SUPERNATURALS
EXAMINED:
IN FOUR
DISSERTATIONS
ON THREE
TREATISES:
VIZ.
I, On the Obfervations of the Hiftory and Evidence
of the Refurreftion of Chrift. By Gilbert Weft^
Efq;
II. and III. On Miracles and Prophecies, fhewing
the ImpofTibihty of the one, and the Falfity of
the other ; in Anfwer to Mr. Jackfon's Letter to
Deists.
IV. On the Defence of the Peculiar Inftitutions and
Doftrines of Chrijiianity.
Take heed leji any man ciecei've you. Mat. xxiv. 4,
Hunc igltur terrorem animi tenebrafque neceffe eft,
Non radii folis, neque lucida tela did
Difcutiant, fed naturae fpecies ratioque. T. Luc ret.
^Thefe fears, this darknefs that o^er/preads bur fouls ^
Day cant difperfe, but thofe eternal rules
That fr§m frm premifes right reafon dranvs.
And a deep infight into nature's lamos.
LONDON:
Printed for F. Page, near St. Paul's.
THE
PREFACE.
Reader,
r i 1 H E Jirjl of thefe pieces is an anfwer to
X Gilbert Weft, Efq-y to let him hiow^ that,
his works ^ his gojpel works ^ though great ^
cannot fave him. It mujl be through faith, to.
be in a go/pel way ^ not of works, left any man
fhould boaft : for how can ordinary works merit
an extraordinary reward "? fTr he can do no
more than others \ they^ like him^ have been
forced to leave the evidence of the refurreBion
^Jesus as indefenfihle as they found it : fo that,
though he has f aid much^ it is little to the pur •<
poje \ they all prove Solomon V writings to be<
more true than the Evangelifts, viz. That which'.
15" crooked cannot be made ftrait, and that-
which is wanting, cannot be numbered.
I have been the more bold in expofing my opi-
nion^ becaufe I believe it to be the dictates of
truth and right reafon^ and that truth is moji
conducive to the happinefs of mankind: this I
believe^ becaufe I fee that error and faljhood tends
to man's U7ihappi?iefs ; though lam not infenfble^
that every good hath^ in its confequenceSy fome
a evil'y
( vi )
roihy and that every error and evil is produBive
offome goody hut with this difference ^ error be^
ing itfelj an evil^ generally and naturally pro-
duces evil', and the good that aj^fes from it^ is
by unavoidable accident, there being no abfolute
evil', and truth being a good ^ its pro dudi ions are
generally of the fame nature • the evil that arifes
from it, is by meer neceffity : good and evil being
only relative properties, naturally and necejjarily
interwoven in the nature of things ; therefore^
though truth may be the caufe offome evil cou'*
fequences, as Libe?-ty alfo is -, yet they are^ in their
confequences, the authors of fo much good, that 1
think 7ione but knaves, madmen, and fools, defire
the fupprefjion of tj^uth and liberty, for the little
and partial good that arifes, or that is likely to
arife, by fo doing. BaniJJj truth, and you ba-
nifhfincerity and honefly, confequently all virtue^
for all arifes from this foundation : banifh Li^
berty, and what will follow, but tyranny, fla^
very, and violence ? if truth and liberty are eX"
tied, all manner of wic\ednefs will abound as an
overflowing deluge. In a general deflation, fome
are gainers, but what good man would wifh for
it upon that account ? Wi fee that wars, fires y
tempefs, inundations, earthquakes, peflilenceSy
are ?20t abfolute evils, but are good to alter and
level human affairs ; for in the fhake and jumble
of things, as they make many rich men poor j fo
by them many poor are made rich -, yet he mufi be
a very bad man^ that wifhes or helps forward
thefe defolations.
It
(vii)
It may btfaid^ that truth is not always fit to
be uttered':, 1 own that fome particular truthsy
at fome particular times ^ are not -, but the gene-
ral truth oj nature ^ fuch as are not injurious to
good government and foci al virtue s^ I think ought
to have free courfe-, but that what is contrary ^
ought not to be propagated nor permitted : for the
moji excellent human knowledge^ is that which
Jloews wherein human happinej's conjijlsy and moJi
conduces to it : though I think that every one is
not a proper judge wherein conjijis this fort of
knowledge,
1 obferve upon refection^ in the ^6th page^ I
havefaidy that all men feek their own good.
/ would not be underflood to mean that every man
feeks only his own good^ or another's^ merely for
the fake of himfelf-, but that this is the principal
or general, 720t the only motive of human aSlions.
Man is a machine that is moved by various
fpringSy but I do not think that the machine man^
is like man's machine ^ though he is certainly the
machine of nature^ or of God's 5 and I own that
he can^ by a potver in himfelf do evil as well as
good; but as Gody from the perfedlion of his na-
ture ^ can-do only the beji^ fo he can never blame
himfelf nor behold what is evil to hi?n^ nor be
unhappy ordifpleafedy which are the fame thing in
every degree : but man being mutable^ and there^
fore fallible^ can know and do evil^ as the confer
quences of his aSiions experiment alh prove : 7?ian
therefore is free to do bothy but God is not-, for
then God would be mutable and imperfect. Men
think God wants power ^ if he cannot do other^
a 2 wife
( viii )
wife than he does, not conftdering that fuch po^^r
tt ts hts perfeaion ?2ot to have ; for though he has
it not, he wafits it not -, for what isperfeB wants
nothing. God has all perfea and poffible power,
hut what is contrary to his perfe&ion, is not pof-
fible with him. He always aBs according to the
invariable perfeaion of his nature, and contrary
to that it is impofjible for God to a^l yet men
think God could have made the world better than
he has done, if he would-, for he can do what-
eve?- he will. Why then would he not ? Why did
he not '? What is this but magiiifying his power ^
to diminifh his perfeaion? But the anfwer is
plain and eafy, God could not do otherwife than
he has done, or cannot do otherwife than he does^
becaufe he could not, cannot will otherwife than
be does, or than his will is. To fuppofe then
God could have made the world better if he would.
What is this but fuppofmg, if God can will what
'tis impofjible hefhould, then he may do what it is
impofjible he otherwife could? Does not this then
amount to an impofjibility at laft ? If ^od can
do better than he does, he mufi blame him felf that
he does it not -, for fur e it ?nufi be as eafy for him
io^ do the beft, as otherwife, but the perfeaion of
hs nature muft neceffitate him always to will and
do the befi. Becaufe men read that, With God
all things are poffible, they think it is poffible for
God to aa as fcoltfk as men do, and as roman-
tic as they think ; that he can make a camel pa fs
through a needle s eye, or an elephant go through
an auger -hole. But the excellency of his nature
does not permit him thus to alter his works ; he
cafinot
( i'^ )
cannot will things fo contrary to his eternal mini
and rule of a£iion ; he cannot aSl fo contrary to
his conftant aSlions^ becaufe he cannot contradiSi
himfelf I repeat again^ that the perfeSiion of
God's nature necejjitates bim always to one hefi
manner of aSiion, Well^ hut fay they^ God is not
good at all^ if bis goodnefs is not of choice^ if he
can do no otherwife^ if it is ofnecefjity and not vo*
luntary. What is this, but a narrow notion of
partial goodnefs, bringing God's nature down to
man's, conceiving goodnejs in God mufl be of the
fame nature as goodnefs in man, the effect ofpaffion
and partiality of mind ^ Is not the jun lights be--
caufe it is not always naturally and neceffarily
luminous ? Is not God good, becaufe he is aU
ways the fame to cdl, univerfally, or one uni-
verfal good? mufi goodnefs in God fpring from
affeBion, as in man ? Let it be proved to be fo^
and I will affent to it -, but I do not fee it fo in the
conduEl of his providence, by which only I think
we can judge \of his nature. Is not that man
good, who is naturally juji, benevolent, benefit
cent, humane, andfincere, fo that he mufl offer
violence to his nature to aSl the contrary f If
there be affeSlions, there are paffions in Deity ;
andifpaffons, he is changeable -, and if change*
able, imperfeSt ; then indeed he may judge wrongs
and do wrong ; may make bad as well as good ;
may mend and mar r \ attempt, and fail in his
attempts-, may do and undo ; repent and be angry j
be plea fed and difpleafed ; happy and unhappy :
then if he works wonders, it is not to be wondered
at ', for, indeed, it would be a wonder if he did
not :
(X)
nbtj.t'ben tt ^would be no wonder if he ordered
nature's laivSy and confradiBed his own laws and
otders. This would be agreeable to a power that
€mdd any things and to the exercife of a free
power', or the power of a free-will^ that can as
eafdy will wrong as rights and evil as good*, for
if the will is not equally indifferent to both^ how
is.it free ? And if it be^ what perfedtion has it t
cr what perfeB invariable rule is its guide ? for
if one nature predominates^ fo as to keep under or
€onfine its contrary nature^ how is the nature ^
which is infubjeSlion and confinement , free'? or
how can the pojfeffor will or aSly but according
to the guidance of the ruling nature ? and this
he does indeed mo/l freely -, and for this fort of
freedom^ the authority of St. Paul might be quo-
ted^ if we made that our rule ^ but this makes
it neither the more or lefs true^ for things are as
they are in themfelves^ whatever Paul or Peter
might think or fay about them,
ne lafl of thefe pieces^ is a defence of a Book
entitled, Deiftn fairly ftated, and fully vindi-
cated ; becaufe I think it is the hone jl perform^
ance of an honeji man^ and becaife his anfwerer
feems to me to have more of the fubtilty of the
ferpent in him, than that which is free^ open^
plain, refplendent^ and rational. Olet artifi-
cium.
If printing had been as eafy to Me as writings
thefe pieces, but more efpecially thofe on miracles
end prophecies, had made their appearance in
public long ago. On thefe twofubjeSis^ indeed^
Mr. Cbubl? has treated in his poji humous, works,
but
( xi )
but in a 'very different manner than what is ben
done 'y which were in the print er*s hands long
before his were. 1 will 'venture to fay ^ in fa--
vour ofthefe his laji produBions^ that theyfeem
to me to be the refult of his lajl and^ beji judg^
tnent of things \ exprejfed with great freedom^
in a plain and ner^'jous way of reafoningy as
clear as the light ; with a coolnefs like the even-
ing of that day wherein God walked in Eden ;
which appears to be metaphorically more true,
here than there : though in thefe works of his^
that great and good many iWr. Fofter, is foiled^
and the divine legation of that mighty dijpuiai^i\
ATr, War bur ton, is torn to ragSy never to%e
patched tip more : and if hii thoughts oh^fbe}
fcriptures, ^;^ divine impreffions/ ^;? deity;' "'rci*^
ligion, revelation, ^ future ftate, G?c. are'iiiifl
attempted to be anfweredy I Jhall afcribe ft '"-h
the confcioufnefs men have of failing in the at-
tempt 'y for though he was not learned in words y
his words are fit to infirudl moji of our learned
men, I aniy
Reader,
Your WelKWifher
to the way of Truth,
Moral Philosopher,
Jufi Puhlijhed,
fTpHE HiSTORYandCHARAcTERofSt. PyfCTL
J[ examined, in a Letter to Theophilus, a
Chriftian Friend. Occafioned by Obfervations on
the Converfion and Apoftlefliip of St. Paul, in a
Letter to Gilbert Weji^ Efq-, With a Preface, by
way of Poftfcript.
( I)
SUPERNATURALS
EXAMINED.
DISSERT ATI ONI.
On //6^ O B s £ R V A T I o N s of the hiftory an
evidence of the refurreSiion g/' Jefus Chrift,
by Gilbert Weft, Efq-,
THESE Obfervations are occafioned by the ob-
jeftions made againft the evidence in "The re-
furre5iion ^/Jefus conftdered •, from which, the
beginning of his introduftion tells us they took their
rife J becaufe, tho' fatisfied with the abilities of two
of his antagonifts to that piece, he was not fully fa-
tisfied with their manner of clearing the f acred wri-
tings from all the contradiUions charged upon them :
therefore he fet to read and examine for himfelf', be-
ing afionifhed at finding writers who^ for above thefe
1600 years ^ have been reputed holy and infpired^
charged with fuch a contrariety in their accounts^ as
ill agreed with either of thofe epithets : and becaufe
he thinks he has difcovered the vanity and weaknefs
of fuch imputation^ I thought fit to examine his
difcovery. Such obfervations as feem to carry ar-
gument with them I fhall only regard ; the reft I
pafs over, aiming at brevity. As this piece came
out after The refurreclion defenders fiript of all de-
fenccy it could not be brought in to ring chimes with
the reft, and therefore muft be tolled by itlelf ;
B which
( o
wKich makes the mufic the duller, but the tone is
not the lefs clear and diftinft. Since reafons for
examination of things are objefted againft by no
difpotants, if we allqw the authority of reafon to
fupercede all other, of what confequence is the lift
oi great names ^ which this author gives, who have
been of the believing party ? for all religions that
'have been countenanced, encouraged, and eftabliflied
among a people, muft have had the favour of many
great men. When we feek truth, we are not to
regard names^ but things : whether therefore the
Writer be a clergyman^ or a layman^ dignified or
without dignity, it matters not : we are not to look
to the writer, but to what is written. If a plowman
fpeak equal truth with a bipop^ or a nobleman^ it
defef ves equal regard -, for tho' there ougTit to be
a deference paid to mens perfons, according to
their place or merit. Truth fhbuld be efteemed the
fame in all.
I fllall not, trace this Obfervator in his long and
perplexed method •, fpr if all agree, as he would
have it, concerning the evidence of ^ the women ;
there are unanfwerable Objeftions which he has
not cleared up, but puzzled rather by a multitude
of words j and fome that he has evaded without
mentioning, or attempting to clear up. Suppofe
the matter Ihould turn out, as he has endeavoured
to reprefent it, it is evident the relaters vfcrc mife-
rahk hiftorians^ to put their readers to fo much
trouble to know their meaning, and reconcile their
differences. But it will be found by farther obfer-
vation, and nicer fcrutiny, that the matter is irre-
concileable^ and that revelation is fuch a light to rea-
fon, as reafon cannot find out.
The gentleman takes great pains to force a re-
conciliation of the difagreeing accounts of the wo-
men's evidence of the refurredion of Jefus ; as if
the
( 3 )
the making them confifienty was fufficient to prove
the truth of the whole \ or that the whole truth rcfted
on the agreement of thofe 'particular accomp ; not.
feeming to know, that the truth of fa^s are not
proved by the conjijiency of the relations of thofe
fafts, but that they arc infallibly difprovUr by their
inconfijiency : for it is not fo certain, thatfeveral ac-
counts of things which agree are true ^ as it is cer-
-tain that wherein they difagree^ they cannot both
be true ; and it is poflible neither of them may.
The manner in which the obfervator has attempted
to reconcile the text, in brief, is thus.
Mary Magdaleney the other Mary, and Salome^
go to the fepulchre, as in St. Mark^ to which
Mary Magdalene approaching, kts the ftone rolled
away -, flie leaves her companions, and runs and
tells Peter and Jehn,
Her companions, in the mean time, ^nter the
fepulchre, fee and hear angels, who tell them Jefus
is rifen, and bid them tell it to the difciples ; they
returning to do as commanded, Jefus meets thefe
(Mary and Salome) by the way.
Before they come to the difciples, Pet^er an4
John^ by the information of Mary Magdalene^
came to the fepulchre ; they found it op^n, and the
body gone, but no angel.
Mary Magdalene^ who went again with Peter
and John^ ftays behind at the fepujchre, after they
are. gone, and there fees angels and Jefus^ who
converfe with her, as in St. John^ and flie de-
parts.
Then Joanna and women with her, (among
whom Mary Magdalene was not) come to the fe-
pulchre ; they alfo fee and hear angels, and go and
tell the difciples *, which occafions the dilciples with
Peter to go again to the fepulchre, who fee the
body gone, as before, and now fee angels.
B 2 But
(4)
But when Mary and Salome made their report^ >
this deponent faith not. This fcheme is fraught
with thefe difagreements and abfurdities.
That Mary Magdalene left her companion (or
companions) and returned alone to acquaint Peterl
and John^ and was not one of them, that m^t Jefus
by the way, is contrary to St. Matthew.
That Joanna and the women with her were a
different company from Mary Magdalene and her
company, is contrary to St. Luke ; and that their
report occafioned Peler^ to go a fecond time to
the fepulchre, is without authority.
That Peter and John went a fecond time to fee
no more than they could at firft ; or feeing any
thing more, heard nothing from the angels, as the
women did, tho' they came about the fame errand ^
or that they had any difcourfe together, are furmi-
its, conjeftures, and inventions.
That the angels and Jefus fent a meffage to
Peter ^ and the reft of the difciples, to tell them he
was rifen ? yet both the angels and himfelf got out
of the way, when they came to fee after him, and
yet were there again, as foon as the apoftles were
departed, is abfurd and improbable.
That fo great care ftiouid be taken by the angels
and Jefus^ to deliver a meffage to the two Maries ^
or (as the obfervator will have it) to Mary and Sa-
lome^ and yet it was not their report to the apoftles,
but that oi Joanna and her party diftindl from them,
that told the refurre6lion to the difciples^ is an ex-
planation that adds blunder to the hiftory : and that
there is no account when they that faw and handled .
Jefus delivered their meffage at all, according to
the obfervator, makes a manifeft omiffion and error
in the hiftorians. But this is a meer contrivance
to explain an inexpUcable difficulty, to make the
particular
(5)
particular reports agree, which neverthelefs they fail
to do.
If the women that were with Mary Magdalene
were gone back from the fepulchre before Ihe re-
turned to it, and in their going faw Chrift^ confe-
quently they faw \i\mfirft ; and yet St. Mark fays,
Chrift/r/? appeared to Mary Magdalene.
This author fays, that the two difciples going to
Emmaus, in all likelihood, heard not the report of
Mary Magdalene^ (P^ge 7-) i^^r that of the other
Mary^ with whom he joins Salome ; whereas St. Luke
tells us, it was them by name which told thefe things
unto the apoftleSy and mentions them together as one
company.
(Page 79.) The obfervator fays, ^"^t. the difficul-
ty uponftating the appearances to be different^ and
made to different perfons^ arifes chiefly from Mary
Magdalene being mentioned as prefent by eve^y evan-
gelift : but there feems to be this reafon for it^ floe was
at the head of the women y and the chief of thofe who
attended our Lord^ and followed him from Galilee.
But what authority has this author to contradidt the
text, and fuppofe the hiftorians always put down
her name as one among thfem, whether fhe was there
or no. If the text cannot ftand upon its own autho-
rity, it neither can on his explanation of it. Our
fquire^ by a very pretty method, contradiSfs the text
to reconcile the contradictions of it. But as I be-
lieve he knows Greek better than St. Matthew did,
he muft needs know what St. Matthew knew no-
thing of, and therefore owns, (p. 24.) that there are
two inaccuracies to be charged upon St, Matthew.
The firft is, that Mary Magdalene, with the other
Mary, faw the angel. This he may alfo charge up-
on St. Mark and Luke^ for they fay the fame. An
orthodox man I perceive may contradict the text,
to make that which is apparently wrongs appear
right -^
(6)
right '^ but he that is cautious of error muft, rigbt
or wrongs fwallow down the contradi5!ions of it. -^
Thefecondis, that St, Matthew takes no not ici
nt all of Salome, who was prefent. How does the
gentleman know fhe wasprcfpnt? He imagines it.
If his imagination is right, how does he excufe^thefe
things? why thus: by faying, the evangdiJls wer^.
illiterate men^ not Jkilled in the rules of ekq^uencs^ or
grammatical niceties \ yet very often he quotes th^
Greek to prove his point by grammatical niceties.
Sometimes they are faid to have the extraordinary
affifiance of the Holy Spirit, that they may be be-
lieved; and at other times, thpy are reprefented as
not having the common affifiance of common. fenfCy
that they may be excufed. :.^/if>
I am not for making a breach where mere is
none. I do, and always have, pais'd over abitn-
dance of little particulars, and trifling matters, that
the defenders of the refurreftion puzzle themfelves
about to reconcile ; but I cannot agree with them
that cannot agree with themfelves. I cannot believe
that contradi^lions^ ahfurdities^ and difagr cements are
true. I ntv^r fir ain the text, to make it fpeak what
it does not, or to fignify otherwife than it naturally
does : I am more wiUing to fee truth than error in
it ; and had rather reconcile it, than fct it at va-
riance 5 but I do not think it my duty to receive
that as truth, which does not appear like it •, or by
forced confl:ru6lions to endeavour to make that ap-
pear to be truth, which does not, or allow things to
be contrary to what they appear to me: for this
is not to find truth, but to falfify it •, not to endea-
vour to fee things in the light, but to lock them up
in darknefs. I am not for ?nifreprefenting things,
but for reprefenting them in a clear and proper man-
ner. I am willing to bp convinced by reafon ; and,
when convinced of error, thankfully to acknowledge
it.
it I love^trlith, tho' it be unfalhionable, difcoun*
tert^nced, and defpifed : inquiry is the way to it*
I proceed to prove, that however thefe hiftorians
difagree in their narrations, each of /^^;» plainly
(hews, by his dory of tlie womens going to the
fefHilchre, that Mary Magdalene was one of them
that ^ent thither, whether with company more or
lefs. Or \vithout, and that each of them intended it
for her first time of going there. Matthew fig-,
fiifies, that fhe and another came thither immediate-
ly after thefepulchre was opened, and not one of them
fay fhe Nvas there before. St. Mark, that fhe and
two more faid among themfelves in going, fFho
fball roll us away the ftone from the fepukhre ? there-
fore fhe is not to be fuppofed to have feen the flone
rbUed ^Way before. St. Luke fays, fhe and others
went there, and carried fweet fpices to anoint or em^
balm the body •, therefore Mary Magdalene had not
been there before, and faw the body gone, and there-
fore 'tis evident that each writer intended his own
account of Mary Magdalene'*^ going to the fepul-
' chre to be the firfl time of her going there, as well
as St. John, who tells us only of her going while it
was yet dark, and finding the fepulchre open, runs
back fui-prized, and tells it, faying, ^hey have taken
the Lord out of the fepulchre, and we know not where
they have laid him. The time indeed that St. John
fpeaks of her going /r/? there, will allow for her
going again with other women^ but the other parti-
culars are irreconcileable to it ; therefore, however
contradictory their accounts are to one another, 'tis
not in the wit of man, without contradictions and
abfurdities, to make them otherwife, or reconcile
the matter by fuppofing, as the gentleman does, that
women came at different times, and in different cotn-
panics to thefepulchre.
This
(8)
This ohfervator fays, Mary Magdalene went the
firft time with the other Mary^ and Salome ; and
as foon as flie faw the fepulchre open, leaving them
behind, ran and told Peter and John of it ; and nei-
ther faw the angels at the fepulchre, nor Jefus in
her return. Becaufe the ftory told by St. John does
not agree with what St. Matthew^ Mark, and Luke
fay, he denies them to be true : and becaufe St.
Matthew*^ ftory of the watch does not agree with
other circumftances in the fame evangelift, nor with
what is faid in all the others, I have denied that
ftory to be true. How then does he by this inven-
tion reconcile the evangeUfts more than I do ? Wc
are then agreed that St. Matthew is wrong \ and
one may as well conclude, without any contrivance,
to fet them right, that the circumftances of their
f roofs do not agree \ as by long, tirefome, and vex-
atious labour to avoid the embarraifment, fall into
as great at laft •, and by taking pains to prove they
do agree, prove unavoidably, contrary to defign,
that they cannot he made to agree \ which renders
them more fatally worfe, than if there had been no
pains taken about them. And fmce, of the two
women that touched him, St. Matthew fays Mary
Magdalene was one, which this author, tho' a Be-
liever, fays was not \ it further invalidates the proof,
and makes that worfe which is already too bad, and
in very deed cannot be mended.
The next obfervation is, that there were fever al
diftin6i appearances of angels, becaufe thefe appear-
ances too do not agree •, but I think 'tis more likely
there were none at all, and that 'tis as well to be an
oinbelieverupon eafy terms, as to take abundance of
pains to be a heretic, and fo diftanced from the or-
thodox faith, after all one's labour.
Our obfervator fays, the angels (i. e. the ghofts)
did not teU Mary Magdalene that Jefus was rifen,
tho*
(9)
tho' St. Matthewy Mark, and Luke, fay they did;
but he only denies what they fay, to make thenni fay
as he would have them : therefore, as his methods
of interpretation are Jirained and unnatural^ they tend
only to difcover the greatnefs of his emharraffment, as
well as of thofe on his fide that have been before
him. Tho' he thinks he has done better than they,
he is much miftaken. He fays, the angels were not
always vijihle, hut appeared and difappeared as they
thought proper. If angels are creatures of mens
making, as I apprehend they are, men can do what
they will with them : but that fubftance which is the
objedb of fenfe, muft remain the obje6t of the fame
fenfe, while it remains the fame fubftance, if it be
not removed, nor intercepted, or there is no cer-
tainty in our fenfes. An angel that vanifties, as
bubbles do, is a meer apparition, a phantom, an ig^
nis fatuus^ an angelic bubble, but not a real fubftan-
tial angel ; if there be any real fubftance in angels,
and if an angel be not a meer phantom, or a crea-
ture of man's airy fancy or imagination.
(P. 36, 37.) If any one alks, For what purpofs
d.id the angels defcend from heaven ? he tells us, to
fright away the foldiers, and give the women free ac-
€efs to the fepulchre. But why did not the angels
fuffer them to ftay and fee Chrifi rife ? No, then
they would have blabbed the fecret, and we might
have had other teftimony than that of the faints ; if
it came any other way, it had been unfanftified :
'tis not for heathens to proclaim, nor for pagans to
preach the gofpel ! Or is it afked, why the angels
ftaid not 'till the women came, before they rolled
away the ftone, that they might have feen Chrijl
rife ? No, Chrifi left his linen behind him, for a
proof that it was not proper for them to fee him
rife, nor for him to ftay till it was light.
C (P.
( 10 )
(P. 17.) The obfervator owns, that the foldiers
fatv not Chrift come out of the Jepulchre^ being in a
fwoon or trance. The arjgels were quite rafli, hot,
and hafty, they flafh'd their lightning too foon ;
one would think it burnt their fingers to contain it.
The foldiers themfelves faid they were ajleep ; St,
Matthew fays, they became like dead men^ which is
much the fame, for deep refembles death : perhaps
they might be drunk, and fo either in a fwoon, or
ajleep ; and the facred hifcorian might as probably
dream at the end, as at the beginning of his book.
Tho' this is fufficient to anfwer this great book, yet
i ihall make fome further remarks.
The gentleman paffes over without notice my ar-
guments againft the probabihty of there being any
watch, only he infinuates *, that the fetting a guard
is true, becaufe we have no authentic a5l of the elders
and chief priejls to the contrary. This feems to me
intended to wave a difficulty that cannot be encoun-
ter'd, for the circumftances in our own evangehfts
contradict their own pofitive proof. If the chief priefts
had made fuch an a6l that had reached us, we fhould
have faid, it had been made by them after St.
Matthew\ gofpelwas written, in contradiftion to
him ; and it could not be done before, if they knew
nothing of it. He fiys -f , l!he Sanhedrim.^ by an
exprefs deputation to all the fynagogues cf the Jews
throughout the world, only fays, that the difciples of
Jefus came by night, and ftole away his body, with-
out making any mention of the Roman ^^.^r^ij ; there-
fore, to be furc, they knew of none : this, iliys he,,
was by an amendment of theirs, widiout telhng ua
how it was before the amendment. Another argu-
ment given us, that the difcipk^s did not (leal away
tiie body, is, becaufe in the alls of the apoflles they
* Pa^e 345. f Page .364.,
CO
are not charged with it. This makes it the more
likely to be fad \ becaufe that author has not men-
tioned fuch an accufation, which 'tis owned, in St,
Matthew^ they flood charged with ; and he endea-
vours to difcharge it, by the ftory of watching the
fepulchre. The report of the difciples ftealing the
body away, and faying he was rifen, which is con-
fidently believed by the Jewijh nmon from that day
to this^ is a confefTion that there was not evidence
enough to convince them of the truth of the refur--
redion of Jefus^ at that time when it was faid to
be done : yet now, 1700 years after, in a foreign
country, the bare reports^ the contradi^ory reports
of we know not who^ is efleemed fufficient to con-
vince us !
Juft as I was writing this, came to fee m.e my
old friend Rahhi Nathan Sahtecha^ a. man well vei fed
in the controverfy between the Jews and Chriftians^
to whom I communicated my meditations on this
fubjed: ; he broke out in the following words, which
I took a memorandum of, as follows :
' The whole relation of the refurred:ion of Jefus
' feems to be rather that of dreamers and vifionaries,
' than of matters of fad, it is fo confufed and .blind-
' ly told. So abfurd and contradidlory is your go-
' fpel hifcory, that its own relations are its own rc-
' futation.
' The foldiers made a falfe report, as we are told
* by thofe who v/ill have it that the fcpuK-lire was
' guarded by foldiers, (which. we know nothing of;)
^ but if it was fo, did not Jefus know it ? if nor,
' fure he never rofe : if he rofe, why did he not by
* his prefence confure it ? What did he rife again
* for, if it Wis to be a fecret ? better he had never
* rifen at all, than thus to rife, and fecrete himfelf.
* How did he prove himfelf to be the light of the
* worlds if he left the world in darknefs about his
C 2. ^rc-
( 12 )
* refurreftioii? the great article of all, and proof of
' all his other proofs, left unproved ! for if he be
' not rifen, O ye Chriftians ! your faith is vain I
* and if he is rifen, and we are left in darknefs about
* it, ye can neither 'bring us nor yourfelves into the
*- light of it I '
I told him that my author faid *, that Chrifi pro-
mifed to give that evil generation a fufficient proof of
his rifing from the grave ^ after lying three days in it ;
but that he abfolutely denies Chrifi promifed to ap-
pear to them,
' I grant it, (faid Rabhi haftily) nor to any one
' elfe. The patchwork promifes do not agree with
' the patchwork performances. So then this was a
* fufRcient proof, v/ithout the appearance of it. Sup-
* pofe Dr. Emmes^s difciples had affirmed he rofe
* from the dead^ and that fome of them had feen
* him^ as they might have affirmed, could they but
* have convey' d away his body by night ; would
* England^ would London have thought it a fufficient
* proof of his rifing from the grave ? If this would
* have been infufficient for you, how could the like
* be fufficient for us ? Our fathers required a rea-
* fonabie proof of his rifing from the dead, and the
* moft reafonable of all proofs was fuch as the na-
* ture of the cafe afforded. This faft, if it was a
* fad, afforded a perfonal evidence, and no other,
* and they defired no other \ an evidence the moft
* eafy to him, and moft convincing to them. This
' would have been the fulleft proof, the jufteft te-
' ftimony, the trueft demonftration, the. moft na-
' tural, moft reafonable, and moft proper ; every
' way fit, and no way unfit ; in every refpedl right,
' and in no refpe<5l wrong : the utmoft fatisfadlion
* they could have, was to have feen and heard him
* Page 302.
'as
( 13 )
* as before, fuch a proof as their fenfes would not
' permit them to deny ; but fmce that was denied
' to them, they had a right, and a very juft right,
* to deny all other pretended evidences. Your
* Chrift declared that we were to believe in him \
* but believing others of him, is not believing in
* him.
But (replied I in the obfervator's fenfe, expreffed
in page 303) "They had no juft pretenjions^ who
were unbelievers^ and persecuted him^ to the evi-
dence given the others,
' Yes, (returned he upon me fmartly) the more
' juft pretenfions, and he under an indifpenfible ob-
* ligation to appear to them, above all others ; to
* many in common, as much as to one -, to all the
* Jews^ as well as to your apoflie Paul^ who had
* been a perfecutor ; that where fin abounded^ grace
* might much more abound \ that he might fhew
* himfelf an impartial being, and a lover of man-
* kind •, that he might prove, he could pradiife
' the precepts he taught ; love ye your enemies^ and
* do good to them that hate you \ that he might re-
* femble him whcfe fon he called himfelf-, that is,
* the heavenly father^ who fends his fun and rain on
* the juft and unjuft ; that he might adl according
* to his own profelTion ; that he was come to feek and
' to fave them that were loft •, that he might prove
' the truth of what he declared, that he came to call
^ finners to repentance, I fay, (continued he) ac-
* cording to his own precepts and profefTed prin-
*- ciples, Jefus was under an indifpenfible obligation
* to appear to that generation of our people ; to his
* bittereft and moft malignant enemies -, which
* muft have converted them, C2.\i{rc\^joy inheaven^^
* according to his own doftrine, and brought im-
* mortal honour to himfelf on earth. Who, (but
* chriftians themfelves) can believe bthcrwifc than
* we
f H )
^ we do ; — that the difciples of Jefus Jlole him away
' h '^ig^t'i if he appeared to none but them ? nay,
* it muft appear dubious to the thinking part of
* chriftians ; therefore, we have the greateft reafon
* in the world to beheve, the refurredion was made
* by thofe v/ho afTerted it. The difciples had the
' leaft caufe of any for fuch an appearance, as they-
' were believers already, and if they were righteous
' men ; for fuch need no repentance, Jefus pro-
* Felled, he came not to call the righteous to repen-
* tance : But if the difciples were not righteous men,
* what had he made of them all the while he had
' been with them ? and what were they the better
' for being his difciples ? if they were not righteous
* men, what reafon have we to believe them ? it
* had been better to have converted, and lent his
* enemies to preach the gofpel, by making difciples
* of them that were qualified. If your Chrift was
* the light of the worlds as he declared himfelf to
' be ; why did he not fife in the light, and enlighten
* the world with his prefence ? v/hy did he rife and
* fet in darknefs .f^ why did he arife in the dark, and
* afterwards play leaft in fight ? was he afraid of a
* fecond crucifixion ; where was his miraculous
* power ? \i he came into the worlds that the world
' thro^ him- might believe^ and that believing they
' weight be faved^ why did not his works correfpond
' with hisdc6lrine ? why did he deny us the reafon-
' able evidences of a well grounded faith ? and how
* then can you chriftians blame us for not believing
* this was he that fhould come^ and that we are not
* to look for another? for what works did he do ?
* it is plain our fathers queftioned his miracles ^ if
* they faid, he caft out devils by Beelzebub, what
* could they mean, but that they thought it ftrata-
* gem, and not pure^ miracle *, that the devil was
* put in, before he was caft out by the fame art.
' It
( IS)
< It is certain that miraculous works of real good-
* nefs, could not be afcribed by them to the devil,
' as is confidently pretended. Whatever wonders
' are attributed to him in your gofpels, it is evident
* they were all done in the dark, or out of fight of
* any but his friends ; whatever thofe may have
' written, who wrote what they pleafed : for they
* are all as good as denied, fince they own that a
* miracle was what our fathers wanted, as a proof
* of his charafter. What fign Jhew eft thou that we
' may fee and believe thee ; what doeft thou worky
' was their cry ? and whatever may be by your
* gofpel hiftorians pretended, Jefus himfelf confef-
* fed, he that doeth truths comet h to the lights that
* bis works niay he manifeft -, and as this was his
* own doftrine, it was calling on him to put it
* in pradice, and to come to the light, that they
* might come to the truth •, and know the truth of
' his light, and the light of his truth : for as he
* that walks in darknefs, knows not whither he
^ goes ; fo he that believes in darknefs, knows
' not the confequence of fo blind a faith. A mira-
' culous proof of his miflion was what they perpetu-
^ ally called upon him for, as your evangelifts
' themfelves confefs •, therefore they never had a
* fatisfadory one. At length we are told his own'
* refurreElion was to be the confummate proof and
* and evidence of his miflion •, and fee how this
* proof is proved, and this evidence turns out !
* then it is to be proved by another miracle I what
' does this look like P the honeft man, that can
* pay the juft demands made upon him in current
* coin, will never Ihufflle off his creditors with bad
* bills. If the ftory of one miracle be defedtive,
' how can it be patched up by another of a different
' kind I where was the refidence of Jefus the forty
^ days he is faid to abide, on earth after his refur-
^ reftion ?
( ,6 )
* redlon ? how could he be alive fo long among
* his difciples, and not be difcovercd to others ?
* why did he not in all that time appear in public as
^ before ? why did he fecrete himfelf on purpole
* to make his refurreftion doubted ? why is the
* means of falvation made fo unreafonable, that we
* muft believe,, what did not appear ? lijefus kept
* out of the fight of unbehevers, they could not
* be convinced ; and if his rifmg again was not to
* convince them, to what purpofe was it ? why did
< not the difciples proclaim that Jefus was rifen,
* before they reported he was afcended •, and net to
' be feen, while his own appearance could have
* proved it ? why did he fend his difciples (as they
* fay he did) to be knocked at head, for telling
* people what they could not believe -, when he
« might have prevented their ill fuccefs only by his
< appearance ? wliich would, have prevented their
* perfecution ; — fo their blood is owing to his ill
' condudt. The watch (if there was any) denied
< his refurreftion. What is pretended of the terri-
* ble angel and earthquake, was before any difciple
* came to the fepulchre, according to Matthew* s
« own account ; how then could the difciples know
« any thing of the matter ? did the foldiers tell
< them ? then whom themfelves call liars, were the
* authors : I dare fay the high priefts, and elders
* were not fo great with the difciples to acquaint
' them with it. Does not this then look like for-
« gery, and fufficient of itfeif to fhew of what na-
' ture it is, without an authentic aft of the elders
* and chief priefts to the contrary ? and if they re-
< ally bribed the foldiers to report what they did,
* I would fain be informed how the difciples came
*. to know it : it appears to me, concluded he,
* that the greateft of all gofpel miracles is this, that
* fo mean a plot fhould have fo mighty a fuccefs ;
' tho'
( 17)
* tho' this may be accounted for, but I have faid
' enough to you, and too much to moft, and iri-
^ deed I think fufficient to all ; '* and fo he de-
parted.
I think, upon refleftion, the Rabbi has faid all
that need be faid to reafonable men, and to others
'tis not needful to fay any thing -, 'tis enough for
the former, and every thing faid is not fufficient or
too much for the latter: yet to corroborate the
whole, a few rifmg confiderations claim the reader's
regard.
We are told, that Chrifi explained to the two
difciples going to Emmaus^ from Mofes thro* all tht
prophets^ the things concerning himfelf: but we are
not told what that neceffary explanation was ; the^
give us no manner of account what was this revela-
tion made to them \ fo that our eyes are ftill holdeft
that we cannot know him. And tho' as it feems at
another time he opened their underjtandings, that they
might underfiand the fcriptures^ they, nor their fuc-
ceffors, do not open ours, nor tell us any part of
what he faid ; and notwithttanding he commanded
them to [peak that in the lights which he fpoke to
them in darknefs^ (Mat. x. 27.) it is kept in the
darknefs he delivered it. Suppofing then they had
all the evidence pretended, fmce we have nothing
of the evidence they had, why fhould we be required
to beheve as they did ? And if the matter of their
ftories be true, that Jefus rofe from the dead ; which
faft is not difputed, but the evidence of it, for it is
told in fo miferable a manner^ that 'tis evident mif-
takes are conveyed to us ; therefore our faith of it
is on a fallible foundation^ and confequently is not
founded on divine infpiration, but on the difagree-
ing reports of perfons, whom neither we nor our fa-
thers ever knew, nor when nor where they were firft
reported •, nor can we have better \ and all adverfe
D pro^f,
( i8 )
proof, the Chrijiians have, with all their art and'
power, deftroyed. They began the burning ofbooks^
early, A^s xix. 19. and as loon as they had pow-
er, burnt not only books ^ but men ; to the honour and
glory of Chrift'^ church, for every church fubfifts
by facrifice. Believe or be damned was the firft
Chrijtian authority, and believe or be burned was the ^
next, as foon as they had power to make it and put
it in execution. To hate friends and relations for
Qhn^^s fake^ is a true Chriftian do^rine^ and con-
fequently, to perfecute and burn them for Chrtfi\
fake, is a true Chriftian fpirit. Does not a law ta
punifh a man for not believing a report, afford rea-
fon enough to render it fufpicious ? for 'tis not the
nature of truth to ufe any authority but that of right
reafon and clear evidence. She never obtrudes her-
felf on truft, nor forces her way by pains and pe-
nalties. From thofe that will not regard her voice,
fhe turns away ; their diiregard brings on their own
difgrace and punifhment. Does not the neceflity of
believing the thing propofed on hard and rigid terms y
Ihew the reafon of that neceffity ? for if you don't
believe, you will examine •, and examination makes
frauds as well as truths appear. If the reporters and
afTertors cannot work upon men's reafon^ they mufl:,.
in order to be believed^ work upon their paffions^ for
all depends upon belief -^ therefore he that believes-
and profeffes fhall be faved I noble encouragement 1
and he that believes not^ fhall be damned! dreadful
terror ! whom they cannot lead, they drive v the
firfi takes in all eafy good-natured fools, the other
all tardy timorous onds. So the poor fools of this
world are perfuaded that by this means they are
. made rich and wife in faith. Thus thofe who are
governed more by their paffions than reafon^ the
fimple 2iVL'diftnners^ who are by much the greater part
of the world, are drawn in \ thefe bring numbers in-
ta
( »9 )
to the church, numbers bring power, and by pow-
er the reft are compell'd, at leaft to pretend belief.
Thus faith, of one fort or other, like a fpiritual
deluge, has over-run the world. As when the dogs
are muzzled, the wolves will deftroy the fheep j
fo filence the wife and experienced, and the incau-
tious will be taken in, and become the prey of men
pra6lifed in deceit. This may certainly be faid of
the mother church, whatever may be pleaded for her
children,
(Pag. 203 . ) This writer owns, that as St. John fays,
TWICE Jefus came in when the doors werejhut, he in-
tended tojignify that he came in VMraculouJly, or he v^ould
not have mentioned that other-wife trifling circumjihnce
of the doors being fhut. As this Gentleman confeiTes
it requires no great depth of philofophy to underfiand it
impojfible, that it cannot he imagined how a f olid body
can penetrate a f olid body, and yet both of them remain
the fame bodies after as before \ 'tis the plainer truth ;
and tho' it be fo, I apprehend that St. John^s faith
was able to remove this mountain: for faith can
furmount all contradi6lions. That a material and
a fpiritual body may be the fame, or different only
at different times, according to the will of the fpirit
that poffeffes it, might have been St. Jobn^^ opinion
for aught we know, if we mviy conjedure his faith
by the fa6ls he relates. Though, according to this
way of thinking, the gentleman merrily fays, in
this fenfe, the fpirituality of the walls and doors may
be as well infirred as the fpirituality of Chriji^s body,
and imagines that argument would very well have
become me -, I really think the fame, had I firft had
that unlucky, as he has the kuky thought. In mc
indeed, it would have been as he fays, fophijiical^
ludicrous, and abfurd \ in him I really think it is
witty, pleafant, and a propos. He feems to grant,
(p. 206.) that what is contrary to the laws of na-
P 2 t;ure^
( 20 )
ture, cannot be effefted : How comes he then to
talk of a power that can control the laws of nature^
(p. 207.) and opening a pajfage thro^ walls and
doors, without making any viftble breach in them ?
for if this be not effefted by fome natural means,
'tis as much contrary to the laws of nature, as the
other. If the laws of nature are the laws of God,
and he can fubvert thofe laws, then God can con-
tradid himfelf, and every abfurdity is poffible with
him ; but if this be impoflible, then God can do
nothing fupernatural. This is a fketch of an anfw©r
to his challenge (p. 142.) on the impoflibility of
Miracles. Let thofe that think this point (fays he)
can be made out, try their flrength in this argument,
which fuper cedes all other objeElions that can be made
in favour of any miracle, A diflertation on this fub*
je<5t follows, that anfwers his challenge.
As to the three thoufand faid to be converted by
St. Peter^s fermon, I have, in my opinion, heard a
thoufand times better fermons, that I fear have never
converted three-, therefore I am dubious, if the
word thoufand be not an interpolation. If his fer-
mon converted them all, then all the others talking
with tongues was to no purpofe : It may be they
talked in the fpirit, fince 'twas by the fpirit they
fpoke ; for we are not told one word that any of
them faid, befides Peter •, and if the hiftorian was
faithful (which is not to be queftioned) undoubted-
ly he has told us all they faid ; for if 'tis not to be
fuppofed they omitted any thing againft themfelves,
as they have not mentioned that the Jew rulers did
not accufe the difciples of ftealing away the body of
their m after, when they were brought before them,
therefore there was nothing faid by thofe rulers about
it, and therefore the Difciples had no hand in it : I fay,
as they omitted no circumftance that made againft
thtmfelves, it cannot be^imagined but they faithfully
( 21 )
inferted every miraculous circumftance, and all the
parficulars of prodigies that happened in favour of
themfelves and their mifTion j therefore not mention-
ing what the others f^id, fhews, they faid nothing.
If this wonderful converfion be true, *tis no lefs
wonderful that fo many, and all at once, believed
the refurreftion of Jefus then, and fo few of them
have believed any thing of it Jince. The Holy
Ghoft, if he had gone on, might foon have con-
verted the whole nation by three thoufand in a day.
What hindered this hopeful progrefs ? It was not in
man's power to flop his maker's -, why then was his
arm Jhortened^ fince he wills that all men he faved^
and no man can fave himfelf ? I apprehend this
miracle of the tongues has fome myftical meaning;
and it feems to me to be this, that as cloven tongues
fat on the head of the fpeakers, it Ihews that the
gofpel has a two-fold interpretation^ and that the
preachers are double tongued^ fo that the hearers
cannot underftand the fpirit's meaning. The fpi-
rit came like the rujhing of a mighty wind^ and
has continued to be like that boiflerous element ever
fmce. There were men gathered together from
every nation under heaven^ that the gofpel might be
preached to all nations ; this is typical of a world of
confufion in the church ; what believers take for
rapfody and infpiration^ not only unbelievers, but
Other fort of believers, look upon as drunkennefs of
opinion, and infatuation. There's the fame reafon
;he Chriftian church fhould be typical, as the Jew-
ijh ; for, as my author fays, Inafmuch as the Jew-
ilh religion did virtually contain the hopes of the gof
fel^ the religion itfelf was a prophecy : fo as the
Chriftian religion does virtually contain the hopes of
the promifes of heaven, 'tis itfelf a prophecy, or a
type of the better covenant of good things to come \
for the good of it is certainly not yet come, nor
ever
(22)
ever llkdy to come to men, till men come fo hea-^
ven.
The Ohfervatcr takes thofe particulars for grant-
ed, that he Ihould prove ; and argues from thofe
as if already proved, that you muft take for grant-
ed : thus from their own accounts of things he at-
tempts to make their ftojries good, which he but
attempts ^ and from fadls not granted, he attempts
to prove the grand faft in difpute ; which may as
well itfelf be granted, as proofs from the fame foun-
dation. This he calls (p. 294.) a long and fcrupu-
bus examination of the fever al particulars which con-
flitute the evidence of the refurre^fion. And then,
fays he, / have endeavoured tofhew^ that never were
any fa^is that could better abide the tefl ; and con-
cludes, as if he had fuccecded, that never was there
a fa5t more fully proved than the re fur region of
Chrifi ; when at the fame time none was ever lefs,
and the inconfiflencies and abfurdities of the relations
deitroy all proof; and wanting its eflentially necef-
fary and natural proof, has no proof in nature. If
a man rife from the dead, to be publickly known^
and was not publickly feen^ his ends are fruftratcd
by his own inadiion, or wrong adion : he is non-.
fuited for non-appearance, If enemies as well as
friends have no proof of it, it i$ but a partial proof.
If Jefus rofe, that men might believe who were not
his difciples, that end was too weakly effected -,
for of the difciples themkWes fome doubted. What
is done in the dark, wants light for its difcovery.
This author being reduced by mecr neceffity to
make the evangelifts agree •, for fads fornis con-
jeftures ; for they do not agree to infmuate what
he does, or countenance his infmuations. When
one ftory, told by feveral perfons, is irreconcileable^
there is no other way of reconciliation, than to fay
they are different flarieSy and if that method fail, it
had
( 2-3 )
had been better never to attempt if. To force s^
ftory to agree that does not, is lilce forcing a ftory
to be true that is not. They that can reft fatisfied
with reports on the credit of the reporters, and be-
lieve the poflibiUty of miracles, are capable of be-
lieving any thing, if they believe the reporters cre-
dible perfons. Nothing is more eafy than to plant
belief in the mind before reafon fprings up ; and it is
difficult in moft to eradicate it, when it is deeply
rooted by long continuance. This faith is a weed
that generally choaks the growth of reafon. Is this
the revelation that is to enlighten our underftand-
ings, that we cannot underftand wherein the light
of it confifts ? that muft be fhrouded in fubterfuges
of fuppofitions and imaginations, to make it fo
much as have the appearance of that neceffary agree-
ment, without which it cannot poffibly have the
leaft appearance of truth ?
The obfervator endeavours to prove- the fadl^
by the exa6t accompliftiment of Chrift's W9rds * ;
tho' a thoufand proofs, without the right, will ne-
ver do ; and this alone, is the only fatisfaftory
one, viz, a fatisfadion given to the people in com-
mon. One of his aftcrtions for proofs is, that
Jefus foretold his death and refurre^lion \ tho' he
fhould firft have cleared up the objeftions again thefe
pretended predictions in 'l^he refurre^ion confidered^,
in which is plainly fhewn, that thofe to whom it is
faid to be foretold, foreknew nothing of the matter ;.
confequently thofe predidions wfere made after,
and afcribed to him : and as that of his refurreEiton^
fo was that of his death ; for both are put together
in the hiftory •, which deftroys the ftory of the
watch : but this very material argument^ our ob-
fervator being not willing to obferve^ paiTes over in
filence. What is the meaning of this, but that he
knew
* Page 211.
( 24 )
knew it was wifeft fo to do ; for he thought that
few who read the refurre5lion conftdered^ would
read his obfervations on it. To anfwer this fingle
pointj two more fuch volumes as his will be too little.
Another prediftion afcribed to Jefus^ that this
author mentions, is the treachery of Judas. But
Jefus appeared to have no foreknowledge of this^
wheii he promifed that the twelve apoftles, fhould
Jit on twelve thrones^ judging the twelve tribes of
Ifrael, Judas being one ; tho' I fuppofe Judas has
loft his commifTion fince.
The ohfcrvator does not mention two prophecies^
afcribed to Chrift, which fhould have been fulfilled
long ago, but are not yet come to pafs*
1. The temporaUties promifed his difciples for
adhering to him, Mark ,x. 30. That they fhould
receive an hundred fold in this world for whatever
they loft at that time^ new relations^ and large in-
heritances •, unlefs they found their new profeflion
of catching men inftead of fifh bring them in Cent,
per Cent, and fo turn to a very good accounts
This was not fulfilled otherwife in this worlds nor
is likely to be, even in faith, unlefs the old exploded
doftrine of the expected millenium be revived.
2. The coming of himfelf in power and glory,
with all it's figns and concomitants, which was to
have been immediately after the deftrudlion of Je-
rufalem^ Mat. xxiv. 29. Mark xiii. 24. Not-
withftanding the difciples were to endure perfecu-
tions, they were to be prefent at that time, either
alive or raifed up from the dead, i theff. iv. 13,
to the end. Mat. xxiv. 4, 15, 23, 25, 33^ 42,
44. Mark xiii. 5, 7, 9, 18, 21, 23, 29, 33, 35,
37. Luke xxi. 8, 9, 12, to 20, 28, 31, 34, 36.
and that generation was not to pafs until all thefe
prophecies were fulfilled ; and both heaven and
earth fhould foonpr fail than this prediftion. Matt.
xxir.
( 25 )
kxiv. 34. 35. M^r^ xiii. ^o^ 31. I.«i&^ xxi. 32,
^3. and when he fent forth his difciples to preach
the gofpel, he told them (as we read) Mat. x. 23.
Te Jhall not have gone over all the cities of Judah
until the fon of man be come ; therefore the apoftles
called it the lajl times ^ and the end of the world.
I fuppofe it will be objeded, if the prophecies
are not of Chrift's making, but afcribed to him af-
terwards ; why have they afcribed falfe prophecies
to him ? for I made the fame objediiion to Rabbi
Nathan^ who returned me this anfwer.
* The prophecies that the mefTiah fliall be a
* perfonal king in this world, are too plain to ad-
* mit of any equivocation, or explain away by
' myftery. It is fo exprefsly predicted, that if this
^ is not to be depended on to be literally accompUfhed,
' there is not any prophecy to be depended upon 5
* fo that when we Jews are able to give up this, we
' fhall give up all the reft for chimeras or impofi-
' tion. It was impofTible to perfuade our nation
^ otherwife, nor did ever Jefus attempt it. There-
' fore when he was crucified, it was plain he could
^ not be that mefliah which was expefted. What was
' then to be done to keep up the forlorn hopes of the
* difciples ? what, but to fecure his body where no
' eye could fee it, and give out he was rifen and af-
* cended, in their fight to heaven, and that he had
*• promifed he would come again armed with pow-
' er, reward his adherents, punifh all his and their
* adverfaries, give to his friends eftates and places
' under his government for a thoufand years, that
' Jerufakm ftiould be renewed, and the temple re-
^ built, tho' then fubjeded to the Gentiles^ and be
' made the glqry of the whole earth, and the feat
' of univerfal monarchy. They that believed
' Jefus was rofe from the dead, were capable of
' believing all the reft : for wl^at is impofiible to a
E ' miraculous
( 26 )
* miraculous power ? and with this bait the difciples
* catched men. It is our fteady faith in God by his
* prophets, and our faithfulnefs to God's laws,
* given to us by Mofes^ maugre all perfecutions in
* this world, that keeps us ftill a diftin^ people from
* all others -, and from thofe we have fuffered mod,
' by whom we ought to have been favoured moft ;
' thofe I mean (faid he) that borrow their religion
* from us j and have by their own confeffion the
' means of falvation from our race. Admit we did
* wrong in crucifying him, we did it ignorantly in
' unbelief (for which Paul obtained mercy •,) and
* the gofpel owns, that // was fo ordained to be for
' your falvation -, and what were our fathers that
* they could withftand God, if we are given over to
* infidelity and hardnefs of heart by him *, how can
* we fruftrate his will, who does what he will in the
* armies of heaven^ and among the inhabitants of
* the earthy and who can ft op his hand^ or fay unto
' him, what doefi thou ? But we, againji hope, be-
* lieve in hope •, which proves us to be the children
* of Abraham •, and therefore thofe to whom the
* promifes are made.' Then with a folemn figh,
and an involuntary tear that dropt as he fpake, * O
* righteous Lord Jehovah, faid he, remember Ifrael
* thy chofen, and Jacob thine inheritance.' And
turned away to weep forth what he could not utter.
The moft fincere chriftian cannot be more fincerC'
than he.
It argues the utmoft partiality and blindnefs to
affirm, as this author does, (p, 307.) that the
apojlles and evangelifis were the authors of the Scrip-
tures whofe names they bear *, we have the concurrent
atteftation of all the earliefi writers of the churchy
deduced by an uninterrupted and uncontrolled tradi-
tion, from the very times of the apoflles, which is fuck
an authentication of thofe facred records, as ;> not
(27)
to he overturned hy hare frefumption^ and afurmifed
and unproved charge of forgery. The charge of
forgery is not a bare prefumption and furmife : it
has been owned by believers themfelves, as in "The
refurre5iion re-conjidered^ (p. 49, 50.) It is bare
prefumption to affert confidently, that we have
an uninterrupted and uncontrolled tradition to the
contrary ; for there is no reafon to prefume ^ it,
Befides Dr. Mills has difcovered a paffage, giving
an account of a general alteration of the four gof-
pels, in the fixth century, recorded by ^inuis^ an
African bifhop, who flourifhed in that age, (fee
Cave's hift. lit. ^. 415.) in his Chronicon^ which
was printed by Canifius^ at Ingoljlad, in 1 600, and
by Jofeph Scaliger, in his edition of the Chronicon of
Eufebius. The paffage is this : in the confulfhip of
Maffalia, at the command of the emperor Anaftafius,
the holygofpels^ as written^ idiotis evangeliftis, are
corrected and amended. Dr. Mills likewife tells hs,
that St. Ifidore, bifhop of Seville^ relates the fame
in his Chronicon, This fhews how incorrupted our
facred records are -, and T think that corruptions or
abfurdities, concerning watching the fepulchre, are
fo plainly fhewn, in The refurre^ion of Jefus con-
Jidered^ as evidently difplay fuch forgeries or errors
from fome quarter, which are indefenfible. If they
carry this proof with them, we need not run back
for many ages to prove they have it not, from a
church abounding with forgery and corruptions,
and every impiety ; and therefore a rpoft undoubted
incorruptible repofitory of pure and unfpotted
truth ! It is moft fit and fatisfa6tory however, that
it's own intrinfic nature fhould fpeak it^s worth ;
let it (land the teft of human judgment, and be
judged as that fays men are to be ; by it's words he
it jujlified or condemned. I know not whether the
facred writings, as they are called, are thofe of the
E 2 writers
(•28)
writers whofe names they bear, or not ; and if they
are, I know not who nor what thofe men were,
but their bare names only ; therefore cannot take
things related on the credit of I know not who, that
were the relaters. It is not reafonable I fhould be
obliged to take that for truth, which has not the
appearance of it, upon truft to thofe that might be ,
either men cunning or foolifh, honeft or diflioneft,
for aught any man in the world now knows, or can
poflibly know about them : therefore I think the
authority that ought to govern our minds and man-
ners fhould be reafonable, or the authoi-ity of evi-
dent truth and and reafon only.
Permit me to mention fomewhat in favour of the
evangelijls^ and conclude ; and there is no doubt,
but moft of my readers will believe, that for me
fo to do^ is a fign of drawing near a conclufion.
Tho' the holy ghoft was promifed to bring all
things to the remembrance of the difciples, he was
not always prefent ; for St. Paul fays, i Cor, vii,
1 2 . Now Ifpeak not the Lord : if the Lord had been
then prefent, fure St, Paul would have given him
the pre-eminence of fpeech, and been filent while
the Lord fpoke ; and therefore he might not be
prefent to the facrcd hiftorians, at the time when
they wrote ; and fo flips and errors might creep in :
and if he was prefent, they were but men, and
therefore falhble ; for tho' the better half of ChriJJt
was God; he was fubje<5t to the infirmities of
manhood, and to be provoked to fay many things,
(Luke xi. ^^.) which perhaps he would not other-
wife have faid, and which the writers do not feera
to have recorded, tho' in him it is faid dwelt the,
fulnefs of the Godhead bodily^ (which is not true
manifeftly •, for if fo, all God was in him, and all
the creation befides fubfifted without God, and
confequently exifted without God, and is indepcnr
dent
(29)
dent of him ;) yet tho* it were fo, the manhoocf
prevailed over the godhead, at a time wh^n the
manhood wanted it's afliftance moft ; — in tl>e time
of his fufferings. The apoftle Paul^ whp^boafted
he had as much of the holy ghojl as any^man, next
to his mafter, had Jin always frtfefit with him.
And if the holy ghoft did bring all things to the re-
membrance of the writers ; yet how could they
have patience to write all that the holy ghoft re-
membered them of, when St. John (xxi. 24, 25.)
tells us, that if all the. things were written that
Jefus did^ he fuppofes that even the world itfelf
could not contain the books that Jhould be written^
And the world now is fcarce able to bear or regard
all the pros ^nd cons about it. With this I Ihall
finifh, as St. John did, who knew when he had
faid enough ; and in fo doing imitate the bleflecj
example of one of the greateft faints, in one of the
very beft things done by him.
S tJ t E R'
( 30 )
SUPERNATURALS
EXAMINED.
DISSERTATION II.
On Mr. JACKSON'i Leffer /c? Deists:
Shewing the Impossibility (^/'Miracles and
Prophecies.
In a Dialogue between a Chriftian and a Deifi.
The Introductory Discourse.
C y\ T your requeft, Sir, I come to pay this
jLjl friendly vifit.
Z). I thank you, Sir, and am prepared to enter-
tain you in a friendly manner. . In this arbour, fit
for retirement, pray fit down ; let friends be free ;
it is the Hfe of friendfhip ; there is not any thing
more agreeable to me, than to contemplate and
converfe ; here is good wine, which, difcretionally
ufed, is fit to keep alive the good fpirit of our
converfation.
C, The place, the feafon, and the perfon are all
pleafing to me ; but what the end may be, I know
not, and I fear not ; feeing the means are good.
D. My mind has conceived, and labours to be
delivered,
C.
(31 )
C. I am afraid your teeming mind is big with
fome monfirous 'production -, let me be neither mid-
wife, nor nurfe ; but I will fit by you, while you
deliver yourfelf.
J3. That will do as well : but that which you
raflily conjedture to be a monfter^ is truth,
C. Then it is truth gives you pain.
D. I am only in pain to be delivered ; but it is
a pleafing pain, like that of love.
C. If you are not big with a monjler^ it is a
miracle.
D. If you are not a chrifiian^ you are a con*
jurer ; you have luckily hit the nail on the head ;
miracle is the fubjedt : the hare is ftarted, and now
the game begins : let nothing divert us from the
purfuit. Have you read Mr. Jackfon'^ addrefs to
deifts ?
C. I have.
D. How do you like it ?
C. Very well.
D. I am glad of it ; then you are to make ufe
of his arguments agaihft me : here is the book.
C. This looks like giving me both fword and
challenge^ which however I do not except againft,
feeing the weapons of our warfare are not carnal
hut fpirituaL
D. W.ell then, if you fliould be beat with your
own weapons, keep your temper invulnerable.
C. I am not fo weak as to fuffer you to wound
me : you fhall find me as irave as you are ferce :
let your light break forth, your fre cannot hurt.
_me ; I have chriftian patience.
D. And I have philofophical temper, which is
near of kin : I have confidered the fubjeft in the
moft unprejudiced manner, I am capable 5 and fhall
always have the greateft refpeft for better judgment
when I fee itj not being fond of conjueft^ for the
fake
( 32 )
Take of opinion ; but defire to be convinced of
truth, and to embrace it, for truth I love ; and
regard not whether it be called faiths or infidelity.
If the darknefs be on my fide, therefore^ it is
charity to lead me out of it, who am willing to
inform, and be informed, for my own fatisfaftion^
and the benefit of thofe I con verfe with.
C I have always had a good opinion of yowx Jtn-
terity^ but the chrijiian world have but a bad
opinion of your fentiments, I will not call it faitb^
for in that we find you are wanting, when weighed
in the fcales of chriftianity.
D. In thofe ballances, that fide towards him
that holds them, always preponderates : I folemnly
declare, Izmaloverofwifdoniy howtvcr fmall rmy
be my fliare of it •, and I delight in that under-
Handing, which produces a virtuous freedom and
tranquillity of mind.
C The inequality of chrijiian judgment that
appears to you, proceeds frdm your eyes not being
enlightened with faith. You may fay what you
will -, but if you do not believe^ you will not be
believed : but go on with your difh of difcourfe,
and talk to the point.
D. I apprehended my intended fubjeft, which
is the IMPOSSIBILITY of miracles^ may be a field for
curious enquiries, and therefore worthy the con fide-
ration of an inquifitive mind, that hunts after the
inefl:imable treafure of ufeful knowledge.
C, Great lights do fometimes arife from fmall
fparks : that fubjeft is good which is produftive of
good.
Z). The r^^^ of enthuftafm^ znd. prejudice of bi-
gotry^ have done much mifchief, and been the
fliame of religion. This fubjeft may be a means to
expel in fome degree this contagion^ that ha5 fo
( 33 )
C. You expefit great glory then for yout bold
Undertaking.
D, Nothing lefs than immortal! This is the am-
bition of believers that plead no merit, and profefs
humility ; and, without flattering modcfty, unbe-
lievers are as ambitious as they. The Resur-
rection CONSIDERED, and the Other treatifes
on that fubjeA, have obtained an invincible conqueji^
and put all believing adverfaries to everlafting Jilence^
and why Ihould not I expeft a triumph^ if truth be on
my fide? But whether fo, or not, I joy in the li-
ber ty that is produdlive of truth, the pecuHar glory
of THE Georgean REIGN. I intend a philofophi-
cal enquiry of a general nature. Let the unpreju^
diced -dnd underjianding judge; for fuch only can
difcern the difference between the natural beauty and
power of truths and any other thing, by whatever
name dignifled or diflinguiflied, wearing its maik
and appearance which paflTes for truth upon trujl, —
Mr. Jackfon*^ arguments are fuch as include all that
others have faid, and more, in defence of the^^-
hility of miracles ; who, undertaking to reafon with
philofophical freedom on that head, I take the li^
perty to refume the confideration thereof in the fame
manner.
C. I think you may be very well reconciled to
the Chrijlian religion, in the reafonable light Mr*.
Jack/on defcrlbes it.
D. He indeed dreflfes it up in the light of Deifm.
If it was its natural complexion, and not a painted
beauty^ and all true as he reprefents it, Deifis may
be perfuaded to believe that art is almoft as beauti-
ful as nature. Many fine things may be faid of any
religion, by men of fkill, that take only the beji
part, and make the befi of it : but a religion deli-
vered in an extraordinary mannc. from God, Ihould
be like him, not partially^ but totally good \ not ob-
F fcure
( 34 )
fcure zni intricate^, biit clear 2ini plain ^ intelligetrS
and harmonious. If the many good things he fays
about the Chrijlian religion, were true as well as
good^ they would exceedingly tend to promote the
honour of it, and reconcile it to them to whom he
makes his addrefs.
C. Mr. Jack/on fays, you are *^ the firft he knows
of, that ever faid it was inconfiftent with the divine
attributes, and the rules of truth and certainty, that
God fhould work miracles -, ''' and I think, indeed,
you are fomewhat fmgular in this point, as I have
heard by feveral.
D. I affure you, Sir, I affedt not Jingularity^ and
fuppofe I am not the only one that thinks fo : but it
may be a novelty to thofe that have not confidered
it, that have fuck'd in fupernatural nourijhment from
their ecclefiaftical mothers hreafts^ . and are ftill de-
lighted with it •, but to thofe that chew the cud^ it is
indigejlihle food,
C. And you are one of the clean beads ! we all
feed in our own way. What is meat to others, is
bones to you ; or, as the common proverb aptly ex-
preffes it, One man's meat is another man's poifon.
But pray, 6'/>, how do you intend to manage this ar-
gument ? for you muft be the manager. In what or-
der will you proceed ? Let us come to order, that when
one point is difcufled, we may go upon another.
Z). Very well propofed, Sir ; then, in treating
jhis fubjeft, let the examination be,
Firft, Whether miracles are confifient with the
courfe of nature ?
Secondly, Whether they are conjifient with the at-
tributes of Deity ?
Thirdly, Whether they are fit or neceffary ?
Fourthly, Whether they do not defiroy the founda-
tion of truth and certainty ? and are capable of the
fame evidence as other hijiorical fa^s ?
■ Fifthly,
( 35 )
Fifthly, Whether the dijbelief of miracles he infi-
ielity and atheifm ?
C. Grand points ! I fuppofe you expeft to carry
all before you. Audacious attempts have often
fhameful overthrows.
D. Fortuna juvat audacej , At the end of every
one of thefe mental entertainments, let a refrefhing
glafs be adminiftered to the outward man ; for they
that would keep their tenants in their houfes, muft
keep their houfes in repair.
C. While I hear you t dk like a heathen philofo*^
pher^ I have no antipathy to living like a chrijiian,
D. But I iliall difcourfe on a good fubje6l.
C. Many a one does fo, and makes bad work of
it. However, good talking fhould always be at-
tended with good living.
D. And reafonable thinking is nourifhed by rea-
fonable drinking,
C. I fall in with you ; and when friends /^z// out^
it is not friendly.
Z). That's a felf-evident truth, and needs not our
proof.
C Nor will it be friendly in us to prove the truth
of it.
Z). Thofe things that are not proper to prove, it
is beft to take for granted,
C Do fo by miracles.
Z). Chriflians don't attempt to prove them be-
caufe they think them not proper y but becaufe they
cannot. That fubjeft which can neither be proved
nor difproved^ is a very dark one, and ought to be
difmiffed.
C. That you make not dark work of it, brighten
up your intelle6ts with a chearful glafs.
jD. I will do fo, my friend ; and as I expc6l no
fupernatural aid, I will make ufe of the natural,
a;id difmifs this introdudory difcourfe.
F2 DIS-
( 36 )
DISCOURSE I.
P, T\T O W, if you pleafe, Sir, we will begin
^^ with the enquiry, Whether miracles ar^
conjiftent with the courfe of nature ?
C, What general definition do you give of a mi-
racle ?
D. A miracle has been generally allowed to be a
fupernatural operation^ or the work of a power ahovs
nature,
C. But fome moderns think other 'vife ; among
them is your Mr. Jackfon^ whofe reafons are to be
my rule. He fays, (p. 17.) ' The courfe of na-
* ture is really the immediate inceffant operation or
* agency of God himfelf in the whole creation ; and
? what is called a miracle^ is as much a part of God's
* providential government, and as much a part of
f the courfe of nature^ as any other : the difference
^ is, the ordinary powers of nature are viftble and
^ manifejl in their effefts at all times, and in all places,
^ but the extraordinary, at fome particular times, by
* efFefts fuperior to human agency, or common na-
f tural caufes for moral ends.'
D, What do you think Mr. Jackfon means ty
this ? for I would take him by his true intent and
meaning. Fair argument fcorns all manner of foul
dealing.
C. I apprehend he means this, that miracles are
as much a part of the courfe of nature, as any other
natural productions are ; only they are wrought at
fome particular times, and on fome extraordinary
pccafions.
D. But every thing in the courfe of nature, fo
far as we can judge, has its revolution by the flux
^.pd reflux of things j if miracles are a part of the
courfe
.( 37 )
courfe ofmture^ they muft revolve as the courfe of
nature does. For, by this order of things, the
thing which has been^ is that which fhall he^ and
that which is done^ i^ that which Jhall be done^ and
there is no new thing under the fun. But as this is
not true, appUed to miracks^ fo there is no caufe in
nature that can produce them. How does Mr.
Jackfon know that /? miracle is a fart of the courfe
of nature ; fince he never wrought nor faw one, nor
knows any that did ? And as he is a ftranger to the
work, he muft be the fame as to the power or man-
ner of doing it. — Whatever is accountable by the
courfe of nature, is not miraculous ; and what is
done in an unaccountable manner, who can account
for? — If a natural work may be done for a moral
end, or lifalfe prophets can work miracles^ the eni
for which a work is wrought, makes it not a mi*
rack : morality^ therefore, is no more effential to a
miracle^ than a miracle is effential to morality,
C. y[x,Jackfon{2L^%^ (p. 19, £5?f.) ' Miracles no
* more alter nature, or deftroy the laws of it, than
* the power and will of human agents do.— The cure
* of a man any way difeafed, by a word or a toucli
* only, is no more contrary to the courfe of nature,
* nor inconfiftent with it, than the cure of thefe dif-
* eafes by human means is : nature is only reftored,
* in one cafe, by extraordinary divine power ^ and in
' the other by human art. — If human art can alter
* the courfe of nature, without deftroying the laws
*• of truth or nature, furely we muft admit, that the
* power of God can do fo in a way fuperior to hu-
' man agency.'
Z). I wifh the gentleman had told us what, he
meant by the laws of nature being altered by human
art. In curing difeafes, it is not the cafe. The
beft phyfician is only nature's handmaid ; he cannot
cure the leaft malady, unlefs nature lead the way,
and
(38)
and co-operate with his ikill and endeavours, and
by her afliftance, a lucky old woman may effect a
cure. That a holy or a royal touch ever brought
found health to a diftemper'd patient, requires bet-
ter proof than bare reports. This is laid to be done
by extraordinary divine power ^ the other by human
art ; if both thefe are confident with the courfe of
nature^ the power is one and the fame : but this is
as hard to prove as to perform. When we fee the
thing done, we Ihall be better able to reafon about
it.
C. * A refurreftion of dead bodies is no more
* contrary to the nature of things, than the refur-
* red:ion of dead corn.'
D. True ; for feeds once dead cannot grow, tho*
it be faid, If a corn of wheat fall into the ground^
and die not^ it ahideth alone ^ for is barren) btM if it
die^ it bringeth forth much fruit ; tho' this, I fup-
pofe, was according to the philofophy of thofe
times.
C. ^ Reafon will eafily, if attended to, inform
* us, that the raifmg a dead body is as pofTible, as
* the giving life to one in a natural way is •, and there
* is no more fuperior power exerted in one cafe,
* than in the other. — It is the fame divine power
* which gave life, and preferves it, that reftores a
' dead body to life again.'
D, It is eafy to fay and imagine things, but how
does this appear to be true ^ If the one was as eafy
to nature as the other, why fhould not one be done
as oft as the other } He owns, that there is no pow-
er but what is according to the courfe of nature •,
but who ever heard that by the courfe of nature any
dead body ever came to life again ? If there is no
more fqperior power exerted in one cafe than in the
other, *tis amazing that fo many children fhould be
d^jly born^ and that no dead bodies ever get up and
walk.
( 39 )
'walk. Was this doftrine true, one might reafon-
ably expeft refurreclions as often as births. But all
the reafon and fenfe men have, if attended to, inforni
us by fa5fs^ that tho' parents communicate life to
their pofterity in a natural way, no body once dead
is ever raifed again to hfe, the one is commonly and
confiantly done, and the other never ; that it admits
of no proof: how happens this ? but becaufe there
is a power in nature to do the one, and not the
other.
C But is there not a divine power that can do it?
D. What, contrary to the powers of nature ? all
fuch power was given up before by Mr. Jackfon ;
you hear that even with him, power natural and di-
vine is the fame. // is the fame divine power ^ fays
he, which gave life and preserves it^ that reft ores a
dead body to life again ; I grant th^form^er is either
natural or divine^ as you pleafc to call it ; for both
with me are one \ but there is no power to do the
latter^ becaufe not natural^ therefore not divine^
All the difference between natural and divine power
is only as it is applied to things natural or divine^
the power is the fame : therefore this diftindiion is
needlefs, if it is the fame divine power which gave
life^ and preferves it^ that reftores a dead body to Ufe
again. — Reafon cannot inform us, that what is con-
trary to the courfe of nc^ture may be ^ it is faith iiv
forms us this. If this courfe be the immediate incef-
fant operation of God himfelf in the whole creation^
no greater or different power can be, none more im-
mediate^ ov more inceffant^ for thefe words admit of
no degrees of comparifon ; there can then be no fu-
pernatural interpofition : by this the poffibility of all
miracles are excluded.
C. That is, if they are contrary to the courfe of
nature.
( 40 )
D. And fuch all miracles are, as by defcribing
them will appear. Thofe we are required to be-
lieve, are not of that fort as are a part of the courfe
of nature ; as the raiftng the dead to life ; the confiant
motion of the fun or earth fianding ftill at the word
of command \ the fun's going back fifteen degrees ^
when requefied -, afea partings and making two walls ^
with a broad road betwixt^ for a nation to go thro*
between them on dry ground ; the growing of oil in a
crufe^ as fafi as it could be emptied into other veffels^
till all were full that could be got^ and the growing
of meal in a barrel all the time of a famine \ deflroy-
ing men by fire from heaven^ at the word of com-
mand^ the fire not being able to burn fome men, nor
the water to drown others : a man's living three days
in the belly of a fifh in the fea ; making bread and fifh
fafier than ten thoufand hungry people could eat them •,
feeing all the kingdoms of the round world from the
top of a mountain^ and all this in a moment ; infpi-
ring illiterate men^ that fpoke their own mother tongue
barbaroufly^ with knowledge to talk all manner of
languages under heaven^ without learning any^ and
to write in the mofi learned grammatically \ and thefe
people* s enabling others to do the fame ^ by only laying
their ha?2ds upon their heads ; a fpirit's catching a
man up in the air^ and fet ting him down at a diftant
town^ &c. 8;:c. &c. Such fadts are certainly all in-
conftfient with, and fome of them .plainly contrary to
the general courfe of nature.
C. But Mr. Jackfon fays, a miracle is as much a
part of the courfe of nature, as any other works not
miraculous, only more uncommon, and fuperior to
human agency:
D. If a miracle be thus defined, all manner of
ftrange and uncommon circumftances are miraculous ;
and we have plenty of miracles in all ages of one
kind or other \ but they are not efteemed miracles^
nor
(41 )
nor any particular providence^ but by the moft "ig-
norant. He that can do, by natural powers, what
no other perfon can, only Ihews himfelf to be the
greater artiji, A difplay of art, by natural powery
is no demonftration of fupernatural authority.
What credentials does he fhew, that he is in a pecu-
liar manner fent of God, to direft and govern man-
kind, who does no more than another man could
do, did he knov/ but his peculiar art ? If this be
a fufBcient quaUfication to authorize a man's divi-
nity, every cunning artificer, who is the author of
a new art, is thus qualified. Is this any credential
that he comes from God more than another man ?
Are natural arts any teftimonials of a divine extrac-
tion or commiflion ? Do fuperior arts inveft a man
with fuperior divinity^ or prove him to be fo in-
vefted ? Or is meer moral goodnefs^ which is com-
mon to all good men, a proof of an uncommon mif-
fion from God ? Him that we ought to efteem mofi
eminently of God, {hould;/2^7? eminently ^xi'^hcj xkio^o.
attributes we adore in the Deity, of wifdom, power
and goodnefs, equally mixt and manifeft. What
Mr. Jackfon afferts, that a miraculous work is a
part of the courfe of nature, is the better to defend
the poffihility of them in a philofophical way of rea-
foning, yet he feems obliged to give it up ; for as
he elfewhere expreffes it, to work a miracle is (/>. 15.)
10 alter nature, and {p, 16,) to interpofe a power
other wife than by /^natural means. The author of
the re fur region cleared, fays (p. 14.7.) a miracle is
contrary to the courfe of nature, and {p, 150.) he
calls it a fuperceding and fufpending the general
courfe of nature, and fays, that it is the effence of
a miracle to he contrary to the courfe of nature,
C. But ' miracles make no akeration in the gfe-
' neral fyftem,'
G J).
( 42 )
D. If they did, the general fyftem of things
would be overturned.
C. Therefore the laws (or power) that produce
miracles, injure not the laws of nature in general ;
* becaufe thefe laws have not a necejfary chain of
* caufes and effe^fs^ or have a neceffary dependence
* on each other, and the general courfe of things
* ftill go on in a regular and uniform manner ;
* therefore the re6tifying or altering the natural
* courfe of things, by an immediate, divine, or fu-
' pernatural power, is only a different exercife of
* the fame power, by which the courfe of nature is
' fuftained and preferved.*
D, All the variations, or different exercifes of
nature's powers, are owing to the different means
or circumflances of operations ^ they are conftantly
the fame, when the fubje6ls and circumflances arc
the fame. The fame caufes always produce the
fame effe5ls. Nature has no power to aft contrary
to her invariable rule of aftion. There is no power
in man, that can enable him to walk on the water, as
on land ; nor can water bear his weight : for it is a
law in nature, that all bodies, fpecifically heavier than
a fluid, fink in it, with a celerity profortionable to
the difference of their gravities. If therefore this
law be contradifted, it cannot be occafioned by a
different exercife of nature's powers, but mufl be
afcribed to a power different than is in nature.
"When the caufes of things come to be accounted
for'^by natural means, however they feemed before,
they afterwards ceafe to be accounted miracles.
Such would be the cafe, if a dead man could be
raifed to life, by the power of nature or art : nor
would the operator be efleemcd a worker of mira-
cles, when the method was known by praftice, tho'
it might make the dead and living wonder. He
that can do by natural powers, what none clfe can>
only
( 43 )
only fliews himfelf to be the greater arttfi ; but
this is no demonftration of fupernatural authority :
fo that miracles muft be by a fupernatural power,
or they cannot be at all. And I intend to demon-
ftrate, by invincible reafons^ the impojfibility of fuch
a power.
C, But firft of all make ufe oi natural power to
recruit your own ability *, for if you do not infpire^
you will certainly expire : after breathing your jbad
fpirit out, put a little good in, that it may be
better. /
D. With all my heart, I am defirous to rtiend ;
and you fhall fee, that I am willing to become
better.
C, I fee you are, if this be the way.
J), It is the way yourfelf prefcribed, and I follow
the prefcription.
C. You are refolved to agree Jn being my patient,
When you cannot be my dodor.
J), That fo we may agree one way or another.
DISCOURSE III.
D. TTAVING fignified my fentiments, that
XjL miracles are not wrought by the laws of
nature •, my next intention is to Ihew, that to change
the courfe of nature^ is inconjijlent with the attrihutes
of God,
C. How fo ? * To fuppofe that God cannot alter
* the fettled laws of nature, w^hich himfelf formed,
* is a dircd and evident contradidion •, for if he
* cannot alter them, it is becaufe they are efientially
* neceflary, and independent of him ; aixi then he
G 2 ^ did
(44)
' did not form them, or is the author of nature,
' which is atheifm. This is a demonftrative proof -
' of the poflibility of miracles a priori^ and the hif-
* tory of mankind proves the poflibihty of them a
^ fojieriori,^
D, God has fettled the laws of nature by his
^wifdom and power ^ and therefore cannot alter them
(TOnfiftent with his perfeftipns : this is a demonftra-
tive proof of the impoflibility of miracles a priori -,
and, if the effe^s change, fo muft the caufe: if the
laws alter, fo muft the lawgiver. This proves the
fame a pofteriori ; which hiftories of miracles do
not, for that, which is the point in queftion, can
be no proof.
C, Pray explain this more fully.
D. To fuppofe that God can alter the fettled
laws of nature, which himfelf formed, is to fuppofe
his will and wifdom mutable ; and that they are not
the befi laws of the moft perfe^ being \ for if he is
the author of them, they muft be as immutable as
he is ; fo that he cannot alter them to make them
better^ and will not alter them to make them worfe.
Neither of thefe can be agreeable to his attributes.
If the courfe of nature is not the beft^ the
only beft^ and fitteft that could be ; it is not the
offspring of perfe5f wifdom^ nor was it fettled by
divine will ; and then God is not the author of na-
ture, if the laws thereof can be altered : for if the
laws of nature are God's laws, he cannot alter them
in any degree^ without being in fome degree change-
able. If all nature is under the diredion of an
immutable mind^ what can make a change in that
diredlion ? God muft be allowed to be eternal,
therefore he neceffarily exifts, and is neceffarily
whatever he is -, therefore it is not in his own power
to change himfelf ; it is his perfeftion to be immu-
' . ■ ' table ;
( 45 )
khk % for if his nature coUld ^otfiWy chahg^- it
might err; for whatever* is chatig^abfe, is hot p^r-
fe<ft. Befides an eternd and a prf65i mture muft
neceffarilyhQunchangeaMe: and as lohg as the iirfl:
moving caufe is the fame, all fUbfeqi^erit and fecond
caufes can never vary.
C. ' If it was inconfifterit with the attributes' Of
* God, to alter the fettled laws of nature, this woiid
* would not have been at all, 6r miift have been
« eternal.'
D. It does not follow : for this world, fot alight
I fee at prefent, might have been formed out of pn^-
exiftent matter 5 perhaps out of fome other w6^
out world or worlds, by the common courfe of
nature, gradually, as the parts of it are conftahtly
growing, changing, and decaying, which feems to
indicate that the nature of the whole, is the fame as
the nature of all the parts which compofe it. As
by the deftruftion of fome parts, others are pro-
duced, fo it may be with worlds. Thus the tbrm-
ing this worlds may be no more altering nature,
'than forming the parts of it, as every world is btit
fart of the' univerfe. We fee all the parts perpe-
tually decaying and renewing ; and as the whole is
but a colledion of all the parts, fo may the greater
parts be as well as the lefFer. Tho' this is but- cdn-
je5fure^ yet what have we of the world's original
that is any thing elfe ? As little do we know of the
pfoduftion of the world, as a young child does of
his own produftion.
C. You argue that God's perfefticn confifts in
his unchangeablenefs, and that of his laws, in being
like the lawgiver ; but the things that we mahy
would demonftrate our imperfe^fion^ if wfe could
Tiot alter them, and make them as we v/ould have
them j and in like manner, thereforc, is it not rea-
fonabic
( 46 )
fonable to think, that < the perfeftion of the works
* of God, confifts not in making them unchange-
* able j but in rendering them capable of being
* changed by his power and will/ from one degree
* of perfedion to another ; and to fuit the differer^t
* ends and ftates to which he defigned them in dif-
* ferent ages and durations by his original immu-
* table counfel and will •,— therefore not inconfiftent
' with his unchangeablenefs.'
D. If God, by length of duration, becomes
better or wifer himfelf •, then he does wifely to make
his works alterable as his will is -, and if his will is
alterable, he does fo *, this is as a wife man, who is
growing in wifdom does : but if the fame ftate of
perfedlion be always in God, he does always beft ;
and has one end and defign in every different age
and duration ; and always purfues that one, and
the fame beji end and defign^ by one and the fame
hejl means -, which man cannot do, becaufe his wif-
dom is not perfeft ; but perfedl wifdom and power
ean do no otherwife than purfue the beJi end in the
beJi manner \ therefore cannot alter either. If God
ever determined for moral ends and reafons to in-
terpofe, if needful, by a different method, than
that of his ftandard laws ; it muft be either becaufe
he could not forefee the confequences^ which is like
blundering in the dark ; or he forefaw it would be
needful ; and then it looks like a blunder in the
defign, and contrivance ; or he foreknew and deter-
mined his own works ihould not anfwer his own
ends^ without his mending work, which is worft of
all. That God, either with or without defign^ let
men alone to go on in their old way, 'till they
were ruined, and could not recover themfelves, nor
he them, without extraordinary interpofition of fu-
pernatural power, is a fuppofition injurious to the
attributes of the deity. If God defigned at certain
periods
( 47 ) .
periods of duration, to mend his ordinary, by an ex^
traordinary work to procure from man extraordi-
nary faith and dependence on him •, it proves in-
deed they depend on abfolute will^ not on abfohte
wifdom ; that by his common laws he fufFered m<n to
become totally bad, that he might get honour by
mending him, if pofTible, in an uncommon manner. .
It becomes a wife governor, that his laws be all
the fame, and his government all of a piece.
Laws that require altering and mending, imply a
defeft in the lawgiver. To confirm this, I fliall re-
peat a paffage from Mr. Peter Bayle^ in his books
on comets, viz,
' Nothing is more unworthy a general caufe,
* which puts all others in aftion, by a fimple and
* uniform law, than violating this law at every turn
* to prevent the furmifes and fuppofitions that weak
' and ignorant men may run into. Nothing gives
* a higher idea of a prince, than feeing him, when
* once he has enafted wholefome laws, maintain
^ them with vigour towards all, and againfl: all ;
' without allowing the leaft reftriftion on the inte-
' refted recommendation of a favourite, or out of re-
' gard to any particular perfon. And of all things
* apt to throw a ftate into utter confufion, that
' which compafles the point moft efFeftually, is
* undoubtedly the difpenftng with ejiablijhed laws -,
< changing, clipping, ftretching or cramping them,
* according as the private views of parties find their
* account in fuch alterations. It is manifefl befides,
* that the neceflity a legiflator is under of mending
' his laws by explanations, interpolations, infer-
* tions of claufes, and fometimes a downright re-
* peal, fuppofes a narrownefs of underftanding,
' incapable of forefeeing the inconveniences that muft
* arife in the execution of thofe laws. The longer
* a law fubfifts without alteration, the more it dif-
* cerii^
( 48 ) '
« cerns the great and diftant views of the legiflator.
* Is it fit th^t Almighty God, after he has created
* fome c^ufes free, and other$ neceffary, by an in-
* ter^iixture admirably fitted for manifefting the
* wonders of his infinite wifdom, eftabhfh laws
* agreeable to the nature of thofe free caufes, yet
* fp little fixed, that the next fit of fpleen or ill hu-
^ mour in any one might entirely fubvert them to
* their deftrudion ? The governor of a fmall town
* muft expofe himfelf to contempt, if he changed
* his rules and orders as often as any of the corpora-
' tion thought fit to grumble. And Ihall God,
* whofe laws are calculated for a general defign^
* that perhaps what we fee of the univerfe is only an
^ underplot in the general adtion, be obliged to de-
* rogate from thofe laws, becaufe they do not hit
* one man's fancy to-day, and anothers to-
* morrow/
C. But fuppofe an original defign of proceeding
to a greater or other fort of perfection in a natural
and regular manner ?
D. Then the whole muft proceed gradually to
introduce that new fyftem defigned in the original
draft ; the whole nature of things muft change to-
gether to require it. Thus no room is found in
this new fcheme for the introduction of miracles ;
for whatever is by a natural and gradual procefs, is
Dot miraailous.
C. Pray come to a conclufion.
D. I conclude then, thdX, the laws of nature being
the laws of God, they are as unchangeable as he is,
both in the defign and execution ; and that a mira-
cle being contrary to the courfe of nature, is in-
confiftent with tha attributes of God ; and there*
fore it is utterly impoflible, in the reafon and na-
ture of God and things, that any ftiould be wrought.
(49) .
I fear, friend, I have quite tired your Chrljlian
patience^ you feem to be fomewhat uneafy.
C. I have had a great deal of patience ; I can
hardly call it Cbrijlian^ to hear fo much of fuch
ieathen Philofophy,
D. Perhaps your uneafinefs has made you wake-
ful. Many a patient foul has dofed under the word
preached.
C Then it has been for want of a quickening fpi-]
rit.
D. But that we don't want. Refrefhment exhi-*
larates the mind. A good fpirit is no enemy to
philofophy ; and you are no enemy to a good fpi-
rit : fo that philofophy and you are agreed.
C. I find you are refolved to make me agree with
you by one means or other. It would expofe me to
juft cenfure, Ihould I put a wrong conftruftion oa
the good meaning of my friend, or blame his free-
dom for maintaining what he conceives to be true
and good, tho' I cannot join in the fame fentiments^
An attempt to difcover truth, and expofe it to pub-
lic trial, is laudable ; or the propagation oiB^Chri-
ilianity is indefenfible. As every good Chriftian
would have the liberty to propagate Chriftianity,
becaufe he conceives it to be true, fo we Ihould do
to men, as we would they Ihould do unto us, (i.e.)
grant them that liberty, we ourfelves defire, of di-
vulging their fentiments, as we would be indulged
in divulging ours.
D. This liberty men have^a natural right to, tho'
they are oftentimes unnaturally debarred of it.
H D I S-
( 50 )
DISCOURSE III.
N"'OW, if you pleafe, let us enquire. Whether
it be fit or necejfary for God, at any time^ to
u'ork 77:iracles ? What fay you in behalf of it ?
C. I fay thisj that ' the providential government
* of God is that of a moral government over free
* agents^ in whofe power it is to difturb the natural
* fyftem, and bring many evils into it by fuperfti-
^ tion, tyranny, opprefTion, perfecution, fraud, t?^.
* It cannot but be fit for God, as a moral governor,
* to interpofe his power to remedy thofe evils, by
' delivering and fupporting the injured innocent and
* virtuous, by other than natural means, or the or- j
* dinary courfe of things, and correfting or punifli- 1
* ing the impious, or unjuft, by immediate or ex-
^ traordinary afts of his power.*
D. It feems very unfit that God, as a moral go*
vernor, fhould give man fo mifchievous a power,
whickSs capable of difturbing the natural fyjiem^ and
brin^g many evils into it. But if it was bell that -
man fhould have fuch power, then it is beft that
fuch things fhould be. If it would have been befl
otherwife, why was it not ? It is better that evil
fhould not be, than permitted to be, to be remedied.
But is it remedied ? Surely na. Why then there
has been no remedy exhibited. This is making the
world dream of a do5ior, when it has had none.
'Tis meer quackery to perfuade men that fhyfic is
needful, when none can make them better. Since
the conflitution of the world is unalterable, to fay it
is wrong, is only complaining of God's government,
or of providence. When things are as well as they
can be^ it is a folly to grumble and complain.
C. What then, cannot men be made better ?
D. Yes, fome may, but as to mankind in gene-
ral, they are as they ever were 5 fome good, fome
bad ; fome growing better, fome worfe •, fometimes
moral, fometimes immoral ; now foolifh, then wife \
here they hit they mark, there bkinder ; fleep in this
country, and in another feem to rouze themfelves
out of their lethargy ; keep awake for a few ages,
and after dream again for a few ages more •, and
fuch like is the conftitution of mankind, and likely
ever to be.
C. And is this beft ?
D. Yes certainly, fince it can*t be better, and
nothing has ever fpoiled the conftitution of man
more than the falfe pretenfions of mending it. If
God did not hke to fee the world as it is, he would
not have made it as it is : for how can he give be-
ing to what difpleafes him ? this is ailing fooliihty,
and making himfelf unhappy. Man cdmplains be-
caufe he is offended^ and thinks God is offended alfo
as he is, becaufe he thinks God is lilce himfelf: for
his ideas are hmited to his nature and conftitution,
they go with him where-ever he goes, and mix them*
felves with hio ideas, that's the reafon man is fo in-
clined to idolatry, and fo many falfe gods have be^n
put upon man, and have tyrannized over the mind.
Man always worfhips man^ for he knows no being
above himfelf. If his God has not human form and
nature^ he knows not what form or nature to afcribc
to his God, and adores he knows not what.
C, What notion have you then of God ?
D. That he is a being of infinite perfeftion, but
I confefs I don't know what it is, but I know what
it is not, and againft that I argue. Peif^feftion I ad-
mire and adore.
C. Then you adore you know not what, as well
as others.
H 2 D.
( 52 )
D. I own it, and the reafon is, becaufe I am a
tnan as well as you, and, having fniu powers, can-
not comprehend what is infinite. All things nriay
be gond^ for aught I know, but T know they are not
all good to me, for I am not wholly good^ nor can I
fee them fo, becaufe I cannot fee as God does.
C. You faid, man's God is always ifi idea a man^
or he knows not what he is •, but we fay, that God
has no body, parts, nor palTions.
D. So fay I, but then I cannot defcribe what that
is. And tho' you fay fo too, if one tell you that
God therefore is not difpleafed^ or cannot be angry
with fin, having infinite 'perfections (for anger and
difpleafure are imperfections) you are fo dtfpleafed
and angry with him that fays fo, that he feems to
you to deny the being of God.
C. I am not, but muft own that moft men are.
However, we do as you do, imagine God to be
fuch as we conceive is fit for a God to be.
D. And that it is fit he fhould do fuch things as
you think are fit for him to do. So you make the
fyftem of the world a cobling piece of work, and
then think it is fit that God Ihould mend it. I
won't call this Atheifm^ but I think there is little of
God in it, or rather nothing becoming him. It is
fitting that the v/ifeft being do things in the bell man-
ner ; and having fo done, it is not fit he fhould alter
them. — If the ordinary courfe of nature is the imme-
diate a5t of the power of God, how can it want any
extraordinary mending, by any different ad ? If it
do, it is no wonder if things are ever mending, and
never mended. — If God attempted to mend man's
nature, ,and has not done it, the means were' not
proper, an^Jhis attempt was vain. The reafons that
make it feeifi fit fcr God to interpofe his power to
remedy human *ils once, will make it appear ne-
cefTary for him always to interpofe.
C.
( 53 )
C. But hiftory informs us that he has interpoled,
if there be any truth in the hiftory of miracles.
D. And done no good by fuch interpofition ; thi$
is flur upon flur, or blot upon blot. Not to do
things well at firft, then to mend them afterwards,
and make them never the better.
C. You miftake, things were well made at firft
by the maker; but man has made them bad by his
free-will,
D. What pity it is man ever had free-will. Can
any thing produce evil but evil ? If evil be the con-
fequence, what was the caufe ?
C. Good, the evil confequent was accidental.
J). Not defigned ?
C Not abfolutely, but left in a ftate of indiffe-
rence.
D. Be it fo ; then man's evil is not abfolute evil ;
it is not evil to God, but indifferent refpefting him ;
what reafon is there then for his interpofing or mend-
ing ? for, in this lights things are as God defigned
them, therefore 'tis not fit that God, as a mord
Governor^ Ihould interpofe his power to remedy
what he thought fit to do, or to enable man to do,
which is all one ; for all man's power is from his
maker.
C. But man has ahufed his power, which God
fore-knew he would do, and therefore before-hand
provided a remedy.
D. If man abujed the power God gave him, no-
thing can better mend the matter than to take it a-
way again ; fince God forefaw the bad effccls, it
had been better to give it with a m.ore fparing hand •,
to have been lefs generous would have been more
merciful : but if it was done, and there was no re-
calling what was paft, a remedy y you fay, was pro-
vided ; where is the remedy ? I fee none.
C.
(54)
C. Mow Ihould you ? ^tis only feen by the eye
oF faith, and you have none -, your light of reafon,
as you call it, has put that eye out..
D. I have a natural^ but not a miraculous faith ;
becaufe I cannot fee that miracles have mended the
world, therefore I cannot conceive they were ever
wrought : for I believe God does not work in vain.
Whatever he is the caufe of has its certain eflPedt.
He cannot be difappointed in his defigns. Nor can
I believe that miracles are proper means to mend
mankind : for mens hearts and adions cannot be
better^ till their minds are rationally informed. Mi-
racles are works of power ^ which ftrike an awe on
mens minds, but *tis clear reafon muft inform the
judgment. Reafon is more fit to direct men's judg-
ments right, than works of wonder ; which tho*
they make a mob gape and ftare, do not give them
rational faculties, nor mend them ; fince they do not
mend the works of nature, nor direft men to a clue
of reafoning, as they are independent of the great
chain of nature. Sudden furprize and aftonifhment,
while it lafts, is more apt to fpoil the thinking fa-
cuky, than improve it. At beft, this curb to na-
ture lafts no longer than the furprize affefts the paf-
fions, which is vague \ but the information of the
mind, by natural deduftions and demonftration, is
permanent. That cannot mend the heart in a moral
fenfe, which does not mend the mind in an intelli-
gent one. If virtue be founded on wifdom^ enlarg-
ing mens intelledual capacities, and illuminating
their underfVandings, will make them in love with
virtue : but if men are to be governed by the flavifli
fear of an arbitrary capricious power, 'tis beft work-
ing on their paflions by fearful and wonderful afti-
ons, or the ftories of them, which bewilder their
benighted fouls in the intricate maze, or dark wil-
dernefs of a blind faith. Such means, therefore, fo
unfit
( 55 )
unfit for the end, are not fit for God to ufe. If
the ordinary courfe of things required miracles^ the
original contrivance was weak : If it was forefeen
fuch patch-work would be neceflary, why was it
not prevented ? 'Tis better to prevent evil than
mend it •, and to bring in a bill of repairs^ when no
reparations are manifeft, looks too much Yike fraud.
But to fay, God adls always wifiji and befi^ and that
as He is, fo are his laws^ invariably the fame ^ is to
fay the hefi we can, and what becomes us beft to fay ;
and if fo, then I think there never was, nor can be
any miracles^ or occafion for them 5 and we may
venture to fay, God never did what is not fit for
him to do.
C. What (p. 17.) ' if God raifes a dead body
* for an evidence of his providence to thofe who de-
* ny it, or think him not concerned in the affairs of
* the world, or for a teftimony to true ^religion a-
« gainft an eftablifhed fuperjiition and idolatry ; is
* not fuch a miracle fit for the wife and good God
* to work for the good of men ? Let any Deifi
* fhew, if he can, how this is contrary to the laws
* of nature, or the reafon of things, and inconfift-
•*ent with the divine attributes.*
D. If this be //, it mull be becaufe the common
nature of things is unfit to prove a deity ; but if the
works of God are fit to prove a God, where is the
reafon that a dead body Ihould be raifed to life,
contrary to the laws of nature, ^o fatisfy infidels f
Is it fit that God, to oblige them, fliould reverfe
the laws of nature, which himfelf has eftablifhed by
his power ^ and ordered by his wifdom ? Is no other
method proper^ but one fo improper^ Of what
importance is this creature man, or his worlhip, to
God, that to convince him of the exiftence, con-
duct, and government of his maker, it is fit that
Cod ftiould alter his method, and change the law$
of
( 56 )
6f his government ? Is it reafonable that God fliould
humour man in fo foolifh a manner, to go out of
his own way of wifaom to convince man that he is
wife^ and to govern the world in a different manner
than he does, to make man fenfible that he governs
it at all ? Is it reafonable that God fliould go back-
ward^ in order to prove to man that he is going
forward ?
C, But every man ought to believe a deity.
D. Every man muji believe what appears to him
to be true, and can believe no otherwife ; therefore
belief cannot be a duty, no more than 'tis a duty
for all men to fee ; he that can fee, will ; but he that
is blind, cannot. To make htYiti meritorious^ or the
want of It criminal^ is a mark of impofture ; for truth
requires a reafonable conviftion, not a blind obe-
dience.
C. Well, be that as it will, (p. 15.) " Men, by
* abufing their natural powers, have brought fuch
* diforder into the moral flate of man, that his na-
* tural powers are too weak to reftore him to an-
' fwer the ends of virtue and religion -, therefore a
* fupernatural aid, and a divine teacher^ were necef*
* fary to reform the corruptions of man's nature, and
' reftore the knowledge and praftice of true reli-
* gion, on which his happinefs depends.'
D. Mankind was never in fo lapfed or deplorable
a condition, as to need fupernatural aid, or had it ;
for his manners were ntwtv fupernaturally reformed,
or otherwife than by natural means. Though fome
men always think fiupidly, and afl: wickedly^ yet
there are always thofe that think wifely^ and ad
jujlly^ who are fit to inftrud the reft. Though not
.one man is impeccable and infallible, yet there is al-
ways wifdom and virtue enough among the whole to
direft the whole : but thofe only are capable of re-
formation j who are capable of information. Whom
the
(S7)
the dearefi reafons are inefFeftual to convince^ the
tnoft powerful miracles cannot convert ; ^nd if they
could, that converfion muft be without convidion,
and therefore cannot render them morally juft and
good. Thofe that pretend to extraordinary affift-
ance, what extraordinary creatures do they turn out ?
and what wonderful good men have wonderful works
produced ? Natural reafon was always fufficient, and
always prefcnt with fome to inftruft others. Be-
low nature's help, therefore, the human nature ne-
ver fell, and consequently was recoverable by it. In
no age of the world, or plantation of it, were wife
and good men wholly wanting, or moral conduft
unknowable : nor in any part of the world, when
mens vices were at the higheft, were they otherwifc
reformed than by natural means^ if ever they were
reformed at all *, for they ftruggled thro* and over-
came cruel oppreflions, perfecutions, tyrannies, and
evils of every kind, by the heroic exertion of their
natural powers •, or for want thereof, fell under the
evils they fuffered to reign, or were not able to ex-
tricate themfelvcs from. Whoever reads the hi-
ftory of mankind will find, that the common na-
ture of man, as well as that of the world, was ever
the fame -, and that no fupernatural pretenfions have
mended it at all. Wifdom and folly ^ learning and
ignorance^ virtue and vice^ flavery and freedomy ever
were, and remain, and rule alternately in perfonSy
places y and kingdoms. None ever were wholly good,
or wholly evil^ but the fuperiority of one over the
other, by turns, or in certain cafes, prevailed. All
feek their own good^ according to their different con-
ceptions of it, y as their different natures incline to,
motives induce, and circumftances permit. This is
the fixed rule of human conduft.
C, Is there no room then to hope for fupernatu-
ral aid, wholly to vanquilh evil powers }
I D.
(58)
D. None. If there was, there could be no evil
power exifting -, for what natural power can refift a
fupernatural, that can fupercede and fufpend the ge-
neral courfe of nature ? What denominates a crea-
ture free, is the fenfe it has of feeking its own ima-
ginary good. And as each feeks its owrr private or
particular benefit, fo the weaker is obliged to give
place to the ftronger, as the deflruftion of one body-
affords matter and room for raifing another out of
its ruins ; and as every thing deftroys fome other for
its nourifhment or fupport, fo no one thing can be
fupported without prejudice or lofs to another.
Hence is the origin of good and evil^ and hence they
are both necejfary and unavoidable^ as things are con-
itituted. And the perpetual changes all things in-
ceflantly undergo, prevent particular evils from be-
ing general, or everlafting.
C. Are the common, ordinary, or natural means
then, fit and fufficient to enable men to anfwer the
ends of virtue and religion, without fupernatural af-
Jiftance ?
D. If the well-beaten -path of nature is not fnofi
fit for men to travel in, nor fufficient to lead them
to happinefs, the fupernatural is neverthelefs unfit
and infufficient^ being fo myfterious and invifible^ that
men cannot agree where or what the path is, and
the evidences of it are as uncertain and unknown •,
which men, tho' they flrain their eyes, can never
fee ; and thofe of the quickefV and ftrongeft fight
fee leaft. As foon as men in good earnefl fet about
employing their powers aright, to examine freely,
judge impartially, and ad righteoufly, they v/ili
find themfelves grow in judgment and true virtue,
each according to his abihty, by natural helps,
without a divine inftru5ior^ or fupernatural aid^
which cannot lead any man one ftep beyond what
nature permits, nor ever did : for all pretended in-
fpiration^
(59)
jpiration, that has found men fools, has ever left
them fo. This fort of God's government of the
world, fully juftifies him, without affording us/«-
fernatural affifiance^ and teaches man not to expefl:
it, nor to juftify himfelf in doing evil for the '^ant
of it : tho' as all men have not faculties alike, fo
all men cannot improve them alike. Moreover, if
the creature cannot fruftrate the Creator's ends, then
men's natural powers could never be rendered fo
weak as to fail of effedting it : but if the creature
can fruftrate the Creator's intentions, God is not
fufficiently wife and powerful, or man is wifer than
the omnifcient, and ftronger than the omnipotent.
To fay -then that men^ by ahufing their natural pow-
irs^ have introduced fuch diforder into their moral
ftate^ that thofe powers are too weak to anfwer the
ends of virtue and religion^ therefore a fupernatural
aid was neceffary^ is imputing weaknefs or folly to
God, whether he intended man's natviral powers
fhould anfwer God's ends, or did not intend it ; for
by xht one his intentions are not anfwered, if extra*
ordinary power be neceffary to rediify it, and by the
other he did not intend to do what was neceffary.
To fuppofe God did not intend that natural means
fhould anfwer the ends of virtue and religion, then
the fupernatural were always neceffary, and fhould
always be employed, then miracles and miraculous
infpiration ought never to ceafe. To fjppofe God
as a wife and good governor^ in eflabhfhing his laws,
gave his creatures liberty to break thro' them, and
for that reafon was obliged to do fomething extras
ordinary^ and take new meafures to repair the breach,
that his defigns might not be defeated, brings re-
fiedlion on the divine condudl ; for wifdom ne\^er
takes a round-about extra-natural way to do what
may be done by a diredl and natural. To fuppofe
that God made no provifion againfl a boundlefs in-
I 2 undation
( 6o)
undation of mifchief that man's free agency might
occafion, but that of altering his meafures by mira-
culous interpofttion^ is a weak fuppofition, and high-
ly injurious to the honour of God. Every man's
experience teaches him, .this boundlefs freedom is
retrained by general laws and particular circum-
ftances. If fomething extraordinary was neceffary
to repair the breach that man had made, it was but
a very ordinary fence*, the Creator had not fet a
hedge about him^ and about all that he had. If evil,
deftgned or undefigned by the governor, was fuffered
to break thro', fo as to render mighty and wonder-
ful repkirs needful, it highly refleds on the conduct
of the governor^ and alfo in not continuing thofe re-
parations that are fo highly neceffary ; for many
harve broke thro' the hedge again, and feed on for-
^ bidden pajlure^ fo tha-t the fpiritualjhepherdsthvt3.ten
them with being pounded^ becaufe the holy city
of the letter is trodden down by unbelievers ! If '
works of wonder, miraculous or prophetical^ are a-
greeable to God's wifdom and power, to do or fay,
it mufl refieft on his goodnefs not to difplay them
noiVy when they are as much wanted, and as necef-
fary as ever they were, fince bad men are as wicked,
fools are as credulous, knaves as fraudulent, and
honeft rational men as unbelieving as ever. Never
was more need of the fenftble proof and demonfiratioH
of miracles^ for they admit, of no other proof. If
they are neceffary in one age, they are neceffary in
every age ; for if all men fliould believe the famCy
they fnould have the fame grounds for their beliefs
but if reafon be fufficient, there is no need of mi-
racles. '
C. I believe you have been copious enough on
this head. Whether your adverfaries may think the
argument cogent enough, I know not; but, in my
cpinion, it is time to conclude, this difcourfe.
D
(6i)
2). Well then, I fliall make this application of
my doftrine (and tho' I could fay much more, I
will not tire you) that from what has been faid, ii
appears to be inconftftent with the nature of God, the
fnundane and human conjlitution, that miracles are at
allfitornecejfary.
C, Now a chearful glafs is necejfary for our con-
Jtitutions •, I'll begin, and wafh your doftrine down.
D. This way fuddle-caps forget out of church all
that they heard in it.
C. It is pardonable, if what they hear is not worth
remembering.
Z). Or if it fpoils good reafoning, or innocent mirth.
C, Which we, by agreement, enjoy.
D. And by this means agreeably entertain each
other.
C ^ruth and good-nature never difagree.
D. Happy is the friendfhip that is founded on
thefe.
DISCOURSE IV.
D.TT 7 E are now to enquire, whether miracles
Y Y ^^ ^^^ dejiroy the foundation of truth and
certainty^ and are as capable of the fame evidence as
other hiftorical fa^s. What have you to fay on the
affirmative fide of the (^ueftion ?
C I am authorized to fay, (p. 21.) that " no-
*' thing more expofes a man's underftanding, than
*' to argue, either that miracles dejiroy the law of
^' nature^ and the foundation of all truth and cer-
'^ tainty^ and are alfo inconjijient with the divine at-
' tributes •, or to fay, that miracles, which are the
*' proper objefts of our fenfes, may not be as well
'■' attefted, and with as much certainty, as any other
^' fa£t whatfoever."
D.
( 62 )
D. Miracles have been proved to be operati6ns
contrary to the laws of nature 5 therefore they deftroy
the foundation of all truth and certainty^ for that only
the law of nature is, and they have been alfo Ihewn
to be inconfifient with the divine attributes. If a
miraculous ftory be as probable as one that is not
miraculous ; if a fupernatural aftion be as pojfible aS'
a natural one, then it may be as well attefted as any
other fadl. But if men's fenfes may be deceived^ or
their underflanding, which forms their belief ; or if
men may lye^ may fee falfe viftons^ or fee the vifion
of their fancies, and if a voice may be heard by
the imagination only of the hearer ^ which are things
that no-body that has underftanding can deny, then
miraculous ftories cannot be attefted with as much cer-
tainty as any other fa^s. If miracles are not the
proper objects of fenfe, becaufe they cannot poflibly
be at all, then they cannot be attefted with any cer-
tainty at all. How many people have imagined
they have yj^;/, heard ^ ^;^i/<?/^ what never was, and
continued to believe the reality of what has been only
their own conceptions ? and the more people give '
way to fancies^ the more fanciful they will be ; the
more impofition is given place to, the more place it
has in human minds, and the more they will be im-
pofed on. How many people have been puniilied
and put to death for witchcraft ? and when there
was a law againft it, people believed it ; but now
that law is annulled, there is no witchcraft to be
found : So if miracles were not believed^ men
would find no reafon to believe them, iov their faith
is the only reafon for the poffibility of their exiftence,
C. But fure " our fenfes are as good judges in
*' miraculous as in common cafes, and thofe miracles
" which are the proper objefls of our fenfes, may
'^ be as well attefted, and with as much certainty as
«' any other fad."
( 63 )
D. Let us then have iomtfenfible demonftration
of them, without which our fenfes are no judges ;
and then it will be time enough to examine the judg-
ment of our fenfes. But if miracles can convert the
world, or if all the believing part of the world were
to turn infidels^ for want of a fenfible miracle^ not
one could be produced to fave the world, or what
is more to chriftian priefts, to fave their livings and
dignities, O! that I could dare any of them to
work a miracle ! I am refolved to do all that lies
in my power to provoke them, either to work mi-
racles, or to prove the poffibility of them.
C. I hope fome of them will give you a Rowland
for your Oliver, What a Goliah are you, to defy the
armies of the living God !
D. I don't defy the armies of the living God, for
I deny there is any fuch God living that can work
miracles, but, Elijah-X^^^ I defy them to prove by
a miracle their God is alive, or that God himfelf has
any thing to do with miracles^ or with them in any
extraordinary manner,
C. Whatever may be your opinion, it is certain-
ly the opini9n of others, that (p. 23.) '* miracles
*' are capable of the fame evidence, and have equal
*' right to be believed upon human credible tefti^
" mony, with any other hiftorical fafts."
D, That teftimony cannot be credible which re-
lates incredible things ; therefore the relators of fuch
have not an equal right to be believed, as thofe that
relate any ^/ifc^r -hiftorical fa£bs. We are to guard
not only againft being impofed on wittingly by men
that find their account in deceiving mankind, but
againft the unwitting deceivers, who have no inte-
reft in deception, but have been deceived themfelves,
who have faith and zeal enough to fwear their own
fancies zvtfa^ls,
C, Such things are owing to diftemper'd imagina-
tions. D.
(64 )
D. From which no man can beTure he is not li-
able to at one time or another.
C. But impofture cannot chufe its time to play
upon us in our unguarded hours.
D. If it did, no man can be fecure of his reafon :
as we fay. If every thief knew his opportunity, no
man could be fafe.
C Pray, Sir, fhew me, in a more ample manner,
why miracles are not capable of the fame evidence
as other hiftorical fafts.
. D. Becaufe, in many cafes, we cannot by our
fenfesht fo good judges of them ; and if we can-
not fo well truft to our own fenfes in the cafe, furely
we ought not to trufl. to report ; and kfs ftill to the
report of thofe ftr angers that party and intereji only
make to be authentic. Suppofe for inftance, that a ;»/-
rack-monger 2ind a dexterous juggler both perform alik^
things to appearance^ tho' the one be real^ and the
other delufory^ while the evidence of the fadls feems
to be equal on both fides •, who but thofe that are
fkilled in the one^ or the other^ can diftinguifh the
cne from the other ? How many juggling tricks of
heathen and popifli priefts are recorded in hiftory
for miracles •, and other impojttions for the wonder-
ful works of their gods and faints, all for the ho-
nour and glory of religion, and fometimes to fub-
due mens minds to virtue : are they capable
of the fame evidence as other hiftorical fadls ?
how eafy is it for a pious foul to be induced to
believe notorious frauds^ that have the face of piety ^
and feem done to promote it ! are the reports of
Arange things, which they are not in a condition to
make a true judgment of, eq^ual to thofe of other
hiftorical fadts ? tho' all hiftorical fafts recorded,
are not true, yet there is a vaft difference between
the probable and improbable. If a man tells me he
came over PFeJlminJter- Bridge to-day, it may be
true.
■(65)
true, tho' a little objection may lie againft it, be-
caufe it is not quite finifhed, which may occafioa
fome further queftions, in order to be better fatis-
fied of the truth of it ; but if he tells me he took a
running jump, at low tide, and leapt it over juft by
the bridge, I know it to be impofftble^ therefore a
lye^ and enquire no more about it. Is this latter
ftory as credible as the former? no fure, tho' I
may know the relater, and know him to be an ho*
neft man, that is not ufed to lye ; and tho' it be at-
tefted by many others. I ought to have extraordi-
nary evidence^ to induce me to believe extraordinary
things^ that are fupernaturaly which cannot be fo
credible as ordinary things which are natural. In
cafes where there is difficulty and danger in trufting
to ones ozvn fenfes and judgment, there is much more
in trufting to the lenfes and judgment of otherSy and
confiding in their report •, therefore fuch reports are
not as capable of the fame evidence, nor as fit to
be believed as other hiftorical fads. Since we are
warned againft the impofitions oi falfe miracles, we
have certainly a right to enquire what are true^ and
whether any ? and therefore we fhould be mofi care-
ful of trufting thofe that are mojl capable of deceiv-
ing. Not only the hijlories of miracles Ihould be
cautioufly received, but the performer of them ; for
as a man^pofTcffed of uncontrollable power is not a
proper perfon to be trufted with my property ^ nei-
ther is fuch a perfon proper to be the dire^or of my
judgment yW^ho can by hispo'werphy upon my weaknefsy
by his^r/ impofe upon my underftandingy and by his
tricks deceive my fenfes. A miracle worker has it ia
his power to do all thefe things. , Men are often de-
ceived without a wonder y but wonders are very
capable of deceiving ; and therefore a wonder-
working man may be a powerful deceiver. He
K that
( 66 )
that can alter things ^ or the nature of them in any
cafe, can alfo alter the appearances of things, by
either of which the rules of truth ^nd certainty are
deftroyed ; becaufe either the obferver is deceived,
or there is no trad left for his judgment ; for what
confounds the order of nature muft confound man's
judgment. When a point is to be proved by
miracle^ we give up reafon to authority , and by the
fame means, if it can be done, it may raife any fort
oi deity ^ or eftablilh any do5frine, Suppofe but the
power and pojftbility of deception in a miraculous
operator^ which I think may be reafonably fup-
pofed, and then there is not the fame reafon to be-
lieve a miracle, as in cafes, where no pojfibility of fuch
power is •, for the appearances of things arc more
eafily changed, than the reality of them ; therefore
miracles are not capable of the fame evidence, nor
have an equal right to be believed as other hiftori-
cal fa6ts, let the evidence be reputed ever fo credi-
ble. Both a r/iiracle worker and the reporters of
miracles^ are of all mankind the leafl fit to put
confidence in, and the mofl to be guarded againft ;
becaufe we ought always to be on our guard againft
the appearance and poffibility of deception •, therefore
the miracle- worker^ the work, and reporter have
not an equal right to be believed, nor are as credi-
ble as other common facls, by thofe that would
neither be -^mpofed upon, nor impofe on others.
' Common fenfe teaches us, that ftories probable
and improbable are not on the fame foundation, nor
have or deferve equal credit. Befides, an eafy be-
lief upon hear fay., a furprize^ incurious enquiry y the
fondnefs of novelty., and of telling a furprizing tale,
loving that others fhould believe as we do \ add to
thefe downright fibbi^ig for pleafure or profit y ren-
der the ftories of miracles^ not fo credible as other
hiftorical
( 6; )
hiftoricalfaSfs. It Is certain that nothing has been
more pernicious and deadly to the reafon, freedom,
and happinefs of mankind, than men's giving up
their underftandings to the faith of wonderful
(lories. It has introduced and eftablifhed fpiritual
tyranny in teachers^ and Jlavery in believers.
C. But how do miracles deftroy the foundations
of truth and certainty ?
D. Miracles having been fhewn to be operations
contrary to the courfe of nature ; if that courfe has
been confounded once, we know not how often it
may be done, nor where the confufion may end ;
and then there can be no dependence on the courfe
of nature ; which are the only laws to man of truth,
and certainty ; and if what is invariable fail, and
give us the lye, what can be depended on ? Thofe
laws that are certain to all men^ are the fame in all
ages ; but a miraculous power breaks thro' thofe
otherwife immutable laws -, confequently, by mani-
fcfting it's own power, manifeftly deftroy s all other
powers, that without fuch controlling force arc
certain and invariable ; but if fubje6t thereto, a pre^
carious power governs all^ and precarious evidence
muft dire5l all^ which clearly deftroy s the rules of
truth and certainty. Since inconftant miraculous
interpofitions do not agree with the conftant courfe
of nature, that the y^/;/f j and reafon of man are di-
rected by ; they are deftruc^ive of rational 'princi-
ples^ that are founded thereon : therefore miracles
deftroy all natural rules of truth and certainty. If
then all certainty confifts in natural rules, what
certainty or foundation have fupernatural ? and
what the fuperftruftures, when the foundation does
not exift, or ceafes to be ? therefore miracles
fhould exift as long as the doftrines founded
thereon.
K 2 C.
( 68 )
C. (Page 23.) But it is thought * very unreafo-
* nable to ailed ge that miracles muft be always ne-
' ceflary to convince men of God's will, wliich they
* were at firft v/rought to make known.'
Z). What in the nature of things cannot be, can-
not by the nature of things be proved ; and being
fo, miracles are always neceflary to prove them-
felves ; they being no links of the great chain of na-
ture^ fhould have a chain of their own : for nothing
can prove a miracle but a miracle. Before the re-
ality of them be admitted by hiftory, the poffthility
of them fhould be proved by demonftrative fafts
of the like kind ; for I cannot fee they admit of any
ether proof. The uncertain accounts of fallible tra-
dition can be none : fuch a foundation many different
religions have laid claim to, but the miracles of one
party are never owned by thofe of another ; there-
fore pafi miracles require prefent to confirm them ;
nothing elfe can prove their poffthility ; they, being
fupernaturala5fs^ furpafsall natural reafon and credit y
confequently require a confirmation of the fame
kind. If then they were ever^ they are always ne-
ceffary. Are they not as neceffary now to propagate
the gofpel in Jmerica^ as they were once in Afta ?
Is not the reafon the fame in one place as in anothery
when the end is the fame ; to produce faith among
thofe that know not the gofpel ? the Spaniards arc
of that church which flill makes pretenfion to mi-
racles ; were thefe pretenfions right, they might
have made as many converts^ m America^ as
their cannons deflroyed ; but this fhews their impof-
turcy becaufe they made no ufe of this pretended
power, when and where it was mofl wanted. And
as for us, we do nothing to convert them, our mif-
fionaries leaving their miraculous power behind
them, and not carrying reafons fufficient to repel
their
(h)
their objeftions. But what think you ? are miracles
produfti ve of faith, or does faith produce miracles ?
C. They ftrengthen each other : we read, thefi
things were done that you might believe : thus mira-
cles produce faith ; and faith is faid to be produc-
tive of miracles -, all things are pojfible to him that
believeth,
D. An evangelical circle ! faith and miracles
hang together ; fo where there is no /^//^, there arc
no miracles ; and if where there are no miracles there
is no faith ; this infidel generation is not to be won-
dered at. If faith attends the power of working
miracles^ and miracles attend on faith : if there be
faith now, there muft be miracles now ; for if faith
be the fame it ufed to be, it may do what it ufed to
do ; and believers may work miracles as well now, as
they did in former times. If they cannot now, why
Aould we believe they ever did ; for If the fame
faith remains, the fame power remains -, if ir do
not, faith is become impotent and vain. If faith is
the/jw^iteverwas, it »^t;^r did work miracles, be-
caufe It cannot now. If faith now is not the fame it
was, it is not the true faith. If it does not produce
t\i^ works oi faith, it is dead; and fu rely it may
be faid to fuch, your faith is vain, and ye are yet in
your fins. Faith founded on fupernaturals fhould
be attended by fupernatural evidence. Therefore
there is always the fame neceffity for their bein^^ ;
and there is as much reafon to expeft them now, as
to believe they were formerly ; otherwife if faith
could perform wonders once, and can or cannot
produce the fame fort of fruits now, it is a
miracle there is no miracle -, becaufe if it natu-
rally can, yet cannot, becaufe it does not; and
It It cannot, the fame faith yet is, and is not. If
one fhould from hence conclude, that there is
not the leaft grain oi true faith cxifting, one
would
(• 1^ )
would think it, is enough to make believers look
about them*— Hence, it appears that tiie mftory of
miracles require an evidence of the fame kind to
render the credibihty of them reafoniote. -
C. You will never perfuade believers to thi^.
D, And. unbelievers will never be perfuadcd
otherwife.
C. Then there is no reconciling them i What
have you been doing all this while ?
Z). Only ihewing the difference there is between
them.
C. And that is as great as the gulf that is between
Heaven and Hell.
D. But the gulph is navigable from C. to D. if
r,eafon be the pilot.
C. Then you cannot afcend to us.
D. Becaufe we want the topfail of imagination.
It is in vain to ftrive againft the ftream of common
fenfe, to believe contrary to reafon^ and attempt to
aft contrary to nature \ could we do that we
fhould work miracles.
C. Well then I would have you endeavour to
fetch it up with a wet fail : a few glaffes will help
imagination, and fometimes do wonders. But na-
ture and reafon teach that there fhould be no dif-
ference between friends.
Z>. The dodlrine is good, let us confirm it.
Come on \ a lading eftabhfhment to true friend-
fhip.
C. I will plight you my troth.
Z). Kifs glaffes, and join hands.
C. And the bargain is fealed.
D. I deliver this as my aft and deed.
C. It is good in law.
D. And both parties are agreed.
D I S-
(71)
D I S C O tni'^E V.
D, l^T OW let us proceed and enquire, whether
X^ the dijhelief of miracles be irreligion and
ctheifm?
C. Mr. Jackfon thinks It is ; and fays, (page 14)
* This author, I fuppofe, is not aware, that what
* he hath faid againft miracles, is not pleading the
* caufe oi deifm, hut o( at heifm.*
D. What I have faid againft miracles, is in vindi-
cation of the divine attributes^ and fentiments drawn
from thtperfe^iions of the deity \ which tho' they de-
ftroy the pofftbility of miracles, is not pleading the
caufe of atheifm,
C. (Page 15) He fays, ' To fuppofe that God
' cannot alter the fettled laws of nature, which he
* himfelf formed is a direft and evident contradic-
* tion •, for if he cannot alter them, it muft be be-
* caufe they are effentially neceJGTary and independent
* of him ; and then he did not form them, or is
* the author of nature, which is atheifm.'^
Z). Mr. Jackfon might as well argue, that if God
cannot change his own will, he is not poffefTed of
almighty power. To fuppofe that God can alter
the laws of nature, formed by his wifdom and fet-
tled by his power, I conceive to be i« dire5f and
evident contradiction ; becaufe they are immutable
attributes ; therefore am far from faying God is not
the author of nature^ or being guilty of ^/te/;» ; but
to fay God's power and wifdom may be fo far de-
feated, fo as to make it neceffary for God to alter
his meafures, makes him defective m hoxh power
and wifdom,
C. (Page 16) * Surely, (fays he) this author never
* confidered, or w^// confidered, that the providen-
tig^l
X72)
* tial government of God is that of a moral govern-
* ment over free agents •, to deny this, is dire(ft and
* evident atheifmy which I would not fufpeft him
* guilty of.'
D. Surely Mr. Jackfon never well confidered,
that feveral forts of chriftians deny man's free
agency y and that it is too fevere to charge them all
upon that account with dire5f and evident atheifm :
this I "Ji-ould not fufpe5i him to intend. How far
man is, or is not free^ as it is not the fubjeft of
my prefent enquiry, and has been the conteft of
ages, I will not now take upon me determine j nor
do I prefume to be infallible.
C. He adds (page i6, 1 7.) that ' your reafoning by
' neccflary confequence infers either abfolute fatality ^
* and neceffary fixed courfe of things, without a de-
* ity operating and prefiding in the world ; or that
* there are no fuch agents as man in it, but that the
' whole of our being is meer paffive matter and mo-
* /«?«, either of which ends in atheifm. And again
' (page 30.) * All this author's reafoning againft
' the foffbility of miracles, is not only weak and
« unpitilofophical, but in confequence fuppofes a
^ fatality y and neceffary connexion of caufes and
' effefts, independent of God's power and will, to
* be the laws of nature, which is manifeft atheifm*
D. It is evident from my foregoing difcourfe,
that the laws of nature are dependent en God's
power and will ; nor does the confequence of deny-
ing miracles infer an abfolute fatality ^ without a
deity co-operating and prefiding in the world, I
have granted all along, and reafoned from Mr.
Jackfon's own principles, that the courfe of natuu
is the immediate inceffant operation or agency of God
himfelf in the whole creation ; and unlefs atheifm be
inferred from hence, I think, I cannot be found
guilty of it.
( 73 )
C. This gentleman concludes, (p. 23.) that " he
** who does net believe that God can, or does, in-
*> terpofe in the affairs of men^ in the piibhck con-
*' cerns of ftates and kingdoms, and in mpre pri-
*' vate and particular cafes alfo, muft confequently
*' think all prayer infignfficant and ufelefs, and all
** religious worfliip to be vain ; which is not to be
" a Deift^ but an Atheijtr
D. I have been ufed to think, that nothing is
atheifm^ but the difbelief of a Gody or an intelligent
caufe ; but, according to this gentleman'' % opinion^
the not believing miracles^ or that God cannot alter
his fettled laws^ or that man is not a free agent ^ or
the dijbelief of the force of prayer^ and the interpoji-
tion of a particular providence \ and^ I fear, was he
to proceed, he will call it atheifm^ not to believe
every thing that he thinks to be a neceffary point in
religion.
C. Well thenj I find you are not pleafed to be
thought an atheijl : But what fay you to prayer ?
D. it is a tender point.
C» I find then it touches you, and fear you are
guilty. Can you lay your hand upon your hearty
and fay. Not guilty^ upon my honour ?
D. Ay, pafs over this fubjecl, and let us talk of
honour.
C. It is going from the point •, no^ no, you Ihall
not ramble ;, come, fpeak to the accufation.
D. Pray, urge me not, I beg to be excufed.
C. No excufe can be granted : Do you beg to be
excufed, becaufe you embrace a notion you cannot
defend ? or are you daftardly, and dare not ? Or are
your fentiments unjuftifiable and wicked, and there-
fore you will not, being willing to indulge a vicious
mind ? One of thefe they will be thought to be,
unlefs you plead in your own defence ; which is
manly and becoming, 'tis v/hat you ought to do ;
L and
(74)
and the world expeds you to be open in your fUa\
as you have been all along on the fubjedl of mi-
racles. Is it not better you produce . your reafonSj
if you have any, than be condemned unheard. You
may pofTibly be in an error, but by divulging it,
you may be better advifed. Your free defence is
therefore required, and your foolifh prayers muft be
rejected.
D, Juft fo it is with man's prayers to almighty
God. If we ajk any thing according to bis will^ he
heareth tis, that is, he regards us, or anfwers our
prayers then, and then only : but he is not to be
reafoned into it by man, as I may be by you ; the
creature cannot direct the creator. We ajk and re-
ceive not^ when we ajk amifs, 'for God's wifdom is not
diredled by ours ; nor is he, who is the fpring of all
motion, moved by our follicitations ; nor can he be
prevailed upon to govern us according to our wills,
but his own. He isijf one mind, and who can change
him ? not the prayers of men : he muft be the moft
changeable of all beings^ if their prayers could pre-
vail. His meafures are not altered by our fupplica-
'tions •, nor is his condu6t by our entreaties. God
requires not our beft informations, direftions, or
follicitations, in any point that concerns his govern-
^ ing the world, or us, I cannot believe we are wife
enough to counfel him^ or that we can, by any means,
induce him to do, or refrain the doing, whatever
his will or wifdom direfts, whether we petition for
or againfl it. It is not confiftent with the attributes
of God, to regard the prayers of all the men in the
world together, to fufpend or fupercede one tittle of
the laws of nature, the production of his unalterable
wifdom and eternal will, or to do any thing con-
trary to his immutable rule of aftion. It is a high-
er degree of piety and obedience, and the humbleft
adoration of the Deity, to fubmit to his judg-
(75)
ment what Is beft for us, than to diredt it by our
prayers.
C. JVifdom and virtue are fit for man to pray for ^
and for God, as a wife and good being, to give.
St. James fays, If any man want wifdom^ let him afk
cf Gody who gives to all men liberally^ and upbraid-
tth not. Surely it is laudable tg pray for things law-
ful.
D. It is a fign of a good mind to defire good things^
and as the mind is ardently concerned to acquire
thofe good things it pants after, it wijl ufe its ut-
moji endeavours to obtain them by all the means In
its power : what it is in circumftances of attaining,
it will attain, by making proper ufe- of its bejl abih-
ties rightly applied ; but thcfe things do not come
hy prayer. Prayer is only the dilcovery, or rather
the overflowing of a pious zeal to, that good thing
thirfted after, if it be fervent and fincere ; if not,, it
is no prayer at all. Prayer Ihews the powers of the
foul are fet to work, and according to its fervour
and power, it will feek all ways to effei5t its end,
and, if pofTible, do it fome way : but it is wrong to
expeft things in a wrong way. If wifdom could be
had by prayer, at leaft by vocal prayer, I think
even all men would be wife : but the ugly may as
well pray for beauty^ and have it, as thofe that have
no natural capacity for wifdom, to obtain it by
prayer. Wifdom is not attainable but by much la-
bour of the mind ; readings experience^ ohfervationy
converfation^ cogitation^ and care^ are the proper
means •, without thcfe, or fome of thefc, it is im-
poflible to be had ; to which a natural ability mult
be joined, or faculty of underftanding. And virtue
is. acquired by exerting, in a proper manner, at
proper feafons, thofe ufeful parts and qualities as
alone can diftinguiih and difplay the friendly and be-
nevolent^ heroic and magnanimous nature. To ex-
L 2 pe<Jt
( 76 )
ped wifdom or virtue to be poured into the foul by
prayer, is altogether as vain as for a huftandman to
expeft his ground fhould yield him a plentiful har-
veft of corn, without wanuringy cultivating^ and
fowing^ becaufe he devoutly prays for it ; or, which
will effect as much, the facrificing fome of his laft
crop in the middle of his field, or elfewhere.
C. We don't expe6l things natural^ but in a na-
tural way ; but fupernatural grace we expeft in a
fuper natural way^ by prayer to God.
D. But if there be nothing fupernatural, as 'tis
reafonable to 'believe, if there be no fupernatural
proof of it, then every thing is to be expected in a
natural way. Such prayers are the effeft of enthu-
'Jiafm^ and only tend to promote it, by increafing
this fever of the mind to keep up the delirium ;
therefore, in this cafe, the oftener they are repeated^
and with t\\i^. greater ardour ^ 'tis fo much the worfe.
C. Is all prayer then in vain, and none to be
ufed ?
D. When prayer is well ufed, it is not in vain.
It keeps up a dependance on deity in the minds of
the people, and fo may be a means to help to fub-
due the mind to virtue, and fubmiflion to God's
will. It is a cuftom that has nothing of evil in it,
if we let every one pray their own way. In afflic-
tion, it may give eafe to the mind, to vent our griefs
in cries and tears. In affluence, it may have a ten-
dency to keep the mind from being too lofty. In
^ middle ftate, to keep us in the mean. For fa-
vours received, it becomes men to be thankful. For
kings, and thofe in authority, that have a right to
demand our prayers, and our fervice, it is becoming
. to fhew obedience ; and more prudent to join with
thofe that exped or require it, than to fufFer inju-
ries for too ftiff a nonconformity, or to refift a pow-
er we cannot conquer, We may cxprefs our good
wilheSj
C 77 )
wilhes, as well as wifli for good things, but with
refignation to the all- wife direftor. When by prayer
men are excited to juft and proper aftion, or to
make ufe of right and proper means, to obtain in a
right manner what they defire or pray for, without
any expeftation of it merely by prayer; then prayer
is not in vain. We fhould not expeft to change
God's mind, but exert our own. What begins in
prayer, fhould end in right adlion. Praying may
be compared to feamen calling anchor on a rock,
which having done, they pull as if they would hale
the rock to them, but they hale themfelves to the
rock.
C. I underftand by thia, that in your opinion it
may be fit for the public devotion of people in fo-
ciety ; and if we pray for what is in the power of
our own endeavours, and the concurrent nature of
things to obtain, and make a proper ufe of our own
abilities, to anfwer that end, we may have whatever
wt requeft ; but if not, we afk and receive not, or
pray in vain, as to obtaining any thing from God,
by that means only.
D. You underftand me right. In all other cafes,
Chrifiians may fee how impotent is prayer, in that
of the beloved fon of God^ with whom the father w^s
always well f leafed^ as the gofpel expreifes it; who
tho' he prayed to be delivered from an intolerable
torment and ignominy, with the greateft earneftneft
and agonies that ever man prayed, it was all in vain,
he was forced to refign his will to God's. Our hji
devotion then is, refignation to God's will^ ufing ouf
beft endeavours to do what is beft to be done ; for
(James i. 17.) in God is no variahlenefs^ mr fbadow
of change. Job xxiii. 13. //<? is of one mind^ and
who can turn him F Dan. iv. 5 He does what he
will in the armies of heaven^ and among the inhabi-
tants gfthe earthy and none can flop his hand^ or fay
unto him J What doeft thou ? C.
(78)
C. Why do you quote fcriplure for this?
jD. To enforce that truth on ypur mind, which ,
to me is true without fcripture^ and being fo, fcrip-
ture makes it neither more nor lefs true.
C. But you have faid little or nothing on pro-
phecy: How do you prove the impoflibility of
that ?
D. This is proved by the former arguments :
for miracles and prophecies both (landing on a fu-
pernatural foundation, if that fall, fo muft all that
is built upon it. If there be no fupernatural power,
there can be no fore-knowledge of things to come,
beyond what -the powers and profpeft of things in
nature afford. And if ever God did infpire man-
kind with the knowledge of future things, to re-
claim, finners, and convince unbelievers,^ the fame
reafons remaining as before, prophecies fhould ftill
be, if ever they were ; for the fame caufe will pro-
duce the fame effefts as well now as formerly \ the
fame power, will, and wifdom, will always have the
fame operations in the fame circumftances. If any
thing has been ineffedual in its confequences, to an-
fwer the d'efign that fet it to work, and therefore it
has not been repeated ; it has been owing to the
want of wifdom, forefight, and power, to render it
efteftual. Prophecies and miracles, if they arc
natural works, would have their revolutions, as
other natural things have ; if riiey are fupernatural
works, as nothing can refift their being, fo nothing
can reiift: their confequences : and whatever can cer-
tainly be fore-known, muft certainly be, and can-
not depend upon things unknown, as the uncertain
events of man's free-will ; for if it did, it might
not be, ' and fo could not be certainly foreknown ;
therefore, they that contend for the one, deftroy
the other. If any man could be poffeffed of the fpi-
rit of God, he muft be poiTefled of all thofe quah-
ties
(79)
Vies the fpirit of God hath, but thi^ is impoflible y
therefore no man can have the fpirit of God, with-
out which no man can prophefy.
C. But may not a man have the gifts and graces
of it, in an eminent degree, communicated to him
by the fpirit ; as we fee one man exceeds another in
natural Wi{dom, why not mfpiritual? And why
may not God acquaint a man with future events, as
well as one man may tell another what he knows will
be brought about fome time hence, by knowing
that defign which the other is a ftranger to ?
D. Doubtlefs, God may afford gifts and graces
to one man in an eminent degree above another, in
fpiritual wifdom, as well as natural, but tlien thefe
have xht fame foundation. In the man 'tis ability^..
which when applied to natural things, 'tis called na-
tural wifdom (acquired is natural too, for 'tis only
nature improved) and 'tis called fpiritual wifdom,
when men's abilities of underftanding are applied to
things that are called fpiritual. What is above na-
ture is above man, he being a part of nature's pro-
duftions, therefore in man can be nothing fuperna*
tural. All that man can conceive of God mull: be
natural, for he can have no fupernatural conceptions ;
and all that man can receive from God, muft be in
a natural way, for out of that, neither God nor man
can find a path, becaufe there is no fuch way caft
up by the wifdom or power of God, as hath been
proved. Every ability in man is a gift of God's
fpirit or nature, yet all, as they are natural, comv-
to him in a natural way, nor can he receive them
any other ways ; for {lis whole exiflence and fubfiil-
ence depend conftantly on natural means, every
creature being a link of the great chain of nature,
and God any other Vv^iy has no relation to creatures,
nor they to him. There is, therefore, nothing can
come between nature and the creature^ or between
Goil
( 8o )
God and nature. The creator is related to the crea-
ture by his power of formation, and the power by
the means, which are all natural and unalterable in
the general fcheme and opcTadon. If there be a
greater power difcoverable than what appears to be,
and fuch power be fit to be difcovered, why is it
not ? if it be unfit, then to us it never can be dif-
covered, and confequently there cannot appear, or
be, any greater power than is apparent ; and fo aU
mighty -power ^ as it has to do with man or creatures,
cannot ht fupernatural. Therefore prophecies and
miracles have no foundation in God, but have been
created by man*s imagination in their falfe ideas of
God, or have been made the abilities of thofe falfe
Gods that men have fet up, that their uncontroul-
able power might ftrike profound awe and terror in
the diftorted conceptions of their abjeft fupplicants.
C, I expeft your conclufion.
D. And you fliall have it. To conclude then 5
it is clear that the difbelief of miracles and prophe-
fies is not atheifm, but better founded on the attri-
butes of deity, than the belief of them ; and that
reafon, dire6led by the evidence of our fenfes, the
nature of God, and of the conftant courfe of things,
are better rules to judge of them than the idle wan-
drings of luxuriant fancy, the bold prefumptions of
towering faith, or the vain pretenfions of men, that
lead to certain delufton^ but no certain truth. And
whatever the evidence for miracles may be, or be
fuppofed, I agree with Mr. Jackfon^ that they are
not equal to reafon and natural truth. Thus, after
all, 'tis confefled, that Deism, or the religio^J
OF NATURE HAS NO EQUAL, cvcn by thofe that
would fet up fomething above it, which is repugn
nant to it.
C. I think the church is but littk obliged to you
for thefe ientiments^
i>.
(8i )
D. The church is not injured by them.
C. Howfo?
D. Thar church which is eftablilhed by law, will
be fo eftablilhed as long as the law remains ; and
thofe fenciments that are eftablilhed by reafon and
evidence, will remain as long as the reafon and evi-
dence are clear, and may .make their appearance.
Befides, people will generally adhere to education
and cuftom, as they always did ; and if enquiring
men did not become Deijts^ they would be Dijfen-
ters^ who, tho' nearer in principle, make a greater
rent', for thefe fet up their altars, or worftiip, a-
gainft the altars of the church, but Deifts fet up
none, they generally go to church, and conform to
the devotion in falhion. Contemptible fchifm is
fcorned by infidelity, I am fure the diflenting meet-
ings have been lefs filled fince the growth of deifm^
than when the contention was warm between the
church and diffenters, in Sacbeverel*s time.
C. The Diffenters then are little obliged to Deifts^
for thinning their congregations.
D. They are very much for delivering them from
the enthufiafm of feparation^ and [uffering on that
account, as the points in which they differ not being
worthy of it, nor likely to produce the expected re-
ward, fince their errors are as great in principles
wherein they agree^ as in thofe wherein they dif-
agree ; therefore they are obliged to our informing
them, that 'tis better to lay zMt feparation and bi-
gotry^ than fuffer for rigoroufly oppofing that fu-
perftition which they have not power to ftand a-
gainft ; and if different judgments offend the church,
the church may, for its fupport, feek and cKecutc
that power which will deftroy it. As things go on
in their prefent eafy fituation, the church thrives,
and is filled without compullion.
C. Deiffs arc but indifferent churchnen.
M D.
( 82 )
D. Intereft may make them as good as many of
the clergy. Every one, of whatever religion he is,
is fo made by intereft^ fpiritual or temporal, real or
imaginary. Separate churches, or fe6ls, are joined
by fo many diftindt interefts. Give the clergy their
dues, according to law, and they may be eafy, if
they can let others be the fame, whether many or
few come to church ^ for fome will come always,
and fome will never come. As people are always
differently made, and of different minds, the clergy
cannot make them all of one mind -, therefore, for
them to be fo eafy as not to moleft others by any
difcommendable methods, will render them more
happy in themfelves, more agreeable to others, and
better promote the church's profperity, while pride
and fahion render them contemptible.
C. I fuppofe you are now delivered of your con-
ception, which you believe to be, truth.
D. I am, and do fo beheve \ therefore, if I err,
it is thro' faith and ignorance, which generally go
together.
C. Now you err, for it is thro' want of faith.
D. I have the faith to believe I do not err in this
point •, but, faith or no faith, we are all liable to
error, and he is generally the moft, that thinks
himfelfleaft.
C. So that there is no fecurity in any ftate.
D. Becaufe we find infallibility nowhere ; and
fince there is no infallible judgment in man, no man
ought to a6t the part of an infallible judge ^ to con-
^demn any principles, but as he is capable of prov-
ing them falfe by the force of reafon •, to that au-
thority I appeal, by that 1 defire to be tried.
C. And may you fo be by the beft and moft im-
partial judges, for I will be none in the affair. Since
every one believes what he conceives to be right,
and uncertainty attends all human concerns, I think
all
(h )
all men ought to be allowed the freedom of difclofing
their opinions, and difputing for them ; that mere
fpeculations cannot be of any damning nature ; and
that not notions of what is right or wrong, but right
or wrong pra5fice only makes men better or worfe,
and for that alone they fliould be valued or defpifed.
It is my opinion, that truth and liberty muft ftand
and fall together •, therefore, he that loves the one^
cannot be an enemy to the other. If your fcnti-
ments are rights may they profper-^ if they are
wrong, may they be damned, but your foul faved.
D. A glafs of confolation e'er we part ; and, dear
neighbour, let the lips of truth and friendfhip kifs
each other.
C Like bounty and benevolence.
B. Philofophy and wine refrefh both foul and
body.
C. Chearful fubjefts, when attended with friend-
ihip, and carried on with difcretion. But, notwith-
ftanding all your reafoning on this point, I believe
you are certainly in an error ^ and hope you will be
convinced of it, if you are. Miracles have been at-
tefted by the hejt men in all ages, and the poflibility
of them not denied by the wifejt, to whom I leave the
judgment of thefe things : tho' mean men may dif-
clofe negleded truth •, to the difcovery of which I
wifli fuccefs, that honefty may not be difcoume-
nanced. Though your fentiments and mine do not
agree, I fincerely refpedl you as a long and intimate
acquaintance, and therefore, deareft of dear friends,
adieu.
Mi SUPER-
(84)
SUPERNATURALS
EXAMINED.
DISSERTATION III.
REMARKS on PROPHECIES,
Occafioned by
Mr. Jackfon's T^^TTJiK to DEISTS.
rbe INTRODUCTION.
R. Jack/on having finifhed what he has to
fay in defence of miracles, attempts to prove
miracles by prophecies ; but as neither afford any
proof of the mfe Ives, i. e, as one prophecy cannot
prove another, nor one miracle another, fo they can
be no proof for one another ^ miracles do not prove
prophecies, nor prophecies miracles; nor fhall I
follow his laborious path of enquiry into the truth
of fulfilling certain prophecies, according to his fenfe
of them, which, whether true or falfe, as it has no
infallible cj'iterion^ I have no need to quote what he
fays on this fubjecl, which would make it perplexed
and laborious, fince it may be difcharged in a few
words.
But firft indulge me a httle on the lazvfulnefs of
the enquiry, tho' it be peeping into the Holy ofHo^
lies^ examining the great arcanum of enthufiafm^ and
differing the very foul of priejl craft : 'tis therefore
( 8s )
a tender point , yet, defigning brevity, I muft not
long apologize. In common affairs, 'tis no crime to
doubt and enquire into the certainty of our depen-
dencies, that we may not be deceived ; men are
blamed that do it not : Is it lefs neceffary in uncom-
mon affairs, which are faid to be moft material, and
where the deception is greater, and harder to ex-
plore ?
If things zxtfacred becaufe they are y^-rr^/, ex-
pofe them, and the witchcraft is at an end, the fpell
is broke, and the charm has no force : it is but fa-
cred varnifh that appears, they are but pompous fe-
pulchres, in which is nothing but rottennefs. The
better any thing is, the vioi'e it will bear enquiry.
The fraud and fraudulent are the fruits and friends
of darknefs, and the religion that will not bear exa-
mination, is the kingdom of it. Truth cometh to
the lights that it may be manifefi. If men fhould
know why and what they believe, they fhould dif-
play both the bottom and the building, . Plain trutli
cannot be feen in the obfcurity of myfleries. Like
wifdom, it delights to appear in public, it loves
freedom, opennefs, and plain dealing. What are
called the my ft cries of the fpirit^ are known to none,
for they that think they have it, have no mark to
know it by, but their ov/n fond imaginations •, and
'tis fupernatural proofs hdng ]ofl:, there can be no
proof in nature given of it -, therefore rliat niyfierious
fpirit is what every one's faith or fancy makes it,
who thinks himfelf poffcffed cf it. This manfiov. of
myftery is the pride of igriorancc, the delufion of
madmen and iools, where enthufiafm is born, and
future events brought forth -, where bipjots arc
trained ; where the voice of reafon is ftopt, and
enquiry is confounded.
The better to methodize my examination^ I iliall
confider,
Firft,
( 86 )
Firft, Of the difficulties attending the credif of
prophecies^ and their myflerious predi5fions.
Secondly, Of the prophets prediEiions^ praEiices^
and illuminations.
Thirdly, The conclufion.
SECT. L .
0/ the difficultits attending the credit ofprophe^
ciesy and their myjlerious prediBions.
IF the fenfe of prophecies, and ;he fulfilling them,
were clear ^ it would redound much to their cre-
dit ; but when both are uncertain^ it muft greatly
lefTen our regard for them, and dependence there-
on. Wc have no means whereby we can be fatif-
fied that fome things called prophecies were not
written after the fads which they are faid to pro-
phecy of, as the conqueft of Babylon by Cyrus^ men-
tioned by Mr. Jackfon^ and Dr. Sykes ; nor is there
any method of fatisfaftion concerning the fenfe of
obfcure prophecies, that thofe in Daniel and the Re-
velations predift what Mr. Jackfon infmuates, or that
he, or any man, hath the right underftanding there-
of, who have attempted to accommodate faEfs to
prophecies, A vain attempt ! in which interpreters
have never agreed. He owns the great difficulty of
it ; and indeed, the great labour he has taken, fhews
it, if he had not owned it. Does it confift with the
goodnefs or wifdom of God to deliver himfelf in fuch
myflerious terms, that the wifefi and mofl learned
men, with all their labour, can pever be certain
when they come at the meaning, and muft ov/n that
they cannot agree, becaufe their underftandings are
confounded in the darknefs of it ; and where there
is not fufficient light to convince rcafonable men, their
un-
( 87 )
underftandings arc unenlightened. In oh f cure fro-
fhecies men may everlaftingly puzzle themfelves
and others, without any certainty of ever being in
the right. This is the cafe of all thofe prophecies
which Mr. Jackfon has given himfelf fo much la-
bour about, fetched from Daniel and the revela-
tions. If prophecies are not commonly underftood,
or not underftood by common readers^ they were
not defigned for common good. If thofe of the fa^
culty only underftand them, they are then only
learned prefcriptions to keep up the craft, and dig-
nity of the faculty. If we know not certainly what
a prophecy fignifies, of what fignification is it ?
Common fenfe is fuificient for common honefiy^ which
is plain and open, and delights to Ihew itfelf clear
and fair.
By what means can we be furc of the certain
times when the particular prophecies were written ?
and that we have their uncorrupted writings ? for
it is well known that corruptions have crept into
the text, and that it was the work of Ezra and
others, after the Jews captivity, to find out and
corrcft them, as well as they could. If the word
of God has been corrupted, there can be little de-
pendance on the word ofman^ or on his wifdom or
honefty to make it pure : for there are certain de-
grees of prejudice, partiality, inter eft and ignorance ^
that man cannot furmount. The fafts predifted
Ihould have been known to be fulfilled by thofe
that knew the prophets and their prophecies •, unlefs
there can be demonftrative proof, that the traditio-
nal prophecy could not poflibly be corrupted. Oral
tradition cannot be trufted to in the fecond or third
generation, fcarce from a fecond or third perfon :
the natural infirmities of men, generally corrupt it
without intention. It is rare ih^ttwo or three per-
fons
( 88 )
fons tell ifo much as thtfenfe of the particulars of a
ftory exadtly one after another*
A prophecy, when delivered^ ftiould be fuch as
no human reafon could forefee, nor could' pofTibly
be any random guefs : then xht original or trtie copy
of it fhould be well witneffed, and preferved by
men that had no intereft in deceiving the world ;
if poffiblc, in fuch manner that there could be no
pojfibility of corrupting or altering it. It Ihould al-
fo be fo clear and intelligible, as to admit of no
mifunderjianding it. The circumftances that come
after to pafs, fhould fo agree with the plain pro-
phecy, that it may be as well known to be the ful-
filling thereof, as a man may know his own face in
a glafs ; or, deception may creep in •, the very
pojfihiliiy of which therefore fhould be abfolutely
guarded againfl. The better the chain holds to-
gether, the flronger it is, extraordinary cafes' muft
iiave extraordinary proofs : and after all, when the
thing predidbed is pafl, the credit of it's predidlion
naturally leffens^ as time increafes ; becaufe it is well
kinown, that the world is full of impofitions : and
in the things of God, there ought not to be the leafl
Jhadow of it.
Tho' it is endeavoured to be proved, that fome
of the prophecies were literally fulfilled -, yet if all
were not, if fome prove falfe, it is a proof the pro-
phets were not under the influence of an infallible
fpirit, or not infalhbly guided by it : and be the
cafe either way, we cannot trufl to them in all ca-
ies ; and if not in all wc cannot in ajiy^ unlefs we
can difringuifn thofe cafes. If the prophecies con-
rain fome good and true things in thehi, can thofe
recommend them that .are not fo ?
It was obfervcd, that there is the greatefl diffi-
culties in applying prophecies, which are not clear ^^
knd explicit to their intended purpofe •, or in know- ;
mg
( 89 )
ing to what intent or purpofe they were given : fot
inftance ; what prophecies feme apply to the re-
demption of the people of God by Jejus Chrijiy
others haye thought are only applicable to the re-
demption of the Jews from the power of the king
of Affyria^ and had refpeft to the times they were
written in. And tho' Ibme of the prophecies are
faid to be in fart only accompiiflied ^ in either cafe
the -parts are a great way afunder.
If the prophets did not prophefy falje things,
they were fometimes mifunderftood, and in the
greateft eflentials. The Jews expedled their favi-
our to be a temporal king^ fo did the primitive
chriftians, before and after the crucifixion of Jefus ;
for the milknarian do^rine of his coming again
to reign on the earth, is fpoken of in feveral places
of the new teftament, which was to have been * im-
mediately after the deftruftion of Jerufalem ; and
tho' the day and hour was not fixed, it was to be be-
fore that generation pajfed away^ the difciples were
bid to expeft it, watch for it, and be ready, f not
for the Holy Ghojl, his fubftitute ; but for Jefus
himfelf, and the manner of his coming^ was dc-
fcribed 5 therefore thofe were called the laft days
and times ||. And tho' we are told the gofpel was
jirfi to he 'preached to all nations^ we are alfo told
that fo it had then been in, the apoftles time §.
And Chrift's temporal reign on earth, was the
opinion of the firft fathers of the Church, (viz,) Ce*
rinthus, in the firft century, PapiaSy Bifhop of
Hierapolis^ had it from the chriftians by oral tra-
dition. It was alfo embraced by Jujiin Martyr,
* Matt, xx-iv. 29, 34, 42. Mark xiii. 24, 33, kJc,
Luke xxi. 31, 32, 36. John xxi. 22. Ad^s i. ii. f Afts
iii. 20. I Thefl' iv. 13, ^c. Heb. x. 37. i Pet. iv. 7.
2 Peter iii. || i John ii. 18. James v. 7, 8. Jude v. iS.
S A6ls ii. 5, Colof. i. 6. 23, Rom. x. iS.— xvi. 26.
N Ircneus^
( 90 ) '
Iren^eus^ 'Tertulliany HippcUtus^ La5fantius^ The-
ophilus of Antioch^ Methodus^ Vi5lonnus^ and the
moft illuftrious of the ancient fathers were advocates
for the milleniim. It was impoflible to perli.iadc
the Jews or Jew chriftians to the contrary. They
expected Chrift according to the prophets to fit on
the throne or kingdom of David^ which was a tem-
poral kingdom, and from Jerufalem he was to ad-
minifter judgment to all nations *. The wife men
that came to feek Jefus underftood it fo f ; fo did
the cingel Gabriel : yet we are now told they were
all miilaken, and that his kingdom is fpiritual \
for tho' it was expefted to be worldly^ we are now
fure his kingdom is not of this worlds unlefs the ef-
tabli filed chrifiiian churches are a part of the world,
having v/orldly power and grandeur, where his depu-
ties generally rule as if they never expefted king
Jefus would come and call them to account, except
in this happy age and country : and they may always
be trufl:ed to rule in a tolerable manner, when and
where the fpiritual power is fubjecSt to the temporal \
and when and where the favage fiercenefs of bigotry
for the gofpel^ is muzzled by the law.
Believers of prophecies being puzzled to explain
them, when the letter of the prophecy was not pa-
rallel to the letter of the fliory they applied it, have
underfliood, what was wanting to be ma4e out, in
an allegorical., figurative or myfical manner ; fo they
have made a myfterious application to the letter of
the prophecy, or fome one myftical prophecy to many
very different cafes -, or the my fiery of one^ to the
myftery of the other-, and by the fpiritual wire-
drawing of one or all thefe methods, they always
may make out what they pleafe. If by any of
thefe means the expofitor by chance or hard labour
draws a tolerable good parallel, the prophet gets
* Mat. ii. 2. t Luke i. 32, 33.
fure
(91 )
fure praife -, but if he fails, which is ofcener the
cafe, the expofttor gets fure difgrace. So difficult
has the expqfition generally been, not only to com-
mon underftandings but to learned men, that happy
is he who has gone into the battle, and come oS
without a fear in his intellects, or being crippled in
his underftanding ; and fome have been affeded
with a kind oi prophetic delirium all their Ufe-time
after.
Wherefore fhould the word of God^ be harder to
underftand than the word of men ? Why fhould that
be myfterious^ which is moft neCefTary to be plain f
Why fliould not God's word be underftood in it's
natural fenfe ? How is revelation unrevealed confif-
tent with divine wifdom or goodnefs, or the marks
or evidence of either ? Does God delight to puzzle
and dijira^f human minds •, and purpofely, as by a
wile, to deceive men's imderftandings ? Is this con-
fiftent with the character of goodnefs and truth ?
To what purpofe are unknowable riddles^ or inex-
plicable predi5fions ? What knowledge does this
convey ? or what warning do they give us of
things to come, if the meaning of the expreflions
are not known ? And v/hat occafion is there for
fuch prophecies ? If the trumpet give an uncertain
founds who fhall prepare himfelf for the battle ? fo
except words are uttered eafy to be underftood^ how
fhall it be known what is fpoken ? If no prophecy of
fcripture is of any private interpretation^ it can have
no myftical meaning. They that fay one thing, and
mean another^ are not to be depended on, nor re-
garded. Is it any mark of wildom in X teacher to
utter himfelf in words, which the fcholar with all his
endeavours cannot underftand : and if he by labour
or chance hopes he has got the right fenfe, yet can
ncvLT be fure of it ? That which is good, and wife
need not be afhamed nor afraijd to appear. The
N 2 wifdom
( 92 )
wifdom that is hidden^ has not the face of wifdom ;
her refidence is founded on knowledge ; but myftery
or fecrecy prevents our coming at it. How is it
confiftent with the wifdom of God to deliver myft cries
to the world, for men to explain as they can or
will, leaving them in the dark to be eternally toffed ^
about by their own giddy conceits, and his word
to be to them an endlefs fund of deception^ and maze
of confufion^ as well as an everlafiing bone of con-
teyition ? Where is the difference between what is
unintelligible ^nd nonfenfe? When myfteries pre-
vail, creduhty is infatuation. Any writing may
be deemed prophetic, if a inyflieal interpretation
be allowed. Whatever the fpirit teaches, the
letter fays, the time will come when men will turn
their ears from the truths and be turned into fables.
To put a fpiritual or myfiical interpretation to
a prophecy, is to make a fable of it. Are not
afiertions and prevarications ever prefent where
, truth is abfent .? — -It feems as ftrange, that the
Jews fhould not know the meaning of their own
prophets, and v/e fhould •, as that a foreigner in
tongue and religion, fhould underfland the arti-
cles of our church, and our churchmen not under-
fland them at all -, and yet the ftrangers fenfe of
thefe articles ^tiouldih^ forced^ foreign^ znd allegorical.
1 (as a carnal man) am apt to think the knack of
underftanding the prophecies and fcriptures, fpiri-
iually^ is that of putting what fenfe men pleafe
upon them, to preferve their reputation : fo if they
can be fulfilled or underflood in aiiy fenfe, the pro-
phets and v/riters keep their chara6lers at the ex-
pence of God's, who by this means is reprefented
prevaricating with mankind, by faying one thing,
and meaning a different ; or giving out his oracles
in fuch dark enigma^s,^ that neither fpeakers nor
hearers know what is meant, nor have any certain
rule
( 93 )
rule to direft them what is their proper meaning.
To all rational minds it is apparent, that they who
go beyond things natural and morale go beyond
their fenfes. This fpiritual fenfe which is above
the capacity of the natural man, is the all confound-
ing fcnfe of nature. The reafonable relifh of things
fpoils an enthufiaflical appetite.
If we confider the nature of fuch prophecy, as
requires a fpiritual or myflical interpretation, we
fhall find, that were the prophets honeft men,
they did not underftand, what they themfelves
meant •, for they that are honeft, will not fpeak fo
as to miflead and deceive their hearers. If they
were not honeft, they fpoke one thing, and meant
another, whereby they that believed in them were
deceived, and puniftied for being deceived ; that is,
for xhdv faith and fmcerity. So the Jews were de-
ceived by their own prophets ? None could be more
than they. They thought that believing their pro-
phets^ was faith in God ; and , this faith deceived
them, and they are caft off for being deceived !
Unhappy people ! to be fo made by xh€ir faith, by
which they hoped to be faved, as well as we ! We
plainly read that the prophets promifed thefe people,
in the name of God, to fend them a prince who
ftiould deliver them out of the power of all their
enemies, and make them everhftingly happy. No
prophecy is more plain. The Jews believe'd thefc
prophets were direded by God thus to fpeak •, and
they are deceived by thus believing in God : they
could underftand thefe prophecies no otherwife than
according to the obvious and natural fenfe of the
words delivered. If they had put a different lenfc
upon them, it would have been eafily proved they
had been to blame ; but becaufe they underftood
and beheved as they thought in God by his pro-
phets, in the mojt apparent fenfe, he, as we may
fay,
(94)
fay, has forfaken them ! This is a miferable rc-
fiedlion ! If they are wrong in fo beheving, their
prophets were wrong in fo deceiving them. If we
afcribe it to God, it is fathering the deception and
the deftgn on him. Words that cannot be under-
ftood, are fpoken to no purpofe ; they contain no
revelation or prophecy : or if there is any defign or
purpofe by fuch utterance, it is a very deceitful
one.
SECT. II.
Of the Prophets Predi£lionSy Pra5lices and
Illuminations.
WHAT confidence or trufi; ought to be re-
pofed in the prophecies, .will the more
plainly appear, as the enquiry is the more foberly^ or
diligently made. By the underftanding and condud;
of the prophets, the foundation of mens faith in
them may be known.
The writer of the Pentateuch tells us * that God
bade Jacob go down into Egypt ^ and promifed that
he would certainly bring him up again \ but he
never returned again alive.
Elifha fent Hazael to Benbadad^ with a lye in his
mouth. Say unto him, (faid the prophet f) thou
mayft certainly recover^ but he died ; and to make
the prophet more knowing than honeft, he is faid
to foreknow his death, and that Hazael would take
that opportunity to make himfelf king : and it is
fufpicious, that he as well had, as followed, the
prophet's advice, for his own advantage in deceiving
Eenhadad.
Hiildah promifed king Joftah in the word of the
Lord II, that he ihould die in peace ; yet he died
* Gen. xlvl. 3, 4. compared ^ith Gen. xlix. 23. f 2 Kings
X, 10. II 2 Kings xxii. 20.
in
( 95 )
in war *. Perhaps his faith in the prophetefs made
him fool-hardy, which Ihews us the folly of con-
fiding in prophecies.
When Hezekiah was fick, Ifaiah told him f ,
that he fhould furely die^ and not live ; but Heze-
kiab telling/the Lord how good he had been, he fo
wrought upon the Lord, that he promifcd him, by
Ifaiah^ fifteen years longer hfe •, therefore it was not
Hezekiah^ but the Lord that repented ; and how can
future events be foretold, when it may chance the
Lord himfelf may change his mind.
Ezekiel prophecied ||, that the Lord would bring
a [word upon Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar^ and cut off
both man and beaft^ and that the land jhould be defo-
late and wafte^ from the tower of Siene to the border
of Ethiopia^ fo as to be utterly uninhabited by man
and beafi forty years. But there is no proof that this
was ever done, fmce Nebuchadnezzar never con-
quered Egppt^ as we are informed by any hiftory.
When Jeremiah came to Tahpannes in Egypt ^
where the king's palace was, Jeremiah || || was com-
manded to take great ftones, and hide them in the
clay in the brick-kiln, and prophecy, that Nebu-
chadnezzar fhould fet his throne upon thofe ftones^
and fpread his royal pavilion over them^ andfmite the
land of Egypt ^ which no hiftory acquaints us ever came
to pafs. Tho* great pains have been taken by par-
tial hiftorians, to attempt the hiftorical fulfilling of
prophecies, by corrupting what remains of Egyp^
tian and Grecian hiftory, to be made agree with thc.
Hebrew prophets and hiftorians, and deftroying the
reft, yet it never can be proved, that Nebuchadnezzar
conquered Egypt within its own rivers, according to
* 2 Kings xxili. 29.
f Ifaiah xxxviii. i . and 2 Kings, xx. I .
II Ezekiel xxix. 19, 20.
\\ Jermiah xliii. 8, ^f.
the
( 96 )
the prophecies of Ifaiah, Jeremiah^ and Ezekiel %
therefore there is reafon to believe the prophets were
as much out in their other particulars concerning
the deftrudlion threatened to all the nations round
about them ♦, as well as in that of their own future
profperity, except fomc bold and lucky gueffes which
fometimes faved their credit. Thefe deluded people
feem now only referved as a mark to mankind, to
beware of fuch delujions.
Not only deilrudlion againft Egypt^ by Nehu-
chadnezzar^ is alfo prophefied by Ifaiah^ but againft
Iier rivers, (xix. 5, 6, 7, 8) Their waters Jhall fail
from the fea^ and the river fh all he' wafted and dried
up^ &c. If the prophet meant what he faid, when
did this happen ? If he did not, what did he, mean ?
If we cannot tell his meaning, what does the pro-
phecy fignify ?
The*xlivth chapter of Jeremiah was written in
Egypt againft Fharaoh Hophra^ and thq xlvith chap-
ter paiTes for a prophecy againft Pharaoh Neeho^ the
grandfather of Hophra^ concerning an aftion done
near twenty years before the xlivth chapter was
written •, fo that either fome prophecies were written
after the facTcs prophecied of, or the chapters are
rnifplaced, and by confequence, the prophecies have
been modelled and mangled.
Mr. Jackfon and Dr. Sykes fay, that IJaiah pro-
phefied the dov/nfal of Babylon by Cynis, in a very
particular manner, many years before Cyrus took it.
But this being more than can in this age be known,
if we cannot be fure the words of the text are the
uncorrupted words of Ifaiah^ how can this be a con-
cluuve evidence of the truth of revelation, and of
the antiquity of the prophecies, fufFicient to remove
ajuft fufpicion of error, either accidental, or worfe.'*
It requires a peculiar faith from a Chrlfiian^ to
beheve that (great evangelical prophet^ as he is
called)
( 97 )'
called) Ifaiahy fo long before the empire of the
Medes^ prophefied of Cyrus by name, but by name
knew not Jefus^ nor foretold any thing of the reU-
gion that came by him -, and to fee that his prophe-
cies of Cyrus were plain and literal, and thofe con-
cerning Jefus^ forced, and far-fetched from deep
allegories and figurative fpeech. Befides, if all thofe
particulars concerning Babylon^ mentioned by thefe
gentlemen, were truly foretold io long before, and
fo exadlly came to pafs j where is the free-will of
man? fmce the refult of one free human aftioa
might have broke every link of the chain to pieces,
or fruftrated every particular of the prophecies.
The xxxvith, x^cxviith, and xxxixth chapters of
Ifaiah, are almofl word for word the fame as the
2 Kings xviiith, xixth, and xxth. Was xht prophet
the fame as the hijlorian ? If fo, to foretel and ful-
fil was eafy ; if not, there mull have been fome
borrowing or blundering in the cafe ; if borrowing,
it might be to accommodate /<2^j to prophecies^ or
prophecies to fa5fs ; if blundering, there's no know-
ing how thefe writings have been managed \ confe-
quently, there's the lels reafon to depend on their
being correal or genuine, 'Tis certain, the hifto-
rian^ by his fpirit, was a prophet^ or one of that
party, and guilty of errors and partiality, as any
impartial man may fee, which makes him a bad hif-
torian and prophet. There can be no greater proof
againft the value and validity of any writings, than
that their intrinfic purity and confident harmony is
wanting •, fuch (land felf-condemned, and need no
evidence againft their own intallibility and truth,
but their own contents.
It is natural to believe, that thofe whom deity in-
fpires fliould have jufter notions of him that infpircs
them, than thofe that are uninfpired, or lay no claim
to fuch pretenfions ^ and that the teachers of tlie
O , -wor-
( 98 )
worfhip ot the true God, lllouid have better and
brighter notions of him than priefts oi falfe Gods.
It is afierted by our divines, that the heathen philo^
fophers could never, by their human abihties, attain
to fuch refined fentiments of Beity^ as thofe that
were taught by him ; and indeed, if they could, of
what fuperior excellence is infpiration ? But in this
we may find ourfelves deceived. Infpiration fcorns
the comparifon, and very juftly, for 'twill fuffer
very much by it> 'twill eclipfe its pretended fupe-
rior glory. For if we take a furvey of the fenti-
ments of the prophets, we fliall find, that if they
were good men, (which I will not now call in que-
ftion, fince good men may be miftaken) yet no-
thing was more common for them, than to fet their
God on the ftool of repentance. One of the infpired
writers tells us, {Gen, vi. 6.) that it repented the
Lord he had made man^ and it grieved him to the
heart •, O poor Lord ! therefore he deflroyed all
mankind by a flood, yet planted a new race from
the rebellious root ; as if it could be expelled that
t\\t jome tree would not always bring forth the fame
manner of fruity by which means the world was no-
thing mended. God might, confiftently with his
repenting, have been reprefented as trying to mend
his hand, by making other fort of creatures -, and
if they had not anfwered his expedations, he might
have deftroyed them again, and again tried to mend
the matter, by a creation of other fort of animals.
But if God repented his making man •, why did he
not repent the mdkAWgferpents^ lions, tygers^ ivolves^
vultures^ and other voracious and carniverous crea-
tures, v/hofe living and happinefs depends upon de--
ftroying the lives and hapj inefs of others.
Again^ we are told by the fiime infpiration, Esod.,
xxxi. 17. that after God had made the world, he
rejled^ and was refrejhed, lie could have done no
more.
(99)
more, if he had made it all in one day, provided
his ftrength could have held out ; for this reprefcnts
him tired y and confequently weakened with the fa-
tigue. Did infpiration dictate this ? what could a
man fay worfe that was uninfpired ? What idea docs
this convey of Omnipotence^ that it fhould require a
day to reft, and want refreihment ?
The Lord is faid to make the Ifraelites groan for
their idolatry, and then their groaning brought him
to repentance ; and that tho' he brought them out
of Egypt by his great power ^ to make them a pecu-
liar nation ; by his great power he would have de-
ftroyed them in his great wrath^ if Al.ojes had not
pacified him, reafoned the cafe with him, told him
the confequences of fo rafh an action, and perfuaded
him better, (Exod. xxxii. 9, to 14.) According
to Mofes^s reprefentation of things, the Lord would
have loft his reputation among the Egyptians^ and
forfv/ore himfelf, if he had aded according to the
angry mood he was then in. Let thole readers that
think thefe things little better than hlafphemy know,
that the hlafphemy is the writer of the Penteteucb,
and not mine. I only fet the writer in a clpar light.
Thefe things ftiew what the prophet's notions of
God were.
We are entertained with more refined notions of
Deity by 2i heathen priefly (Numbers xxiii. 19.) God
is not a man., that he fhould lye •, nor the fon of man^
that he fhould repent : Hath he faid ^ and fJoall he not
do it ? Or^ hath he fpoken., and fo all he not make it
good? And tho' Ibmcthing like this is expreiled by
Samuel xv. 29. The firengih of Ifrael ivill not lye 7tor
repent •, for he is not a man^ that he fhould repent ;
it appears to mean no more, than that God would
do what he then promifed, and would not repent of
what he then intended to do, but that he repented
ot what he had done ; for we are, by the lan"ie pro-
O 2 phet.
( 100 )
phet, at the fame time, told, vgr. xi and 35. It
repented the Lord that he had made Saul King, This
is not to be wondered at, if we confider, that the
Lord and the prophet were one and the fame, and
that the prophet gave the people a king with great
reluftancy; for it abridged his power, therefore
Samuel was refolved to plague both king and people,
being flung with envy, after Saul*^ and Jonathan'^
fuccefs againft the Philijlines : And to Ihew the
power he was yet pofleffcrd of, and not willing to
part with, he fends Saul on a bloody meflage, to
deftroy a neighbouring people, againft whom they
had not fo much as any pretence of quarrel ; there-
fore, what they had done four hundred years be-
fore, was alledged for a reafon, i Sam. xv. ver. 2.
^hus faith the Lord of hofls^ (faid Samuel) I re-
fnemher that which Amalek did to Ifrael^ how he laid
wait for him in the way., when he came up from
Egypt : Now go and fmite Amalek., and utterly de-
ftroy all that they have., and fp are them not \ hut flay
both man and woman., infant and fuckling., ox and
fheep., camel and afSf A bloody commiffion ! What
had Amalek done to the Ifraelites., when they came
out of Egypt .? We are told, E>^od. xvii. when the
Ifraelites came upon their borders, they came out
to drive them away, and fought with them, and
there was a battle 'till the going down of the fun ;
and tho' the Ifraelites had the better of it, by the
inchantment of Mofes holding up his hand, they
thought it beft to get off in the dark ; and not
having had fufficient revenge, (which looks as if
they had the worft of it, for double revenge is de-
fperate malice) the Lord is faid to fay to MofeSy
Write this for a memorial in a hook •, hence the re-
membrance of it was continued ; no wonder then
the Lord faid, / remember what Amalek did to If-
raeU Well, what was to be written ? / will utterly
fui
( loi )
fut out the remembrance of Amaiek from under hea-
ven. No doubt but that Lord, or that Spirit,
would have done it theny if it could ; but being un-
able at that time, fworey ver. i6. ht would have
war with Amaiek from generation to generation.
Therefore the record ftands in Deut, xxv. 17, 18,
19. Remember what Amaiek did unto thee by the
way^ when ye were come forth out of Egypt \ how
he met thee by the way^ and fmote the hindmojt of
theey even all that were feeble behind thee^ when thou
waji fainty and weary ^ and he feared not God.
Therefore it fhall be^ when the Lord thy God hath
given thee reft from all thine enemies round oJbovLt^ in
the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an
inheritance to poffefs it^ that thou fhalt blot out the
remembrance of Amaiek from under heaven^ thou fhalt
not forget it. Why ? what lliould Amaiek have
done ? What, but met Ifrael with bread and water
in the way^ when they came from Egypt ^ Deut. xxiii.
4. Inftead of doing fo, when the Ifraelites came
on their borders, Amaiek attacked them, drove them
off, and fell upon their rear •, therefore, to comfort
Ifrael after their defeat, Mofes tells them, they
fliould deftroy them as foon as they had power.
Samuel makes a handle of this, to foment war, that
the king and people might be abhorred by their
neighbours, and plagued for clipping his power,
and that of the priefihood^ in defiring a kingly go-
vernment : therefore the faclion of the priefts was
on the fide of Samuel againd Saul -, and Samuel^ to
fow difcord among the people, to vex the king, anc
keep up the fpirit of the ecclefiaftic fa^ion^ and to
give it fuch a head as might bring in many of the
people to their party, who were for a kingiy go-
vernmenc, he determines to encourage rebellion^ and
fet up a pretenJer^ which does not appear to have
been contrived by the prophet from a love to Datid^
( 102 )
but from an enmity to Saul ; therefore this high priefi
goes znd fan5lifies treafon under the colour oi reli-
gion^ and excufes himlelf by laying his lyes on God
after he had moft cruelly hewed alive Agag^ king
of the Amalakites^ Saul'^ prifoner, and, in a moft
bloody and barbarous manner, chopt him in pieces ;
and as it is faid to be done before the Lord in Gilgaly
I fuppofe it to be upon an altar there -, this is an ex-
prefTion to fan^lify inhumanity.
Can any man read the ftory, and be fo ftupid as
to fancy he fees the Lord's hand in it, and not ra-
ther the Devil's cloven foot of prieftcraft ? i Sam. xvi.
I, 2, 3, 4. And the Lord faid unto Samuel., How
long wilt thou mourn for Saul^ (hypocrify !) feeing I
have rejected him from reigning over Ifrael \ (why
then did he fuffer him to reign any longer?) fill
thine horn with oil., (holy anointing oil ! ) and go., I
will fend thee to Jeffe the Bethlemite., for I have pro-
vided me a king among his fons. And Samuel faid.,
How can I go ? if Saul hear it., he will kill me (and
defervedly.) And the Lord faid ^ Take an heifer with
thee., and fay ^ I am come to facrifice to the Lord., &c.
What an excellent cover for treafon., rebellion., and
vili^ainy^ is the hypocrify of religion I and this of the
Lord's contrivance too ! Priefis always bring him or
the church (which is all one with them) into the
plot. If it had not been thought, at that time, the
Lord could have profaned his own fervice by com-
mandment, the writer could not have been fo foo-
lifh as to confefs fo much of the wickednefs of the
prieft, and folly of tht people ! to fuch a pitch of
power was the one afcended, as to perfuade any thing !
and to fuch a depth offtupidity were the people fallen,
as to believe any thing ! But this artful contrivance
of Samuel's., arid his declaration, that it repented the
Lord he had made Saul king over Ifrael^ was to ju-
ftify his treafon and rebellion againft his lawful fove-
reign,
( ^03 )
reign^ chofen by God, or the prophet lyed, anointed
king by himfelf, confirmed by the confent of the
people, and eftabhfhed by his own valour and vir-
tue.
The priefts and prophets having been of Samuel^s
fa(5lion, and Samuel having made David their head,
the prophet being dead, they gave to Saul^ enqui-
ring of them about the event of the war, no anfwer
at all ; which afftfted him too much, becaufe he be-
lieved too much ; and having been plagued by Samuel
and Davidy and their faction, the greater part of
the time he had been king, he grew melancholly,
which is called, in the hiftory of him, an evil fpirit
from the Lord-, (excellent dodrine!) this melan-
cholly made him credulous, low-fpirited, and ti-
morous •, he feeks an anfwer from a cunning old
woman called a witch \ the fpiteful anfwer fhe gave
him (becaufe he had fpoiled her trade of fortune-
telling, by banilliing thofe pretenders) rendered him
fo dejefted and melancholly, that looking upon him-
felf as forfaken of God, and deftined to death, he
loft all courage, and haftened his own end ; with-
out which, probably, the witch might have proved
a lyar^ and his own dumb oracles have been defpifed,
as they deferved ; but king Saul having always a
fadlion to contend againft, of thofe that, in the eyes
of the people, were fanftified, (of which party were
the hiftorians of his hfe) and the king dying unfor-
tunately, it was faid, the Lord gave the people a king
in his anger ^ and took him away in his difpleafure.
Here is a fample of the righteoufnefs of priefts and
prophets^ who, whenever they wanted power, were
the incendiaries oi fatlion and rebellion in every ft ate^
. or the tools of tyranny^ and promoters oifiavery,
David made fuch intereft with the priefts and pror-
phets, by doing all that was in his power to oblige
the former^ and entering himfelf into the club of the
latter^
( ^H )
tatter^ that he and they publifhed a grant, fealed by
the oath of God, (if his bare word had been fuffici-
ent, to fwear had been needlefs) that the throne of
the kingdom of Ifrael fliould be fixed in the pofte-
rity of David to all generations, to cut oflf Saur%
iffue. The prophet David fays, Pfalm Ixxxix. that
God had fworn to him by his holinefs^ that he would
not lye unto David, One would think God need
not fwear that he would not lye •, but the prophets
often accufed God of lyings which made this thing
neceffary, yet in that pfalm David charges God
with acting contrary to his promife and oath. It
may be faid, thofe things difcover David, at that
time, to be in a fit of defpair ♦, but if the prophet
had fentiments of God's unchangeablenefs^ he would
rather, at fuch time, have queftioned whether that
promjfe really came from God. However, he
thought it more political to charge God with lying,
than make that a queftion. Accordingly, the better
to eftablifh this pretended grant, David found out
a way to fandtify the murder of the remaining family
of Saul, tho' they lived very fubmiffively under him.
David ^ indeed, (pared Mephibojheth, a fon of Jona-
than, becaufe he had fhewn him favour before, to
pleafe thofe people that had a refpeft for their late
king, pretending a regard to his oath made to the
late prince his friend, which being before confeffed
or known, rendered it difficult to get over. But
tho' David did not put this cripple to death, and
tho' Ziba his fervant's plot againft him was too bare-
faced not to be detcded, yet David withdrew his fa-
vours from him, and made him too poor to rebel •,
his friends too having no (hare in the government,
and his relations dead. Had David dared to truft
to the Lord's pretended oath, while any of Saul's
foftcrity was alive, he would' ne%'er have made fure
work, to hang them, all out of the way, and treat
Mlchady
( '05 )
Michaely SauVs daughter, like a concubine, whom
he had forced away from her loving hufband, to fa-
vour his right of fucceflion.
It appears by this holy hiftory, that the L ord fel-
dom or ever made a perfon king for his goodnefs,
or foreknew how he would turn out. He firft of
all chofe Saul, one would think, for his tallnefs, and
he foon repented of that •, then David feemed to be
chofe for-his frefh colour and courage -, however,
the Lord had, by good luck, now gotten a man af-
ter his own heart, and was fo fond of him, as to
promife him upon oath, he would fix the crown up-
on his feed for ever ; and yet only a ftxth fart of
the promife remained to his grandfon, and ever fmce
the captivity, all the promife has been forgot.
Solomon arrived to fuch a degree of power, that
he kept the priefls and prophets in fubjeftion, and
therefore no rebellion happened in his reign, tho* it
is plain the difpofition was not wanting •, for the
prophet Ahijah, in the name of God, excited Jero-
boam thereto, who was one of the malecontents of
Solomon* s court, but Jeroboam was politician enough
to perceive, that there was no profpeft of fuccefs in
Solomon*^ time ; therefore he fecured himfelf in
£^;'p/ till his death, and after that, laid hold of the
opportunity that offered, to raife himfelf to the
kingdom -, which when he had gained, he chofe ra-
ther the Ifraelites Ihould worfliip other gods, than
have another king ; whereby it is plain he looked on
all prophecy as a farce, tho' he Tided with that fac-
tion, 'till he obtained his ends by them. This was
he, who tho' faid to be chofen of the Gcd of Jfrael
by, the prophet, regarded that God lefs than he did
a calf: and the fpirit of the prophet had as little
forefight of futurity as a calf, in chufing hit;: king-,
for this was the occafion of the divifion of the king-
dom, of weakening the people by mteftine wars,
P and
( io6 )
and of their being, long after, carried into captivity,
if the prophets may be believed, i Kings xiv. 16.
Did Jehu behave any better, who was faid to be
chofen by the Lord ? and if the Lord himfelf v/as in
the dark, as to futurity, how fliould his prophet fee ?
and from whence could come the light of prophecy ?
or how does there appear to be any light or truth
in it ? and if thefe things were not of the Lord, what
then is prophecy ? So that, whether thefe things
are of God, or not, it appears there is no light nor
truth in prophecy. What fpirit infpired the pro-
phets, may be known by the adions relating to their
prophecies, as a tree is known by its fruits,
A prophet, by the order of Elijha^ anointed Je-
hu^ in the name of the Lord, king over Ifrael \
the confpiracy begun by the prophets, was finifhed
by the foldiers ; and when Jehu had pleafed the
prophets that contrived to make him king, by mur-
dering not only all the family of Ahah^ but Ahaziah
king of Judah^ and forty-two of his domeftics, and
all Bad's priefts, he eftabhfhed the worfliip o\' Je-
roboam^ and made calves of them all. Hence it's
plain, the prophets knew no more of futurity than
other men •, fince by their pretended infpiration,
they never mended the matter.
What fhould we think of a prophet, who, to fanc-
tify treafon and rebeiUon, affirmed, that God had
appointed a perfon to be king of England^ for the
good of the church of England^ who, as foon as he
was invefled with the power, Ihould efbablifli Po-
pery^ or Mahomet anifm ? Can we " think that God
would make that mian his peculiar choice, that chofe
not him ? What man would chufe or rejed, with-
out knowing the confequence, and not rather take
his chance as things fall out, than by making a blind
or foolifii chance, to have his judgment arraigned ?
Would any v;ife king on earth make that man his
vic^-
( jo; )
vicc-roy, who alienated the afFedions of his fubjefts
to their fovereign, or fufFer him to remain in his
office after he had forfeited that, and his head, by
his rebellious condudl, if it were in the king's pow-
er to remove fuch viceroy ? Certainly, a good and
wife king would not fufFer his fubjeds to be the prey
of a tyrant, if he could hinder it.
If what we read of the prophets be true, James v.
17. they did fometimes, by their miraculous pow-
er, a great deal of mifcbief : By a prayer of £//-
y^i?'s, there was no rain for three years and fix
months, fo that there was a moft grievous famine,
I Kings xvii. The fame man, when he had tried
to convince the prophets of Baal that the God of
Ifrael was God, without defiring their converfion,
he flew eight hundred and fifty of them, i Kings
xviii. 18, 19, 20, 40. This prophet alfo deffcroyed
twice fifty men by fire, that only executed the king's
orders, which they were obliged to do. By virtue
of the prophet Elijha's curfe, forty-two little chil-
dren were torn to pieces by two fhe-bears, for only
calling him bald-pate, 'Tis faid, indeed, that his
dead bones raifed to life a man, as they were bury-
ing him ; and that his mafter Elijah reflored the
Sbunamite's fon out of his fit by fneezing. It is
pofTible to fuppofe a perfon to be dead that is not,
and that the Jews fometimes buried perfons before
they were dead, as they bury them the fame day
they are fuppofed to die •, and 'tis polTible for time
to bring a perfon out of a fit, that to all appearance
feems dead. But if thefe were dead, and reilored
to hfe ; yet, like other bad quacks, where they cured
one^ they killed an hundred. Therefore it appears
to me, that the prophets were ^s fallible and 2.^ faulty
as other men •, and fince they v/ere every way as bad
as other men by nature^ there is but little reafon to
believe they were, in any refped, fuper naturally
better. ' P 2 JerC'
( io8 )
Jeremiah (iv. lo.) charges God with deceiving
both him and the people, faying, Ah\ Lord God,
furely^ thou haft greatly deceived this people and Je-
rufakm^ faying^ ye Jhall have peace ^ whereas the
fword reached unto the foul. At another time he
cries out to God, (xv. 1 8.) IVilt thou be altogether to
me as a lyar^ and as waters that fail? that gUde away,
and leave the channel dry. I fuppofe he had pro-
phefied fomething that came not to pafs ; therefore
to fave his oisjn credit, he impeached his maker •, fays
he, XX. 7, O Lord thou haft deceived me y and I was
deceived \, thou art ftronger than /, and haft prevailed \
as much as to fay, thou art more powerful than juft;
and therefore haft exercifed thy power in deceiving
me. It may be faid, perhaps, the prophet was out of
temper^ but then he was infpired with an ill tem-
pered fpirit, Ezekiel (xiv. 9.) reprefents God fay-
ing, if a prophet be deceived^ I the Lord have de-
ceived that prophet^ and I will ftretch out my hand
upon him, and will deftroy him ; fo that the Lord
deceives a prophet, and deceives him on purpofe to
deftroy him ! One would think this is deftroying
him deceitfully. What mean fentiments does not
pretended infpiration convey to man of God Al-
mighty ! In iliort the prophets tell us that God re-
pented fo often {Jer, xv. 6.) that at laft he was
weary of repenting,
St, Paul or fome other fuppofed infpired writer
tells us, that God found fault with the fir ft covenant ,^
(when he had tried it) and therefore made a new
one, and changed both the law and the priefthood^
(Heb. vii. 12, j8. — ^viii. 8.) and well he might, if
they were weak and unprofitable^ as the prophet
fays, [Ezekiel xx. 25.) He gave them ftatutes that
were not good : a bad gift ! It feems as if God fo
often changed his mind, that a man could not de-
pend on God's word by the prophets, or his oath.
Sometimes
( I09 )
Sometimes the prophets to fave their credit faid
that God had put a lying fpirit in their mouths^
I Kings xxii. 23, 24. that is, he made them pro-
phefy lyes, which he knew would not, or intended
ihould never come to pafs, as in the cafe of Chena-
anah and Micaiah : both were equally pofitive and
confident, that what each man faid was true, tho'
differently infpired -, for when Micaiah' s prophecy
contradidled Chenaanah's^ the latter ftruck the for-
mer on the cheek, and faid, ijchich way went the
fpirit of the Lord^ from me to fpeak unto thee?
therefore they both laid claim to the fame fpirit.
Nor did Micaiah lay the fault on a falfe God, but
on his own God, that he had commiflioned a lying
fpirit to deceive him and the reft. Sometimes the
prophets are faid to lye in the name of God, and
thereby not only deceive the people, but one ano-
ther ; as in the cafe of the prophets at Bethel^
I Kings xiii. and lying was fo common a praftice,
that they feem to have made a trade of it. Ail
was fanftified with the name of God. And fince
the true God's prophets prophefied falfe things, it
could not be known who were true prophets^ until
the event proved the prediction, which feems to in-
timate that they prophefied at random, and fomc
things came to pafs by accident.
Now and then the infpiration of their cups paffed
for the infpiration of God^ and fo they were in-
fpired with a wrong fpirit^ when they prophefied
wrong, Jfaiah {xxv'ni. 7. j fays, The priefts and the
prophets have erred thro' ftrong drmk, they are
fw allowed up with wine^ they are out of the way^
thro' flrong drink \ they err in vi/ion^ they Jlumble
in judgment.
The prophets to fave their credit, often fixed no
time to the events predided, and then it was eafy to
fay, the Lord will perform it in his own time : or
if
( iio )
if they fixed a time, it was put pflF; and when the
prophecy came not to pafs, the time for its accom-
phfhment was prolonged. This was done fo often,
that it became a proverb among the people, (Ezek.
xii. 22, 23, 24, 25.) The days are prolonged and
ev^ry mfion faileth,
'- 'AsrS, bold ajfertion often paffes for a proofs it is
not to be doubted, but a bold' and lucliy guefs has
tyktn paffed for a prophecy. And it is certain that
Iribfe'are deceived by one lucky pr edition of any fort,
\\^ undeceived by J?//)' that are falfe. When pro-
phefying was in fafhion, the prophets made a pen-
ny of it *, and fome of them got a good hving by
it. The common prophets were fometimes hackney
proftitutes, like common whores •, they prophefied
any way for gain, and were hired by rewards to pro-
phefy as great men would have them.
It is certain the prophets died away after the cap-
tivity, ■ till they were no more to be found, tho*
thfey fwarmed before. The probable reafon is this.
They had by falfe and uncertain prophecies loft all
their reputation^ and fo the fafhion of being in-
•fpired, when it was no more creditable nor profita-
ble, funk 5 and when neither credit nor profit blew
up the fire of enthuftafm, it went out. Some
among the Jews at length looked upon them not
much better than mad men ; {Jer, xxix. 26.) every
man that is mad maketh him f elf a prophet^ faid they.
It may be, many of them were like other enthufi-
afts, they tliat had no intention to deceive others,
were themfelves deceived \ and becaufe they meant
zvell^ and endeavoured to make men holy and reli-
gious., they thought themi'elves pofi^efTed of the
holy fpirit : And indeed I fee no other marks of
the Holy Ghoil among them or us.
* I Sam. ix. 7, S. 2 King-^ viii B, 9 Nchemiah vi* 12, 13.
Micah iii 1 1.
The
( »" )
The Conclufion^ or Application. .
TH E Jewijh prophets appear to have been the
inftigators and promoters of many factions
and rebellions in Judea^ and to have caufed more
calamities than they cured, and for that reafon it is
likely many of them fuffered death. I prefume
they did not expe6l fuch wages for their work when
they took up their calling. Thofe that think them-
felves Code's ambaffadors^ are generally very proudy
and imperious, which fometimes brings them to
the tree or the block. Whether does it argue more
the wickednefs of the people that put the prophets
to death, or the weaknefs of the power they ferved
in protecting its fervants no better ; which tiio' faid
to be more than human, yet, when put to the teft,
fell under it ? Where then is the proof of it ^ Does
it not rather prove, that the very thing, viz. a fu-
pernatural power .^ which they made the moft pre-
tcnfions to, they were leaft pofTefTed of ? It feems
unaccountable, that if a fupernai power guided them,
it (hould not prote5f them : or that a good matter
fhould take no more care of his peculiar fervants !
Does an artificer, when he has done a piece of work,
burn his tools ?
But if prediding prophets are any benefit to a na*
tion, why have wc none ? we have enthufiofis enough.
Is the age not wicked enough ? that is well. Is it
too wicked ? they are the more wanted. The tzvice-^
born Wbitefieldy and his followers, tliat have large
effufions of the fpirit, in conceit at kail, know no-
thing o{ futurity., nor even the truth of things pafl^
which themfelves beheve. They fancy they iiave
fomething within them which makes a mighty ftir.,
but they make a inighty Jiir about i^othing. Has
this prophetic fpirit fo ill defended liis fervants for>
merly,
( 1^2 )
merly, that no body dares to lift into his fervicc
now ? Now they may prophefy fafe enough, if they
can do any good, or fay any truth that will be fer-
viceable to fore-know. I'll venture to affirm, no
prophet of God would fuffer deatTi by the govern-
ment in KING George's days, thefe glorious days
of learning, light, and liberty. Should envy fay,
that in this I abufe my fovereign^ it is only envy can
fay fo. The truth is, this is a knowing age ; know-
ledge is deftrudlivc of fuperftition, which therefore
priefts call an infidel age \ and prophets cannot ftand
the flirift of thefe days, fearing unbelieving eyes
fliould fee through them. Now they may come
with freedom, they come not at all ; for freedom
begets enquiry, and produces knowledge. Once there
were laws againft crimes that no perfon ever did, or
could commit ; and many fuffered death in Old and
New Englandy for doing what could not be done :
but now the law for the punifhment of witches^ vi-
zards^ and conjurers, is annulled, and the devil is
defied to do his worft, he can do nothing at all !
There is no fortune-telling regarded, but by the
moft filly deluded people, who want a wife educa-
tion, and being young, are unexperienced, l^o pro-
phecies are uttered, no wonders are wrought in our
days. What extraordinary artift, mathematician,
lawyer, or phyfician, makes any vain pretenfions to
a prophetic fpirit, or idly fpends his golden time,
to fet forth or interpret prophecies ? The wife men
of the world are not carried away with the gales of
the fpirit : it may blow where it lifts for thttn -, for
they are not tofled about with every wind of do5frine,
or blaft of prophecy. Does it ever appear, that the
fpirit which makes fools its favourites, ever makes
t\itm wife? I think, that thofe among us who
have pretended, by extraordinary infpiration, to be
adopted into the Lord's privy-council^ are generally
men
( ns )
men of more txtrzordmsLry pafwns than endowments %
and when it happens othcrwile, their parts are very
ill applied ; but, thank God, fince the French pro-
phets, there have been among us no fools great
enough to profefs foretelling future events.
Our common notion is, that prophefying depends
not upon tht faculties of the prophets, but on divine
infpiration only, which moves them to utter things
according to that impulfe : but the Rabbinical no-
tions of prophets are, that it was fcientifical ; for
there were fchools, where perfons devoted them-
felves to the ftudy and attainment of prophecy.
Wc read of the fchools of the prophets, and we all
know a fchool is a place for inllrudtion and learn-
ing. Thtfons of the prophets were the ftripiings in
prophecy, zhe juniors^ the fc hoi ars •:, and prophefy-
ing figiiifies not only foretelling future events, (that
is the hardeft part) but finging, preaching, and
fpeaking fomething by a pretended or imaginary di-.
vine impulfe or infpiration, whether it refpe6ls time
paft, prefent, or to come. But whatever fpirit the
prophets are conceived to be infpired by, let it be
obferved, that the fpirii of the prophets were fub-
je<5l to the prophets, unlefs when they^heard things
unutterable, and knew not whether they were in the
body or no -, but then they could never utter thofe
things.
Tiie truth is, that extraordinary infpiration is only
fome extraordinary natural gift ; ,and therefore, a
man may as well be an infpired mechanic^ as an in-
fpired Givine^ and infpired writings are known by
their nature, as men are ; as we read, or fhould
read, 2 Tim. iii. 16. All fcripture that is given by
infpiration, is profitable for doElrine, for corre^ion^
for inftru^ion in right eoufnef's. What is, and what
is not true, is known by reafon \ what is, and what
is not good and proper 10 be done, is known by the
Q. . ' fitnefs
( iH )
Jitnefs and nature of things : and tlic degrees of good
or evil in aftions is thus known •, that which contri-
bvites to the good or evil of the greater number^ and
the giving or neglecting feafonable aid in the greater
need^ is th^ greater good or evil, NeceiTities enhance
the value of afliftance ^ and as to the knowledge of
futurity, or myfteries, it is happieft not to defire any
thing that is out of our power to attain, as all pro-
phetic knowledge is.
I Ihall conclude this fubje<5t with that incompji-
rable paffage from Rowe's Lucan^s Pbarfalia, which
defcribes Cato with his army, pafling by the temple
of Jupiter Amnion^ in Lybia, Thus,
Before the templets entrance^ at the gate^
Attending crouds of eaflern pilgrims wait :■
I'hefe from the horned God expe5l reliefs
But all give way before the Latian chief.
His hofi (as crouds are fuperftitious ftill) ^
Curious of fate ^ of future good and ill, >
And fond to prove prophetic Kmmor)! s Jkilly \
Intreat their leader to the God would go^
And from his oracle Rome'j fortune know :
But Labienus chief the thought approv'd^
And thus the common fuit to Cato mov^d.
Chance y and the fortune of the way^ he faidy
Have brought Joyces f acred counfel to our aid:
This greatefl of the gods^ this mighty chiefs
Jn each difirefs fhall be a fure reliefs
Shall point the difiant dangers from afar^
And teach the future fortune of the war.
To thee^ O Cato, pious^ wife,, andjufl.
Their dark decrees the pious gods fhall truft ;
To thee their fore-determined will fhall tell :
Their will has been thy law^ and thou haft kept it well.
Fate bids thee now the noble thought improve \
Fate brings thee hexe to meet and talk with Jove.
, Inquire
( 115 )
inquire betimes what various chance jh all come -j
^0 impious Csefar, or thy native Rome ; C
Sry to averts at leaft^ thy country'* s doom, 3
AJk if thefe arms our freedom Jhall reftore ?
Or elfcy if laws and right fh all be no more ?
Be thy great breafl with f acred knowledge fraught^
To lead us in the wandering maze of thought :
Thou that to virtue ever wer^t inclin'd^ j
Learn what it is, how certainly defin d^ >
And leave fome per fe5f rule to guide mankind, 3
Full of the God that dwelt within his breaft^
The hero thus his fecret mind exprefs^d^
And inborn truths revealed \ truths which might well
Become ev'n oracles themfelves to tell.
Where would thy fond,, thy vain enquiry go ?
What my flic fate, what fecret wouldji thou know ?
Is it a doubt if death fhould be my doom, -j
Rather than live till kings and bondage cgme •, v
Rather than fee a tyrant crowned at Rome ? J
Or wouldfi thou know if, what we value here.
Life, be a trifle, hardly worth our care ?
What by old age and length of days we gain.
More than to lengthen out the fenfe of fain ?
Or if this world, with all its forces joined, ^
The univerfal malice of mankind, ^ v
Canfhake or hurt the brave and honefl mind? J
If ft able virtue can her ground maintain^
While fortune feebly frets and frowns in vain?
If truth andjujiice with uprightnefs dwell.
And honefly conjifts i?i meaning well ?
If right be independent of fuccefs -,
And conqtiefl cannot make it more or lefs ?
Are thefe, my friend, the fecret s thou would' fi know,
Thofe doubts for which to oracles we go P
'Tis known, 'tis plain, ^ tis all already told.
And horned Ammon can no more unfold,
0^2 From
1
1
(1.6)
From God derived^ to God by nature joifi^d^ v
We aEl the dictates of his mighty mind :
And tho' the priefts are mute^ and temples ftill^
God never wants a voice to [peak his will.
When firft we from the teeming womb were
brought^
With inborn precepts then our fouls were fraught^
And then the maker his new creatures taught.
Then., when he form^d^ and gave us to be meUj
He gave us all our ufeful knowledge then,
Canfl thou believe^ the vafi eternal mind
Was e*er to Syrts and hybianfands confined?
*That he would chufe this wafle^ this barren
ground^
^0 teach the thin inhabitants around^
And leave his truth in wilds and defarts drown* d?
Is there a place that God would chufe to love -j
Beyond this earthy the feas.^ yon heaven ab&ve^ i
And virtuous minds ^ the noblefl throne for Joy z fj
Why feek we farther then ? Behold around^ y
How all thou feefi does with the God abound ; >
Jove is alike in alU cind always to be found, 1
Let thofe weak mifids^ who live in doubt and fear^,
To juggling priefls for oracles repair \
One certain hour of death to each decreed^
Myfix^d^ my certain foul from death has freed.
The coward and the brave are doomed to fall-.
And when Jove told this truths he told us all.
So fpoke the hero^ and to keep his word^
Nor Ammon, nor his oracle explored ;
But left the croud at freedom to believe^
Ami lake fuch anjwers as the priefi JJjould give.
S U P E R-
SUPERNATURALS
E X A M I N E D^
DISSERTATION IV.
On the defence of the peculiar inflitutions and
doBrines of Chrijiianity^ in anfwer to a late
pamphlet, entitled, Detfm fairly Jiated^ and
fully vindicated from the grofs imputations
and groundlefs calumnies of modern believers.
In a Letter to the Author of the latter
Trad. -
Z I R,
T Have read that treatife which, of the many others
X written againft your excellent performance, alone
deferves regard : my love to truth, and to you its
advocate, excites me to deliver my fentiments there-
on •, for that reafon, I think neither the antagonifts^ nor
t\itfuhje3ls^ are unworthy fpecial notice. I ihall en-
deavour to confine myfelf within the bounds of truth
and decency ; and, in order to be brief, fhall take
notice only of the more material parts of your op-
ponent's arguments. After obferving to you, that
the controverfialifts Ihould be diftinguiflied by either
the names that themfelves efpoufe, of Christians
and Deists, or of the terms Credulous and In-
credulous J charadters that are in the direcleft op-
pofition, and, I conceive, may, without offence,
be properly applied ; hlievers and infidels being
terms
( n8 }
terms improper ; for ^ except m fupernaturals, both
are, in general, believers or infidels alike. The de^
grees between thefe pojitive parties may be accounted
three^ viz, the Doubter, the Querist, and the
Examiner. In the latter clafs I put myfelf. Thefe
are the terms or appellations I intend to make ufe of
thro* this v/ork, and therefore thought proper to
premife this in the firft place.
To your propofitions, particularly the fifth, mz,
that NATURAL DUTIES ARE ONLY PERCEIVED BY
usTOBEDUTiES, your antagonift anfwers, that/^//>&
in Gody and obedience to his commands^ are natural
duties. By a duty I underftand an aft of the will,
fomewhat enjoined, as a precept, which we appear
able to do, or leave undone, or do the contrary. *Tis
wrong to propofe faith to the ajfent of the will^
which ought to be a light to the judgment. If it is
a natural duty to believe a propofition as foon as it
is propofed, it makes examination ufelefs. What a
man does not fee a reafon for, he cannot believe ;
unlefs that may be called behef, which is taken upon
truft without reafon, and even contrary to reafon.
If this be a duty^ then fairh may be called a duty ;
but faith, which is founded on evidence or reafon,
unavoidably obeys, and a reafonable faith cannot
obey where evidence or reafon is not ; therefore a
true and reafonable faith is no duty at all. The duty
lies in the enquiry^ not in the confequence of it ; for
examination is the work of the will, , but the fuccefs
of it is not : therefore faith and duty are two things.
It is a man's duty. to ufe what means appear proper
to him to inform his judgment, but the fuccefs of
the means is not within the compafs of duty \ and
if faith be no duty^ there is no righteoufnejs in it,
Tho' this may feem ftrange to fome, yet if it be
well confidered, it will clearly appear, that to be-
lieve a propofition v/ithout a reafonable proof, is not
in
( 119 )
in the power of a reafonable creature, nor Is it in his
power to rejcft what has fuch proof, as foon as he
difcerns it ; he believes, or difbelieves, without be-
ing retarded by the confent of the will, for when
fufficient conviftion appears, it irrefiftibly conftrains
'the will : therefore /^zV/& in God is no more a duty, than
the ability is to difcem his beings or the properties of it.
As it is not a blind man's duty to fee, io it is not
a man'jj duty to believe a God, who cannot fee the
evidences qf it : and if faith in God be not a duty,
faith in things of a much lower degree, that have no
evidence in nature, can be no natural duty.
Therefore obedience to the commands of God
(or what are called fo) is only due from us to
fuch precepts as we are convinced are his com-
niands : for if we mud obey commands faid to be
of God, without fufficient convidlion, or reafonable
evidence that they are fo, our obedience is blind ^
and inilead of being good, may be prejudicial and
mifchievous to mankind. Therefore 'tis evident,
that upon the pretended ground of obedience to God^Si
commands, we are not obliged to receive the feverai
inftitutions of a divine revelation, if it don't appear
to be divine, nor the inftitutions to be of God. In
fuch cafe it cannot be right to receive it by thofe
who cannot perceive the rectitude of it, for that is a
falfe ground. And not only (fays this author) in
matters of religion, but even in the common inter courfes
of life, the relation that fubfifts between the parties
concerned in them, often derives and confers an obit*
Ration on particular injunctions that are 7iot in them-
felves natural duties \ but yet are cle^irly perceived
and acknowledged to become duties, merely becaufe they
are commanded. It had been better if faid, meerly
becaufe the place, ftation, and circumftances the
iervant is in, fliew them to be duties. Obedience
of inferiors to the commands of their fuperiors, in
all
( 120 )
all things lawful and juft, appear to be duties, not
becaufe of the authority of the commander, but of
thtfitnefs of the things commanded. The true obli-
gation of a juil command, arifes from the authority
of that juftice which makes it the reafonable motive
of obedience. This gentleman, in an exception^ con-
feffes as much, when he fays, " excepting only when
it is fomething impious^ or immoral^ fomething pro-
hibited by afuperior authority.'* This is ftill more
evident in things refpefting the fervice of God, for
we do not obey God as a perfon^ nor have we vocal
mandates from him ; for, as fuch, we know neither
the one nor the other, but as the reafonable require-
ments of a divine nature \ not for the benefit of God
the commander, but for our own in obeying ; hence
we have a rule to judge by. All arbitrary laws pre-
tended to be from God^ that do not by nature tend to
man's good^ are impofitions ^ and not the commands of
God. Pofitive inftitutions, that do not appear to
be naturally fit to promote human happinefs, do not
appear to be of God ; therefore your rule holds
good, INJUNCTIONS THAT ARE NOT IN THEM-
SELVES NATURAL DUTIES, CANNOT BE CLEARLY
PERCEIVED AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO BECOME DU-
TIES MEERLY BECAUSE THEY ARE COMMANDED.
All that we know of God is, that he is zfpirit^ that
is, a divine nature^ not a perfon ; he therefore that
loves and obeys truth, purity of heart, love to man-
kind ; that has a benevolent mind ; that regulates
his conduft by righteoufnefs •, loves and obeys God.
Thus what is love and obedience to God, is eafily
known. Wifdcm and goodnefs is the perfedlion of
nature, and of God's nature, fo far as it concerns
our fervice \ therefore, all do^rines and precepts that
are incompatible with wifdom and goodnefs^ are not
of God : and if they do not appear to be wife and
goodj they do not appear to be of him 5 and fhould
therefore
( 121 )
therefore (even tho' they may be wife and good) be
rejeded till they do fo appear : for wifdom and good-
nefs cannot require us to believe and do what does
not appear to us to be wife and good ; nor to judge
wifer than we can, or aft by better motives than we
have to aft by : that would be to require us to do
things impoffible to be done •, for %ve niuft judge of
things by their appearance^ unlefs our better know-
ledge direft us otherwife, and then we always judge
according to /{:>?(7'K;/e'^^^. *Tis right to us that we
fhould judge and aft in the hejt manner we can, and
therefore, when we can know no better than by ap^
pearance^ that appearance, tho' wrongs is the befi
rule of our judgment ; and v/e can no more alter
this rule, and xhe. refult of it, than we can alter our
frame and conilitution. Therefore, if divine laws
appear to us to be wrongs and this appearance
be according to the beft of our knowledge and ca-
pacities, 'tis wrong in us to obey them ; becaufe 'tis
direftly afting againft confcience, againft the beft
light and evidence th^t we have. 'Tisnot our fault
that we do not fee truth, if we feek it, but that of
the circumftances we are in. Not feeing things ii\
a true light, is often the occafion of wrong judg-
ment and aftion ; yet if we follow the truth with-
rA\t feeing it to be fo, 'tis not following it for the
truth's fake, and fo doing deftroys all virtue in the
obedience : it is walking in the dark, not knowing
whether we are right or wrong, without any certain
lie to direft us. God cannot appear jujl to man,
'1 his authority enable him to give fuch pofitive laws
as have not the appearance oi juJUce and fit7ie[s -^
therefore, to, impofe fuch laws on man as the com-
mands of God, is to reprefent God an arbitrary and
unjiifi being. .
I'here is a neccflity to prove thcfe pofitive duties
/nfiited on to be God's pofith^e commands ^ upon this
R rep
(122 )
refis the whole controverfy. All pofitive comrnands
called duties, not naturally and morally fit, or not
appearing to ariie from the plain reafon, and evi-
dent nature and fitnefs of things, are impofitions ;
and impofing them on men as the law of God, con-
founds mens underilandings of God's law; tis tranf-
greffing the commandments of God, inftead of obey-
ing them, and teaching for do^rines and duties the
traditions and inflitutions of men.
All reafonable duties which are fit and proper.,
arifing from the nature of things and circumilances,
are natural, tho' they may be called pofitive •, and
all pofitive duties that are not of this fort, are un-
natural and unreafonable. IVe contend for nothing
more^ than that ajuft regard foould be had to what are
the commands of God, and not to take for them the
commands of men : for (as you have faid) " what-
" ever are not originally in their own nature confl:i-
'' tuent parts of religion, can never have a divine
*' appointment and authority to become fuch ;" be-
caufe the original nature and reafon of things is al-
ways the fame, God not being changeable and ca-
pricious : there is, therefore, good reafon to quefl:ion
fuch pofitive commands as are faid to be given by
the univerfal God, which are not beil fitted for the
univerfal nature of mankind. That the peculiar
infiitutions. of the gofpel have a natural tendency to
promote purity of heart and re^itude of manners^ re-
quires a peculiar proof-, if that be done, every
ibber Deifi will approve of rlicm : plain proof of it
IS all that is wanted.
(F. 14.) After your antagonifi: has cited you, in-
timating that " God only requires of men a con-
^* duel proportionate to the abilities he has given
*' them ; '* he adds, that y'et^ for all this^ he 7nay
- convey certain inftrnttions to cur reafoning powers and
■ fiuulties in the way of ? evclation y and the more It-
rfiltted
( 123 )
mined and confined cur faculties arc^ in their prefent
Jiate^ fo much the more occafton may there he for fuch
fpecialajjijlance^ and more extenfive and perfe5i know-
ledge of cur duty imparted by it. If our Creator re-
quire of us a Condu<5b but proportionate to our abi-
lities, thofe of the moft limited and confined have
no occafion hr fpecial affiftance or knowledge of their
duty more than others, fince 'tis not fit in the na-
ture of things, that all men fliould be made equal ;
and fince, by this rule, there will be an equal diltri-
bution of juftice to all, whether their abiUties are
great or little. Befides, attempting to cure the im-
perfedions of nature by the plaifier of revelation^ is
beneath the pradlice of the all-wife phyfician ; for
whatever deficiencies are in nature, they are God's
own work : and befides this, the daubing with the
holy un6i:ion of revelation, never yet made his un-
derftanding/r^^^i?/, whom God by nature made
ercckcd ; or ever conferred thofe abilities which na-
ture denied ; but, on the contrary, it has warped
many frojn the re^litude cf reafon, and, like the
light of enthufiafm, made men as unwife as it found
them, if not much more fo. It is to all men that
depend upon its light, as above that of natural rea-
fon, an inextricable maze, and a wildernefs af end-
lefs embarraffment.
Seeing that natural and pofitive duties arife from
one foundation, viz. the relation andfitncfs ofthin^s^
and appear alike confpicuous, as foon as they do ap-
pear, I fee not the Icaft keming contradiftioa (p. 1 5. )
in your faying, *' Natural dudes only arc capable of
'' being perceived by lis to be duties ; aiki that the
** reafon on which a duty is founded, iieccfi^irily re-
" fults from the relation the pcrfon to perform it
*' ftands in to the perfon to whom it is to be per-
" formed." The duties naturally arifing from thofe
different relations, are all natural duties -. and none
R 2 can
( 524 )
Can properly be faid to be fuperinduced^ that are pro-
perly duties. As God is one, and his will one, fo
arc his laws.
Therefore (p. i6.) the gentleman has not proved
what he fays he has, that the praSfiee of natural du-
ties only^ is not the whole cf true religion^ with re^
gard to pra5iice. How he will be able to prove,
that the belief of natural do^Jrines are not the whole
of it in refpeEt of beliefs I fliall examine. That doc-
trines, as things may have a real foundation in na-
ture, though that foundation does not appear^ may
be truej but 'till that foundation does appear^ there
is no reafon in nature that we fhould believe them.
The gentleman argues, (p. 17.) "That fmce we are
obliged to confefs there may be^ and are^ many things
in nature above our reafon ; to deny the p^Jfibilitj of
any degree of information^ concerning fuch matters be-
ing imparted to us by divine revelation^ will be founds
in the iffu.e^ to prescribe rules to Gody and fet bounds
to the exercife of his power ^ which natural^ as well
as revealed religion^ clearly teaches us is infinite.
'Tis not fetting any other bounds, to God's power>
than fuch as the gentleman has done, p. 1 1. All pof-
flble power and authority belong to God. To fay,.
God does not teach us things above our reafon, is
only faying, 'he does not give more Hght to man's
nature than it can receive, and it is not pofTible he
fhould. — Whatever is above man's underllanding,
is of no concernment to man's happinefs : fuch
things, if they are divine, concern only the Divinity,
or fuch beings whofe capacities they fuit.
Says the Gentleman, Sifice we are fenfible mafty^ i
things have an atlttal exijlence in nature^ tho^ we
know not HOW, or in what m.anmr^ he concludes, ■
there cm be no abpirdity in Relieving y that the fame
method of conveymg information to'uSy may be followed
in rex^ehhon oj in.natv.rsy &c.. But this is a falfe
,. ., parallel:
( 1^5 )
parallel : we are not. fcnfible that any revelation, fu**
perior to nature, had any exiffence at all, as the
works of nature have ; this ought to.be proved be-
fore that be allowed) therefore like confequences will
not follov/, becaufe the antecedents are unlike. The
building cannot be the fame, when the foundation
and materials are different, and the foJfibiUtj ef their
being on a lev el j is not yet fufficiently efiablijhed by
any obfervations the gentleman has made. The how
things have exiflence which we do not know, we do
not believe ; nor are we fo much concerned how
this revelation fprouted, tho' we have weighty ob-
jcftions againfl that, as of what natur £ it is. Ccr- .
tainly, in things prefcribed us to take, *tis lawfal
to enquire whether they be wIx>lefome, or poifon.
(P. 1 8, 19.) To fay, that what God commands
muft not only unquejlionably be true^ but alfo ap-
pear to be true, is moft honourable of God ; and
is fo far from afcribing to him fo7ne thing in words^
hit in reality nothing at alU that it is afcribing no-
thing but reality to him. 'Tis mofl fit, that what
God reveals to natural beings, be in a natural way,
or it muft be unnatural to them ; and the gentleman
himfelf fays, an unnatural revelation ^ tis imficus to
exfe5i, "Whatever is fupernatural is not according
to nature, therefore unnatural : for there is no me-
dium.
The gentleman hopes to fhew, that it is a ver;f
prefer ground of our affent^ and fufficient in it [elf a^
ImUy whenever it happens^ that we fee no other
reafcn for the truth of a propojition^ hut that Goo
HAS REVEALED IT. I.ec him fhcw but this reafon,
that God has revealed what he' calls revelation, it?
will be fafficient in itfelf alone. Let him but dc^
this, this fingle point will determine the controver-
fy ; to prove this by reafon is all we require, dna
will be more convincing than miracles : therefore
we
( 126 )
we do not call for any thing unreafonable or impof-
fible, unlefs it be impoirible to prove this by reafon.
This is the fubjedt contefted. The Chrijiians af-
firm their book contains a revelation of God's will •,
you Deifts queftion the truth of that affirmation,
and require them to prove it : This you think is a
rcafonable requeft, if they have no mind to deceive
you ♦, efpecially as you require but a reafonahlc con-
viftion, tho' they may give you a miraculous one,
if they can ; but if they can do neither, you judge
it unreafonable and unjuft to demand your affent,
without convincing you that you are v/rong, and
they are right. You declare yourfelves to be lovers
c/tkuth ; that let her banners be difplayed, and you
will be voluntiers, and fight under thofe colours :
that you cannot believe without conviction, nor be
convinced without reafon ; but that as foon as the
TRUTH appears to you, you cannot with-hold your
aflent one moment ; that you will immediately caft:
down your arms, and yourfelves, and venerate that
goddefs wherever Ihe appears. This you protefs,
and this is a fair declaration : the wifer Cbrijlians do
the fame.
To proceed then ; I think it proper both fides
fhould be perfedly well fatisned in every point
wherein there may be deception^ and till then, doubt-.
ifjg and enquiring is your duty : and what is put up-.
on men for credtbU and fufficient tcfiimony^ ought
to be fuch as is credible to. other than believers^ and
fuch as carries its o^nfufficiency with It. We fiiould.
take care of imputing thofe things to God^ which
have been the inventions of men, God's word muft
demonftrate God's wifdom •, which will be as clear
and convincing to man's reafon, by its own intrin-
fic plainnefs and purity, as the fplendor of the fun
15 to their bodily eyes.
In
( 127 )
In pag. 20, 21. we have this fimile. F/hen an
eafiern prince was acquainted by an Eur&pean of good
quality and credit^ that in thefe parts of the earthy
the water would^ at certain times ^ become folid and
unnavigable^ without any vijible caufe to produce fo
furprizijig an alteration in it ; was it reafonable for
the prince to difbelieve an account which was well at-
tejied, merely becaufe it did not appear to him to have^
its foundation in reafon and nature ? The giver of
tKis Jimile argues from hence, that fince we are fuch
unexperienced and incompetent judges in natural
things, no wonder we are not able to determine of
things fupernaturah^ and therefore, that 'tis con-
trary to truth and common fenfe to difDelieve and
rejed thefe fuper naturals. But if natural things
puzzle us, why fhould God confound us v/ith fu-
per naturals ? Let us ey: amine and compare the fimik
to the application and fubje5f. The eafiern prince
could not believe the European's report, and what
then ? "Was it his duty to believe what he could not ?
The quality and credit of the reporter was all the
evidence he had of the truth of the report, and this,
as great as it was, was infufficient to convince him.
Where did the fault lay ? The thing reported is
true, but not believed by the prince ; Why ? Was
it a prejudice received againfl the European ? that
could not be, if he knew his perfon and character \
nor could it be againfl: being informed ♦, every body
is wilhng to come at knowledge in an eafy manner :
Could he believe without conviction ? not unlefs his
faith run before his reafon. Could he refrain be-
lieving, if convinced ? impofTible 1 Where then was
the fault ? it mufl: be either in the nature of the evi-
dence^ or in the prince^ for wanting a rational con-
virion. Now, one of thefe is fuppofcd to be your
cafe ; but the latter depends upon the foriiier. You
d:n*t believe the things commanded. Why ? be-
caufe
( 128 )
caufe you cannot : Why ? becaufe you want to be
rationally convinced of thofe things : Why ? becaufe
the evidence affords not fufficient proof. After all
then, the fault is not in you, but in the evidence •,
make that good, and the work is done •, but you
fay they cannot, therefore you cannot beheve •, then,
fay they, you muji be damned^ Why ? becaufe you
cannot believe things to you incredible^ nor do what
to you is impojftble I Is this juft, fay you ? Does this
look as if it came from God the father of truth ? If
this damnation do^rine has nothing good in it, could
it proceed from any good being ? Damnation on fuch
terms no man need fear : but of the evil fpirit that
delivers it, and of the ftupid nature that believes it,
let every one beware. But why is this damning
claufe ? why, but certainly to frighten poor fouls
out of their fenfes •, that when their fenfcs are drove
away, faith may be drove in. A little more of this
illuftration.
An eaftern prince is acquainted by an European of
good quality and credit. Are we acquainted by per-
fons oi good quality and credit ? They that acquaint
us now with the ftory, may be fo *, but they know
no more the truth of it, than we do : therefore \
mean th^frft ftory-tellers, who and what were they?
they were, by the confeiTion of thefe perfons, of n0
quality^ and of but little credit, even in their own
country : and v/e can have no other ; therefore the
cafes are not fimilar. The eaftern prince might hear
that "joater congeals to ice, by a thoufand men more,
if he fought to know the truth, and ail of them liv-
ing witneffcs •, or, if fo difpofed, he might, by a
voyage to a colder climate, fee the truth of the ftory ;
but our ftories, what man ever faw ! Can our aflli-
ranee of the truth of what is impofed upon us, be
compared with the affurance this prince may have ?
there is, certainly, no comparifon,
Th^
( 129 )
Tke eaftern 'prince is informed^ what ? why^ that
water freezes \ three quarters of the world know
this to be true, if he don't. But is there one man
in the world who knows the truth of v/hat we are
•required to beUeve on the pains of damnation F
Strange difference, which admits of no cmiparifon I
hard meat ! and bad meafure ! And how does it be-
come fohd? fays the prince^ Without any vifMs
caufe^ anfwers the European. Whoever, indeed,
faw cold? this part of the fimile beft agrees. 'Tis
either an ignorant or deceitful anfwer. 'Tis certain-
ly not intended to give conviction or fatisfaftion.
He could not fay, without any fenfible caufe •, for
froft is produced by an extreme cold air. What
though he could not fuffuiently account for it, he
fhould have accounted for it as well as he could ;
therefore the caufe of unbelief is owing to the Eu-
ropean, not tht prince. In my judgment, the lat-
ter is juftifiable in not believing., and the former is
to be condemned for a fool or a knave^ in requiring
an affent to what he could not, or would not deli-
ver with fufficient evidence in a reafonahle and proper
manner. But he that thinks this prince deferves to
be condemned for not believing the relation of this
European., would think it very unreafonahle for one
to require his affent to things in nature as fur prizing
to him, which were as wretchedly made out -, and
would imagine, that he is not obliged to believe rill
he is better informed., but thinks it reafonabkxo dif-
believe an account that to \i\m fe eras unnatural : for
what fee-ms to be true or falfe^ has the fame effect on
us as if it was really fo, unlefs we know it to be
otherwife. And we can no more prevent this man-
ner of judging, than we can the manner of our own
exiftence, unlefs we can believe a perfon better than
we can owx fenfes \ but then we muil have reafon
why we do fo, and as this reafon is grounded, it
S fhews
( I30 )
fliews the meafure of our nnderftanding at that time,
Suppofe this prince could have 7io other proof of this.
fa6t: than this European's report^ which being fo bad-
ly told, he could not believe it, tho' true •, it ar-
gues the prince was no fool^ only not wiUing to be
impofed on ; for fools always beheve fall enough, fo
that/j/Zy and belief generally go together, Suppofe
he could not believe the ftory told him, it muft be
becaufe he thought it reafonable to difielieve ; how-
ever, believing it, might appear reafonable to ano-
ther : for we can no more be guided by another
rnan's reafon, 'till we make it our own, than we
can fee what another does, unlefs our ftrength of
fight be equal, and we fee it thro' the fame medi-
um. Suppofe again, he could not believe, tho' the
belief might have been of real fervice to him, nor
could fee his intereft in believing, it muft be owhjg
to forne deft^ in the circnmjlances ; for every one is
willing to believe thofe things that are true^ and ad^
vantage QMS to him, if he can, and can fee them fo
to be -, and if he cannot, it is cruel and barbarous
to the utmoft degree, to burn him alive for not be*
ing able to believe. This wicked part, which makes
it a moft fhocking tragedy, is left out of the jSmile,
Suppofe a man that lives between the tropics, will
not, or rather cannot believe, that water is congealed
to ftone near the polar circles : What then ? What
is it to him, whether it be true or falfe? 'tis matter
of mere fpeculaticn to him, and no more : Is this
the cafe of the belief of the go fp el ? it is not fo repre-
fented. There are many works of nature we are un-
acquainted with, w^hich, if known, might furprize
us •, but are we therefore to credit any romantic fur-
prizing ftory that is told us, which has no founda-
ti' n m nature or reafon ; becaufe he that reports it,
afi'irms it to be of the utmoft importance, when we
cannot perceive any truth in the ftory? Of the
''. greater
( u\ )
greater confequence any relation is, it fliould be af
tended with the greater certainty : with the greate^
blindnefs it appears, it has the more evident de-^
monftration of folly or knavery. Suppofe it true>
tho' a dark truth, every man cannot fee things alike,
and at the fame diftance, why fhould all men be con-
demned for want of fight, or have their eyes put
out, who do not come up to a certain, ftandard ? If
fuch a law was made, every one mud fee the inju-
ftice of it ; and if faid to be made by a good law-
giver^ every one muft know it to be a bold and bar-
barous impojition afcribed to him.
(P. 21.) But we go on with comparifons, tho*
they are far from hitting the mark, or illuftrating
the point. A man that is horn hlind^ neither has^
nor can form any idea of light and colours ; and yet^
fays this author, the blindnefs of his underftanding
will he worfe than that of his eyes^ if he will not he-
lieve there is or can he any fuch thing in nature^ as
light and colours ^ hecaufe he can form no ideas what
they are^ nor how they are -perceived and known. The
blindnefs of his underftanding is worfe than that of
a blind man's eyes, who does not fee that the want
cf belief is not a fault of the will -^ for a man can no
more prevent believing what appears to him to be
true, than he can prevent feeing what is before his
open eyes in day-light. Befides, 'tis contrary to
common fenfe to think we can believe what we can
have no idea of. A blind man cannot believe what
light and colours are ; What does he believe then
about them, when he is faid to believe that light and
colours are ? what but the bare terms, or fuch pro-
perties of which he can form no idea, by which other
men can diftinguifh he knows not what, nor how,
Underftanding enhghtens our conceptions, but the
bare belief of the exiftence of things we can have no
underftanding of, can be of no ufe or benefit to us •,
S z and
( ^32 )
and as it makes us in no degree wifery fo k makes
us in no refpedl better.
(P. 21.) i/' /i^^ -is;^;^/ of experience and ohfervation
renders us incompetent judges of the nature of things ^
how can we judge of things fupernatural ? and how
can fuch things be a rule to us ? And fince under
the pretence oi fupernatural laws^ which we can by
no means judge of ; if v/e yield to the receiving
them, what impofitions 2X\^ impofiures may not take
place ? Whvat care then ought we to take, that we
are not impofed on by too cafy belief-^ that we do
not afient to things beyond our underftanding, as
neceflary to direct our faith and pradtice, which is a
flavilh and blind obedience ; for by not waiting to
examine and judge what is right, our judgments be-
come infirm, and cannot difcriminate things for want
of exercife ; and in giving up this director ^ reafon^
the rule of our obedience^ what abfurdities may not
follow? what folly or infatuation may not take
place ?
If a good and reafonable being can require no
other obedience than according to the ability and
light he gives us, we ought not to follow we know
not what in the dark -, and confequently, as you fay,
" what we neither have,, nor can form any idea of,
after the clofefl: application, we mull and ought
to rejeft, as what does not concern us." 'Tis un-
leafonable to require us to receive that for truth,
which does not appear at all, or not appear to be
truth \ and 'tis wicked to pretend there is righteouf-
fiefs in doing what is unreaibnable. As a blind man
has nothing to do w4th lights and colours^ which he
can determine nothing about ; fo we have nothing
to do with wdiat we cannot know to be truth, tho'
it be truth. As what does not come within the
verge of ma,n's knowledge, is not the fubjed of it -,
fo principles above human comprehenfiori, are not
prin-
( 133 )
principles fit for human faith : and becaufe they na-
turally lead the mind into a maze of confufion and
error, therefore they ought to be rejefted •, and
with fuitable marks of refentment and indignation,
when preffed upon men with penalties and zeal.
Whatever God reveals as truth, niuft neceffarily
appear to be truth, becaufe revealed. All do5lrines
and precepts^ therefore, coming from God, which
are necerfary for man to believe and pra5fife^ muft
fo appear ; they muft have the ftgnatures and cha-
ra5ferijtics of divine wifdom: for light and truth
bring their own demonftration with them» If God
command man what he is to believe and do^ without
difcovering the reafons for his obedience, he does
not a6l as a wife and good beings nor with man as a
reafonable creature. Goodnefs and wifdom delight to
difcover themfelves what they are j for as they can-
not appear better y they will not appear to be what
they are not. If reafon in man be not an evidence
of wifdom in God, and if what he requires as our
reafonable fervice^ be not correfpondent to goodnefs
in him ; we have no evidence that God is wife or
goody and confequently no reafon to believe he re-
quires any obedience of us.
The do^rines^ which are called the revelation of
God, that do not appear to have their foundation in
reafon and nature (both which have God for their
foundation) do not appear to be of God. If he be a
God of underftanding^ he will not require men to
ferve him without their underftandings ; but fo they
muft do, if they believe and a6t without knowing
u^hy or wherefore : therefore if God reveals to man
his dutyy he reveals to him the apparent reafons of
his duty, which are the proper motives to it, or God
delights in man's ignorant and flupid obedience -, and
no wonder then he is fo ignorantly andfiupidly obeyed.
And
( m )
And then, tho' revelation fays, Light is come into
the worlds yet it is fuch as puts out all human lights
and involves men in darknefs. As God cannot
fpeak, but it muft be true ; fo the truth of liis word
muft appear to them to whom he reveals it, or the
iruth rnuH he doubtful y and confequently it muft
be doubtful^ whether it be his word or no. And as
that cannot be of the light, which is not difcoverable
by it ; fo that cannot be the revelation of wifdom
and goodnefs^ in which the apparent marks of wifdom
and goodnefs are not revealed.
Your antagonill feems to triumph in your giving
the rational Chriftian*s fcheme, v/ithout being par-
ticular in your anfvv^er to it ; to fliew what caufe he
has of triumph, I therefore attempt it.
The Scheme.
They argue^ that as the
religion of nature^ abfo-
lutely conjideredy and in
its full extent^ is only
known to God^ ifhefhould
he pie a fed to make a fu-
pernatural revelation of
fuch parts of that law to
us^ which our unaffifled
reafon could 7iever have
difcoveredy fuch a revela-
tion ought to be gratefully
received^ and readily ac-
knowledged. For tho' no
do5lrine that has not its
foundation in reafon and
nature^ can be a religious
do5frine -, yet do^rines
that have fuch a founda-
tion^ tho* that does not ap-
pear^
The Answer.
This argument is found-
ed on a wrong hypothe-
fis \ for as the religion of
nature arifes from the na-
tural relation and circum-
ftances of things, they
only difcover the necelTa-
ry duties thofe relations
and circumftances re-
quire, which fets afide all
fupernatural revelation^
and the need of it. There-
fore there can be no re-
velation from God, of
doctrines and duties for
man's belief and obedi-
ence, but fuch as not on-
ly have, but appear to
have their foundation in
reafon ^d nature : for if
we
( m )
pear, may, if God pleafes^ we are to receive things,
be communicated to us, ei- not as what they appear
ther by himfelf immedi- to be to us, but as what
ately, or mediately by his they are in themfelves,
agents, without any re- then God requires of us
firi^ion on, or repugnancy a conduft above the abi-
to any of his attributes, lities he has furnifhed us
And this, fay they, is the with, which is repugnant
cafe of all fupernatural to all thofe moral attrir
doSlrines contained in the butes we afcribe to deity,
fcriptures, which collec- And as the foundation of
tively compofe the Chri- fuch religion does net ap-
Jlian faith *, tbefe are fo pear to be in God, in na-
man) revelations of the ture, or in rcafon ; there-
law of nature^ which un- fore 'tis unnatural and ir-
ajfifted reafon could not rational, without any ap-
dijcover ', and tho* they pearance of a foundation
remain incomprehenfihle, at all \ therefore, where-
and lie out of the reach of ever it is contained, or
reafon , yet when that whatever it is called, it is
which is imperfe^ is done contrary to truth and vir-
away, and faith is turned tue\ and when that comes
into vijion, they will then to pafs, which will not,
appear to us to be found- then things will appear to
ed in truth and reafon, be true, which are not.
Let the gentleman now behold this rational Chri-
ftian fcheme, and fee how formidable it is, how de-
firu5iive of all your objections ; how eafy is this Jiub-
bornfubje^ reduced I and by what plain arguments
is it anfwered and refuted ? Thus it is reducible to
your queilion, " Whether thofe dodlrines that can-
*' not be perceived to have their foundation in the
^' reafon and nature of things, are, notwithflanding,
** certainly thus founded ; " and I think it evident-
ly appears frorri what has been faid, they are not :
*^ Whether therefore they are to be ib allowed, only
** be-
( »36 )
'' beeaufe they arc contained in the fcriptures," will
fcarce be made a queftion by any reafonable querift.
Therefore, the reafonabknefs and apparent truth of
every do^irine refpe^ively^ is necejfary to prove it
rights or whether it be divinely infpired,
(P. 25.) If Chriftians do not agree, about what
revelation reveals, 'tis evident they are in the dark^
and it is no wonder, ;/ darknefs caufes doubts. If
the nature pf this revelation does not clearly appear^
it does not clearly appear whether it be from God,
or is any revelation at all ; and if believers themfelves
are not agreed about the fenfe of it, how fhould un-
lelievers be convinced by them ?
(P. 28.) The queftion, at length, agreed to is.
Whether all the do5irines in fcripture are divinely re-
vealed ? not whether they are apparently reafonable ?
and tho' we muft not take the uncontrollable liberty
of fubfiituting one queftion in the room of the other^
yet I will venture to fay, and undertake to prove
too, that if they are not the one, they are not the
other : for whatever is not reafonable, is unreafon-
able ; and whatever is unreafonable, cannot be di-
vinely revealed. .
(P. 29.) He argues againft fupernatural matters
being incapable of examination by natural reafon,
thus. What can be more fupernatural^ more above
the comprehenfion of reafon^ than the rpanner of God* s
exiftence -, yet you will not infer ^ that becaufe this is
a fupernatural matter^ therefore the exiftence of fuch
n being is incapable of being apparently reafonable^
&c. but the manner of God's exiftence, arid the ex-
iflence of fuch a being, are two diflindl things.
Granting the manner of God's exiftence to be a fu-
pernatural fubjeft to m,aii, as being above the com-
prehenfion of his reafon, therefore the manner is in-
capable of examination by us, becaufe incomprehen-
f^ble \ but that God does exift^ we judge to be not
above
r
( 137 )
above human reafon to apprehend and examine,
therefore not a fupernatural matter -, the other which
is, we can neither examine nor beheve.
This gentleman is not wiUing to grant, that natu-
ral and fupernatural are contradictory terms, there-
fore gives this definition. Whatever we call fuper-
natural is as much comprehended within the imnienfe
fyftem of nature^ and has its foundation there^ as
thofe very objects that are the mofl farailiar to us^
and efleemed mfi natural and common. Then nature
comprehends all things, and there is nothing fuper-
natural. So all miracles and prophecies, but fuch
as are within the circle of nature, are dilbanded : and
I believe, in this one explanation, that rev^lation^
which is the matter contefted, is explained away •,
for this definition will not comprehend the fuperna-
tural works of wonder^ and wonderful do5irines^ de-
livered in the fcriptures ; and is an evafion, only
for the fake of a retreat to more fecure defence : but
nature teaches nothing above fenfe and reafon^ and
reafon knows nothing beyond nature \ hut fuperna-
turals are fet up to confound both.
Now to the former queftion, which is the point
of debate \ Whether the fcriptures are divinely re^
vealed? (P. 38.) Our author fays, ne fieps that
are proper to he taken on this occafion are^ to fhew
that the fcriptures were written by per fans divinely
infpired ; — the fkveral writers inferted no do^rines as
grounded on divine authority^ hut fuch as were really
fo \ — the original fcriptures have been faithfully tranf-
mitted down to us,
Firfh then, the fcriptures were written by perfons
divinely infpired.
One argument is, that the o\di-tefiament -writers
were infpired^ itf the new were^ becaufe ratified by
them. There are many now that believe the fcrip-
tures were infpired, and yet don't underftand them,
T xsQx
( ^38 )
nor can agree about them, thefe then arc not in-
fpired with proper underftanding ♦, fo by the appli-
cation of prophecies from the old-tellament-writers,
by the new, it is plain they underfiood them not^ and
therefore were not infpired v the proof of which is
lliewn by Mr. Collin^ s fcheme of literal prophecy^ and
Mr. Parinjhes enquiry into the Jewijh and ChriJiiaH
revelation.
An argument that the new-teflament- writers were
divinely infpired is, that '' they performed what all
the wifdor/i and improvements of natural reafon^ and
the moji inquijitive philofophers were not able to per-
form : What ? they inferted in their writings a com-
pleat fyftem of morality^ and all the principles and du-
ties of natural religion. This is afferted, but how
is it proved ? All our prophets^ indeed, prophefy fo ;
but it feems to me, that God has put a lying fpirit
in the mouth of all ihefe our prophets. What philo-
fophers ever wrote upon morals, that have not given
as compleat a fyftem ? and why are f craps of mo-
raht}'', fcattered here and there, called a fyflem f
and why a compleat fyjtem^ when the effential part
of a moral fyflem is wanting, viz, rules for the well
governing a nation j and when the morals want mend-
ing by explanation, to give fome a more loofe,, others
a more reftrained fenfe ? and when there are thofe
that no art can mendy and therefore are explained
away ? Thefe things are fo eafily proved, that they
are too w^ell known to need it : however, fee fome
of them below *.
* M^.t,y. 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 42,44, 48.
vi. 14, 15, 19, 25, 26, l^c,
vii. I, 6, 7, 8.
yiii. 22.
X. 37, 3S.
XVI. 24.
xviii. 22,
xix. 21. A 1,
xxiii. 9. m. Another
( 139 )
Another proof given of the infpiration of thefe
' Writers is, that they recovered and rejiorcd the true
light of reafon^ at a time when the 'wifeft men ac-
knowledged it did no where appear, IwilTi the gen-
/ ' tleman had informed us who thofe wife men were ;
fure, they were not thofe that came out of the eafi
to worfhip the infant Jesus, the new-born God \
for they, as far as I can examine, never had exift-
ence, but in Matthew'j gofpeL I want to be in-
formed, how the true light of reafon difappeared ?
and how it has appeared fince ; and how by their
means ? Were not men the fame rational beings then,
as now ? Has the world been wifer fince the infpired
age ? or were the infpired themfelves made wifer by
their infpiration ^ Have mankind, by their means,
thought or adled more rationally ? Does the general
nature of things change ? If not, how came the hu-
man nature to fuffer fuch an alteration ? Was man-
kind ignorant then, and is he not fo now, and has
been fo ever fince ? Is he any better or wifer than
before ? not a jot. What v/onderful reftoration
have they then made of the light of reafon ? Hath
the Chrijiian part of the world been wifer or better
than the reft ? rather worfe. Have they not com-
mitted all manner of the moft favage and inhuman
wi<!:kednefs//7r Chrifl^s fake ? Hov^ then have they
enlightened and mended the world ? and how does
the fruits of their infpiration appear ? That all hu-
man kind loft the true ligh*- of reafon, is romantic;
and if ever it was the cafe, one would be tempted,
as you fay, to think it unavoidable^ and therefore
innocent.
A third argument given to prove thefe writers
infpired is, they delivered rules and infiruEiions for
the proper manner of w or flipping God -, a point which
Socrates diffuaded Alcibiades/r^;» attempting^ — and
likewrfe acknowledged to his pupily that this matter
T 2 wxis
( H^ )
was not difcoverahle by human reafon done^ tho* it
was fucb an important fubjeSf^ fo necejfary to he
known^ that he forefaw the fupr erne being would fend
an efpecial mejfenger on furpofe to inftru5l men in it,
'Tis poflible Socrates might fay fo, for aught I
know of the man, but 'tis more likely fome Chri-
ftian has made him fay what he never faid. But
why did Socrates diffuade Alcibiades from delivering
rules and inftrudlions for the proper manner of wor-
fhipping God ? Why, becaufe 'tis what the world
are not likely ever to agree about ; and what this
boafted revelation itfelf is unable to make even be-
lievers do. The moft fincere followers of the Charta
Sacra, have never agreed about what it teaches ;
fo that notwithftanding this enlightening revelation,
they are all in the dark, not a foul can fee by it to
demonftrate its wondrous fupernatural light to ano-
ther. And fome think, 'tis highly neceflary a ;^^ze^
revelation fliould be given to explain the old ; for
tho' we give hundreds and thousands a year to have
it explained, that the whole world is not able to do
it, that it might pafs for heavenly light, if there
was no human reafon in the world ; but that the lat-
ter puts the former out, and difcovers its palpable
darknefs. Ala^ ! for the pitiful inhabitants of that
part of the world who have miferably felt its effefts,
as 2, fire without light, who have not been warmed,
but burnt with it •, not enlightened by the wifdom of
its doctrines, but confounded and dazzled with the
'myfteries of its godlinefs I Ah ! that the fad was
falfe which you have faid, that " millions of people
*' have fallen a facrifice to Chriflian piety." Hap-
py had it been for every Chriftian nition, if this was
a grofs imputation of groundlefs calmmiy. as your op-
ponent calls it ', but 'tis as certain a truth, as 'tis a
melancholly, one. By this- may be fecn, of v/hat ex-
ccUent fervice iQ m-AV\\i\n^- ihtiv rules and inftrufti-
ons
I
( hO
^ns for worfliipping God have been •, and in what
proper manner they have been given, or brought
down to us, underftood, and praftifed all the way.
Certainly the tree is known by its fruits. It may-
be thought ^^mW in me, as an examiner, to fay thefe
things ; bur they are the fruits of my examination.
Yet the gentlecnan, exulting, fays, as if he had
proved his points, when he has but named them,
(p. 40.) Had not the Deity immediately dilated to^
and imprejfed upon the mind of each writer^ the mat-
ters fpecijied alove^ (or before) by what natural
caufes could it have happened^ that this collection of
writings (the new teftament) Jhould be fo vaftly dif-
ferent from all others, and fo greatly exceed tbe-.n, as
to comprehend in it a republication of the true or gi
nal religion of reafon and nature, exactly diftinguifhei
and feparated from all the corruptions which poly the-
ifm, idolatry, and fuperflition^ had introduced and
mingled with it -, and bring to light primeval truths ^
that had been hid from ages and generations. And
yet the D-eists, the only people in the world that
adhere- to the true original religion of reafon and na-
ture, and are feparated from all the corruptions here
mentioned, cannot find in it thefe primaeval truths
boafted of, therefore this boafling is not good, be-
caufe it is the mere compliment of his humble de-
votion paid to his dear paper idol.
Come on, my friend, let us follow our leader, to
fee if he follows truth ; his genteel addrefs makes
even error look like it, as well as the feem'mg rea-
fon with which he clothes his arguments, which,
without all doubt, appear cogent to the believer •,
ior they fhew the great abilities of the man, in that
he maintains a very bad pofition, with very great
art. rie has indeed tl^e labouring oar, who main-
tains error againft truth, hiclabor hoc opus efi, where*
as reafon and nature render the work eafy, and th^
fteps that trace them are pleafant. We
We ate now to take for granted the ?norai cba-
rasters of unknown perfonsy and upon this founda-
tion we are to allow that they infer ted no doSfrines as
grounded on divine authority^ but fuch as were really
fo 5 and to fuppofe other wife ^ is an ungenerous unjuji
fufpicion. This is, I muft own, a moft complai-
fant method of gaining a point, and comphmenting
away a man's underftanding. It difplays extremely
much the gentleman, but not the philofopher. Orjj
indeed, it looks like attempting to get that by beg-
gings which cannot be got by labour. Let the wif
dom and truth of the do5lrines fpeak for themfelves,
let their nature and tendency fliew the fpirit that in-
fpired them ; nothing elfe can do it : to attempt
any other proof, is doing nothing to the purpofe.
A further argument, and as fruitlefs as the for-
mer, your opponent advances, is, that the conftft-
ency of all the gofpel doctrines is a weighty argument^
that the fever al writers have not confounded their
own private conceptions with the do^rines they re-
ceived by divine infpiration. Was there any weight
in this argument, it might be eafily proved againft
them, that neither the hiftory nor doilrines are con-
fiftent. I own that the evangelical phyficians with
us have a way oi plaiftering up old fores, but they
cannot heal them. Stories niay be related, and doc-
trines delivered fo as to be very confident, without
any truth in either \ nay, tho' the one may appear
to be highly probable^ and the other feemingly rea-
finable, yet this is no proof of the veracity of either ;
but if inconjiftencies plainly appear, 'tis a weighty
argument againft their being of divine authority.
The laft remaining circumftance he afferts is, that
the original fcriptures have been faithfully tranfmitted
down to us. That is more than any man aUve can
be fure of.» How is this poflible to be proved,
when the original copies, and writers are unknown.
'Tis
I
( 143 )
^Tis not certainly known where ^ when^ by whom^
and in what language^ they were firft written. Ail
the accounts we have of them is by the moft uncer-
tain traditions of a church, notorious in every age
for lyes and forgery^ and through the hands of
feds and faftions, that have ever, from the firft
age of the church condemned each otherfor interpo-
lations, and forging evangeHcal hiftories, apoftoiic
afts, epiftles, and revelations, which were not fepa-
rated till much later ages -, and all that has been re-
ceived for canonical, has not been fo made, till time
had worn out the pbjedlions againft them, and pow-
er had deftroyed thofe objeftions. There is not re-
maining any one book in the new teftament, but
fome Chrijiian feEt has condemned. The upper-
moft fed: was always orthodox, and have deftroyed
both hacks and men, that have been againft them,
when they have had them in their fjower. It was
authority, and the 'prevailing opinion, more than
rea[on or divine infpir at ion, were the rules of deter-
rjnining what they fince call the true from the fpu-
rious. That the original fcriptures have not been
faithfully tranfmitted down to us, I haTe elfe where
fhewn. 'Twas more than a century before the gof-
pels were made public ; therefore 'tis a queftion if
they had any apoftoiic original : and fince 'tis con-
fefled by believers themfelves, from the earlieft
ages, that there have been corruptions in the text
itfelf J and even with us, there are perpetually ob-
jedions to the tranfia.ions of it, that 'tis otherwif®
in the original, and that the originals (fo called) have
various readings. The Chrijlians reading in their
churches the gofpe' j and epiflles that we have, is no
proof of their bcvng genuine ; they alfo read thofc
that are counted fpurious, as well as thofe that time
and authority have called genuine. When thcfc
thingSv
( H4 )
thing', and a thou Hind more like thefe, have been
infiniiared and anfvvcred a thouilind times over, no-
thing can prove drJne inffiration better than its own
divine nature^ and intrinftc worth.
This gentleman tells us, (p. 44.) that Tertullian
feems to ajfert^ that fever al originals were remaining
in his time^ which was in the third century. I make
no doubt of it, but doubt much if they had one qen^
tury of exiftence before his time.
A gain . ^e fenfe of the gofpel has oftentimes been
fadly perverted^ but the text has been tranfmitted pure
mid untainted to this day ; then it was impure and
tainted in the original, as appears by the inconfifi^
incies and unintelligible matters therein contained.
Indeed, a Deifi; will fay, he thought as much, that
what alterations it has received, has been made to
mend it ; but that 'tis as much above human learning
to do, as its birth was below its produ6tion. But how
has the gofpel text been tranfmitted pure and un-
tainted to the people, when fome Papifis and Fro-
t eft ants accufe each other of a corrupt tranflation ?
(P. 45.) Our Chriflian advocate infinuates, that
St. Matthew, and the other cvangelifts, were equally
qualified^ and equally difpofed to give a punctual ac-
count of the religion ^/ Jesus Christ, as Plato and
Xenophon were to give a true reprefentction of the
religion of their mafter Socrates, Then the evange-
lifts were as learned and wife as Plato and Xenrphon^
or Plato and Xenophon were as unlearned and igno-
rant as they. The contrary we have been all along
taught ; but it feems we are taught any thing that
will eftablilli the credit of thofe that muft be efta-
blifhed, as it beft fuits the argument and the times ;
one thing to-day, and another to-morrow.
He gO( s on •, that the fubfiance of all Chriftian
doctrines and duties originally contained in the new
tefiamenty
IP ( H5 )
ieft amenta our prefent copks correfpond as exa5fiy with
their originals^ as thofe of the Grecian writers above-
mentioned do with theirs. What in reafon then can
be expeded better than it is ? If the original be
plain and pure^ what need has it of explanations ?
for can man^s learning mend God^s wifdom? If it be
not, that which is originally and naturally bad^ no
explanations can make good^ without changing its
original nature % which is deftroying the original by
altering it. If it be divinely pure, or not, the world
of learned gentlemen^ that take fuch infinite ftudy to
explain it, at fuch an immenfe charge, may fave
themfelves the pains, and other good people the
coft j for if it be, we need them not ^ and if it be
not, let them leave us to the guidance of dame na-
ture, and the government of good laws.
Now it Teems we are come to a period in this
matter, becaufe what follows is a new fubjeft, which
concerns only the peculiar doftrines of Chrijtianity 5
one of which has been already confidered, viz, the
RESURRECTION OF Jesus, which though you fay
affeds but a part, your Chrijtian adverfary is of
another opinion : his words to you are thefe ; What
fart^ I pray ^ what Jingle do5frine of Chriftianity does
the trial of the witnejjes affect ? Nothing lefs than the
refurreElion of Jefus Chrift •, a doSlrine which ^ by the
plainejl and moji notorious confequence^ offers the
WHOLE CAUSE ; a do5frine with which the truth of
all Chrijtianity is fo infeparably conned ed^ that they
muft confeffedly Jtand or fall together -, therefore, I
think I may be cxcufed from meddling with any
other parts at this time, till that is actually an-
fwcred ; which I believe will not be, 'till he conies
again in glory •, and then all our objedbions will be
perfedly anfwered j our human reafon be eternally
U baffled;,
( 146 )
baffled, and hide itfelf in everlafting confufion.
But we are advifed to judge nothing before the time^
or before that time come ^ but, in the mean time,
let us proceed to examine, in order to fift out truth ,
from error, in every thing necelTary, that falls in our
way. I am^
and dejire always to remain^
a faithful Friend and Servant
to Tou and Truth,
postscript:
I Have met with a little author^ written in favour
of the Great Obfervator on St. Paul^ who faySy
Deijls do not examine ; but he exprelTes himfelf ac-
cording to his little wit^ for it is examination and rea-
fon that makes men fincerely Deijts or Moral Philo-
fophers. For my own part, I can fafely fay, that if
1 h3,d ntvcr ferioufly thought, m-\djlri^ly examined,
I had not been a disbeliever. Men never render them-
felves more contemptible, than when they aflert grofs
falfhoods. I think, he that has an honeft heart has
the root of the matter in him. Let men fay what
they will, and wrangle about religion as they pleafe,
which they moft fliamefuliy do, who would have men
believe thofe things to be true that has not the ap-
pearance of truth, nor can be fo made to appear to
an honeft heart and a difcerning eye, by all the art of
man, the art of evermore new tranjlating and new
transforming fcripture by different words and expli-
cations.; which are only fo many fhifts and evafions,
to avoid the light that difcovers their darknefs : And
fince every one hath their different expofitions, and
always
( H7 )
always find new ones, when newly preffed with thd
evident and apparent fenfe. The fame manner of
dealing will vindicate as well the alcoran^ or any
book in the world, as the bible : and that fcripture,
or book, which wants fuch methods of vindication^^
Ihews it wants mending, is defedtive and erroneous.
I have now faid all that I defire to fay on thefe
fubjeds, which will be teftimonies to after-times, of
the extenftve^ glorious^ and happy freedom thefe times
enjoy, to the eternal honour of that government
which gives it, and of his prefent majesty, who ia
the protestor of all our civil and religious rights and
liberties, never fufficiently to be valued by a grate*
ful heart, and a thankful receiver ; for nothing can
render a people more paflionately fond of their coun-
try ^ nor more dutiful to their prince and governors y
than the happy enjoyment of reafonable liberty^ of
all things the moft defirable, and the moft valuable
to all thofe that can tafte and enjoy thq bleiTmgs and^
benefits of it.
FINIS,
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11