeared, it is certainly the 
most extravagant, for a puny mortal, the insect of a day, a 
reptile of the dust, to arrogate the prerogative of omniscience, 
to ascend the throne of the Most High, and to point the 
thunders of Almighty power. Is it to be wondered that such 
a disposition should produce a spirit of persecution ? It would 
be miraculous if it did not. Can the man who does not hesi 
tate to usurp one function of Omnipotence, hesitate to usurp 
another ? Would he who scruples not to pronounce sen 
tence, scruple to execute it if it were in his power ? Yes, upon 
reflection I. am persuaded, that far the greater part of those 
blind zealots themselves would stop here. We are however 
too amply warranted by experience to say at least, that 
they will not scruple to consign him to a stake in this world, 
whom they do not scruple, in their usurped capacity of 
judges, to consign to hell-fire in the next. 

We sometimes hear much of Antichrist amongst our con- 
trovertists. Who is Antichrist ? It is an usurper, who, under 
pretence of honouring Christ, supplants him, perverting the 
power he has assumed to the seduction of the disciples, 
2 Thess. ii. 3, &c. We have seen already, that, in the po 
litical artifices we have been combating, there is a double 
usurpation of the prerogatives of our Lord, both as the only 
infallible instructor of his people, and as the supreme judge 
of the world. This is therefore that malign spirit of Antichrist, 
whose baleful influences have, alas! been but too widely 
diffused, to the unspeakable hurt of that godlike charity, with- 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

out which, with all our pretensions to faith, and zeal, and 
knowledge, we are at best but sounding brass and tinkling 
cymbals, 1 Cor. xiii. 1 3. 

What then shall we say of those who differ from us in 
important articles ? What shall we say ? That, in our judg 
ment, they err, not knowing the Scriptures. What more 
should we say ? It belongs to the Omniscient, the Searcher 
of hearts, and to him only, to say whether their error, if they 
be in an error, proceeds from pravity of disposition, or from 
causes in which the will had no share. Is it for us to deter 
mine, how much wood, and hay, and stubble, may be reared 
up on the only foundation, Jesus Christ ? Though the foreign 
materials, by the apostle s account, will be consumed in the 
fiery trial they must undergo, yet the builder himself will be 
saved, 1 Cor. iii. 15. We are ever, like Peter, turning aside 
from the point in hand, (which is what immediately concerns 
ourselves,) and, by a curiosity much less justifiable than his, 
inquiring, what will become of this man ? When such a ques 
tion arises in thy mind, O my fellow-Christian, think thou 
hearest the voice of thy divine Master checking thy imper 
tinence in the words addressed to the apostle, What is that 
to thee ? Follow thou me f John xxi. 22. 

IV. I proceed now, in the last place, to make some reflec 
tions on what has been advanced. 

1 . First, I observe, That though the spirit of true religion, 
and the spirit of false, be not only different, but opposite, 
there may nevertheless be a portion of each in the same dis 
position. Man has been said, not unjustly, to be amass of 
contradictions. The union just now mentioned, however in 
congruous, is not more so than that of vice and virtue, truth 
and error, which, though equally opposite, are often blended 
in the same character. From the specimen we have seen of 
false zeal in two of the disciples, it would be unjust to con 
clude, that they were then totally unacquainted with true re 
ligion. Instances may be supposed, and have actually hap 
pened, in which the genuine spirit of the gospel has power 
fully resisted in the mind, and happily overcome the motions 
of a misguided zeal, derived from a superstitious or fanatical 
education. Examples might no doubt be produced of a vie- 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 193 

tory on the other side, when the influence of early prejudices, 
deeply and firmly rooted, has, on a particular occasion, mis 
led one to act a part extremely unsuitable to the real piety 
and benevolence which have uniformly shone in the rest of his 
conduct. How far the plea of a misinformed conscience 
will go in extenuation of the crimes it occasions, it belongs 
not to us, but to the great Judge of all the earth, to deter 
mine. 

If, then, there appear evident marks of superstition or en 
thusiasm in a character, let us not conclude that all must be 
false, that there can be nothing there of true religion, or the 
spirit of the gospel. If there be an evident mixture of boch, 
let us not conclude that there must be a natural affinity be 
tween true religion and false. A due attention to what has 
been said will satisfy us, that both ways of arguing are abso 
lutely untenable. 

2. I observe, secondly, That, from the spirit of the party, 
we cannot always infer with justice what spirit predominates 
in an individual belonging to that party. In what sects that 
were not idolatrous, did there ever appear more of super 
stition, rancour, and furious zeal, than among the Pharisees 
and the Samaritans ? Yet in both, our Saviour, who knew 
what was in man, John ii. 25, found persons to whom he 
could give an honourable testimony ; persons, too, who were 
not in every thing superior to popular opinions and party 
prejudices. That the apostles themselves had not attained 
this superiority till about the time of their Lord s ascension, 
is manifest from the question they put to him after his resur 
rection, Lord t wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to 
Israel ? Acts i. 6. Both the above observations ought to teach 
us modesty in the opinions we form of men s characters. 

It has been remarked already, that some principles are in 
their nature and origin superstitious. Such is the opinion 
which a late eminent writer* remarks to prevail among the 
Indians, that the water of the Ganges has a sanctifying virtue ; 
and that the dead whose ashes are thrown into it, are secured 
of an admission into Elysium. " What matters it," says he, 
" whether one live virtuously or not ? He can order his body 

* De TEsprit des Loix, liv. 24. ch. 14. 



194 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

to be thrown in the Ganges." Are absurdities of this kind 
peculiar to Paganism ? Are there not some European coun 
tries in which men may say, with equal reason, " What mat 
ters it how one lives ? He can on his death-bed obtain the 
viaticum." And by their doctrine of sacraments, it is even 
of no consequence whether the dying man be sensible of what 
is done, or insensible. It is manifest, that these two dogmas 
are materially the same ; they differ only in the form. 

On the other hand it must be acknowledged, that there 
are no religious institutions, how pure soever, which may not 
be superstitiously or fanatically used. A minister s convers 
ing with the sick on the hope of the gospel, and joining with 
them in prayer, are duties which, when properly performed, 
have a natural tendency to prove solacing and instructive to 
the distressed, to the spectators, and to the minister himself. 
But if any person be absurd enough to consider the prayer 
of a minister, at the bedside of one in the agonies of death, 
as a passport to heaven, his sentiments do not differ essen 
tially from theirs who rely on extreme unction, or the priest s 
absolution, as the grand security. 

3. I observe, thirdly, That that set of opinions and prac 
tices is the most dangerous, which looks with the malignest 
aspect on love, and tends most to contract its circle. The 
sectarian spirit has inverted the rule laid down by our Lord, 
which was, to judge of teachers and their doctrines by their 
fruits, Matt. vii. 15, &c. The method now almost universally 
followed, is, to judge of their fruits by their doctrines. If 
these be not to our taste, the other cannot be good : if these 
receive our approbation, the other must be very bad ere they 
displease us. Every sect has its own Shibboleth. One inquires 
about opinions ; another, about ceremonies ; a third, about 
ecclesiastical polity and hierarchy, proposing, as the sole au 
thentic evidence of our being Christians, the examination of 
certain endless genealogies ; as if Christ had intended that all 
his disciples should be antiquaries, because otherwise they 
could not have the satisfaction to know whether they were his 
disciples or not. Unfortunately for these people, all such 
spiritual pedigrees are so miserably lame, that if their rule 
were to be admitted, we should be involved in darkness on 
this subject from which no antiquary could extricate us : and 



THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 195 

there would not remain the slightest evidence that there were 
a single Christian on the earth. We shall however be satis 
fied with Paul s rule on this subject, who enjoins every man, 
in order to make this important discovery with regard to 
himself, carefully to examine his own heart, 2 Cor. xiii. 5. 

Strange indeed, that none of these curious tests have been 
recommended to us by Christ, in order to direct us to the 
choice of teachers. Still more strange, that all sects should, 
as it were by general consent, overlook the only rule he gave 
on this subject. He did not enjoin the examination of cap 
tious questions, disputes often about words and phrases ; he 
knew how unfit the bulk of mankind are for discussions of this 
sort. His rule is level to the capacity of all, and probably 
for this reason has been so little regarded. Teachers and 
doctrines are to be distinguished by their fruits. That doc 
trine is the soundest, which has the happiest influence on the 
temper and lives of those who receive it ; which operates 
most powerfully by love to God, and love to man. That, 
on the contrary, is to be deemed the worst, which has the 
unhappiest influence on the temper and life. We do not 
therefore send you to the inextricable mazes of disputation 
and logomachy, but to the only infallible test which Christ 
himself has given us. It will not, sure, be imagined, that 
we mean, like the too narrow-minded disciple, to forbid any 
man to cast out devils in the name of Christ, because he 
followeth not with us, Mark ix. 38 ; Luke ix. 49 : but we 
mean to warn every man against the influence of that teacher 
who would cast in devils in the name of Christ, whether he 
follow with us or not. For we know no worse devils than 
contention, bitterness, spiritual pride, uncharitable judg 
ments, detraction, malevolence. We mean further, if possible, 
to abate the rancour of sects towards one another, and to 
make the interests of charity surmount that worst species of 
priestly policy which but too much abounds in them all. 

4. I remark, fourthly, That some of the strongest objec 
tions of infidels do not properly affect the gospel : they affect 
only the corruptions which have been introduced by men into 
this divine religion. It may be added, that the same adven 
titious materials have been the foundation of the greater part 
of the controversies among Christians themselves. 

N 



196 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 

To conclude : let us, my honoured Fathers and Brethren 
in the Ministry, think of the particular obligations we are 
brought under by the trust reposed in us, of recommending, 
both by doctrine and by example, the genuine spirit of the 
gospel. There is not a community, any more than an indi 
vidual, that is absolutely perfect ; but perfection ought ever 
to be the aim of both. It is not our having the advantage of 
a legal establishment that will secure us against the temper 
of sectaries, though I can say with truth, that in my judg 
ment (I may indeed be partial) there will not easily be found 
a Christian society that has less of that temper. In a conta 
gion so universal, it is hardly possible to escape entirely being 
infected. Let this consideration make us the more on our 
guard, that we may purge out the old leaven, and be a new 
lump in the Lord. Let us never descend to the unchristian 
artifice of ingratiating ourselves by traducing others. Still 
less let us think of the antichristian arrogance of usurping the 
office of the supreme Judge, and pronouncing the eternal 
doom of those who differ from us. Nay, where we know we 
meet with this treatment from others, let us abhor the 
thought of retaliating ; imitating rather the conduct of our 
Lord, who, when he was reviled, reviled not again. Let our 
great policy for influencing those of other communions be, to 
show forth, in every thing, the meekness, the gentleness, the 
moderation of Christ. If, attracted by that spirit which the 
apostle styles the spirit of power, and of love, and of a sound 
mind, prevailing in the tempers and lives of our people as 
the happy fruits of our teaching, candid and reasonable men 
shall be induced to give us the preference, the victory will 
be to our honour, and we are sure that the heart of the pro 
selyte will not be corrupted by the change. We cannot say 
so much when men are gained to any party by the too com 
mon arts of infusing bigotry and rancour. But still such an 
external connexion is comparatively a small matter. Those 
who are not gained in this sense, may nevertheless be gained 
to love and purity, to more enlarged sentiments of the un 
bounded grace of Jesus, and thus may be improved by our 
example. Let us therefore invariably follow after the things 
which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify 
another. 






THE SUCCESS OF THE FIRST PUBLISHERS OF THE 
GOSPEL, A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH: 

A 

SERMON, 

PREACHED 

BEFORE THE SOCIETY IN SCOTLAND 
FOR PROPAGATING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE, 

AT THEIR ANNUAL MEETING, 

EDINBURGH, FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 1777. 



N 



EDINBURGH, JUNE 6, 1777. 

At a General Meeting of the Society in Scotland for Propagating 
Christian Knowledge, 

RESOLVED, 

That the thanks of this Society be given to the Reverend Dr. 
CAMPBELL, for his excellent Sermon preached this day before 
them ; and that he be desired to permit the same to be printed for 
the use of the Society. 

JAMES FORREST, Clerk. 



SERMON II. 



1 COR. i. 25. 

The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness 
of God is stronger than men. 

IT would scarcely be possible to conceive a new religion at 
tended with more disadvantageous circumstances than was 
the Christian religion on its first appearance ; and of which, 
consequently, the success in the world would, humanly speak 
ing, be more improbable. Nothing could be worse adapted 
to the prejudices that prevailed among Jews and Gentiles than 
its tenets : nothing could be less accommodated to the uni 
versal depravity of manners than its precepts. Both the ob 
scurity and the fate of its Founder seemed alike insuperable 
obstacles to the advancement of his cause. And as to the per 
sons whom, under the title of Apostles, he selected to be the 
instruments of promulgating his doctrine, they were such as, 
in the judgment of all reasonable men, would have been suffi 
cient, though every other circumstance had been favourable, 
to render the scheme abortive. Truly, therefore, may we say, 
that if this counsel or this work had been of men, it must have 
come to nought. Any one of the particulars above mentioned 
would have been enough to stifle it in the birth ; how much 
more would all of them when combined together ? But there 
is no wisdom nor understanding, nor counsel, against the Lord, 
Prov. xxi. 30. His thoughts are not our thoughts, neither 
are our ways his ways. Justly is this divine institution repre 
sented in the prophetic language under the emblem of a stone, 
something at first to appearance inconsiderable, cut out with 
out hands, not by human skill or dexterity, which became a 
great mountain, and filled the whole earth, Dan. ii. 34, 35. 
For the foolishness of God, as ye have it in the passage read 



200 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL, 

to you as the foundation of this discourse, is wiser than men, 
and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 

The apostle, in these words, is far from insinuating that 
there can be any thing in the supreme all-perfect Mind ana 
logous to what we understand by the terms folly and weakness. 
But, by an usual figure, he considers the extraordinary con 
duct of Providence manifested in this new institution, under 
the denomination which the adversaries were pleased to give 
it ; and affirms, that the measures which the Ruler of the 
world had adopted, and which to them were foolishness, would 
be found to have more wisdom in them than the wisest plans 
of human contrivance ; and that the means employed by Hea 
ven, however weak they might be reckoned, would be strong 
enough to baffle all the most vigorous efforts of the sons of 
earth. Nay more, however shallow the measures, and however 
impotent the instruments may be, not in appearance but in 
reality, when attended only by natural and ordinary means, 
they will prove perfectly efficacious when attended by such as 
are supernatural and extraordinary. God, when he is pleased 
to interpose miraculously, can effect his purpose, not only 
without the intervention of man, but by such human agency as 
seems better calculated to defeat the end than to promote it. 
This, we learn from the context, was, in several important re 
spects, the case with the first promulgation of the gospel. 

To throw light on this doctrine, and to point out the use 
we ought to make of it, shall, with the aid of Heaven, be the 
ultimate scope of this discourse. The argument couched in 
my text, and illustrated in the concluding part of this chapter 
and the beginning of the next, may be thus expressed : " The 
human and natural means originally employed for the propa 
gation of the gospel, would, without the divine interposition, 
have proved both foolish and weak, and therefore utterly 
incapable of answering the purpose. The purpose was, never 
theless,, by these means fully answered : consequently, they 
must have been accompanied with the divine interposition, 
and our religion is of God, and not of man." I shall first, 
therefore, endeavour to evince the truth of the first proposition, 
and show the utter inability of the natural means employed 
in promulgating the gospel, to effect the end : I shall next 



A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 201 

evince the truth of the second, pointing out the rapid and 
unexampled success of the means that were employed ; and 
shall conclude with observing the influence which the obvious 
consequence of these deductions ought to have upon us, and 
the improvement we ought to make of this doctrine. 

I BEGIN with the unfitness of the means, that is, the natu 
ral and ordinary means, admitted by infidels as well as Chris 
tians to have been employed ; for it is of such means only I 
am here speaking. Let it be observed, that under this I com 
prehend the genius of the doctrine taught ; because, whether 
supernatural in its origin or not, it may have in it a natural 
fitness for engaging attention and regard, or, on the contrary, 
a natural tendency to alienate the minds of men, and render 
them inattentive and averse. In this view, the spirit and 
character of the institution itself ought to be regarded as 
natural means, either of promoting, or of retarding, its pro 
pagation. Let us then examine briefly the two principal 
circumstances already suggested the doctrine, and the pub 
lishers. It is to the former that the term foolishness is more 
especially applied, as weakness is to the latter. 

The doctrine of the cross, in particular, the great hinge of 
all, was, in every view, exposed to universal dislike and deri 
sion. Considered as an article of faith in this new religion, 
as exhibiting the expiation of sin, and consequently as the 
foundation of the sinner s hope of divine pardon and accept 
ance, to men unprincipled as they were, it both shocked their 
understanding, and was humiliating to their pride. Con 
sidered as a practical lesson, and a warning of the treatment 
which the disciples might expect when such horrible things 
had befallen their Master, to follow whom in suffering they 
were specially called, nothing could tend more powerfully to 
alienate their will, being opposed by all their most rooted 
passions, love of life, aversion to pain, and horror of infamy. 
And even considered only as a memorable event in the history 
of him whom all the proselytes to this institution were bound 
to acknowledge as their lawgiver and king, it was exceedingly 
disgustful, being contradictory to all the notions to which 
from infancy they had been habituated, in regard to the 



202 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL, 

protection of Providence, and the marks whereby Heaven dis 
tinguishes its favourites destined for honour and authority. 

Paul, accordingly, takes particular notice of the bad recep 
tion which this doctrine met with from both Jews and Gen 
tiles, in consequence of the inveterate prejudices entertained 
against it. The preaching of the cross, says he, is to them that 
perish, to them who reject and despise the gospel, foolishness ; 
but to us who are saved, who by faith give it a grateful recep 
tion, it is the power of God, I Cor. i. 18. However much 
the Jews and the Greeks differed from each other in their 
religious principles as well as customs, they concurred in a 
most hearty destestation of this, which made so fundamental 
an article of the Christian dispensation. They viewed it dif 
ferently, according to their different national characters ; but 
the effect, an indignant rejection, was the same in both. Our 
apostle, who perfectly understood the difference, has marked 
it with the greatest accuracy : The Jews require a sign, an 
evidence of the interposition of Omnipotence, which may 
overpower their minds, and command an unlimited assent ; 
and the Greeks seek after wisdom, the elaborate productions 
of oratory and ingenuity, which may at once convince their 
reason, and gratify their curiosity : but we preach Christ cru 
cified; a doctrine so far from suiting the inclinations of either, 
that to the Jews it is a stumbling -block, and to the Greeks 
foolishness. Both agree to reprobate this doctrine, but dif 
ferently, according to their different tempers. To the He 
brew, it is an object of abhorrence ; to the Grecian, of con 
tempt. He adds, but to them who are called, those who are 
divinely instructed, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of 
God, and the wisdom of God, I Cor. i. 22 24. 

Nor can we justly wonder that so strange a doctrine as this 
of the cross, so repugnant to flesh and blood, should, upon 
the trial, prove so unwelcome to carnal men. If we inquire 
but ever so little into the circumstances of the case, we shall 
find, that its reception could not have been any other than it 
was. The Jewish nation was at that time split into sects, 
which in many things entertained opinions opposite to one 
another. Nevertheless, all who expected the Messiah, of 
whatever sect, concurred in the belief that he would be, what 



A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 208 

the world calls, an illustrious prince, a mighty conqueror, who 
would subdue kingdoms, and establish for himself a new uni 
versal monarchy, or secular empire, (for of a spiritual king 
dom they had no idea,) wherein his own nation would be 
exalted above all the nations of the earth. From these senti 
ments the Samaritans (however much they differed from the 
Jews in other respects) seem not to have dissented ; in these 
sentiments all our Lord s disciples had been brought up ; and 
to these sentiments, in -spite of the manifest tendency of his 
instructions and example, they, by their own account, firmly 
adhered during his life, and even for some time after his re 
surrection. Nor do they seem ever to have relinquished these 
sentiments till the descent of the Holy Ghost, after the ascen 
sion, on that memorable day of Pentecost, on which the pro 
mulgation of the evangelical economy may properly be said 
to have commenced. 

But it is not enough to say, that the Messiah held forth to 
this people in the gospel, and that which the glosses and tra 
ditions of the Rabbies had taught them to expect, were per 
sonages widely different. They were, in most respects, the 
reverse of one another. The people had not yet learnt, that 
God, though not in the tempest, the earthquake, nor the 
thunder, may yet be found in the small and feeble voice. 
Their heads were occupied with ideas of grandeur and ma 
jesty merely human. When they were thinking of the royal 
palace, their attention was called to the shop of the artificer. 
Is not this the carpenter ? (Mark vi. 3,) say they, with a mix 
ture of astonishment and contempt. Instead of riches and 
splendour, behold poverty and humility : For a potentate and 
warrior, they had only a peaceful citizen : In lieu of one 
whose undertakings were, in the sight of all mankind, to be 
crowned with glory and success, they were presented with a 
man incessantly hunted by misfortune from his cradle to his 
grave ; whose friends were few and enemies innumerable ; 
one who in their eyes had nothing desirable, or, to adopt the 
expression of the prophet, had no form nor comeliness, Isa. liii. 
2 ; one who accordingly, from his first appearance in public, 
was by all the men of power and influence hated, derided, de 
famed, persecuted, dishonoured, and at last cruelly murdered. 



204 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL, 

But the stone which the builders rejected, soon became the 
head of the corner. 

Prosperity and adversity have in all ages, and in all na 
tions, had some influence on the judgments of men, in regard 
to divine favour and aversion ; but on no nation had these 
external things a greater influence than on the Jewish ; and 
under no dispensation or form of religion, true or false, more 
glaringly, than under the Mosaic. There was something in 
that institution, it must be acknowledged, which naturally led 
the attention to these outward distinctions between man and 
man. The promises and threatenings of the law, interpreted 
according to the letter, are of things merely temporal. That 
under these are couched the eternal things of the gospel, is 
not to be denied ; things which were also typified by the es 
tablished ceremonies and carnal ordinances. But it must be 
observed, that the literal is the most obvious sense ; the spiri 
tual was perceived by those only whose faith or spiritual dis 
cernment put them in a capacity of seeing through the veil of 
symbolical language and ritual observances. For it ever did, 
and ever will hold, that the secret of the Lord is with them 
that fear him, Psal. xxv. 1 4. But in regard to the generality 
of the people, (I may almost say the whole, the exceptions 
are so few,) that outward happiness or misery were the stan 
dard by which they determined whether a person were the 
object of the love or of the hatred of Heaven, is a fact that 
might be evinced, if necessary, from numberless passages both 
of the Old Testament and of the New. And if this holds in 
regard to what may be called the general tenor of a man s 
life, it holds more especially of his death. To be adjudged to 
the death of a malefactor by the supreme tribunal of the 
chosen people, they considered as an infallible mark of repro 
bation : How much more, when the very sort of death, sus 
pension upon a tree, had a special malediction pronounced on 
it, which, as an indelible stigma, had been engrossed in the 
body of their law : He that is hanged is accursed of God, 
Deut. xxi. 23. The Jews, accordingly, to this day, dis 
tinguish our Saviour by the name of THE HANGED MAN, as 
the most disgraceful they can employ. We cannot then 
wonder, that to those whose minds were blinded through 



A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 205 

sensual affection and obdurate prejudices, and in respect of 
whom, to adopt the apostle s similitude, 2 Cor. iii. 14, the 
veil which covered the face of Moses, too splendid for their 
weak organs, remained unremoved ; we cannot, I say, won 
der, that to them the Messiah s cross should prove a stum 
bling-block. It in reality did so. The undoubted fact 
confirms the reasoning : And the reasoning is, from their 
avowed principles, so unquestionable, as to be equivalent to 
the clearest testimony of the fact. 

Nor were the prepossessions of Pagans less impregnable, 
though built on different grounds. Of all nations the Jewish 
was the most contemned and hated by both Greeks and Ro 
mans. That their contempt and hatred were unreasonable, 
I readily allow. But it is only with the fact I am here con 
cerned, and that is incontrovertible. It were easy, however, 
to account for it from several peculiarities in the Jewish con 
stitution, which made them be reckoned by others supersti 
tious, unsociable, intolerant, self-opinioned, and untractable. 
Their refusal of all intercommunity with those of other na^ 
tions in matters of religion, a thing unexampled amongst 
idolaters, their distinction of meats into clean and unclean, 
and their laws in regard to ablutions, which very much in 
terrupted even their civil intercourse with Gentiles, conspired 
in alienating the minds of strangers. Though not deficient 
in courage and natural sagacity, their being but little ac 
quainted with the arts of war and government, made them 
appear inconsiderable in the eyes of the Romans : their 
ignorance of philosophy and the fine arts rendered them 
despicable to the Grecians. It would not have been easy 
to make the people of either nation expect great benefits of 
any kind from a Jew. But to talk to them of such a one as 
their Messiah or Saviour, that is, as the terms were ex 
plained by the preachers, the purchaser of the remission of 
sins, of divine favour, of eternal life and happiness, nay, as 
the person constituted by the Deity judge of all the earth, 
could, to men so ill affected to that people, hardly appear 
otherwise than as absolutely ridiculous. How much then 
was the ridicule enhanced, when they were further informed, 
that this Messiah, this man of circumcision, of the race of 



206 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL, 

Jacob, had, like a common felon, and in company with com 
mon felons, suffered under a Roman procurator the infamous 
death of crucifixion ? 

It is not easy for us, at this distance, to enter perfectly into 
the sentiments and feelings of men, whose manners, opinions, 
education, and customs, were so totally different from ours. 
It is more difficult on this subject, on which our minds have 
been so long pre-occupied, than on any other. The death of 
Christ, whom we venerate as our sovereign, our high-priest, 
and teacher in divine things, has, to us Christians, ennobled 
the cross, the instrument of an event of such ineffable moment 
to the human race. We can no longer behold it with the 
same eyes. It is for this reason, that, in Christian countries, 
the use of it in punishing is universally abolished. We are 
inclined to consider it as too honourable a destiny for any, 
after Jesus Christ, of the posterity of Adam, to undergo. 
But in order to judge of the appearance and effect of a new 
doctrine, published in a remote period, w r e must, as much as 
possible, enter into the opinions and prepossessions that pre 
vailed at the time. Considered in this view, it is but just to 
observe, that crucifixion was then, in the Roman empire, 
incomparably more disgraceful than any kind of death known 
in these days in any part of Christendom. No citizen of 
Rome, how atrocious soever were his guilt, how mean soever 
were his station, though the lowest mechanic or the poorest 
peasant, could be subjected to it. If a man was not a slave 
as well as a criminal, it was not in the power of any magis 
trate to dishonour him so far as to consign him to so ignomi 
nious a punishment. And though the privileges of Romans 
did not extend to every free subject of the empire ; so far 
did the Roman sentiments prevail in regard to this mode of 
punishing, that it was held universally as in the last degree 
opprobrious. Conceive then the emotions which would 
naturally arise in the minds of such people, when a man (a 
miserable culprit in their account) who had been compelled 
publicly to submit to so vile an execution, so degrading, 
so shocking to humanity, was represented to them as the 
Son of the Most High God, and the Redeemer of the 
world. If, to men so prepossessed as were the Jews, this 



A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 207 

doctrine could not fail to appear impious and execrable, (and 
for a time it did so even to the apostles,) to men so prepos 
sessed as were the Gentiles it could not fail to appear non 
sensical and absurd. 

Nay, it is manifest from the writings of the early apologists 
for Christianity, in the second and third centuries, that this 
doctrine continued long to be a principal matter of offence to 
the enemies of our religion, and was regarded by such as an 
insurmountable objection. They treated it as no better than 
madness, to place confidence in a man whom God had aban 
doned to the scourge of the executioner, and the indelible re 
proach of the cross. Yet this doctrine was from the begin 
ning, so far from being taught covertly by the apostles, as 
one would have thought that a small share of political wis 
dom would have suggested; it was so far from being dis 
sembled and palliated, that it appeared to be that particular 
of their religion of which, in spite of the utter abomination 
it raised in others, in spite of all the obloquy it brought upon 
themselves, they were chiefly ostentatious. With our apostle 
the cross of Christ is a phrase in familiar use for denoting the 
whole of this new economy. The foes of the gospel he calls 
enemies of the cross of Christ, Philip, iii. 18. To the Corin 
thians he says, he determined to know nothing among them, 
save Jesus Christ, and him crucified, I Cor. ii. 2. The of 
fence taken against Christianity he styles the offence of the 
cross, Gal. v. 11 ; and the grand object of his glorying was 
what to others appeared the greatest scandal, the cross of 
Christ. So much in general (for your time does not admit 
my entering into particulars) of the foolishness of the doc 
trine. 

Let us next consider the weakness of the instruments, the 
first missionaries of this new religion. What were they ? 
We should certainly think, that a trust of this kind, requiring 
the most consummate skill and address to manage properly, 
could not, with the smallest hope of success, be committed to 
any but men who, to great natural shrewdness and acquired 
knowledge, had all the advantages that result from being 
acquainted with the world, and conversant in public life. If 
to these, wealth, nobility, and authority were added, so much 



208 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL, 

the better. But were the first publishers of the gospel men 
of this sort ? Nothing can be conceived more opposite. A 
few fishermen of Galilee, and some others of the lowest class 
of the people, poor, ignorant, totally unacquainted with the 
world ; without any visible advantages natural or acquired ; 
men who, before they received this extraordinary mission, 
had been obliged to drudge for bread within the narrow limits 
of a toilsome occupation, and had probably never dared to 
open their mouth, in places where men of condition (their 
betters, as we familiarly express it) were present : Such were 
the agents employed in effecting the greatest revolution ever 
produced upon the earth. Was it in a rude and unlettered 
age that this religion was first broached ? or was it only to 
the illiterate that its promulgators were charged to communi 
cate it ? It was at the time when Rome was in the zenith of 
her power ; it was at the time when all the Grecian arts and 
sciences shone forth in their meridian glory ; it was then 
that these plain unexperienced men were commissioned, not 
cautiously to impart this doctrine in a whisper to persons of 
a particular stamp, but to proclaim it to all indiscriminately, 
as from the house-tops, to preach the gospel to every creature, 
Mark xvi. 15. These lowly ministers of Jesus did accord 
ingly publish it to the Jews in the temple and in the syna 
gogues, and to the Gentiles in the forums of their cities, and 
in other places of public resort. Their undaunted spirit and 
freedom, considering what they were, did indeed amaze their 
superiors, and all who heard them. When the High-priest, 
and other members of the Sanhedrim, saw the boldness of 
Peter and John in the spirited and pertinent reply they made, 
and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, 
they marvelled, Acts iv. 1 3. 

How different is the policy of Heaven, pardon the expres 
sion, from that of earth ! How truly is the matter represented 
in my context ! God hath chosen the foolish things of the 
world to confound the wise ; and God hath chosen the weak 
things of the world to confound the things which are mighty ; 
and base things of the world, and things which are despised, 
hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to 
nought things that are, that no flesh should glory in his pre- 



A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 209 

sence, I Cor. i. 27 29. The apostles were very sensible 
of their defects, in respect of natural talents, rank, and edu 
cation ; they knew well, that by men of fashion, men of the 
world, they were counted as the filth of the world, and the 
offscouring of all tilings, \ Cor. iv. 13. But as their zeal 
was kindled solely in behalf of the cause of their Master, they 
never affected to conceal or extenuate these defects. They 
neither disdainfully undervalued those acquired advantages 
which they had not, but which were possessed by many of 
their antagonists, nor vainly arrogated to themselves any 
merit from the success that attended their preaching : Their 
humble language was, We have this treasure, the doctrine of 
the gospel, the inestimable riches of Christ, in earthen vessels; 
not vessels of gold or silver, as men of eminence among the 
great and learned might be called, but vessels of the very 
coarsest materials, those denominated the dregs of the people, 
that the excellence of the power may be of God, and not of us, 
2 Cor. iv. 7. 

We are apt to attend but carelessly to the report of facts 
to which our ears have been long familiarized. Such is that 
of the low condition of those who were the first heralds of the 
gospel of peace. Besides, to us, the very title APOSTLES con 
veys certain ideas of respect and dignity, which, as it were, 
hide from us the meanness and obscurity of their outward 
state. In order, therefore, to rouse our attention to this cir 
cumstance, of the utmost importance to the right understand 
ing of my argument, let us consider what would be, I say not 
probably, but certainly, the effect of such an attempt in our 
own age and nation, made by such ill-provided, and, as we 
should say, despicable instruments, unaided from above, in 
opposition to all the established powers, religion, laws, and 
learning of the country. Yet we have no reason to believe 
that our fishermen are, in any respect, inferior to the fishers 
of those days on the Lake of Gennesaret. It would not per 
haps be difficult to prove, that, in point of education, in this 
part of the island at least, they are even superior. But to 
render the parallel complete, and to make it tally perfectly 
with the infidel hypothesis about the promulgation of the 
gospel, we must conceive something still more marvellous ; 



210 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL, 

namely, that a few such men in this country, so wretchedly 
accoutred, so unfurnished with human means, friendless and 
pennyless, unacquainted with every language but their mother- 
tongue, of which they can speak only a provincial and bar 
barous dialect, form the vast project of traversing Holland, 
France, Germany, and the other countries on the Continent, 
in order to make converts abroad, to impose on all mankind, 
and to publish throughout the world a scheme of doctrine 
they had previously concerted among themselves. With the 
least reflection we see the absolute impracticability of such a 
plan, when brought home to ourselves. Indeed it is so glar 
ingly impracticable, that it is not easy for us to conceive that 
such an extravagance could ever enter into the heads of men 
in their senses. Yet not one jot better equipped were the 
apostles, if we abstract from supernatural aid, than such pro 
jectors as I have now supposed. In point of language, a 
most essential circumstance, they could be no way superior.* 
Now the nature of things, my brethren, was the same then 
that it is at present, and means which we perceive now to be 
perfectly inadequate, must have been always so. I do not 
talk of the improbability that such sort of men should, at the 
risk of peace, liberty, life, and every thing valuable, and with 
out any imaginable motive, have conceived a project so 
fantastic, because so totally beyond their sphere, as that of 
subverting all the religious establishments on the face of the 
earth, of extirpating at once opinions, ceremonies, laws, which 
had subsisted for many centuries, and even whole orders in 
society, by substituting, in lieu of all these, a new theory of 
theirs, founded in a false story of their own devising : Nor do 
I talk of the absurdity of imagining, as some have done, that 
men who were neither fools nor mad, (and if they had been 
either, their success would not have been less unaccountable), 
should, in a matter entirely subjected to the testimony of 
their senses, have imposed upon themselves, and thought they 

* The speech of the common people has always most of the peculiarities of the 
province. We have no reason to think that the dialect of any of the twelve was 
preferable to that of Peter. Yet he was detected at Jerusalem by a servant-maid, 
from his uncouth idiom and accent, to be a Galilean : at a time when, we may 
believe, he would gladly have concealed his country, by disguising his tongue, if it 
had been in his power; Matt. xxvi. 73. 



A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 

were promoting truth, if it was not so : but I talk at present 
of the impossibility of such agents succeeding by natural 
means, in such a design, however formed. To account for 
the success, therefore, we must necessarily admit the divine 
original of the whole, and have recourse to the concurrence of 
him who calleth the things that are not as though they were, 
Rom. iv. 17; and who alone can destroy the wisdom of the 
wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 
With such an almighty assistant, and nothing less will ac 
count for it, they might well be superior to fear and appre 
hension, and might boldly challenge all human opposition, 
and say, Where is the wise ? where is the scribe ? where is the 
dispuler of this ivorld ? Hath not God made foolish the wis 
dom of this world? I Cor. i. 19, 20. 

But it will perhaps be urged, that the apostle Paul ought 
to be considered as an exception from the general remark I 
have been explaining. Was not he a man of letters, bred 
up at the feet of Gamaliel, a famous Jewish doctor, and in 
structed in all the scriptural and traditionary learning of the 
Jews ? Nay, does it not appear, that he was not altogether 
unacquainted with the writings of the Grecian poets ? It is 
indeed true ; and as we judge of every thing by comparison, 
so, when he is compared with his brethren in the apostolate, 
he may be denominated learned. But it ought to be ob 
served, that as his learning consisted chiefly, I might almost 
say solely, in the Scriptures, and the rabbinical doctrine of 
the Pharisees, it is notorious in how little esteem that kind of 
erudition was among the Gentiles, of whom he was eminently 
the apostle. Of whatever account, therefore, this knowledge 
might have been, had his mission been only or chiefly to the 
Jews, I must think it was of very little, if any at all, to the 
Greeks and Romans. To them, all Jewish literature ap 
peared no better than unintelligible, and therefore insigni 
ficant jargon ; or, as Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, con 
temptuously styled it, Questions of words and names, and of 
their law, Acts xviii. 15. Whatever use Paul might have 
made of his learning, in disputing with the Jewish doctors, it 
could be of no service in his disputes with the philosophers 
of Greece, and the literati of Rome. It is remarkable, there- 



212 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL, 

fore, that the only man among the first preachers of the gos 
pel, who was in any degree qualified to cope with the 
learned men of Judea, was not sent to them, but to nations 
amongst whom his Hebraistic knowledge could give him no 
advantage ; whereas Peter, who is by way of eminence styled 
the Apostle of the Circumcision, as the other is of the Gen 
tiles, Gal. ii. 7, 8, (Peter, I say), though of their own coun 
try, was but one of the untaught rabble, who, on account of 
the meanness of their birth and station, as well as their ig 
norance, were by the haughty scribes and rulers accounted 
the refuse of the earth. This people, say they, who know not 
the law, are cursed, John vii. 49. Nor could Paul, in re 
spect of rank, claim great superiority over the rest : he was 
only a handicraftsman, having been bred a tent-maker ; a 
business which he occasionally exercised, for the support of 
himself and his attendants, during his apostleship. 

Ay, but had not this man all the advantage resulting from 
the Grecian arts of logic and rhetoric ? Did he not speak 
their language with elegance and purity ? I know the apostle 
has had some strenuous and well-meaning advocates, espe 
cially among the moderns, not infidels, but Christians, wlio, 
with more zeal than judgment, have maintained the affirma 
tive. I am far from denying that this eminent servant of our 
Lord possessed considerable talents, in respect of natural elo 
quence, depth of thought, strength of reasoning, and nervous 
ness of expression : but that his Greek diction was pure and 
classical, or that in composing he followed the rules laid down 
by rhetoricians, we have the greatest reason to deny. His 
works that are extant do, to every able and candid judge of 
these matters, show the contrary. The contrary was admitted 
by the best critics and orators among the Greek fathers, 
who must be allowed more capable of judging of propriety, 
fluency, and harmony in their native tongue, than any modern 
can be in a dead and foreign language.* Further, the con 
trary is frankly owned by the apostle himself. Nay, he in 
sists, that according to the Divine counsel it must be so, this 
being of a piece with all the other natural means God had 
employed in the work. Thus he was sent to preach the 

* Such were Origen and Chrysostom. 



A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 213 

gospel, as he tells us in the context, not with wisdom of words: 
Why ? Lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect, 
\ Cor. i. 17. Shall we then maintain his oratorical talents 
in spite of himself, and in spite of the irrefragable reason he 
adduces from the analogy of the divine procedure in this 
whole dispensation ? It would be paying him but a bad com- 
pliment, to extol his elocution at the expense of his veracity; 
for we are under a necessity of denying one or other. It 
appears, that his enemies made a handle of the rudeness and 
inelegance of his style, to injure his reputation, especially at 
Corinth, where oratory was much in vogue. But though he 
vindicates himself from their other censures, he invariably 
admits the truth of this. Though rude in speech, says he, 
yet not in knowledge ; 2 Cor. xi. 6 ; and, / came not with 
excellency of speech, or of wisdom, 1 Cor. ii. 1 ; and, The 
things of God we speak, not in the words which mans wisdom 
teacheth, 2 Cor. xi. 13: again, My speech, and my preaching, 
was not with enticing words of mans wisdom. He assigns the 
reason, the same in import with that given formerly, that 
your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the 
power of God, 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5. Speaking of their sentiments 
concerning him, His letters, say they, are weighty and power 
ful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contempt 
ible, 2 Cor. x. 10. The power ascribed to his letters undoubt 
edly refers to the sense conveyed in them, and the ardour of 
spirit by which they are animated. That they did not con 
ceive any part of their merit to be the purity or harmony of 
the style, is manifest from the latter part of the character, espe 
cially when compared with what is repeatedly acknowledged 
in other places. Paul, therefore, had neither the graces of 
person, nor the ornaments of elocution, to recommend or en 
force his doctrine. His language to Greek ears, must have 
appeared idiomatical, not to say barbarous. And as his sort 
of learning was but ill adapted to the people of Greece, Italy, 
or Asia Minor, among whom his mission chiefly lay, he did 
not possess that superiority over the other apostles which is 
commonly imagined. Justly, therefore, might we apply to a 
Christian who should zealously assert the classical purity of 
our apostle s style, the rebuke which our Lord once gave to 



THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL, 

Peter, on an occasion not unsimilar : Thou savourest not the 
things that be of God, but the things that be of men. Matt, 
xvi. 23. The weakness, the infirmity, or, if you will, the 
insufficiency of these messengers of the new covenant, was 
their glory and their boast. Their motive was, that the 
power of Christ might rest upon them, 2 Cor. xii. 9, and 
be manifested by them. To men of the world, indeed, the 
doctrine appeared not more foolish, than, the ministry was 
weak. 

I have now, as I purposed, in the first place, shown the 
inability of the natural means employed in promulgating the 
gospel, to effect the end. 

I proceed to consider, secondly, the rapid and unexampled 
success of the means that were employed. As to the rapidity 
of the success, need I use many words to evince a point so evi 
dent, and so universally acknowledged ? The canon of Scrip 
ture was not finished, that generation had not passed, when 
Jesus Christ had disciples and churches in Judea, Samaria, 
Syria, Phenicia, Mesopotamia, Arabia, the countries of Asia 
Minor, Greece, Macedonia, Italy, Egypt, and as far as Ethi 
opia. This we learn, partly from the books of the New Tes 
tament, partly from the authentic remains of the apostolic 
fathers. Whilst the faith of the gospel was deeply rooted 
in all those who professed it ; whilst nothing but faith could 
induce any one to make the profession ; whilst the professors 
themselves were harassed on every side with the most violent 
persecutions, the Church of Christ, in spite of all oppo 
sition, and every species of discouragement, increased daily. 
In less than three centuries, for I reckon not from the birth 
of Christ, but, as in a computation of this kind we ought to 
reckon, from the first publication of the gospel at Jerusa 
lem on the day of Pentecost, in less than three centuries, 
Christianity having pierced into Gaul, Spain, Britain, and 
the African countries lying on the Mediterranean, became 
the predominant religion of the Roman Empire, which com 
prehended the greater and better part of the then known 
world. Nor was its extent limited by the empire : it did 
indeed, with wonderful celerity, overspread the most populous 



A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 215 

countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Since its establish 
ment by human laws, it has been put on so different a foot 
ing, and the methods taken for propagating it have been, on 
some occasions at least, so completely altered, and so little 
warranted by the spirit and precepts of that religion, that 
the success or want of success of these methods can hardly 
affect our present argument. 

Now, as it is admitted on all hands, that the success of the 
first preachers of the gospel was great and rapid, I maintain, 
that it still remains unexampled. I do not mean to state a 
comparison between conversion and conquest; between sub 
duing the mind by persuasion, by what our apostle empha 
tically calls the foolishness of preaching, 1 Cor. i. 21, and 
conquering the body by the sword. In the one, both the 
reason and the will are gained by teaching ; in the other, a 
feigned assent is sometimes extorted by violence, and main 
tained by terror. It does not therefore in the least concern 
my argument, what the success was of the Mahometan, I say 
not doctrine, but arms. Their engine was war, not preach 
ing. The weapons of their warfare were carnal, those of the 
gospel spiritual. Their aim was submission, not belief ; the 
external profession of the mouth, not the internal conviction 
of the understanding. When the like methods came to be 
adopted by Christians, (for too soon, alas! they were adopted, 
a sure sign that the religion of Jesus was then grossly cor 
rupted and debased,) the success is doubtless to be accounted 
for in the same manner. Every candid person will admit, that 
the success of Charlemagne over the Saxons, is no more an 
evidence of divine favour than that of Mahomet over the Arabs. 

But when all attempts of this kind are set aside, one will 
perhaps be at a loss what to bring into comparison with the 
first promulgation of the gospel. It is not, however, for want 
of numerous and repeated trials, even in the way of preach 
ing; but when the effect is inconsiderable, or not corres 
pondent to the expectation raised, the attempt itself comes 
gradually to be either quite forgotten, or little minded. 
Crusades, wars, and massacres, have not been the only 
methods employed by Rome, not over-scrupulous about the 
means, when the advancement of the hierarchy, that is, the 



216 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL, 

extension of her empire, is the end. She knows how to 
employ preachers, as well as inquisitors, executioners, and 
soldiers. Nay, it is no more than doing her justice to acknow 
ledge, that no church whatever, no state, no society, has done 
half so much in this way as she has done. But with what 
effect ? Has there appeared, in any part of the world, even 
where her missionaries have been most numerous, any fruits 
of their missions which bear a resemblance to the fruits so 
quickly produced everywhere by the apostles of our Lord ? 
Let the most sanguine votaries of that church, who know any 
thing of the matter, say so, if they dare. 

What then is the reason of the difference ? Had the latter, 
the apostles of our Lord, any advantages (observe, I speak 
of human and natural advantages) which the former, the 
Popish missionaries had not ? Quite the reverse. Every such 
advantage has been on the side of the missionary, not one on 
the side of the apostles. They are not ignorant artificers of 
the lowest class whom Rome engages in such a business. 
She has too much worldly wisdom (notwithstanding her 
arrogant and not very consistent pretence to miracles) ever to 
employ such messengers. Neither do her apostles go without 
the utmost preparation, that not only a learned education, 
according to the times, can give them, but such particular 
instructions, study, and discipline, as will serve best to qualify 
them to accommodate themselves to those to whom they are 
sent, to gain upon the people, and to bear with fortitude the 
difficulties and hardships they may be obliged to encounter. 
It is plain, therefore, that she puts no confidence in her 
supernatural powers, and acts precisely as though she were 
conscious she had none. Indeed, since the establishment at 
Rome of the congregation de propaganda fide, no attention, 
no pains, no expense, have been spared, that could serve for 
procuring all necessary information, in regard to the lan 
guages, arts, manners, and customs of the different nations 
and tribes to whom it is judged proper to send preachers ; 
that they may be furnished, as much as possible, with every 
human and natural assistance for the work in which they are 
engaged. Yet what has been the success hitherto ? If one were 
to judge by the exaggerated accounts that have sometimes 



A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 

been given by the missionaries themselves, we should think 
them wonderful indeed. But if we judge by the more im 
partial representations given by others, or by, what is still a 
better criterion, the remaining effects of their missions, we 
must pronounce them inconsiderable. In many places there 
is not now a vestige of their labours : In other places, the 
traces that have been left are, I may say, equivocal as well as 
few. Father Charlevoix, one of their own people, in his ac 
count of the North American savages, observes, that the mis 
sions had been very unsuccessful among them ; and, what is 
more surprising, mentions one missionary, who had ingra 
tiated himself so far with one of their tribes, that they would 
even have chosen him for their chief, who nevertheless had 
not been able to persuade one single person among them to 
embrace Christianity.* 

Well, but if the attempts have not proved so successful in 
the West, what wonders in the way of conversion have not 
been performed by Saint Francis Xavier and his associates 
in the East? Indeed there is no man in these latter ages who 
has been so much, and I believe so deservedly, celebrated 
for his labours in this way, as this friar, whom Rome has 
dignified with the title of The Apostle of the Indies. He 
was certainly a most zealous promoter of a cause which he 
doubtless believed to be the cause of God. His pious inten 
tions deserve the commendation of those who can pity his 
errors and absurdities. Regard to the voice of conscience, 
even though a misinformed conscience, is still respectable. 
But is it not well known, that this famous missionary was not 
only a man of learning, the best that was then to be had, 
but, along with his companions, acted under the auspices of 
the viceroy of Goa, the metropolis of the Portuguese settle 
ments in India ; and where, for the greater security of the 
faith, they soon thought proper to establish the inquisition ? 
Is it not evident, that in most places where the missionaries 
exercised their function, they were under the protection of the 
victorious fleets and armies of the King of Portugal ? And 
even where these had not reached, the terror of their name 
had reached, and was of no little service to these itinerant 

* Letter xxxi. 



218 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL, 

teachers. How unlike the case of the poor fishermen of Ga 
lilee ? Miracles, indeed, stupendous miracles, were pretended 
to by them, and those of their party : For we have only the 
representations of one side. It is surprising they were so often 
at a loss for one miraculous power, the gift of tongues, so 
common in the primitive church, which would have been of 
greater service to them than all the rest together. This how 
ever they laudably supplied the best way they could, by the 
use of interpreters, as well as by study and application. 

An eminent French preacher of the last century has af 
firmed, in a panegyrical sermon on this apostle of the Pope, 
that he spread the light of the gospel through more than three 
thousand leagues of country, and subjected no less than fifty- 
two kingdoms to Jesus Christ. These are big words : But 
where, I pray, is that country ? and where are those king 
doms ? This is rather too violent an hyperbole, even for an 
orator. The conquests made by the Portuguese arms, in 
like manner as those made since by other European powers, 
Protestant as well as Popish, are not surely to be called 
kingdoms converted by preaching the gospel. Yet, abstract 
ing from these settlements, or, if ye will, usurpations, it 
would be difficult to point out so much as one of those fifty- 
two kingdoms subdued to Christ. Of the same kind is that 
other assertion in the same discourse, that Xavier has more 
than repaired in the East all the hurt done to Rome by 
Luther and Calvin, and the other reformers (heresiarchs, as 
he terms them) in the West. Can there be a clearer de 
monstration of the little regard that is due to the word of a 
panegyrist and party-man ? At this day, even in the East, 
those reformers have more disciples than Rome has. But, 
alas ! it is not by what the apostle calls the foolishness of 
preaching that disciples have been gained there to either 
side. The greater part have been transplanted from Europe, 
or are the descendants of those who were first transplanted 
thither. The rest are the effects more of conquest than of 
conversion. 

But what shall be said of the wonderful success of Xavier 
in the islands of Japan ? It was indeed as signal as it has 
proved transitory. Nothing could be more promising than 



A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 219 

the appearances were for some time. But there was a latent 
seed of corruption in the doctrine which those missionaries 
unknowingly misnamed the gospel, that, springing up, pro 
duced a plentiful crop of its ordinary fruits, pride, ambition, 
violence, and faction. These provoked a persecution, which 
quickly terminated in the total extinction of that infant 
church. Francis Solier, a Jesuit, who writes the ecclesiastic 
history of Japan, expresses his astonishment, that God 
should have permitted the blood of so many martyrs to be 
shed, without serving (as in the first ages of Christianity) as 
a fruitful seed for producing new Christians. But this can 
be no matter of wonder to the intelligent believer. The 
truth is, the cause was not more different at that time 
(though under the same name) from what it had been, than 
were the usual methods by which it was propagated. "The 
Christianity of the sixteenth century," says a late writer, 
" had no right to hope for the same favour and protection 
from God, as the Christianity of the three first centuries. 
The latter was a benign, gentle, and patient religion, which 
recommended to subjects submission to their sovereign, and 
did not endeavour to raise itself to the throne by rebellion. 
But the Christianity preached to the infidels of the sixteenth 
century was far different. It was a bloody, murderous reli 
gion, that had been inured to slaughter for five or six hundred 
years. It had contracted a very long habit of maintaining 
and aggrandizing itself, by putting to the sword all that 
resisted it. Fires, executions, the dreadful tribunal of the 
inquisition, crusades, bulls exciting subjects to rebellion, sedi 
tious preachers, conspiracies, assassinations of princes, were 
the ordinary methods employed against those who refused 
submission to its orders."* The ingenuous confession of a 
Spaniard, more honest, it would appear, than wise, may be 
pleaded in justification of the sanguinary precautions taken by 
the emperor of Japan. Being asked by the King of Tossa, 
one of the Japanese isles, and probably one of the fifty-two 
kingdoms mentioned by Bourdaloue, How the King of Spain 
got possession of so great an extent of country in both 
hemispheres ? he answered frankly, That he used to send 

* General Dictionary, Article Japan, Note E. 



THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL, 

friars to preach the gospel to foreign nations ; and that, 
after having converted a considerable number of Heathens, 
he sent his forces, who, joining with the new converts, con 
quered the country. The Christians in that island (such 
Christians as they were) paid dear for this indiscreet confes 
sion. Poor, then, if we may judge by the present effects, 
has been the success of their missions among barbarians. 
Have they succeeded better in civilized nations ? Their mis 
sions in China, it is true, have subsisted for centuries. But 
will the candid and judicious, even of that communion, say, 
that the consequences have been proportioned to what might 
have been expected from the assiduity, labour, and expense 
bestowed on them ? Most Roman Catholics themselves con 
sider the greater part of the Chinese proselytes as more than 
half Pagans still. What will Protestants then reckon them? 
I know not any thing done by Romanists in modern times, 
that appears more favourable than what has been effected 
by some Jesuits in the inland parts of South America, in 
the country called Paraguay. But of this, I am afraid, we 
have not as yet sufficient knowledge to enable us to form a 
judgment that can be depended on. Some things, however, 
will deserve our notice, that we may be satisfied that there is 
no similarity in this case to the primitive publication of the 
gospel. In the first place, those Jesuits are to be considered 
more as the founders of a polity than as the publishers of a 
religion. Religion indeed makes an essential part of their 
establishment : still it is but a part. Nothing could be more 
opposite to the conduct of the apostles, whose sole object was 
to preach the doctrine and law of Christ, and, without in 
terfering in the least with the rights of civil governors, to 
bring men every-where to the obedience of the faith. I ob 
serve, secondly, that instead of those poor, illiterate, and ob 
scure men, who first promulgated to the world the everlasting 
gospel of the Son of God, we have here some select members 
of an opulent, learned, and political society, who were careful 
to be previously instructed in the language, manners, and 
religious observances of the people whom they were to teach; 
men who had most attentively studied the policy of the ancient 
South-American states, particularly of the Incas of Peru, and 



A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 221 

the arts they had successfully employed in subduing the fero 
city of their neighbours. I observe, thirdly, that it was more 
by insinuation, and indirectly, than by open and professed 
teaching, that the knowledge of Christianity was introduced 
by them. Their direct and only object long appeared to be 
to teach those savages agriculture, the most necessary manu 
factures, the art of building, and the other arts most condu 
cive to civilization ; and when in this way they had sufficiently 
recommended themselves to their confidence, to take occasion 
of inculcating, especially on the children intrusted to their 
care, their religious principles. The method of the apostles 
was much shorter ; they did not find the least necessity for 
such artificial management. 

Nor was it only in South America that the Popish mis 
sionaries found it convenient to recur to these arts. Of how 
much consequence it has been for promoting the success of 
the Chinese mission, that those charged with it were able 
mathematicians, astronomers, geographers, physicians, and 
natural philosophers ; and how much their knowledge in the 
sciences conduced to procure them the attention and respect 
of the natives, all the world knows. "Where was the man of 
these modern apostles who could say, as the apostle Paul, 
the poor Hebrew artisan, did to the Corinthians, I determined 
not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him 
crucified? Short, we may believe, would have been their 
abode in China, and in other places too, had they proceeded 
on this plan. But Paul needed not to depend on any human 
supplements or assistances whatever. Nothing indeed could 
be more unlike, or rather greater contrasts, in all respects, 
than the first ambassadors and the last, those of Jesus Christ 
and those of the Roman Pontiff. The last were possessed of 
those accomplishments which preserved them from appearing 
despicable to any : the manifest superiority of their knowledge 
in the elegant, as well as in many of the useful arts, made 
them be respected as almost a superior order of beings, even 
by those whom they could not persuade to turn Christian. 
The first, on the contrary, on account of their low rank, and 
ignorance of the arts of civilized life, were acknowledged to 
be, in many respects, but weak and contemptible instruments, 



THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL, 

even by those who were converted by their ministry. This 
was evidently the case of him who of them all had the best 
pretensions to knowledge and education. Not to mention 
the pageantry, even the rich sacerdotal vestments used by the 
Romish clergy in their worship are naturally fitted to make 
an impression on the senses, not only of barbarians, but of 
the weak and superstitious even of polished nations. How 
different must the ordinary and homely garments of the 
primitive preachers have appeared, worn constantly in their 
peregrinations ! for they were not permitted to carry with 
them so much as a change of raiment, Matt. x. 10; Luke 
ix. 3. Nor is this so trivial a circumstance as to some per 
haps, on a superficial view, it will appear. Yet, after all, 
with every human and natural advantage, what have been the 
fruits of the last labours compared with those of the first? 
Have we not got ample reason, in this view also, to adopt 
the apostle s words, and, on contrasting Christ s humble 
delegates with the accomplished ambassadors of Rome, to 
say, Where, now, is the wise ? where is the scribe ? where is the 
disputer of this tvorld? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom 
of this world? For God hath chosen the foolish things of this 
world to confound the wise, the weak to confound the mighty, 
the base and the despised, yea and things that are not, to 
bring to nought things that are, that no fiesh should glory in 
his presence. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, 
and the tveakness of God is stronger than men. If riches and 
learning, and the most refined policy, with the countenance 
and support of the secular powers, cannot, though combined, 
accomplish what, in opposition to all these, is effected with 
ease by poverty and illiterate simplicity, can we hesitate a 
moment in pronouncing, This is the finger of God? 

I PROCEED, in the last place, to the improvement we ought 
to make of the doctrine now explained. 

The first use it points to, is to strengthen our faith in the 
divine original of the holy religion we profess. This is the 
immediate conclusion of the premises I have been illustrating 
and supporting. For if there was an utter inability in the 
natural means employed in propagating the gospel, without 



A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 

divine interposition, to effectuate the end ; if the end, never 
theless, has by these means been effectuated in a way which 
110 human and natural advantages whatever could emulate, 
it must have been accompanied by divine interposition. Our 
religion is therefore of God, and not of man. 

If we do not enjoy the advantage of being eye-witnesses 
of present miracles, we have sufficient evidence of those per 
formed in ancient times. We have not only the amplest and 
most unexceptionable testimony that they were performed, 
but we have so many and so remarkable consequences of the 
performance, as it is utterly impossible for us otherwise to 
account for. Nor is this a modern view of the matter, arising, 
as might be supposed, from our ignorance, and the distance 
of that period : It is, on the contrary, a very ancient and 
striking argument ; and seems, from the first ceasing of mi 
raculous powers, to have affected every judicious and reflecting 
Christian. Observe how Augustine, who lived above fourteen 
hundred years earlier than we, and who had good occasion 
to know what the effects of the apostolic labours had been, 
argues with the infidels of his day from the same topic. 
" If," says he, " ye will not believe the miracles of the apos 
tles, ye must at least believe this miracle, that the world was 
by such instruments, without miracles, converted." This 
was, in his judgment, as it is, for the reasons I have assigned, 
also in mine, more incredible, or, if ye will, more miraculous, 
than all the miracles which the gospel requires us to believe. 
I repeat it, The reality of the supernatural facts recorded in 
holy writ, is the only plausible, the only rational account that 
can be given of the effects produced, both on the first pro 
pagators of the faith themselves, and on their hearers, Jews 
and Gentiles of all denominations. On every other hypo 
thesis, at every step I advance, I meet with difficulties insur 
mountable. To say, that these poor, simple, unbred, ignorant, 
timid men, purposely devised so unfeasible an imposture, 
and, wretchedly ill-provided as they were for so desperate 
an enterprise, attempted at all risks to persuade the world, 
on their word, to receive it, is to me an absurdity equal to 
any that can be found in the most legendary performance. 
I do not find it one jot more admissible to affirm, that they 



THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL, 

had previously imposed upon themselves, and believed the 
falsehoods they advanced. No enthusiasm, no fanaticism, 
nothing less than insanity, will account for such delusion in 
a matter, not of opinion or speculation, but (as it was to 
them) of sense, of sight, and feeling. And if, to all their 
other disadvantages, they were really insane or frantic, 
their success will, if possible, be still more wonderful. Such 
is the misfortune of the infidel solutions of this matter, that 
if you attempt to lighten any part of their scheme of those 
weights that oppress it, you are sure to lay a heavier load on 
some other part. And indeed, without the addition of mad 
ness or idiocy, the success of such men in such an under 
taking, supposing no interposal of heaven, requires a greater 
share of credulity to admit, than will be found requisite in a 
reasonable Christian. 

God has not, in respect of revealed, any more than in re 
spect of natural religion, left himself without a witness. Suffi 
cient evidence has been, and will be always given. But diffe 
rent sorts of evidence suit the different stages of the church. 
Visible miracles were proper, they were even necessary, to 
attest a revelation pretending to be from God ; an event 
really miraculous, but needing attestation, because not sensi 
bly so to those who did not receive it immediately from 
Heaven. The fruits produced by the miracles then wrought, 
and which, on every other supposition but the truth of the 
miracles, are totally inexplicable ; and the fulfilment of pro 
phecies then given, which we may call intelligible, if not 
palpable miracles, are the evidences that suit more the ma 
turity of the church. The intrinsic evidence arising from 
the nature and genius of the dispensation itself, belongs alike 
to every period. Things are better balanced than we ima 
gine. In the third and fourth centuries they had a nearer 
and therefore doubtless a distincter view of the amazing 
success which had attended the first preaching of the gospel, 
notwithstanding all the disadvantages the preachers laboured 
under. But then they could not know so well from experi 
ence as we of later ages may, that it is not in the power of 
all human talents, natural and acquired, though combined 
together, to produce a parallel to that success. 



A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 

Let us not therefore fancy ourselves excused in our unbe 
lief, or disobedience, because we have not precisely that sort 
of evidence which others had. If we resist sufficient evidence, 
we are equally culpable with those who were regardless of all 
the proofs, those demonstrations of the Spirit and of power, 
that were given by our Lord and his apostles. If we do not 
enjoy the advantages of those of that age, we do not labour 
under their disadvantages, which are more considerable than 
we perhaps are aware of. Such are the inveterate prejudices 
which their education had infused, in direct opposition to the 
doctrine, and the contempt, nay even the ridicule, which the 
paltry appearance (as in the language of the world we should 
term it) of those heavenly ambassadors could not fail to cre 
ate. These things tend more to preclude attention and inquiry 
than men are apt to think: It is with the understanding, the 
eye of the mind, as with the bodily eyes : However good they 
are, and however strong the light may be, they will never 
perceive that from which they are always turned. 

I OBSERVE, secondly, That from any thing hitherto ad 
vanced, we cannot justly infer the inutility of human learn 
ing in the cause of religion. It was for a special reason, and 
in singular circumstances, that God was pleased to reject the 
use of it in the first promulgation of the gospel. When this 
new dispensation was ushered into the world, that its origin 
might be nowise equivocal, the aid of power, riches, learning, 
and oratory, which have great influence on the minds of men, 
was absolutely rejected : the very reverse were chosen in the 
instruments God saw meet to employ weakness, poverty, 
ignorance of the world, and of the arts and sciences ; that no 
considerate person might be at a loss to what to ascribe the 
effects produced ; that the excellency of the power, to the 
conviction of every impartial spectator, might be of God, 
and not of man. There was a time, and a time of great 
danger too, it was in the reign of Jehoshaphat, when God 
by his prophet commanded his people not to be dismayed, or 
even to fight for the common safety ; telling them, that the 
battle was God s ; that they needed only to stand still, and 
see the salvation of the Lord with them, 2 Chron. xx. 14, &c. 



THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL, 

In like manner, when God delivered Israel from the Midi- 
anites hy the hand of Gideon, of an army of thirty-two thou 
sand he permitted only three hundred to go to hattle, and 
with so small a force totally routed an innumerahle host of 
aliens, Judges vii. 1, &c. But neither of these cases was ac 
cording to the usual procedure of Providence. On all ordinary 
occasions, it was the express command of heaven, to all that 
were capable, to fight for their brethren, their sons and their 
daughters, their wives and their houses, remembering the 
Lord, who is great and terrible, and confiding in him, Neh. 
iv. 14. It is only in extraordinary cases (such as the first 
promulgation of the gospel) that the ordinary means are dis 
pensed with. These are in part the talents which God re 
quires us to lay out in his service. 

There have been some who, without attending to the pe 
culiarity of the case, have rashly concluded, from some 
expressions in the New Testament, that learning of every kind 
is rather an obstruction than a help in propagating religion. 
But on this topic they preserve no uniformity in their manner 
of arguing. Who will deny, that we ought to study the lan 
guage of a people who speak a different language, before we 
attempt to instruct them ? Yet this branch of learning was 
as much superseded by the gift of tongues, so common in the 
apostolic church, as the other branches were by the other 
supernatural gifts. And they were all set aside for the same 
reason not a natural unfitness, but, on the contrary, a natu 
ral fitness, for attracting respect, and producing persuasion ; 
since, in consequence of this fitness, the effect might errone 
ously be ascribed to them ; and the miraculous interposition 
of Heaven, to which alone it ought to be attributed, might be 
excluded or overlooked. In that singular case, the battle was 
God s peculiarly : The people were to stand still, and see his 
salvation : Nothing was to be done but by particular direc 
tion. Now he chooses to operate by the intervention of 
natural means, and commands us to quit us like men, assidu 
ously to exert every talent that may with probability be pro 
fitably employed in this service. The common reply, though 
true, is not satisfactory, That human learning has by misap 
plication been greatly abused in matters of religion ; for what 



A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 27 

talent is there that has not been abused and misapplied ? But 
if, on account of the abuse, we were to renounce the use of 
a thing in itself good, all means whatever ought to be laid 
aside : even preaching, than which nothing has been more 
abused, must be given up for ever. 

Let it not be imagined, that what was said in regard to the 
use made of arts and sciences by the Popish missionaries, was 
with a view to condemn or discredit such expedients : it was 
only with an intention to show, that there were many causes 
to which the success of those missionaries, comparatively 
little, might be attributed, without recurring to miracles; 
whereas there was nothing that could account for the asto 
nishing success of the apostles, in whom all those advantages 
were wanting, but miracles alone. It was not to depreciate 
the wisdom of man, but to show that the foolishness of God 
is wiser. So far from condemning the Roman Catholics in 
this, I approve, I applaud their zeal, their solicitude, their 
perseverance : I only regret they are so much mistaken in 
the object ; and that it is not for the simple truth as it is in 
Jesus, that these qualities are exercised. I exceedingly re 
gret, that it has fared with the gospel in their hands, as it did 
with the Mosaic law in the hands of the Scribes and Phari 
sees that the precepts and glosses of men have corrupted 
and disfigured the word of God ; and that the traditions of 
the Romish, as formerly of the Jewish rabbies, have, in many 
instances, rendered the divine commandment of none effect. 
If our industry were equal to theirs, we might well expect 
superior success from the superiority of our cause. Let us 
not hesitate to take example in what is praiseworthy from those 
whom in other respects we disapprove. Our Lord did not 
scruple to recommend to his disciples, as a lesson of pru 
dence, the provident care even of an unfaithful steward: For 
the children of this world, says he, are in their generation 
wiser than the children of light, Luke xvi. 8. The Romanists 
claim the high prerogative of working miracles ; yet they 
pursue such politic measures as show that they lay no stress 
on that privilege. There are, on the other hand, enthusiasts 
who, though they do not in words arrogate supernatural 
power, act as if they possessed it, treating with contempt the 



THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL, 

ordinary and natural means. Both are in extremes ; and I 
shall only say of them, that if the latter speak with more 
honesty, the former act with more judgment. 

Still, however, we are to be understood with this limitation, 
that the means employed must never be repugnant to the 
unalterable rule of truth and right, or to the spirit of that 
holy religion which we desire to propagate. A good end 
will never sanctify bad means. Men have too often, in the 
cause of God, as they pretended, had recourse to deceit and 
violence. These unhallowed instruments, so contradictory 
to the precepts, and so subversive of the spirit of the gospel, 
they have thought they consecrated, by christening them 
pious frauds, and ivholesome severities. Let us ever remem 
ber, that it is impossible that the God of mercy and truth 
should accept such detestable offerings : Thou shalt destroy 
them that speak leasing, says David. The Lord will abhor 
loth the bloody and the deceitful man, Psalm v. 6. 

I observe, thirdly, and I conclude with it, That though 
in these days no missions can hope for success comparable 
to that which attended the ministry of the apostles, this con 
sideration ought not to discourage such attempts, or lessen 
the ardour of Christians for the advancement of the gospel. 
It was fitting that the ministry of the Son of God, and of 
his elect servants, by whom the foundations of the church 
were laid, should be signalized by the most glorious manifes 
tations of divine presence and agency. This was to serve to 
all future ages as a proof that the commission came from God. 
But let it not be suspected by any, that God will ever fail 
to countenance the cause of his Son, the cause of truth and 
virtue, and to honour those with his approbation who exert 
themselves to promote it. For one to say, " Because I can 
not do good equal to that which with the aid of miracles the 
first preachers of the gospel did, I will do none at all," would 
be talking neither like a Christian nor like a reasonable per 
son. The great and the rich have it in their power to be 
more extensively useful to their fellow creatures than the 
ignoble and the poor : are the latter therefore exempted 
from being as useful as they can ? God requires of every man 



A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 229 

according to what he has, and not according to what he has 
not, Cor. viii. 12. Will it be a good apology for the ser 
vant who receives one talent, to say, " Because I received 
not, like some others, five talents, I thought it unnecessary to 
employ myself in the improvement of so small a stock ?" The 
case of individuals, and that of whole generations, is in this 
respect similar. To do what we can to diffuse the light of 
the gospel, and communicate the benefits thereof to others, 
is what every motive of piety to God and benevolence to men 
requires of us. And we may say, with the greatest justice, 
that none deserve better of mankind, than those whose labour 
and wealth are employed in promoting the interests of their 
fellow-creatures, the most valuable for time and for eternity. 
For this reason, the disciples of Jesus will entertain a due 
veneration for that truly Christian and truly patriotic Soci 
ety, who have honoured me with their commands to address 
you on this occasion. Their assiduous attention has long 
been fixed, and by the blessing of Heaven has not been fixed 
in vain, on the most sublime and important of all objects, 
the extension of the kingdom of Messiah, and the salvation 
of the souls of men. I speak not thus to convince you of the 
just title they have to your esteem : This is a very small 
matter to those who seek not the praise of men, but that 
which comes from God, the omniscient and unerring Judge. 
But I speak to awaken the same zeal in the breasts of you, 
my hearers, and to excite every one of this assembly to co 
operate, to the utmost of his power, in promoting the same 
noble ends. 

And let us all add fervent prayers to strenuous and virtuous 
endeavours. Pray, said David, Psalm cxxii. 6, for the peace 
of Jerusalem. Our Jerusalem is the church of Christ, the 
antitype of that metropolis, the true city of the great King. 
Of HER we may justly say, They shall prosper that love THEE. 
Peace be within THY walls, and prosperity within THY 
palaces ! For our brethren and companions sakes we will 
say, Peace be within THEE. Because of the house of the 
Lord our God, we will seek THY good. 



THE HAPPY INFLUENCE OF RELIGION ON CIVIL 
SOCIETY: 

A 

SEKMON, 

PREACHED 

AT THE ASSIZES AT ABERDEEN, 

SUNDAY, MAY 23, 1779, 



SERMON III. 



Pnov. xiv. 34. 
Righteousness exaltetli a nation. 

THERE is no subject on which libertines show more incon 
sistency, than on what regards the advantages derived from 
religion to civil society. When their design is to vindicate 
their open contempt of its principles, and violation of its pre 
cepts, they fail not to represent it as a burden both intolerable 
and unnecessary, and which, without yielding any benefit 
that can be called a compensation for so great a sacrifice, re 
quires a degree of self-denial that nearly approaches to a re 
nunciation of liberty. On the other hand, when they attempt 
to account for its origin, and the universality of its reception 
in some form or other throughout the world, they constantly 
recur to the arts of politicians, who have seen the absolute 
necessity of this expedient for keeping the people in subjec 
tion, and adding authority to their laws. They do not seem 
to advert, that these pleas are incompatible with each other ; 
and that, in regard at least to the utility of religion, they 
confessedly oppose the common sense of mankind ; since they 
exhibit the leaders, and lawgivers, in every nation, as concur 
ring, though not by concert, in the conviction, that without 
the reverence of some power superior to human, man would 
be ungovernable. Yet the belief of the existence and agency 
of such a power is, on other occasions, treated with ridicule 
by those sages, and represented as a principle not only use 
less, but extremely cumbersome. And if, upon reflection, 
any of them relax a little on this article, and admit that it 
may be of use that the gross of mankind believe the superin- 
tendency of a Supreme Being over the affairs of the world, 
particularly over the actions of men, they ought doubtless to 
account those persons bad citizens as well as infidels, who, by 



THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION 

their practice, conversation, or writings, attempt to under 
mine such useful principles, and, as far as in them lies, to 
loose the bands which, by giving additional strength to so 
cial duties, bind men more closely to one another. 

Though it were easy to demonstrate, both from the nature 
of the thing, and from the most authentic history, that reli 
gion neither is, nor could have been, (as some have profanely 
represented it,) a state device for keeping the people in awe ; 
it must be owned, that the necessity thereof for preserving 
the peace and order, and for promoting the happiness of 
social life, was very early observed, and has been universally 
acknowledged. But, as there may be some, who, though 
they admit the fact in general, may not clearly perceive the 
connexion, and consequently may not be sufficiently fortified 
against the cavils of infidelity and scepticism, now so common, 
I purpose at this time to lay before you some of the principal 
arguments, whereby religion is proved to be of the utmost 
importance to the security and well-being of civil society. 

This happy tendency of the religious character to advance 
national prosperity, is, in my judgment, the sentiment in 
tended to be conveyed by Solomon in my text, Righteousness 
exalteth a nation. For though, by the word righteousness, 
sometimes no more is meant than the virtue of justice) it much 
oftener in Scripture language denotes " the conscientious 
observance of our duty resulting from the fear of God," and, 
in this acceptation, is equivalent to the term religion. Now, 
to the prevalence of this principle the wise king of Israel 
ascribes, in a great measure, the flourishing state of a nation 
or polity. To illustrate his sentiment is the scope of the 
present discourse. 

Ye ask, " How is religion conducive to the exaltation and 
felicity of the body-politic or nation ? " I answer, It conduces 
to this end in these four different ways : by the tendency and 
extent of its laws ; by the nature and importance of its sanc 
tions ; by the assistance which it gives to the civil powers, 
both in securing fidelity and in discovering truth ; and by 
the positive enforcement of equity and good government on 
the rulers, and of obedience and submission on the people. 
Let it be observed, that though, in this discourse, I speak of 

8 



ON CIVIL SOCIETY. 235 

religion in general, I am always to be understood as referring 
to the Christian religion in particular. It is indeed true, that 
even those religions, if we may call them so, many or most 
of whose fundamental principles are erroneous, may, in a 
political view, be considered as beneficial, and infinitely pre 
ferable to atheism or total irreligion ; yet it is certain, that in 
this, as well as in other more important respects, no form of 
superstition can bear to be compared with that religion which 
alone has God for its author, and the greatest good of man 
kind, both temporal and eternal, for its object. 

I proceed to make a few observations, and your time will 
admit but a few, on the four heads of discourse now men 
tioned. They are so many topics of argument, by which the 
great truth contained in my text, That righteousness, or true 
and practical religion, exalteth a nation, is at once both ex 
plained and evinced. 

I. I begin with showing, that religion conduces to the wel 
fare of the community, by the tendency and extent of its laws. 

Concerning the tendency of the laws of the Christian in 
stitution, it is impossible for an intelligent person to doubt, 
that it is to promote the happiness of human society. The 
whole of practical religion is summed up by the great Author 
and Finisher of our faith, in two fundamental precepts, Matt, 
xxii. 37 40 : Thejlrst enjoins us to love God with all our 
heart, and with all our soul, and with all our mind : The se 
cond, which is like to the first, and founded on it, enjoins us to 
love our neighbour as ourselves. The apostle Paul accordingly 
has, with great propriety, comprehended all social duties in 
the latter of these precepts. Owe no man any thing , says he, 
Rom. xii. 8 10, but to love one another; for he that loveth 
another, hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shall not com 
mit adultery ; Thou shalt not kill; Thou shall not steal; 
Thou shalt not bear false witness ; Thou shalt not covet ; and 
if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended 
in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy 
self. Love zvorketh no ill to his neighbour / therefore love is 
the fulfilling of the law. To the same purpose our blessed 
Lord, Matt. vii. 12, has comprised all the duties incumbent 



236 



THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION 



on every man to every other, under this excellent moral 
maxim, Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye 
even so to them : for this, he adds, is the law and the prophets . 
It would be mispending time to attempt to prove, that the 
strict observance of these precepts would both prevent the 
greatest evils which disturb the peace of society, and would 
conduce, in the highest degree, to promote mutual confidence, 
harmony, and good-will, among fellow-citizens. This is a 
truth so evident, that, as far as I can learn, it has never been 
denied or disputed by any : It has only been regretted, that 
we have so few examples of the influence of precepts so inef 
fably important and divine. But this very regret implies a 
conviction, or rather is a confession of their goodness, and of 
the happy effect which religion must have on society, where- 
ever it meets with a suitable reception. 

I include under this head not only the tendency, but the 
extent of the laws of religion. In regard to their tendency, 
there is a manifest co-operation with the municipal laws of all 
well-governed countries, whereby the persons, the lives, the 
liberty, and the property of the people are secured from un 
just invasion or attack. But in point of extent, the difference 
lies here. It is the aim of religion to remove the causes of 
those calamities by which society is injured, whilst human 
laws reach only their destructive consequences. These crop 
the weeds, but the other plucks them up by the roots. The 
only things which are, or can be, subject to man s jurisdiction, 
are what we call overt acts, that is, external and discoverable 
actions ; the principles of the heart, out of which are the 
issues of life, are subject to God s jurisdiction, and to it only. 
There is a weakness or imperfection inherent in the former, 
and incurable, inasmuch as it necessarily results from the im 
perfection of human knowledge and of human power. It is 
solely by the influence of religion, that this deficiency can, in 
any measure, be supplied. When the divine testimony is 
received with faith and love, it applies medicine to the spiri 
tual diseases, and gives health and vigour to the soul. Hu 
man laws, for the protection of peace and good order in 
society, may concur with the divine law in saying, Thou shall 
not commit adultery, Exod. xx. 14 ; but it is only the word 



ON CIVIL SOCIETY. 237 

of God that teacheth us, That whosoever looketh on a ivoman 
to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in 
his heart, Matt. v. 28. By the former, indeed, we are com 
manded to do no murder : From the latter we learn, that 
whosoever hateth his brother is, in God s account, a murderer, 
I John iii, 15. It suits the language even of human law 
givers to say, " Thou shalt not steal :" But it belongs 
peculiarly to the divine authority to add, Thou shalt not 
covet, Exod. xx. 1 7. This character of religion, under the 
title of " The word of God," is admirably well delineated 
by the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. The word 
of God, says he, Heb. iv. 12, is quick and powerful, 
and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to 
the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints 
and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents 
of the heart. 

Thus it is evident, that religion, in respect both of the 
salutary tendency of its precepts, and of their extent, as 
reaching to the purifying of the heart, must, wheresoever it 
is believed, conduce greatly even to the temporal happiness 
and nourishing state of the community. 

II. I proceed, in the second place, to show, that religion 
eminently promotes the same end, by the nature and impor 
tance of its sanctions, the rewards which it promises, and the 
punishments which it threatens. 

It has been often pleaded on this topic, and sometimes 
with an air of triumph, that though the sanctions of human 
laws are but temporal, and those of religion mostly eternal ; 
yet as the former are visible and more immediate, and the 
latter invisible and more remote, the former have incompa 
rably greater influence over the generality of men than the 
latter. But were we to admit this as a fact, it does not over 
turn my argument. In every statute of man which does not 
contradict the commandment of God, religion leaves the hu 
man and legal sanctions to operate with their full force upon 
its votaries. If its peculiar sanctions are admitted to be of 
any weight at all, (and it can hardly be thought that they 
will not weigh with some,) they are just so much weight 



238 THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION 

superadded to the other, and contributing to the same end, 
the public welfare. 

But as to the comparative influence of the two kinds of 
sanctions, those of religion and those of the legislature, it 
appears to best advantage when the laws of religion and the 
laws of the state unfortunately run counter to each other. 
This was actually the case of the primitive Christians, when 
Christianity was persecuted, and the very profession of it 
declared criminal. "Were there not some, were there not 
even multitudes, who then showed the infinite superiority of 
its sanctions over all that human art and malice could set in 
opposition to them ? Were there not then those whose con 
duct demonstrated, that they had thoroughly imbibed that 
great lesson given by their Master, Be not afraid of them that 
kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do : 
But fear him, which, after he hath killed, hath power to cast 
into hell? Luke xii. 4, 5. Were there not then those who 
showed, in the most convincing manner, that the lively hope 
of a glorious immortality can surmount the horror of instant 
death, accompanied with ignominy and torture ? Religion 
and the State were then at variance. And though the con 
flict was purely defensive on the part of the former, and 
what, to judge after the manner of men, we should pro 
nounce very unequal, inasmuch as she never, even in self- 
defence, employed the arm of flesh, those earthly weapons 
which were so cruelly used against her her patience and 
perseverance were at length crowned with victory, and, not 
withstanding her many disadvantages, she triumphed over 
all opposition. Now, if religion was then, though a passive 
yet so formidable an adversary, when forced, against her 
natural bent, to take an adverse part, have we not reason to 
believe, that when, in conformity to her native disposition, 
she is engaged in the same cause, she will prove an active 
and a powerful ally ? 

But it is not barely by the addition of the sanctions of 
heaven, hell, and eternity, to those of the municipal laws, 
founded in the principles of natural justice, that religion co 
operates with the civil powers, promoting the same end, the 
peace of society ; there are many cases wherein the sanctions 



ON .CIVIL SOCIETY. 239 

of the latter have no influence at all, whilst those of the for 
mer operate with all their force. " It is a very small mat 
ter," said an ancient Heathen,* " to be good in the legal 
sense." The reason is, those transgressions which come un 
der the cognizance of human tribunals, must be in a parti 
cular manner circumstanced, so as to be comprehended in 
the precise definition which the legislature has adopted. 
Hence it happens, as every judicious person will admit, that 
a man may be notoriously a consummate villain, a disobe 
dient son, an unnatural father, a cruel husband, a tyranni 
cal master, a litigious neighbour, and in every respect a bad 
citizen, whom nevertheless no human laws can reach. Nor 
is there a possibility of redressing this grievance in any po 
lity, but by what would prove a still greater grievance, by 
conferring on magistrates and judges such a latitude of dis 
cretionary power as would render them quite arbitrary. 
The case is very different with the sanctions of religion, 
which always regard the motive, the disposition and the in 
tention of the agent, more than the outward circumstances 
of the action. 

Further, though the crime should be such as to fall exact 
ly under the description of the law, it may be so secretly 
committed, as to elude the eye of even the most vigilant 
magistracy: And where, in that case, is the curb against 
the blackest guilt, if none is to be found in religion ? Our 
judges, being men, are necessarily weak and imperfect. 
They require informations, the examination of witnesses, 
and other sorts of evidence. In religion, the same just, om 
niscient, and all-perfect Being, is both the witness and the 
judge. How admirably is the strength of this motive illus 
trated in the story of Joseph ! He seems to have been 
secure from all human detection. But he well knew, that 
there was a witness greater than man, from whose all-seeing 
eye it was impossible he should be screened : How can I do 
this great wickedness, said he, and sin against God? Gen. 
xxxix. 9. 

It is but too evident, that in this licentious age we have 
few such examples. But what does the smallness of the 

* Exiguum est quiddam ad legem bonum esse. Seneca. 



240 THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION 

number evince ? Not the want of efficacy in the sanctions of 
religion to prove a check on men s actions, but the want of re 
ligion amongst us to supply by its sanctions a check on ours. 
It does not refute the position of the royal Preacher, that by 
the blessing of the upright the city is exalted, Prov. xi. 11 ; 
it only shows, that there are few upright in the city to exalt 
and bless it. Religion operates solely by faith. It has no in 
fluence on any, farther than it is believed. We cannot then 
wonder, that, in those walks of life wherein scepticism and 
infidelity abound, we should find the utmost dissoluteness of 
manners. We might justly wonder, were it otherwise. A 
corrupt tree cannot produce good fruit, no more than a 
good tree can produce evil fruit. What diabolical pains 
and assiduity have not sometimes been employed, especially 
among those of superior rank, to extirpate every religious 
principle from the minds of females, whose more delicate 
sensibility renders them more susceptible than men of the 
influence of religion ? And what has been the consequence 
of this, which is indeed the worst species of debauchery ? In 
too many, such an open disregard to the most sacred engage 
ments, such shameless profligacy as, in that sex, was without 
example in this country in former ages. But those men have 
no title to complain of the effects, who, by their dissolute 
example, and still more by their impious conversation, have 
proved the principal cause of the evil. 

Again, where is the check, but from the sanctions of reli 
gion, on those despotic princes who have raised themselves 
by their arms, or have been raised by a servile people, above 
all law and control ? To such men, religion, and religion 
only, can be of power enough to curb the violence of the pas 
sions. And where there is no religion, there is no restraint. 
Every considerate person will admit, that the conclusion 
formed by Abraham, Gen. xx. 11, that there could be no 
security for his wife s person, or his own life, against the un 
bridled desires of an arbitrary prince, who might do what he 
pleased, was a just and natural conclusion from the princi 
ple assumed by him, That there was no fear of God in that 
place. 



ON CIVIL SOCIETY. 

For, let it be observed further, that religion is not entire 
ly without influence, even on those who are not entitled to 
be called religious. It deters from the commission of crimes, 
by its threatenings, those whom its charms have not allured 
to the practice of virtue. An excellent illustration of the in 
fluence of religion in the case of absolute monarchs, is given 
by a late writer of great genius and penetration : "A prince 
who loves religion, and fears it, is a tame lion, which yields 
to the hand that strokes him, and to the voice that soothes 
him : He who fears religion, and hates it, is an untamed 
lion, which bites the chain that restrains him from throwing 
himself upon the passengers : He who has no religion, is 
that terrible animal, unsubdued, and at large, which is 
not sensible of his liberty but when he tears in pieces and 
devours." * 

Permit me to add on this head, that though the principal 
sanctions of religion are future and eternal, these are not its 
only sanctions. There are some which are present and tem 
poral : The approbation and the reproach of conscience ; a 
belief in the superintendency of Providence, in the course of 
which God is often pleased to defeat the secret machinations 
of the wicked, making the mischief intended for another to 
return upon the head of the contriver ; and not seldom to 
bring unexpectedly to light the hidden things of dishonesty, 
to the disgrace of those who were the perpetrators, are, though 
regarding the present life only, not to be considered as en 
tirely without effect. 

Thus I have shown, in the second place, that religion pro 
motes the peace and prosperity of the nation, by the nature 
and importance of its sanctions. 

III. I maintain, thirdly, That it promotes the same end, 
by the aid which it gives to the civil powers, both in securing 
fidelity, and in discovering truth. 

Men s conviction of the weakness of all human ties, when 
opposed to some powerful inducement from interest, ambi 
tion, or sensuality ; their consciousness how little, in case of 
such a competition, faithfulness could be secured by any 

* De 1 Esprit des Loix, liv. xxiv. eh. 2. 



THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION 

promise, or veracity by any protestation, has made them uni 
versally borrow help from religion, to furnish them with 
an additional security in aid of human engagements and alle 
gations. Hence the origin of oaths, not only of fidelity to a 
trust, and of allegiance, but also in matters of evidence, in 
bearing testimony, both in civil causes and in criminal. Now, 
an oath is in fact a solemn appeal to God, who knows all 
things, who has distinguished himself by the title of the God 
of truth, and who is the avenger of all deceit and wickedness. 
By connecting with the affirmation a declared sense of the 
Divine presence and justice, a lie is loaded with the guilt of 
impiety ; and that which would otherwise have been consi 
dered, though unjustly, as but a venial trespass, a slight de 
parture from the duty we owe to others, is viewed in the 
more atrocious light of an affront to the Majesty of Heaven 
whose omniscience appears to be directly insulted, and whose 
omnipotence appears to be defied. 

I do indeed most readily admit, that as in every lie there 
is an infringement of the law of God, a conscientious man 
will, from motives of piety as well as justice, be restrained 
from it. He knows, that all sins whatever, even those called 
sins of the second table, which are committed more directly 
against his neighbour, strike ultimately against God, the 
supreme Legislator, of whose law they are the violations ; and 
for this reason I should not hesitate to pronounce of a truly 
good man, that his word is equivalent to his oath. But, alas ! 
we have too much reason to think, that this integrity is not 
so common as might be wished. How far it is, where found, 
to be attributed to a sense of religion, is submitted to the 
candid and judicious ; but in regard to the bulk of mankind 
we may safely affirm, that though religion meets not with 
that reception which can empower it to influence the whole 
tenor of their conduct, it so far impresses their imagination 
as is sufficient for restraining them from the perpetration 
of crimes, especially such crimes as are universally accounted 
the most flagitious. Now in this number perjury is always 
classed. If even then this weak impression of a power supe 
rior to human, this very imperfect degree of the fear of God, 
were, by the universal prevalence of that atheism, and con- 



ON CIVIL SOCIETY. 243 

tempt of religion, which are visibly making rapid progress 
amongst us, and already infecting the lower classes of men, 
(if it were, I say,) totally banished the land, it may be re 
ferred to the determination of those whom worldly considera 
tions only can affect, whether this event, which appears so 
desirable to many, would conduce to the honour and purity 
of our families, the security of our properties, liberties, and 
lives. Amongst an unprincipled people, in whom is no belief 
of Deity or Providence, heaven, hell, or eternity, can we be 
so vain as to imagine that there would be much regard to the 
ties of truth and justice ? 

On those, whose birth, education, or circumstances, have 
brought them into the upper walks of life, it has been often 
thought, that a sense of honour would have considerable 
influence, and prove an effectual restraint at least from some 
vices, though there were very little sense of virtue, and none 
at all of religion. But, as far as I can recollect, it has been 
admitted by the sages of all times and countries, that, without 
a sense of religion of some sort or other, there could be no 
dependence upon the vulgar. 

In respect of what is called a sense of honour, I beg leave 
to remark, that as this principle does not regard the moral 
pravity of the action, nor yet its pernicious consequences 
either to individuals or to society, but solely the disesteem 
wherein it happens to be among those called the fashionable 
world; so there are some of the most enormous crimes, which, 
in their effects, prove ruinous to individuals, and subversive 
of the peace of families, from which this principle of honour 
affords no protection whatever. It were easy to show, did 
time permit at present, what horrid injustice, ingratitude, 
treachery, cruelty, falseness, (for, in affairs of gallantry, what 
man of fashion thinks there is any thing dishonourable in the 
breach of vows ?) nay, what worthlessness in many respects, 
may be perfectly compatible with the unaccountable charac 
ter, the offspring of pride and caprice, A MAN OF HONOUR. 
And even in those few cases wherein something like moral 
qualities, such as veracity and courage, come within its pre 
cincts, as it always has respect to the opinions of others, the 
sentiments in vogue ; so, wherever absolute secrecy can be 

Q 



244 THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION 

secured, it is totally disarmed. Indeed, in regard to all those 
vices which may be perpetrated in such a manner as to elude 
discovery, and give a defiance to the most inquisitive curio 
sity, where can he the curb on persons of any class, if all 
sense of virtue and religion are wanting ? 

" True," say some, " if both are wanting ; but will not 
the former prove sufficient without the latter ?" I shall only 
answer, That though I will not presume to say what in every 
supposable situation would possibly influence a human cha 
racter, I will venture to pronounce, that if ye make a sepa 
ration between those two which God and conscience have 
joined together, and divorce religion from virtue, ye will find 
ye have deprived the latter of her steadiest friend, her best 
comforter, her firmest support. And whatever may be the 
pretences or appearances of human virtue, when destitute of 
religion, I should not account him a very wise man, who 
would put equal confidence in her as in what Job denomi 
nates man s true wisdom, namely, the fear of the Lord, Job 
xxviii. 28. 

" Ay, but there are so many hypocrites that wear the mask 
of religion, that one is not safe to place any trust here at 
all." True, some such characters are still to be found, 
though hypocrisy cannot be accounted the vice of the age. 
And do we not also sometimes find villains under the mask 
of honesty ? Now, if no person in his senses ever imagined 
that the detection of villany brought a discredit on honest 
men, or a suspicion that there is no honesty in the world, 
can any thing but the grossest prejudice lead us to conclude 
unfavourably of religion, because of the detection of some 
hypocrites ? The standard coin never sinks in our estimation, 
in consequence of the many discoveries that are daily made 
of artful but worthless counterfeits. 

On the whole, therefore, agreeably to what I proposed, in 
the third place, to prove, we see how necessary the aid of 
religion is for securing fidelity to engagements, and for the 
discovery of truth in judicatories, both in civil causes and in 
criminal. 

IV. I come now, in the fourth and last place, to observe 



ON CIVIL SOCIETY. 245 

the utility of religion to a State, by the positive enforcement 
which it gives of equity and good government on the rulers, 
and of obedience and subjection on the people. 

In regard to the first part of this head, I have in some 
measure prevented myself, when speaking of the sanctions 
of religion, and showing that they are the more necessary in 
the case of despotic sovereigns, inasmuch as, being by their 
station raised above control, there is no check upon them 
beside religion. I shall only, therefore, at this time, with all 
possible brevity, point out the general views that revelation 
gives of all human governors. It is this which reminds them 
that magistracy is a trust, for the faithful discharge whereof 
they are accountable to God, who, in the course of his provi 
dence, has conferred it on them ; that consequently they who 
rule over men ought to be just, ruling in the fear of God ; 
that they judge not for man ultimately, but for the Lord, who 
is with them in the judgment, 2 Sam. xxiii. 3 ; 2 Chron. xix. 
6, 7. Is it a disadvantage to mankind, that those who are 
supreme here, and uncontrollable, are taught to reflect, that 
they must themselves appear hereafter, in the quality of sub 
jects, before the tribunal of Him who is higher than the highest; 
and that their conduct, especially in ruling and judging, must 
undergo a strict scrutiny, under the eye of the King of kings 
and Lord of lords that unerring Judge, who is no respecter 
of persons, with whom there is no iniquity, and in whose 
tremendous presence the distinctions which obtain amongst 
us mortals, of high and low, mighty and weak, rich and poor, 
are all entirely levelled ? Nay, would it not, on the contrary, 
be of unspeakable advantage to the world, that all magis 
trates, lawgivers, and judges, were firmly persuaded of these 
important truths ? 

On the other hand, if a pious sense of religion is the best 
security for good government on the part of rulers, it is also 
the most effectual means of ensuring submission and obe 
dience on the part of subjects. Without some impressions 
of this kind, it would be difficult to persuade men that they 
are under any tie to obedience and subjection to others of 
their own species, when any strong temptation from interest 
or ambition should incline them to revolt. Their submission 

Q2 



THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION 

would be such only as necessity compelled, not as a sense of 
duty disposed them to yield. Consequently they could have 
no motive to restrain them from rebellion, whenever it should 
appear they could rebel successfully. But religion enforces 
our allegiance, not from the fear of the magistrate, (a motive, 
however, which it leaves in full force,) but from a principle 
of conscience towards God ; not only for wrath, says Paul, 
but FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE, Rom. xiii. 5. And Peter, to the 
same purpose, Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, 
FOR THE LORD S SAKE. For so is the will of God, that with 
well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men, 
1 Pet. ii. 13, 15. 

THUS I have endeavoured briefly to illustrate and evince 
the important truth laid down in my text, that righteousness, 
or religion, exalteth a nation. I have shown, that in all the 
four ways enumerated, to wit, by the tendency and extent 
of its laws ; by the nature and importance of its sanctions ; 
by the aid it gives to the civil powers, in securing fidelity 
and in the discovery of truth ; and by the positive enforce 
ment of good government on rulers, and of obedience on sub 
jects it conduces to the temporal good of the society. This, 
I acknowledge, is comparatively but a secondary considera 
tion ; for what is all worldly and temporary prosperity, com 
pared with that exceeding great and eternal weight of glory 
which shall hereafter be revealed ? But though it be a con 
sideration much inferior to the other, yet as holy writ occa 
sionally directs our attention to it, we are certain that it 
ought not to be overlooked. For, had present advantages 
been totally unworthy the Christian s notice, the great apostle 
of the Gentiles had never thought it worth while to observe 
to us, 1 Tim. iv. 8, 9, that godliness is profitable unto all 
things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that 
which is to come; adding, This is a faithful saying, and 
worthy of all acceptation. 

I SHALL conclude with subjoining these two inferences : 
First, If the above representation of things be just, the se 
cular powers ought to give all possible countenance to religion, 



ON CIVIL SOCIETY. 217 

the principal support of their authority, and to the ordinan 
ces of divine worship, the principal external means by which 
a sense of religion is propagated and preserved among man 
kind. If men in the more elevated ranks of life, those men 
especially who are vested with a share of either the legislative 
or the executive power, should display, in their conduct or 
conversation, a contempt of our Christian profession, they 
would not show themselves more plainly to be bad Christians 
in the common acceptation of the term, than to be (what 
possibly they would like worse to be accounted) injudicious 
magistrates, and ill-affected citizens, and consequently in all 
respects bad members of the commonwealth. We all know 
how prone inferiors are to imitate their superiors. And such 
is the depravity of human nature, that the vices of the great 
are much more readily copied than their virtues. Every man 
(whatever his condition in the world may be) is obliged to 
be exemplary ; but the obligation is much stronger on those 
whose example, by reason of their exalted stations, is capable 
of being much more beneficial, or much more hurtful, than 
that of ordinary men. 

Secondly, If religion is of such indispensable necessity for 
the support of civil society, what shall we think of the pa 
triotism or public virtue of those who assiduously endeavour, 
as far as their influence extends, to undermine its fundamen 
tal principles, and set men loose from all its obligations? Do 
not such appear to be as real enemies to their country as to 
Christianity ? Some perhaps would not scruple to add, ene 
mies to human nature. Let people but coolly ask them 
selves, If our free-thinkers, our speculative and philosophical 
latitudmarians, should succeed in the dark design they seem 
sometimes so zealously to prosecute ; and if the disbelief of 
the principles, and the disregard to the rites of religion, 
which already appear in too many, and plainly show their 
evil influence on the morals of the age, should, agreeably to 
the ordinary course of things, descend to the lowest ranks, 
and become universal, what will be the consequence ? Who 
can hesitate to answer, The utter fall of religion. Let it 
not be pretended, that there is no danger from the reason 
ings of the sceptic, because these are far above the compre- 



248 THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION, &C. 

hension of vulgar understandings : for those men will fondly 
adopt the conclusion, who are incapable of apprehending 
aught of the premises. The authority of great names among 
the learned will ever be to them a sufficient foundation. 
And if once our faith is subverted, is any so blind as to ima 
gine that religion will fall alone ? Can her disgrace fail to be 
accompanied by that of virtue and good manners ? In such 
general ruin, what will be safe ? Can we be vain enough to 
imagine, that our laws and liberties, or any part of the 
constitution, will long survive? The subject is too full of 
horror to expatiate on. I leave it to the serious reflections 
of my hearers. 



THE NATURE, EXTENT, AND IMPORTANCE, OF THE 
DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE . 

A 
SEKMON, 

PREACHED 

AT ABERDEEN, DECEMBER 12, 1767, 

BEING THE FAST-DAY APPOINTED BY THE KING, ON 
ACCOUNT OF THE REBELLION IN AMERICA. 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



IT is not of any importance to the Public, to be made ac 
quainted with the motives which have induced the Author to 
publish the following Sermon ; he will only say, that he had 
no such intention when he composed and preached it. But 
there are two points on which, he doubts not, many readers 
will think he stands in need of an apology. Of them he 
begs a candid attention to what follows, as the best that he 
can offer. 

It may be said, that little can be expected new, especially 
in a sermon, on a subject which has now so long engrossed 
the public attention, and engaged many able and ingenious 
writers on both sides. The Author readily admits the truth 
of this remark. If there be any thing here that can be called 
new, it is the consideration of what our religion teaches to be 
the duty of Christians in circumstances like ours. This topic 
has not been touched, at least in any of those writings which 
he has read on the present controversy. But though there 
be little or nothing new in the thoughts, every author has his 
peculiar manner and arrangement. One manner is better 
adapted to one set of readers, another to another. If the 
sentiments then be just, and if they be arranged and ex 
pressed with tolerable perspicuity, it may be hoped that 
there are some to whom they will be useful. 

The second point on which the author finds he must apo 
logise for himself, is his entering at all on such a subject in 
a sermon. Indeed the prejudices of some are so strong on 
this article, that he scarcely expects that any thing he has to 
advance will entirely remove them. The cry is, " What has 
the minister of the gospel to do with matters of state, or 
Christianity with human politics?" The ambiguity of the 
terms politics and matters of state gives a specious appearance 
to the objection. The church, no doubt, would be a very 



252 ADVERTISEMENT. 

improper place for the discussion of many points relating to 
national interest, and of questions of jurisprudence, which 
might be very pertinent in the cabinet or the senate. But 
when a question arises that affects the title of the magistrate 
to demand, and the obligation of the subject to yield, obedi 
ence ; if the precepts of the gospel at all concern our conduct 
as citizens, it must be the duty of a Christian pastor to point 
out to his flock what these precepts command, and what 
they prohibit. 

Our Saviour, in his last charge to his apostles, expressly 
enjoined them to teach all those whom they should convert 
and baptize, to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded 
them. Matt, xxviii. 20. Now, it is as really a commandment 
of our Lord, that we should render to Caesar the things that 
are Ccesars^ as that we should render to God the things that 
are God s, Matt. xxii. 21. Have not his apostles accordingly, 
Paul and Peter in particular, given most explicit directions 
on this very head ? Paul not only recommends this duty him 
self to Christian congregations, but, in the instructions he 
gives to Titus, who was also a minister, specifies it by name 
as an important duty, which he ought not to neglect recom 
mending to his people. Put them in mind, says he, to be 
subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, Tit. 
iii. 1. Can we then think ourselves excused in omitting to 
teach and enforce so momentous a duty, so strongly recom 
mended to us both by the example and by the precept both 
of our Lord and of his apostles? In the general order 
Christ gave his disciples, to teach the people to observe all 
things whatsoever he had commanded them, were they at 
liberty to make an exception of this ? 

Some perhaps will reply, " Were the duty recommended 
only in general terms by the minister as a Christian duty, 
no objection could reasonably be made ; but to enter into a 
detail of facts, or an argumentative discussion on such a sub 
ject, is what appears unsuitable to the place." To this the 
author has only to answer, The manner, whether general or 
particular, derives it suitableness entirely from the occasion 
and circumstances. When people regularly do what they 
ought in any instance, and when their minds are in no danger 



ADVERTISEMENT. 253 

of being perverted by false principles, it is perhaps enough to 
remark their obligations passingly : But the case is different, 
when, by misrepresentations of fact, or by sophistical argu 
ments, their minds begin to be alienated from their duty, and 
they learn to call evil good and good evil, to put darkness for 
light and light for darkness, bitter for siveet and sweet for 
bitter. It is then the business of the preacher, if preaching 
be not a mere matter of form, to do what he can to inform 
them better, both as to the fact and as to the argument. 
Can then the observance of the duty we owe to magistrates 
be an unseasonable subject at present, when so many are at 
such uncommon pains (some doubtless through mistake, and 
some through ill design) to undermine it ? 

The pulpit, without question, would be an improper place 
for canvassing the economical regulations which might pro 
perly be adopted in the government of families : But if tenets 
should be advanced, and warmly recommended, totally sub 
versive of the honour due from children to their parents, 
and of the obedience due from servants to their masters, 
would he deserve the character of a minister of Christ who 
chose to continue silent, and, under the silly pretext that the 
pulpit was not intended for discussing family affairs, would 
take no concern in the controversy ? Shall we find men that 
are indefatigable in distributing poison, and shall not those 
who have it in their power, be at some pains to administer 
the antidote ? 

It has in like manner been urged, that, "under these plau 
sible pretences, the pulpit hath sometimes been made the 
instrument of raising sedition, and of doing the greatest 
mischief to the public." The charge is indeed but too true : 
But is that a good reason for not employing it for the con 
trary purpose of inculcating allegiance and loyalty? The pul 
pit has also been often employed in the service of error : Shall 
it therefore never be used for the advancement of truth ? It 
has often been perverted to be instrumental in kindling per 
secution : Shall it therefore be accounted improper to use it 
in recommending the moderation, the meekness, and the gentle 
ness of Christ ? Besides, will those who abuse the pulpit, by 



254 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



employing it to a bad purpose, be the less disposed to do so, 
because nobody dares oppose them from the pulpit ? 

From the manner in which some talk of the business of a 
preacher, one would imagine, that, in their apprehensions, he 
ought ever to be occupied (as preachers have been but too 
often occupied) in doating about questions and strifes of words, 
discussing all the futile logomachies of the schools, which gen 
der contention, envy, bigotry, and wrath, but minister not to 
godly edifying, to pious and practical instruction. 

The author begs leave to add, that he hopes the doctrine 
here maintained may be of some service, independently of 
the American disputes which have occasioned its publication. 
There is a real danger arising from the loose and republican 
principles now so openly professed, and so assiduously dis 
seminated, through the British Isles, which, should they still 
make progress, as they seem to have done for some years 
past, might, after the present controversy is settled and for 
gotten, involve this country in the most direful calamities. 
On the other hand, he is happy to observe that this quarrel 
has excited some persons of great learning and penetration, 
fully capable of doing justice to the subject, to examine more 
narrowly than had been done before, into the origin, nature, 
and end of civil government.* It may be expected as the 
consequence, that the wild schemes of our political vision 
aries, for there are visionaries in politics as well as in religion, 
will in due time be properly exposed, and at length aban 
doned by every body. 

* The public lias been promised by an eminent writer, one entirely equal to the 
subject, an examination of Mr. Locke s TJieory of Government. It is earnestly 
wished by many, that an inquiry so useful in itself, and so peculiarly seasonable at 
present, may not be unnecessarily deferred. 



SERMON IV. 



PROV. xxiv. 21. 

Meddle not with them that are given to change. 

OUR religion teaches us to consider all afflictions as chastise 
ments for sin, and as mercifully intended by our heavenly 
Father to bring the afflicted to reflection and repentance. 
National calamities we are taught to regard as the punish 
ments of national vices, and as warnings to the people to be 
think themselves, and reform. In the day of adversity con 
sider, is an admonition equally apposite, as applied to indi 
viduals, and to nations. 

When the trouble itself, whether private or public, is the 
immediate and natural consequence of particular vices, it is 
more especially a call to examine into those vices which are 
the direct source of our calamities, that by the grace of God 
we may forsake and avoid them. Thus a bad state of health 
caused by debauchery, specially warns the suffering person 
of the necessity of temperance in the indulgence of appetite : 
and the miseries of a civil war, whether incurred by immo 
derate stretches of power on the one side, or produced by a 
wanton abuse of liberty on the other, are loud and particular 
calls to the correction of these enormities. 

If this be a just representation, no Christian can reason 
ably doubt that our present distressful and threatening cir 
cumstances, in regard to America, ought to be thus viewed 
by every British subject on both sides of the Atlantic. War 
of every kind points more directly to the depravity of our 
minds and the corruption of our manners, than do those pub 
lic calamities, famine, pestilence, and earthquake, which are 
considered as proceeding immediately from the hand of God. 
These are all to be regarded as the punishments, but not as 



256 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

the natural effects of sin ; whereas war is to be viewed 
equally in both lights. Whence come wars and fightings 
amongst you, says James ; come they not hence, even of your 
lusts that war in your members? chap. iv. 1. It is within 
the human breast that this mighty mischief is conceived : 
There the fire is lighted up, which afterwards bursting forth 
sets the world on flame. 

In every war, then, foreign or domestic, there is on one 
side or the other, not seldom on both, some immorality or 
guilt which is the direct cause. The superintendency of Pro 
vidence is doubtless to be acknowledged in this, as in every 
other event. And therefore affliction of every kind ought to 
excite us to self-examination, prayer, and repentance. But 
those which people more directly bring upon themselves, ought 
to lead them to inquire into the immediate cause, that so the 
present evil may, as far as depends on them, be soon reme 
died, and such a proper sense of their duty attained, as may 
at least be some security that they will not be instrumental 
in fomenting the latent mischief, but will, on the contrary, 
do what they can to check its progress. Besides, to enter 
tain just notions on these subjects, is one of the surest means 
of guarding men against the like evils in time to come. 

Not indeed that wars of any kind, and especially intestine 
wars, always spring from opinion or principle. Their primary 
and ordinary source is much more properly represented in 
the words of the inspired writer, to be our lusts that war in 
our members. It is men s avarice, ambition, or revenge. At 
the same time it must be owned, that the first movers in such 
commotions are but few ; the bulk of their followers, misled 
by their artifices and misrepresentations, drive on blindfold, 
as they are stimulated, not knowing what they do. Nothing 
therefore can more expose people to be the dupes of wicked 
and designing men, than either to have no principles at all 
on this subject, or to entertain wrong principles. The few 
can do nothing without the many. The former generally are 
hurried on by their passions : the latter, by the erroneous 
notions which those who find their account in deceiving them 
are indefatigable in sowing and cultivating. For this reason, 
if the gross of the people be in the wrong, they are more to 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 257 

be pitied than condemned ; for they often do the greatest 
mischief with the best intentions imaginable. Like Paul, 
before his conversion, they have a zeal for God and for their 
country, but it is not according to knowledge. Like him also, 
many of them, we may reasonably believe, would act a con 
trary part, if they should come to be convinced of their 
error. When people are gone a certain length in an evil 
course, we see from experience that it is next to impossible, 
to reclaim and convince them. It is consequently one of the 
best offices that we can do to our countrymen and fellow- 
Christians, when pernicious errors begin to be diffused, and 
to be plausibly, or at least popularly supported, to use our 
utmost endeavours in the way of prevention, by propagating 
and defending what both reason and Scripture show to be 
the truth. 

This consideration, you will readily suppose, has led me to 
make choice of these words of Solomon as the ground of my 
discourse, Medde not with them that are given to change. 
Our gracious sovereign has very properly called us, on this 
occasion, to humble ourselves before the Divine Majesty, to 
implore his merciful interposition in our favour, that, being 
warned by the tremendous judgments of a civil war raging in 
the colonies, we may be induced to repent of our sins, amend 
our lives, and thus avert the Divine anger : I judged there 
fore, that I could not better employ a small portion of a day 
set apart for so pious a purpose, than in arming you against 
those errors in particular, which have contributed so much 
to our present calamities ; and in showing the obligations 
which, as men, as citizens, and as Christians, you lie under to 
give obedience to the powers which Providence has set over 
you, and not to meddle with them that are given to change ; 
that is, to avoid giving your countenance or aid, either by 
speech or by action, to the measures of those who would, on 
slight pretexts, subvert all established order and throw every 
thing into confusion. 

I am not ignorant that it may plausibly be urged against 
the propriety of discussing these points in this audience, that 
very few of us can be charged with entertaining principles 
tending to vindicate the resistance made to authority in the 



258 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

remote parts of the British empire. In general, therefore, 
we need not a refutation of opinions which we do not hold. 
The assertion I acknowledge to be just in point of fact, and 
rejoice that on the best grounds I can affirm that it is. But 
I am far from thinking it conclusive in point of argument. 
Though there be few, there are some. And such writings as, 
in my judgment, instil and propagate the most unchristian 
and most dangerous doctrines on this subject, are daily cir 
culated among us. The few may in process of time grow 
to be the many. The greatest ills are often inconsiderable in 
their beginning ; and sometimes the most memorable revolu 
tions may be traced up to very slight causes. Frequent mis 
representations and clamours breed discontent: discontent 
gradually produces disaffection: disaffection, long conti 
nued, settles into disloyalty ; and this last waits but an op 
portunity to bring forth rebellion. Preventive remedies, it is 
well known, are commonly more effectual than corrective 
ones. And often, had the proper medicines been taken in 
time, those diseases might have been cured, which, allowed 
through neglect to become inveterate, baffle the art of the 
physician. Besides, the medicine I mean to administer is 
of that safe kind, which, if it do no service, or be not neces 
sary, will do no hurt. 

It is only by the instruction and reformation of particulars, 
however small a part each is of the whole, that the general 
instruction and reformation can be effected. And the national 
sentiments are no other than those which prevail with the 
majority of the individuals of whom the nation is composed. 
Let us then, in the present great national contest, inquire 
impartially where the radical error lies ; for that there is an 
error somewhere, is allowed on both sides. 

Now, the better we are informed in the rights of magistracy 
in general, and in the chief circumstances of the present case 
in particular, there is the greater probability that our conduct 
shall be regulated by the obligations we lie under, and that it 
shall be steady and uniform. On these two topics, therefore, 
the rights of magistracy, and the grounds of the present 
colonial war, I purpose, with the aid of Heaven, to offer a 
few observations. 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 259 

THE precept in my text, Meddle not ivith them that are 
given to change, evidently prohibits us from favouring inno 
vations in matters of government, or concurring in violent 
and irregular measures, for the purpose of effecting some 
change either in the governors or in the form of government. 
Such alterations or amendments in the laws as may be regu 
larly and constitutionally introduced, and may be conducive 
to the improvement of the body politic, are by no means 
comprehended in the prohibition given by this sage monarch. 
It is, on the contrary, the duty of every one in office, to 
exert the power which the constitution gives him in such a 
way as will most promote the public welfare, correcting what 
ever is amiss, and improving whatever is found defective. 
The precept contained in my text may no doubt be trans 
gressed, either by the governors or by the governed. It is 
with regard to the latter that I intend at this time principally 
to consider it : And for this end I must beg your patient 
attention to the following remarks : 

First, It ought to be remembered, that the general precept 
to be observed by the people in regard to their rulers is, to 
obey them. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, 
says Paul ; and, He who resisteth the power, resisteth the ordi 
nance of God. Again, Be ye subject, therefore, not only for 
wrath, but for conscience sake, Rom. xiii. 1,2, 5. To the 
same purpose the apostle Peter, Submit yourselves to every 
ordinance of man for the Lord s sake, whether it be to the 
king as supreme, or to governors, as to them that are sent by 
him, for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of 
them that do well. He adds, For so is the will of God, that 
with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish 
men, 1 Pet. ii. 13 15. 

" Are we then to conclude, that resistance to governors is 
in all cases unlawful, and that whatever part they act, how 
ever oppressive and tyrannical, the governed have no choice 
but obedience and submission?" I do by no means affirm 
this. There are few general rules that admit no exception. 
Consider the commandment, Thou shall not kill, Exod. xx. 13. 
Does it import that in no possible circumstances one man is 
permitted to take the life of another ? No, certainly. Not- 



260 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

withstanding this unlimited prohibition, we all allow, and 
have sufficient warrant from Scripture for allowing, that in 
several cases, as in the judicial punishment of crimes, in self- 
defence, and in lawful war, it not only may be vindicated, 
but is even a duty, to deprive another of life. Nor let it be 
urged, that the term rendered kill, ought to have been trans 
lated commit murder; for it is certain that the Hebrew word 
is of as extensive signification as the English, and applied 
indifferently to lawful as to unlawful killing. Children, obey 
your parents, says the apostle Paul, IN ALL THINGS. 
The same injunction is also given to servants in regard to 
their masters, Col. iii. 20, 22. This, one would think, ex 
cludes all exception, if words can exclude it. Yet I believe 
no Christian will urge, that there would be an obligation to 
obedience from this precept, should a parent command his 
child, or a master command his servant, to steal. I shall 
offer but one other instance, an instance which nearly re 
sembles the point in hand. Our Lord has given us this 
express prohibition, Resist not evil, Matt. v. 39, and that 
without any restriction whatever. Yet if this were to be 
understood by Christians as admitting no exception, it would 
among them abolish magistracy itself. For what is magistracy, 
but, if I may be allowed the expression, a bulwark erected 
for the defence of the society, and consequently for the very 
purpose of resisting evil, for repelling injuries offered or 
committed, either by foreign enemies from without, or by 
its own corrupted members from within ? Therefore, unless 
the nature of the thing require it, we cannot conclude so 
much from a general proposition. 

And that the nature of the thing does not in this case re 
quire it, is manifest from this consideration, that government 
obliges us in conscience to obedience and submission, only 
because it is the means appointed by Providence for pro 
moting one of the most important ends, the good of society. 
If this institution therefore should, in any instance, so far 
degenerate into tyranny, that all the miseries of a civil war, 
consequent on resistance, would be less terrible than the slavery 
and oppression suffered under the government, then, and 
only then, could resistance be said to be either incumbent as 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 261 

a duty, or even lawful. It cannot reasonably be denied, that 
the principle of self-defence is as natural and justifiable in 
communities as individuals. 

Thus much I thought it necessary to premise, for the sake 
of truth, and that it might not be imagined I mean to argue 
on the slavish, unnatural, and justly exploded principles of 
passive obedience and non-resistance ; principles whose mani 
fest tendency is the establishment and support of despotism. 
At the same time it is but doing justice to the argument to 
take notice, that if there be a danger, on the one hand, of 
tying the knot of allegiance which binds the subject to the 
sovereign too hard, there is no less danger, on the other, of 
making it too loose. Nothing is more common than for 
people to run from one extreme to another. We have in 
deed happily abandoned the absurd tenets above mentioned, 
but is there no reason to dread that many in this island are 
running precipitately into the opposite error ? an error whose 
direct tendency is anarchy , which commonly terminates in 
usurpation and tyranny, the very thing proposed to be 
avoided by resistance. That we may be properly guarded 
against so fatal a mistake, I hope, my brethren, to be indulged 
on this head a little further, whilst I consider, as briefly as 
possible, the extent both of the precept and of the exception. 

The extent of the precept to obey governors, can only be 
ascertained by attending to the end of government. Now the 
end of government is, as was observed, the good of society, 
especially of the governed, who make the major part. Paul, 
speaking of the magistrate, says, He is the minister of God to 
thee for good, Rom. xiii. 4. It will be asked, on the other 
side, " Can this consideration entitle him to obedience, when 
he adopts a measure, that, instead of promoting the public 
welfare, is really hurtful ?" That we may be furnished with 
a proper answer to this question, we must remark, first, that 
the apostle mentions the end of magistracy, which is the good 
of society, as the great foundation of allegiance, not the end 
of every measure which the magistrate may think proper to 
adopt. He is but a man, and therefore fallible as well as 
others. He is liable both to error and to vice. Many mea 
sures he may adopt that are improper; notwithstanding which, 



262 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

the end of the office, the common good, may be promoted by 
him. And true public spirit incites us equally, in what re 
gards the community, to prefer the greatest of different good 
things and the least of different ills. Now there may be many 
bad measures adopted by the ruling powers, which neverthe 
less could not do half the mischief that would necessarily 
ensue from the subversion of authority. For it ought always 
on this subject to be taken into consideration, that resistance 
strikes immediately, not only against the particular measure 
resisted, but against the office of the magistrate, and there 
fore tends totally to subvert authority, and unhinge the con 
stitution. If then by resisting we loose, as much as in us 
lies, the bands of society, and introduce anarchy, with all its 
baneful consequences, on account of any measures, the ill ef 
fects whereof are not so much to be dreaded as those wherein 
the nation would be involved by the dissolution of govern 
ment, we run into a greater evil to avoid a less. 

Let it be further observed, that in bad measures themselves 
there is a great difference. Some are denominated bad be 
cause inexpedient^ that is, not well adapted to the end intended 
by them. Thus a tax may be laid on one commodity which 
distresses the people more, and yields less to the revenue, 
than if it had been laid on another. Others are termed bad 
because immoral, as when any thing is commanded contrary 
to the law of God. In regard to the first, there cannot be a 
shadow of doubt. For if every man were at liberty to judge 
for himself, how far the means adopted by his superiors were 
fitted to the end, and consequently how far he were obliged 
to give obedience to the laws, there could be no government 
at all. The people would be either in a state of perpetual 
warfare, or at perfect liberty to do as they please. If the 
latter were the case, it would be absurd to talk of laws or 
orders ; the only proper terms would be counsels or advices. 
Among such, and only among such, it might be justly said, 
" Every man is his own legislator." But this state of things 
(for a constitution it cannot be called) may suit the perfec 
tion of angels, who are all good and wise, but will never suit 
the pravity of human nature. In regard to the other sort of 
bad measures, where something sinful is enjoined, it is certain 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 263 

that no man is bound to yield an active obedience to a hu 
man law, which, either from the light of nature or from re 
velation, he is persuaded to be contrary to the Divine law. 
Here the maxim takes place, "We ought to obey God 
rather than man." 

But even as to such laws, the subject is not always entitled 
to oppose the magistrate by force. In the days of the apos 
tles, the Christians submitted to any sufferings rather than 
give obedience to the heathen laws in favour of idolatry ; yet 
they neither made war upon the magistrate, nor pulled down 
the images, altars, and temples of idolaters. " Is religion 
then never a sufficient ground of active opposition to the 
ruling powers?" That cannot justly be inferred neither. 
Government has for its object the whole society, not a sepa 
rate part. There is therefore a great difference between what 
may be called an attack on the rights both natural and civil 
of the ivhole, such as is the religion of the community, and 
an infringement of the natural rights of a few. 

A man s right to his opinions may be truly said to be both 
natural and unalienable. As they depend not on his will, it 
is not in his power to alter them. And no law is obligatory 
which commands a man to lie. Religious toleration, there 
fore, may justly be considered as a natural right. The two 
most definable, though not the only limits to all civil laws, 
are the impossible and the immoral. A law commanding 
men to believe certain religious tenets, attempts the impos 
sible, and is therefore not so properly tyrannical as absurd. 
Laws can have no more effect on the belief or opinions of 
any who are capable of forming opinions, than they can have 
on the bodily senses. A law commanding men, under pains 
and penalties, to profess opinions in religion which they dis 
believe, enjoins something immoral, and is therefore at once 
impious, tyrannical, and absurd. It undermines its own 
foundation, requiring an obedience which cannot be yielded 
without subverting the authority of conscience, whence all 
sorts of obligation, civil and religious, originate. It proposes 
what is in politics the greatest of absurdities, to make people 
good citizens, by making them bad men. But the duties 
enjoined by the law of nature may also be enforced by civil 



264 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

laws under civil sanctions. Of this kind are almost all the 
criminal laws in every country. 

Further, there is a great difference between the submission 
due to measures tending to the preservation of what is esta 
blished, and the submission due to measures tending to its 
subversion ; and that without taking into consideration the 
goodness or the badness of the establishment. The former 
is favourable to public tranquillity and order, because con 
ducing to that which the community, whether right or wrong, 
esteems its good : the latter is hardly ever attempted without 
endangering, and not sometimes without overturning the pub 
lic tranquillity. Now, as it is a principle of common sense, 
that a less evil should be borne to prevent a greater, so it is 
a fundamental principle in government, whose end is com 
mon utility, that private interest should give place to public. 
It holds in general, therefore, that no man, or body of men, 
constituting but a smaller part of the community, are entitled 
to resist the magistrate by force in what is properly a private 
quarrel, even though they should think themselves, and be 
in fact unjustly treated by him. For there is a very great 
difference between not being obliged to give an active obe 
dience, and being entitled to make an active resistance. 

I admit, that cases may be supposed so atrociously barba 
rous, that nature would reclaim against the severity of this 
doctrine, and the heart of every feeling person would justify 
the oppressed in giving way to the impulse of that most 
natural and rooted principle, self-defence. But such cases 
are uncommon anywhere, and hardly ever to be found in 
free or limited governments. Yet, even in such cases, the 
very utmost we can say is, that humanity and candour would 
admit the greatness of the provocation as an apology for the 
resistance, which would be considered as excusable) not re 
garded as incumbent. In support of authority a positive 
precept is pleaded ; in support of such a resistance as has 
been now supposed, the utmost that could be urged is an 
implied exception resulting from extraordinary circumstances. 
In every case in which the rule holds, to transgress it is an 
invasion of the rights of others, not only the rights of the 
magistrate, but the rights of the society whose peace and 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE, 265 

order we disturb ; whereas, in the particular case above 
stated, not to avail one s-self of the exception, is only to 
yield of one s own right, a thing which in most cases is 
entirely in one s own power. 

Our duty as Christians often requires us to act this part, 
and to resign a private claim for the good of others. The 
example of our Lord teaches it, who, to avoid contention 
arid offence, provided himself miraculously with the tribute 
money, when he might have pleaded a legal exemption from 
paying it, Matt. xvii. 24, &c. . To such particular cases the 
precept, Resist not evil, ought to be understood as principally 
applicable. That we ought patiently to endure private in 
juries, rather than, by endeavouring to obtain redress, hurt 
a more important and public interest, is alike the dictate of 
true patriotism and genuine Christianity. Why do ye not 
rather, says Paul to the Corinthians, take wrong ? Why do 
ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 1 Cor. vi. 7. 
Rather than what ? Rather than bring scandal on the 
Christian community, rather than breed variances amongst 
yourselves. 

I observe further, that the cause which justifies resistance 
would not only need to be both important and public, but 
clearly and by the community understood to be so. It were 
madness in one or a few, in a case wherein the peace and 
felicity of ALL are concerned, to decide for the whole. 
The immediate mischiefs to society would be manifest, the 
remote advantages uncertain. Nor is it less evident, that 
where the case is in any degree doubtful, our only safe way 
is to follow the precept which enjoins obedience, and not an 
exception, about the existence of which we are dubious. 
Nor need any other reason be assigned for this conduct, 
than that it is conformable to the general precept, which we 
are commanded to follow as our rule. As this therefore is 
a Christian duty in every case, unless where the exception 
actually obtains, it is incumbent on us in every case, unless 
where we perceive that the exception obtains. Whatsoever 
is not of faith, is sin, Rom. xiv. 23. There is no middle 
way. The divine precept is solely in favour of obedience : 
to disobey is in fact to decide in favour of an exception, which, 



266 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

unless it be glaring, ought never to be supposed to exist. 
In regard to it the law is silent. It is not of the spirit of 
the law to put extraordinary cases. It leaves such, from the 
manifest urgency and importance of the circumstances, to 
suggest the necessity of a deviation from the rule. To resist 
has been, with the greatest justice, styled in the body politic a 
desperate remedy, as it brings into the most imminent hazard 
its very existence : it would then be no other than distraction 
to employ it, if we were doubtful whether the disease of the 
state were desperate, or even perhaps whether she laboured 
under a disease or not. If disobedience and resistance are 
to be regarded (as by all wise and good men they have ever 
been regarded) as at best but necessary evils, common sense 
requires that we be convinced of the necessity before we 
recur to the evil.* 



* It does not overthrow this system, as has been objected, that the people 
must judge, whether, in any exigency that arises, they ought to recur to resist 
ance ; nor does it follow, that they have a right to resist, whenever they think it 
necessary. Their right commences with the real, not with the imagined, neces 
sity. They judge therefore, and must consider themselves as judging, in peril 
of incurring, by rash judgment, the complicated guilt of murder, rebellion, and 
the worst of parricides, the destruction of their country. Antecedently to every 
action that can be called a man s own, he must both judge and determine. But 
did ever any body conclude hence, that he has a right to do whatever he deter 
mines ; in other words, that he cannot determine wrong ? " War is a dreadful 
evil." Yet one nation has a right to make war on another in certain eases. 
Now, if there is such a right, every nation must judge for itself, when it ought 
to be exercised. But was it ever deduced as a consequence, that this right can 
not mean less than a rigJtt in every peopk to indke war on every other, whenever 
they think it necessary 1 On the contrary, " those who involve a people in it 
needlessly" I use the objector s own words, " will find they have much to an 
swer for. Nothing can ever justify it, but the necessity of it," (surely he means 
real, not supposed or pretended necessity, for this is never wanting,) " to secure 
some essential interest against unjust attacks." Have they less to answer for 
who kindle a civil war, of all kinds the most dreadful ? Will less serve to jus 
tify it? In this particular, our republicans have advanced higher claims in 

favour of the people, than the votaries to the patriarchal scheme ever did in 
favour of the sovereign. The former scruple not to ascribe a real infallibility to 
the multitude: I never heard of any of the latter, however bigoted to the 
principle of divine, hereditary, indefeasible right, that attributed so much of 
divinity to the monarch. These will not hesitate to admit that a king may be 
a tyrant, though in their judgment, it does not belong to the nation either to 
check or to chastise him ; whereas the former will not allow that the people 
ever can be rebels. I am hopeful, however, they will not maintain that th 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 267 

In these observations I have all along argued from what 
both reason and Scripture show to be the end of government, 
public utility a principle sufficiently simple and intelligible, 
and from which alone every just limitation may easily be 
deduced. I have not mentioned the original compact, one 
of the hackneyed topics of writers on politics. My reason 
is, I neither understand the word, as applied by those writers, 
nor know where to find the thing to which they refer. That 
there may have been polities founded in compact, I make no 
question ; but the history of the world will satisfy every rea 
sonable person, that in many more cases, perhaps thirty to 
one, States have arisen from causes widely different. If those, 
however, who use the expression, mean no more when they 
say that magistrates have violated the original compact, and 
are therefore no longer entitled to the obedience of the sub 
ject, than I mean when I say, they so manifestly counteract 
the great end of magistracy as renders resistance itself less a 
public evil than obedience, I shall admit the phrase, though 
I cannot help considering it as both an obscure and an im 
proper way of expressing a plain sentiment. But if some 
thing further be meant, I should like, before I say any thing 
for, or against it, to have some evidence of the existence of 
such a compact, and likewise to know a little of its contents. 
As the matter stands, I consider it as one of those phrases 
which are very convenient for the professed disputant, be 
cause they are both indefinite and dark, and may be made 
to comprehend under them all the chimeras of his own ima 
gination. Many such have been introduced into this con 
troversy, which, as they only serve to perplex it, are very 
apt to mislead the unwary. 

I return to my subject. Various circumstances in different 
countries have given rise to the establishment of various 
forms of government. Though these are far from being equal 

people every where, and in all ages, have been endowed with this infallible discern- 
ment of what is necessary. Will they say that the Israelites in the wilderness were 
possessed of it when they compelled Aaron to make the golden calf, and celebrated 
a festival in its honour ; or when, upon hearing the report of the spies, they 
tumultuously clamoured for the election of a captain to lead them back to Egypt ? 
Yet they seem to have been almost unanimous in thinking these measures absolutely 
necessary. 



268 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

in point of excellence, public good requires, that, except in 
cases of extremity, each should be preserved from violence.* 
It may be objected, that, on my principles, a bad constitu 
tion can never be amended or improved. I answer, To 
attempt the amendment by force, that is, by subverting the 
public peace, and throwing all into confusion, is to seek to 
attain a distant good, about the attainment of which we are 
uncertain, at the price of a certain and immediate evil, in all 
probability greater than the good can compensate, if attained. 
In all states, especially in all civilized states, as was already 
hinted, there are constitutional methods of effecting useful 
alterations and improvements. Against the proper appli 
cation of these, there can lie no objection. Those only are 
the innovators alluded to in my text, who by irregular, vio 
lent, and unconstitutional methods, by resistance and revolt, 
seek to subvert the established order. 

Here a question may pertinently be put, " May it not 
happen, that the innovations which give rise to national 
calamities have originated with the rulers ? If they, by as 
suming an unusual power, overleap the bounds of the consti 
tution, fixed by immemorial custom, by fundamental laws, 
or by positive convention, do they not come within the de 
scription of the persons given to change ?" It is not to be 
denied that this may be the case, and sometimes has been. 
It is besides an undoubted truth, that the rights and liberties 
of the people are as real, and as valuable, and ought to be 
held as sacred a part of the constitution, as the powers and 
prerogatives of the magistrate. 

When Charles I. attempted to govern without a parlia 
ment, and to impose taxes on the people by his own autho 
rity alone, he doubtless, and all those who advised and 
abetted such measures, were to be ranked with them that are 

* "But does not this sentiment," say our adversaries, "ascribe right to pos 
session, however acquired ? Might it not serve to legalize even the American 
Congress?" Not at all. No possession that cannot he denominated peaceable 
and established, in other words, no possession from which the people, instead of 
deriving the blessings of order, internal peace, and protection, reap nothing but 
the greatest of curses, confusion, civil war, aud the total insecurity of every thing 
valuable, property, liberty, and life, can be legalized by a sentiment founded in 
regard to public tranquillity. 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 269 

given to change. Nay, however unusual the application may 
be, it was properly they who did not submit to what Paul 
denominates the ordinance of God, the powers that be. The 
king with us possesses the whole executive power, and con 
stitutes an essential branch of the legislative ; but as the 
executive, from the nature of the thing, is subordinate to the 
legislative, he, by assuming in his own person the authority 
of the whole legislature, usurped what did not belong to 
him, and thereby opposed God s ordinance. But though 
the usurpation may be justly said to have originated with 
the Crown, it cannot be affirmed that it ended there. The 
House of Commons of the Long Parliament quickly showed 
the same propensity to usurpation and despotic power. They 
usurped the authority of the Crown and of the Peers, both 
which constituent members of the state they suppressed, 
taking the whole business of legislation on themselves. They 
usurped likewise the rights of the people. Delegated for a 
limited time only, they maintained by the sword the posses 
sion they had once obtained, after the time in which they had 
any legal authority was expired ; and were at last ignomi- 
niously expelled by a new usurper, a creature of their own ; 
thus receiving in themselves that recompence of their error 
tuhich was meet. 

They eminently evinced the danger and the madness of 
destroying a good constitution, in the delusive hope of erect 
ing, what some of them no doubt fancied, a better, in its 
stead. The wounds given by the stretches of prerogative 
had been healed, the public grievances redressed, sufficient 
security of the rights and privileges of all orders obtained, 
when the House of Commons, observing their ascendancy 
over the Crown and the House of Lords, and intoxicated 
with the power they had acquired, beyond their most san 
guine expectation, and beyond the example of all former 
Parliaments, not knowing where to stop, persisted in their 
violence, till they involved the nation in blood, murdered 
the king, and overset the constitution. 

BUT, descending from former times, and from the gene 
ral topic of the rights of the magistrate, and the duty of the 



270 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

subject, let us now inquire a little (which was the second thing 
I proposed to do) into the merits of the contest wherein we are 
at this time unhappily engaged with our revolted brethren in 
America. The examination of this question will lead to the 
discussion of some points, which, though affecting the general 
nature and foundations of government, could not have been 
so properly introduced under the former head. Can we then 
with justice charge the civil war that now rages in our colo 
nies, on the tyranny or misgovernment of the ruling powers ? 
Has any thing been done that could be said justly to provoke 
their revolt, to render resistance the necessary means of self- 
preservation, and so to exempt them, in using it, from the 
charge of rebellion ? Or, on the other hand, Have artful and 
ambitious men, both on their side of the water and on ours, 
had the address, for their own private ends, to mislead a 
people whom wealth and luxury have corrupted, and ren 
dered prone to licentiousness and faction ? Have these false 
friends and sham patriots inflamed their minds with imagi 
nary invasions of their rights, and with fears and jealousies 
for which there is 110 foundation ? In such a situation it is of 
great consequence to people to examine the matter impar 
tially. This is the first step, and when properly executed, 
gives some ground to hope, that on whichever side the fault 
lies, it may in time be corrected. 

The scene of action, it is true, lies far from us ; but we are 
all deeply concerned in the consequences. Besides, in a go 
vernment which has so great a mixture of democracy as the 
British, it is of importance that the measures of the adminis 
tration be supported by the favour of the people, if right ; and 
that they be checked by the general disapprobation, if wrong. 
The one tends to confirm, the other to correct them. In this 
country, no ministry (and it is our happiness and glory that 
it is so) can long persist in a train of measures universally 
condemned. But if, amongst us, such is the influence of the 
popular suffrage, we ought all to be the more careful that we 
be well informed. The ferment excited in the colonies, and 
the clamour raised by a faction amongst ourselves, are, in one 
view, of the most alarming nature. The clamour is not 
levelled barely against the ministry, or even against the 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 271 

government, but against the whole legislature of the country. 
Its too manifest aim is to foment in the people a seditious 
and ungovernable spirit, destructive of all authority, than 
which nothing can be conceived of more ruinous tendency to 
the constitution. Nothing could vindicate this conduct, but 
the most flagrant danger of our religion, laws, and liberties. 
And I will venture to affirm, what will not be contradicted by 
the candid and judicious, that these great national concerns 
were never in less danger from the ruling powers than in the 
present reign. 

I am sensible, that discussions of this sort are not easily 
adapted to the pulpit, nor can a political controversy, as it is 
called, (though in fact a controversy in which morals and 
religion are nearly concerned,) be accounted level to the 
capacity of an ordinary audience. I shall not therefore enter 
into the numerous articles that have been made matter of 
dispute since this question began to be agitated. This is 
what neither propriety nor your time will permit me to do. 
But that our allegiance and loyalty may be not only more 
rational but more durable, as proceeding from knowledge and 
principle, I shall consider a little that which may be called 
the hinge of the controversy, and which gave rise to all the 
other and smaller points in question. Now this point is 
evidently the right claimed by the British Parliament to tax 
our fellow-subjects in America. 

And first, in matters of government and legislation, that 
which immemorial custom has established, unless opposed by 
some natural or divine law, is always regarded as obligatory. 
Now, that taxes have been imposed by Parliament even from 
the first settlement of the colonies, has been put beyond a 
doubt by the writers on that side of the question.* First, 
they were taxed, and under the odious form of an excise too, 
by the Long Parliament in the time of the civil wars by that 
very patriotic Parliament which the American demagogues 
set up to themselves as a standard every way worthy their 
imitation. After the Restoration, they were in Charles II. s 
time taxed by Parliament. Nor was this measure considered 

* See The Rights of Great Britain asserted. Remarks on the 13th Parliament. 
, Answer to the Declaration of the Congreis, &c. 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

as unconstitutional after the Revolution. On the contrary, 
the former act was, in the reign of William III., confirmed 
and explained by a new one. In Queen Anne s time, the 
act establishing the post-office, and the act for raising a duty 
from seamen for the support of Greenwich Hospital, are 
made to bind the colonies as well as the island of Great 
Britain. There are acts to the same purpose in the reigns 
of George I. and of George II. To these acts the colonies 
then submitted ; for they had not then discovered their natural 
and unalienable right to pay no taxes but such as had been 
imposed with their own consent. The real ground of the 
difference is, Then they were poorer and more humble, now 
they are richer and more proud. 

Nor do their charters, as has been falsely pretended, give 
any support to such exemption. In one of them the right 
of taxing by Parliament is reserved in express terms, and in 
others it is reserved manifestly by implication, in as much as 
immunities from being taxed are granted for a limited term 
of years, in some longer, in others shorter. 

But it is ridiculous to pretend an exemption from being 
taxed, whilst they acknowledge, as they have always done till 
of late, the power of the British Parliament to make laws on 
other articles which shall bind the colonies. Yet some are 
inconsistent enough to maintain, that our legislature has 
power to do the one, but not the other. I should be glad to 
know on what the distinction is founded. Not on any posi 
tive convention; or on any act of the legislature asserting its 
right in the one case, and disclaiming it in the other. It is 
not pretended. Is then the distinction one of those which are 
founded in the nature of things ? Impossible. What? Have 
we the command of their persons, their liberties, their lives, 
but not of their purses ? May we declare what is criminal in 
them, what is not ? and what crimes shall be punished with 
imprisonment, what with exile, what with stripes, and what 
with death, but cannot affect a single shilling of their coin ? 
Is then the union between a man and his money more inti 
mate than that between his soul and his body ? One would 
be tempted to believe, that it had been in the head of some 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 273 

miser, whose treasure is his God, that his absurd conceit had 
first been gendered. 

I own I am exceedingly surprised at the inconsistency of 
those men, in other respects not deficient in understanding, 
who maintain the legality of the navigation act, confining 
the trade of the plantations, and yet deny the legality of tax 
ing them. The former is, in my opinion, in several respects, 
more exceptionable than the latter ; and, in some instances 
at least, a hardship on them, without being an advantage to 
us. But pray, consider, wherein lies the difference ? We 
by restraining part of their trade to ourselves, may oblige 
them in some instances to sell to us for sixpence the pound, 
what, if the market were open, they would get sevenpence 
for from others. Is not this precisely the same as to them, 
as if we should permit them to sell where they please, and 
exact in name of duty a penny on the pound weight ? It is 
even worse ; for, by confining the trade, the demand is less 
ened, and consequently a check is put on the industry that 
would be employed 011 that article. 

But let it not be imagined, that all the restraints are laid 
on the colonists for our benefit, as has been most uncandidly 
pretended by some of the advocates on the other side. There 
are many restraints laid on us also by the legislature for their 
benefit. Perhaps it were better for both, that all -such acts 
were revised. Taxes, if imposed with judgment, are gene 
rally less prejudicial than monopolies. But (whatever be in 
this) that the restrictions are reciprocal is manifest. In re 
gard to some of their staple commodities, we are, for their 
benefit, prohibited, under severe penalties, to cultivate them 
in our own country ; at the same time that we are not allowed 
to purchase them from any other nation, though we should 
get them both cheaper and better. Drawbacks and bounties 
are given to our merchants on exporting hence American 
commodities imported. This is an advantage to the Ameri 
cans, as, by raising the demand and price, it encourages their 
cultivation and labour, and an advantage to our traders in 
such articles, whom it enables to deal more extensively, and 
undersell others ; but to the nation in general, a detriment 
rather than a profit, inasmuch as the nation must always, by 



274 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 



some impost or other, compensate to the government the 
value of the bounty. 

Indeed, the more consistent patrons of the American cause 
deny that the legislative power of the British senate can 
justly extend to the colonies in any thing. If you ask them, 
Why ? The answer is ready : " Men cannot be bound by 
laws to which they have not given their consent." This ap 
pears to them an axiom in politics as clear as any in mathe 
matics. And though, for a first principle, it has been won 
derfully late of being discovered, they are so confident of its 
self- evidence; that they never attempt to prove it ; they 
rather treat with contempt every person who is so weak as to 
question it. These gentlemen, however, will excuse me, as 
I am not certain that I understand them, and am a little 
nice about first principles, when I ask, what is the precise 
meaning they affix to the term consent ? For I am much 
afraid, that if they had begun with borrowing from the ma 
thematicians the laudable practice of giving accurate defini 
tions of their terms, and always adhering to those definitions, 
we had never heard of many of their newfangled axioms. 

It is certain that, in the common acceptation, consent 
denotes a declared concurrence in opinion in regard to any 
measure, or a joint approbation of that measure. In this 
sense of the word, a law is made by the consent of those only 
who voted for it. It may happen, then, in the House of 
Commons, when the House is thin, and a law passes by a small 
majority, that the actual consenters to the statute may be less 
than the ttventieth part of the representatives of the people.* 
But to this I am quickly answered, that " there is compre 
hended under the term not only an actual and explicit, but a 
virtual and implicit consent. Now the minority of the mem 
bers present, with all the absent, are conceived as virtually 
and implicitly consenting to the deed of the majority of the 
members present." Here then is an acceptation of the term 
obtruded upon us, ere we are aware, so very different from 

* The House of Commons consists of 558 members. Of these, in all cases, ex 
cept that of disputed elections, in which they act in a juridical not in a legislative 
capacity, 40 make a House, "whereof 21, the majority, is not the 26th part of the whole 
number. 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 275 

the former and ordinary acceptation, as to be in effect the 
reverse. Your virtual and implicit consent to a measure 
may comprise, in some instances, what I should call an actual 
and explicit dissent from it, a disapprobation, or perhaps a 
declared abhorrence of it. Of this kind are many of the vir 
tual and implicit consents given in both houses of Parliament. 
The virtual consent of the electors, those against, as well as 
those for, each successful candidate, to all that shall be enact 
ed in Parliament, either with, or against the approbation of 
their member, is liable, if possible, still more glaringly, to the 
same objections. Could a man be said to speak English, at 
least could he be said to speak truth, who should affirm that 
the city members and the members for Middlesex consented 
to the act for shutting up the port of Boston, the act for re 
straining the trade of the colonies to Great Britain and Ire 
land, and the Quebec act ? If he could affirm this with truth 
and propriety, one cannot help concluding that it is shame 
less in any of those gentlemen to raise so much clamour 
against acts to which they have given their consent. And if 
he could not affirm it, without exposing himself to be charged 
with telling an untruth, to what purpose is it to employ, in 
the very maxims on which ye found, terms in so vague and 
so illusive a manner, that, on some occasions, their meaning 
is in effect the contrary of that which ye give them on other 
occasions, and of that which they uniformly bear in common 
language ? I know no purpose but one it can answer, a pur 
pose it has often answered, a purpose it still but too well 
answers to darken, to perplex, and to mislead. 

When these people are pushed for an explanation, their 
virtual and implied consent dwindles to no more at last, than 
that, by our constitution, the minority are so far determined 
by the act of the majority, and those who have no voice in 
the election, as well as the electors, by the majority of the 
elected present at the passing of any act, as to be obliged to 
submit to it as the law of the land. This, indeed, is a lan 
guage which I understand : but ye must observe, that in this 
sense it may with equal truth be affirmed, that, in the aris- 
tocratical state of Venice, the people are bound by no laws 
but those to which they have given their consent ; because, by 



276 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

their constitution, the plebeians are determined by the deed 
of the patricians, and are therefore to be understood as virtual 
and implicit consenters. Nay, ye may extend the maxim to 
the inhabitants of Turkey, who, by the constitution of their 
country, may with equal propriety be considered as consent 
ing to the declared will of the Grand Signior. The will of 
a majority from which I differ, is no more my will ; their 
opinion, which I disbelieve, is no more my opinion, than if 
they were the will and opinion of a single person only. In 
this respect number makes no odds. And I can never, with 
out a perversion of speech, be said to be self-governed, if my 
conduct must be regulated by the will and opinion of others, 
and not by my own. 

The source of all the blundering, so frequent on this subject, 
is the crude and contradictory conceit, that government can 
be rendered compatible with perfect freedom. Nothing can 
be clearer than that the only man perfectly free, or self-direct 
ed, whose will is in every thing his law, is the savage, a being 
that is independent of every body. The very basis of poli 
tical union is a partial sacrifice of liberty fox protection. The 
savage who first enters into this state, must be sensible that 
he impairs his freedom to increase his security. He is will 
ing to be, to a certain degree, dependent, and consequently 
less his own master, that thereby he may insure his life, his 
property, and even the exercise of his freedom, so far as it 
remains unaffected by the laws of the community. This 
holds, though in different degrees, whatever be the form of 
government adopted, be it of one, of a few, or of the many. 
In each it is equally essential that the will of the individual 
be controlled ; (and what is this but the abridgment of his 
liberty ?) in the first by the will of the prince, in the second 
by that of the nobles, in the third by that of the people.* 

* There is a strange inaccuracy in the manner of talking some have used on 
this subject. " The state," say they, " which is governed by its own will, that is, 
by the will of the majority of its members, is the only state that can be called 
free, being under self-government, and so its own legislator." Be it so. But 
when, ere we are aware, ye slide in as identical, " Every man in such a state is 
self-governed, and his own legislator," ye obtrude upon us a proposition, which, 
so far from coinciding, is inconsistent with the former. The individual in such 
a community is, in every thing wherein the community interposes, governed not 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 277 

" Is there then no difference between one government and 
another, between what is thought the most despotic and the 

by his own will, but by theirs, by the will of the majority of his fellow-citizens 
though diametrically opposite to that which his reason approves, and to which 
his disposition inclines him. " But he has a vote in public measures, and if he 
be of the majority, there is a coincidence of his will with that of the state." Un 
doubtedly. But then, if he be of the minority, is not his will in opposition to 
that of the state ? Yet, in contradiction to his own, he must conform to the will 
of the state ; consequently, is not self-governed ; consequently, by your own ex 
planations, is no freeman, but the slave of the state. The state is free, but he is 
a slave. Occasional coincidences do not alter the case. The will of the despot 
may, in several instances, be coincident with that of his slave. The latter is not 
the less a slave in obeying him, though his yoke be the easier; for the concur 
rence is accidental. Ye insist, that, " by entering into such a polity, a man con 
sents once for ail to be governed by the will of the majority. The will of the 
majority, therefore, is properly thenceforth considered as his. If so, he is still 
free, and his own legislator, even when acting in opposition to his judgment and 
choice." Do ye not perceive, that this reply, if it have any weight, affects only 
the founders of the republic who enter personally into such engagements? But 
in fact it is a palpable sophism. A man is only so far free, as his actions are 
directed by what is his will, not by what was his will; by his particular opinion 
of the known case, not by a general acquiescence in he knew not what. By 
such an acquiescence, on the contrary, every body allows that he binds himself. 
Now, as far as he is bound, he is no longer free. A poor man, in the time of 
famine, barters his liberty for bread, engaging his service for life to his rich 
neighbour. Such things have often happened. Now, if one of our modern 
political philosophers, seeing this man afterwards groaning under the drudgery 
and intolerable hardships of his condition, should, to comfort him, tell him, in 
the pompous language of his party, that he is as free as his master, that he is 
self-governed, self-directed, and his own legislator ; because the will to which 
he consented to subject himself, ought from that moment to be considered as 
Us own; who, I pray, would not accuse a comforter of this stamp of insulting 
the wretch s misery with the most inhuman mockery ? 

Once more : In your paragon of republics, every man, of whatever quality, 
character, station, or circumstances, has an equal share in governing; because, 
to exclude any man from this honour, which ye deem his birthright, and to 
enslave him, ye affirm are the same. It has been asked, (but I have not yet 
heard of any answer,) why not every woman and every child ? How unworthily 
soever these are treated in other polities, we should not imagine that in your per 
fect model, where we are made to expect the very elixir of freedom, the greater 
part of the species would be left in absolute thraldom. Is it the doctrine of 
these patrons of the natural rights of humanity, that ivoman is, and ought to be, 
doomed the irredeemable captive and drudge of that lordly creature MAN? Is 
this her destiny even with the friends of freedom? There can be no doubt of 
it : for, if they will give her no suffrage in national councils, no voice in legis 
lation, she is not governed by her own will, is not her own legislatrix, and there 
fore, by their fundamental axioms, has no liberty, but is the hopeless slave of 

S 2 



278 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

freest?" There are many differences, but they result from 
principles totally distinct from those in which some modern 
political schemers affect to place them. One momentous 
difference is, when, by the constitution, the authority of the 
laws is paramount to that of any persons, however eminent 
in station. In this case the people are governed by established 
rules, which they know, or may know if they will; and 
are not liable to be punished by their superiors, unless they 
transgress those rules. Such are properly under a legal go 
vernment. When the reverse obtains, and men are liable to 
be harassed at the pleasure of their superiors, though guilty 
of no transgression of a known rule, they are under arbitrary 
power. Again, the government is not only denominated legal, 
but free, where, from its structure, there arises the highest 
probability that the laws shall be both equitable, and adapted 
to public utility. When positive statutes coincide with the 
natural sentiments of right and ideas of fitness, our minds 
so entirely approve them, that we do not consider them as 
restraints additional to" those to which our mental powers 
have subjected us. But when betwixt these, instead of coin 
cidence, there is contrariety, the condition of the people is 
unnatural, and so far slavish as the laws prove a galling yoke, 
to which nothing but terror can secure obedience. In this 
respect the odds in forms of government is very great. 

In regard to our own, That one of the essential branches 
of the legislature is elective ; that its members must be men 
of such rank and fortune as give them a personal interest in 
preserving the constitution and promoting the public good ; 
that they are elected from all the different counties and 
boroughs in the island, by those who have a principal concern 
both in agriculture and in trade ; that they are but temporary 
legislators, and may soon be changed ; that the laws they 

those whose will she receives for law. I cannot help thinking this exclusion 
the more inexcusable, that their enlarged plan, which admits all men, without 
distinction of rank, education, or circumstances, could have sustained no con 
ceivable injury, had they overlooked also the distinctions of age and sex. This 
would, without endangering their scheme in the least, have added to it more 
liberality, as well as uniformity. Indeed, to add to its absurdity and confusion, 
will be admitted, by every cool and impartial inquirer, to be beyond the compass 
of possibility. 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 279 

make for others must affect themselves ; these are the great 
bulwarks of BRITISH FREEDOM, as they afford the 
supreme council of the nation the best opportunities of know 
ing, and the strongest motives for enacting what is most be 
neficial, not to one part of the country, or to one class of the 
inhabitants, but to the whole. And if so, the people will very 
rarely be laid under hurtful, and not often under unreason 
able, that is, unnecessary restraints. The more this is the 
case with a people, the more they enjoy of civil liberty, and 
the freer is their government. 

Another important difference in political models, in respect 
of freedom, is, when the legislature is so constituted as to 
secure alike against the tyranny of the great, and the mad 
ness of the multitude. The first of these is an invariable 
effect, in some degree, of absolute monarchy, and in the 
highest degree of unlimited aristocracy, where the power is 
lodged in an hereditary nobility. The second is as invariably 
the consequence of pure democracy. The populace in every 
nation are, and must be, from the laborious and circumscrib 
ed way of life to which necessity subjects them for subsist 
ence, ignorant and credulous, an easy prey to ambitious, 
worthless, and designing men. And fatal experience evinces, 
that none can be more unjust and cruel, or more blind and 
precipitate, than an incensed rabble : <( Never is human 
nature so debased," says a celebrated foreigner, " as when 
ignorance is armed with power."* The guard there is in the 
British constitution against both extremes, is justly account 
ed its principal excellence. The only other difference I shall 
mention is, the security there is under some civil establish 
ments of impartial judgment to litigants, and a fair trial to 
those accused of crimes. Thereby the people are defended 
against encroachment arid oppression, both from neighbours 
and from rulers. These are the principal distinctions be 
tween legal and arbitrary, free and slavish, as applied to 
governments. These are in like manner real and weighty 
distinctions, very unlike the illusive dreams of our political 
castle-builders. 

* Voltaire, Hist. Gen. chap. 118, 



280 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

But if any where the idea of such a democracy, wherein 
every member is his own lawgiver, is realized, it is, as has 
been justly observed by some writers, in the diets and dietines 
of Poland ; for, in the established anarchy of that country, 
every member, that is, every nobleman, for the commons are 
no better than slaves, has it in his power to stop the proceed 
ings of the whole. The real, not the nominal consent of 
every individual, is there literally necessary. The conse 
quence is, that nowhere, under sophi, mogul, or sultan, is 
there less order, less liberty, less security than there. Every 
man is at the mercy of every man. Every man has it in his 
power to do much and public mischief, not one to do any 
public and substantial good. Is then this chaotic jumble, 
for I can call it neither government nor constitution, the 
great idol of our modern republicans ? I cannot allow myself 
to think so. But I am certain of one thing, that it is the 
only model which their fantastic maxims serve in any degree 
to justify. 

I do not say that that model, bad as it is, is an exact re 
presentation of the modern political monster self-legislation; 
that it equals the extravagance implied in the definition given 
of a free or legal government, the only government wherein 
the people are under an obligation in conscience to obey the 
magistrate. " It is," say they, " a state wherein every man 
is governed by laws of his own making." These are indeed 
fine words, and an admirable topic they furnish to popular 
declaimers. But if ye do not choose to be fascinated by un 
meaning phrases, ye need only reflect, and the charm dis 
solves of itself. Who is so ignorant as to need to be told, 
that the system of laws in every civilized nation, the freest, 
if ye will, in the universe, is the work of ages ; and that no 
persons living can, in any sense, be said to be makers of 
them ? Our consent could not have been asked to the making 
of laws, before we had an existence ; and it is no otherwise 
that we give it to them now, than as we give it to the laws of 
the universe, in accommodating ourselves to them the best 
way we can. Nay, there are many of them which, though 
we submit to them, we may disapprove, and would alter, if 
we could. To say they are the work of our ancestors, is no- 

9 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 281 

thing to the purpose. We are as distinct persons from them, 
as from the people of France or of Egypt ; and our inclina 
tions and sentiments may be as different from theirs, as from 
those of any other nation whatever. And though it be true, 
that the present generation has some share in the business 
of law-making, as well as former generations, it is equally 
true, that, in a state considerably advanced in civilization, all 
the laws that can be made in the time of any one set of 
legislators, will scarcely be found to exceed the ten thousandth 
part of the whole code. 

But if, by all this parade of big words, no more is meant 
than the acquiescence which, from a principle both of public 
utility and of private, we give to the laws of our country, it 
might with equal truth be affirmed, that the laws of nature, 
whereby the heats in summer, and the storms in winter, and 
the more temperate weather in spring and autumn are con 
ducted, are of our making, because we find it both our duty 
and our interest to acquiesce in them. Once more : If all those 
glorious privileges so pompously displayed, sink, on the scru 
tiny, into a mere passive submission and acquiescence, and if 
this be the true basis of civil liberty, the inhabitants of Persia 
or of Japan have more freedom than we Britons, as their ac 
quiescence will be found much perfecter than ours. The less 
power the people have in matters of legislation and govern-* 
ment, the more these matters will be considered by them as 
on a footing with the laws of the universe, and beyond their 
reach. On the contrary, the greater power they have, the 
more they will be accustomed to scrutinize public measures, 
and the more they will find themselves disposed to grumble. 

I have already observed, that with those reasoners whose 
sentiments on this subject I have been examining, no form 
of government, wherein their radical maxims have no place, 
can be called just or legitimate, or can lay amoral obligation 
on the people to obedience. " Every other form," say they, 
" as it is founded in violence of one kind or other, so, when 
a proper opportunity offers, may justly be overturned by 
violence, nay, ought to be overturned, that room may be 
made for a free and rightful government, the only one that 
binds the conscience." I should think that the bare mention 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

of consequences so baneful to society, logically deducible 
from a set of principles, would startle the benevolent and 
judicious, and make them coolly re-examine the principles 
which lead to such conclusions, by whatever respectable names 
they come recommended. I know that some such paradoxes 
as I have been combating have been adopted, or rather hastily 
thrown out in the heat of disputation, and party conflicts 
unfriendly to the discovery of truth, by writers whose fame, 
in other respects deservedly great, has drawn a veneration 
even for their crudities. But let us not be so much dazzled 
by any name, how illustrious soever, as to sacrifice to it the 
rights of truth and justice. 

Consider, I pray jou, is it credible, that in at least nine 
teen nations out of twenty now existing in the world, (I ad 
mit, for argument s sake, that there are some which come 
within their description,) the people are under no obligation 
to obey the ruling powers ? Is there no right but that of 
the stronger subsisting among them? How does this doc 
trine quadrate with that of the New Testament ? I hope 
I speak to the disciples of Christ, to those who believe the 
Scriptures to be a revelation from God. If so, I persuade 
myself, my hearers will not be rash in admitting any theory 
which will not bear the test of Holy Writ. We have already 
tried those novel maxims of our modern republicans by the 
light of REASON ; let us bring them also to the Christian 
touchstone, the BIBLE. This is a field on which, as far as 
I have observed, the combatants have not yet entered. But 
surely, if we have not renounced the faith of Jesus, it is of 
the utmost consequence to us to know how far any princi 
ples, however artfully inculcated, are conformable to the 
heavenly lessons transmitted from our Divine Master. Hear 
his faithful servant Paul : Let every soul be subject to the 
higher powers; for there is no power but of God. The powers 
that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth 
the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: And they that 
resist , shall receive to themselves damnation, Rom. xiii. 1,2. 
Can any thing be more explicit ? By the most moderate 
interpretation, this threatening must denote divine punish 
ment either here or hereafter. No limitation is annexed, 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 283 

from which we can learn that the precept was meant to ex 
tend to the subjects of only one species of civil polity. Ma 
gistrates, on the contrary, are here denoted by terms of the 
most extensive signification, that we may know that the in 
tention was to comprehend those under every constitution. 
They are the higher, or the ruling powers, and the powers 
that be; those under the conduct of Providence settled among 
you, democratical or monarchical, hereditary or elective. 
And if we inquire, What were the powers actually in being 
at the time, to which the people were commanded to be 
subject? the answer is plain, They were the powers of the 
Roman government ; not of the commonwealth, but of the 
empire, a new species of military monarchy, elective indeed, 
but not by the people either collectively or representatively ; 
irregular, arbitrary, and such as suited not in any respect 
what modern theorists call a just and legitimate government. 

In regard to tribute, the point so hotly agitated with us at 
present, nothing can be more express : Render to all their, 
dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, 
fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour, Rom. xiii. 7. 
What shall we say to this passage, if all custom and tribute 
are naturally and essentially free gifts on the part of the peo 
ple, and if consequently no tribute or custom could be due to 
any man to whom they had not previously, either personally 
or by their representatives, freely given and granted it ? But 
with this doctrine, it seems, the apostle was utterly unac 
quainted. 

The Jews indeed had a system of their own with regard to 
taxing, quite different from the American system, (of which 
they certainly had no conception), but plainly pointing to the 
same object, an exemption. Their doctrine was, that " God s 
elect people, the holy nation, the descendants of the patri 
archs, were not taxable by idolaters such as the Romans, 
uncircumcised and profane." This was the grand topic of 
declamation of their patriots ; for they too had their patriots. 
Their objection, as it had some colour from the Old Testa 
ment, could not fail to appear plausible to a people with 
whose prejudices, pride, and selfishness, it perfectly coincided. 
But did our Saviour, when consulted by them, give his sane- 



284 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

tion to their sentiments ? Did he by his answer court popu 
larity, and the fame of patriotism ? I use the term in its 
modern degradation. Quite the reverse. Though, by his 
manner of answering, he eluded the malice his enemies 
showed in putting the question, nothing can be more deci 
sive than his reply. After asking them to show him the tri 
bute money, and being told that it bore Caesar s image and 
superscription, he immediately rejoined, Render therefore to 
CfBsar the things which are Ccesars, and to God the things 
which are God s, Matt. xxii. 21 ; plainly intimating, that as 
they derived the advantages of protection and civil order 
from the Roman government, of which the currency of its 
coin was an evidence, they ought not to refuse contributing 
to its support. Yet it is certain, that to any tax exacted by 
the Romans, the consent of no Jew was ever asked. Is it 
so then, that this original, this unalienable, this indefeasible 
right, to which, in the turgid dialect of America, the laws of 
nature and of nature s God entitle every man, that no part 
of his property can be alienated without his consent, was to 
tally unknown to our Lord and his apostles ?* Did they not 

* It is indeed scarcely credible, that any who entail slavery on their fellow- 
creatures, whom they bny and sell like cattle in the market, (and some such, it 
is said, are in the Congress), should have the absurd effrontery to adopt this lan 
guage. If they really believe their own doctrine, what opinion must they en 
tertain of themselves, who can haughtily trample on what they acknowledge to 
be the unalienable rights of mankind ? Will they dare to elude this charge by 
declaring, that they do not consider negroes and Indians as of the human species ? 
That they account them beasts, or rather worse, one would naturally infer from 
the treatment they too commonly give them. But I have not yet heard that 
they openly profess this opinion. How well does their conduct verify what has 
been remarked with great justice of all those republican levellers who raise a 
clamour about the natural equality of men, and their indefeasible rights, that they 
mean only to level all distinctions above them, and pull down their superiors, at 
.he same time that they tyrannize over their inferiors, and widen, as much as 
possible, the distance between themselves and those below them. Indeed this 
character, if I understand him right, is given to the southern provinces, particu 
larly Virginia and the Carolinas, by their celebrated patron, Mr. Burke. [See 
his speech, March 1775.] Nay, the haughtiness of domination, as he expresses 
it, exercised over the wretches in their power, is, by the MAGIC of his elo 
quence, converted into an argument with their superiors, the British legisla 
ture, to treat these petty tyrants with greater lenity than would be proper 
towards persons more humble and humane. An ordinary genius would have 
deduced the opposite conclusion ; for if any people deserve to have judgment 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 285 

discover, what is clear as demonstration to all our western bre 
thren, that without such consent, by whatever law or statute 
the tax was imposed, it could be no better than statutable 
plunder?* Or, knowing it, did they dissemble the matter, 
take the aid of equivocation, that they might conceal it from 
the people, and court the favour of the great ? Will any 
Christian affirm this : and not rather, that if they had known 
of such a right, they would have furnished their countrymen 
with this additional argument in support of their plea ; in 
structing them better in the prerogatives of the species, which 
were not the less theirs, because they were so stupid as not to 
find them out ? 

Further, did the first publishers of the gospel never reflect 
that Judea was one country and Italy another ; that the Jews 
and the Romans were two very distant peoples, different in 
origin, manners, laws, and language, and of religions oppo 
site in every article, and incompatible ? The argument would 
have been incomparably stronger in their case than it is in 
our present contest, which admits only the plea of distance. 

Has Paul in particular acted the politician in this affair ? 
Has he shrewdly given an ambiguous order to pay tribute to 
whom tribute is due, that, on the one hand, he might appear 
a dutiful subject to the Pagan magistrate, and, on the other, 
might suggest to Christians an excellent pretence for eluding 
the obligation, by maintaining that there is none to whom tri 
bute is due ? Far be such vile artifices, the disgrace even of 
Jesuits, from the select missionaries of THE TRUE AND 
FAITHFUL WITNESS. Far be such execrable casuis 
try from being charged on the Word of GOD, the Oracle 
of truth. Indeed if the whole passage is attended to, we shall 
find that the apostle has left no scope for this poor subterfuge. 
For this cause, says }\e,pay ye tribute also, for they are God s 
ministers attending continually on this very thing. He does 
not hesitate to ascribe to them a divine commission, in the 
character even of taxers. Now nothing is more certain than 

witliout mercy, it is they who show no mercy. I do not say, however, that this ought 
to be our rule of dealing with them. " Let mercy, though unmerited, still triumph 
over judgment." 

* A favourite phrase of the Congress. 



286 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE, 

that in the Roman empire in those days, the people, through 
out the provinces, were assessed either by the imperial autho 
rity or by the senate ; and had no share, either personally 
or by representatives, in assessing themselves : for the senate 
was not chosen by the people. I entreat you, my brethren, 
for the sake of truth, for the sake of that worthy name by which 
ye are called, for the sake of your own souls, and those of 
your fellow -Christians, to compare impartially the language 
of our Lord and his apostles with that of our modern dema 
gogues : and, from the difference ye find in them, judge of 
the different spirit which they breathe. Not a single hint do 
we get from those, that " taxation and representation are 
inseparable; no suggestion that for Christians tamely to sub 
mit in an article of this nature, would be to sacrifice their 
liberties, to be lost to every sense of virtue, to sell themselves 
and their posterity to perpetual servitude." Let those do it 
who can ; I own it is impossible for me to reconcile this lan 
guage with that of the gospel.* 



* Nothing has astonished me more in the course of this controversy, than to 
observe that some learned men on the opposite side should imagine, that they 
can conciliate their favourite maxims with the precepts of the gospel. One in 
particular, of whose abilities and piety I have a very great opinion, and to whose 
sentiments I have in this discourse frequently alluded, has (I am convinced very 
sincerely) bestowed the highest encomiums on Christianity, as the perfection of 
religion and of reason. But truth compels me to remark, that, if the principles 
of his party be well-founded, those encomiums are exceedingly misplaced ; their 
system not having a greater enemy on earth than the gospel. Once admit their 
notions of the only jrmt and legitimate government^ and ye transform the pub 
lishers of our religion into preachers of slavery, both internal and external. To 
inculcate on the Romans obedience to rulers on whom they had no check, and 
submission to edicts in the framing of which they had no share, directly or indi 
rectly ; what was it, on the system of our American advocates, if it was not 
preaching up internal slavery, which subjects the community to the will of a part ? 
And in regard to other nations, as Jews and Greeks, to command them to obey 
the emperor, and magistrates deputed by him ; what was it less than preaching 
up external slavery, which subjects nations to a distant and foreign power? As to 
this sort, we are not left to infer it : "We are told plainly, " Such was the slavery 
of the provinces subject to ancient Rome. How unreasonable and injurious then 
was it to be an advocate for such a power, to attempt to reconcile men to it, by 
maintaining that resistance will expose them to divine vengeance? Yet, on the 
principles of our adversaries, thus unreasonable and thus injurious (there is no 
dissembling it) were Jesus Christ and his apostles Peter and Paul Jesus Christ 
to his countrymen in Judea, Peter to the Jews in dispersion, and Paul to the 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 287 

So strong did the argument from the words of Paul appear 
against the papal usurpations on the secular powers ; for if 
every soul must be subject to them, (and it was to the Ro 
mans the words were addressed,) the bishop or pope can plead 
no exemption ; so strong, I say, did this argument appear, 
that some of the canonists could conceive no way of eluding 
it but by maintaining, that all such injuctions are merely 
prudential advices ; that as the Christians were then the 
weaker party, who, if they had not paid willingly, would have 
been compelled, and might have suffered in other respects, 
the apostle thought it advisable for them to comply, since 
they could not make their condition better by a refusal: 

Cretans, on whom he strictly enjoined Titus to inculcate those enslaving doctrines. 
And if, to make no difference in enforcing obedience on those within, and those 
without, that community which might be strictly denominated ROMAN ; if, 
without suggesting any distinction, to employ the same sanctions, the divine 
favour and the divine displeasure with them both, be to maintain that resistance 
is no less criminal in the one case than in the other ; and if to maintain this be, 
as has been affirmed, to insult those to whom this language is addressed I do 
not see in what manner our antagonists will clear our Lord and his apostles 
from this ugly imputation. " But has nothing been alleged from Scripture on 
the other side ?" It is true, that a few passages which, as appears from the ex 
pressions employed, and from the context, relate solely to the spiritual kingdom 
of the Messiah, and the means whereby it ought to be promoted and supported, 
have most unnaturally been forced into the service of political projectors : Yet 
nothing can be clearer, than that the intention of those places, so far from being 
to prescribe a model to worldly polities, was to contradistinguish the church, 
a heavenly polity, to all of them. They do not therefore invalidate the methods 
proper to be used in these, but expressly prohibit the Christian pastors from 
admitting those methods into the service of religion. However much therefore 
those instructions may militate against the erection of a spiritual tyranny, or 
hierarchy, like the Romish, they nowise affect the secular power. This, with 
its various arrangements and offices, though of a different nature, operating by 
different means, and to a different end, so far from being superseded by the other, 
is declared also to be the ordinance of God, and necessary to human society in its 
present corrupt state. It happens unluckily for our opponents, that as monarchy 
was the established power in the time of our Lord and his apostles, when these, 
in their injunctions, descend to particulars, they always specify the subordina 
tions of kingly government. In short, the argument from Scripture, in every 
view I take of it, appears so full, so explicit, so decisive, that T could undertake 
to demonstrate, that the dissolute and execrable lessons of a late father to his son, 
on the subject of adultery and dissimulation, are not more irreconcilable to the 
pure morals of Christianity, than the libertine and hardly less pernicious max 
ims, though susceptible of a more specious colouring, of some democratical de- 
claimers. 



288 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

Those precepts, then, are to be viewed in the same light as 
we should view the counsel of a friend, who, when we were 
setting out on a journey, should warn us, that, if we meet 
with highwaymen on the road, we ought to give them our 
money rather than endanger our lives. A curious turn, I 
must acknowledge, to the dictates of inspiration. 

At the same time I do but justice to those casuists when 
I confess, that I have not heard any thing so specious, for 
obviating so strong an argument from Scripture, advanced 
by any of our champions on the side of the American revolt. 
For this reason I shall suppose, that such of them as think 
the doctrine of the Bible of any consequence in the debate, 
satisfy their consciences with the gloss above-mentioned. Be 
it, then, that there is no right in any government not esta 
blished and upheld by universal consent, but the freebooter s 
right, the right of the stronger ; that there is no law in such 
but club-law ; that there is no motive to submission, but that 
which ought to influence us, in case we were encountered 
by pirates, robbers, or ruffians of whatever denomination ; 
that there is no difference between these and civil rulers, 
but such as obtains between less and greater villains, not a 
difference in kind, but in degree : On this hypothesis, if the 
apostle had been advising Christians as to the conduct they 
should maintain in case of being attacked by robbers, his 
style and reasoning ought to have been the same. But will 
any Christian, will even a candid infidel, who has read the 
apostle s writings, affirm that he would have used the same 
arguments ? Would his reason for their compliance have 
been, that robbery is of God f that the highwayman is his 
minister for their good, expressly commissioned to rob on the 
highway ; that resisting him is resisting God s ordinance, and 
the sure way of incurring the Divine vengeance ? " or, Could 
this have been called arguing on the merely prudential con 
sideration of not idly opposing a superior force ? Barely to 
unfold what is implied in some opinions, is a sufficient refu 
tation. But what can more explicitly exclude this absurd, 
not to say blasphemous cavil, than what follows, Be ye sub 
ject also not only for wrath but for conscience sake ; not only 
from fear of wrath, the punishment that may be inflicted by 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 289 

the offended magistrate, but (even if that could be eluded) 
act thus from a principle of duty towards God, who requires 
it of you. 

A celebrated foreigner, a republican too of the new model, 
whose understanding, though very acute, has, in several in 
stances, proved the dupe of a warm imagination and strong 
passions, intoxicated with the chimerical maxims I have 
already considered, has with infinite labour chalked out the 
plan of a democracy perfectly Utopian, such as never was, 
and never will be brought into effect. This man, though a 
professed admirer of the gospel, and at times he would make 
us think a believer, had too much discernment not to dis 
cover, and too much candour not to acknowledge, that it is 
impossible to reconcile Christianity with the idol of a repub 
lic which he had reared up. I am surprised that none of 
the worshippers of this II) OL, in our island, seem to have 
attended to this remark.* As little have they attended to 
another of the same author, that it is only in a very small 
city that his scheme is practicable. { I am not so much asto 
nished that they have not discovered, what to me is equally 
plain, that common sense (with which I could never find the 
gospel at variance in any thing) is not less its foe than Chris 
tianity. 

That our religion strongly inculcates the duty of subjects 
to the magistrate, (which this philosopher calls being favour 
able to tyranny,) is undeniable. It gives no preference to one 
form of government above another ; it does not enter into 
the question, but it is friendly to order and to the public 
peace, which it will not permit us rashly to infringe ; it teaches 
us to respect the dispensations of Providence, and to seek the 
good of the society whereof we are members. The ancient 
landmarks of the constitution it forbids us to remove, in the 
presumptuous hope that we shall place them anew better 
than our fathers have done. Nay more, it unites in such a 
manner our allegiance to the sovereign, and loyalty to the 
constitution of our country, with piety towards God, as shows 
that there is an intimate connexion between these duties. 

* Rousseau, Du Contrat Social, liv. iv. chap. 8. 
t Liv. iii. chap. 15. 



290 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

Fear the Lord and the king, says Solomon, and meddle not 
with them that are given to change. To the same purpose 
Peter, Fear God, honour the king, 1 Pet. ii. 17. And in 
the words I have often referred to from Paul, the duty is 
all along enforced from a principle of reverence to God. 
At the same time it does not preclude the constitutional 
support of any civil right. Paul, though as sensible as any 
man of the shortness of life, and of the smallness of its value 
compared with eternity, did not disdain oftener than once to 
assert his right as a denizen of Rome, happily joining the 
spirit of the Roman with the moderation of the Christian ; 
Acts xvi. 37 ; xxii. 25. And in the former part of this 
discourse I have shown, I hope with sufficient evidence, that 
none of the expressions recommending the duty of allegiance, 
if candidly interpreted by the same rules which are admitted 
in interpreting other precepts similarly expressed, can be 
understood to exclude an exception in cases of extreme 
necessity. It was also observed, that in the general terms 
employed in Scripture, there is manifestly included the whole 
of the civil constitution. And the whole is more to be re 
garded than a part. Even the royal power, however consi 
derable, is still, in respect to the constitution, but a part. 

In regard to the present quarrel, it may justly be said that 
it is the whole that is attacked. Indeed the ringleaders of 
the American revolt, the members of their Congress, have, 
in their last declaration, pointed all their malice against the 
King, as though, in consequence of a settled plan, he had 
been adopting and pursuing tyrannical measures in order to 
render himself absolute. They have accordingly spared no 
abuse, no insult, by which they could inflame the minds of 
an unhappy and deluded people. Their expressions are such 
as decency forbids me to repeat. The means they employ are 
indeed of a colour with the end they pursue. But let those 
who can lay claim to any impartiality or candour but reflect, 
and say, in what single instance our benign sovereign has 
adopted any measure but by the advice of the British legis 
lature, or pursued a separate interest from that of the British 
nation. It is solely concerning the supremacy of the Par 
liament, the legislative body of Great Britain, and not con- 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 291 

cerning the prerogatives of the crown, that we are now con 
tending. And ought not this circumstance to enhance our 
obligation to concur with alacrity, as far as our influence will 
extend, in strengthening the hands of the government, now 
laid under a necessity of seeking, by arms, to bring back to 
their duty those insolent and rebellious subjects ? 

I am unwilling to quit the argument, without taking notice 
of every plea that may seem to be of weight on the other side 
of the question. Some of the more moderate advocates for 
these people will plead, that, without recurring to any demo- 
cratical and newfangled principles, or to the footing on which 
the colonists themselves, and some of their most sanguine 
champions in this country, think proper to place their de 
fence, these few questions, for clearing the point, may per 
tinently be asked. First, " Whether or not have the British 
Americans a civil and constitutional right (let the terms na 
tural and unalienable, with the other nonsense employed for 
taking in the rabble, be exploded) to all the privileges of 
British subjects?" Secondly, "Is it not a distinguishing 
privilege of British subjects, that they are not taxable but by 
their representatives ? " And, thirdly, " If this be the case, 
can the Americans be regularly or justly taxed by a Parlia 
ment in which they have no representatives ? " 

In answer to the first question, It is admitted they are en 
titled to all the privileges of British subjects. In answer to 
the second, If the members of the House of Commons are, 
as the objector surely means to signify, the representatives 
only of those by whom they are elected, it is not the privilege 
of all British subjects that they are not taxable but by their 
representatives. This is the privilege of those only who are 
in a certain way qualified. It is not above one in twenty of 
the people of England, or above one in a hundred of the 
people of Scotland, who have a voice in the election of mem 
bers of Parliament. But if the members represent also those 
who are not their electors, and have no power, no influence 
whatever, in electing them, it will be impossible to assign a 
good reason why they may not be denominated the represen 
tatives of all the subjects in America, as well as in Britain. 
This leads directly to the answer to the third question. If, 

T 



292 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

as has been computed, there be at least between six and 
seven millions of people in Great Britain, who are taxed by 
a Parliament in which they are not represented, it can be 
deemed neither unreasonable nor unconstitutional, that there 
should be about two millions in America in the same situa 
tion. 

It would be uncandid not to admit, that there is some dif 
ference in the cases. The members of the House of Com 
mons, in almost every tax (for there are some exceptions)* 
they lay on their British fellow-subjects, tax themselves in 
proportion. The case is different in regard to their fellow- 
subjects in America. But this is an inequality that neces 
sarily results from the difference of situation ; and is, besides, 
more than counterbalanced by some motives and difficulties 
that will ever effectually prevent the legislature from going 
the same lengths in taxing the American subjects which it 
may safely go in taxing Britons. 

But it is notorious, that the former have declared against 
every method that has yet been devised for removing this 
capital objection, the only one of consequence in the cause. 
The simplest method would doubtless be, to allow them a 
certain number of representatives in the House of Commons. 
Against this proposal they have always loudly and vehemently 
exclaimed. Do they favour what has also been suggested in 
this controversy, that a particular and moderate rate should 
be fixed, according to which the subsidies levied from them 
should uniformly bear a certain proportion to those levied 
from Great Britain ? To this they have given no better re 
ception than to the other. Yet this would effectually remove 
the grand difficulty, that the Parliament, by loading the Ame 
ricans, would ease themselves. In this case, on the contrary, 
no burden could be brought on them but when a propor- 
tionably greater is laid on the British subject. Have they 
then proposed any method themselves for removing this ob 
stacle, this great stumbling-block ? Nothing that I know of, 

* The following, and perhaps some more, may be regarded as exceptions : The 
act establishing the post-office ; from this tax the privilege of franking exempts all 
members of parliament. The act imposing a tax on seamen for the support of Green 
wich Hospital. The act for laying an excise on ale and beer brewed for sale. 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 293 

but a total immunity, or what is equivalent, to be left to do 
as they please. This, and only this, will content them. 

Will any considerate person say, that this is a reasonable 
motion on their part ? Nothing can be less so. The colonies 
indeed, by their own provincial assemblies, have been in the 
practice of raising a small part, and but a small part, of what 
is necessary for the internal administration of justice and the 
government of the colony : But in this way they have not 
hitherto raised money for defraying the more public and un 
avoidable expenses of the government in the protection of the 
whole. Nor indeed is this an adequate method of doing it, 
considering the independency of the provinces on one another ; 
considering the difficulty of adjustment, when every one of 
so many is left entirely to itself; considering too the natural 
selfishness of men, which leads them to shift the burden, as 
much as possible, off themselves, and throw it upon their neigh 
bours. In the two last wars, which were entered into solely 
for the defence of the colonies, and in consequence of the cla 
mour raised by them and their agents in this country, this 
nation was involved in more than seventy millions of debt. 
And of this enormous sum they have not agreed, nor will agree 
to any rule, by which a certain contingent, however low, may 
be ascertained as what ought to be levied from them. 

Shall I give you the sum of all their proposals to their 
British fellow-subjects, before they formally renounced their 
allegiance ? I shall doubtless be accused of treating with ridi 
cule a very serious business. But let it be observed, that 
when people are absurd in their propositions and demands, 
the naked truth makes their conduct ridiculous. That it 
does so, can reflect only on themselves ; since to expose their 
absurdity is the inevitable consequence of a just representa 
tion. I am not sensible that, in the following account, the 
real purport of their overtures and pretensions are, in any 
respect, misrepresented, or even heightened. What they 
claim, and what they offer, appear to amount to no more 
than this : " We will do your king the honour to acknow 
ledge him for our king ; we will never refuse to pay him that 
compliment, provided no more than compliment is understood 
by it. Judicial proceedings shall be in his name ; and his 

T 2 



294 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

name (which will serve as well as any other name) shall 
stand at the head of our proclamations. Nay, he shall no 
minate to certain offices among us, provided it be in our 
power to feed or starve the officers, or at least to permit them 
to act, or tie up their hands, as we happen to like or dislike 
their conduct. Though we are not satisfied with the reason 
ableness of the thing, we shall, for the present, submit to the 
restraints laid on our trade by the act of navigation, provided 
we have none of your military to guard the execution of that 
act ; and provided, further, that when any of our merchants 
are accused of smuggling, their cause be tried by a jury of 
smugglers ; or, if any of our people be charged with sedition 
and riot, they be tried by a jury of the mob for this, we 
think, is in the true spirit of trial by jury, which is, that a 
man be tried by his peers. We do not mean, however, 
that this privilege shall extend in the same manner to your 
custom-house officers, and other dependants of the crown, who, 
if they should be sent hither, and be accused of any crime, shall 
be tried by a jury too, not indeed of custom-house officers, but 
of our liberty-men, that is, our rioters and contraband traders, 
with their patrons and abettors." And who can doubt that 
they are fit depositaries of the lives and properties of revenue 
officers and soldiers ? " We will not be so disrespectful, 
(however little we value it,) as to decline participating in all 
the privileges of British subjects, inheritance, succession, 
offices, honours, and dignities amongst you, equally with the 
natives of Great Britain. Further, we will allow your nation 
the honour not only of being at the principal charge in sup 
porting the internal government of our provinces, but also 
of protecting us, at your own expense, defensively and offen 
sively, against all our enemies, real or imaginary, by sea and 
land, whenever we shall think proper to raise a clamour ; and 
we will in return agree to give you " How much ? " Just 
whatever we please, and, if we please, nothing at all." A 
most extraordinary covenant, wherein all the obligations are 
on one side, and every thing is discretionary on the other. 

Is this the manner in which individuals, or even private 
companies, contract with one other ? Yet there are no doubt 
many individuals, and perhaps some private companies, in 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 295 

whom it might be safe to repose so implicit a confidence : 
But to recommend to the people of one nation to take this 
method in treating with those of another, can scarcely be 
viewed otherwise than as an insult to their understandings. 
I may add, that of all nations the last in whom we could with 
safety place so great a trust is the North Americans, if the 
unamiable portrait, which I am strongly inclined to think 
exaggerated, but which one of their warmest friends and 
ablest advocates has drawn of them, is a just representation 
of the original, and if they are such a proud, fierce, jealous, 
restive, untractable, suspicious, litigious, chicaning race of 
pettifoggers, as he seems to exhibit them ;* and I may add, 
if they are grossly insincere and false, as the conduct of their 
worthy representatives, the Congress, exhibits them to every 
one who will take the trouble to compare what they say of 
the article of religion in the Quebec Act in their Application 
to the people of Great Britain, with what they say of the same 
article in their Address to the people of Canada. Their 
duplicity in this particular, and in some others, has proved 
matter of confusion to such of their partisans in this country 
as have a regard to truth and candour.f Certain it is, how- 

* Mr. Burke s Speech, March 22, 1775. 

t In their application to the people of this island, they say, " We think the legis 
lature of Great Britain is not authorized hy the constitution to establish a religion 
fraught with sanguinary and impious tenets." Again, " Nor can we suppress our 
astonishment, that a British Parliament should ever consent to establish in that 
country [Canada] a religion that has deluged your island in blood, and dispersed 
impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder, and rebellion, through every part of the world." 
REBELLION, too, in this black catalogue. Oh the sanctimonious assurance of some 
men! 

Quis tulerit GRACCHOS de seditione querentes ? 

In their Address to the inhabitants of the province of Quebec, after enumerating 
the rights which they affirm the Canadians ought to possess, they add, " And 
what is offered to you by the late Act of Parliament in their place ? Liberty of 
conscience in your religion ? No : God gave it to you ; and the temporal powers 
with which you have been, and are connected, firmly stipulated for your enjoy 
ment of it. If laws divine and human could secure it against the despotic 
rapacity of wicked men, it was secured before ;" that is, when the city and pro 
vince were surrendered, on capitulation, to his Britannic Majesty. Thus what, 
in the former Address, we are told the legislature of Great Britain is not autho 
rized by the constitution to do., we learn from the latter, is no more than con 
firming a right to which the laws of God and the faith of contracts entitled that 



296 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

ever, that their terms of reconciliation, if they can be called 
terms, where all the concessions are exacted from one side, 
and nothing engaged for on the other, are, on every principle 
of common sense, utterly unworthy of regard. Better far to 

people; and which therefore it would have been both impious and treacherous 
in this nation to infringe. Nay, what is, if possible, more surprising, we learn 
hence that the British Parliament, instead of doing too much for the establish 
ment of the Romish religion in that region, has done too little. The Congress 
is kind enough, therefore, to give them notice of this, and to warn them, that 
by the act, all their rights, civil and religious, " are subject to arbitrary altera 
tions by the governor and council ; and power is expressly reserved, of appointing 
such courts of criminal, civil, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as shall be thought 
proper." They add, " Such is the precarious tenure of mere will by which you 
hold your lives and RELIGION." What a fine topic for declamation in abus 
ing the British legislature these orators would have had, if the Roman Catholic 
religion had not been established in Canada ! With what avidity would these 
zealous Protestants have laid hold of this circumstance, with what triumph 
would they have expatiated on it, in order to inflame the minds of the Popish 
Canadians ! As to that religion itself, which they have represented in their 
Application to the people of Britain as the most frightful monster, it appears, in 
their Address to the inhabitants of the province of Quebec, the most harmless 
thing in nature. " We are too well acquainted," mark the meanness of these 
flatterers, " with the liberality of sentiment distinguishing . your nation, to imagine 
that difference of religion will prejudice you against a hearty amity with us. You 
know that the transcendent nature of freedom elevates those who unite in the cause, 
above all such low-minded infirmities. The Swiss cantons furnish a memorable 
proof of this truth. Their union is composed of Catholic and Protestant States, 
living in the utmost concord and peace with one another ; and thereby enabled, 
ever since they bravely vindicated their freedom, to defy and defeat every tyrant 
that has invaded them." Really, Gentlemen, this is too much. For though such 
profound politicians, engaged in such immense undertakings, may find it quite 
necessary to dispense with the rigid rules of common honesty, it would be proper to 
do it mere covertly. Some semblance of that antiquated and cumbersome virtue, 
has always hitherto been judged convenient, even for the greatest Machiavels in 
politics. Your barefaced manner may create a suspicion of a defect of another sort, 
a defect, in common sense : and it is to be feared that this imputation will do you 
more hurt than the other. 

It would not, however, be equitable to form a judgment of the people from the 
conduct of these trustees. When we consider the turbulence of the times wherein 
the members of the Congress were elected, the factious spirit that had diffused itself, 
and the seditious projects that were hatching, we have reason to believe, that few 
men of candour and moderation, of equity and good sense, would stand forth can 
didates for the office. And if, by any chance, there were some such among them, 
there is little ground to think, that, during the general ferment, they would be 
honoured with the popular suffrage. The wisest and the best, we may justly con 
clude, have withdrawn from their elections altogether. And what the natural con 
sequence would be, is very evident. 



THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 297 

let them have their beloved independence, I am not sure 
that this would not have been the best measure from the 
beginning.* I say this, however, with all due submission 
and deference, for I am far from considering myself as a 
proper judge in so nice a question. 

WHAT then is the conclusion of the whole ? It is precisely 
that we follow the admonition of the wise man, with which 
we began, that we fear the Lord and the king, and meddle 
not with them that are given to change. Whilst we sincerely 
repent of the misimprovement of former mercies, which have 
provoked Heaven against us, let us act as free, yet not using 
our liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, a practice too common 
in these days, but as the servants of God ; entertaining a 
proper detestation of that modern political hypocrisy, which, 
under the disguise of patriotism, (a name once respectable, 
now brought into disgrace by frequent misapplication,) at 
tempts to screen the worst designs and most pernicious prac 
tices. Let us often reflect, that it is no new thing to find 
men who promise liberty to others, while they themselves are 
the servants of corruption, 2 Pet. ii. 19. Such there were 
in the days of the apostles. Of such, Peter in particular 
warns Christians to beware. The description he gives of 
them bears too striking a resemblance, in many principal 
features, to the factious and disaffected of our own time, not 
to deserve our most serious attention. Like some of our 
American orators and popular tribunes, they delighted in a 
boastful, tumid, and bombastic diction : They spoke GREAT 
SWELLING words of vanity, 2 Pet. ii. 18. They despised 
government, were presumptuous, self-willed, and not afraid to 
speak evil of dignities, 2 Pet. ii. 10. 

In regard to the body of the people, our deluded fellow- 
subjects on the other side of the Atlantic, let us consider them 
as objects of -our pity more than of our indignation. In be 
half of the mere populace, the unthinking multitude, it may 
with truth be pleaded almost in every insurrection, that their 
ignorance is their apology : They know not what they do: They 
are but the tools of a few aspiring, interested, and designing 

* Dr. Tucker has advanced some very plausible arguments in support of this 
measure. Sec his Tracts. 



298 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 

men, both on their side of the water and on ours. Already, 
alas ! they have severely felt the effects of their folly. Let 
us ardently pray to the Father of lights and of mercy, that 
he would open the eyes of the people, and turn the hearts of 
their leaders. Too long already have they been wandering 
in the dark, not knowing whither. Pretending to pursue 
liberty, they have turned their back upon it, they have fled 
from it. Seeking to avoid slavery, they have plunged head 
long into it ! May God, who ruleth the raging of the sea, 
and stilleth the noise of the waves, still the tumults of the 
people ! May he soon restore them to their senses, for their 
sakes and ours ! 

It is neither our duty nor our interest to wish them, or any 
part of the British dominions, in a state of servitude ; but we 
ought to wish and pray, that all our present differences may 
be composed in such a manner, as, by providing against the 
like disturbances in time to come, may effectually secure a 
lasting peace. This is not more for our benefit than it is 
for theirs. And indeed the interest of both, if rightly un 
derstood, will be found to be the same. The radical evil in 
their governments seems to have been, even in the judgment 
of some of their friends,* that the constituent members of 
their states were not equally balanced ; the republican part 
was more than a counterpoise to both the rest. This, to 
superficial thinkers, (who conceive democracy and freedom 
as synonymous,) is regarded as so much gained to the side of 
liberty. There is not a more egregious error. The effect 
is indeed constantly an increase of licentiousness ; than which 
no kind of tyranny is a greater enemy to rational and civil 
liberty. If recourse is had to matter of fact, I am persuaded 
those colonial governments will be found to have been the 
most turbulent, the most unhappy, the most licentious, I will 
add, the most intolerant, and such as by cousequence gave 
the least security to the liberty and property of individuals, 
wherein the excess of power on the democratical side has 
been the greatest. May God, who bringeth light out of 
darkness, and order out of confusion, make all our troubles 
terminate in what shall prove the felicity of all ! 

* See Mr. Burke s Speech, March, 1775. 



TABLE, 



CONTAINING A SUMMARY OF ALL THE PARTICULARS 
ABOVE TREATED. 



ADVERTISEMENT. Apology for examining this subject 
in a sermon, and for publishing . . . Page 251 

INTRODUCTION. Afflictions call to repentance. Bad 
effects of particular vices, warnings to forsake those 
vices 255 

The cause of war ib. 

The guilty authors but few, the multitude misled by 
their arts. The utility of exposing these arts early 256 

DIVISION. Observations: 1. On the rights of ma 
gistracy : 2. Qn the grounds of the present colonial 
war . : . 258 

PART I. 

Alterations constitutionally made not innovations . 259 

The duty of subjects obedience. The principle of non- 
resistance in any case, not justly deducible. Gene 
ral precepts often admit exceptions . . ib. 

The very reason of the precept shows there may be 
cases excepted 260 

The cause which justifies resistance must be, 1. Im 
portant. Nothing less than such tyranny as is 
more insupportable than civil war . . . ib. 

Difference between inexpedient and immoral, in hu 
man laws 262 

Though no immoral command ought to be obeyed, it 

follows not that every such command may be resisted 263 

2. Public. The cause of the whole not of a part. 
Toleration in religion, a natural right. The chief 
limits to civil laws, the impossible and the immoral. ib. 



300 TABLE. 

The support of an establishment, whatever it be, gene 
rally favourable to public tranquillity, and therefore 
entitled to acquiescence or passive obedience Page 264 

If uncommon barbarity may excuse resistance in a pri 
vate cause, it can never exalt it into a virtue, as in 
the cause of the public. It is even virtuous to resign 
a private right for the good of society . . ib. 

3. Understood by the community to be both impor 
tant and public. When doubtful, our only safe 
guide the precept ...... 265 

A right in the people to resist in cases of necessity, can 
not justify resistance where the necessity is not real. 
Note : . 266 

The author s reason for not recurring to the original 
compact ........ 267 

Obj. These principles unfriendly to improvement: 
answered, Criminal innovations may originate with 
the rulers 268 

The case of Charles I. and the Long Parliament . ib. 

The madness of destroying a good constitution, in the 
hope of erecting a better in its stead . . . 269 

PART II. 

The present qu ^stion important . . . . ib. 

It affects the whole legislature. The right of taxing 
America the hinge of the controversy . . .271 

This right favoured 1. By custom, both before and 
since the revolution : 2. By the colonial charters : 
3. By the practice of the legislature in other articles ib. 

The doctrine of an essential difference between money 
acts and other acts, ridiculous. Restraints on trade 
reciprocal . . . . . . 273 

American objection to British laws from the want of 
their consent 274 

Am. If consent were necessary, none would be bound 
by a law but they who voted for it. The futility of 
what is called virtual or implied consent . . ib. 

If consent means only the acquiescence required by the 
constitution, this the same in all governments, even 
the most arbitrary 275 



TABLE. 301 

No self-government, where a man is governed by the 
opinion and will of others, whether one or many, 
and not by his own. Perfect liberty incompatible 
with civil society. There, liberty always in part 
sacrificed for protection .... Page 276 

The liberty of the state mistaken for that of its mem 
bers. Women and children, on the principles of our 
republicans, absolute slaves. Note . . . 277 

The distinction of legal and arbitrary, free and slavish, 
as applied to government ..... 278 

Advantages of the British constitution . . ib. 

By modern republican maxims, Poland the most per 
fect government 280 

The body of laws in no civilised country the work of 
persons now living. Our acquiescence such as we 
give to the laws of the universe, whereof we are 
surely not the makers . . . . . . ib. 

Modern republicans think their model the only lawful 
government. Terrible consequences of this doctrine 281 

The reverse of that of the gospel .... 282 

The Jewish notion on the subject of taxes different 
from the American, but the object the same. Their 
title to exemption not admitted by our Saviour . 283 

A singular effrontery in men who keep slaves, to ex 
claim about life, liberty, and property, as the un- 
alienable rights of mankind. Note . . . 284 

The Jews, though both a distant and different nation 
from the Romans, and not concurring in assessing 
themselves, expressly enjoined to pay . . ib. 

By the maxims of our republicans, Christ and his 
apostles preachers of slavery, both internal and ex 
ternal. Note 286 

Obj. The apostolical injunctions on this head, pruden 
tial advices ........ 287 

Ans. This plea confuted by the terms used . . 288 

Rousseau, a famous republican, admits that Chris 
tianity and his system are incompatible . . . 289 

The part which our religion takes in regard to the 
constitution . ib. 



302 



TABLE. 



Not unfavourable to the constitutional support of civil 
rights Page 290 

The malice of the Congress to the King : the present 
not so properly the king s quarrel as the nation s, 
particularly the legislature s ib. 

The Americans have no more a constitutional than a 
natural title to what they claim. Not one in twenty 
of the people of Britain represented in Parliament 291 

The disadvantage the Americans sustain in this re 
spect, the necessary consequence of their situation. 
No remedy that has been suggested relished by 
them. Their manifest aim immunity . . . 292 

They contribute but a part of the expense of their own 
internal government ; no part of what is necessary 
for the defence of the whole, or for discharging the 
debt incurred by the two last wars, though entered 
into for their protection, and in consequence of their 
clamours 293 

The sum of their proposals to Great Britain. Great 
advantages demanded : their returns discretionary . ib. 

A character of the colonists given by one of their friends 295 

The duplicity of the Congress in regard to the estab 
lishment of the Roman Catholic religion in Canada. 
The character of the people not to be concluded 
from the actions of the Congress. Note . . 296 

CONCLUSION. 

Caution against allowing the pretence of liberty to be 
tray us into licentiousness 297 

Pretenders of this stamp in the apostolic age. The 
people objects of pity more than of resentment . ib. 

Not the interest of Britain that America be enslaved. 
The interest of both the same. A vulgar error, that 
government is the freer the more republican. The 
great blunder in the American governments, they 
were too republican. Their good, as well as ours, 
requires that this be rectified .... 298 



AN 

ADDRESS 

TO THE. 

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND, 

UPON THE 

ALARMS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED 

IN REGARD TO 

POPERY, 
1779. 



Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous 
judgment. JOHN vii. 24v 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



THE Author would not have been so late in giving his 
judgment to the Public on the alarm that has been raised 
about the danger of the Protestant religion, if the duties of 
his office had permitted him to do it sooner. He cannot, 
however, consider it as being yet too late. The National 
Assembly of this Church has not yet interposed. It is not 
to be doubted that an application from them will be urged 
at their ensuing meeting. The Author is the more solicitous 
to give his sentiments in this manner, as it will not be in his 
power to be present. And though he spoke his mind freely 
on the question in the last Assembly, matters have pro 
ceeded so far since that time, that he could not excuse him 
self, if he omitted to give this additional and more ample 
testimony to the world of his judgment on the whole of this 
important subject. 

He hopes that what he here offers will be attended to with 
coolness, and weighed with impartiality. He is influenced 
by no motive but the love of truth and religion, and a de 
sire of promoting the honour of this Church, and the peace 
of this country. Intelligent readers will not accuse him of 
being too favourable to Popery. Such, he is afraid, if they 
suspect him of partiality, will be inclined to think that it is 
all on the other side. Thus much he will acknowledge, that 
his abhorrence of the spirit of that illiberal superstition, 
heightens the dislike he has to what bears so striking a re 
semblance to it in the spirit now raised in this country. 

He has been induced the more readily to take this method 
of delivering his sentiments, because he is certain he can in 
this way do greater justice to the argument, and with more 
effect, than by any assistance it would be in his power to give 
the cause in the Assembly -house. Whatever be the conse 
quence, he will at least have the satisfaction to reflect that 
he has done his duty. 



INTRODUCTION. 



IN all the questions wherein religion and morality are con 
cerned, it becomes Christians, especially Protestants, to recur 
in the first place, to that which they all acknowledge an infal 
lible standard, and Protestants the only infallible standard, 
of truth and right, THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. I know 
not any point of conduct, on which a Christian, if he will im 
partially consult them, may not find there the amplest infor 
mation of his duty. The precepts and the example of our 
Lord Jesus Christ in particular, as well as the actions and 
the writings of his apostles, furnish us with materials in 
abundance, both for forming our principles and for directing 
our practice. In the present controversy, may I be allowed 
to ask, Has that recourse been had, by the parties on either 
side, to this pure fountain of light, which might have been 
expected? It does not appear that there has. Let our 
first inquiry then be, "What is the mind of the SPIRIT on 
this subject? 

It has been pleaded, that the present dispute, in regard to 
the repeal of certain penal statutes against Popery, though 
it be in part, is not wholly of the religious kind ; it is in a 
great measure also a political question. The safety of the 
constitution, it is said, in church and state, may be aifected 
by the issue. This, in the second place, will deserve our 
serious consideration, that we may discover not only what 
truth there is in it, and to what conclusion it would lead, but 
who the persons are whom it ought chiefly to influence. 

It may not prove unprofitable, in the third place, to in 
quire briefly, what are those expedients which Christians, and 
especially pastors, in a consistency with both the spirit and 
the letter of the gospel, are authorized to employ, for re 
pressing error and superstition, and promoting the belief 
and obedience of the truth ? 



306 



INTRODUCTION. 



Such a candid and impartial attention as the importance of 
the subject requires, to the following attempt at solving these 
questions, is earnestly requested from every pious reader. 
The most zealous person, whatever side he has chosen, ought 
to reflect, that, being a man, he is fallible, and, consequently, 
that it is possible he may be mistaken in his choice. We 
have the best authority to affirm, that a man may be zealously 
affected, yet not well affected, Gal. iv. 17: may "have a 
zeal of God, but not according to knowledge," Rom. x. 2. 
Hearken then to the apostle s admonition : " Believe not 
every spirit," not even your own, implicitly, for we often 
" know not what manner of spirit we are of : but try the 
spirits, whether they be .of God, because many false prophets 
are gone out into the world," 1 John iv. 1. "To the law and 
to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it 
is because there is no light in them," Isa. viii. 20. 



AN 



ADDRESS. 



CHAPTER I. 

The Doctrine of the Gospel in regard to Persecution, 
particularly of Persecutors. 

THE name of persecutor is justly become so odious that I 
know no sect of Christians who do not disclaim the character 
with abhorrence. Even Papists will not confess that they 
persecute. By their own account, they only administer 
wholesome severities, for recovering those who have swerved 
from the truth, or, if irreclaimable, for deterring others from 
following their pernicious courses, for defending themselves 
against their machinations, and for giving a timely check to 
the contagion of heresy. These, say they, are purposes the 
most salutary imaginable. They maintain further, that what 
is done in support of truth, however cruel it may appear, is 
not persecution ; that those punishments only deserve to be 
branded with that opprobrious appellation which are employed 
in defence of error. But as they themselves are always in 
the right, they can never be in hazard of inflicting these. 

So says the Romanist, and, by saying so, demonstrates, 
either that he is himself a persecutor on principle, or else, 
that there is no such thing as persecution on the earth : For 
what is any man s immediate criterion of truth, but his own 
opinions, in which it is but too evident, that the most confi 
dent are not always the best founded ? On this footing, the 
more opinionative a man is, (which is far from saying, the 
more wise he is,) the more he feels himself entitled to be the 
scourge of all who think differently from him. Nor is it 
possible for any man to have another rule here but the 
strength of his conviction, which, if it entitle one, entitles all 
equally, Jew, Pagan, Christian, or Mahometan. I do not 

u 



308 ADDRESS TO THE 

know that any beside Roman Catholics barefacedly avow this 
doctrine, but I should be justly chargeable with gross par 
tiality did I aver, that no sect but theirs acts in a way which 
this hypothesis alone could justify. Other parties do riot, 
with equal arrogance, claim infallibility, but often, with great 
er inconsistency, they exact such a respect to their decisions, 
as can be vindicated only on the supposition that they are 
infallible. 

The true definition of persecution is, to distress men, or 
harass them with penalties of any kind, on account of an 
avowed difference in opinion or religious profession. It 
makes no material odds whether the distress be inflicted by 
legal authority, or by the exertion of a power altogether law 
less. In the former case, the evil is chargeable on the com 
munity ; in the latter, solely on the perpetrators and their 
abettors. But this difference, in regard to the authors, does 
not alter the nature of the thing : Nor does the greater or 
less severity of the punishments make any difference but in 
degree. It is also proper to observe, that the true subject 
of either toleration or persecution, is not opinion simply, but 
opinion professed. To claim to ourselves the merit, that we 
do not persecute for conscience sake, because we tolerate all 
the opinions which a man keeps to himself, and never dis 
closes to us, is so exceedingly absurd, that one is at a loss to 
conceive how a man can be in earnest who advances it.* If 
that only be persecution which is aimed at secret and con 
cealed opinion, and if opinion revealed be a proper subject 
of correction by the magistrate, who does not incur thereby 
the imputation of intolerance, it is evident that our Lord 
himself was not persecuted, his apostles were not, as little 
were the primitive Christians or the Protestants. And who, 
shall we say, are persecutors by this criterion ? This wonder 
ful plea cancels the charge at once against Jews, Mahome- 

* Short View of the Statutes, &c. Rem. iii. " As to persecution for conscience 
sake, it is in no case allowable. A man may be an atheist, a blasphemer, an idolater, 
a rebel, a Papist, or all in one if contradictions can exist together, and yet, if he be 
only so in his heart, and do not disturb others, no human laws should interfere. Our 
laws against Popery never did, and never will interfere in this way. They do not 
allow persecution even of our persecutors." 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 309 

tans, and Pagans, who never wreaked their vengeance against 
a man s secret sentiments, but always against those which he 
propagated, or at least professed. Nay, if it were possible 
to devise a plea that could clear Papists themselves from the 
guilt of persecuting, it would be this. 

Having said thus much for fixing the meaning of the word, 
and ascertaining what is properly denominated persecution, I 
shall inquire into its lawfulness, on the principles of Chris 
tianity. Were I to plead the cause of toleration with Pagans, 
Mahometans, or Deists, I should, for topics of argument, 
recur directly to the light of reason, and the dictates of con 
science; I should examine what the principles of humanity 
and natural right suggest on this subject. This is the only 
common ground on which we could enter the lists together. 
But as it is solely with Christians and Protestants that I am 
concerned in the discussion of this question, I shall, waving 
all other topics, recur to sacred writ, particularly the NEW 
TESTAMENT, an authority for which we all profess the pro- 
foundest veneration. Here we have a full and unerring 
directory, in all that concerns the discharge of every Chris 
tian duty, particularly in what regards the propagation and 
defence of the gospel. 

The methods whereby, according to the command of our 
Lord, his religion was to be propagated, were no other than 
teaching, and the attractive influence of an exemplary life. 
" Go," said Christ to his disciples, " and teach all nations," 
Matt, xxviii. 19 : " Preach the gospel to every creature," 
Mark xvi. 15 : And, " Let your light so shine before men, 
that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father 
which is in heaven," Matt. v. 16. And when their doctrine 
should meet with no return but contempt and scorn, they are 
enjoined only to warn such despisers, by shaking off the dust 
of their feet, of the spiritual dangers to which they expose 
themselves, Matt. x. 14. Nay, if men should proceed so far 
as to return them evil for good, and reward their wholesome 
instructions with persecution, their orders are, when perse 
cuted in one city, to flee to another, Matt. x. 23. In general, 
with regard to the character they are uniformly to maintain, 
they are commanded to " be wise as serpents, but harmless 

u 2 



310 ADDRESS TO THE 

as doves," Matt. x. 16. This last qualification is added to 
apprise them, that it is solely the wisdom of the serpent, not 
his venom and his tooth, that they must endeavour to arm 
themselves with. Indeed, of the whole armour of God to be 
employed in this warfare, the apostle Paul (if I may so ex 
press myself) has given us a catalogue. " Stand, therefore," 
says he, " having your loins girt about with truth, and having 
on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with 
the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the 
shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the 
fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, 
and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God : 
Praying always with all prayer and supplication, and watch 
ing thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all 
saints," Eph. vi. 14, &c. Behold the Christian s panoply. 
But for the use of other arms, offensive or defensive, in the 
battles of faith, I can find no warrant. 

But though this suited the infancy of the church, when she 
"was yet feeble and tender, now that she is grown hardier 
and more robust, is it not reasonable that she should change 
her plan, and assume, in addressing her adversaries, a bolder 
note ? Is there no permission given by our Lord, to have 
recourse, when that should happen, to other weapons ? Had 
his disciples no hint of the propriety, or rather necessity of 
penal statutes, for adding weight to their teaching, for check 
ing the encroachments of error, and chastising the insolence 
of those who should dare, in the maturity of the church, to 
controvert her judgment ? Not the slightest suggestion of 
such an alteration. On the contrary, it appears inconsistent 
with the nature of the church devised by our Saviour, and 
modelled by his apostles. Hear himself, in that good con 
fession which he witnessed before Pontius Pilate : " Jesus 
answered, My kingdom is not of this world : if my kingdom 
were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I 
should not be delivered to the Jews : but now is my king 
dom not from hence," John xviii. 36. Swords and spears, 
and all such instruments of hostility, are suited to the defence 
of secular and worldly kingdoms. If my kingdom were of 
this world, then would my servants fight. But such weapons 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 311 

are preposterous when employed in support of a dispensation 
quite spiritual and heavenly. In regard to it the order is, 
" Put up again thy sword into his place ; for all they that 
take the sword shall perish with the sword," Matt. xxvi. 52. 

The maxims of the apostles we find entirely conformable 
to the lessons they had received from their Lord. " Know 
ing the terror of the Lord," says Paul, " we persuade men," 
2 Cor. v. 1 1 . Our only method is persuasion, not compul 
sion. The only terrors we set before men, are not. the 
terrors either of the magistrate or of the mob : they are the 
terrors of the Lord, the dread of incurring the divine dis 
pleasure, and the tremendous judgment of the world to 
come ; as, on the other hand, the only allurements are the 
divine promises. " Though we walk in the flesh," says the 
same apostle, " we do nt>t war after the flesh. For the wea 
pons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God 
to the pulling down of strongholds, casting down imagina 
tions, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the 
knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought 
to the obedience of Christ," 2 Cor. x. 3, &c. Are those spi 
ritual weapons now so blunted, that, without the coarse im 
plements supplied by human laws, they would be of no uti 
lity ? Imregard to gainsay ers and adversaries we are taught, 
that as " the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle 
to all men, apt to teach, patient," so he is in particular to 
" instruct in meekness those that oppose themselves, if God 
peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledg 
ing of the truth," 2 Tim. ii. 24. Meekly and patiently to 
teach is the duty of the minister ; the effect of this teaching, 
that is, the conversion of the sinner, or the conviction of the 
erring, must be left to the supreme Disposer of events. The 
very utmost enjoined Christians in regard to the obstinate, 
and irreclaimable, is, after repeated unsuccessful attempts and 
admonitions, to avoid their company, Tit. iii. 10. 

The disciple ought doubtless to be formed on the amiable 
pattern exhibited by his Master, whose character it was, as 
delineated by the prophet, that he would not contend nor 
raise a clamour, nor make his voice be heard in the streets ; 
that he would not break the bruised reed, nor quench the 



312 



ADDRESS TO THE 



smoking flax, Isa. xlii. 2, 3 ; who was not less eminent for all 
the mild and gentle virtues of humility, condescension, can 
dour, humanity, and benignity, than for those which excite 
higher admiration, patience, firmness, fortitude, purity, and 
justice, not to mention the most comprehensive benevolence 
or love". So remarkably did those shine forth in all the or 
dinary occurrences of his life, and so deep seems the impres 
sion to have been that they generally made, that Paul alludes 
to this feature in our Lord s character as to a thing univer 
sally known and felt, and even recurs to it as a form of ob 
testing, the more effectually to engage attention and persuade. 
" Now I Paul myself," says he, " beseech you by the meek 
ness and gentleness of Christ," 2 Cor. x. 1. These are the 
qualities by which he himself from the beginning attracted 
the notice of the people. " I am meek and lowly in heart," 
Matt. xi. 29. His discourses were not more energetic than 
they were gracious. They breathed humanity and kindness 
to a degree that astonished all. The graciousness, no less 
than the authority with which he spoke, excited universal 
admiration, Luke iv. 22 ; Matt. vii. 28, 29. In short, the 
fellow-feeling he had of our infirmities, his patience and for 
bearance towards the refractory, his compassion of the igno 
rant, and even of them that were out of the way, were, more 
than his miracles, the instruments by which the thickest spi 
ritual darkness was dispelled, the most inveterate prejudices 
surmounted, the hearts even of the most reluctant won, and 
the world subdued to the obedience of the faith. 

Is it not most natural to think, that a cause will be best 
supported by the same means by which it was founded, and 
by which it received its first footing in the earth ? Ought there 
not to appear in* the servant some proportion, some traces 
of the spirit of the master ? To the dispensation of the gos 
pel, which is the dispensation of grace, mercy, and peace, 
ought there not to be a suitableness in the methods employed 
to promote it ? Shall we then think of any expedient for 
defending the cause of Christ, different from those which he 
himself and his apostles so successfully employed ? Nay, it 
were well if all that could be said were, that we employ 
different measures from those employed by them. Some of 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 313 

ours, I am afraid, on examination, will be found to be the 
reverse of theirs. Christ engaged by being lovely, we would 
constrain by being frightful. The former conquers the heart, 
the latter at most but forces an external and hypocritical 
compliance, a thing hateful to God, and dishonourable to the 
cause of his Son. 

But, say our opponents in this argument, Popery is a su 
perstition so baneful as not to deserve any favour, especially 
at the hands of Protestants. Its intolerance to them, and 
persecuting spirit, if there were nothing else we had to accuse 
it of, would be sufficient to justify the severest treatment we 
could give it. This treatment to Papists could not be called 
persecution, but just retaliation, or the necessary means of 
preventing perdition to ourselves.- I do not say that either 
Popery or Papists deserve favour from us. On the contrary, 
I admit the truth of the charge against them, but not the 
consequence ye would draw from it. Let Popery be as black 
as ye will. Call it Beelzebub, if ye please. It is not by 
Beelzebub that I am for casting out Beelzebub, but by the 
Spirit of God. We exclaim against Popery; and, in exclaim 
ing against it, we betray but too manifestly, that we have 
imbibed of the character for which we detest it. In the most 
unlovely spirit of Popery, and with the unhallowed arms of 
Popery, we would fight against Popery. It is not by such 
weapons that God has promised to consume the man of sin, 
but it is by the breath of his mouth, that is, his word.* As 
for us, though we be often loud enough in our pretensions 
to faith, our faith is not in his word. We have no faith now 
in weapons invisible and impalpable. Fire and steel suit us 
a great deal better. Christians, in ancient times, confided 
in the divine promises ; we, in these days, confide in acts of 
Parliament. They trusted to the sword of the Spirit, for the 
defence of ti;uth and the defeat of error ; we trust to the sword 
of the magistrate. God s promises do well enough, when the 
legislature is their surety : But if ye destroy the hedges and 

* 2 Thess. ii. 8. In our translation it is t7ie spirit of his mouth. The original 
term signifies, breath, wind, spirit. When it is connected with mouth, lips, or nostrils, 
as in this passage, it ought to be rendered breath. There is doubtless an allusion to 
Hos. vi. 5, " I have slain them by the words of my mouth." 



314 ADDRESS TO THE 

the bulwarks which the laws have raised, we shall cry with 
Israel in the days of Ezekiel, " Behold, our bones are dried, 
our hope is lost, we are cut off for our parts," Ezek. xxxvii. 
1 1 . There is no more security for the true religion. Pro 
testantism is gone ! all is lost ! we shall all be Papists pre 
sently. Shall we never reflect on the denunciation of the 
prophet, " Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and 
maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the 
Lord ?" Let me tell those people, so distrustful in God s 
providence and promises, and so confident in the arm of 
flesh, that the true religion never flourished so much, never 
spread so rapidly, as when, instead of persecuting, it was per 
secuted, instead of obtaining support from human sanctions, 
it had all the terrors of the magistrate and of the laws armed 
against it. "Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy ; are we 
stronger than he ?" 1 Cor. x. 22. 

Ye say, " Popery deserves no favour ;" but are the deserts 
of others the rule of our conduct towards them ? Does the 
institution of Christ command, or even permit us, to retaliate 
the injuries of others ? Is the great rule which he has given 
us, as containing the sum of the law and the prophets, 
" Whatsoever ye find that others do unto you, do ye also so 
unto them ?" Is it, " Remember to render good for good, 
and evil for evil to every man ?" Has our Lord adopted the 
adage of the Pharisees, " Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and 
hate thine enemy ?" Has he said, " Bless them that bless 
you, and curse them that curse you ; and for them that spite 
fully use you and persecute you, be sure that, when ye have 
it in your power, ye spitefully use and persecute them in re 
turn ?" If this be the language of Christ, I have done ; my 
reasoning is at an end, and I have totally mistaken the matter. 
But if, in every article, it is opposite ; if that authority which 
ought ever to be held by Christians of all authorities the 
most venerable, has enjoined, not " Whatsoever men do," 
but, " Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do 
ye even so to them," Matt. vii. 12 ; if the law of retaliation, 
which says, Eye for eye and tooth for tooth, is expressly set 
aside, Matt. v. 38, &c., and his commandment is, " Love 
your enemies, do good to them that hate you ; bless them 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 315 

that curse you, and pray for them that despitefully use you 
and persecute you/ Matt. v. 44 ; if these, I say, are the 
dictates of Christ, how indecent, not to give it a worse name, 
must any argument appear in the mouth of a Christian, 
which subverts the fundamental maxims of the Master he 
professes to serve. Not to mention, that there is real injus 
tice in retaliation on sects and parties, when they are not the 
same individuals on whom they retaliate with those who 
committed the cruelties complained of. Popery is doubtless 
a most intolerant religion; yet it would be both uncharitable 
and unjust to deny that there are many Papists who would 
not persecute. Protestantism, from its radical principles, is 
much more tolerant ; it would, notwithstanding, be most 
uncandid, rather indeed contemptibly partial, to affirm, that 
Protestants have never persecuted. 

I am not ignorant that there are Christian commentators, 
who, by their glosses, elude the force of the plainest precepts 
of our Lord, much in the way the Jewish rabbies invalidated 
the commandments of God. " Christ," say such, " does not 
mean, in those expressions, the enemies of our nation, much 
less the enemies of our faith ; it is only personal enemies he 
is speaking of." That all sorts of enemies are included, there 
is not a shadow of ground to doubt. But that he had much 
more an eye to the enemies of our religion than either to 
national or to personal foes, will be evident to those who at 
tentively consider the scope of this divine discourse. The 
very kinds of injuries specified, are those he had expressly 
told them they would be made to suffer for his name s sake. 
And one principal view of those sublime instructions, is 
plainly to fortify their minds, and prepare them for bearing 
properly what they must soon expect to meet with, purely 
on account of religion. 

But the precepts of our Lord are best illustrated by his 
example. It may therefore be worth while to examine in 
what manner he was affected with regard to the antipathy 
and mutual rancour that subsisted in his time between the 
Jews and the Samaritans. These stood on a footing with 
each other somewhat similar (but incomparably worse) to 
that of Protestants and Papists amongst us before the late 



316 ADDRESS TO THE 

alarms. As to the principles on which they differed, Jesus 
explicitly declared for his countrymen the Jews. " Ye wor 
ship ye know not what/ said he to the woman of Samaria ; 
(e we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews," 
John iv. 22. Did he therefore adopt the passions of his 
countrymen ? Did he betray the smallest particle of the ma 
lignity with which they were inflamed towards a people whose 
schism and distinguishing tenets he was as ready to condemn 
as they? Let his conduct, on the occasion referred to, serve 
for an answer to the question. He entered freely into con 
versation with the woman, and did not disdain to ask her, 
though a Samaritan, to supply him with a little water. This 
(however small a matter it may appear to us) exceedingly 
surprised her, knowing the inhospitable maxims to which 
both parties, but especially the Jews, so rigidly adhered. 
Nor did his condescension and affability more surprise this 
stranger, than they did his own disciples on their return, who 
marvelled that he talked with the woman. Probably nothing 
less than the very great respect they entertained for their 
Master hindered them from being scandalized at his modera 
tion, which in any other person they would have denominat 
ed hike warmn ess in the cause of religion, and want of zeal 
against the enemies of God s people. Ye know what followed : 
He stayed with them two days, and made many converts. 

Nor was this the only occasion he took of showing his 
disapprobation of the intemperate zeal of his countrymen in 
regard to that people. A. lawyer once, to try him, asked, 
"Who is my neighbour ?" Luke x. 29, &c. Our blessed 
Lord, knowing the corrupt explanations, on this head, cur 
rent among the Jews, especially among those of this man s 
profession, knowing also that a direct answer could serve only 
to awaken cavil and contradiction, did, in order to surmount 
liis prejudices, address himself, as was usual with him on all 
moral questions, directly to the heart. Ye have his answer 
in the well known parable of the traveller who fell among 
thieves, and who, though a Jew, was overlooked by a Priest 
and a Levite his countrymen, and relieved by a Samaritan. 
The intention, which shines forth conspicuously throughout 
the whole, was to stigmatize, in the strongest manner, that 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 317 

unrelenting bigotry, that inhuman intolerance, which, through 
the wonderful influence of self-deceit, both parties cherished 
in themselves, under the notion of zeal for God and love to 
their country ; it was to mollify their minds towards each 
other, and bring them to admit a reciprocal affection produc 
ing an interchange of good offices. If the parable had repre 
sented the sympathy as exercised by a tender-hearted Jew 
towards a suffering Samaritan, his purpose had been frustrat 
ed. The proud Pharisee, untouched by the misfortunes of 
people he abhorred, would have remonstrated, that his coun 
tryman, instead of acting laudably in assisting one whom he 
would denominate an adversary of God, had acted shamefully 
and weakly, in allowing the nobler principles of zeal and 
patriotism to be overcome by womanish pity. But its being 
represented as exercised by a Samaritan to a Jew, gave a dif 
ferent aspect to the whole. It laid open at once the dignity 
and humanity of the action. It was impossible to withhold 
approbation. The approved, nay admired generosity of an 
enemy, was too strong an argument to approve the like gene 
rous conduct on the other side, for one who could make any 
pretensions to reason and justice to resist. Our Lord, after 
relating the parable, appeals to the lawyer himself for the 
answer to his own question : " Which now of these three 
thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the 
thieves ? And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then 
said Jesus unto him, Go and do thou likewise." Act thyself 
the worthy part which thou canst not but commend in another. 
Think every man thy neighbour, and entitled to the offices 
of charity and humanity, who stands in need of thy assistance. 
Let no personal feud, no national enmity, no opposition of 
religion, prove an obstruction to the exercise of the godlike 
principle of love. Surely then we are not at liberty to do 
evil to those to whom we are commanded to do good. 

On another occasion, after cleansing ten lepers, it did not 
escape our Lord s observation, nor did he fail to make it be 
remarked by others, that the only grateful person who re 
turned to give God thanks was a Samaritan, Luke xvii. 16, 
&c. ; a sure evidence, that it is not always just to conclude the 
badness of men s disposition or practice from the falsity of 



318 ADDRESS TO THE 

some of their religious tenets. This single heterodox sectary 
had more piety and gratitude than the nine more orthodox 
Jews. In general it deserves to be remarked, that the zeal 
of our blessed Master, far from leading him to inflame the 
minds of the populace against those who maintained errone 
ous doctrines in religion, influenced him, on the contrary, to 
moderate their heat, and bring them to make every candid 
allowance for differences, even gross corruptions in principle 
which, from whatever guilty causes they originated, might 
be, in those who then entertained them, the natural effects of 
accidental circumstances. 

A Pharisee of those days, a very zealous sect, though their 
zeal was of a different complexion from our Lord s, a fast 
friend, in his own account, to the Jewish interest and religion, 
might have plausibly exclaimed against this lukewarmness, as 
he would have termed it. " Would this teacher persuade 
us," might such a one say, " to forget the days of our fore 
fathers, and the sufferings they endured from the hands of the 
Samaritans ? Can we, without uneasiness for ourselves, receive 
these instruments of cruelty into favour ? Are we altogether 
unconcerned for what may be the fate of generations yet un 
born ? Ought we ever to forget what trouble they gave to 
our ancestors in the days of Cyrus ; how they exerted them 
selves, to the. utmost, to frustrate their pious purpose of re 
building the house of the Lord? Ezra iv. Is this a subject 
on which we can be silent ? Must we overlook all their mali 
cious and insidious attempts against our nation, the calumnies 
they wrote to Artaxerxes, representing us as irreconcilable 
enemies and rebels, in order to incense that monarch against 
us, and excite him to exterminate us from the face of the 
earth ? Can we ever cease to remember their insults, their 
ambushes, and their plots to massacre our progenitors, who 
were reduced to the greatest distress through their malice, 
insomuch that our builders were under the hard necessity of 
working in the work of God s house with one hand, whilst 
they held a weapon for the defence of their lives with the 
other, and durst not, for fear of being surprised, put off their 
clothes day or night ? Neh. iv. Shall all their treacherous 
schemes to circumvent us, be for ever obliterated, their hypo- 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 319 

critical professions, their lying rumours, their hireling pro 
phets ? " Neh. vi. This is but a specimen of the materials for 
invective which this subject would have afforded to the zea 
lots of those days ; for many other such accusations, undeni 
ably true, might have been brought from the later parts also 
of their history : from all which they might have exclaimed, 
much in the strain of some late publications, and with equal 
plausibility and justice, "Is it come to this ? Are we so de 
generate as to be persuaded by any man to destroy the fences 
of our religion, to break down our barriers, and hug Sama 
ritans in our bosom ; to put these enemies of God and man 
on the same footing with our brethren and countrymen, and 
to love them as our friends and neighbours ? The days have 
been when Jews did not need any warning of this kind." 

It is but too manifest, that at the very time that our Sa 
viour sought to cure his kinsmen the Jews of that bitter un 
godly zeal with which they were affected to the Samaritans, 
the latter had not abated a tittle of their ancient bigotry against 
the Jews. In proof of this, witness the treatment which Christ 
himself received from them, when passing through their 
country in his way to Jerusalem, near the time of the pass- 
over, Luke ix. 51, &c. "When the time was come," says 
the sacred historian, <( that he should be received up, he 
stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers 
before his face ; and they went and entered into a village of 
the Samaritans, to make ready for him." Probably no Jew 
but himself would, particularly on this occasion, have chosen 
to be their guest. But his condescension and liberality of 
mind were ill understood by that bigoted race, and worse 
requited. They did not receive him ; because his face was 
" as though he would go to Jerusalem." They would not so 
much as suffer him to come under their roof. Their reason 
was, he was going to Jerusalem to celebrate the passover. 
This was matter of high offence. One great article of dis 
pute between the two nations was, whether Jerusalem was 
the place which God had chosen as the seat of his temple, 
where sacrifice should be offered and the festivals kept, or 
Mount Gerizzim in Samaria. His going at this time to the 
Jewish capital, showed plainly his opinion on the controverted 



ADDRESS TO THE 

point. This opposition to their judgment their pride could 
not brook. In all fiery zeal, if men would but be impartial 
with themselves, they would find a greater share of pride at 
bottom, than they are willing either to perceive or acknow 
ledge. " And when his disciples James and John saw this, 
they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come 
down from Heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?" 
Ah ! how much did they still retain not only of the pre 
judices, but of the furious zeal of the Pharisees ! How little 
had they imbibed of the amiable disposition of their Mas 
ter ! Nothing so like a bigot of one side, as a bigot of the 
other. Though they hate one another mortally, they are, in 
the internal frame of their mind, essentially the same. Their 
differences are in comparison merely circumstantial and ex 
ternal. If the unreasonableness and bad temper of one side 
could justify the unreasonableness and bad temper of the 
opposite, this outrageous zeal of the two disciples would make 
that of the Samaritans appear very moderate. " But Jesus 
turned and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what man 
ner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to 
destroy men s lives, but to save them. And they went to 
another village." 

This rebuke given to two apostles should, methinks, make 
men a little more modest in regard to their zealous fervours, 
lest they also be found, on examination, totally to mistake 
the spirit they are of. Pride, which can tolerate neither 
opposition nor contradiction, which takes fire at every affront, 
real or imagined, particularly an affront offered to the un 
derstanding by an avowed difference of judgment, and that 
resentment which is the natural offspring of pride, are but 
too apt to screen their deformity under the decent garb of 
zeal. This rebuke, however, serves to teach us, that the de 
structive zeal neither partakes of the spirit of our Master, nor 
is adapted to promote the end of his coming. Pure, and 
holy, and harmless was that zeal, that heavenly flame by which 
he was actuated. Like that which Moses saw in the bush, 
Exod. iii. 8, it burned, but consumed nothing. " They went 
to another village," says the evangelist. He pocketed this 
public affront, as the men of the world would say, and meanly 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 321 

left the insult unrevenged. Had the Samaritans deserved 
this lenity and indulgence at his hands, or at the hands of the 
Jewish nation ? Far from it. But his inquiry was not what 
they deserved, but what it became him to do ; what suited 
the cause of piety, humanity, and universal love, in which he 
was engaged. The question, " Have they deserved this fa 
vour ?" used in the way it has been of late, savours very little 
of the disciple of him who said, " If ye love them which love 
you, what reward have ye ? do not even the publicans the 
same ? and if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more 
than others ?" Matt. v. 46, 47. 

It is remarkable, that among the many slanders cast upon 
our Lord by his enemies, one of them was, that he was a Sa 
maritan. Calumny, an insidious liar, seeks always, in order 
to gain credit to her lies, to give them some sort of connexion 
with truth ; for this renders them more efficacious in imposing 
on the rabble. Somewhat of this artifice appears in all the 
aspersions thrown upon our Lord. It was then impossible 
that, from such a people, his open disapprobation of the viru 
lence with which they spoke of Samaritans, and the inhu 
manity which they harboured in their hearts against them, 
should not draw upon him that ignominious epithet. And 
if things proceed but a little longer with us in the train they 
have been in of late, may we not expect to see every man of 
moderation amongst us, who values a conformity to the spirit 
and precepts of his Master more highly than the blind ap 
plause of the deluded multitude, branded as a Papist, or at 
least a friend of Popery ? 

Some have proceeded so far, as was lately observed by an 
honourable gentleman in the House of Commons, as to pub 
lish inflammatory pamphlets, recommending the dissolution 
of all the bonds of society with Papists. The author seems 
to have taken the Jewish treatment of the Samaritans, which 
our Lord so plainly reprobates, for his model. I freely own 
my model is the reverse of his : It is the disposition and sen 
timents or Jesus Christ. I am glad to find, that those who 
have assumed the title of Friends of the Protestant Interest, 
(however much I disapprove their conduct in other respects,) 
have, with marks of disapprobation, disclaimed the unchris- 



322 ADDRESS TO THE 

tian performance. In regard to the writer, my first and 
most earnest wish is, that, by the blessing of God, he may 
arrive at the knowledge of Christianity, and become a Chris 
tian himself; for hitherto his knowledge has gone no deeper 
than the surface. And if that wish cannot be obtained, my 
second is, that he may no longer dishonour the name of Pro 
testant, if he bear that name, but turn Papist altogether, of 
which he is more than two-thirds already, and these two- 
thirds not the most amiable part of the character. 

But to return: If, with respect to retaliation, such were the 
maxims of our Lord Jesus Christ, as has been represented, 
and such was the pattern given by him, can we, who profess 
to be his disciples, imagine that these ought to have no in 
fluence in determining our conduct ? Had the apostle Peter 
any meaning, or were they mere words of course that he used, 
in telling us that we are specially called to the imitation of 
Christ, " who, when he was reviled, reviled not again ; when 
he suffered, he threatened not, but committed himself to him 
that judgeth righteously ?" 1 Pet. ii. 21, &c. Was it meant 
to serve for a lesson to us, or as a vain boast of his own virtue, 
and that of his fellow-apostles, that Paul exclaimed, " Being 
reviled, we bless ; being persecuted, we suffer it ; being de 
famed, we entreat?" 1 Cor. iv. 13. But perhaps they did so, 
because they were then weak, and could do nothing better ! 
They could not then retaliate in so effectual a manner as to 
answer their purpose, and therefore thought it prudent to 
submit, and make the best of the circumstances which they 
could not remedy ! I have heard that some Popish casuists 
when pushed by adversaries who contrasted their methods of 
propagating the faith with those of the apostles, have replied 
in this manner : but I should be sorry tp think that any Pro 
testant were capable of adopting a casuistry which tarnishes, 
or rather annihilates, the most shining virtues of the saints 
and martyrs of Jesus, and renders their example of little or 
no significancy to us. 

Thus, I hope, it has been made sufficiently evident, that 
neither the example nor the precepts, either of Christ, the 
divine author of the evangelical institution, or of his apostles, 
authorise the use of the sword or any such carnal weapons for 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 323 

the advancement of religion ; that they fortify our minds with 
meekness, faith, and patience to bear, but in no case permit 
us to inflict persecution, not even in requital of that which 
we ourselves have formerly been made to suffer ; that the 
necessary consequence of such unsanctified measures is to sub 
vert the power, for the sake of establishing the form of godli 
ness, and to make us sacrifice the spirit of our religion that 
charity which animates the whole to a mere lifeless figure. 



CHAPTER II. 

The Conclusions to which sound Policy would lead us, in regard 
to the Toleration of Papists. 

As to the propriety, considered in a political light, of giving 
such a toleration to Papists in Scotland, as has been already 
granted in England and Ireland, I must observe, in the first 
place, that this is a point the decision of which belongs pro 
perly to the legislature. To me it appears particularly im 
proper in ecclesiastical judicatories to meddle with it. It is 
a question solely regarding the safety of the body politic. If 
the constitution will not be endangered by such a measure, 
the principles of reason, and consequently of sound policy, 
and also the principles of Christianity, as has been shown, 
lead us to conclude that it ought to be adopted ; otherwise, 
not. Now the question, in regard to the danger of the con 
stitution, is surely of the department of the estates of the 
kingdom assembled in Parliament. And though every little 
borough corporation, parish meeting, society of artificers and 
others, corporate and not corporate, weavers, cobblers, porters, 
&c. &c., presume that they are wise enough to direct the 
King, Lords, and Commons, and that they themselves under 
stand better what concerns the interest, security, and govern 
ment of the nation, this absurd conduct cannot hurt such 
societies. They have no reputation to lose. Great allowances 
ought to be made, and will be made, by superiors, for their 
folly and ignorance. But would it become the supreme judi- 
catory and representative of this national church, in imita- 



324* ADDRESS TO THE 

tion of such examples, to step out of their line, and, without 
the most urgent necessity, to obtrude upon the legislative 
body their advice unasked? Nothing, in my opinion, would 
more effectually lessen the dignity of that venerable court. 
There is but one case in which I conceive there would be 
any propriety in such a measure; and of this I shall take 
notice afterwards. 

But some will object, " Why do you talk of going beyond 
our line ? Are not our ecclesiastical assemblies the natural 
guardians of our religion ? Who then so proper as they to 
give warning of the danger, and to use the precautions which 
ought to be employed in order to prevent it or ward it off? " 
I do not know precisely what meaning ye affix to the word 
guardians ; but in one sense I certainly admit, that both our 
pastors and our ecclesiastical judicatories are guardians in 
their several spheres. But this implies no more than that, 
when they apprehend danger, they ought to double their 
diligence in using the spiritual weapons above taken notice 
of, which the gospel supplies them with, for defending the 
people against seduction of every kind ; and that, if there 
has been any remissness in discharging the ministerial duties 
in time past, there may be more vigilance and greater exer 
tions in time to come. But their guardianship, I imagine, 
never extended so far as to entitle them, from any fancied 
necessity, to counteract the very spirit of their religion, and, 
for their Master s service, to oppose alike his precepts and 
example. Yet such is manifestly the nature of that recourse 
to the secular arm, so strenuously argued for by some ; a 
recourse which originated among Papists, and would have 
been left with Papists, if Protestants had been in all respects 
consistent with themselves.* 

But, however improper it may be in our judicatories, as 
such, to interfere with the legislature in this affair, we may 
be permitted, as individuals in this land of liberty, for the 

* Short View, Rem. iii. " The very name of religious toleration is justly dear to 
every Protestant. 1 He must be very shallow who does not perceive, that, with such 
Protestants as these writers, it is then only the name that is dear. " The idea of 
persecution for conscience sake is most odious and detestable." Qu, Have they 
expected to be read by none but fools ? 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 2 

sake of quieting the minds of well-meaning people, freely to 
canvass the question of the expediency of the projected tole 
ration. This is the privilege, if used discreetly, of all British 
subjects, in regard to public measures. I shall, therefore, 
with all due deference to my superiors, submit my sentiments 
on this head to the candid examination of the reader. 

It has been said, and very justly, that in every state, as in 
every individual, there is a right of self-preservation, which 
implies, amongst other things, that of protecting itself against 
violence offered, either from without or from within, from 
foreign hostile states or from its own seditious and corrupt 
members, and consequently of repelling force by force. It 
has been urged further, that it is the duty of the magistrate, 
who is the trustee, and consequently the servant of the state, 
not only to defend the community when attacked, but to 
watch for its safety, and, by every just method which the 
constitution empowers him to use, that is, as far as his trust 
extends, to prevent every danger which may be foreseen, as 
well as to remove that which is present. Both positions are, 
in my opinion, undeniable. 

Now on these, and on these only, is founded the magis 
trate s title to interfere with religious sects. Opinion is na 
turally beyond the jurisdiction of magistracy, whose proper 
object is public peace or national prosperity. As this cannot 
be injured or interrupted by men otherwise than by their 
actions, these are strictly all that are immediately cognizable 
by civil judicatories. As however it is unquestionable, that 
opinion has great influence on practice, so the open profes 
sion of such opinions as are manifestly subversive of the na 
tural or civil rights of the society, or of the rights of indivi 
dual members of the society, is undoubtedly to be regarded as 
an overt act which falls under the cognizance of the magis 
trate. It is only in this view that opinion ought ever to be 
held as coming under his jurisdiction. Considered in a religi 
ous view, as true or false, orthodox or heterodox, and conse 
quently as affecting our spiritual and eternal interests, it is 
certainly not of the department of the secular powers. Yet 
this distinction has not always been observed. And those in 
power, from considerations of a spiritual nature, which were 

x 2 



326 ADDRESS TO THE 

totally without their province, have thought themselves bound 
by the most sacred ties, to do all they could for the encour 
agement of their own opinions, because supposed to be sound, 
and for the suppression of every opinion as unsound, which 
stood opposed to them. 

Hence that spirit of intolerance which has for many cen 
turies proved the bane of Christendom, and which still con 
tinues the bane of many countries in Europe, as well as in 
other quarters of the globe. Nothing can be more evident 
than that, if the magistrate is entitled, nay obliged, by all the 
weight of his authority, to crush opinions merely because 
erroneous, and conceived by him pernicious to the soul, this 
obligation must be inherent in the office of magistracy, and 
consequently incumbent on every magistrate. Now, as his 
only immediate rule for what he is bound to cherish, and 
what to crush, is, and can be no other than his own opinions, 
and (the magistrate having no more claim than private per 
sons to infallible direction) as the same variety of sentiments 
may be, nay in different ages and nations has been, in those 
of this rank as in those of any other ; it will be found, on 
this hypothesis, the duty of rulers to suppress and persecute 
in one country, and at one period, what it is the duty of 
rulers in another country, or even in the same country at 
another period, to cherish and protect. This consequence, 
how absurd, soever, is fairly deducible from the aforesaid 
principle, and ought therefore to be held a sufficient demon 
stration of the absurdity of that principle. One of the many 
unhappy consequences which has flowed from the iniquitous 
but general practice of acting in conformity to that false 
tenet is, that the minds of parties, even those whose differ 
ences in opinion are merely speculative, and could never, if 
left to themselves, have affected the peace of society, have 
been exasperated against one another. Jealousy and envy 
have arisen, and been fostered by mutual injuries. Every 
sect has been led to view in every other a rival and an enemy, 
a party from which, if raised to power, it would have every 
thing to dread. And as this almost equally affects both sides, 
each has played the tyrant in its turn. As men s conduct is 
influenced more by passion than by cool reflection, all have 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 327 

been very slow in discovering the falsity of the principle, 
the magistrate s right of interfering, when there is no visible 
danger to the state. This right, though sometimes contro 
verted by the weaker party, the prevalent sect has always 
affirmed and defended, thinking itself entitled to a mono-, 
poly of the principle, as being alone, in its own account, on 
the side of truth. The remembrance too of injuries received, 
instead of opening their eyes, and showing them the ruinous 
consequences of that radical error, has but served to rivet 
them in it, and make them avail themselves of it in their turn. 
Nay, so inconsistent a creature is man ! those who but a 
little before strenuously maintained the right of private judg 
ment, are no sooner raised to power, than they obstinately 
refuse that right to others. As they have been accustomed 
to look on the other party as enemies, and have been badly 
treated by them, they think they, derive hence an additional 
right to persecute them from the law of retaliation. 

This, I acknowledge, renders religious sects, in another 
view, an object of attention to the magistrate. A party whose 
avowed principles, considered by themselves, have nothing 
hostile to society, may from its strength and habitual enmity 
to the predominant sect, endanger the public peace. Hence 
it may happen, that civil governors, though perfectly indif 
ferent which of two sects they shall favour, may find it in 
compatible with the safety of the state to give equal counte 
nance to both : Perfect equality, where there is reciprocal 
hatred, could not long subsist, without giving rise to reci 
procal hostilities. The utmost vigilance could not always 
prevent this effect, which might, in the end, overturn the 
constitution. But where the public tranquillity has been 
long the sole object of the magistrate, there is hardly any 
risk of his adopting those measures which cause men s minds 
to rankle, and produce in their breasts that most unlovely 
and unchristian disposition one towards another. 

It is admitted, that when the public peace is in danger, it 
is his duty to interpose. Sedition or rebellion is not entitled 
to take shelter in religious sentiments, nor can the plea of 
liberty of conscience justly avail any man, for invading the 
liberty or property, sacred or civil, of another. So much for 

11 



ADDRESS TO THE 

what appears to be the original rights of the civil power in 
what concerns sects in religion. It must be owned, however, 
that there are many particular circumstances, which, when 
they occur, ought, in a great measure, to restrain the exer 
tion of a power otherwise warrantable. When parties are 
already formed, and of long continuance, though their funda 
mental principles be unfriendly to the rights of society, their 
numbers, and weight, and other considerations, may render 
an indulgence, otherwise unmerited, the more eligible mea 
sure, because in its consequences the less evil. It may how 
ever be remarked, in passing, that though there be several 
prudential considerations which may render it proper to ex 
tend favour to those whose tenets, or temper, or both, show 
that they but ill deserve it, no consideration can give the 
magistrate a right to prosecute any party whose principles, 
viewed in a political light, are nowise unfriendly to the rights 
of their fellow-citizens, or of the state, and whose disposition 
and conduct is peaceable and inoffensive. 

Now, to apply the principles above laid down to the case in 
hand ; what shall we say of the tenets of Papists in regard to 
the secular powers ? Are they, or are they not friendly to 
civil government in general, or to the present government 
of this island in particular ? As to the first of these questions, 
all Papists, it must be owned, acknowledge a certain obedi 
ence to be due to a foreign and independent power, the Pope. 
And though this, by some of them, (for they are not unani 
mous,) is said to be only in spirituals, yet, in matters of ju 
risdiction, it has never been possible to ascertain the precise 
boundary between spirituals and temporals. Nor can it be 
denied that, in doubtful cases, superstition inclines strongly 
to favour the claims of the former. This, if it should be 
an error, the superstitious always consider as the safer error 
of the two. And in regard to the second question, they were 
doubtless, till of late, in this part of the island, generally dis 
affected to the present royal family. Nor could any person 
wonder that it was so, considering the cause of the abdication 
of James VII. grandfather to the Pretender. 

As to the aspect which their tenets bear to civil society for 
it is neither in a religious nor in a moral view, but solely in a 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 329 

political, that I am here considering them it must be acknow 
ledged that to social union their principles are nowise adverse. 
Witness those kingdoms and states in Europe, where the 
whole, or the greater part, of the people are Popish. It has 
been remarked, however, that the Romish religion is not 
equally favourable to a free government as the Protestant. 
But though there be something like a servility of spirit in 
implicit faith, or the belief of infallibility in any human tri 
bunal, which is more congenial to political slavery, it cannot 
be said that the former is incompatible with civil freedom. 
This country, as well as others, was free, even when Roman 
Catholic ; and it would not be just to deny, that there have 
been of that communion eminent patrons of the liberties of 
the people. 

As to the aspect with which the party in general (I speak 
not of individuals) eyes other sects, it is certainly very un 
favourable. Her doctrine concerning the spiritual state, both 
here and hereafter, of all who dare dispute her decisions, 
whom she denominates heretics and schismatics, does not 
tend to cherish affection towards them. In this, however, 
she is not singular. The case is the same with all fanatical 
sects. But as temper is not formed entirely by principle, 
but is often as much the result of habit and accidental cir 
cumstances, there are great differences in this respect in dif 
ferent places. In those Popish countries where they have 
none of any different sect living among them, and little occa 
sion to know any thing of such but by the representations of 
their priests, it cannot be doubted that the people put Pro 
testants almost in the same class with demons. They con 
sider them as a sort of devils incarnate. I must acknowledge, 
that in those Protestant countries, or those parts of Protestant 
countries where they have no Papists, and consequently know 
nothing of them but by hearsay, their judgment is equally 
unfavourable. But in those nations which have long enjoyed 
the blessings of peace and toleration, where Protestants and 
Papists live together as in Holland, where both are protected, 
and neither is allowed to injure the other they come soon to 
consider each other as human creatures and brethren, and to 
contract mutual friendships and intimacies, scarcely minding 



330 



ADDRESS TO THE 



the difference of religious sentiments. And even in this 
country, it is notorious, that in those parts where Papists are 
least known, they are most hated and dreaded. There is 
nothing which more strongly recommends toleration to a 
benevolent heart, than that it has a powerful tendency to hu 
manize the tempers of the most opposite sects, and conciliate 
them to a friendly intercourse of good offices to one another. 
This serves to lay the mind open to conviction, by removing 
gently and gradually those rooted prejudices which are the 
greatest obstruction to it. 

Upon the whole, the question comes to this, Whether so 
inconsiderable a party, (for both in number of people and in 
property, their proportion is so very small as not to be worth 
mentioning), of such a character as is above delineated, (and 
I have endeavoured to do it with the utmost impartiality, 
neither exaggerating nor extenuating their faults), can be of 
any danger to the constitution of this country ? It ought 
always to be taken into consideration, that it is not proposed 
that they be admitted into any, even the lowest offices of 
magistracy or legislation, or any place of public trust. It 
ought also to be remembered, that if at any time any unfore 
seen evil or danger should arise from that quarter, the legis 
lature, of which they can make no part, and on which, con 
sidering their very great inferiority in all respects, they can 
have no conceivable influence^ have it always in their power 
to give a timely check to it. 

In regard to the malign aspect of Popery towards sectaries, 
as she calls them, whom doubtless she considers as rebellious 
children ; has not experience, in this and other countries, 
fully evinced, that even Papists can be softened by good 
usage ; that lenity and toleration deaden the asperity which 
the bare name of heretic (till they become familiarized to 
their persons) raises in their minds ? And as to the disaffec 
tion of which they are suspected to the reigning family, why 
should we judge more harshly of them on this head, than of 
those Protestants amongst us, much more numerous, who 
have been known formerly to have the same attachments to 
the Stuart family with them? I do not speak thus to raise 
an odium against any party : I would be the last man in 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 331 

Britain to attempt it. Besides, it is evident to every one who 
reflects, that we can have nothing to fear from our nonjurors, 
a party which has been sensibly declining for many years 
past : I only mention them for the sake of observing, that if 
we admit that many families, once in that way, have, within 
these last thirty years, changed their political creed, it does 
not seem reasonable to suspect, that many Papists, in the 
same time, may not have changed theirs. 

In some respects the change is less to Papists than to them. 
The divine right of monarchical government on the patriar 
chal plan, as it is called, and consequently the indefeasible 
hereditary right of the abdicated family to the crown of these 
realms, is no principle of Popery. The attachment of Pa 
pists was a personal attachment, or at most a consequence of 
their attachment to the cause for which that family suffered. 
But in regard to forms of government, or particular gover 
nors, their religion leaves them at full liberty. A Papist may 
be a republican, or a friend to monarchy, absolute or limited. 
In these matters he is no way confined by his religion. And 
that he should change in an attachment not founded in prin 
ciple, is nothing extraordinary. He may be convinced that 
prescription takes place in government, and, for the peace of 
society, ought to take place, as well as in other matters : that 
without admitting this principle, there would be few or no 
legal rulers now existing in the world, as most sovereignties 
may be traced backwards to manifest usurpation. Whatever 
judgment therefore he may form of the Revolution, there is 
no inconsistency in his being a loyal subject to the present 
royal family. And in regard to such as shall take the oath 
prescribed by the Act of Parliament for England, or the like 
oath proposed for Papists here, I shall only say that it would, 
be extremely uncharitable to suppose them all perjured. 

But as some things have been plausibly urged against the 
credibility of their oaths, it may be worth while to bestow on 
this point a little more attention. It is said, " The dispens 
ing power of the Pope, his infallibility, the principle that no 
faith is to be kept with heretics, all serve to invalidate their 
promises and oaths, especially when given to those whom they 
regard as heretics." That the Popes have claimed such a 



332 ADDRESS TO THE 

dispensing power in loosing the obligation of the most so 
lemn vows and contracts, and that many people have been 
blind enough to credit this most arrogant and impious claim, 
it would be to give the lie to all history, even the most au 
thentic, to deny. Such also is the power they have claimed 
and exercised of deposing kings and emperors, and of loos 
ing their subjects from their allegiance. Such also are their 
pretensions to infallibility, their corrupt maxims, subversive 
of faith given to heretics, in all which they have been sup 
ported by hireling and prostitute writers among the clergy, 
friars, canonists, and expectants of preferment in the church. 
But to say thus much is one thing, and to say that these 
points are received universally as doctrines of the church, is 
another. We ought to be just even to enemies. 

In regard to the last of the above maxims, that faith is not 
to be kept to heretics, though it was never asserted, in so 
many words, by any council, it is unquestionable, that the 
council of Constance came so near giving it their sanction, 
in the decree they pronounced for the ease of the emperor s 
conscience, whom they had seduced to act a most perfidious 
part, as well as in the whole of their infamous proceedings 
with regard to Huss, that though it cannot be called an esta 
blished principle of their religion, it has received that coun 
tenance from the spiritual powers among them, which fur 
nishes but too good a handle for the clamours and jealousies 
of Protestants. And I will acknowledge, in passing, that as 
I could put no confidence, where religion is concerned, in 
the faith of a man who would vindicate a procedure so sub 
versive of that security in engagements which is the most 
essential bond of society, so I can never consider that man as 
dangerous, who, in this age and country, has the egregious 
folly to attempt the vindication. But in general, when re 
course is had to experience, I am satisfied there is no ground 
to consider it as a maxim so prevalent in that party, as to 
destroy all faith in their promises. If its prevalence were so 
great, what hindered them in England from taking the oath 
of supremacy, or the formula in Scotland? These would 
have secured them against many inconveniences to which 
their religion exposed them. And if there be some instances 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 333 

of their swearing falsely from the temptation of interest, can 
we say that perjury is absolutely unexampled amongst our 
selves ? It is well known that, in England, Papists had it in 
their power to relieve themselves, by means of certain oaths, 
before the passing of the late act. But those oaths were 
different from that now enacted. Now, a man who thinks 
he may take oaths, and be under no obligation, or who 
thinks he has it in his power to obtain a dispensation from 
that obligation, has no reason to make any distinction be 
tween one oath and another. The dispensing power serves 
equally for all. Now, that those in England, who on no con 
sideration could be induced to take the oaths formerly re 
quired, do not hesitate to take that required by the late act, 
is evidence sufficient to a reasonable person, that they consider 
this as what they may with a good conscience take, but not 
the former. 

" But how is it possible," some will object, " that they 
can conscientiously abjure so many high prerogatives of the 
sovereign pontiff, the successor of St. Peter, and vicar of 
Jesus Christ ? Such are, his dispensing power, his supremacy 
in temporals, and his infallibility ; since it is unquestionable, 
that these prerogatives he has both claimed and pretended 
to exercise ?" To this I can only answer, that it is a known 
fact that Roman Catholics themselves are not unanimous in 
regard to the justice of those claims. For example, it is a 
tenet universally held by them, that the church is infallible ; 
but in the explanation of this tenet they differ exceedingly, 
as well as in the directions they give where we ought to seek 
for her unerring oracles. Some send us to the Pope with 
whom alone, according to them, this amazing privilege is 
lodged ; some to the Pope and ecumenical council acting in 
conjunction ; some to the council, though without the Pope ; 
some to the church universal, that is, to whatever opinions 
universally obtain in those they term catholic countries. 

So notorious it is, that even among Papists there are that 
are more, and there are that are less, papistical. Accord 
ingly, some even of their writers denominate those Pontificii 
Papists, by way of distinction, who defend all the exorbitant 
claims of the papacy. Nay, so certain it is that the Romanists 



334 



ADDRESS TO THE 



themselves are greatly divided on this head, that the famous 
council of Constance above referred to, as well as the council 
of Pisa that preceded it, asserted its own superiority above 
the Pope in the most express terms, and indeed acted in an 
entire conformity to this doctrine.* It is not just, there 
fore, (for our religion does not permit us to speak deceitfully 
even for God, Job xiii. 7,) to talk of the Pope s infallibility, 
dispensing power in respect of oaths, and the lawfulness of 
perfidy to heretics, as doctrines universally received in the 
church of Rome. These, and several such absurdities, will 
be found, from a proper attention to ecclesiastic history, to 
have ebbed and flowed, in that church, with knowledge and 
ignorance. In proportion as knowledge increased, those 
opinions lost credit; as ignorance increased, they gained 
credit. Whatever influence authority may have on weak 
minds, in making speculative dogmas, however nonsensical, 
be received with veneration, there is a principle in human 
nature, which, till the mind is wholly immersed in supersti 
tion and darkness, will effectually prevent such moral absur 
dities from being generally assented to. Nay, a principle of 

* I cannot help observing here a ridiculous blunder in the writers of the Short 
View, &c. , Rem. ii. Speaking of the condemnation of Huss, they add, " to the 
everlasting disgrace of an infallible Pope," &c. They have certainly derived 
all their knowledge of that affair from Dr. W. A. D. s letter to Mr. G. H. This 
should prove a caveat to those who pick up their information in this manner, 
not to venture a single step beyond their authority. That council acknowledged 
no Pope at the time that Huss was condemned. Pope John XXIII., who 
called them together, they deposed, on an accusation of the most shocking crimes, 
concerning which I shall only observe, that heresy and schism were in the num 
ber. Of the other two pretenders to the popedom, (for there had been no fewer 
than three ever since the council of Pisa,) neither of whom they acknowledged, 
Gregory XII. resigned, and Benedict XIII. they afterwards deposed, and then 
proceeded to the election of Martin V. The council of Constance are justly 
chargeable with many things atrocious and tyrannical; but of the acknowledg 
ment of the Pope s infallibility they are entirely guiltless. The blunders of these 
writers in reasoning are not less remarkable than their misrepresentations of fact, 
and misapplications of Scripture. Let it serve as one out of many instances of 
their extraordinary mode of arguing about oaths. An oath, say they, Rem. iv., 
renouncing certain principles, implies that they were the man s principles before ; 
and as an oath alters not one s principles, they are his principles still. By this 
wonderful method, if a man take the oath of allegiance, he cannot give surer 
evidence that he is disloyal, and his taking the abjuration demonstrates him a 
Jacobite. 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 335 

honour, as well as a sense of right, go far to check the pro 
gress of those disgraceful maxims. 

I shall only add to the ahove remarks, that even in regard 
to those whose conformity to the civil establishment may not 
be so cordial as could be wished, (for that there may be some 
such instances who can deny ?) it will still have this good 
effect, viewed in a political light, that it will be a check both 
on their actions and on their conversation. Principles openly 
and solemnly abjured, it may be supposed that men, espe 
cially those of a sacred character, will, for their own sakes, 
not be forward to avow, and still less to inculcate. There 
is therefore here a real accession of strength to the civil esta 
blishment, without the smallest prejudice that I can perceive 
to the Protestant interest. 

But the incompetency even of the British Parliament for 
making such a change in the laws wherein religion is con 
cerned, has been boldly asserted. The establishment of the 
present presbyterian church of Scotland was declared, January 
1707, a fundamental article of the union of the two king 
doms, not to be altered afterwards even by the joint legisla 
ture of both. In the act declaring this, there is a clause 
perpetually confirming the 5th Act Parl. 1690, which was 
the act establishing Presbytery, and ratifying the Confession 
of Faith. In this there is a general ratification of all former 
acts made against Popery. But the acts now proposed to be 
in part repealed, could never be comprehended in that clause, 
because they were not former but posterior acts. The writers 
of the Short View* argue in a way entirely their own. " The 
acts," say they, " directly relating to this one, and conse 
quently ratified with it, and unalterably established, are chiefly 
three, Act 2d, Parl. 1700, Act 3d, 1702, Act 2d, 1703." 
Now that these acts are related to Act 5th, 1 690, as they all 
relate to religion, nobody will dispute ; but that they were 
ratified by an act ten or twelve years before they were made, 
these gentlemen have the whole honour of discovering. Let 
it be observed, that these acts, though posterior to the Act 
1690, were prior to the Act 1707. Yet this act, for the 
security of religion at the union, passes over those more 

* Rem. i. 



336 



ADDRESS TO THE 



recent acts in relation to Popery, and only declares perpetual 
an act made so many years before them ; thereby plainly 
leaving the intermediate acts to the wisdom of the British 
legislature, to confirm, repeal, or alter at any time, as they 
should find expedient, and only giving perpetuity to the act 
that first, after the Revolution, established the Presbyterian 
form of government, and ratified the Confession of Faith. 
This argument (shall I call it ?) by which these writers say 
modestly (( their averment is surely proved to a demonstra 
tion," I have been the more particular in exposing, because, 
in a certain event, it is capable of being made a very bad 
use of among the people. 

" But whatever be in the competency of Parliament, must 
not the proposed repeal be highly prejudicial to the Protes 
tant interest?" say those who consider themselves as the 
patrons and friends of that interest. " Will it not throw 
down all our fences, open the door to Jesuits, seminary 
priests, &c. and give liberty to the open profession and exer 
cise of Romish idolatries, as well as give full scope to their 
vile artifices for the perversion of our youth ?" All this 
appears specious to those who do not reflect, and consider 
things severally and attentively. First, they may profess 
their religion openly and safely. Be it so. I cannot see how 
that circumstance alone can contribute to their increase. The 
Quakers (a most harmless race) have long enjoyed that pri 
vilege ; yet it does not appear that they have been increasing. 
I think the contrary has been the fact. But if one were to 
devise a method for giving consequence to those of that way, 
and producing a change favourable to their increase, he 
could not devise a better than to get all those laws against. 
Papists enacted against Quakers, especially if, by high pre 
miums, wretches were bribed to turn informers, and con 
tribute to the execution of the laws. 

The bulk of mankind are more influenced by their pas 
sions in forming their opinions, than by reason. Render 
people objects of our compassion, bring us once heartily to 
sympathize with them as with persons oppressed, not for any 
crime, but for what they cannot remedy, their opinions, and 
ye have done a great deal to make us turn proselytes, and go 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 337 

over to those whom we cannot help pitying as persons suffer 
ing under the greatest cruelty and injustice. If the sufferers 
should display some patience and fortitude, they will need 
no stronger arguments to persuade spectators more remarkable 
for sensibility of heart than acuteness of understanding, that 
they must have truth upon their side. They will reverence 
them as saints. Wo to that nation, whose laws every sensible 
and honest heart must be convinced there is greater virtue in 
disobeying than in obeying ! This is the case with persecuting 
laws, though the persecutors should have truth upon their 
side. If men, through fear of the punishments ye enact, 
belie their conscience, and in so doing sin against God, ab 
jure what they believe, and profess what they think damnable 
errors, ye compel them to destroy their peace of mind, make 
shipwreck of faith, and of a good conscience. They sin hei 
nously ; " for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." And ye 
legislators and judges, authors, promoters, and executors of 
such iniquitous laws, ye who ought to be the terror of evil 
doers and the praise of them that do well, ye are their temp 
ters, seducers, and corrupters. The generality of men have 
a feeling of this, though they cannot reason upon it or explain 
it ; and such a feeling has great influence among the people. 
The only way I know of preventing this, is by steeling the 
heart against all compassion, resolving steadily to persist, and 
stick at nothing, till the end is attained. " There is nothing 
so ridiculous," says a late writer,* " in respect of policy, as a 
moderate and half-way persecution. It only frets the sore ; 
it raises the ill-humour of mankind, excites the keener spirits, 
moves indignation in beholders, and sows the very seeds of 
schism in men s bosoms. A resolute and bold-faced perse 
cution leaves no time or scope for these engendering distem 
pers or gathering ill-humours. It does the work at once, 
by extirpation, banishment, or massacre." It is indeed a 
fact well authenticated by history and experience, that per 
secution can never do service to a cause, unless it be carried 
the utmost length possible, as in Spain and Portugal. Now, 
if such a thing were practicable in this country, (as, blessed 

* Charact, Mis. ii. chap. 3. 



338 ADDRESS TO THE 

be God, it is not), will any Protestant stand forth and say it 
would be desirable ? 

Yet that any thing less does unspeakable hurt to the cause 
it was meant to serve, might, if necessary, be verified by a 
cloud of witnesses such as the first planting of Christianity, 
the reformation both abroad and at home. I shall however 
at this time go no farther for evidence than to what happened 
in this country in the last century. When the episcopal form 
of church government was established at the Restoration, if 
our civil and ecclesiastic rulers had had any share of mode 
ration, prudence, or common humanity, the minds of men 
would, without great difficulty, have been pretty generally 
conciliated to the establishment then made, as neither in doc 
trine nor in form of worship, (for they used no liturgy), could 
the difference be called material. But the spirits of our go 
vernors at that time were such as would bear no contradiction, 
and brook no delay. Their immediate recourse was to penal 
statutes, the first thing always thought of by men of strong 
passions, but weak judgment. Statutes were accordingly 
enacted, breathing vengeance against all who would not con 
form in every thing to the ecclesiastical model that had been 
erected. They too pleaded the right of retaliating. And 
it would be doing them great injustice to deny, that the con 
duct of those who had preceded them, had, on this head, 
supplied them with plenty of matter. A persecution ac 
cordingly was commenced, and furiously carried on. Num 
bers of unhappy men, (infatuated, as some would call them), 
who never meant to be criminal, but who could not be brought 
to think it their duty to profess, through fear of human 
punishment, what they did not believe, were daily sacrificed 
to the rage of their still more infatuated rulers. What was the 
consequence ? Did they, by these means, stop the progress 
of schism, as they called it, and effect the so much desired 
uniformity ? Quite the reverse. The tyranny of the ruling 
powers alienated the minds of the people ; insomuch that, at 
the Revolution, wherever the persecution had been hottest, 
the friends of Presbytery were the most numerous : On the 
contrary, in those parts where the people had been blessed 
with pastors and rulers that were men of moderation and of 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 339 

a Christian spirit, there was a very general conformity to 
the established model. 

But it will be replied, " We do not seek to persecute; we 
desire only that things may continue as they are : Papists 
were not persecuted before the proposed repeal ; and we do 
not see why they should ask any indulgence beside what was 
so generally granted them." Is it not evident that the in 
dulgence they had was merely by connivance ? It was no 
legal toleration. And is it agreeable to any body to remain 
on so precarious a foot, and at the mercy of every body ? It 
must be owned that the law was rarely executed, in conse 
quence of the temper of the times, and the lenity of our go 
vernment. Yet there are some instances of its having been 
executed. And what Was the reason that it was not oftener ? 
It was the conviction which men have, when their minds are 
not inflamed by fanatic zeal, that the law was too severe, 
and, when self-defence does not render it absolutely neces 
sary, (which, God be thanked, is not our case,) not recon 
cilable with the principles either of humanity or of justice; 
it was, I say, this conviction that prevented its execution. 

Nay, so strongly do men seem to be persuaded of its injus 
tice, that many who are against the repeal declare solemnly 
that they would never give information against a Papist, or 
take any concern in the execution of that law. Now, if it 
was a just and necessary law, why startle at the execution, 
which ought to be esteemed a public service ? Why were not 
Papists not for any wilful or intended crime, but for what, 
through the misfortune of their education, (which might have 
been our own case,) they believed in their conscience to be 
their duty, why were they not informed on, dragged before 
the magistrate, stripped of their property, driven naked from 
their families and homes, banished into foreign countries to 
beg or shift for bread, it may be in their old age, among 
strangers, the best way they could ; and if they returned, why 
were they not hanged without mercy ? for this, we are told 
coolly, is unavoidable,* to make the law effectual. But if 
acting thus would be unjust, why suffer a law to remain in 
force, which, if it answer no other purpose, will at least an- 

* Short View : Note on the Extracts from King William s Act. 
Y 



340 ADDRESS TO THE 

swer this bad purpose of being a reproach to the nation and 
a severe retort against every Protestant, who, in arguing with 
a Papist, urges the different spirit of the two religions ? 

" But just or unjust," say some, " it is better to have it as 
a rod over their heads." That is, in other words, " Though 
we have no mind to do injustice at present, we wish to have 
it in our power to be unjust with impunity when we please, 
nay, to bribe others to be villains, (for the law gives a high 
reward to informers,) that those who have no religion at all, 
no sense of virtue or honour, who neither fear God nor 
regard man, may be tempted by avarice." Is this a law be 
coming a Christian nation ? Is it such as it would become 
the ministers of religion to interpose for either preserving or 
enforcing ? " Woe to him," saith the prophet, Hab. ii. 12, 
11 that establisheth a city by iniquity." And shall the city 
of God itself, his church, his cause, the cause of truth and 
purity, be established by such accursed means ? Are we Pro 
testants ? And do we say, " Let us do evil that good may 
come ?" Yet of such the apostle tells us, Rom. iii. 8, that 
their " damnation is just." I have ever been taught, as a 
Christian principle, and a Protestant principle, that a good 
cause ought to be promoted by lawful means only ; and that 
it was in the true spirit of Popery to think that the end would 
justify the means. We are now adopting all their maxims, 
and making them our own. We seem resolved that we shall 
have nothing on this head to reproach Papists with. A great 
outcry has been raised of late about the progress of Popery. 
I join in the complaint. I see her progress where I least 
expected it ; and I lament it heartily, the more especially as 
she comes in so questionable a shape. If we must have Popery, 
I would, above all things, have her retain her own likeness. 
The devil is never so dangerous as when he transforms him 
self into an angel of light. 

Besides, how grossly impolitic, as well as unjust, is the pro 
posed opposition ? If we have any regard to our Protestant 
brethren in Popish countries, shall we furnish the ruling 
powers there with a plausible pretext for persecuting them ? 
" See," say they, referring to the Presbyterian church of 
Scotland, " in what manner we should be treated, if these 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 341 

our countrymen of the same principles with them should ever 
arrive at power." This, we all know, is the common way of 
arguing. It is far from being a just way ; for a concurrence 
in doctrine does not necessarily imply a concurrence in the 
methods to be employed in defending it. But we need the 
less wonder that others should argue thus, when we argue 
thus ourselves. The Papists in Paris, about two hundred 
years ago, massacred the Parisian Protestants ; and the Papists 
in Ireland acted the like tragedy in the last century on Irish 
Protestants ; therefore we are entitled to punish for those 
execrable deeds the Papists of the present age in this country, 
however guiltless of those murders, however harmless in their 
life and conduct we have hitherto found them ; though we 
can charge them with no crime, but that they are Papists. 
It is said to have been a law amongst our clans in ages of 
barbarity, that when a person belonging to one clan mur 
dered a man belonging to another, the murderer, if found, 
was to be hanged as he deserved ; but if he could not be 
found, the first man of the same clan that could be found 
should be hanged in his stead. There is such a similarity 
in this to the mode of retaliation on sects, that both must 
certainly have sprung from the same source, the same original 
code of natural right ! 

But whencesoever this principle has arisen, it is certainly 
but too prevalent in most religious sects ; and, if we resolve 
to act upon it, we do what we can to establish persecution 
every where to the end of the world. We plead, that we 
persecute Papists because they persecute us ; and they plead, 
that they persecute us because we persecute them. Our 
conduct will at this time be the more unjustifiable, because 
not only in Protestant countries, but even in some Popish 
countries, the ruling powers are greatly relaxing in this 
respect. Shall we then give a check to their humanity, by 
teaching them, from our example, to account our brother 
Protestants a more pernicious and dangerous race than they 
formerly imagined them to be ? 

God forbid that I should put on a foot of equality the dis 
position of any in this country, with that of inquisitors and 
crusaders. I will not allow myself to think so badly even of 
the most violent. But I cannot avoid observing, that when 

Y 2 



ADDRESS TO THE 

once we are in this train with any adverse sect, it is impos 
sible to say how far we may think ourselves obliged to go. 
The same plea of necessity to render former measures effec 
tual, may carry us such lengths as in the beginning we should 
have looked on with horror. 

But to return : The repeal can never do hurt, because it 
is the repeal of a statute which seems, even in the judgment 
of our antagonists on this question, to have done no good. 
So far from occasioning the decrease of the number of Papists, 
they have been, we are told, increasing for many years back 
wards. And this perhaps is the first instance in which the 
inefficacy of a law has been used as an argument against the 
repeal of it. This act, though severe, is not severe enough 
to extirpate Papists ; at the same time it is much too severe, 
considering the sentiments and manners of the times, for any 
but persons of no character to assist in executing it. Thus 
it gives Papists all the advantage of a plausible plea of suffer 
ing persecution, without being materially hurt by actual per 
secution. In some other countries, where Romanists, though 
not of the establishment, have enjoyed for centuries a legal 
toleration, we do not hear of any clamours about their in 
crease, or of any dread of danger arising from them. Why 
then should not this nation, since we have so strong evidence 
that severity will not answer, be induced to make the experi 
ment of what may be effected by the more humane and more 
Christian-like policy of other nations ? In many instances, as 
has been observed by the best writers on jurisprudence, the 
unconscionable severity of laws has rendered them useless, 
nay made them serve to promote, instead of checking, the 
growth of those evils against which they are pointed. They 
make those very persons screen offenders, who would other 
wise assist in convicting them. So much in regard to the 
justice and expediency of the measure in general. 

I shall now take the freedom to consider a little, with all 
respect to my ecclesiastical superiors, the propriety of their 
interfering in this business. I have no right to lay down 
rules ; but, as a brother and fellow minister, I offer my opi 
nion on a case in which the cause of religion in general, and 
the character of ministers of the gospel in particular, are con- 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 343 

cerned. I have not the remotest wish that any regard may 
be paid to my judgment, further than is due to the reasons 
by which it is supported. It was observed before, that the 
question of the expediency or danger of the measure, in re 
spect of the public, is not properly of the department of our 
judicatories. The only question that can strictly be said to 
come under their cognizance as church courts, is that dis 
cussed in the former chapter, Whether the toleration or the 
persecution of such people, be most conformable to the spirit 
and laws of our holy religion ? There are extraordinary cases, 
in which, I acknowledge, it may be pardonable, perhaps 
commendable, in the pastors to step aside a little, for the 
sake of doing some signal service whereby the cause they are 
engaged in may be advanced, and the honour of the Master 
whom they serve promoted. Let us see whether an applica 
tion from the representative of this church, of the kind that 
was proposed at the last meeting of the General Assembly, 
and will, in all probability, be again moved at the ensuing, 
would answer these important ends. Waving the arguments 
already used, and which to me appear unanswerable, I shall 
only here advert to two things; first, to what suits the 
ministerial character to do ; and, secondly, to what will pro 
bably be the consequences of the measure proposed in the 
last Assembly, if it shall now be adopted. 

In regard to the former, it is the observation of an ingeni 
ous modern, that the magistrate and the pastor are both de 
nominated God s ministers, but in very different senses. The 
magistrate is the minister of divine justice ; the pastor is the 
minister of divine goodness and grace. A most just and per 
tinent observation. The former accordingly beareth not the 
sword in vain : the latter cometh announcing peace through 
Jesus Christ our Lord. The service he is engaged in is 
styled the ministry of reconciliation. The former operates 
chiefly by fear, being the terror of evil doers; the latter 
chiefly by love, in the display he makes of the tender mercies 
of God and the love of Jesus. There is a beauty in preserv 
ing consistency of character ; and, on the contrary, there is 
something singularly shocking to men whose taste is not 
totally depraved, in a gross violation of character, Sangui- 



344 ADDRESS TO THE 

nary measures are, on certain occasions, very suitable in the 
officer of justice : but it ill becomes the messenger of peace 
to breathe out, like Saul, the Pharisee (unconverted indeed, 
but not the less zealous,) threatenings and slaughter. The 
sense of what became a minister of the new covenant, a 
preacher of good-will to men, was so strong on the minds of 
the primitive Christians, that when our religion came first 
into favour with the magistrate, it was looked on universally 
as a becoming action in the ministers to use their good offices 
in behalf of an unhappy creature who had exposed himself 
to the stroke of public justice, wherever any favourable cir 
cumstances could be pleaded in extenuation of his crime. 
But in no case whatever was it thought suitable that he should 
interpose to call for vengeance. That the servant of the 
Prince of Peace should prove a peacemaker, mediator, and 
intercessor, was entirely consonant to the nature of his office ; 
but that he should interpose as an avenger, or as an instiga 
tor of others to vengeance, or to violent and vindictive mea 
sures, was considered as a practical denial of the Lord that 
bought him, who came not to destroy men s lives but to save 
them ; and as what suited more the character of that being 
whom they called the adversary and accuser of the brethren. 
If, by some means or other, our legislature had been in 
cited to think of imposing new restraints, or inflicting new 
pains and penalties on Papists, or on dissenters of any deno 
mination, it would have been excusable, nay, on account of 
the motive, might have been thought praiseworthy in the 
ministers of religion, to represent, with all due respect, that 
they hoped, by the use of arms more evangelical, the end 
might be attained, and the public sufficiently secured from 
danger. But the interposition proposed at present is of a 
very different kind. To what shall I compare it ? A culprit 
more unfortunate than criminal stands before his judge. The 
sword is unsheathed and ready to strike. Several humane 
persons intercede, mention every alleviating circumstance, 
propose taking security of the convict that he shall behave 
himself properly, and beg that the sword may again be 
sheathed. The magistrate relents, and is on the point of 
complying, when a person of a grave aspect interposes 1 , who, 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 345 

though he carry the olive branch, the ensign of peace, in his 
hand, with a countenance more stern than meek, to the sur 
prise of every body, cries to the officer of justice, What are 
you going to do ? No security can bind that wretch ; and no 
where can the sword of justice be sheathed at this time so 
properly as in his bowels ! This parable I leave to the re 
flection of my readers. 

I shall add a few words on the consequences of the appli 
cation. I admit that if made, it will possibly be successful, 
not from any conviction of the propriety of making it, or of 
the fitness of what is asked: But a flame, little to our credit, 
has been raised in the country ; and it may be thought that 
yielding to the humour, however reprehensible, and granting 
what is asked is a less evil than a positive refusal might 
prove, especially considering the state of public affairs at pre 
sent. But the question of greatest moment is, In what light 
will the application represent the spirit of our people in ge 
neral, and this national church in particular, to the consti 
tuent branches of the British senate ? It should be remem 
bered how different the fate of the like bill was in England, 
and even in Ireland, where that sect, with some colour of 
reason, might have been accounted dangerous. But here ! 
where comparatively they are so inconsiderable both in num 
ber and property 1 could say a great deal, but I forbear. 

I will not dissemble. I am both ashamed and grieved, that 
there should be occasion to say any thing on such a subject. 

In what light will our conduct appear, when contrasted 
with that of the English and Irish Bishops, whom it would be 
absurd as well as uncharitable to accuse of indifference in 
such a cause, and who, as members of the legislature, readily 
concurred in granting the relief desired in their countries ? 
Is it possible that any of us are simple enough to imagine, 
that, with judicious persons, the comparison will redound to 
our honour ? 

Yet amid so many grounds of mortification, I am happy to 
have it in my power to say, that in the last Assembly, a most 
respectable Assembly, and far the most numerous I ever wit 
nessed, (and I have witnessed many,) a motion for an appli 
cation of this nature was thrown out, as altogether improper 

4 



346 



ADDRESS TO THE 



and unbecoming, by a very great plurality of voices. It 
ought also to be attended to, that this happened when men 
had nothing to influence their judgment but the merits of the 
question ; not a single person, that I know of, having had the 
least knowledge of such a motion till it was made in the 
house. Tumultuous conventions and mobs and other lawless 
excesses had not then been artfully produced, to terrify those 
who could not be convinced. I had never before so distinct 
an idea of what is called in ecclesiastic history preaching a 
crusade ; at the same time I must regret, that I should ever 
have acquired additional knowledge on this subject from any 
thing to be seen in this Protestant land. 

I beg it may also be observed, that Popery is not the only 
adversary we have to struggle with. I do not speak of the op 
position we are exposed to from other sects much more nume 
rous : I speak of the infidelity, the scepticism, the open pro- 
faneness and contempt of all religion, that so much abound in 
this age and country, a far more formidable foe than Popery. 
Is it a matter of no consequence to us, how our conduct may 
affect this evil, either by adding strength to it, and furnishing 
libertines with new argum ents for fortifying themselves in 
their impiety, or by acting such a part as must tend to silence 
and confute them ? It is well known that persons of this 
stamp are the declared enemies of our order. Let us try to 
draw instruction from the reproaches, and even the aspersions 
of our enemies. Amongst other things they arraign all cler 
gymen, of whatever sect, for a pride which takes fire at the 
least contradiction, for an ambition or lust of power which 
makes all rivalry insupportable ; and, as the natural conse 
quence of these, for a persecuting spirit, which all possess 
against the common enemy, and every single sect possesses 
against every other. The common maxim of these men is, 
" Priests of all religions are the same." That the character 
which they draw, is done with much exaggeration and male*- 
volence, no impartial person will deny. Nor will it be denied 
by such, on the other hand, that the unamiable spirit too 
often displayed by those who ought to have been not only 
defenders, but patterns of religion, has given too great scope 
for such accusations. 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 347 

It was lately proposed in Sweden, a Lutheran, and there 
fore a Protestant country, to give a toleration to all dissenters. 
This measure would have chiefly affected Calvinists, and next 
to them, if I mistake not, Papists. The clergy opposed it : 
But, as the other estates of the kingdom approved the mea 
sure, it took place. Should we now, like the Swedish clergy, 
interpose in order to frustrate the gracious intentions of the 
legislature, would it not contribute to confirm the irreligious 
in their errors ? Could we be surprised that they should ex 
claim in triumph, " It is precisely as we thought. They are 
all the same thing at bottom ; Papist, Lutheran, Calvim st, 
&c. &c. Their differences consist in a few trifling ceremo 
nies, or unintelligible logomachies, but the same spirit per 
vades the whole, the same pride, the same intolerance, the 
same inclination to domineer, and to crush all that oppose 
them." I know it will be said, " What have we to do to 
mind the speeches of the profane and graceless? They neither 
do nor will favour us, whatever part we act." I imagine that 
even the profane and graceless ought not to be despaired 
of, and consequently that their sentiments and speeches ought 
not to be altogether disregarded. Such are not always irre 
claimable. Much less ought we to furnish them with what 
may serve not only to confirm them in their pernicious course, 
but to prove the instruments of gaining over others to their 
party. The apostle Peter did not think the sentiments even 
of heathens were to be despised by the disciples, and there 
fore enjoined them to be careful that their conversation might 
be honest among the Gentiles, that they may be ashamed who 
falsely accuse their good conversation in Christ, 1 Pet. ii. 12; 
iii. 16. And the apostle Paul makes the opinion of infidels 
of so great consequence, that he expressly requires that re- 
garfk be had to it, even in the election of a Bishop : " He 
must have a good report of them which are without," 1 Tim. 
iii. 7. Shall we then think it a matter of no moment, that 
we give occasion to the enemies of God to blaspheme ? Does 
it appear to us a thing absolutely indifferent, that the good 
ways of the Lord are, by our means, evil spoken of among 
them who know not God, and obey not the gospel of our 



348 ADDRESS TO THE 

Lord Jesus Christ ? Is it all one whether fools be recovered 
by us, or confirmed in their folly ? 

I conclude with my most fervent prayers to the God of 
grace and Father of mercies, that he would be pleased to di 
rect the great council of our church, as on every occasion, so 
particularly on the present; that he would inspire them with 
the amiable spirit of their Master, with the wisdom that is 
from above, which is not like the wisdom of the worldling, 
earthly, sensual, devilish, but first pure, then peaceable, gen 
tle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, 
without partiality, and without hypocrisy ; that we may all 
know, by experience, that the fruit of righteousness is sown 
in peace for them that make peace. 



CHAPTER III. 

The proper and Christian Expedients for promoting Religious 
Knowledge, and repressing Error. 

IT requires but little art to make ignorance jealous. The 
multitude every where are ignorant, and, by consequence, 
easily inflamed with jealousy. It requires but few (some 
times a single person has been sufficient) of those in whom 
the populace confide, to suggest that there is danger, and 
they are instantly alarmed ; they ask neither evidence nor 
explanation. As the flame spreads, its influence on every 
individual increases. Each is actuated not only by the fer 
vour originally excited in himself, but by that which is, as it 
were, reflected from every countenance around him. When 
the fury of the people, from a notion of gross injury, is worked 
up to a certain pitch, they are no longer capable of control. 
They encourage one another by their number and rage : 
There is nothing which they do not think themselves able 
to effect : They run headlong into the most violent excesses. 
Whatever be the cause they contend for, they have not so 
much as an idea of any other expedients than such as are 
dictated by fury. It happens then almost invariably, that they 
overshoot the aim of those who first raised the alarm, and 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 34*9 

awaked their jealousy. And when they interpose to restrain 
them, they generally find it impracticable : for the people 
then have no ears for any language hut that of their passions. 
In vain are they reminded, that more moderate methods were 
pointed out to them from the beginning. If the rabble are 
to be set to work, they must be allowed to go to work their 
own way. They have neither capacity nor patience for 
pursuing moderate methods. 

For these reasons it would not be consonant to justice to 
charge the effects of the popular frenzy wholly on those who 
at first were active in alarming them. As little would it be, 
on the other hand, wholly to exculpate the first instigators. 
That they did not foresee the fires that would be kindled, 
and the destruction that would ensue, and were therefore not 
the intentional causes of the particular outrages, justice as 
well as charity require us to admit ; but that any one, who 
inflames the minds of the multitude, must be sensible that 
he endangers the peace of his country, as well as the property 
and lives of his fellow-citizens, and therefore, by all the prin 
ciples of law, is responsible for the consequences, cannot be 
denied. And, even on the principles of sound morality, he 
is so far answerable, as the consequences actually were, or 
might have been, foreseen by him. Nor is it easy in this 
case to find an apology for the heart, that is not at the ex 
pense of the understanding. 

But we can say the less in behalf of those from whom the 
evil originated, because their more moderate methods are as 
really unjustifiable, on the maxims of the gospel, as the more 
violent methods of the multitude. The difference between 
them is not so much in kind as in degree. The introduction 
of force into the service of religion, whether applied by the 
magistrate or by the mob, has ever proved, and will prove, 
the bane of true religion. It is the establishment of the pro 
fession of religion on the ruins of its spirit. It is attempting 
to support Christianity by undermining virtue. It presents 
the strongest temptations to what every one who reflects, 
whatever be his system of opinions, must admit to be the 
grossest crimes. It is one of the earliest corruptions of anti- 
christian Rome, the spiritual Babylon, and the source of 



350 ADDRESS TO THE 

most of her other abominations. I may add, it is a sure evi 
dence that we have not yet recovered from the intoxication 
occasioned by the envenomed cup of which she has made all 
nations drink, when we so entirely adopt her sentiments, and 
speak her language. Ill does it befit in particular the shep 
herds of Christ s flock to recur to such unsanctified expe 
dients. " To what expedients shall we then recur, when 
immediate danger threatens ?" To such only as are (if I may 
be allowed the expression) congenial to the service. 

But let it be observed, that there is not always danger 
when the cry is raised. There is no more real danger here 
at present to Protestantism from Popery, than there was in 
England to Episcopacy in Queen Anne s time from Protes 
tant dissenters, when the like cry of the danger of the church, 
from a cause as trivial, excited such tumults throughout that 
nation : or than there was to Christianity itself not thirty 
years ago from Judaism, on occasion of the naturalization 
bill, or Jew bill, which put all England in a ferment. The 
mode of arguing adopted at that time in England, in regard 
to Jews, was remarkably similar to that now used in this 
country in regard to Papists. If Jews, it was said, were 
allowed but liberty, they would soon become possessed of 
power : if they were, in any case, permitted to acquire real 
(or what we commonly call heritable) property, they would 
soon be proprietors of the whole kingdom : if entire freedom 
were given to their religious profession, Judaism would soon 
become predominant ; circumcision in less than a century 
would be established by act of Parliament, and our churches 
would all be converted into synagogues. Then would com 
mence the persecution of Christians ; and, for this purpose, 
crosses, not crucifixes, would be erected in every market 
town. 

By I know not what infatuation it happens almost every 
where, that the bulk of the people seem disposed to think, 
that if any sect, how insignificant soever, were to enjoy the 
same freedom in its religious profession with those of the 
establishment, though without any share of power, it would 
quickly be preferred by every body, and the established wor 
ship would be totally deserted. One would think that at 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 351 

bottom there lurked some apprehension, that the established 
model is of all religious professions the most unpopular in 
the country, or would soon become so, if any competitor 
were admitted ; that consequently they imputed the prefer 
ence given it by the people solely to their ignorance, and 
were inclined to suspect, that, on a fair examination, it would 
prove the most irrational and the most unscriptural. They 
act as though they thought, that without its legal preroga 
tives, particularly without the signal advantage of penal 
statutes, suppressing, or at least checking, other sects, it 
would not have so much as an existence. Now what is most 
extraordinary is, that the people who seem to be actuated by 
such unaccountable suspicions, are not those who think most 
unfavourably of the establishment ; on the contrary, they are 
commonly the greatest sticklers for its absolute perfection in 
every article. I do not accuse one national church, or one 
sect in particular, of this absurdity ; it is pretty common to 
all : In this respect, Popery, Prelacy, Presbytery, are the 
same. 

Now of all religious parties, the Papists, to do them jus 
tice, are the most excusable in entertaining these suspicions. 
The reason is evident. No party can worse bear being 
brought to an open trial. Error, like vice, shuns the light : 
Virtue and truth ought, on the contrary, to seek it. To the 
latter it is as beneficial, as it is fatal to the former. It was in 
the night, while men slept, in the decline of all useful know 
ledge, and the rapid advance of ignorance and barbarity, that 
the tares of Popery were sown by the enemy among the wheat 
of the gospel, that good seed which had been sown by the Son 
of Man. What was nourished by ignorance, and could have 
been nourished by it only, must be hurt by knowledge. No 
wonder then that Popery should dread inquiry, should admit 
no competition, should not give so much as a hearing to 
an adversary wherever she can avoid it. Reason is against 
her, Scripture is against her, nay antiquity (which with those 
unversed in history, never with the knowing, she is fond to 
plead) is against her. What has she then to trust to, but 
the tyrant s iron rod ? But for Protestants to show the like 
illiberal suspiciousness, is to betray their own cause, and sin 



352 ADDRESS TO THE 

against the majesty of truth. Truth requires but the light; 
because, in regard to her, to be known is to be loved : error 
screens herself in darkness, being conscious, that, in regard 
to her, to be seen is to be hated. It is the common sign of 
a bad cause to be suspicious of itself, and to avoid a fair 
inquiry. This is one of the many evil symptoms which 
strongly mark the cause of Rome. 

But, in order to a fair inquiry, some things are previously 
necessary. Such are the means of knowledge, and the means 
of support to those employed in conveying knowledge. In 
these days we have no ground to look for miraculous assist 
ance. The church, now arrived at maturity, is largely sup 
plied with all necessary evidence within herself, and no longer 
needs those props and supports she was obliged to lean upon 
in her infant years. But the effects produced by those mira 
cles still remain with us as evidences of the reality of the ac 
count; and the fulfilment of prophecies in regard to the pro 
gress, the most memorable events, the establishment and the 
defection of the church, which in the early days they could 
not have, amply supply to us the want of present miracles. 
If we use properly the spiritual weapons suited to this spirit 
ual warfare, we shall have no reason to despair of success. 
That human means ought to be employed, none but the 
merest enthusiasts will deny. Only let them be such human 
means as suit the cause of truth and charity. 

If Popery, as has been contended, has been, in some places, 
on the increase, it will be found, on inquiry, that it has been 
only where the people unhappily are far removed from the 
means of knowledge. The evil itself, which is ignorance, 
points out the cure. Introduce the light, and the darkness 
is dispelled. In large and extensive parishes in the High 
lands they often recur to Popish teachers, because they have 
no other. Where there is gross ignorance, there are also, 
no doubt, barbarity and superstition. And wherever these 
are, the absurdities of Popery are better suited to the taste 
of the people than the doctrines of a more rational religion. 
Now, that in parishes in the Highlands and Western Isles, 
some of sixteen, some of twenty-five, some of thirty miles in 
length, and from five to seven in breadth some containing 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 353 

near three thousand inhabitants, where they have but one 
Protestant pastor how can they escape being perverted to 
Popery ? This must appear a necessary consequence, when 
we consider the uncommon zeal which Papists have always 
shown for making proselytes. 

Now, for redressing this grievance what is to be done ? I 
know only two methods, compulsion and persuasion. If we 
recur to the first and after it, though by no means a Chris 
tian method, the general hankering seems to be what will 
our penal laws signify in those islands and tracts of land 
where the Papists, in number compared with the Protestants, 
are already, by the accounts that have been given,* as thirty 
to one in some places, in others as twenty, in others as ten ? 
Or what end would it answer, though we should get laws ten 
times more severe than those in force at present ? Can we 
imagine that any person, however well inclined to the work, 
would be so mad as to attempt in those districts to execute 
the laws ? Sanguinary statutes, in such cases, do but show 
the impotence of the legislative power, and embolden people 
the more openly to set it at defiance. They will have this ad 
ditional motive in a cause like this, that the more daring their 
transgression of our laws is, the greater will be their merit 
with their party, because done for the interest of the church. 
Can any person who reflects be so infatuated as to think, 
that in this way any service will be done to Protestantism ? 
That such fruitless attempts will do it great disservice, one 
must be totally blinded by his prejudices not to perceive. 
The minds of the people will more than ever be alienated 
from us ; their numbers will strengthen their resolution ; and 
their success will ensure their perseverance. To me it is ma 
nifest, that in such parishes at least the repeal proposed will 
be favourable to the other, and the only Christian method of 
persuasion, because it will be of great use to us for gaining 
their confidence, and bringing them without suspicion to join 
with us in other ordinary aiFairs. If we will not admit per 
sons who offer themselves as friends and fellow-citizens, and 
accept such service from them, for the defence of the state, as 

* See the account published by the Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge 
in 1774. 



354 ADDRESS TO THE 

they think they can in a consistency with their duty give Us, 
we in a manner force them to combine with one another, for 
their own defence, against us. We gain to ourselves, besides, 
all the odium of being persecutors, without gaining any thing 
to the cause. They will have all the advantage of the plea 
of being persecuted for conscience sake, without sustaining 
any loss by persecution. We arm their minds with preju 
dices against us, and deprive ourselves of the power of ever 
gaining on them by softer methods. In brief, if nothing will 
please but the antichristian plan of converting by the sword, 
and if we are now so unaccustomed to evangelical weapons 
that we should be utterly at a loss how to use them, we have 
no chance at all, on that plan, if we set about the work in a 
faint-hearted manner, and adopt the measures of Antichrist 
by halves. We shall but expose ourselves, and be found in 
the end to have done more ill than good. 

" Well, if we are not to go faintly to work," it may be 
asked, " what is the stout-hearted method you would pro 
pose ?" I answer, What would the Papists, our admired 
masters in this motley spiritual temporal warfare, have done 
in the like case ? For though in words we loudly condemn 
their conduct, we are ever recurring to their example for a 
pattern, and to serve as a justification of ourselves. I should 
rather ask, What did they when heretics were so numerous 
that penal laws could have no effect ? Their aim was then to 
subdue them by the sword. They instituted a crusade, and 
made war upon them as the enemies of Christ. This was 
their method with the Albigenses. Soldiers were inlisted in 
Christ s name ; for those pretended servants would fight for 
him, in spite of himself. An army was accordingly sent to 
convince the heretics of their errors, after the military fashion, 
and convert them at the point of the sword. Those who 
were so obstinately unreasonable as not to be convinced by 
such weighty arguments, were butchered without mercy. 
Christ s kingdom had, in their hands, totally changed its 
character. By his account, it was not proper for his servants 
to fight, unless his kingdom were, what it was not, a worldly 
kingdom. By their account, nothing was so proper. But 
the mystery is unravelled when we reflect, that the kingdom 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 355 

they fought for was in fact a worldly kingdom, misnamed 
Christ s. Now, if we are capable of adopting the like mea 
sures, and, in order to grace the annals of Scotland for the 
eighteenth century, were to institute a Protestant crusade, 
we are, I am afraid, but ill furnished (admitting we obtain 
all the assistance we can expect from the secular arm) with 
the means of executing such a plan. The Pope is much 
better provided in resources for an undertaking of this sort. 
His soldiers, beside all temporal advantages, receive out of 
the church s inexhaustible treasury plenty of pardons and 
indulgences, and a sure passport to heaven, in case they 
should die in the cause. We have abandoned all pretensions 
to such trumpery, and, however convenient it might be for 
us, I question whether it would be in our power now to 
resume it. 

There is no exaggeration, or hyperbole, in what I say ; I 
insist on it seriously, that if the Popish and not the Christian 
mode of conversion is to be adopted, there is not a step on 
this side the utter extirpation of those that will not yield at 
which we can stop, without doing the cause of Protestantism 
more injury than service. Now it is only in those Highland 
parishes that I find any complaints of the increase of Popery. 
The smallest degree of attention to the above-mentioned 
accounts, published by the Society, makes it evident, that it 
has been occasioned neither by the want of penal laws nor 
by a failure in the execution, for in both respects they were on 
the same footing with other parts of the country, but by the 
want of instruction. The places that we deserted, they oc 
cupied. Can we wonder at this ? Would we have the people 
be atheists ? If we will give them no religion, can we blame 
them for accepting one from those that are willing to give it ? 
In the Lowlands, which are far more populous, where the 
parishes are much less extensive, and generally well supplied 
both in ministers and schoolmasters, we find no reason for 
such complaints. In regard to people of rank, we have been 
rather gaining ground than losing it. The only places where 
there is immediate occasion for a check are the Highlands 
and Western Isles ; and in these it is plain, that any coercive 
methods which have yet been thought of, would prove totally 



356 ADDRESS TO THE 

ineffectual. It would be impossible in that way to answer 
any valuable purpose, unless we were to proceed to such ex 
tremities, as I hope (notwithstanding the ugly appearances 
of late in some of our principal cities) we have not retained 
so much of the spirit of Popery as to be able to think of. 

If it is in vain then to recur to the weapons of Babylon, let 
us be induced to betake ourselves to the armoury of Christ. 
Had we but half the zeal that we may be Christians ourselves, 
which we have that others may not be Papists, there would 
be no occasion for arguments on this head. Nothing can be 
more manifest, than that the great cause of the evil complained 
of is the want of Protestant teachers, both pastors and school 
masters. And the principal causes of this deficiency are, the 
immoderate extent of parishes, and the want of livings. If 
a proper method could be devised for supplying this defect 
if new erections were made from time to time where most 
needed, and the new erected parishes suitably supplied there 
would be great ground to hope that, in process of time, a 
considerable change, in respect of Christian knowledge, 
might be effected. We shall be convinced of this truth if 
we but reflect, that, in the Highlands, Popery and ignorance 
are always found to go together. And even where the 
measure proposed may have little effect at first, in sur 
mounting prejudices and producing conversions, it will not 
be without its use in preventing further seductions. 

But the great difficulty lies here, How are the teachers to 
be supported ? Where are our funds ? Great zeal has ap 
peared of late for the Protestant interest. In order to oppose 
any parliamentary relief to Papists, money, I am told, has 
been contributed, and subscriptions given to a considerable 
amount. Some noted boroughs and corporations have even 
gone so far as to engage lawyers for opposing it in Parlia 
ment. I should be happy to have it in my power to convince 
these people, of what is a most certain, and, in my judgment, 
a most evident truth, that the money thus contributed will 
be of real service to the cause which they wish to promote, 
if given for raising a fund for supplying the Highlandsjpro- 
perly with teachers, of which there is still such manifest need. 
I appeal to those zealous persons themselves, if they can but 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 357 

reflect coolly on any thing, whether this be not, beyond all 
comparison, a more feasible way (and let me add, a more 
creditable way) of serving the cause of Protestantism, than 
to throw money away on lawyers, in order to prevent the 
repeal of a law which, by their own confession, has not been 
of the smallest utility for checking the evil complained of. 

But it may be said, that though such an application of the 
money were agreed to by the contributors and subscribers, 
it would go but a short way, perhaps not farther than the 
endowment of a single parish, if even so far. This however 
would be something. But what I have yet mentioned is not 
the whole. There are many in the country, not only private 
persons but communities, who highly disapprove the proposed 
opposition to the repeal ; who think it would be not only dis 
honourable, and unbefitting the cause of Christianity, but 
even prejudicial, though attended with success ; who never 
theless would gladly embrace an opportunity of contributing 
to advance the cause by Christian methods, and of demon 
strating to the world, that they are not (as they have been 
misrepresented by persons whose zeal far outstrips their judg 
ment) people who care for none of these things. Let but 
an attempt of this kind be set on foot, and more perhaps will 
be given than is at present imagined. 

It will be said, " Was there not a collection made by order 
of Assembly, a few years ago, for the purpose now mention 
ed, which amounted to a very small matter ? We have not 
great encouragement, then, to expect much in this way." 
To this I reply, 1st, The generality of mankind are apt to 
be remiss and inattentive to things of this nature, till some 
remarkable event happen to rouse them. The alarms lately 
raised have supplied us with such an event. 2dly, The ex 
ample of the liberality of those communities and individuals 
who had intended the same good end, though by means we 
think neither judicious nor justifiable, might, it would be 
hoped, excite emulation in others who would choose to show 
that they are not inferior in their ardour for the Protestant 
cause, when its advancement is not pursued by Romish ex 
pedients. Sdly, It may not be improper, if it shall seem meet 
to the wisdom of our ecclesiastical superiors in the ensuing 



358 



ADDRESS TO THE 



Assembly, to recommend to synods or presbyteries to choose 
fit persons, both ministers and elders, for receiving subscrip 
tions from persons of rank and others within their respective 
jurisdictions, beside appointing a collection to be made in the 
parish churches from the common people, and to recommend 
also to the Royal Boroughs, which are all represented in the 
Assembly, to obtain the aid of their respective corporations 
for a service that in every view should be admitted by Pro 
testants to be pious, charitable, and Christian, in respect 
both of the end and of the means. Were a plan of this kind 
to be adopted, I should not doubt of our getting liberal as 
sistance from many wealthy persons in England, from Scotch 
men abroad, and even others well affected both to the Pro 
testant religion and to the cause of liberty. The money col 
lected ought doubtless to be intrusted to the management of 
the Society in Scotland for propagating Christian Know 
ledge, whose known integrity and zeal, as well as their ac 
quaintance with the state of the Highlands and Western 
Isles, render them of all persons the fittest for such a trust. 
I had the first suggestion of a scheme of this kind from a 
gentleman of this place, who thinks as I do in regard to our 
late alarms ; but who, if a method becoming Christians and 
Protestants be agreed to, I have reason to believe, will, as 
well as many others, contribute liberally. If measures of this 
kind should be adopted, I think it would not be a difficult 
matter to evince, that the proposed repeal, instead of doing 
hurt, would be of service, in more ways than one. But to 
conclude. 

Is there not at least some probability, that if this, or some 
thing of the kind, were done, a reformation in the High 
lands might in part be effected ? But what do they them 
selves, that espouse measures of coercion, say is to be ex 
pected in their way ? I shall suppose they succeed. The act 
of King William, about which the dispute arose, remains as 
it was. And what will the cause of Protestantism gain there 
by in the Highlands ? or what will the cause of Popery lose ? 
It would be easier to point out, on the other hand, what will 
be the probable loss of Protestantism, and gain of Popery. 
The measures pursued will prove a good handle for working 



PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 359 

up what at present is no more than a passive compliance with 
Popery, as being the only religion that is rendered accessible 
to them, into an active zeal for the cause, and an implacable 
hatred of those whom they will be made to consider as not 
only their enemies but the enemies of God. And what 
effect the appearance of persecution may have, in places 
abounding with Papists, on weak and ill-instructed Protes 
tants, I will not say. For my part, I acknowledge that my 
dislike to Popery is so great, that I would never do it so 
much honour as to give it either martyrs or confessors to 
boast of. The method I propose has a direct tendency to 
remove the evil, without exasperating men s minds ; and, far 
from bringing a disgrace upon our church and nation, it will 
redound greatly to our honour. 

Indeed, I can conceive but one objection against it, which 
is, I own, as times are, a great one, namely, that it is a Chris 
tian method. For, to say the truth, Christian methods of 
conversion are become so obsolete in Christendom, that it 
looks rather romantic to propose them. This makes me fear 
much lest that objection alone prove sufficient to defeat the 
project. We are very zealous without doubt, and so are the 
Papists. And what does their zeal mostly, and ours too, 
amount to ? Just to this, that we can be persuaded to do 
any thing for God s sake, except to love God and our neigh 
bour. Of all tasks this is the hardest. For the sake of God 
men will divest themselves of humanity ; and, to advance their 
church, will sacrifice every remain of virtue, will even turn 
assassins and incendiaries. But how few in comparison can 
be persuaded, for God s sake, to make a sacrifice of their 
pride, of their revenge, of their malice, and other unruly pas 
sions ? Who can be induced to be humble, to be meek, to be 
humane, to be charitable, to be forgiving, and to adopt their 
Master s rule of doing to others as they would that others 
should do to them ? 

Permit me, then, my dear countrymen, fellow Christians 
and fellow Protestants, to beseech you by the meekness and 
gentleness of Christ, that ye would maturely weigh this 
most momentous business, and not suffer your minds by any 
means to be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 



360 ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 

Remember, oh remember, that if ye would serve God indeed, 
ye must serve him in his own way. We show an absolute 
distrust in him, and a want of faith in the principles for 
which we pretend to be zealous, when we cannot restrain 
ourselves to those means only for the advancement of his 
cause, w T hich are warranted by his word. God grant you 
understanding in all things. 



THE END. 



W. Tyler, Printer, 5, Bolt-court, London. 



VALUABLE WORKS 

ON 

THEOLOGY AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM, 

PRINTED FOR 

THOMAS TEGG, 73, CHEAPSIDE ; 

AND MAY BE HAD, BY ORDER, OF ALL OTHER BOOKSELLERS. 



Berkley s (Bishop,) Works, 8vo. 

Blayney s Translation of Jeremiah and Lamentations, 8vo. 

Boothroyd s Improved Version of the Scriptures, with Notes, 3 

vols. 4to. 

Brown s Dictionary of the Bible, Svo. 
Buck s Theological Dictionary, by Henderson, Svo. 
Burder s Oriental Customs, by Jones, Svo. 
Burnet on the Thirty-nine Articles, Svo. 
Burkitt s Notes on the New Testament, 2 vols. Svo. 
Butler s (Bishop) Works, 12mo. 
Calmet s Dictionary of the Bible, imperial Svo. 
Calvin s Institutes of the Christian Religion, by Allen, 3 vols. Svo. 
Campbell (George, D.D., F.R.S.) on the Gospels, Svo. 

s Dissertation on Miracles, Svo. 

s Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, Svo. 

s Philosophy of Rhetoric, Svo. 

s Works, 6 vols. Svo. 

Carpenter s Introduction to the Bible, imperial Svo. 

Charnock on the Divine Attributes, Svo. 

Clarke s (Dr. Adam) Miscellaneous Works, 13 vols. 12mo. 

Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, 

6 vols, imperial Svo. 

Commentary on the New Testament, 2 vols. 



imperial Svo. 
Cole on God s Sovereignty, 12mo. 

Cruden s Concordance of the Old and New Testaments, imp. Svo. 
Doddridge s Family Expositor, imperial Svo. 
EUis s Knowledge of Divine Things, 12mo. 
Finney s Lectures on Revivals, 12mo. 



Works published by T. Tegg, 73, Cheapside. 

Fisher s Marrow of Modern Divinity, 1 2mo. 

Fuller s Church History of Britain, by Nichols, 3 vols. 8vo. 

- Expository Discourses on Genesis, 12mo. 
Gill s Cause of God and Truth, 8vo. 

Practical Body of Divinity, 8vo. 

Gleig s History of the Holy Bible, 2 vols. 12mo. 

GurnalPs Christian in complete Armour, 8vo. 

Gurney s Dictionary of the Bible, 24mo. 

Hannam s Pulpit Assistant, by Anderson, 8vo. 

Henry s Commentary on the Bible, by Blomfield, 4 to. 

Hervey s Theron and Aspasio, 8vo. 

Hill s Village Dialogues, 12mo. 

Home s Commentary on the Psalms, by Montgomery, 3 v. 12mo. 

The same work, 8vo. edition. 
Jennings s Jewish Antiquities, 8vo. 
Jones s (of Nayland) Theological Works, 6 vols. 8vo. 
Leland s View of Deistical Writers, by Edmonds, 8vo. 

Divine Authority of the Scriptures, 8vo. 

Lowth s (Bishop) Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, 8vo. 

Translation of Isaiah, 8vo. 

Macknight s Literal Translation of the Epistles, imperial 8vo. 
Mosheim s Ecclesiastical History, 2 vols. 8vo. 

Neal s History of the Puritans, 3 vols. 8vo. 

Nelson s Fasts and Festivals of the Church of England. 

Newcome s Translation of Ezekiel, 8vo. 

. th e Minor Prophets, 8vo. 

Novum Testamentum Graece, 3 2 mo. (Glasgow.) 

Paley s Works, with Notes, &c. by Paxton, 5 vols. 8vo. 

Pearson s Exposition on the Creed, 8vo. 

Prideaux s Connexions of the Old and New Testaments, 2 v. 8vo. 

Saurin s Sermons, by Burder, 3 vols. 8vo. 

Septuagint Graece, 2 vols. 32mo. (Glasgow.) 

Stuart s Commentary on the Romans, 8vo. 

Hebrews, 8vo. 

Translations of the Prophetical Books of Scripture, 5 vols. 8vo. 
Warburton s Divine Legation of Moses, 2 vols. 8vo. 
Wintle s Translation of Daniel, 8vo. 

Witsius on the Covenants between God and Man, 2 vols. 8vo. 
Wheatley s Illustration of the Book of Common Prayer, 8vo. 
Whiston s Flavius Josephus, 3 vols. 8vo. 






4880 



APR 






r