DUKE 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 q'reasure 
 
 %oom 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/supernaturalsexaOOanne 
 
SUPERNATURALS 
 
 EXAMINED: 
 
 IN FOUR 
 
 DISSERTATIONS 
 
 ON THREE 
 
 TREATISES: 
 
 VIZ. 
 
 \, On the Obfervations of the Hiftory and Evidence 
 of the Refurredlion of Chriji. By Gilbert Weft^ 
 Efq; 
 
 11. and III. On Miracles and Prophecies, fhewing 
 the Impoflibihty of the one, and the Falfity of 
 the other ; in Anfwer to Mr. Jackfon's Letter to 
 Deists. 
 
 ly. On the Defence of the Peculiar Inftitutions and. 
 Doctrines of Chrijiianity. 
 
 *Take heed left any man deceive you. Mat. xxir. 4. 
 
 Hunc igitur terrorem animi tencbrafque necefle eft, 
 
 Non radii folis, neque lucida tela diei 
 
 Difcutiant, fed naturas fpecies ratioque. T.Luc ret. 
 
 Ihefe fears, this darknefs that derffreads our fouls ^ 
 
 Day can't difperfe, hut thofe eternal rules 
 
 That from firm prcmifes right reafon draius^ 
 
 J^nd a deep injight into nature's la<ws. 
 
 ^ LONDON: 
 
 Printed for F. Page, near St. Paur^, 
 
hwi^- 
 
 THE 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 Reader, 
 
 rH E firft of thefe pieces is an anfwer to 
 Gilbert Weft, Efq-^ to let him know^ that 
 his works J his gojpel ivorksy though great, 
 cannot fave hitn. It mufi be through faith, ta 
 be in a go/pel way^ not of works, left any man 
 fhould boaft : for hotv can ordinary works merit 
 an extraordinary reward^ for he can do no 
 more than others \ they^ like him, have been 
 forced to leave the evidence of the refurreBion 
 ^ Jesus as indefenfible as they found it : fo that 
 though he has f aid much, it is little to the pur^- 
 pofe J they all prove Solomon 'j writi?7gs to be 
 more true than the Evangelifts, viz. That which 
 is crooked cannot be made ft rait, and that 
 which is wanting, cannot be numbertd. 
 
 1 have been the more bold in expofmg mv opi^ 
 nion, becaufe I believe it to be the di Bates of 
 truth and right rcafon^ and that truth is mojl 
 conducive to the happinefs of mankind: this 1 
 believe^ becaufe 1 fee that error andfaljhood tends 
 to man's u?ihappinefs ; though I am not ijifenfble^ 
 that every good hath, in its confequences, fome 
 
 9, evil'. 
 
( vi ) 
 evil; and that e'very error and evil is produSfivf 
 of feme good^ but with this difference, error be- 
 ing itfeij an evil, generally and naturally pro- 
 duces evil'y and the good that arifes from it, is 
 by unavoidable accident, there being no abfolute 
 evil J and truth being a good, itsprodudlions are 
 generally of the fame 7iature ; the evil that arifes 
 from it, is by meer necefjity : good and evil being 
 only relative properties, naturally and necejjarily 
 interwoven in the nature of things j therefore^ 
 though truth may be the caufe of fotne evil con^ 
 fequences, as Liberty alfo is ; yet they are, in their 
 confequences, the authors of fo much good, that 1 
 think 710 ne but knaves, inadmen, and fools, defire 
 the fuppreffion of truth and liberty, for the little 
 and partial good that arifes, or that is likely to 
 arife, by fo doifig.- Banifo truth, atid you ba^ 
 nifhfincerity and honefiy^ confequently all virtue^ 
 for all arifes from this foundation : baniflo Li' 
 berty, and what will follow ^ but tyranny, fid"- 
 very, and violence ? if truth and liberty are eX" 
 iled, all manner of wickednefs will abound as an 
 overfowijig deluge. In a general defolation^fome 
 are gainers, but what good man would wifi for 
 it iipon that account f JVefee that wars, fires ^ 
 t'empefs, inundations, earthquakes, pejiilences^ 
 are not 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 ; fo 
 by them many poor are made rich ; yet he muji be 
 a very bad man^ that wifJjes or helps forward 
 tbefe deflations. 
 
 Is 
 
( vli ) 
 
 // may be /aid, that truth is not always fit to 
 be uttered 'j 1 ow?i that fome particular truths, 
 at fome particular ti?nes, are fiot ; but the ge^ie- 
 ral truths of nature ,, fuch as are not injurious to 
 good government and foci al virtues^ I think ought 
 to have free courfe ; bjit that 'what is contrary^ 
 ought not to be propagated iwr permitted : for the 
 moji excellent human knowledge, is that which 
 J}:ews wherein human happinefs cofififls^ a?id mojl 
 conduces to it : though I think that every one is 
 720 1 a proper judge wherein confijls this fort of 
 knowledge. 
 
 1 obfcrve upon rcfeBion, in the ^6th page, I 
 havefaid, that all men leek their own good. 
 / would not be under flood to meati that every man 
 feeks only his own good, or anotbers, merely for 
 the fake of him j elf ', hut that this is the principal 
 or general, not the only motive of humaji aSlions. 
 Man is a machine that is moved bv various 
 fprings, but I do ?20t think that the machine man^ 
 is like mans machine ; though he is certainly the 
 machine of nature, or of God's ; and I own that 
 fje can^ by a power iti himfelf, do evil as well as 
 good', but as God, from the perfeclion of his na- 
 ture, caft do only the bejl. fo he can never blame 
 himfelf nor behold what is evil to him, nor be 
 unhappy or difpleafed, which are the fame thing in 
 every degree : but fnan being mutable, and there-* 
 fore fallible, dm know and do evil, as the confe- 
 quences of his actions experimentalh prove : inan 
 therefore is free to do both, but God is not; for 
 then God would be mutable and imperf'3. Men 
 think God wants power, if he cannot do oth-rr^ 
 
 a 2 liiifi 
 
( viii ) 
 <wife than be does^ not cvj/idering that fuch poiscr 
 it is Ins perfeBion not to have j for though he has 
 it not, he wants it not j for ivbat is perjeci iva?its 
 nothing. God has all perfcB and po/jible power;, 
 but icht;f is contrary to his perfedlion, is not pof- 
 fible wiih him. He always aSls according to the 
 i7ivariable perfeSlion of his nature, and cdntrary 
 to that it is impojjlhle for God to atf ; yet men 
 think God could have made the world better than 
 he has done^ ij he would ; for he can do what- 
 ever he will. V/hy then would he not f Why did 
 he not ? V/hat is this but magnifying his power ^ 
 to diminiflo his perfeBion ? But the anfwer is 
 plain and eafy, God could not do otherwif than 
 he has done, or cannot do otherwife than he doeSy 
 becaufe he could not^ caiinot will otherwife than 
 he 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 impojjible he fhould, then he may do what it is 
 impofjible he otherwife could f T)oes not this then 
 amount to an impofibility at lafi ? If God can 
 do better than he doesy he mufl blame hi?nfelf that 
 he does it not ; for fur e it mufi be as eafy for him 
 to do the bef, as otherwife, but the perfeBion of 
 his nature tnufl necejjitate him always to will and 
 do the bcfi, Becaufe men read that. With God 
 all things are poflible, they think it is pojjible for 
 God to aB as fooliflj as men do, and as roman- 
 tic as they think ; that he can make a camel pafs 
 through a needless eye, or an elephant go through 
 an auger-hole. But the excellency of his nature 
 does not permit him thus to alter his, works, , h^ 
 
 cannot 
 
( ix ) 
 
 cannot will things fo contrary to his eternal mind 
 and ride of aBion -, he cannot aB fo contrary to 
 his conflant aBions^ becaufe he cannot contradiB 
 himfelf I repeat again^ thai the ferfcBion of 
 God's nature necejjitates him always to one befi 
 manner of aBion, Well^ hut fay they, God is not 
 good at all, if his goodnefs is not of choice, if he 
 can do no otherwife, if it is ofneceffty and not vo- 
 luntary. What is this, but a narrow notion of 
 partial goodnefs, bringing God's fiature down to 
 man's, conceiving goodnejs in God inufl be of the 
 fame nature as goodnefs in man, the effeB ofpafion 
 and partiality of mind '^ Is not the fm light, be- 
 caufe it is not always 7iaturally and ?iece[Jarily 
 luminous ? Is tiot God good, becaufe he is al- 
 ways the fafne to all, ujiiverfally, or one uni- 
 ver/al good? mufi goodnefs in God fpring from 
 aff'eBion, as in man ? Let it be proved to be fo^ 
 and I Willi affent to it ; but I do not fee it fo in the 
 conduB of bis providence, by which only I think 
 we can judge of his nature. Is not that man 
 good, who is naturally jufi, benevoleiit, benefi- 
 cent, humane, andfiucere, fo that he mifl offer 
 violence to his ?jature to aB the contrary t If 
 there be aff'eBions, there are pafjions in Deity ; 
 and if pafjions, he is changeable ; and if change^ 
 able, imperfeB ; then indeed he may judge wrongs 
 and do wrong ; may make bad as well as good ; 
 may mend and marr ; attefnpt, and fail in his 
 attempts-, may do and undo j repent and be angry ; 
 be pleafed and difpleafed -, happy and unhappy : 
 then if he works wonders^ it is not to be wondered 
 at J for, indeed^ it would he a wonder if he did 
 
 not : 
 
not : then it would be no iioonder if he ordered 
 nature's laws, and contradi5icd his own laws arid 
 orders. 7 his would he agreeable to a power that 
 can do any thi?ig^ and to the exercife of a free 
 power, or the power of a free-will, that can as 
 eajily will wrong as right, and coil as good ; for 
 if the will is not equally indifferent to bcth^ how 
 is it free ? And if it be, what perfediion has it ? 
 or what perfedt inijariahle rule is its guide ? for 
 if one nature predominates, fo as to keep under or 
 confine its contrary nature, how is the nature, 
 which is infubjeBion and confjiement , free? or 
 bow can the pojfejjbr will or aB, but according 
 to the guidance of the ruling nature ? and this 
 be does indeed mofl 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 
 fhey are in themfelves, whatever Paul or Peter 
 might think or fay about them. 
 
 The lafl of thefe pieces^ is a defence of a Book 
 entitled, Deifm fairly dated, and fully vindi-r 
 cated ; becaufe I think it is the honeft perform- 
 ance of an honeft man, and becaufe 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 ratiojjalr Olet artifir 
 cium. 
 
 If printing had been as eafy to me as writing, 
 thefe pieces, but more cfpecially thofe on miracles 
 and prophecies, had made their appearance in 
 public long ago. On thefe two fubjeBs, indeed, 
 Mr, Chubb has treated in his pofihumous works, 
 
 but 
 
( xi ) 
 
 but in a 'bery different manner than 'what is here 
 done J which were in the printer's hands long 
 before his were. 1 will venture to fay^ in fa- 
 vour of thefe his laji produ5liotis, that they feertt 
 to me to be the refult of his lajl and befi judg- 
 ment of things -y expreffed with great freedoniy 
 in a plain and nervous way of reafoning, 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 ilfr. Fofter, isfoiled, 
 and the divine legation of that mighty dijputant, 
 Mr. Warburton, is torn to ragSy never to be 
 patched up more : and if his thoughts on the 
 fcriptures, on divine imprefiions, ofi deity, re- 
 ligion, revelation, a future ftate, &c, are not 
 attempted to be anfwercd^ I fljall afcribe it to 
 the confcioufnefs men have of faili?jg in the at- 
 tempt J for though he was not learned in words ^ 
 bis words are fit tQ iiifiruSi moji of our learned 
 men, I am^ 
 
 Reader, 
 
 Your Well-Wirher 
 
 to i\\^ way of Truth, 
 
 Moral Philosopher, 
 
Jufi Puhlijhed, 
 
 ^TpHE History and Character of St. PAUL 
 I examined, in a Letter to Theophilus, a 
 Cnriftian Friend. Occafioned by Obfervations on 
 the Converfion and Apoftlelhip of St. Paul, in a 
 Letter to Gilbert Weft^ Efqi With a Preface, by 
 way of Poftfcript. 
 
( I ) 
 
 SUPERNATURALS 
 
 EXAMINED. 
 
 DISSERTATION t 
 
 On //?f O B s £ R V A T I o N s of the hiOory an 
 evidence of the refurrediion o/' Jefus Chrift, 
 by Gilbert Weft, Efq-, 
 
 THESE Obfervations are occafioned by the ob- 
 jections made againft the evidence in T^he re- 
 furre^ion (?/Jefus confidered •, from which,the 
 beginning of his introduction tells us they took their 
 rife i 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 contradi^ions charged upon them : 
 therefore he fet to read and examine for himfelf ; be- 
 ing ajlonifjed 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 ihall only regard •, the reft I 
 pafs over, aiming at brevity. As this piece came 
 out after T^he rcfurrecfion defenders Jlript of all de- 
 fence, it could not be brought in to ring chimes with 
 the reft, ;uid therefore muft be tolled by itfelf ; 
 
 B which 
 
( o 
 
 which makes the mufic the duller, but the tdne is 
 not the lefs clear and diftind:. Since reafons for 
 examination of things are objefted againft by no 
 difpwtants, if we allow the authority of reafon to 
 fupercede all other, of what confequence is the lift 
 o^ great names y which this author gives, who have 
 been of the believing party ^ for all religions that 
 have been countenanced, encouraged, and eftablifhed 
 among a people, mull 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 
 v/ithout 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 bijhop, or a nobleman, it 
 dcfcrves equal regard •, for tho' there ought to be 
 a deference paid to mens perfons, according to 
 their place or merit. Truth fhould be efteemed the 
 liime in all. 
 
 I fhall not trace this Obfervator in his long and 
 perplexed method ; for if all agree, as he would 
 have it, concerning the evidence of the women -y 
 there are unanfvverable Objeftions which he has 
 not cleared up, but puzzled rather by a multitude 
 of words ; and ibm& that he has evaded without 
 mentioning, or attempting to clear up. Suppofe 
 the matter fliould turn out, as he has endeavoured 
 to reprefcnt it, it is evident the relatcrs were mife- 
 rable hiftoria^is, to put their readers to fo much 
 troubk 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- 
 eoncileable, and that revelation is fuch a light to rea- 
 fon, as reafon cannot find out. 
 
 The gentleman takes gr^at pains to force a re- 
 conciliation of the difagreeing accounts of the wo- 
 mai*s evidence of the refurredion of Jcfus j as if 
 
 the 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 the making them conjijlent, was fufficient to prove 
 the truth of the whole ; or that the whole truth refted 
 on the agreement of thofe particular accounts •, not 
 feeming to know, that the truth of fadls are not 
 proved by the conftfiency of the relations of thofe 
 facfts, but that they arc infallibly difproved by their 
 inconjijlency : for it is not fo certain, that feveral 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 ohfervator has attempted 
 to reconcile the text, in brief, is thus. 
 
 Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, and SalomCy 
 go to the fepulchre, as in St. Mark, to which 
 Mary Magdalene approaching, fees the flone rolled 
 away ; Ihe leaves iicr companions, and runs and 
 tells Peter and Jehn. 
 
 Her companions, in the mean timc^ enter 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, Peter and 
 John^ by the information of Mary Magdnlaiey 
 came to the fepulchre -, they found it open, and the 
 body gone, but no angel. 
 
 Mary Magdalene, who went again with Peter 
 and John, flays behind at the fepulchre, after they 
 are gone, and there fees angels and Jefus, who 
 converfe with her, as in St. John, and fhe de- 
 parts. 
 
 Then Joanna and women with her, (among 
 wliom Mary Magdalene was not) come to the fe- 
 pulchre ; they alfo fee and hear angels, and go and 
 lell the difciples ; which occafions the difciples 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 thcfe difagreements and abfurdities. 
 
 That Mary Magdalene left her companion (or 
 companions) and returned alone to acquaint Peter 
 and Jobn, and was not one of them, xhu mttjefuj 
 by the way, is contrary to St. Matthew. 
 
 That Joanna and the v/omen with her were a 
 different company from Mary Magdalene and her 
 company, is contrary to St. Luke ; and that their 
 report occafioned Peter., to go a fccond 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 dirl, tho* they came about the fame errand ; 
 or that they had any difcourfc together, are furmi- 
 fes, 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 fliould be taken by the angels 
 and Jefus J to deliver a melfage 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 of^ Joanna and her party diftindb from them, 
 that told the refurredion 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 omijfwn and error 
 in the hiftorians. But this is a meer contrivance 
 to explain an inexplicable difficulty, to make the 
 
 particular 
 
(s) 
 
 particular reports agree, which neverthelefs they fail 
 to do. 
 
 If the women that were with Mary Magdalene 
 were gone back from the fepulchre before fhe re- 
 turned to it, and in their going faw Cbrijl, confe- 
 quently ibey faw him Jirji ; and yet St. Mark fays, 
 Chrift JirJi appeared to Mary Magdalene. 
 
 This author fays, that the two difciples going to 
 Emmaus, in all likelihood, heard not the report of 
 Mary Magdalene, (page 7.) nor 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 apojlles, and mentions them together as one 
 company. 
 
 (Page 79.) The obfervator fays, that the difficul- 
 ty upon fiating the appearances to be different, and 
 made to different perfons, arifes chiefly from Mary 
 Magdalene being mentioned as prefent by every evan- 
 geliji : but there feems to be this reafon for it, fhe was 
 at the head of the women, and the chief oj thofe who 
 attended our Lord, and followed him from Galilee. 
 But what authority has this author to contradict the 
 text, and fuppofe the hiftorians always put down 
 her name as one among them, whether flie 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, contradicts 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. Alark and Luke, for they fay the fame. An 
 orthodox man I perceive may contradict the text, 
 to make that which is apparently wroyigy appear 
 
 right j 
 
(6) 
 
 right ; but he that is cautious of error muft, right 
 or wrong, fwallow down the contradi^ions of it. 
 
 The fecond is, that St. Matthew takes no notice 
 (it all of Salome, ivho was prefent. How does the 
 gentleman know fhe was prefent ? He imagines it. 
 If his imagination is right, how does he excufe thefe 
 things ? why thus : by faying, the evangelijts were 
 illiterate men, not Jkilled in the rules of eloquence, or 
 grammatical niceties j yet very often he quotes the 
 Greek to prove his point by grammatical niceties. 
 Sometimes they are faid to have the extraordinary 
 iiffiflance of the Holy Spirit, that they may be be- 
 lieved ; and at other times, they are reprefented as 
 not having the conimon affiflance of common fenfe, 
 that they may be excufed. 
 
 I am not for making a breach where there is 
 none. I do, and always have, pafs'd over abun- 
 dance of little particulars, and trifling matters, that 
 the defenders of the refurreftion puzzle themfelves 
 about to reconcile j but I cannot agree with them 
 that cannot agree with themfelves. I cannot believe 
 that contradiilions, abftirdities, and difagreements are 
 true. I never Jlrain the text, to make it fpeak what 
 it does not, or to fignify otherwife than it naturally 
 does: I am more willing to fee truth than error in 
 it ; and had rather reconcile it, than fet it at va- 
 riance -, but I do not think it my duty to receive 
 that as truth, which does not appear like it •, or by 
 forced conftruclions 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 mifreprefenting things, 
 but for rep-efenting them in a clear and proper man- 
 ner. I am willing to be convinced by reafon -, and, 
 when convinced of error, thankfully to acknowledge 
 
 it. 
 
( 7) 
 
 it. I love truth, tho' it be unfafliionable, difcoun- 
 tenanced, and defpifed : enquiry is the way to it. 
 
 I proceed to prove, that however thefe hiilorians 
 difagree in their narrations, each of them plainly 
 jfhews, by his flory of the womens going to the 
 fepulchre, that Mary Magdalene was one of them 
 that went thither, whether with company more or 
 lefs, or without, and that each of them intended it 
 for her first time of going there. Matthew fig- 
 nifies, that fhe and another came thither immediate- 
 ly after the fepulchre was opened^ and not one of them 
 lay Ihe was there before. St. Mark, that fhe and 
 two more faid among themfelves in going, PFha 
 fhall roll us away the fione from the fepulchre ? there- 
 fore fhe is not to be fuppofed to have feen the ftone 
 rolled away before. St. Luke fays, fhe and odiers 
 went there, and carried fweet fpices to ajioint 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's 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 furprized, and tells it, faying, They 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 firfi there, will allow for her 
 going again with other women^ but the other parti- 
 culars are irreconcileahle to it •, therefore, however 
 contradi^cry their accounts are to one another, *tis 
 not in the wit of man, v^ithout contradi5lions 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 com- 
 panies to the fepulchre. 
 
 This 
 
(8 ) 
 
 This ohfervator fays, Mary Magdalene went the 
 firft time with the other Mary, and Salome ; and 
 as foon as fhe faw the fepulchre open, leaving thenm 
 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 (lory told by St. John does 
 not agree with what St. Matthew, Mark, and Luke 
 fay, he denies them to be true : and becaufe S^. 
 Matthew' S'ikory of the watch does not agree with 
 other circumftances in the fame evangelill, 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 evangelifts more than I do ? We 
 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 embarraffment, fall into 
 as great at lall \ and by taking pains to prove they 
 do agree, prove unavoidably, contrary to defign, 
 that they cannot be made to agree ; which renders 
 ihem more fatally worfe, than if there had been jig 
 pains taken about them. And fince, of the two 
 women that touched him, St. Matthew fays Mary 
 Magdalene was one, which this author, tho* a Be- 
 liever, fays was jtot -, it further invalidates the proof, 
 ^nd makes that worfe which is already too bad, and 
 in very deed cannot be mended. 
 
 The next obfervation is, that there were fever al 
 diflin£l appearances of angels, becaufe thefe appear- 
 ances too do not agree •, but I think 'tis more likely 
 there were Jione at all, and that *tis as well to be an 
 unbeliever upon eafy terms, as to take abundance of 
 pains to be a heretic, and fo diftanccd from the or- 
 thodox faith, after all one's labour. 
 
 Our obfervator fays, the angels (i. e. the ghofts) 
 
 did not tell Marv Magdalene that Jefus was rifen, 
 
 ' " tho' 
 
(9) 
 
 tho' St. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, fay they did ; 
 but he only denies what they fay, to make them fay 
 as he would have them : therefore, as his methods 
 ef interpretation are Jlrained and unnatural, they tend 
 only to difcover the greatnefs of his embarrajfment^ 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 /ays, the angels were not 
 always vifible, but 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 
 objedl of fenfe, mull remain the objed: 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 fenfcs. An angel that vanifhes, as 
 bubbles do, is a meer apparition, a phantom, an ig- 
 nis fat uus, 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 aiks. For what purpofe 
 did the angels defcend from heaven? he tells us, to 
 fright away the foldiers, and give the women free ac- 
 cefs to the fepulchre. But why did not the angels 
 fuffer them to ftay and fee Cbrijl 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 unfandlified : 
 '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 Chriji 
 rife ? No, Chrifi left his linen behind him, for a 
 proof that it was not proper for them to fee him 
 rife, nor for l]im to ftay till it was light. 
 
 C (P. 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 (p. 17.) The obfervator owns, that the foldiers 
 faw not Chrifl: come out of the fepulchre, being in a 
 fwoon or trance. The angels were quite rafh, hot, 
 and hafty, they flafh'd their hghtning too foon ; 
 one would think it burnt their fingers to contain it. 
 The foldiers themfelves faid they were ajleep •, St. 
 Matthew Tays, they l>ecame like dead men^ which is 
 much the fame, for fleep refembles death : perhaps 
 they might be drunk, and fo either in a fwoon^ or 
 ajleep ; and the facred hiftorian might as probably 
 dream at the end, as at the beginning of his book. 
 Tho' this is fufficient to anl'wer this great book, yet 
 I fhall make fome further remarks. 
 
 The gentleman pafles 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 a£f of the elders 
 and chief priejts to the contrary. This fecms to me 
 intended to wave a difficulty that cannot be encoun- 
 ter' d, for the circumftances in our own evangelifts 
 contradid: their own pofitive proof. If the chief priefts 
 hid made fuch an aft that hud reached us, we Ihould 
 have faid, it had been made by them after St, 
 Matthew'' % gofpel was written, in contradiftion to 
 him ; and it could not be done before, if they knew 
 notliing of it. He fays -f , The Sanhedrim., by an 
 exprefs deputation to all the fynagogues of the Jews 
 throughout the worlds only fays., that the difciples of 
 Jefus came by nighty and fiole away his body., with- 
 out making any mention of the Roman ^w^r^j ; there- 
 fore, to be lure, they knew of none : this, fays he, 
 v/as by an amendment of theirs, without telling us 
 how it was before the amendment. Another argu- 
 ment given us, that the difciples did not fteal away 
 the body, is, becaufe in the a5fs of the apoffles they 
 
 • Page 345. t Page 364. 
 
 are 
 
( ■• ) 
 
 are not charged with it. This makes it tlie more 
 likely to be tadl ; becaufe that author has not men- 
 tioned fuch an accufation, which 'tis owned, in St. 
 Matthew^ they ftood charged with -, and he endea- 
 vours to difcharge it, by the ftory of watching tl'.e 
 fepulchre. The report of the difciples ftealing rhe 
 body away, and faying he was rifen, which is con- 
 fidently believed bv thejewi/h nation /m;; that day 
 to this, is a confefTion that there was not evidence 
 enough to convince them of the truth of the refur- 
 redlion of Jefus^ at that time when it was faid to 
 be done : yet now, 1 700 years after, in a foreign 
 country, the bare reports., the contradidiGry reports 
 of we know not who., is efteemed fufticient to con- 
 vince us ! 
 
 Juft as I was writing this, came to fee me niy 
 old friend Rabbi Nathan Sabtecha, a man well verfed- 
 in tlie controverfy between the Jews and Chrijiians^ 
 to whom I communicated my meditations on this 
 fubjeft 1 he broke out in the following words, which 
 I took a memorandum of, as follows : 
 
 * The whole relation of the refurrciftion of Jefiis 
 *■ feems to be rather that of dreamers and vifionaries^ 
 ' than of matters of fail, it is fo contufcd and blind- 
 
 * ly told. So abfurd and contradidlory is your go- 
 
 * fpel hiftory, that its own relations arc its own re- 
 ' fu tat ion. 
 
 ' The foldiers made a falfe report, as wc are told 
 ' by thofe who v;ill have it that the fenulchre W!iS 
 
 * guarded by foldiers, (which we know nothing of-,) 
 *• but if it was fo, did not Jefus know it ? if not, 
 ' fure he never rofe : if he rofe, why did he not by 
 ' his prefence confute it ? What did he rife again 
 ' for, if it W.IS 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' 
 
 * world, if he left the world in darknefs about his 
 
 C 2 * re- 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 * refurreftion ? 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 ! 
 ' and if he is rifen, and we are left in daj'knefs about 
 
 * it, ye can neither bring us nor yourfelves into the 
 « light of it ! ' 
 
 I told him that my author faid *, that Chriji pro- 
 mifed to give that evil generation a fufficient proof of 
 his rifmg from the grave y after lying three days in it ; 
 but that he abfolutely denies Chrifi pro^nifed to ap- 
 pear to them. 
 
 ' I grant it, (faid Rabbi haflily) nor to any one 
 ' elfe. The patchwork promifes do not agree with 
 
 * the patchwork performances. So then this was a 
 
 * fufficient proof, without the appearance of it. Sup- 
 ' pofe Dr. Emmes\ 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- 
 
 * fonable 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 fa6l, if it was a 
 ' fa6V, afforded a perfonal evidence, and no other, 
 
 * and they defired no other -, an evidence the mofl 
 
 * 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 j every 
 ' way fit, and no way unfit ; in every refped right, 
 
 * and in no refped: wrong : the utmoft fatisfadion 
 ' they could have, was to have feen and heard him 
 
 * Page 302. 
 
 * as 
 
( '3 ) 
 
 * as before, fuch a proof as their fenfes would not' 
 ' permit them to deny •, but fince that was denied 
 
 * to them, they had a right, and a very juft right, 
 
 * to deny all other pretended evidences. Your 
 
 * Chrifi 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, exprefled 
 in page 303) They had no juji pretenfionSy who 
 were unbelievers, and per f cent ed 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 
 
 * Jeivs, as well as to your apoftle Paul, who had 
 
 * been a perfccutor ; that ivherefin abounded, grace 
 ' might much more abound ; that he might Ihew 
 
 * himfelf an impartial being, and a lover of man- 
 ' kind -, that he might prove, he could praftife 
 ' the precepts he taught ; love ye your enemies, and 
 ' do good to them that hate you ; that he might re- 
 ' femble him whcfe Ion he called himfelf i that is, 
 
 * the heavenly father, "joho [ends his fun and rain en 
 ' the juft and unjufl ; that he might ad according 
 
 * to his own profelTion ; that he ivas 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 profclfed prin-^ 
 
 * ciplcs, 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, caufingy^'^)' in heaven, r 
 ' according to his own doftrinc, and brought im- 
 
 * mortal honour to himfelf on earth. Who, (but,- 
 
 * chriftians themfelves) can believe otherwifc than 
 
 * wc 
 
( H) 
 
 we do i-^that the difciples of Jefus jiole him away 
 by nighty 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 refurreftion was made 
 by thofe who aflerted it. The difciples had the 
 lead caufe of any for fuch an appearance, as they 
 were believers already, and if they were righteous 
 men ; for fuch med no repentance. Jefus pro- 
 fefled, 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 fent his 
 enemies to preach the gofpel, by making difciples 
 of them that were qualified. If your Chrijl was 
 the light of the worlds as he declared himfelf to 
 be ; why did he not rife in the light, and enlighten 
 the world with his prefence ? why did he rife and 
 fet in darknefs ? 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 ? \^ he came into the worlds that the world 
 thro* him might believe^ and that believing they 
 might be faved^ why did not his works correfpond 
 with his doftrine ? 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 th-H fJoould 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 cafi 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 
 
( '5 ) 
 
 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 docft thou work^ 
 was their cry ? and whatever may be by your 
 gofpel hifliorians pretended, Jefus himfelf confef- 
 fed, he that docth truth, comet h to the light, that 
 his works may be manifeft ; and as this was his 
 own doftrine, it was calling on him to put it 
 in practice, and to come to the light, that they 
 might come to the truth •, and know the truth of 
 his light, and tJie light of his truth : for as he 
 that walks in darknefs, knows not whither he 
 goes ; fo lie 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 
 fatisfa(5tory one. At length we are told his own 
 refurre^lion 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 a?wtber miracle ! what 
 does this look like ? the honeft man, that can 
 pay the jull demands made upon him in current 
 coin, will never fliufflle off his creditors with bad 
 bills. If the ftory of one miracle be defective, 
 how can it be patched up by another of a different 
 kind ? where was the refidence of Jefus the forty 
 days he is faid to abide on earth after his refur- 
 
 * re<5lion I 
 
( ,6 ) 
 
 * re6lion ? how could he be alive Co 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 purpofe 
 ' to make his refurreflion doubted ? why is the 
 
 * means of falvation made fo unreafonable, that we 
 ' muft believe, what did not appear ? ifjefus kept 
 ' out of the fight of unbelievers, they could not 
 ' be convinced ; and if his rifing 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 not 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 ? which would have prevented their 
 
 * perfecution -, — fo their blood is owing to his ill 
 
 * condudl. The watch (if there was any) denied 
 
 * his refurredlion. What is pretended of the terri- 
 
 * blc 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 whon> thcmfelves 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 itfelf to fliew of what na- 
 ' ture it is, without an authentic adl 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' 
 
( >7 ) 
 
 ' tho' this may be accounted for, but I have faid 
 ' enough to you, and too much to mod, and in- 
 ' deed I think fufficient to all j '* and fo he de- 
 parted. 
 
 I think, upon refledlion, the Rahhi 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 rifing confidcrations claim the reader's 
 regard. 
 
 We arc told, that Chrift explained to the two 
 difciples going to Emmaus^ from Mofes thro* all the 
 prophets, the things concerning himfelf: but we are 
 not told what that ncceflary explanation was ; they 
 give us no manner of account what was this revela- 
 tion made to them •, fo that our eyes are ftill holden 
 that ive ca7inot know him. And tho' as it feems at 
 another time he opened their underjlandings, that they 
 might underjiand the fcriptures, they, nor their fuc- 
 cefTors, do not open ours, nor tell us any part of 
 what he faid •, and notwithftanding he commanded 
 them to fpeak that in the lights which he [poke to 
 them in darknefs, (Mat. x. 27.} it is kept in the 
 darknefs he delivered it. Suppofing then they had 
 all the evidence pretended, fince we have nothing 
 of the evidence they had, why fhould we be required 
 to believe as they did ? And if the matter of their 
 ftories be true, that Jefus rofe from the dead ; which 
 fad is not difputed, but the evidence of it, for it is 
 told in fo mifcrable a manner ^ that 'tis evident mif-- 
 takes are conveyed to us ; therefore our faith of it 
 is on 2. 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 j and all adverfe 
 
 D proof, 
 
( i8 ) 
 
 proof, the Chrijtians have, with all their art and 
 power, deftroyed. They began the burning of hooks 
 early, A5fs xix. 19. and as loon as they had pow- 
 er, burnt not only books ^ but men •, to the honour and 
 glory of Chrijl's church, for every church fubfifts 
 by lacrifice. Believe or be damned was the lirll 
 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 
 Chn^^s fake, is a true Chriftian do^rine; and con- 
 fequently, to perfecute and burn them for Chrifi^s 
 fake, is a true Chriflian fpirit. Does not a law to 
 punifh a man for not believing a report, afford rea- 
 fon enough to render it lulpicious ? 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 j their difregard brings on their own 
 difgrace and punilhment. , Does not the neceflity of 
 believing the thing propofed on hard and rigid termSy 
 ,fliew 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 
 affertors cannot work upon men's reafon, they mufl:> 
 in order to he believed, work upon their paffions, for 
 all depends upon belief -, therefore he that believes 
 and -profeffes fhall be favedl noble encouragement! 
 and he that believes 7iot, fjjall he damned ! dreadful 
 terror ! whom they cannot lead, they drive ; the 
 firfi takes in all eafy good-natured fools, the other 
 all tardy timorous ones. 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 pajfmis than reafon, the 
 fimple and finners, who are by much the greater part 
 of the world, are drawn in -, thefe bring numbers in- 
 to 
 
( '9 ) 
 
 to the church, numbers bring power, and by pow- 
 er the reft are compel) 'd, at leaft to pretend behef. 
 Thus faith, of one fort or other, hke a fpiritnal 
 deluge^ has over- run the world. As when the dogs 
 are muzzled, the wolves will doftroy the flieep •, 
 fo filence the wife and experienced, and the incau- 
 tious will be taken in, and become the prey of men 
 prafbifed in deceit. This may certainly be faid of 
 the mother church, whatever may be pleaded for licr 
 children. 
 
 (Pag. 203.) This writer owns, that as St.7^i?« fays, 
 TWTCE Jefus came in when the doors were /hut ^ he in- 
 tended tofignify that he came in miraculoujly, or he would 
 not have mentioned that otherwife trifling circumftance 
 of the doors being fJjut. As this Gentleman confefles 
 it requires no j^r^^?/ depth of philofophy to underftand it 
 impojfihle^ that it cannot be imagined how a f olid body 
 can penetrate a folid 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 contradiftions. That a material and 
 afpiritual body may be the fnne, or different only 
 at different times, according to the will of the fpirit 
 that polfeffes it, might have been St. Job'/i's opinion 
 for aught we know, if wc may conjecture his faith 
 by the fadls he relates. Though, according to this 
 way of thinking, the gentleman m.^rrily fays, in 
 this fcnfe, the fpirituality of the walls and doors -may 
 b? as well inferred as the fpirituality of Chrift\<i body, 
 and imagines that argument would very well hive 
 become me •, I really think the fame, had I firft had 
 that unlucky, as he has the lucky thought. In me 
 indeed, it would have been as he fays, fophiftical, 
 ludicrous, and abfurd -, in him I really think it is 
 witty, pleafant^ and a prcpos. He fecms to grant, 
 (p. 206.) that what is contrary to the laws of na. 
 
 D 3 ture. 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 turc, cannot be eflFefbed : 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 effeded 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- 
 tradict himfelf, and every abfurdity is poffible with 
 him •, but if this be impoflible, then God can do 
 nothing fupernatural. This is a Iketch of an anfwer 
 to his challenge (p. 142.) on the impoflibility of 
 Miracles. Let thofe that think this point (fays he) 
 can be made out, try their firength in this argument ^ 
 which fupercedes all other objections that can be made 
 in favour of any miracle, A diflertation on this fub- 
 jed; follows, that anfwers his challenge. 
 
 As to the three thoufand faid to be converted by 
 St. PeJer's fermon, I have, in my opinion, heard a 
 ihoufand 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 i 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 mafter, 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 circumflance that made againft 
 tliemfelves, it cannot be imagined but they faithfully 
 
 ill- 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 inferted every miraculous circumftance, and all the 
 particulars of prodigies that happened in favour of 
 themfelves and their miflion ; therefore not mention- 
 ing what the others faid, fhews, they faid nothing. 
 
 If this wonderful converfion be true, 'tis no lefs 
 wonderful that fo many, and all at once, believed 
 the refurredion of Jefus then, and fo few of them 
 have beUeved any thing of it fince. The Holy 
 Ghoft, if he had gone on, might foon have con- 
 verted the whole nation by three thoufand in a day. 
 What hindered tiiis hopeful progrefs ? It was not in 
 man's power to ftop his maker's j why then was his 
 arm jhortenedy fince he wills that all men he faved^ 
 and no man can fave himfelf ? I appreliend 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 fliews 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 boifierous element ever 
 fince. There were men gathered together from 
 every nation under heaven, that the gofpel might be ' 
 preached to all nations j 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 behevers, look upon as drunkennefs of 
 opinion, and infatuation. There's the fame reafon 
 the Chrifiian church fhould be typical, as the Jew- 
 ifh ; for, as my author fays, Inafmuch as the Jew- 
 ifh religion did virtually contain the hopes of the gcf- 
 pel, the religion it f elf was a prophecy : fo as the 
 Chrijiian rehgion does virtually contain the hopes ot 
 the promifes of heaven, 'tis itfelf a prophecy, or a 
 type of the better covenant of good things to come •, 
 fpr the good of it is certainly not yet come, nor 
 
 ever 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 ever likely to come to men, till men come to hea- 
 ven. ' 
 
 The Obfervator takes thofe particulars for grant- 
 ed, that he fhould 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 flories good, which he but 
 attempts j and from fafts not granted, he attempts 
 to prove the grand fact in difpute \ which niay as 
 well itfelf be granted, as proofs from the fame foun- 
 dation. This he calls (p. 294.) a long and fcrupu- 
 lous examination of the fcveral particulars zvhich con- 
 fiitute the evidence of the refurreElion. And then, 
 lays he, / have endeavoured tofJjew, that never were 
 ciny faSis that could better abide the tefi \ and con- 
 cludes, as if he had fucceeded, that never vuas there 
 a fa^ more fully proved than the refurre^lion of 
 Chriji ; when at the fame time none was ever lefs, 
 and the inconfifiencies and abfurdities of the relations 
 deflroy all proof; and wanting its eflentially nccef- 
 iary and natural proof, has no proof in nature. If 
 a man rife frpm the dead, to be publickly known, 
 and was not publickly feen, his ends are fruftratcd 
 by his own inaftion, or wrong aftion : he is non- 
 fuited for non-appearance, if enemies as well as 
 friends have no proof of it,- it is 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 themfelves fome doubted. What 
 is done in the dark, wants light for its difcovery. 
 
 This author being reduced by mecr necelTity to 
 mrike the evangelifts agree •, for fafts forms, con- 
 jeftures ; for they do not agree to infmuate what 
 he docs, or countenance his infinuations. When 
 one llory, told by feveral perfons, is irreccncileable, 
 there is no other way of reconciliation, than to fay 
 they are different flories, and if that method fail, it 
 
 had 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 had been better never to attempt it. To force a 
 ftory to agree that does not, is hke forcing a ftory 
 to be true that is not. They that can reft fatisfiei 
 with reports on the credit of the reporters, and be- 
 heve the poflibihty of miracles, arc 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 flirouded in fubterfugcs 
 of fuppofitions and imaginations, to make it fo 
 much as have the appearance of that neccfTary agree- 
 ment, without which it cannot poflibly have the 
 leaft appearance of truth ? 
 
 The obfervator endeavours to prove the fa(5t, 
 by the exadl accomplifliment of Chrift*s words * ; 
 tho' a thoufand proofs, without the right, will ne- 
 ver do ; and this alone, is the only fatisfa6tory 
 one, inz. a fatisfa6bion given to the people in com- 
 mon. One of his aifertions for proofs is, that 
 Jefus foretold his death and refurre5iion ; tho' he 
 fhould firft have cleared up the objeftions again thefe 
 pretended predictions in i'he refiirreoiion confidered ; 
 in which is plainly Ihewn, tliat thofe to whom it is 
 faid to be foretold, foreknew nothing of the matter ; 
 confequently thofe prcdicflions were made after, 
 and afcribed to him : and as that of his refurre5liony 
 fo was that of his death ; for both are put together 
 in the hiftory ; which deftroys the Jiory of the 
 watch : but this very materral argument^ our oi- 
 fervator being not willing to obferve, pajGfes over in 
 filencc. What is the meaning of this, but that he 
 
 kne-.v 
 
 * Page 211. 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 knew it was wlfeft fo to do ; for he thought that 
 few who read l^he refurre5fion conjidered, would 
 read his obfervations on it. To anfwer this fingle 
 point, two more fuch volumes as his will be too httle. 
 
 Another predidion afcribed to Jefus^ that this 
 author mentions, is the treachery of Judas. But 
 Jefus appeared to have no foreknowledge of this, 
 when he promifcd that the twelve apoflles, fhould 
 Jit on twelve thrones^ j^^dging the twelve tribes of 
 Ifrael, Judas being one ; tho' I fuppofe Judas has 
 loft his commiflion fince. 
 
 The ohfervator does not mention two prophecies, 
 afcribed to Chrift, which fhould have been fulfilled 
 long ago, but are hot yet come to pafs. 
 
 1. The temporalities promifed his difciples for 
 adhering to him, Mark x. 30. That they Jljould 
 receive an hundred fold in this world for whatever 
 they lofi at that time^ new relations^ and large in- 
 heritances ; unlefs they found their new profeflion 
 of catching men inftead of fifli bring them in Cent, 
 per Cent, and fo turn to a very good account. 
 This was not fulfilled otherwife in this worlds nor 
 is likely to be, even in faith, unlefs the old exploded 
 doftrine of the expe6ted 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 deftrudion 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 T^heff. 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 Ihould fooner fail than this prcdidion, Matt. 
 
 xxiv. 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 xxiv. 34. 35. Mark xiii. 30, 31. Luke xxi. 32, 
 33. 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 laji times, and the end of the world. 
 
 I fuppofe it will be objedted, if the prophecies 
 are not of Chrift's making, but afcribed to him af- 
 terwards J why have they afcribed falfe prophecies 
 to him ? for I made the fame objefbion to Rabbi 
 Nathan^ who returned me this anfwer. 
 
 ' The prophecies that the mefTiah fhall 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 prediAed, that if this 
 is not to be depended on to be literally accomplifhcd, 
 there is not any prophecy to be depended upon ; 
 fo that when we Jezvs are able to give up this, we 
 fhall give up all the reft for chimeras or impofi- 
 tion. It was impoffible to perfjade our nation 
 otherwife, nor did ever Jefus attempt it. There- 
 fore when he was crucified, it was plain he could 
 not be that melTiah which was expected. What was 
 then to be done to keep up the forlorn hopes of the 
 difciples ? what, but to fecurc 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, punifli all his and their 
 adverfaries, give to his friends eftates and places 
 under his government for a thoufand years, that 
 Jerufale-ni fhould be renewed, and the temple re- 
 built, tho* then fubjeded to the Gentiles, and be 
 made the glory 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 what is impoffible to a 
 
 E * miraculous 
 
( *6 ) 
 
 ' miraculous power ? and with this bait the difciples 
 
 * catched men. It is our fteady faith in God by his 
 
 * prophets, and our iaithfulnels to God's laws, 
 ' given to us by Mofes^ maugre all perfecutions in 
 ' this world, that keeps us ftill a dijlin^ people from 
 ' all others \ and from thofe we have fuffered moft, 
 ' by whom we ought to have been favoured moft ; 
 ' thole I mean (faid he) that borrow their religion 
 
 * from us •, and have by their own confeflion the 
 ' tneans of falvation from our race. Admit we did 
 ' wrong in crucifying him, we did it igmrantly 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, v/ho does what he will in the 
 
 * armies of heaven^ and among the inhabitants of 
 ' the earthy and who can flop his hand, or fay unto 
 ' him, what doefi thou ? But we, againfl 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 fmcere chriftian cannot be more ftncere 
 than he. 
 
 It argues the utmoft partiality and blindnefs to 
 afRrm, as this author does, (p. 307.) that the 
 apofiles and evangelifls were the authors of the Scrip- 
 tures whofe names they bear ; ive ^ave the concurrent 
 ctteflation of all the earliefl writers of the churchy 
 deduced by an uninterrupted and uncontrolled tr-^di- 
 tion, from the very tijnes of the apofiles, which is fuch 
 an authentication of thofe f acred records, as is net 
 
( 27 ) 
 
 to be overturned by bare prefumption^ and a fiirmifed 
 and unproved charge of forgery. The charge of 
 forgery is not a bare prcfumption and furmife : it 
 has been owned by behevers themfelves, as in "The 
 refurreElion re-conjidered^ {p. 49, 50.) It is bare 
 prefumption to afiert confidently, that we have 
 an uninterrupted and uncontrolled tradition to the 
 contrary •, for there is no reafon to prefurae it. 
 Befides Dr. Mills has difcovered a paffage, giving 
 an account of a general alteration of the four gof- 
 pelsy in the fixth century, recorded by Tinuis, an 
 African bilhop, who fiourifhed in that age, (fee 
 Cavers hift. ht. p. 415.) in his Chronicon^ which 
 was printed by Canifius, at Ingolftad, in 1600, and 
 by Jofeph Scaliger, in his edition of the Cbronicon of 
 Eufebius. The palTage is this : in the confulfloip of 
 MafTaha, at the command of the e?nperor Anailafius, 
 ihe holy gof pels ^ as written^ idiotis evangehftis, are 
 corre^ed and amended. Dr. Mills hkewife tells us, 
 that St. Ifidore^ bifhop of Seville, relates the fame 
 in his Chronicon. This fliews how incorrupted our 
 facred records are •, and I think that corruptions or 
 abfurdities, concerning watching the fepulchre, are 
 fo plainly fhewn, in 'The refurreofion of Jefus con- 
 fidered, as evidently difplay fuch forgeries or errors 
 from fome quarter, which are indefcnfible. If they 
 carry this proof with the?n, 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 mod undoubted 
 incorruptible repofitory of pure and unfpottcd 
 truth ! It is moft fit and fatisladory liowever, that 
 it's own intrinfic nature fliould fpeak it's worth •, 
 let it ftand tlie teft of human judgment, and b/C 
 judged as that fays men are to be ; by it^s 'words be 
 it jujlified or condemned. I know not whether the 
 facred writrngs, as they are called, are thofe of the 
 
 E 2 writers 
 
(28) 
 
 writers whofc names they bear, or not ; and if they 
 are, I know not who nor what >hofe men were, 
 but their bare names only ; therefore cannot take 
 things related on the credit of I know not who, thait 
 were the relaters. It is not reafonable I fhould be 
 obhged to take that for truth, which has not the 
 appearance of it, upon truft to thofe that might be 
 either men cunning or foolilh, honeft or dilhoneft, 
 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 authority of evi- 
 dent tmth 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. y'n. 
 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 facred 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 falUble ; for tho' the better half of Cbrifi 
 was G p D ; he was fubjedt to the infirmities of 
 manhood, and to be provoked to fay many things, 
 (Luke xi. g^.) which perhaps he would not other- 
 wife have faid, and which the writers do not feem 
 to have recorded, tho* in him it is faid dwelt tb& 
 fulnefs of the Godhead bodily^ (which is not true 
 manifefliy ; for if fo, all God was in him, and all 
 the creation befides fubfifled without God, and 
 copfequently exifled without God; and is indepen- 
 dent 
 
(29) 
 
 dent of him yet tho' it were fo, the manhood 
 prevailed over the godhead, at a time when the 
 manhood wanted it's afliftance moft ; — in the time 
 of his fufferings. The apollle Paul, who boafted 
 he had as much of the boly ghofi as any man, next 
 to his mafter, had fm always prefent 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 didy 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 and cons about it. With this I fhall 
 Jinifh, as St. John did, who knew when he had 
 faid enough •, and in fo doing imitate the blefled 
 example of one of the greateft faints, in one of the 
 very beft things done by him. 
 
 S ll P E R- 
 
(30) 
 
 SUPERNATURALS 
 
 EXAMINED. 
 
 DISSERTATION II. 
 
 OnMr, J ACKSO'N's Letter to Deists: 
 Shelving the Impossibility. o/'Mirades and 
 Prophecies. 
 
 In a Dialogue between a Chrijlian and a Veiji. 
 
 The Introductory Discourse. 
 
 C. yt T your requeft, Sir, I come to pay this 
 
 Jl\, 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 j 
 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 j 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. 
 
( 3« ) 
 
 C. I am afraid your teeming mind is big with 
 fome monftrous produBion ; let me be neither mid- 
 wife, nor nurfe ; but I will fit by you, while you 
 deliver yourfelf. 
 
 D. That will do as well : but that which you 
 rafhly conjefture to be a monjler^ is truth. 
 
 C. Then it is truth gives you pain. 
 
 D. I am only in pain to be delivered i but it is 
 a pleafing pain, like that of love. 
 
 C. If you are not big with a monfler, it is a 
 tniracle. 
 
 D. If you are not a chrijliatiy you are a con- 
 jurer ; you have luckily hit the nail on the head ; • 
 miracle is the fubjedl : the hare is ftarted, and now 
 the game begins : let nothing divert us from the 
 purfuir. Have you read Mr. Jackfon's 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 againft me : here is the book. 
 
 C. This looks like giving me both /word and 
 challenge, which however I do not except againfV, 
 feeing the weapons of our warfare are not car?ial 
 hut fpiritual. 
 
 D. Well 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 fliall find me as l^rave as you are ferce : 
 let your light break forth, your fre cannot hurt 
 me •, I have chrijlian patience. 
 
 Z). And I have philofophical temper, which is 
 near of kin : I have confidered the fuhj-dl in the 
 moft unprejudiced manner, I am capable j and lliall 
 always ha -.c the greateft refpedl for better judg-nent 
 when i kt it ; not beir.g fond of :oniu:fi, fci the 
 
 lake 
 
{ 32 ) 
 
 fake of opinion •, but defire to be convinced of 
 truth, and to embrace it, for truth I love ; and 
 regard not whether it be called faith^ or infidelity^ 
 If the darknefs be on my fide, thcreforej 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 converfe with. 
 
 C. I have always had a good opinion of your fin- 
 cerity^ but the chriftian world have but a bad 
 opinion of your feniimenis, 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, I am ^ lover ofwifdom^ however fmall may 
 be my Ihare of it ; and I delight in that under- 
 ftanding, which produces a virtuous freedom and 
 tranquillity of mind. 
 
 C. The inequality of chriftian judgment that 
 appears to you, proceeds from your eyes not being 
 enlightened with faith. You may fay what you 
 will ; but if you do not believe, you will not he 
 believed : but go on with your difh of difcourfe, 
 and talk to the point. 
 
 D. I apprehended my intended fubjed, 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 
 ineftimable treafure of ufeful knowledge. 
 
 G. Great lights do fometimes arife from fmall 
 fparks : that fubjedt is good which is productive of 
 good. 
 
 D. The rage of efithujtafm, and prejudice of bi- 
 gotry, have done much mifchief, and been the 
 ■ Ihame of religion. This fubjeft may be a means to 
 expel in fome degree this (ontagion^ that has fo 
 infeSledthz yfotld. 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 C. Ymi exped great glory then for your bold 
 tindertaking. 
 
 D. Nothing lefs than immortal! This is the am- 
 bition of believers that plead no merit, and profeft 
 humility ; and, without flattering modefty, unbe- 
 lievers are as ambitious as they. The Resur- 
 rection CONSIDERED, and the other treatifes 
 on that fubjedt, have obtained an invincihte conquefi, 
 and put all believing adverfaries to everlajling Jilencey 
 and why Ihould not I expeft a triumph, if truth be on 
 my fide ? But whether fo, or not, I joy in the li- 
 berty that is productive of truth, the peculiar glory 
 0\ THE Georgean REIGN. I intend a philofophi- 
 cal enquiry of a general nature. Let the unpreju- 
 diced and underjianding judge ; for fuch only can 
 difcern the difference between the natural beauty and 
 power of truth, and any other thing, by whatever 
 name dignified or diftinguiflied, wearing its mafk 
 and apfiearance which pafl^es for truth upon truji. — 
 Mr. Jackfon*s arguments are fuch as include all that 
 cithers have faid, and rriore, in defence of the pojfi- 
 bility of miracles ; who, undertaking to reafon with 
 philofophical freedom on that head, I take the li- 
 berty to refume the confideration thereof in the fame 
 manner. 
 
 C. I think you may be very well reconciled to 
 the Chrijiinn religion, in the reafonable light Mr, 
 Jackfon defcribes it. 
 
 D. He indeed drefles 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, Deijls may 
 be perfuaded to believe that art is almoft as beauti- 
 ful as nature. Many fine things may be fiid of any 
 religion, by men of fklll, that take only the befi 
 part, and make the beji of it : but a religion deli- 
 vered in an extraordinary manner from God, fhould 
 be like him, not partially, but totally good -, not ob- 
 
 F fcure 
 
( 34) 
 
 fcure and intricate^ but clear and •plain, intelligent 
 and harmonious. If the many gocd things he fays 
 about the Chrijiian rehgion, 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. Jackfon 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 m.iracles ; *' and I think, indeed, 
 you are fomewhat ftngular in this point, as I have 
 heard by feveral. 
 
 D. I aflure you. Sir, I affed 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 ecdejiaftical mothers breajts, and are ftill de- 
 lighted with it •, but to thofe that chew the cudy it is 
 indigejiihle food. 
 
 C. And you are one of the cle»n 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. Sir, 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 difculfed, we may go upon another. 
 
 D. Very well propofed. Sir ; then, in treating 
 this fubjed:, let the examination be, 
 
 Firft, Whether miracles are conjijlent with the 
 courfe of nature ? 
 
 Secondly, Whether they are conjiftent with the at- 
 tributes of Deity ? 
 
 Thirdly, Whether they are fit or nccejjary? 
 
 Fourthly, Whether they do not deftroy the founda- 
 tion of truth and certainty ? and are capable of the 
 fame evidence as other htflorical fa£is ? 
 
 Fifthly, 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 Fifthly, Whether the dijbelief of miracles he infi- 
 delity and atheifm ? 
 
 C. Grand points ! I fuppofe you expeft to carry 
 all before you. Judacious attempts have often 
 Jhameful overthrows. 
 
 D. Fortuna juvat audaciej. 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, muA 
 keep their houfes in repair. 
 
 C. While I hear you t ilk like a heathen philofo- 
 pher, I have no antipathy to living like a chrijiian. 
 
 D. But I fhall difcourfe on a good fubjed. 
 
 C. Many a one does fo, and makes bad work of 
 it. However, good talking fliould 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 fall out, 
 it is not friendly. 
 
 D. That*s a felf-evidcnt truth, and needs not our 
 proof. 
 
 C. Nor will it be friendly in us to prove the truth 
 of it. 
 
 D. Thofe things that arc not proper to prove, it 
 is beft to take for granted. 
 
 C. Do fo by miracles. 
 
 D. Chrijiians don't attempt to prove them be- 
 caufe they think them not proper, but becaufe they 
 cannot. That fubje(5b which can neither be proved 
 nor difproved, is a very dark one, and ought to be 
 difmifled. 
 
 C. That you make not dark work of it, brighten 
 up your intelleds with a chearful glafs. 
 
 I). I will do fo, my friend -, and as I expc(5t no 
 fupernatural aid, I will make ufe of the natural, 
 and difmifs this introdu(5tory difcourfe. 
 
 F 2 D T S- 
 
(36) 
 DISCOURSE 1. 
 
 W 
 
 D. TVTOW, if you pleafe. Sir, we will begin 
 j[\| with the enquiry, Whether miracles are 
 Conftftent with the courfe of nature ? 
 
 C. What general definition do you give of a mi- 
 t-acle ? 
 
 D. A miracle has been generally allowed to be a 
 fupernatural operation^ or the work of a power above 
 nature, 
 
 C. But fome moderns think other wife ; among 
 them is your Mr. Jackfon, whofe reafons are to be 
 my rule. He iays, (p. 17.) ' The courfe of na- 
 
 * ture is really the immediate inceflant operation or 
 ' agency of God himfelf in the whole creation •, and 
 ' what is called a miracle, is as much a part of God's 
 f providential government, and as much a part of 
 
 * the courfe of nature, as any other : the difference 
 ^ is, the ordinary powers of nature are vijble and 
 ' manijefi m their effeds at all times, and in all places, 
 ^ but the extraordinary, at fome particular times, by 
 
 * effects fuperior to human agency, or common na- 
 
 * tural caufes for moral ends.' 
 
 D. What do you think Mr. Jackfon means by 
 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 produdlions' are ; only they are wrought at 
 fome particular times, and on fome extraordinary 
 occafions. 
 
 D. But every thing in the courfe of nature, fo 
 far as we can judge, has its revolution by the flux 
 and reflux of things ; if miracles are a part of the 
 
 courfe 
 
(37) 
 
 iourfe of nature , they muft revolve as the courfe oi 
 nature does. For, by this order of things, the 
 ihin^which has been, is that which Jhall be, and 
 that which is done, is that which Jhall be done, and 
 there is no new thing under the fun. But as this is 
 not true, applied to miracles, fo there is no caufe in . 
 nature that can produce them. How does Mr. 
 yackfon know that a miracle is a part 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 '\i falfe prophets can work miracles, the end 
 for which a work is wrought, makes it not a mi- 
 racle : morality, therefore, is no more eflential to a 
 miracle, than a miracle is eflential to morality. 
 
 C. Mr. J ackfon fdys, (p. 19,6?^.) » 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 touch 
 ' only, is no more contrary to the courfe of nature, 
 ' nor inconfiftent with ft, 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 ai"t 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.' 
 
 D. 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 rnalady, unlefs nature lead the way, 
 
 and 
 
(38) 
 
 and co-operate with his fkill and endeavours, and 
 by her afliftance, a lucky old woman may efFeft a 
 cure. That a holy or a royal touch ever brought 
 found health to a diflemper'd patient, requires bet- 
 ter proof than bare reports. This is faid to be done 
 by extraordinary divine power ^ the other by human 
 art ; if both thefe are confiftent 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 fhall 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- 
 
 * reftion 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 abideth alone. Cor is barren) but if it 
 dicy 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 raifing 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 \.o fay and imagine things, but how 
 does this appear to be true ? If the one was as eafy 
 to nature as the other, why fliould 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 fuperior power exerted in one cafe than in the 
 other, 'tis amazing that fo many children (hould be 
 daily born^ and that no dead bodies ever get up a?id 
 
 walk. 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 walk. Was this doftrine true, one might reafon- 
 ably expeft refurreftions as often as births. But all 
 the reafon and fenfe men have, if attended to, inform 
 us by fa^s, that tho' parents communicate life to 
 their pofterity in a natural way, no body once dead 
 is ever raifed again to life, 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 nor 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 preferves it, that rejiores a 
 dead body to life agatn ; I grant the former 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 diftindllon is' 
 needlefs, if it is the fame divine power which gave 
 life, and preferves it, that reflores a dead body to life 
 ■again. — Reafon cannot inform us, that what is con- 
 trary to the courfe of nature may be •, it is faith in- 
 forms us this. If this courfe be the immediate incef- 
 fant operation of God hi?nfelf in the whole creation^ 
 no greater or different po\ver can be, none more im- 
 mediate, or more inceffant, for thefe words admit of 
 no degrees of comparifon •, there can then be noy«- 
 pernatural interpofition : by this the pojfibility of all 
 miracles are excluded. 
 
 C. That is, if they are contrary to the courfe of 
 nature. 
 
 2> 
 
( 4° ) 
 
 D. And fuch all miracles are, as by defcrlbing 
 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 raijing the dead to life \ the conjlant' 
 motion of the fun or earth Jianding fiill at the word 
 of command; the fun's going back fifteen degrees^ 
 when requefled •, afea parting, 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 f aft 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 fiffj 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 tongui 
 barbaroufiy, with knowledge to talk all manner of 
 languages under heaven, without learning any, and 
 to write in the mofi learned grammatically ; andthefd 
 people's enabling others to do the fame, by only laying 
 their hands upon their heads ; a fpirit^s catching a 
 man up in the air, and fet ting him down at a difiant 
 town, &c. &c. &c. Such fafts are certainly all in- 
 conjiflent 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 noC 
 miraculous, only more uncommon, and fuperior to 
 human agency. 
 
 X). If a miracle be thus defined, all manner of 
 firange and uncommon circumftances are miraculous ; 
 and we have plenty of miracles in all ages of one 
 kind or other j 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 himielf to be the 
 greater artifi. A difplay of art^ by natural power^ 
 is no demonftration of fupernatural authority^ 
 What credentials does he fliew, ihat he is m-2i pecu- 
 liar manner fent of God, to direft and govern man- 
 kind^ who does no more than another man could 
 doi did he know but his peculiar art ? If this be 
 a fufficient qualification 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 ? 
 Arc natural arts any tejlimoniah of a divine extrac- 
 tion or commiflion ? Do fupcrior 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 raif- 
 fion from God ? Him that we ought to efleem mofi 
 erainently of God, fhould ni'^ji eminently dKphy thofe 
 attributes we adore in the Deity, of wifdom, power 
 and goodnefs, equally mixt and manifeft. What 
 Mr. Jack/on aflcrts, that a miraculous loork is a 
 part of the cctirfe of nature, is the better to defend 
 the pcjfibility of them in a philofophical way of rea- 
 foning, yet he feems obliged to give it up ; for as 
 he ellcwhere exprefies it, to work a miracle is {p. 15.) 
 to alter nature , and [p. 16.) to interpofe a po'ujer 
 otherwife than by ^natural means. The author of 
 the refurre5fion cleared, fays {p. 14."/.) a miracle is 
 contrary to the courfe of nature, and {p. 150.) he 
 calls it a fuperceding and fufpending the general 
 €ourfe of nature, and f.iys, that it is the effence of 
 a 7niracle to be contrary to the courfe of nature, 
 
 C. But * miracles make no alteration in the ge- 
 ' neral fyftem.' 
 
 G D. 
 
( 4^ ) 
 
 D. If they did, the general fyflem 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 effeHs, or have a neceffary dependence 
 ' on each other, and the general courfe of things 
 ' ft ill go on in a regular and uniform manner ^ 
 ' therefore the rectifying 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 
 
 * fufl:ained and preferved.' 
 
 D. All the variations, or different exercifes of 
 nature's powers, are owing to the different means 
 or circumftances of operations •, they are confl:antly 
 the fame, when the fubjedts and circumftances are 
 the fame. The fame caufes always produce the 
 fame effects. Nature has no power to adt contrary 
 to her invariable rule of adtion. 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 proportionable to 
 the difference of their gravities. If therefore this 
 law be contradicted, it cannot be occafioned by a 
 different exercife of nature's powers, but muft 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 afterv/ards 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 efteemed a worker of mira- 
 cles,, when the method was known by pradlice, tho* 
 it might make the dead and living wonder. He 
 that can do by natural powers, what ncne clfe can, 
 
 only 
 
(43 ) 
 
 only fhews himfelf to be the greater artiji i but 
 this is no demonftration of fupernatural authority : 
 fo that miracles muft be by a fupernaturaj power, 
 or they cannot be at all. And I intend to demon- 
 ftrate, by invincible reafons^ the impojfibility ot" fuch 
 a power. 
 
 C. But firft of all make ufe o^ natural poiver to 
 recruit your own ability ; for if you do not infpire., 
 you will certainly expire : after breathing your bad 
 fpirit out, put a little good in, that it may t?e 
 better. 
 
 D. With all my heart, I am defirous to mend ; 
 and you fhall fee, that I am willing to become 
 better. 
 
 C. I fee you are, if this be the way. 
 
 D. It is the way yourfelf prefcribed, and I follow 
 the prefcription. 
 
 C. You are refolved to agree in being my patient, 
 when you cannot be my dodor. 
 
 D, That fo we may agree one way or another. 
 
 DISCOURSE III. 
 
 D. TTAVING fignified my fendments, that 
 JL X miracles are not wrought by the laws of 
 nature ; my next intention is to fhew, that to change 
 the courfe of nature^ is imonjifient with the attributes 
 of God. 
 
 C. How fo ? ' To fuppofe that God cannot alter 
 ' the fettled laws of nature, which himfelf formed, 
 ' is a diredl and evident contradiction •, for if he 
 ' cannot alter them, it is becaufe they are eflentially 
 * neceflary, and independent of him •, and then he 
 G 2 'did 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 ' did not form them, or is the author of nature, 
 ' which is atheijm. This is a demonftrative proof 
 * of the ppflibihty of miracles a priori^ and the hil"- 
 ' tory of mankind proves the pofTibility of them a 
 ^ pojleriori.^ 
 
 D. God has fettled the laws of nature by his 
 wifdorn and power ^ and therefore cannot alter them 
 confiftent with his perfeftions : this is a demonftra- 
 tive proof of the impolTibiiity of miracles a priori •, 
 and if the effects change, fo muft the caufe : if the 
 laws alter, fo muft the lawgiver. This proves the 
 fame a pofieriori ; which hiftories of miracles do 
 jiot, 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 nacure, which himfelf formed, is to fuppofe 
 his will and wifdom mutable •, and that they arc not 
 the i?ejl laws of the mojl perfect 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 heft, and fitteft that could be j it is not the 
 offspring of perfect 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 direftion of an 
 immutable mind, what can make a change in that 
 direction ? God muft be allowed to be eternal, 
 therefore he neceiTarily exifts, and is neceflarily 
 whatever he is •, therefore it is not in his own power 
 to change himfelf ; it is his perfeftion to be immii- 
 
 , table i 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 table i for if his nature could pofllbly change, it 
 might err -, for whatever is changeable, is not pcr- 
 fe6t. Befides an eternal and a perfect nature muft 
 necejfarily be unchangeable : and as long as the firft 
 rnoving caufe is the fame, all fubfequent and fecond 
 caufes can never vary. 
 
 C. ' If it "was inconfiftent with the attributes of 
 ' God, to alter the fettled laws of nature, this world 
 ' would not have been at all, or muft have been 
 ' eternal.* 
 
 D. It does not follow : for this world, for aught 
 1 fee at prefent, might have been formed out of pre- 
 exiftent matter •, perhaps out of fome other worn 
 out world or worlds, by the common courfe of 
 nature, gradually, as the parts of it are conftantly 
 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 form- 
 ing this world, may be no more altering nature, 
 than forming the parts of it, as every world is but 
 part of the univerfe. We fee all the parts perpe- 
 tually decaying and renewing •, and as the whole is 
 but a colle6tion of all the parts, fo may the greater 
 parts be as well as the leffer. Tho' this is but con- 
 je^ure, yet what have we of the world's original 
 that is any thing elfe ? As little do we know of the 
 produdion of the world, as a young child does of 
 his own produ6tion. 
 
 C. You argue that God's perfeflion cdnfifts in 
 his unchangeablenefs, and that of his laws, in being 
 like the lawgiver : but the things that ive make, 
 would demonftrate cur imperfe5iion, if we could 
 ■Hot alter them, and make them as we would have 
 them i and in like manner, therefore, is it not rea- 
 
 fonablc 
 
( 46 ) 
 
 fonable to think, that < the perfe<5lion of the works 
 ' of God, confifts not in making them unchange- 
 ' able 5 but in rendering them capable of being 
 
 * changed by his power and will,^ from one degree 
 
 * of perfedtion to another ; and to fijit the different 
 
 * 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 
 perfection be always in God, he does always bcft j 
 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 
 hejt means •, which man cannot do, becaufe his wif- 
 dom is not perfed: •, but perfect wifdom and power 
 ^an do no otherwife than purfue the beft 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 fhould not anfwer his own 
 sndsy without his mending work, which is worft of 
 all. That God, either with or without dejign, let 
 men alone to go on in their old way, 'till they 
 were ruined, and could not recover themfelves, nor 
 he them, without extraordinary interpofitioii of fu- 
 pernatural power, is a fuppofition injurious to the 
 attributes of the deity. If God defigned at certain 
 
 period^ 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 periods of duration, to mend his ordinary, by aft 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 ahfolute 
 wifdotn ', 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 
 defedt in the lawgiver. To confirm this, I fhall re- 
 peat a paflage from Mr. Peter Bayle, in his books 
 on comets, viz. 
 
 ' Nothing is more unworthy a general caufe, 
 ' which puts all others in a6lion, 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 give* 
 ' a higher idea of a prince, than feeing him, when 
 ' once he has ena<^ed wholefome laws, maintain 
 ' them with vigour towards all, and againfb all ; 
 ' without allowing the leaft reftriftion on the inte- 
 ' relied recommendation of a favourite, or outof re- 
 ' gard to any particular perfon. And of all things 
 ' apt to throw a (late into utter confufion, that 
 ' which compafles the point moll effeflually, is 
 
 * undoubtedly the difpenjing 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 necelTity a legillator is under of mending 
 ' his laws by explanations, interpolations, infer- 
 ' tions of claufes, and fometimes a downright re- 
 
 * peal, luppofes a narrownefs of underllanding, 
 ' incapable of forefccing the inconveniences that muft 
 
 * arife in the execution of thofe laws. The longer 
 •.* a law fubfifts without alteration, the more it dif- 
 
 * cern^ 
 
( 48 ) 
 
 * cerns the great and diftant views of the legiflator. 
 ' Is it fit that Almighty God, after he has created 
 ' fome caufes free, and others neceflary, by an in- 
 ' termixture admirably fitted for manifelling the 
 
 * wonders of his infinite wifdom, eftablifh laws 
 
 * agreeable to the nature of thofe free caufes, yet 
 ' fo little fixed, that the next fit of fpleen or ill hu- 
 
 * mour in any one might entirely fubvert them to 
 
 * their deftrudlion ? 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 dejign, 
 
 * that perhaps what we fee of the univerfe is only an 
 ' underplot in the general aftion, 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 ne^ fyfiem 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 introdudlion of miracles ; 
 for whatever is by a natural and gradual procefs, is 
 not miraculous. 
 
 C. Pray come to a conclufion. 
 
 D. I conclude then, that the laws of nature being 
 the laws of God, they are as unchangeable as he is^ 
 both in the defign and execution 5 and that a mira- 
 cle being contrary to the courfe of nature, is in- 
 confiftent with ths attributes of God ; and there- 
 fore it is utterly impoflible, in the reafon and na-* 
 ture of God and things, that any (hould be wrought. 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 I fear, friend, I have quite tired your Chrijiian 
 patience, you feem to be fomewhat uneafy. 
 
 C, I have had a great deal of patience ; I can 
 hardly call it Chrijiian, to hear fo much of fuch 
 heathen 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, fliould I put a wrong conftruclion on 
 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 of Chri- 
 Ilianity is indefenfible. As every good Chiiftian 
 would have the liberty to propagate Chriftianity, 
 becaufe he conceives it to be true, fo we fliould do 
 to men, as we would they fliould do unto us, (z. e.) 
 grant them that liberty, we ourfelves d'^iire, 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 debarr'd of it. 
 
 H DIS- 
 
( 50 ) 
 DISCOURSE IH. 
 
 NOW, if you pleafe, let us enquire, Whether 
 it be jit or necejfary for God, at any ti?ne, to 
 ^■crk mrades ? What fay you in behalf of it ? 
 
 C. 1 fay this, that * tlie providential government 
 ' of God is that of a moral govermnent over fres 
 
 * agents, m whofe power it is to difturb the natural 
 ' fyftem, and bring many evils into it by fuperfti- 
 ' tion, tyranny, opprefiion, perfecution, fraud, ^c. 
 '■ 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- 
 ' dinary courfe of things, and correcting or punifh- 
 ' 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, 
 which is capable of difturbing the natural fyjiem, and 
 bringing many evils into it. But if it was beft that 
 man fhould have fuch power, then it is beft that 
 fuch things fhould be. If it would have been belt 
 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 no. Why then there 
 has been no remedy exhibited. This is making the 
 world dream of a doctor, when it has had none. 
 'Tis meer quackery to perfuade men that phyfic is 
 needful, when none can make them better. Since 
 the conftitution 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 
 
(5' ) 
 
 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 -, fome good, fome 
 bad ; fome growing better, fome worfe -, fometimes 
 moral, fometimes immoral i now foolilh, then wife ; 
 here they hit they mark, there blunder ; fleep in this 
 country, and in another fcem 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, fmcc 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 like 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 acting fooliflily, 
 and making himfelf unhappy. Man complains be- 
 caufe be is offended^ and thinks God is offended alfo 
 as he is, becaufe he thinks God is like himfclt : for 
 his ideas are limited to his nature and conftitution, 
 they go with him where-ever he goes, and mix them - 
 f€4v€S- with his - ideas , that's the reafon man is fo ia- 
 clined to idolatry, and fo many falfe gods have been 
 put upon man, and have tyrannized over the mind. 
 Man always worftiips 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 afcribe 
 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 pe;fe£lion, but 
 I confefs I don't know what it is, but I know what 
 it is not, and againft that I argue. Perfection I ad- 
 mire and adore. 
 
 C. Then you adore you know not what, as well 
 as others. 
 
 H 2 X>. 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 D. I own it, and the reafon is, becaufe 1 am a 
 fjjan as well as you, and, having /»//^ powers, can- 
 not comprehend what is infinite. All ihings may 
 be good^ tor aught I know, but T know they are not 
 all good to me, for I am not ivholly good, nor can I 
 fee them lb, becaufe I cannot fee as God does. 
 
 C. You faid, man's God is always in idea a man^ 
 or he knows not what he is ; but we fay, that God 
 has no body, parts, nor paflions. 
 
 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 perfe5lion^ (for anger and 
 difi'leafure are imperfe^ions) you are fo difpleafed 
 and angry with him that fays io^ 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. 
 
 Z). And that it is fit he Ihould do fuch things as 
 you think are fit for him to do. So you make the 
 fyftem o[ the world a cobling piece of work, and 
 then think it is fit that God fhould 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 wifcft being do things in the beft man- 
 ner ; and having fo done, it is not fit he fhould alter 
 them. — If the ordinary courfe of nature is the imme- 
 diate a5l of the power of God, how can it want any 
 extraordinary mending, by any different ad: .'' If it 
 do, it is no v/onder 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, and his attetnpt was vain. The reafons that 
 make it {ttm fit for God to interpofe his power to 
 remedy luiman evils once, ^ will make it appear ne- 
 ceiTary. for him always to interpofe. 
 
( S3 ) 
 
 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 ; this 
 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- 
 fequencc, what was the caufe ? 
 
 C. Good, the evil confequcnt was accidental. 
 
 D. Not dcfigned .? 
 
 C. Not abfolutely, but left in a ft ate 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, jn ibis lights things- are as God defigned 
 them, therefore 'tis not fit that God, as a mord 
 Governor^ ftiould 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 abiifed his power, which God 
 fore-knew he would do, and therefore before-hand 
 provided a remedy 
 
 D. If man abiijed the power God gave him, no- 
 thing can bc;tter mend the matter than to take it a- 
 way agaiii •, fince God forefaw the bad etfedts, it 
 had been better to give it with a more fparing hand ; 
 to have been Ufs generous would have been more 
 merciful : but if it was done, and there was no re- 
 calling what v/as paft, a remedy^ you fiy, was pro- 
 vided ; where is the remedy ? 1 fee none. 
 
 - C. 
 
(54) 
 
 C. How fliould you ? 'tis Oxnly feen by the eye 
 of faith, and you have none ; your Hght 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 effect. 
 He cannot be dimppointed in his defigns. Nor can 
 I believe that miracles are proper means to mend 
 mankind : for mens hearts and actions 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 direcfl 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 diredt 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- 
 culty, than improve it. At bell, 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 deductions 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 inteile6tual capacities, and illuminating 
 their underftandings, will make them in love with 
 virtue : but if men are to be governed by the flavifh 
 fear of an arbitrary capricious power, 'tis beft work- 
 ing on their pafiions by fearful and wonderful a6ti- 
 ons, or the ilorits of them, which bewilder their 
 benighted fouls in the intricate maze, or dark wil- 
 dernels 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 like fraud. 
 But to fay, God afls always wifeji and beji, and that 
 as He is, fo are his laws, invariably the fame, is to 
 fay the befi we can, and what becomes us befi to fay ; 
 and if fo, then I think there never was, nor can be 
 any miracles, or occafion for them ; 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 fuperfiition 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.' 
 
 J). If this be//, it muft be becaufe the common 
 nature of things is unfit to prove a deity ; but if the 
 works of God are fit t^ prove a God, where is the 
 reafon that a dead body Ihould be raifed to life, 
 contrary to the laws of nature, to fatisfy infidels ? 
 Is it fit that God, to oblige them, fhould reverfc 
 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 worfhip, to 
 God, that to convince him of the exiftence, con- 
 du(ft, and government of his maker, it is fit that 
 God ihould alter his method, and change the laws 
 
 of 
 
of his government ? Is it reafonable that God fliould 
 humour man in fo foolifli a manner, to go out of 
 his own way of wifdom 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 fhould go back- 
 ivard^ in order to prove to man that he is going 
 forward ? 
 
 C. But every man ought to believe a deity. 
 
 D. Every man mujl 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 bdit^ meritorious, or the 
 want of it criminal, is a mark of impofture ; for truth 
 requires a reafonable convidlion, not a blind obe- 
 dience. 
 
 C. Well, be that as it will, (p. 15.) " Men, by 
 ' abufmg their natural powersj have brought fuch 
 
 * diforder into the moral ftate of man, that his na- 
 ' tural powers are too weak to reftore him to an- 
 ' fwer the ends of virtue and religion •, therefore a 
 
 * fiipernatural aid, and a divine teacher, were necef- 
 
 * fary to reform the corruptions of man*s nature, and 
 
 * reftore the knowledge and pradice of true reli- 
 ' gion, on which his happinefs depends.' 
 
 D. Mankind was never in fo lapfed or deplorable 
 a condition, as to nttd fupernatural aid, or had it -, 
 for his manners were ntvcr fupernaturally reformed, 
 or otherwife than by natural means. Though feme 
 men always think Jiupidly, and a6t wickedly, yet 
 there are always thofe that think wifely, and aft 
 jujily, who are fie 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, who are capable of ;«/<?rwa//^;/. Whom 
 
 the 
 
( S7) 
 
 the clearefl reafons are ineffedlual to convince, the 
 Moji powerful miracles cannot convert j and if they 
 could, that converfion muft be without convidlion, 
 and therefore cannot render them morally juft and 
 good. Thofe that pretend to extraordinary alTifl- 
 ance, what extraordinary creatures do they turn out ? 
 and what wonderful good men have wonderful works 
 produced ? Natural reafon was always fufficicnt, and 
 always prefcnt with fome to inftrudt others. Be- 
 low nature's help, therefore, the human nature ne- 
 ver fell, and confequently was recoverable by it. In 
 no age of the world , or plantation of it, were wife 
 and good men wholly wanting, or moral condu6t 
 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 j for they ftruggled thro' and over- 
 came cruel opprefTions, 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 themfelves from. Whoever reads the hi- 
 llory 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. JVifdom and folly, learning and 
 ignorance, virtue and vice, flavery and freedom, ever 
 were, and remain, and rule alternately in perfons, 
 places, and kingdoms. None ever were wholly good, 
 or wholly evil, but the iuperiority of one over the 
 other, by turns, or in certain cafcs, prevailed. All 
 feek their own good, according to their different con- 
 ceptions of it, as their different natures incline to, 
 motives induce, and circumflanccs permit. This is 
 the fixed rule of human condutl:. 
 
 C. Is there no room then to hope for fupernatu- 
 ral aid, wholly to vanquifh evil powers ? 
 
 I D. 
 
( S8 ) 
 
 V. None. If there was, there could be no evil 
 power exifting •, for what natural power can refift a 
 fupernatural, that can fupcrcede and fufpend the ge- 
 neral courfe of nature ? What denominates a crea- 
 ture free, is the fenfc it has of feeking its own ima- 
 ginary good. And as each fecks its own private or 
 particular benefit, fo the weaker is obliged to give 
 place to the flronger, as the deftruftion of one body 
 afFo'rds matter and room for raifing another out of 
 its ruins •, and as every thing deflroys feme 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 necejjary and unavoidable^ as things are con- 
 flituted. And the perpetual changes all things in- 
 cefiantly 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- 
 
 fijiance ? 
 
 D. If the luell-haten path of nature is not moji 
 fit for men to travel in, nor fufficient to lead them 
 to happinefs, the fupernatural is neverthelefs unft 
 and infufficient, being fo jnyjlerious and invifihle^ that 
 men cannot agree where or "johat the path is, and 
 the evidences of it are as uncertain and unknown \ 
 which men, tho' they ftrain their eyes, can never 
 fee •, and thofe of the quickeft and ftrongclT: fight 
 fee leaft. As foon as men in good earneft fet about 
 employing their powers aright, to examine freely, 
 judge impartially, and a6l righteoufly, they will 
 find themfeives grow in judgment and true virtue, 
 each according to his ability, by natural helps, 
 without a divine infiruBor, or fupernatural aidy 
 which cannot lead any man one flep beyond what 
 nature permits, nor ever did : for all pretended in- 
 
 fpiration, 
 
(i9) 
 
 fplration, that has found men fools, has ever- left 
 them fo. This fort of God's government of the 
 world, fully juflifies hun, without affording us /a- 
 pernatural affijiance, and teaches man not to expert 
 it, nor to juftify himfelf in doing evil for the want 
 of it : tho' as all men have not faculties alike, fo 
 ail men cannot improve them alike. Moreover, if 
 the creature cannot fruftrate the Creator*^ ends, then 
 men's natural powers could never be rendered fo 
 weak as to fail of effeding it : but if the creature 
 can frtijfrate the Creator's intentions, God is not 
 fufficiently wife and powerful, or man is wifer than 
 the omnifcient, and Jironger than the omnipotent. 
 To fay then that men^ by ahufing their natural pozv- 
 (rs, have introduced fuch diforder into their moral 
 Jlate, that thofe powers are too weak to anfwer the 
 ends of virtue and religion, therefore a fupernaturat 
 aid was neceffary, is imputing weaknefs or folly ta 
 God, whether he intended man's natural powers 
 fhould anfwer God's ends, or did not intend it ; for 
 by die one his intentions are not anfwered, if extra- 
 ordinary power be necejfary to reftify it, and by the 
 other he did not intend to do what was necejfary. 
 To fuppofe God did not intend that natural means 
 fhould anfwer the ends of virtue and religion, then 
 the fupernatiiral were always neceffary, and fliould 
 always be employed, tiien miracles and miraculous 
 infpration ought never to c'eafe. To fuppofe God 
 as a wife and good governor, in eftablifliing his laws, 
 gave his creatures liberty to break thro' them, and 
 for that reafon was obliged to do fomething extra- 
 ordinary, and take new meafures to repair the breach, 
 that his defigns might not be defeated, brings re- 
 flexion on the divine condud ; for wifdom never 
 takes a round-about extra-natural way to do what 
 may be done by a direil and natural. To fuppofe 
 th.it God made no provifion agninft a boundlefs in- 
 
 I 2 undation 
 
(60) 
 
 undation of mifchief that man*s free agency might 
 occafion, but that of altering his meafures by mira- 
 culous inierpojiiion, is a weak fuppofition, and high- 
 ly injurious to the honour of God. Every man's 
 experience teaches him, this boundlefs freedom is 
 reftrained by general laws and particular circum- 
 ftanccs. If fomething extraordinary was neceflary 
 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, 
 defigned or undefigned by the governor, was fuffered 
 to break thro', fo as to render mighty and wonder- 
 ful repairs needful, it highly reflefts on the condu5i 
 of the governor, and alfo in not continuing thofe re- 
 paj-ations that are fo highly neceflary •, for many 
 h^e broke thro' the hedge again, and feed on for- 
 bidden pajlure^ fo that xht fpiritual Jhepherds threaten 
 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- 
 grceable to God's wifdom and power, to do or fay, 
 it muft rtfic(^ on his goodnefs not to difplay them 
 now, wlien 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 
 hcnefb rational men as unbelieving as ever. Never 
 was more need of t\\t fenfible proof -mdi demonflration 
 cf miracles, for they admit of no other proof. If 
 they are necefliiry in one age, they are necefliary in 
 C'very age-, for if all men fhould believe the fame ^ 
 they fhould have the fame grounds for their beliefs 
 but if reaibn be fufficient, there is no need of mi- 
 me les. 
 
 C I believe you have been copious enough on 
 this head. Whether your adverfarics may think the 
 argument cogent enough, J know not-, but, in my 
 opinion, it is time to conclude; this difcourfe. 
 
, (6i ) 
 
 jD. Well then, I Ihall 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 he inconftjient with the nature of Gody the 
 mundane and human conjiitution, that miracles are at 
 all fit or necejfary. 
 
 C. Now a chearful glafs is necejfary for our con- 
 Jiitutions •, I'll begin, and wafh your doflrine 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. 
 
 jD. Or if it fpoils good reafoning, or innocent mirth. 
 C Wliich we, by agreement, enjoy. 
 
 D. And by this means agreeably entertain each 
 other. 
 
 C. Truth and good-nature never difagree. 
 
 D. Happy is the friendlhip that is founded on 
 thefe. 
 
 DISCOURSE IV. 
 
 2).TT T E are now to enquire, whether miracles 
 YY do not dejlroy the foundation of truth and 
 certainty, and are as capable of the fame evidence as 
 other hifiorical fa^s. What have you to fay on the 
 affirmative fide of the queilion .? 
 
 C. I am authorized to fay, (p. 21.) that " no- 
 *' thing more expofes a njan's underftanding, than 
 " to argue, cither that miracles dejiroy the law of 
 " nature, and the foundation of all truth and cer- 
 " tainty, and are alfo inconjifient with the divine at- 
 *' tributes •, or to fay, that miracles, which are the 
 *' proper objedls of our fenfes, may not be as well 
 *' attcfted, and with as much certainty, as any other 
 *' fa<^ whatlbever." 
 
 D. 
 
( 62 ) 
 
 D. Miracles have been proved to be operations 
 contrary to the laws of nature ; therefore they dejiroy 
 the foundation of all truth and certainty^ for that only 
 the law of nature is, and they have been alfo fhewn 
 to be inconfijlent with the divine attributes. If a 
 miraculous ftory be as probable as one that is not 
 miraculous •, if a fupernatural adion be as pojfibk 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 underftanding, which forms their belief ♦, or if 
 men may lye, may fee falfe vi/ions, 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 fiories cannot be attefledwith as much cer- 
 tainty as any other fa^s. It miracles are not the 
 proper objeds of fenfe, becaufe they cannot pofTibly 
 be at all, then they cannot be attefted with any cer- 
 tainty at all. How many people have imagined 
 they have feen, heard, and felt what never was, and 
 continued to belieije 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 puniftied 
 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, for their faith 
 is the only reafon for the poffibility of their esifience. 
 
 C. But fure " our fenfes are as good judges in 
 *' miraculous as in common cafes, and thofc miracles 
 " which are the proper obje6ls of our fenfes, may 
 *' be as well atteiled, and with as much certainty as 
 " any -other fa(a." 
 
 D, 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 D. Let us then have fome fenfihle demonftration 
 of them, without which our fences 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 fenfihle 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, cither to work mi- 
 racles, or to prove the pofTibility 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, btit, Elijab-\ikc, I defy them to prove by 
 a miracle iheir God is alive, or that God himfelf has 
 any thing to do with miracles^ or with ihem in any 
 extraordinary manner. 
 
 C. Whatever may be your opinion, it is certain- 
 ly the opinion of others, that (p. 23.) " miracles 
 " are capable of the fame evidence, and have equal 
 *' right to be believed upon human credible tcfti- 
 " mony, with any other hiilorical fa6ts." 
 
 D. That tcftimony cannot be credible which re- 
 lates incredible things j therefore the relators ot fuch 
 have not an eq^iial right to be believed, as thofe that 
 relate any other hiftorical fads. We are to guard 
 not only againil 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 2^x0. fa^s. 
 
 C. Such things are owing to difcemperM imagina- 
 tions. D, 
 
( 64 ) 
 
 2). From which no man can be fure 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 ,iot capable of the fame evidence 
 as other hiilorical fads. 
 
 D. Becaufe, in many cafes, we cannot by our 
 fenjes be fo good judges of them ; and if we can- 
 not fo well trull to our own fenfes in the cafe, furely 
 we ought not to truft to report \ and lefs ftill to the 
 report of thofe ftrangers that party and intereji only 
 make to be authentic. Suppofe for inflance, that a mi- 
 racle-monger owd. a dexterous juggler both perform alike 
 things to appearance^ tho' the one be real^ and the 
 other delufory^ while the evidence of the fafts feems 
 to be equal on both fides ; who but thofe that are 
 (killed in the one., or the other., can diftinguilh the 
 one from the other ? How many juggling tricks of 
 heathen and popifli priefts are recorded in hiftory 
 for miracles •, and other impojitions 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 fafts ? 
 how eafy is it for a pious foul to be induced to 
 believe notorious frauds., that have the face of piety y 
 and feem done to promote it ! are the reports of 
 fl range things, which they are not in a condition to 
 make a true judgment of, eq^ual to thofe of other 
 hilrorical fads ? tho' all hiftorical fads recorded, 
 are not true, yet there is a vaft difference between 
 the probable and improbable. If a man tells me he 
 came over PFeJlminJier-Brid^e to-day, it may be 
 
 true. 
 
(65) 
 
 true, tho' a little objection may lie againfl: it, be- 
 caufe it is not quite finifhed, which may occafion 
 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 impojjible^ 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 ufcd to lye ; and tho' it be at- 
 tefted by many others. I ought to have extraordi- 
 nary eiidence^ to induce me to believe extraordinary 
 things, that are fupernatural, which cannot be fo 
 credible as ordinary things which are natural. In 
 cafes where there is ditliculty and danger in truiting 
 to ones (?*;x'^^fenfes and judgment, there is much more 
 in trufting to the fenfes and judgment of others, and 
 confiding in their report •, therefore fuch reports are 
 not as capable of the fame evidence, nor as fit ta 
 be believed as other hillorical hdis. Since we are 
 warned againil the impofidons oi falfe miracles, we 
 have certainly a right to enquire what are true, and 
 whether any ? and therefore we lliould be mofl care- 
 ful of trufting thofe that are moft capable of deceiv- 
 ing. Not only the hificries of miracles ihould be 
 cautioully received, but the performer of them ; for 
 as a man polTefTed of uncontrollable power is not a 
 proper perfon to be trutled with my property, nei- 
 ther is fuch a perfon proper to be the dire^for of my 
 Judgment, who can by his power phy upon my weaknefs^ 
 by his art impofe upon my itnderjlanding, and by his 
 ■ bricks deceive my fenfes. A miracle worker has it in 
 Jiis power to do all thefe things. Men are often de- 
 ceived without a wonder^ but ivonders 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 
 cither of which the rules of truth and certainty are 
 deftroyed •, becaufe either the ohferver is deceived, 
 or there is no trad left for his judgment ; for what 
 confounds the order of nature inuft 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 ^o^n«^. Suppofe but the 
 power and poffihility 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 
 eafiiy changed, tlian the reality of them ; therefore 
 miracles are not capable of the fame evidence, nor 
 have an equal right to be believed as other hillori- 
 cal fafls, let the evidence be reputed ever fo credi- 
 ble. Both a iniracle worker and the reporters of 
 miracles, are of all mankind the leajl fit to put 
 confidence in, and the mojl to be guarded againft ; 
 becaufe we ought always to be onour^uard againit 
 the appearance and pojibility 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 fafls, by thole that would 
 neither be impofed upon, nor impofe on others. 
 Common fenfe teaches us, that ftories probable 
 and improbable are not on the fame foundation, nor 
 have or defcrve eqiial credit, Befides, an eafy be- 
 lief upon hearfay, a fur prize, incurious enquiry, the 
 fondnefs of novelty, aiid of tclli?ig a furprizing tale, 
 loving that others fhould believe as we do \ add to 
 thefe dcivnright fibbing for pleafure or profit, ren- 
 der the fiories of miracles, not fo credible as other 
 
 hifiorUal 
 
(67) 
 
 hijioricalfans. It is certain tliat 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 deltroy the foundations 
 of truth and certainty ? 
 
 D. Miracles having been jfhewn 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 meny are the fame in all 
 ages ; but a miraculous power breaks thro' thofe 
 otherwife immutable laws ; confequently, by mani- 
 fefting it's own power, manifeftly dellroys all other 
 powers, that without fuch controlling force arc 
 certain and invariable •, but if fubjed thereto, a pre- 
 carious power governs ally and precarious evidence 
 miifl direff ally which clearly deftroys the rules of 
 truth and certainty. Since inconftant miraculous 
 interpofitions do not agree with the conflant courfe 
 of nature, that the fenfes and reafon of man are di- 
 re6led by -, they are deftruftive of rational princi- 
 pleSy that are founded thereon : therefore miracles 
 defiroy all natural rules of truth and certainty. If 
 then all certainty confifts in natural rules, what 
 certainty or foundation have fupernatural ? and 
 what the fuperllrudtures, when the foundation docs 
 not exift, or ceales to be ? therefore miracles 
 fhould cxifl as long as the do(5trines founded 
 thereon. 
 
 K 2 C. 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 C. (Page 23.} But it is thought ' very nnreafo- 
 ' nablc to allcdge that miracles muft be always ne- 
 * ccffaiy to convince men ot God's will, which they 
 ' were at firft wrought to make known.' 
 
 D. What in the nature of things cannot be, can- 
 not by the nature of things be proved •, and being 
 To, miracles are always neceffary to prove them- 
 felves i they being no lhiks 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 pnffibility 
 of them fliculd be proved by demonfi:rative fa(5ls 
 of the like kind •, for I cannot fee they admit of any 
 other proof. The uncertain accounts o{ fallible tra- 
 dition can be none : fuch a foundation msny different 
 religions have laid claim to, but the miracles of ojie 
 party are never owned by thofe of another : there- 
 fore pafi miracles require prefent to confirm them •, 
 nothing elfe can prove their pojfibility \ they, bcin^ 
 fupernaturala^s, furpafsall naturalreafojt and credits 
 confequently require a confirmation of the fame 
 kind. If then they were ever, they are alijoays ne- 
 ceflary. Are they not as necelTary noiv to propagate 
 
 ' the gofpel in America, as they were once in jljia ? 
 Is not the reafon the fame in one place as in another, 
 when the end is the fame ; to produce faith among 
 thofe that know not the gofpel ? the Spaniards are 
 of that church which ftiil makes pretenfion to mi- 
 racles ; were thefc pretenfions right, they might 
 have made as many converts, in America, as 
 their cannons deftroyed ; but this fliews their impof- 
 ture, becaufe they made no ufe of this pretended 
 power, -zt'^ifw and ct'^^r^ it was moft wanted. And 
 as for us, we do nothing to convert them, our mil- 
 fionaries leaving their miraculous power behind 
 'them, and not carrying reafons fujffic:ent to repel 
 
 their 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 their objeflions. But what think you ? are miracles 
 produftive of faith, or does faith produce miracles ? 
 
 C. They ftrengthen each other : wc read, ihefe 
 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 pojfihle to him that 
 believeth. 
 
 D. An evangelical circle ! faith and miracles 
 hang together -, fo where there is no faith, there are 
 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 
 7niracles, and miraclos attend on faith : if there be; 
 faith now, there mud be miracles now -, for if faith 
 be the fame it 7{fed 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 noiL\ why 
 ihould we believe they e"jcr did ; for if the fame 
 faith remains, the fame power remains j if it do 
 not, faith is become impotent and vain. If faith is 
 the fame it ever was, it never 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 docs not produce 
 the works of faith, it is dead •, and furely it may 
 be faid tO fuch, your faith is vain, and ye are yet in 
 your fins. Faith founded on fupernaturals Ihould 
 be attended by fupernatural evidence. Therefore 
 there is always the fame necefiity for their being *, 
 and there is as much reafon to exped: them now, as 
 to believe they w?re 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 
 if it cannot, the fame faith yet is, and- is not. If 
 one Ihould from hence conclude, that there is 
 not the leaft grain of true faith exifting, one 
 
 would 
 
( 70 ) 
 
 would think it is enough to make believers look 
 about them. — Hence it appears that the hiftory of 
 miracles require an evidence of the fame kind to 
 render the credibility of them reafonable. 
 
 C. You will never perfuade believers to this. 
 
 v. And unbelievers will never be perfuaded 
 otherwife. 
 
 C. Then there is no reconciling them : What 
 have you been doing all this while ? 
 
 D. Only fhewing the difference there is between 
 them. 
 
 C. .And that is as great as the ^w^that is between 
 Heaven and Hell. 
 
 jD. But the gulph is navigable from C, to D, if 
 reafon be the pilot. 
 
 C. Then you cannot afcettd to us. 
 
 v. 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 
 a6t contrary to nature \ could we do that we 
 Ihould work miracles. 
 
 C. Well then I would have you endeavour to 
 fetch it up with a wet fail : a few glafles will help 
 imagination, and fometimes do wonders. But na- 
 ture and reafon teach that there fhould be no dif- 
 ference between friends. 
 
 D. The do6lrine is good, let us confirm it. 
 Come on •, a lading eftabhfhment to true fricnd- 
 fhip. 
 
 C. I will plight you my troth. 
 
 D. Kifs glades, and join hands. 
 
 C. And the bargain is fcaled. 
 
 D. I deliver this as my a<5b and deed. 
 
 C. It is good in law. 
 
 D. And both parties are agreed, 
 
 D I S- 
 
(71 ) 
 
 DISCOURSE V. 
 
 £>. TWT O W let us proceed and enquire, whether 
 jL^ the dijbelief of miracles be irreligion and 
 atheifm ? 
 
 C. Mr. Jack/on 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 of deifm^ but of atheifm * 
 
 D. What I have faid againfl: miracles, is in vindi- 
 cation of the divine attributes, and fentiments drawn 
 from x.\\t perfeoiions of the deity •, which tho' they dc- 
 ftroy the poffibility of miracles, is not pleading the 
 eaufe of atheifm. 
 
 C. (Pa^e 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 neceflary and independent 
 
 * of him ; and then he did not form them, or is 
 ' the author of nature, which is atheifn* 
 
 D. Mr. Jackfon might as well argue, that if God 
 cannot change his own will, he is not poifefled 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 a dirc5f and 
 evident contradioiion •, becaufe they are immutable 
 attributes i -therefore am far from faying God is nvt 
 the author of nature, or being guilty of ^r^f//^« ; but. 
 to fay God's power and wifdom may be fo far de- 
 feated, fo as to make it necelfary for God to altei- 
 his meafures, makes him defeL:Jive in boxh^poiier 
 and wifdom. 
 
 C. (Page 16) ' Surely, (fays he) this author never 
 ' confidered, or «y// confidered. that ths providen- 
 
(72) 
 
 ' tial government of God is that of a moral govern- 
 
 * ment over free agents ; to deny this, is dired and 
 
 * evident atheifm^ 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^ and that it is too fcvere to charge them all 
 upon that account with dire^ and evident atbcifm : 
 this I wotdd not fufpe^l him to intend. How far 
 man is, or is not free, as it is not the fubjed of 
 my prefent enquiry, and has been the contefl of 
 ages, I will not now take upon me determine •, nor 
 do I prefume to be infallible. 
 
 C He adds (page 1 6, 1 7.) that ' your reafoning by 
 f neccflary confequcnce infers either abfolute fatality ^ 
 
 * and neceflary 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- 
 ' tion, either of which ends in atheifm. And again 
 ' (page 30.) ' All this author's reafoning againft 
 ' the foffibility of miracles,, is not only weak and 
 ' unphilofophical, but in confequence fuppofes a 
 *" fatality, and neceflary connedion of caufes and 
 
 * effeds, 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 on 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 nature 
 is the immediate incejant 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. 
 
 a 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 C. This gentleman concludes, (p. 23.) that " he 
 " who does net believe that God can, or docs, in- 
 " terpofe in the affairs of men, in the piiblick con- 
 ** cerns of ftates and kingdoms, and in more pri- 
 *' vate and particular cafes alfo, mufl confequently 
 *' think all prayer infigntficant and ufelcfs, and all 
 ** religious worfliip to be vain j which is not to be 
 " a Deifi, but an Atheijir 
 
 D. I have been ufcd to think, that nothing is 
 atheifm, but the difbelief of a Gody or an intelligent 
 caiife ; but, according to this gentleman's opinion, 
 the not believing miracles^ or that God cannot alter 
 his fettled laws, or that man is not a free agent ^ or 
 the diJI'elief of the force of prayer^ and the interpofi- 
 iio'n of a particular providence \ and, I fear, was he 
 to proceed, he will call it atheifm, not to believe 
 every thing tliat he thinks to be a neccfTary point ia 
 religion. 
 
 C. Well then, I find you are not.pleafed to be 
 thouglit 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 heart, 
 and fay. Not guilty , upon my honour ? 
 
 D. Ay, pais over this fubjed, and let us talk of 
 honour. 
 
 C. It is going from the point •, no, no, you fhall 
 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 loill not, being willing to indulge u vicious 
 mind ? One of thefe they will be thought to be, 
 unlefs you plead in your own defence -, which is 
 manly and becoming, 'tis- what you ought to do \ 
 L and 
 
(74) 
 
 and the world expcds you to he open in your pkai 
 as you have been all along on the fubjedt of mi- 
 racles. Is it not better you produce your reafons, 
 if you have any, than be condemned unheard. You 
 may poflibly be in an error, but by divulging it, 
 you may be better advifed. Your free defence is 
 therefore required, and yoviv foolijh prayers muft be 
 rejeded. 
 
 D. Juft fo it is with man's prayers to almighty 
 God. If we ajk any thing according to bis will, be 
 heareth us, 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 diredl the creator. We ajk and re- 
 ceive not, when we ajk amifs, for God's wifdom is not 
 direfbed 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 is of 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 condufl by our entreaties. God 
 requires not our beft informations, diredtions, or 
 follicitations, in any point that concerns bis 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 direds, whether we petition for 
 or againji 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 produdion of his unalterable 
 wifdom and eternal will, or to do any thing con- 
 trary to his immutable rule of aflion. It is a high- 
 er degree of piety and obedience, and the humbleft 
 ^oration of the Deity, to fubmit to his judg- 
 
 mea( 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 ment what is beft for us, than to diredl it by our 
 prayers. 
 
 C. JVifdom and virtue are fit for man to pray for ^ 
 and for God, as a w//^ and good being, to give. 
 St. James fays, 7/" ^wy man want ivifdom, let him ajk 
 cf God, who gives to all men liberally, and upbraid- 
 eth not. Surely it is laudable to pray for tilings 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 will ufe its ut- 
 vtoji 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 abili- 
 ties rightly applied ; but thefe things do not come 
 by prayer. Prayer is only the difcovery, 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 fliews the powers of the 
 foul are fet to work, and according to its fervour 
 and power, it will feek all ways to effe»5l its end, 
 and, if pofllble, do it fome way : but it is wrong to 
 exped 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. IVifdom is not attainable but by much la- 
 bour of ihe mind ; reading, experiefice, obfervation, 
 converfation, cogitation, and care, are the proper 
 means -, without thefe, or fome of thefe, it is im- 
 pofTible to be had ♦, to which a natural ability mull 
 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 diflinguilh and difplay the friendly and be- 
 nevolent, heroic and magnanimous nature. To ex- 
 
 L 2 pedl 
 
( 76 ) 
 
 pe<5t wlfdom or virtue to be poured into the foul by 
 prayer, is altogether as vain as for a hullDandmaa to 
 expeft his ground fhould yield him a plentiful har- 
 vell of corn, without manuring^ cultivating, and 
 fcwing, becaufe he devoutly prays for it -, or, which 
 will efie(St as much, the facrificing fome of his laft 
 crop in the middle of his !ield, or elfewhere. 
 
 C. We don't expeft things natural, but in a na- 
 tural way ; but fupernatural grace we expe6t in a 
 fupernatural 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 expeded in a 
 natural way. Such prayers are the efFe6t of enthu- 
 /lafm, 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 iht 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 
 a 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 
 diofe that expert or require it, than to fuffer inju- 
 ries for too fliff a nonconformity, or to refill a pow- 
 er we cannot conquer. We may exprefs our good 
 
 wifliess 
 
(77) 
 
 wilhcs, as well as wlfli for good things, but with 
 refignation to the all-wife diredlor. When by prayer 
 men are excited to juft and proper adion, or to 
 make ufe of right and proper means, to obtain in a 
 right manner what they defire or pray for, without 
 any expeAation 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 anchormen a rock, 
 which having done, they pull as if they would hale 
 the rock to them, but they hale themfclves to the 
 rock. 
 
 C. I underftand by this, 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 anfwcr that end, we may have whatever 
 we requeft ; but if not, we afk and receive not, or 
 pray in vain, as to obtaining any thing from God, 
 by that means only. 
 
 Z). You undei-ftand me right. In all other cafes, 
 Chrijtians may fee how impotent is prayer, in that 
 of the beloved f on of Cod ^ with whom the father was 
 always well plea fed^ as the gofpel exprefles it ; who 
 tho* he prayed to be delivered from an intolerable 
 torment and ignominy, with the greatell earneftnefs 
 and agonies that ever man prayed, it was all in vain, 
 he was forced to refign his will to God's. Our btfi 
 drcotion then is, refignation to God's willy ufing our 
 beft endeavours to do what is beft to be done •, for 
 (James i. ly.) in God is no variablenefs, nor fhadow 
 of change. Job xxiii. 13. He is of one mind, and 
 who can turn him? Dan. iv. 5, He does what he 
 will in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabi- 
 tants of the ejYth^ ond none can flop his band, or fay 
 nnio bim^ What do if* thou ? C, 
 
(78) 
 
 C Why do you quote fcripture for this ? 
 
 D. To enforce that truth on your 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 httle or nothing on pro- 
 phecy: How do you prove the impofiibihty 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 profped 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 flill 
 be, if ever they were -, for the fame caufe will pro- 
 duce the fame effecfts 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 defign 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 
 effectual . Prophecies and miracles, if they are 
 natural works, would have their revolutions, as 
 other natural things have ; if they are fupernatural 
 works, as nothing can refill their being, fo nothing 
 can refill 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 io could not be certainly foreknown ; 
 therefore, they that contend for the one, deftroy 
 the other. If any man could be poffefled of the fpi- 
 rit of God, he muft be poffeiTed of all thofe quali- 
 ties 
 
( 79 ) 
 ties the fpirit oF God hath, but this is impoflible ; 
 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 wKdom, why not m fpiritual? 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 lience, 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 y but then thefe 
 have t\it 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- 
 dud:ions, therefore in man can be nothing fuperna- 
 tural. All that man can conceive of God muft 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, come 
 to him in a natural way, nor c.?.n he receive them 
 any other ways \ for his whole exiftence and fubfiil- 
 ence depend conftantly on natur il means, every 
 creature being a link of the great chain of nature, 
 and God any other way has no relation to creatures, 
 nor they to him. There is, therefore, nothing can 
 come between nature ^nd the cre>'^ture, or betweem 
 
 God 
 
( 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 fchernc and operation. 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 al- 
 mighty power, as it has to do with man or creatures, 
 cannot be 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 abjed fupplicants. 
 C. I expert your conclufion. 
 Z). And you fhall have it. To conclude then ; 
 it is clear that the difbelief of miracles and prophe- 
 Jfies is not atheifm, but better founded on the attri- 
 butes of deity, than the belief of them -y and that 
 reafon, diredied 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 delujion^ but no certain truth. And 
 whatever the evidence for miracles may be, or be 
 fuppofed, I agree with Mr. Jackfon, that they art 
 not equal to reafon and natural truth. Thus, after 
 all, 'tis confefled, that Deism, or the religion 
 OF nature has no equal, even by thofe that 
 would fet up fomething above it, which is repug- 
 nant to it. 
 
 C. I think the church is but little obliged to you 
 for thefe fentiments* 
 
 V. 
 
( 8i ) 
 
 D. The church is not injured by them. 
 
 C. How fo ? 
 
 D. That church which is eftablilhed by law, will 
 be fo ellabhflied as long as the law remains ; and 
 thofe fentiments that are eftablifhed 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 Deijis, they would be Dijfeti- 
 ters, who, tho* nearer in principle, make a greater 
 rent •, for thefe fet up their altars, or worfhip, a- 
 gainft the altars of the church, but Deijls fet up 
 none, they generally go to church, and conform to 
 the devotion in fafliion. Contemptible fcbifm is 
 fcorned by infidelity. I am fure the.diffenting meet- 
 ings have been lefs filled fince the growth of deifm^ 
 than when the contention was warm between the 
 church and difienters, in Sacheverel*s time. 
 
 C. The Dijfenters then are little obliged to Deifis, 
 for thinning their congregations. 
 
 D. They are very much for delivering them from 
 the enthufiafm of feparation^ and fttffering On that 
 account, as the points in which they differ not being 
 worthy of it, nor likely to produce the expedled re- 
 ward, fince their errors are as great in principles 
 wherein they agree^ as in thofe wherein they dif- 
 agrce ; therefore they are obliged to our informing 
 them, that 'tis better to lay nhd&feparation and bi- 
 gotrjy than fuffer for rigoroully oppofing that fu- 
 perjfition which they have not power to ftand a- 
 gainft ; and if different judgments offend the church, 
 the church may, for its fupport, feek and execute 
 that power which will deftroy it. As things go on 
 in their prcfent eafy fituation, the church thrives, 
 and is filled without compulfion. 
 
 C. Deijis are but indifferent churcJmen. 
 
 M I). 
 
 6 
 
( 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 fefts, are joined 
 by fo many diftind intercfls. Give the clergy their 
 dues, according to law, and they may be eafy, if 
 thty 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 faMion render them contemptible. 
 
 C. I fuppofe you are now delivered of your con- 
 ception, which you believe to be truth. 
 
 £). I am, and do fo believe •, 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 
 himfelf leafb, 
 
 C. So that there is no fccurity in any ftate. 
 
 T). Bccaufe we find infallihility nowhere •, and 
 fince there is no infallible judgment in man, no man 
 ought to aft 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 I 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 
 tvery one believes what he conceives to be right, 
 and uncertainty attends all human concerns, I think 
 
 all 
 
(83 ) 
 
 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 practice only makes men better or worfe, 
 and for that alone they Iliould be valued or defpifcd. 
 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- 
 mcnts arc right, may they profper-, if they are 
 furong, 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. 
 
 D. Philofophy and wine refrcfli both foul and 
 body. 
 
 C. Chearful fubjcfts, when attended with friend- 
 fliip, and carried on with difcretion. Bur, notwith- 
 flanding 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 beji men in all ages, and the pofllbility 
 of them not denied by the "jvifej}, to whom I leave the 
 judgment of thcfe things : tho' mean men may dif- 
 clofe neglected truth •, to the difcovery of which I 
 wiili fuccefs, that honefty may not be difcounce- 
 nanced. Though your fcntiments and mine do not 
 agree, I fmccrely rcfpe6l you as a long and intimate 
 acquaintance, and therefore, dearcft of dear friends, 
 adieu. 
 
 j.v 
 
 I I S U P E Pv 
 
( H ) 
 
 SUPERNATURALS 
 
 EXAMINED. 
 
 DISSERT AT I O N III. 
 REMARKS on PROPHECIES, 
 
 Occafioned by 
 Mr. y^fyyi'w's Letter to DEISTS, 
 
 The INTRODUCTION. 
 
 MR. Jack/on having finifhed what he has to 
 fay in defence of miracles, attempts to prove 
 miracles by propheeies ; but as neither afford any 
 proof of themfelves, z, 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 Ihall 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 
 infallihle criterion^ I have no need to quote what he 
 fays on this fubjeft, which would make it perplexed 
 and laborious, fince it may be difcharged in a few 
 words. 
 
 But firil indulge me a little on the lawfulncfs of 
 the enquiry, tho' it be peeping into the Holy of Ho- 
 lies^ examining the great arcanum ot enthufiafm^ and 
 diiTeifting the very foul of prieji craft : 'tis therefore 
 
 a 
 
( 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 arc /acred bccaufe they arc/ecrct, cx- 
 pofe them, and the witchcraft is at an end, the fpell 
 is broke, and the charm has no force : it is but ia- 
 cred varnifh that appears, they are but pompous fe- 
 pulchres, in which is nothing but rottennefs. The 
 I^eiler any thing is, the fnore it will bear enquiry. 
 The fraud and fraudulent arc the fruits and friends 
 of darknefs, and the religion that will not bear exa- 
 mination, is the kingdom of it. Trulb cometh to 
 the lights that it may be manifcji. If men fhouki 
 know ivhy and what they believe, they fhould dif- 
 play both the bottom and the building. Plain truth 
 cannot be feen in the obfcurity of myfteries. Like 
 wifdom, it delights to appear in public, it loves 
 freedom, opennefs, and plain dealing. V'/hat are 
 called the myjleries of the fpirit^ are known to none, 
 for they that think they have it, have no mark to 
 know it by, but their own fond imaginations -, and 
 lis fiipernatiiral proofs being loft, there can be no 
 proof in nature given of it ; therefore that myflcrious 
 fpirit is what every one's faith or fancy makes it, 
 who thinks himfelf pcifcfled cf it. This manf:cn of 
 fuyftery is the pride of ignorance, the delufion of 
 madmen and tools, where enthufiafm is born, and 
 future events brought forth ; where bigots arc 
 trained -, where the voice of reaibn is flopt, an^l 
 enquiry is confounded. 
 
 The better to methodize my examination, I Hiall 
 confider, 
 
 Firft, 
 
(86) 
 
 Firft, Of the dificuUies attending the credit of 
 prophecies^ and their myjlerious predictions. 
 
 Secondly, Of the prophets predictions, praCJiceSy 
 and illuminations. 
 
 Thirdly, The conclufion, 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 0/ the dijiculties attending the credit ofprophe^ 
 ciesy and their myjierious prediBions, 
 
 IF the fenfe of prophecies, and the 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. ' We 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 fatisfadlion concerning the fenfe of 
 obfcure prophecies, that thofe in Daniel and the Re- 
 relations predid what Mr. Jackfon infinuates, or that 
 he, or any man, hath the right underftanding there- 
 of, who have attempted to accommodate fails 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, Ihews 
 it, if he had not owned it. Does it confift with the 
 goodnefs or isAfdom of God to deliver himfelf in fuch 
 myflerious terms, that the wifefi and mofi learned 
 men, with all their labour, can never be certain 
 v.?hen they come at the meaning, and muft own that 
 they canitct agree, becaufe their underftandings are 
 confounded in the darknefs of it ; and where there 
 is not fufiicient light to convince rcafonable men, their 
 
 un- 
 
( 8/ ) 
 
 undcrftandings are unenlightened. In oh/cure pro- 
 phecies men may everlaftingly puzzle themfelves 
 and others, without any certainty of ever being in 
 the right. This is the cafe of all thole prophecies 
 which Mr. Jack/on has given himfelf fo much la- 
 bour about, fetched from Daniel and the revcla- 
 tions. If prophecies are not commonly undcrftood, 
 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 fignifics, of what fignification is it? 
 Common fenfe is fufficient for co^nmon honejly^ which 
 is plain and open, and delights to fhew itfelf clear 
 and fair. 
 
 By what means can we be fure 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 
 corre6l them, as well as they could. If the 'wcrd 
 of God has been corrupted, there can be little de- 
 pendance on the ivord of man, or on his wifdom or 
 honefty to make it pure : for there are certain de- 
 grees of />r(?/W/Vf, partiality, inter eft and ig7iorance^ 
 that man cannot furmount. The fadls predided 
 lliould 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, fcarcc from a fecond or third perfon : 
 the natural infirmities of men, generally corrupt ic 
 without intention. It is rare that two or three per- 
 
 fons 
 
( 88 ) 
 
 fons tell fo much as the fenfe of the particulars of a 
 ftory exadlly one after another. 
 
 A prophecy, when delivered, fhould be fuch as 
 no human rcafon could forefcc, nor could pofTibly 
 be any random guefs : then the original or true copy 
 of it fhould be well witnefTed, and preferved by 
 men that had no intereft in deceiving the world ; 
 if pofliblc, in fuch manner that there could be no 
 fojftbility of corrupting or altering it. It Ihould al- 
 fo be .fo clear and intelligible, as to admit of no 
 mifiinderftanding it. The circumftances that come 
 after to pafs, fliould 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 
 pGJfihiUiy of which therefore fhould be abfolutely 
 guarded againfb. The better the chain holds to- 
 gether, the flronger it is, extraordinary cafes mufb 
 iiavc extraordinary proofs : and after all, when the 
 thing predicted is pafl, the credit of it's predidlion 
 naturally lejfens, as time increafes ; becaufe it is well 
 known, that the world is full of impofitions : and 
 in the things of God, there ought not to be the leafl 
 Jljadow of it. 
 
 Tho' it is endeavoured to be proved, that fome 
 of the prophecies were literally fulfilled ; yet if all 
 were nor, 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 truft to them in ail ca- 
 fes ; and if not in all wc cannot in a'/iy, unlefs we 
 can diftinguifh thofe cafes. If the prophecies con- 
 tain fome good and true things in them, can thofe 
 recommend them th:it are not fo ? 
 
 It was obfervcd^ that there is the greatefV dilB- 
 culties in applying prophecies, which are not clear 
 and explicit to their intended purpofe •, or in know- 
 
{ 89 ) 
 
 ing to what intent or purpofe they were given : for 
 inftance j what prophecies feme apply to the re- 
 demption of the people of God by Jefus Chrift^ 
 others have thought are only applicable to the re- 
 demption of the Jews from the power of the king 
 of JJfyriay and had refpedl to the times they were 
 written in. And tho* fome of the prophecies are 
 faid to be in part only accomplifhed -, in either cafe 
 the parts are a great way afundcr. 
 
 If the prophets did not prophcfy falfe things, 
 they were fometimes mifunderftood, and in the 
 greateft cffentials. The Jews expefhed their favi- 
 our to be a temporal king, fo did the primitive 
 chriftians, before and after the crucifixion of Jefus -, 
 for the millenarian doolrine of his coming again 
 to reign on the eartli, is fpoken of in fcveral places 
 of the new teltament, which was to have been * im- 
 mediately after the deilruftion of Jerufalem ; and 
 tlio' the day a?id hour was not iixed, it was to be be- 
 fore that generation paffed away, the difciples were 
 bid to expedt it, watch for it, and be ready, f not 
 for the Holy Ghoji, his fubftitute -, but for Jefus 
 himfelf, and the manner of his coming was de- 
 fcribed ; therefore thofe were called the laft days 
 and times ||. And tho* we arc told the gofpel was 
 firft to be preached to all nations, we are alfo told 
 that fo it had then been in the apoftlcs 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, Papias, Bifhop of 
 Hierapolis, had it from the chriftians by oral tra- 
 dition. It was alfo embraced by Jtijlin Martyr, 
 
 * Matt. xxiv. 29, 34, 42. Mark xiii. 24, 33, tifc. 
 Luke xxi. 31, 32, 36. John xxi- 22. Afls i. ti. -f Aft? 
 iii. 20. I Iheir. iv. 13, tffc. Heb. x. 37. i Pet. iv. 7. 
 a Peter iii. {] i John ii. 18: James v. 7, 8. Jude v. iS. 
 § Afts ii. 5. Color. 1.6. 23. Rom.x. i3 — .\;vi 26. 
 
 N Ir^'cnsus^ 
 
( 9C ) 
 
 ' Irefjueus, 'Pertullian^ Hippolitus, La^antius, The- 
 cpbilus of Antioch^ Mcthodus^ P'iSforinus^ and the 
 mod illufbrious of the ancient fathers were advocates 
 for the millenium. It was impofTible to perfuadc 
 the Jews or Jew chriflians to the contrary. They 
 expected Chriji according to the prophets to fit on 
 the throne or kingdom ot David^ which was a tem- 
 poral kingdom, and from Jerufalem he was to ad- 
 ininifter judgment to all nations *. The 'wife men 
 that came to feek Jelus underftood it fo -f •, fo did 
 the angel Gabriel : yet we are now told they were 
 all millaken, and that his kingdom is fpiritual ; 
 for tho' it was expe6ted to be worldly, we are now 
 fare his kingdom is not of this world, iinlefs the ef- 
 tablifhed chriftian churches are a part of the world, 
 having worldly power and grandeur, where his depu- 
 ties generally rule as if they never expected king 
 Jefus would come and call them to account, except 
 in this happy age and country : and they may always- 
 be trufted to rule in a tolerable manner, when and 
 ■where xht fpiritual power is fubjeft 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 ftory they applied it, have 
 underftood, what was wanting to be made out, in 
 an allegorical, figurati've or myflical manner ; fo they 
 have made a myjlerious application to the letter of 
 the prophecy, orfomeone »2>;y?;V^/ prophecy to many 
 very different cafe's; or .the myftery of o?ie, to tJic 
 myfiery of the other-, and by the fpiritual wire- 
 drawing of one or ail thefe methods, they always 
 may make out what they pleafe. If by any ot 
 thefe means the expofJor by chance or hard labour 
 drav/s a tolerable good parallel, the prophet gets 
 
 * Mat. li. 2. t Luke i. 37, 33. 
 
 fare 
 
{9« ) 
 
 fure praife ; but if he fails, which is ofcener the 
 cafe, the expojitor gets fure difgrace. So difficult 
 has the expofttmi generally been, not only to com- 
 mon underllandings but to learned men, that happy 
 is he who has gone into the battle, and come off 
 without a fear in his intellefts, or being crippled in 
 his underftanding ; and fome have been affeded 
 with a kind oi prophetic delirium all their life-time 
 after. 
 
 Wherefore fliould the word of God^ be harder to 
 underftand than the word of man ? Why fliould that 
 be myfierioiis^ which is moft necefTary to be plain ? 
 Why fhould not God*s word be undcrftood in it's 
 natural {tnio. ? How is revelation unrevealed confif- 
 tent with divine wifdom or goodnefs, or the marks 
 or evidence of either ? Does God delight to puzzle 
 and difira^ human minds ; and purpofely, as by a 
 wile, to deceive men's underftandings ? Is this con- 
 fiftent with the charafter of gocdnefs and truth ? 
 To what purpofe are unknowable riddles, or itiex- 
 plicable predictions ? What knowledge does this 
 convey ? or what warning do they give us of 
 things to come, if the meaning of the exprcfTions 
 are not known ? And what occafion is there for 
 fuch prophecies ? If the trumpet give an uncertain 
 found, who fhall prepare himfelffor 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 m,yfl:ical meaning. They that fay one thing, and 
 mean another, are not to be depended on, nor re- 
 garded. Is it any mark of wifdom in a teacher to 
 utter himfelf in words, which z\\i^ fcholar with all his 
 endeavours cannot underiland : and if he by labour 
 or ch.ince hopes he has got the right fenfe, yet can 
 never be fure of it ? That vv'hich is good and wife 
 need not be afhamed nor afraid to appear. The 
 
 N 2 wifdom 
 
( 92 ) 
 
 wifdom that is hiclden, has not the face of wifdom -, 
 he* refidence is founded on knoii'ledge •, but myjiery 
 or fecrecy prevents our coming at it. How is it 
 cop.fiftent with the wifdom of God to dehver myjleries 
 to the world, for men to explain as they can or 
 will, leaving them in the dark to be eternally tofled 
 about by their own giddy conceits,* and his word 
 to be to them an endlefs fund of deception^ and maze 
 of confufwn^ as well as an everlafling bone of con- 
 tention ? Where is the difference between what is 
 unintelligible and nonfenfe? When myfteries pre- 
 vail, credi.lity is infatuation. Any writing may 
 be deemed prophetic, if a myfiical interpretation 
 be allowed. Whatever the fpirit teaches, the 
 letter fays, the time will come when men will turn 
 their ears frcrit 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 
 affertions and prevarications ever prefent where 
 truth is abfent ? — 'It ftcms as ftrange, that the 
 Jews fhould not know the meaning of their own 
 prophets, and we fliould ; as that a foreigner in 
 tongue and religion, fhould iinderftand the arti- 
 cles of our church, and our churchmen not under- 
 fland them at all •, and yet the (Irangers fenfe of 
 thcfe articles fhould he forced, foreign, and allegorical. 
 1 (as a carnal man) am apt to think the knack ol 
 underflanding the prophecies and fcriptures, fpiri 
 tually, is that of putting what {cnk men pleafe 
 upon them, to prekrve their reputation : lo it they 
 can be fuihlicd or underitood in any fenfe, tlie pro- 
 phets and writers keep their characters at the ex- 
 pence of God's, wlio by this means is reprelented 
 prevaricating with mankind, by laying one thing, 
 and meaning; a different ; or iiivins; out his oracles 
 in fuch dark enigma's, that neither fpeakers nor 
 hearers know whar is meant, nor h.ivc any certain 
 
 rule 
 
( 93 ) 
 
 rule to direct them what is then* 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- 
 i-ng finfe of nature. The reafonabk relilli of things 
 fpoils an cnthufmjlical appetite. 
 
 If we coniider the Jiature of fuch prophecy, as 
 requires a fpiritual or myflical interpretation, wc 
 ihall find, that were the prophets honeft men, 
 they did not underftand, what they themfelves 
 meant •, for they that are honed, will not fpeak fo 
 as to miflead and deceive their hearers. If they 
 were not honefl, they fpoke one thing, and meant 
 another, whereby they that believed in them were 
 deceived, and punifhed for being deceived ; that is, 
 for their /<3;/^ 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 call off for being deceived ! 
 Unhappy people ! to be fo made by their /<:?//^, by 
 which they hoped to be faved, as well as we ! We 
 plainly read that the prophets promifed thcfe people, 
 in the name of God, to fend them a prince who 
 fliould deliver them out of the power of all their 
 enemies, and make them everlajlingly happy. No 
 prophecy is more plain. The Jews believed thefc 
 prophets were direded by God thus to fpeak i and 
 they arc deceived by thus believing in God : they 
 could underftand thefc prophecies no otherwife tlian 
 according to the obvious and natural {q-pSg. of the 
 words delivered. If they had put a different fen!c 
 upon them, it wouki have be^n eafily proved thev 
 had been to blame •, but becaufe they underftood 
 and believed as they thought in God by his pro- 
 phets, in the mojl apparent fenfe^ he, zt v/e may 
 
 fav. 
 
( 94 ) 
 
 fay, has forfaken them ! This is a miferable re- 
 fiedlion ! If they are wrong in (o beUeving, their 
 prophets were wrong in fo deceiving them. If we 
 afcribe it to God, it is fathering the deception and 
 the defign on him. Words that cannot be under- 
 ftood, are fpoken to no purpofe j 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 PrediSfions^ PraSfices and 
 Illuminations. 
 
 WHAT confidence or trufl ought to be rc- 
 pofed in the prophecies, will the more 
 plainly appear, as the enquiry is the more foberly^ or 
 diligently made. By the underftanding and condu6l 
 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 Benhadad, with a lye in Iiis 
 mouth. Say unto him, (faid the prophet i") thou 
 fnayft certainly recover, but he died ; and to make 
 the prophet more knowing than honeft, he is faid 
 to foreknow his death, and thstt 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 
 Benhadad. 
 
 Huldah promifed king Jojiah in the word of the 
 Lord II, that he fhould die in peace ; yet he died 
 
 * Gen. xlvi. 3, 4. compared ifjith G^v^. 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 fhews 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- 
 kiah telling the Lord how good he had been, he fo 
 wrought upon the Lord, that he promifcd him, by 
 Ifaiah^ fifteen years longer life ; therefore it was not 
 Hezekiah, but the Lord that repented ; and how can 
 future events be foretold, when it may chance the 
 Lord himfclf may change his mind. 
 
 £2;(?^/>/ prophecied ||, that the Lord would bring 
 a [word upon Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, and cut off 
 both man and beafi, and that the land Jhould be de fo- 
 late and ivajle, 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, fince 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 flones, 
 ^nd fpread his royal pavilion over them, and finite 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 the 
 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 xxiii. 29. 
 
 •f- Ifaiah xxxviii. I . and 2 Kings, XX. I . 
 
 II Ezekiel xxix. 19, 20. 
 
 y II Jeremiah xliii. 8, isf(. 
 
 the 
 
( 96 ) 
 
 the prophecies of Ifaiah, Jeremiah, and Eztkiel ; 
 therefore there is reafon to believe the prophets were 
 as much out in their other particulars concerning 
 the deftru6lion threatened to all the nations round 
 about them ; as well as in that of their own future 
 profperity, except fomc bold and lucky guefles which 
 lometimes faved their credit. Thefc deluded people 
 feem now only referved as a mark to mankind, to 
 beware of fuch delufions. 
 
 Not only deftruclion againft Egypt, by Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, is alfo prophefied by Ifaiah, but againfl 
 her rivers, (xix. 5, 6, 7, 8) ^ heir waters Jh all fail 
 fran the fea, and the river fhall be wajied 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 Fharaob Hophra, and the xlvith chap- 
 ter pafles for a prophecy againft Pharaoh Necho, 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 fafts prophecied of, or the chapters are 
 mifplaced, and by confequence, the prophecies have 
 been modelled and mangled. 
 
 Mr. Jackfon and Dr. Sykes fay, that IJaiah pro- 
 phefied the downfal of Babylon by Cyrus, 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 
 lincorrupted words of Ifaiah, how can this be a con- 
 clufive evidence of the truth of revelation, and of 
 the antiquity of the prophecies, fufficient to remove 
 a juft fufpicion of error, either accidental, or worfe ? 
 
 It requires a peculiar faith from a Chrifiian, to 
 believe that (great evangelical prophet, as he is 
 
 called) 
 
( 97 ) 
 
 called) Ifaiab, fo long before the empire of the 
 Mecies, 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 thole con- 
 cerning jefus, forced, and far-fetched from deep 
 allegories and figurative fpeech. Befides, if allthofe 
 particulars concerning Babylon^ mentioned by thefe 
 gentlemen, were truly foretold fo long before, and 
 fo exactly came to pafs ; where is the free-will of 
 man ? fincc the refult of one free human aftion 
 might have broke every link of tlie chain to pieces, 
 or fruftrated every particular of the prophecies. 
 
 The xxxvith, xxxviith, and xxxixth chapters of 
 Ifaiah, are almoft word for word the fame as the 
 2 Kings xviiith, xixth, and xxth. Was the prophet 
 the fame as the hijlorian ? If fo, to forctel and ful- 
 fil was eafy ; if not, there mull have been fome 
 borrowing or bkindering in the cafe j if borrowing, 
 it might be to accommodate /cz^j to prophecies, or 
 prophecies to fa^s ; if blundering, there's no know- 
 ing how th^e writings have been managed ; confe- 
 quently, there's the lels reafon to depend on their 
 being correal or genuine. 'Tis certain, the hijlo- 
 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 had hif- 
 iorian and prophet. There can be no greater proof 
 againil 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 irifallibility and truth, 
 but their own contents. 
 
 It is natural to believe, that thofe whom deity in- 
 fpires iliould have jufter notions of him that infpires 
 them, than thofe that are uninfpired, or lay no claim 
 to fuch prctenfions ; and that the teachers of the. 
 
 O wor- 
 
( 9M 
 worfiiip of the irue God, fhoiild have better and 
 l:>rightcr notions of him than priefts o^ falfe Gods. 
 It is aiTerted by our divines, that the heathen philo- 
 lophers could never, by their human abihties, attain 
 to fuch refined fentiments of Deity, as thofe that 
 ■were taught by him •, and indeed, if they could, of 
 what ful^eriGr excellence is infpiration ? But in this 
 we may find ourfelves deceived. Infpiration fcorns 
 tlic 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 fhall find, that if they 
 v/eie good men, (which I will not now call in que- 
 ftidn, finte 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 // repented the 
 Lord he had made man, and it grieved him to the 
 heart ; O poor Lord ! therefore he deftroyed all 
 mankind by a flood, yet planted a new race from 
 the rebellious root ; as if it could be expefted that 
 tht fame tree would not always bring forth the fame 
 manner of fruit, 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 j and 
 if they had not anfwered his expedations, he might 
 have deflroycd 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 nvd\Cm^ferpents, lions ^ tygcrs, ivohcs, 
 'vultures, and other voracious and carniverous crea- 
 tures, whofe living and happinefs depends upon de- 
 ftroying the lives and happinefs of others. 
 
 Again, we are told by the fame infpiration, Eyiod. 
 xxxi. 17. that after God had made the world, he 
 rejied, and was refrefhed. He 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 reprcfents 
 him tired ^ and confequently weakened with the fa- 
 tigue. Did infpiration di<5bate this ? what could a 
 man fay worfe that was uninfpired ? What idea does 
 this convey of Omnipotence^ that it fliould require a 
 day to reft, and want refrefliment ? 
 
 The Lord is faid to make the Ifraelites groan for. 
 their idolatry, and then their groaning brougl>t him 
 to repentance ; and that tho* he brought them out 
 o^ 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 Mofes had not 
 pacified him, reafoncd the cafe witli him, told him 
 the confequences of fo rafli an a6tion, and perfuaded 
 him better, (Exod. xxxii. 9, to 14.) According 
 to Mofes^s reprcfent.ition of things, the Lord would 
 have loft his reputation among the Egyptians^ and 
 forfwore himfelf, if he had afted according to the 
 angry mood he was then in. Let thofe readers that 
 think thefc things httle better than blafphemy know, 
 that the hlafphe^ny is the writer of the Penteteuch^ 
 and not mine. I only fct the writer in a clear light. 
 Thefe things fliew wliat the prophet's notions of 
 God were. 
 
 We are entertained with more refined notions of 
 Deity by 2i heathen priefi, (Numbers xxiii. 19.) God 
 is not a man, that he /hou/d lye \ nor the [on of man., 
 that he fJjouhi repent : Hath he faid., and pall he not 
 do it ? Or, hath he fpoken^ and fhall he not make it 
 good? A;id tho' fomething like this is exprcfK-d by 
 Samuel xv. 29. The flrengtb of Jfrael will not lye nor 
 repent ; for he is not a man, that he fhould rep£nt ; 
 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 
 of what he bad done ; for we are, by tiic \i\-nt pro ■ 
 O 2 phct, 
 
( 100 ) 
 phet, at the fame time, told, 'ver. ii and 35. // 
 repented the Lord that he had mc.de 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 
 relu6tancy •, for it abridged his power, therefore 
 Samuel was rcfolvcd to plague both king and people, 
 being flung with envy, after Saul's and Jonathan's 
 fuccefs againft the Philijlines : And to fhew the 
 power he was yet poffefled 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 rcafon, i Sam. xv. ver. 2. 
 Thus faith the Lord of hojls^ (f^id Samuel) I re- 
 member that "juhich Jmalek did to Ifracl^ hozv he laid 
 wait for him in the 'way., when he came up from 
 Egypt : Now ^0 and fmite Jmalek., and utterly de- 
 fircy all that they have., and f pare them not •, but flay 
 both man and isooman^ infant and fuckling^ o)c and 
 peep., camel and afs. A bloody commifTion ! Whar 
 had Amalek done to the Ifraclites^ when they came 
 out o^ Egypt? We are told, E^cd. 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 Roins; down of the fun ; 
 and tho' the Ifraeltles liad the better of it, by the 
 inchantment of Mofes holding up his hand, they 
 thought it beft to get oft' in the dark •, and not 
 having had fufticient revtnge, (which looks as if 
 they had the worft of it, for double revenge is de • 
 fperate malice) the Lord is faid to fay to Mofes., 
 Write this for a meynorial in a book \ hence the re- 
 membrance of it was continued •, no wonder then 
 the Lord faid, / retnember what Amalek did to If- 
 rael. Well, v/hat was to be wriurn ? / ■i:ill utterly 
 
 put 
 
( lOI ) 
 
 put out the rememhrance of Amalek from under hea- 
 ven. No doubt but tliat Lord, or that Sphit, 
 would have done it then, if it could ; but being un- 
 able at that time, fwore, ver. i6. he would have 
 war with Amalek from gciieratioJi to generation. 
 Therefore the record ftands in Deut. xxv. 17, 18, 
 19. Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the 
 way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt ; how 
 he met thee by the way., and fmote the hindmofi of 
 thee., even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou 
 waft faint, and weary, and he feared not God. 
 7^herefore it fhall be, when the Lord thy God hath 
 given thee reft from all thine enemies round about, in 
 the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an 
 inheritance to poffefs it, that thou fhalt blot out the 
 remembrance of Amalek from under heaven, thou fhalt 
 not forget it. WJiy ? whiit fhould Amalek have 
 done ? What, but met Ifrael with bread and wafer 
 in the way, when they came from Egypt, Deut. xxiii. 
 4. Inftead of doing fo, when the Ifraelites ram(* 
 on their borders, Amalek attacked them, drove them 
 off, and fell upon their rear ; therefore, to comforr 
 Ifrael after their defeat, Mofes tells them, they 
 ihould deitroy 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 j 
 and that of the priefthood, in defiring a kingly go- 
 vernment : therefore the fa6lion of the prieils was 
 on the fide of Samuel againft Saul ; and Sd.mnel^ to 
 fow difcord among the people, to vex the king, anc 
 keep up the fpirit of the ecclefwfic Jatiicn, and to 
 give it fuch a head as might bring in many of the 
 people to their party, who were for a kingiy go- 
 vernment, he dett;rmines to encourage rebellion, and 
 fet up a pretender, which docs not appear to have 
 been contrived by the prophet from a love to David, 
 
 but 
 
( io« ) 
 
 but from an enmity to Saul ; therefore this high pritji 
 goes and fan5fijies treafon under the colour of 7-eh • 
 gion^ and excufes himfelf by Jaying his lyes on God 
 after he had mod cruelly hewed alive Jgag^ king 
 of the Amalakitcs^ SauVs, prifoncr, and, in a moil 
 bloody and barbarous manner, chopt him in pieces ; 
 and as it is faid to be done before the Lord in Gilgal^ 
 I fuppofe it to be upon an altar there j this is an ex- 
 prelfion to fanSlify inhumanity. 
 
 Can any man read the ftory, and be fo flupid 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, ^, 4- And the Lord faid unto Samuel^ How 
 long wilt thou mourn for Saul, (hypocrify !) feeing I 
 have reje^ed him from reigning over Ifrael \ (why 
 then did he fuffer him to reign any longer?) fill 
 thiyie horn with oil^ (holy anointing oil !) and go ^ I 
 will fend thee to Jejfe 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 
 villainy, is the hypocrify of religion ! and this of the 
 Lord' a 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 
 priejl, and folly of the people ! to fuch a pitch of 
 power was the one afcended, as to pcrfuade any thing I 
 and to fuch a depth ofjiupidity were the people fallen, 
 as to believe any thing ! But this artful contrivance 
 o{ Samuel's, and his declaration, that it repented the 
 Lord he bad made Saul king over Ifrael, was to ju- 
 ftify his treafon and rebellion againft his lawful fove- 
 
 reign. 
 
( I03 ) 
 
 reign, chofen by God, or the prophet lyed, anointed 
 king by himfelf, confirmed by the confent of the 
 people, and eftabhfhcd by his own valour ai:id vir- 
 tue. 
 
 The pricfts and prophets having been of SamueTs 
 faftion, and Samuel having made David their head, 
 the prophet being dead, they gave to S^u!, enqui- 
 ring of them about the event of the war, no anfwer 
 at all ; which affedlcd him too much, becaufe he be- 
 lieved too much •, and having been plagued by Samuel 
 and David, and their fadion, 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 do<5trine!) this melan- 
 cholly made him credulous, low-fpirited, and ti- 
 morous ; he feeks an anfwer from a cunning old 
 woman called a wiich ; the fpiteful anfwer fhe gave 
 him (becaufe he had fpoiled her trade of fortune- 
 telling, by banilhing 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 ivitch might have proved 
 a lyar, and his own dumb oracles have been dcfpifed, 
 as they deferved •, but king Saul having always a 
 fadlion to contend againft, of thofe that, in the eyes 
 of the people, were fandtified, (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 aivay in his difpkafure. 
 Herfe is a fample of the righreoufnefs of priejis and 
 prophets, who, whenever they wanted power, were 
 the incendiaries o^ fa£lion and rebellion in every jl ate, 
 or the tools of tyranny, and promoters o^ Jlavery, 
 
 David made fuch intereft with the priefts and pro- 
 phets, by doing all that was in his power to oblige 
 x.\\Q former ^ and entering himfelf into the club of the 
 
 ktter. 
 
( 1-4 ) 
 
 latter, thdxhe imi\-they publilhcd a grant, fealed by 
 the oath of God, (jf his bare word had been fuffici- 
 cnt, to Avear had been needlefs) that the throne of 
 the kingdom of Ifrael fhould be fixed in the pofte- 
 rit-y of Pavid to all generations, to cut off Saul's 
 ifTue, The prophet David fays, Pfalm Ixxxix, that 
 God bad fivorn 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 
 necgfTary ; yet in that plalm David charges God 
 with acting contrary to his promife and oath. It 
 may be faid, thofe things difcover David, at that 
 time, to bq in a fit of defpair ; but. if the prophet 
 had fentiments of God's unchangeablenefs, he would 
 rather, at fiich time, .Have qucftioned whether that 
 promife^ really came fi*om God. However, he 
 thought it more political to charge God with lying, 
 than make that a queftion. Accordingly, the better 
 to eftablilhthis pretended grant, David found out 
 a way to flmftlfy the murder of the remaining family 
 i-^^ Saul, tho' they lived very fubmiflively under him. 
 David, indeed, fpared Mephibojheth, a fon of Jona- 
 than^ "becaufe he had fliewn him favour before, to 
 pleafc thofe people th;it had a refpefl for their late 
 king, ' pretending a regard to his oath made to the 
 late prince his friend, v/hich being before confefFed 
 or known, rendered it difficult to get over. But 
 iho' David did not put this cripple to death, and 
 tlio' Ziba his fervant's plot againft him was too bare- 
 faced not to be deteded, yet D^^tvW withdrew his fa- 
 vours from him, and mr^dc him too poor to rebel ; 
 his friends too having no fnare in the government, 
 and his relations dead. Had David dared to truit 
 to the Lord's pretended oath, while any of SauPs 
 pojlerity was alive, he would never have made lure 
 Avork, to hang them all. put of the way, and treat 
 
 MichaeL 
 
( '05 ) 
 
 Michaely Saurs daughter, like a concubine, whom 
 he had forced away from her loving huiband, to fa- 
 vour his right of fucceflion. 
 
 It appears by this holy hiftory, that the I ordfel- 
 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 repef^ted of that -, then David fccmed to be 
 chofe for his frcfh colour and courage •, however, 
 the Lord had, by good luck, now gotten a man af- 
 ter his own heart, and was io 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 part of 
 the promife remained to his grandfou, and ever fince 
 the captivity, all the promife has been forgot. 
 
 Solomon arrived to fuch a degree of power, that 
 he kept the priells 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 ot God, excited Jero- 
 boam thereto, who was one of the malccontents of 
 Solo}/jon*s COIL t, but Jeroboam was politician enough 
 to perceive, that there was no profpedt of fuccefs in 
 Solomon's time •, therefore he fecured himfelf in 
 Egypt 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 fhould worfliip other gods, than 
 have another king •, whereby it is pl;:in he looked on 
 all prophecy as a farce, tho' he fided with that fac- 
 tion, 'till he obtained his ends by them. This was 
 he, who tho' laid to be chofen of the Gcd of Ifrael 
 by the prophet, regarded that God lefs than he did 
 a calf: and the fpirit of the propliet had as little 
 ■forefight of futurity as a calf, in chufing him king; 
 for this was the occafion of the divifion of the king- 
 dom, of weakening the people by icteftine wars, 
 
 P and 
 
( io6 ) 
 
 and of their being, long after, carried into captivity, 
 if the prophets may be believed, i Kirjgs xiv. 16. 
 Did Jehu behave any better, who was faid to be 
 chofen by the Lord ? and if the Lord himfelf was in 
 the dark, as to futUrity, how fhould his prophet fee? 
 and from whence could come the light of prophecy ? 
 or how docs 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 aftions 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 jf^r^tf/ ; 
 the confpiracy begun by the prophets, was finifhcd 
 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 Ahab, but Abaziah 
 king of Judah, and forty-two of his domeflics, and 
 all Baal's, priefts, he eftablifhed the worfhip of Je- 
 roboam, and made calves of them all. ilence it's 
 plain, the prophets knew no more of futurity than 
 other men •, fince by their pretended infpiration, 
 they never mended the matter. 
 
 What fliould we think of a prophet, who, to fanc- 
 tify treafon and rebellion, affirmed, that God had 
 appointed a pcrfon to be ki^ig cf England, for the 
 good of the church of England, who, as foon as he 
 was invefted with the power, lliould eflablifli Po- 
 pery, or Mahomet anifm ? Can we think that God 
 would make that man his peculiar choice, that chofe 
 not him ? What man would chufc or rejeft, with- 
 out knowing the confcqiiencc, and not rather take 
 his chance as things fall out, than by making a blind 
 or foolifh chance, to have his judgmcrit arraigned .'' 
 Would any wife king on earth make that man his 
 
 vice- 
 
( 10? ) 
 
 vice-roy, who alienated the aflfeftions of his fubjedts 
 to their fovereign, or fuffer him to remain in his 
 office after he had forfeited that, and his head, by 
 his rebelhous conduft, if it were in the king's pow- 
 er to remove fuch viceroy ? Certainly, a good and 
 wife king would not fuffer his fubjei5ts 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 fomctimes, by their miraculous pow- 
 er, a great deal of mifchief : By a prayer of Eli- 
 jah'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 dcfiring their converfion, 
 he flew eight hundred and fifty of them, i Kings 
 xviii. iS, 19, 20, 40. This prophet alfo deftroyed 
 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 Ihe-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 reftored the 
 ■ Shunamite's fon out of his fit by fneezing. It is 
 poffible to fuppofe a perfon to be dead that is not, 
 and that the Jews fomctimes buried perfons before 
 they were dead, as they bury them the fame day 
 tlicy are fuppofed to die -, and 'tis pofTible for time 
 to bring a perfon out of a lit, that to all appearance 
 feems dead. But if thefe were dead, and reftored 
 to life -, yet, like other bad quacks, where they cured 
 one, they killed an hundred. Therefore it appears 
 to mc, that the prophets were 2^ falJihk and ■!% faulty 
 as other men -, and fince tliey were e'-cery ivay as bad 
 as other men by naiure, there is but little reafon to 
 believe they were, in any refped, phirnaturally 
 better, P 2 J^''^' 
 
( loS ) 
 
 Jeremiah (iv. lo.) charges God with deceiving 
 both him and the people, faying. Ah ! Lord God, 
 fiirely^ thou haji greatly deceived this people and Je- 
 rufalem^ faying^ ye Jhall have peace, whereas the 
 [word 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- 
 pheficd Ibmething that came not to pafs j therefore 
 CO fave his oiDn credit, he impeached his maker \ fays 
 he, XX. 7 . O hord thou haft deceived me, and I was 
 deceived \ thou art jlronger than /, and hafi prevailed j 
 as much as to fay, thou art more powerful than juft ; 
 and therefore haft exerciied thy power in deceiving 
 me. It may be laid, 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, // a prophet be deceived, I the hord have de- 
 ceived that prophet, and I will fir etch 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 fhort the prophets tell us that God re-' 
 pcnted 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 firft covenant, 
 (when he had tried it) and therefore made a new 
 one, and changed both the law and the priefihood, 
 (Heb. vii. 12, 18. — viii. 8.) and well he might, if 
 they were weak and unprofitable, as the prophet 
 fays, {Ezekiel xx. 25.) He gave them fiatutes 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 wo: d by the prophets, or his oath. 
 
 Sometimes 
 
( 109 ) 
 
 Sometimes the prophets to fave their credit faid 
 that God had pui a lying fpirit in their mouths^ 
 1 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 Chcna- 
 anah and Micaiah : both were equally pofitive and 
 confident, that what each man faid was true, tho* 
 differently infpired i for when Micaiah'?, prophecy 
 contradided Chenaanab's, the latter ftruck the for- 
 mer on the cheek, and faid, "juhich 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 commilTioned 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 praiflice, 
 that they feem to have made a trade of it. All 
 was fandlified 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 erent proved the predidlion, which feems to in- 
 timate that they prophefied at random, and fome 
 things came to pafs by accident. 
 
 Now and then the infpiration of their cups pafTed 
 for the infpiration of God, and fo they were in- 
 fpired with a wrong fpirit, when they prophefied 
 wrong. Ifai ah (xxviu. 7. j fays, ^he priefts and the 
 P'ophcts ha've erred thro* flrong drink, they are 
 fwallcwed up with wine, they are out of the way, 
 thro' firong drink j they err in lifion, they fimnhlt 
 in judgment. 
 
 I'he prophets to fave their credit, often fixed no 
 time to the events predicled, and then it was eafy to 
 fay, the Lord will perform it in his own time : or 
 
 if 
 
( "o ) 
 
 if they fixed a time, it was put off ; and when the 
 prophecy came not to pafs, the time for its accom- 
 pHfhmcnt 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 
 every vifwn faileth. 
 
 As a bold ajfertion often pafles for a proof, it is 
 not to be doubted, but a boM and lucky guefs has 
 often paiTed for a prophecy. And it is certain that 
 more are deceived by one lucky prediBion of any fort, 
 than undeceived by fifty that are falfe. When pro- 
 pliefying was in fafhion, the prophets made a pen- 
 ny of it *, and fome of them got a good living by 
 it. The common prophets were fometimes hackney 
 proilitutes, 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 wjoay after the cap- 
 tivity, till they were no more to be found, tho* 
 they 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 ; and when neither credit nor profir blew 
 up the fire of entbu/iafm, 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 himfelf a prophet, faid they. 
 It may be, many of them were like other enthufi- 
 ails, they that had no intention to deceive others, 
 were therafehes deceived \ and becaufe they meant 
 ivell, and endeavoured to m:ike men holy and reli- 
 gious, they thouglit themfclves poficlTed of the 
 holy- fpirit : And indeed I fee no other marks of 
 the Holy Ghoft among them or us. 
 
 * I Sam. ix. 7, 8 2 Kings viii. 8, 9. Nchemiah vi. 12, 13. 
 Micah iii ii. 
 
 The 
 
( '>' ) 
 
 ^he Cojicliifion^ or Application. 
 
 THE Jewtjh prophets appear to have been the 
 inftigators and promoters of many faftions 
 and rebellions in Judea^ and to liave caufed more 
 calamities than they cured, and for that reafon it is 
 likely many of them fuffercd death. I prcfumc 
 they did not expe6b fuch wages for their work when 
 they took up their calling. Thofe that think them- 
 felves God's ambajfadors, are generally very proud^ 
 and imperious, which fometimcs 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 ol the power they fervcd 
 in protefting its fervants no better ; which tho' laid 
 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- 
 per Jiatural power ^ which they made the moft pre- 
 tenfions to, they were leaft polTefled of? It feems 
 unaccountable, that if a fupernal power guided them, 
 it fhould not protect them : or that a good mailer 
 fliould take no more care of his peculiar fervants ! 
 Does an artificer, when he has done a piece of work, 
 burn his tools ? 
 
 But if predifling prophets are any benefit to a na- 
 tion, why have we nojic i' we have enthttfinjls enough. 
 Is the age not wicked enough ? that is well. Is it 
 too wicked ? they are the more wanted. The twice- 
 born Whitefield, and his followers, that have large 
 clfufions of the fpirit, in conceit at lead, know no- 
 thing of /«/«n7v, nor even the truth of things pnfty 
 which themfelves believe. They fancy they have 
 fomething within them which makes a mighty fiir^ 
 but they make a mighty Jiir about nothing. Has 
 this prophetic fpirit lb ill defended his fervants for- 
 merly. 
 
( 112 ) 
 
 merly, that no body dares to lift: into his fcrvice 
 now ? Now they may propheiy fafe enough, if they 
 can do any good, or lay any truth that will be fer- 
 viceable to fore-know. I'll venture to affirm, no 
 prophet of God would fuffer death by the govern- 
 ment in KING George's days, thefe glorious days 
 of learning, light, and liberty. Should e^ivy fay, 
 that in this I abufe my fovereigTiy it is only envy can 
 fay fo. The truth is, this is a knowing age •, know- 
 ledge is deftru6bive of fuperftition, which therefore 
 priefts call an infidel age \ and prophets cannot ftand 
 the fhrift of thefe days, fearing unbelieving eyes 
 fhould 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 perlbn ever did, or 
 could commit ; and many fuffered death in Old znd 
 New England, for doing what could not be done : 
 but now the law for the punilhment of witches, vi- 
 zards, and conjurers, is annulled, and the devil is 
 defied to do his word, he can do nothing at all ! 
 There is no fortune-telling regarded, but by the 
 moft lilly deluded people, who want a wife educa- 
 tion, and being young, are unexperienced, '^o pro- 
 phecies are uttered, no wonders are wrought in our 
 days. What extraordinary artift, mathematician, 
 lawyer, or phyfician, makes any vain pretentions 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 fpiril : it may blow where it lifts for them -, for 
 they are not toffed about with every wind of doElrine, 
 or blaft of prophecy. Does it ever appear, that the 
 fpirit which makes fools its favourites, ever makes 
 them wife? I tliink, that thofe among us who 
 have pretended, by extraordinary infpiration, to be 
 adopted into the hordes privy-council, are generally 
 
 men 
 
( 1^3 ) 
 men of more cxtraord'imry paffions rhan endowments j 
 ^nd when it happens otherwife, their parts are very 
 ill apphed ; but, thank God, {\nct tht Ft'ench 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 iht faculties of the prophets, but on divine 
 infpiration only, which moves them to utter things 
 according to that impulfe ; but ths Rabbinical no- 
 tions of prophets are, that it was fcientificai; for 
 there were fchools, where perfons devoted thcm- 
 felves to the lUidy and attainment of prophecy. 
 Wc read of the fchools of the prophets, and we all 
 know a fchool is a place for inftrudion and learn- 
 ing. Tht fons of the prophets were t\it firip lings in 
 prophecy, the Juniors^ the fcholajs ; and prophefy- 
 ing fianifies not only foretelling future events, (that 
 is tHi^'^iardeft part) but fmging, preaching, and 
 fpeakmg foniething by a pretended or imaginary di- 
 vine impulfe or infpiration, whether it refpedls time 
 paft, prefent, or to come. But whatever fpirit the 
 prophets are conceived to be infpiicd by, let it be 
 obferved, that the fpirit of the prophets were fub- 
 jedt 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. 
 
 The truth is, that extvacr'dinary infpiration is only 
 fome extraordinary natural gift ; and therefore, a 
 man may as well be an infpired mechanic^ as an in- 
 fpired divine^ and infpired writings are known by 
 their nature, a? men are •, as wc read, or fhould 
 read, 2 Tim. iii. 16. All fcripture that is given by 
 infpiration^ is profitable for uc^rine, for corre^fiony 
 for inftruHion in right eoti fief's. What is, and what 
 is not true, is known by reafon ; what is, and what 
 is not good and proper to be dene, is known by the 
 
 Q^ fitnefs 
 
( 114 ) 
 
 fitnefs aftJ nature of things : and the degrees of good 
 or evil in aftions is thus known -, that which contri- 
 butes to the good or evil of the greater number ^ and 
 the giving or negle6ling feafonable aid in the greater- 
 need, \%x.\\t greater good or evil. NecefTities enhance 
 the value of affiftance •, and as to the knowledge of 
 futurity, or myftcries, it is happieft not to defire any 
 thing that is out of our power to attain, as all pro- 
 phetic knowledge is. 
 
 I fhall conclude this fubje<5t with that incompa- 
 rable pafTage from Rowers Lucan*s Pharfalia, which 
 defcribes Cato with his army, pafTing by the temple 
 o^ Jupiter Ammon, in Lybia. Thus, 
 
 Before the temple's entrance, at the gate. 
 Attending crouds of eaflern pilgrims wait : 
 ^hefe from the horned God expe5f relief; 
 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 Ku\n\on^ s Jkill, 
 Intreat their leader to the God would go. 
 And from his orach Rome' J fortune know : 
 But Labicnus chief the thought approved. 
 And thus the coramon fuit to Cato tnov^d. 
 
 Chance, and the fortune of the way, he faidy 
 Have brought Jove'j facred counfel to our aid : 
 This greatcjl of the gods, this mighty chiefs 
 In each dijlrefs fnall be a fure relief \ 
 Shall point the, dijiant dangers from afar. 
 And teach the future fort ufie of the war. 
 To thee, O Cato, pious, wife, andjujl. 
 Their dark decrees the pious gods fhall trufi \ 
 To thee their fore-determined will fhall tell : 
 Their will has been thy law, and thou hajl kept it well. 
 Fate bids thee now the noble thought improve \ 
 Fate brings tbec here to '■'^rC.ct and talk wifh Jove. 
 
 Jn^uirt 
 
( "5 ) 
 
 Inquirt betimes what various chance jhall come 
 
 To impious Casfar, or thy nafi've Rome ; 
 
 'Try to averts at leajl^ thy couni7y^s doom. 
 
 AJk if thefe arms our freedom pall re fi ore? 
 
 Or elfe^ if laws and right fhall be no more ? 
 
 Be thy great breaft with [acred knavledge fraught^ 
 
 'To lead us in the wand' ring Jjiazc of thought : 
 
 Thou that to virtue ever werU inclin''d. 
 
 Learn what it is^ hozv certainly defn'd.^ 
 
 And leave fome perfe 51 rule to guide mankind. 
 
 Full of the God that dwelt within his breafi. 
 The hero thus his fecret mind exprefs^d. 
 And inborn truths revealed \ truths which might zvell 
 Become ev'n oracles themfelves to tell. 
 
 Where would thy fond^ thy vain enquiry go f 
 What myflic fate^ what fecret wouldjl thou know ? 
 Is it a doubt if death fhould be ?ny doom, -j 
 
 Rather than live till kings and bondage come ; V 
 Rather than fee a tyrant crowned at Rome ? j 
 Or wouldfl 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 fen fe of pain? 
 Or if this world, with all its forces joined. 
 The univerfal malice of mankind. 
 Can fhake or hurt the brave and honefi 7nind? 
 If fi able virtue can her ground maintain. 
 While fortune feebly frets and frowns in vain? 
 If truth and j lift ice with uprightiiefs dwells 
 And honefly confifls in meaning well ? 
 If right be independent of fucccfs ; 
 And conqueji cannot make it more cr lefs ? 
 Are thefe, -my friend, the fecret s thou would' ft know, 
 Thofe doubts fur which to oracles we go ? 
 *Tis known, 'tis plain, *tis all already told. 
 And horned Ammon can no mere unfold. 
 
 Q^ 2 Trcm 
 

 ( 116 ) 
 
 Trom Gcd derived, to God by nature Join* d. 
 We atl the ditlates of his mighty mind : 
 And tho* the priejis are mute^ and temples ftilt^ 
 God never wants a voice to fpeak his 'will. 
 When firjl 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 men. 
 He gave us all our ufeful knowledge then. 
 Canji thou believe, the vaji eternal mind 
 fVas e'er to Syrts and \js\kzx\ fands confined? 
 That he would chufe this wajle, this barren 
 
 ground, 
 To teach the thin inhabitants arotind. 
 And leave his truth in wilds and defarts droii 
 Is there a place that Gcd would chufe to love -^ 
 Beyond this earth, the feas, yon heav*n above, v 
 And virtuous minds, the noblejl throne for Jove ? J 
 Why fcek we farther then? Behold around, -x 
 How all thou feefi does with the God abound ; > 
 Jove is alike in all, and always to be found. 3 
 Let tkofc weak minds, who live in doubt and fear,. 
 To juggling priejis for oracles repair ; 
 One certain hour of death to each decreed, 
 Aiy fix*d^ my certain foul from death has freed'. 
 The coward and the brave are doomed to fall-. 
 And when Jove told this truth, he told us all. 
 
 So fpcke the hero, and to keep his word., 
 Nor Ammon, 7ior his crack explor^d^-. 
 But left the croud at freedom to believe. 
 And take fuch anfwers as the prieft fhould give. 
 
 SUPER- 
 
( 117 ) 
 
 SUPERNATURALS 
 
 EXAMINED. 
 
 DISSERTATION IV. 
 
 On the defence of the peculiar injlitutiom and 
 doBrines of Chrijiianity, in aniwer to a late 
 pamphlet, entitled, Detfm fairly Jlatcd, and 
 fully '•indicated from the grofs imputations 
 and groundlef calujmiies of 7nodern believers. 
 In a Letter to the Author of the latter 
 Trad:. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 I Have read that trealife which, of the many others 
 written againft your excellent performance, alons 
 defcrvTs 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 antagonifis, nor 
 thcfuhJeSIs, are unworthy fpecial notice. I fhall en- 
 deavour to confine myfelf within the bounds of truth 
 and decency ; and, in order to be brief, Ihall take 
 notice only of the more material parts of your op- 
 ponent*s arguments. After obferving to you, that 
 the controvcrfialifts fhould be diftinguifhed by either 
 the names that themfelves efpoufe, of Christians 
 and Deists, or of the terms Credulous and In'- 
 CREDULOus J characlers that are in the oireftcft op- 
 pofition, and, I conceive, may, vnthout offence, 
 tjc properly applied ; believers and infideh being 
 
 terms 
 
( 'i8 ) 
 
 terms improper -, for^ except m fupernaturals, both 
 are, in general, believers or infidels alike. The de-' 
 grees between thefe ■pofitiie parties may be accounted 
 three^ Z'iz. 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 work, and therefore thought proper to 
 premife this in the firft place. 
 
 To your propofirions, particularly the fifth, 'viz. 
 
 that NATURAL DUTIES ARE ONLY PERCEIVED BY 
 
 US TO BE DUTIES, youf antagonift anfwers, that/<2//^ 
 in God, 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 rhe 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 
 ispropofed, it makes examination ufelefs. What a 
 man does not lee a reafon for, he cannot believe ; 
 unlefs that may be called behef, which is taken upon 
 truft imthoiit reafon, and even contrary to reafon. 
 If this be a duty, then faith may be called a duly ; 
 but faith, which is founvkd on evidence or reafon, 
 unavoidably obeys, and a reafonable faith cannot 
 obey where evidence or reafon is not ; therefore a 
 true and r en jonahU faith 'is no duty at all. The duty^ 
 lies in the enquiry, not in the confluence of it \ for 
 examination is the v/ork of the will, but the fuccefs 
 of it is not : tlierefcre 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 v/ithin the compafs of duty •, and- 
 if faith he no duty, there is no righieoiifnejs in it. 
 Tho' this may feem ftrange to fome, yet if it be. 
 v/ell confidered, it will clearly appear, that to bc-\ 
 lieve a propofuicn v/ithout a reafonable pcpof, is not. 
 
 in 
 
( i>9) 
 
 In the power ©fa reafonable creature, nor Is it in Iiis 
 power to rejedt what has fuch proof, as foon as he 
 difcerns it ; he believes, or dilbeheves, without be- 
 ing retarded by the confent of the will, for when 
 Jliffident convidion appears, it irrefiftibly conftrains 
 the will : therefore /^/V/^ hi God is m more a duty, than 
 the ability is to difcern his hein^^ or the properties of it. 
 As it is not a blind man's duty to itt, ib it is not 
 a man's duty to believe a God, who cannot fee the 
 evidences of 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 tlie commands of God 
 (or what are called fo) is only due from us to 
 fuch precepts as we are convinced are his com- 
 mands : for if we muil obey commands faid to be 
 of God, without fufficient convidlion, or reafonable 
 evidence that they are fo, our obedience is blind, 
 and inflead of being good, may be prejudicial and 
 mifchievous to mankind. Therefore 'tis evident, 
 that upon the pretended ground of obedience to God's 
 eommcnds^ 'vje are not obliged to receive the feveral 
 infiitutions of a divine revelation, if it don't appear 
 to be divine, nor the infiitutions to be of God. In 
 fuch cafe it cannot be right to receive it by thole 
 who cannot perceive the re5litude of it, for that is a 
 falfe ground. And not only (fays this author) /// 
 matters of religion, but even in the common inlercourfes 
 of life, the relation that fubjijls between the parties 
 concerned in them, often derives and confers an obli- 
 gation on particular injun^ions that are not in them- 
 felves natural duties • but yet are clearly perceived 
 And acbwjukdged to become duties, merely becaufe they 
 are commanded. It had been better if faid, meerly 
 becaufe the place, flation, and circumftances the 
 fervant is in, ihew them to be duties. Obedience 
 of inferiors to the commands of their fupcriors, in 
 
 ail 
 
( 120 ) 
 
 all things lawful and juft, appear to be duties, not 
 becaufe of the authority cf the commander, but of 
 thtfitytejs of the things commanded. The true obli- 
 gation of a juft command, arifes from the authority 
 of that juftice which makes it the reafonable motive 
 of obedience. This gentleman, in an ^;cr^^//i5;/, con- 
 feffes as much, when he fays, *' exceptbig only when 
 it is fomething impious^ or immcraU fomething pro- 
 hihiied by a fuperior authority. ^^ This is ftill more 
 evident in things refpefting the fervice of God, for 
 we do not obey God as a per/on^ 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 
 fnan*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 a^/r/V, 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 condud: by righteoufnefs •, loves and obeys God. 
 Thus what is love and obedience to God, k eafily 
 known. Wifdom and goodnefs is the perfeftion 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 gcodnifs, are not 
 of God : and if they do not appear to be wife and 
 good, they do not appear tg be of him j and Ihould 
 
 therefore 
 
( 121 ) 
 
 therefore (even tho' they may be wife and good) be. 
 rejected till they do fo appear : for -zvifdom and good- 
 nefs cannot require us to beheve and do what does 
 not appear to us to be wife and good -, nor to judge 
 wifer than we can, or a6t by better motives than we 
 have to a6t by : that would be to require us to do 
 things impoflible to be done •, for we mull judge of 
 things by their appearance, unlefs our better know- 
 ledge dire<5t us otherwife, and then we always judge 
 according to knowledge. *Tis riglit to us that we 
 Ihould judge and aft in the bejt manner we can, and 
 therefore, when we can know no better than by ap- 
 pearancey that appearance, tho' lorong^ is the heji 
 rule of our judgment ; and we can no more alter 
 this rule, and the refult of it, than we can alter our 
 frame and conftitution. 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 ivrojig in us to obey them -, becaufc 'tis 
 dired:ly afting againft confcience, againft the beft 
 light and evidence that we have. 'Tis not our fliulc 
 that we do not fee truth, if we feek it, but that of 
 the circumftances we are in. Not feeing things in 
 a true light, is often the occafion of wrong judg- 
 ment and adion •, yet if we follow the truth with- 
 out feeing it to be fo, 'tis not following it for the 
 truth's fake, and fo doing deftroys all virtue in the 
 obedienee : it is walking in the dark, not knowing 
 whether we are right or wrong, without any certain 
 rule to direft us. God cannot appear Jujt to man, 
 if his authority enable him to give fuch poiitive laws 
 as have not the appearance of jujlice and Jitnefs -, 
 therefore, to impofe fuch laws on man as the com- 
 mands of God, is to reprefent God an arbitrary and 
 unjujl being. 
 
 There is a neceflity to prove thefe pofithe duties 
 infilled on to be God's pojiti'-jc commands ; upon tki^ 
 
 R rejh 
 
( 122 ) 
 
 rgfts the whole controverfy. All pofitive commands 
 called duties, not naturally and morally fit, or not 
 appearing to arife 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 underftandings ot God*s law •, i\^ranf- 
 greffing the commandments of God, inftead of obey- 
 ing them, and teaching for do brines and duties ths 
 traditions and inftitutions of men. 
 
 All reafonable duties which are fit and proper, 
 arifing from the nature of things and circumllances, 
 are natural, tho' they may be called pofitive ; and 
 all pofitive duties that are not of this fort, are un- 
 natural and unreafonable. JVe contend for nothing 
 mcre^ than that ajuji regard Jljould be had to what are 
 the commands of God, and not to take for them the 
 commands of men : for fas you have faid) " what- 
 " ever are not originally in their own nature confti- 
 *' 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 queftion 
 fuch pofitive commands as are faid to be given by 
 the univerfal God, which are not bell fitted for the 
 univerfal nature of mankind. That the peculiar 
 injlitutions of the gofpel have a natural tendency to 
 promote purity of heart mid rectitude of manners, re- 
 quires a PECTLiAR proof; if that be done, every 
 ibber Veifi will approve of them : plain proof of it 
 is all that is wanted. 
 
 (P. 14.) After your antagonift has cited you, in- 
 timating that '* God only requires of men a con- 
 ■ *' du<^ proportionate to the abilities he has given 
 " them ; '* he adds, that yet., for all this, he may 
 convey certain iyifiru^iions 10 cur reafoning powers and 
 "^■faculties in -tkm'ay' cf revelati-on j and the more li- 
 ' . » mitted 
 
( 123 ) 
 
 mi t ted and confined cur facukics mc^ in their prefent 
 Jiate^ fo much the mo-e cccdfi!.n may there he for fuch 
 fpecialajfiftance^ and raore extenfrce and perfeSi knozv- 
 ledge of our duty imparted by it. If our Creator re- 
 quire of us a condu6b but proportionate to our abi- 
 lities, thofc of the molt Jmiitcd and confined have, 
 no occafion iov fpecial affijlance or knowledge of their 
 duty more than others, fincc 'tis not fit in the na- 
 ture of things, that all men fliould be made equal ; 
 and fince, by tiiis rule, there will be an equal diitri- 
 bution of jullice to all, whether their abilities are 
 great or little. Befides, attempting to cure the im-. 
 perfeftions Q)f nature by t!:ic plailler of revelation^ is 
 beneath the pradlice of the all- wife phyftcian \ for 
 whatever deficiencies are in nature, they are God's 
 own work : and befides this, the daubing with the 
 holy unftion of revelation, never yet made his un- 
 dcrftandingy?;"^/^^?/-, whom God by nature made 
 erocked ; or ever conferred thole abilities which na- 
 ture denied ; biit, on the contrary, it has warped 
 many from the re^itude of 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 wilderncfs of end* 
 lefs embarrafiment. 
 
 Seeing that natural and pofitive duties arife from 
 Cne foundation, viz, the relation and fitnefs of things^ 
 and appear alike conipiciious, as loon as they do ap- 
 J)ear, I fee not the lead fceming contradidtion (p. 1 5. ) 
 in your fiying, ••' Natural duties only are capable ®f 
 ** being perceivv^d by us to be duties; and that the 
 ** reafon on which a duty is founded, necellarily re- 
 " fults from the relation the pcrfon to pert or m it 
 ** ftands in to the perfon to whom it is to be per- 
 *♦ formed^" The duties naturally arfiing from thqj^ 
 different relations, are ^11 natural duties \ atid none 
 
 K / can 
 
( 124. ) 
 
 Can properly be faid to be fuperinduced^ that arc pro-' 
 perly duties. As God is one, and his will one, fo 
 are his laws. 
 
 Therefore (p. t6.) the gentleman has not proved 
 what he fays he has, that the pra^ice of natural du- 
 ties only, is not the whole of true religion^ "jsith re- 
 gard to prablice. How he will be able to prove, 
 that the belief cf natural doctrines are not the whole 
 of it in YcfpeEl cf belief, I fhall examine. That doc- 
 trines, as things may have a real foundation in na- 
 ture, though that foundation does not appear, may 
 be true; but 'till that foundation does appear, there 
 is no reafon in nature that we fhould believe them. 
 
 The gentleman argues, (p. 17.) 'That fmce "jdc are 
 obliged to confefs there may be, and are, many things 
 in nature above our reafon -, to deny the pcffibility of 
 any degree of information, concerning fuch matters be- 
 ing imparted to us by divine revelation, will be found, 
 in the iffue, to prefcribe rules to God, ana fet bounds 
 to the excrcife 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. Allpof- 
 fible 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 light to man's 
 nature than it can receive, and it is not poflible he 
 iliould. — Whatever is above man's underftanding, 
 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, Since we are fenfible many 
 things have an a^lual exijlence in nature, tho* i£)c 
 know not how, or in what manner, he concludes^ 
 there can be no abfurdity in believtng, that the' fame 
 'jiethod of conveying irJcrmation to us, may be followed 
 in revelation as in nntuYP, &Ci But this is a falfe 
 
 parallel i 
 
( «i5 ) 
 
 parallel : we are not fenfible that any revelation, Tut* 
 perior to nature, had any exiftence at all, as the 
 works of nature have ; this ought to be proved be- 
 fore that be allowed) therefore like confequcnces will 
 not follow, becaufe the antecedents are unlike. The- 
 building cannot be the fimie, when the foundation, 
 and materials are different, and the pofftbility of thdr 
 being on a levels is not yet fufficicntiy ejlahlifljtd by 
 any cbfervations the gentleman has made. The how 
 things have exiflcnce which we do not know, we do 
 not believe -, nor are we fo much concerned now 
 this revelation fprouted, tho* we have weighty ob- 
 icftions againft that, as of what nati re it is. Cer- 
 tainly, in things prefcribed us to take, 'tis lawful 
 to enquire whether they be wholcfome, or poifon. 
 
 (P. iS, 19.) To fay, that what God commands 
 muft not only wiquejiionably be triie^ but alfo ap- 
 pear to be true, is mofb honourable of God ; and 
 is fo far from afcribing to him fcmething in ivordsy 
 hut in reality nothing at all, 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 mufb be unnatural to them ; and the gentleman 
 himfelf fays, an unnatural revelation *tis impious to 
 ■ exfc^. "Whatever is fupernatural is not according 
 to nature, therefore unpatural : for there is no me- 
 dium. 
 
 The gentleman hopes to fhew, that it is a 'vetj 
 proper grcund of our ajfent, and fufficient in itfelf a- 
 lone, "JL'henever it happens, that we fee no' other 
 reafon for the truth of a propofition, but that God 
 HAS REVEALED IT. Let him fhcw but this reafon, 
 that God has revealed what he calls revelation, ii 
 will be fufficient in itfelf alone. Let him but do 
 this, this fingle point will determine the controver- 
 fy •, to prove this by reafon is. all wc require, dna 
 will be more convincing than miracles ; therefore 
 
( '26 ) 
 
 wc 60 not call for any thing unreafonablc or impof-.- 
 fiblc, uniefs ir be impofTible to prove this by realbn. 
 This is the fubjcft contefted. The Chrijiians af- 
 firm their book contains a revelation of God*s will \ 
 ■you Beijis queftion the truth of that affirmation, 
 and require them to prove it ; This you think is a 
 reafonable rcqueft, if they have no mind to deceive 
 you ; efpecially as you require but a reafonable con- 
 vi<5tion, tho' they may give you a miraculous one, 
 if they can ; but if they can do neither, you judge 
 k unreafonable and unjuft to demand your alTent, 
 without convincing you that you are wrong, and 
 they are right. You declare yourfelves to be lovers 
 o/truth •, that let her banners be difplayed, and you 
 will be voluntiers, and fight under thofe colours : 
 that you cannot believe without convidlion, nor be 
 convinced without reafon •, but that as foon as the 
 TRUTH appears to you, you cannot with-hold your 
 affent one moment ; that you will immediately caft 
 down your arms, and yourfelves, and venerate that 
 goddefs wherever ftie appears. This you protefs, 
 and this is a fair declaration : the wlfer ChriJiiaHS do 
 the fame. 
 
 To proceed then ♦, I think it proper both fides 
 ihould be perfecftly well fatisfied in every point 
 wherein there may be deception, and till then, doubt- 
 ing and enquiring is your duty : and what is put up- 
 on men for credible and fufficient teftimony, ought 
 to be fuch as is credible to other than believers, and 
 jfuch as carries its own fufficiency with it. We Ibould 
 take care of imputing thofe things to God, which 
 have been the inventions of men. Gous word mui^ 
 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 
 h to their bodiiy eyes. 
 
( 127 ) 
 
 In pag. 20, 21. we hav£ this fimile. tVhen an 
 eaftern -prince was acquamted by an European of good 
 quality and credit, that in thefe parts of the earthy 
 the water would, at certain times, become folid and 
 unnavigable, without any vifible caufe to produce fa 
 furprizijig an alteration in it ; was it reafonaUe for 
 the prince to difbelieve an account which was well at- 
 tejled, merely becaufe it did not appear to him to hosjt 
 its foundation in reafon and nature ? The giver ot" 
 x\\\s fimile argues from hence, that fmce we are fuch 
 unexperienced and incompetent judges in nafuraf 
 things, no wonder we arc not able to determ'ine of 
 things fupernatural', and therefore, that *tis con- 
 trary to truth and common fenfe to diibelieve and 
 rejedl thefe fupernaturals. But if natural things 
 puzzle us, why fhould God confound us with fu- 
 pernaturals ? Let us exn-fiine and compare the fimile 
 to the application and fuhje^l. 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 
 evide?ice he had of the truth of the report, and this, 
 as great as it was, was infujficient 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 againlt the European ? that 
 could not be, if he knew his perfon and chara5fer -, 
 nor could it be againft being informed ; every body 
 is willing to come at knowledge in an eafy manner : 
 Could he believe without conviclion ? not unlels his 
 faith run before his reafon. Could he refrain be- 
 lieving, if convinced ? impofllble ! Where then was 
 the fault ? it muft be either in the nature of the evi- 
 dence^ or in the prince, for wanting a rational con- 
 'Vi5lien. Now, one of thefe is fuppofed to be your 
 cafe 1 but the latter depends upon the former. You 
 dsn't believe the things commanded. Why? be^ 
 
 caufc 
 
( 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 j but you 
 fay they cannot, therefore you cannot believe ; then, 
 fay they, you mujl be damned. Why ? becaufe you 
 cannot believe things to you incredible^ nor do what 
 to you is impcjfible I Is this juft, fay you ? Does this 
 look as if it came from God the father of truth ? If 
 this damnation do5frine 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 oi' the Jlupid 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 fenfes are drove 
 away, faith may be drove in. A little more of this 
 illuftration. 
 
 An eafiern prince is acquainted by an European of 
 good quality and credit. Are we acquainted by per- 
 fons oi good quality and credit ? I'hey that acquaint 
 us now with the llory, may be fo •, but they know 
 no more the truth of it, than we do : therefore I 
 mean xhtfirji flory-tellers, who and what were they ? 
 they were, by the confefTiun of thefe perfons, of no 
 quality, and of but little credit, even in their own 
 country : and we can have no other •, therefore the 
 cafes are not fimilar. The eaftern prince might hear 
 that "JDater congeals to ice, by a thoufand men more, 
 if he fought to know the truth, and all of them liv- 
 ing witneffcs ; or, if fo dlfpofed, he might, by a 
 voyage to a colder climate, fee the truth of the (lory ; 
 but our ftories, what man ever faw ! Can our afiu- 
 rance of the truth of what is impofed upon us, be 
 compared with the alTurance this prince may have ? 
 there is, certainly, no comparifon. 
 
 The 
 
( 129 ) 
 
 I'he eafiern prince is informed^ what ? wby^ that 
 ^ater freezes % three quarters cf the world know 
 this to be true, if he don't. But is there one man 
 in the world who knows the truth of what we are 
 required to believe on the pains of damnation? 
 Strange difference, which admits cf no comparifon ! 
 hard meat ! and bad meafure ! And how does it be- 
 come folid ? fays the prince ; IVithout any vijible 
 caufCy anfwers the European, Whoever, indeed, 
 fawQoW. this part of the fimile beft agrees. 'Tis 
 either an ignorant or deceitful anfwer. 'Tis certain- 
 ly not intended to give convidlion or fatisfafbion. 
 He could not fay, without any fenfihle caufe \ for 
 froft is produced by an extreme cold air. What 
 though he could not fiifficiently account for it, he 
 fhould have accounted for it as well as be could ; 
 therefore the caufe of vinbelief is owing to the Eu- 
 ropean, not the 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 
 wanner. But he that thinks this prince defervcs to 
 be condemned for not believing the relation of this 
 EiUrQpean, would think it very unreafonable for one 
 to require his affent to things in nature as furprizing 
 to him, which were as wretchedly made out ; and 
 would imagine, that he is not obliged to behevc till 
 he is better informed, but thinks it reafonable to dif- 
 believe an account that to h\m fcetns unnatural : for 
 what feems to be true or falfe, has the fame effeSl 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 
 pxiftence, unlefs we can believe a perfon better than 
 ■y^e can our fenfes •, but then we muff have reafon 
 why we do fo, and as this reafon is grounded, it 
 
 S fliews 
 
( 130 ) 
 finews the meafure of our nnderftanding at that time. 
 Suppofe this prince could have no 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 xht prince v;as no foci, only not willing to be 
 jmpofed on •, for foo/s always believe fall enough, fo 
 th^t folly and belief generally go together. Suppofe 
 he could not believe the ftory told him, it muft be 
 becaufe he thought it rcafonable to difhelieve \ how- 
 ever, believing it, might appear reafonable to ano- 
 ther : for we can no more be guided by another 
 man's reafon, 'till we make it our own, than we 
 can fee what another does, u.nlefs 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 owing 
 to fome defe^ in the circmnjiances \ for every one is 
 willing to believe thofe things that are true^ and ad- 
 vantageous 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 he- 
 ing able to believe. This wicked part, which makes 
 it a moft fhocking tragedy, is left out of tht Jimile. 
 
 Suppofe a man that lives between the tropics, will 
 not, or rather cannot believe, that water is congealed 
 to ftone near the polar circles j What then ? Whit 
 is it to him, whether it be true or falfe ? 'tis matter 
 of m'ere fpeculation 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, which, if known, might furprize 
 us j but are ws therefore to credit any romantic fur- 
 prizing ftory that is told us, which has no founda- 
 tion in nature or reafon ; becaufe he that reports it, 
 ■ affirms it to be of the utmoft importance, when we 
 cannot perceive any truth in the ftory? Of the 
 
 greater 
 
(131) 
 
 greater cbnfequence any relation is, it fliould be at" 
 tended with the greater certainty : with the gieate^ 
 blindneis it ajjpcais, it has the more ev.dent de- 
 monftration of iolly or knavery. Siippofe it true* 
 tho' a dark truths every man cannot lee. things ahke, 
 and at the fame diftance, why fhouid ail 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 mull fee the inju- 
 ftice of it J and if laid to be made by a good law- 
 giver, every one mull know it to be a bold and bar- 
 barous impofition 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 born blind, neither has, 
 nor can form any idea of light and colours ; and yet^ 
 fays this author, the blindnefs of his underftanding 
 •will be worfe than that of his eyes, if he will not be- 
 lieve there is or can be any fuch thing in nature, as 
 light and colours, becaufe 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 
 of 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 v/hat is before his 
 open eyes in day-light. Befides, *tis contrary to 
 common icn^t to think we can believe what we can 
 have no idea of. A blind m^n 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 
 mtn Cvin diflinguilh he knows not what, nor how. 
 Underftanding enlightens our conceptions, but the 
 bare belief of the exiftence of things we j:an have no 
 underftanding of, can be of no ufe or benefit to us -, 
 
 S 2 and 
 
( '32 ) 
 
 and as it makes us in no degree wifer^ fo it make3 
 us in no relpeft better. 
 
 (P. 21.) If the want of experience and ohfewation 
 renders us incompetent judges of the nature of things y 
 how can we judge of things fupernatural ? and how 
 can fuch things be a rule to us ? And fince under 
 the pretence oi fupernatural latvs, which we can by 
 no means judge of •, if we yield to the receiving 
 them, what import ions and impojlures may not take 
 place ? What care then ought we to take^ that we 
 are not impofed on by too eafy belief; that we do 
 not aflent to things beyond our underftanding, as 
 neceflary to diredt our faith and pradtice, which is a 
 flavifh and blind obedience ; for by not waiting to 
 examine and judge what is right, our judgments be- 
 come iftfirm, and cannot difcriminate things for want 
 of exercifc •, 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 
 hght 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 clofeft application, we muft and ought 
 to rcjeft, as what does not concern us." 'Tis un- 
 reafonable to require us to receive that for truth, 
 which does not appear at ally or not appear to be 
 truth ; and 'tis wicked to pretend there is righteouf- 
 nefs in doing what is unreafonable. As a blind man 
 has nothing to do with lights and colours, which he 
 can determine nothing about \ fo we have nothing 
 to do with what we cannot know to be truth, tho* 
 it be truth. As what does not come within the 
 verge of man's knowledge, is not the fubjedt of it ; 
 fo principles above human comprehenfion, are no& 
 
 prin- 
 
( ^33 ) 
 
 ptinciples fit for human faith : and becaufe they na- 
 turally lead the mind into a maze of confufion and ' 
 error, therefore they ought to be rejedted ; and 
 with fuitable marks of relentment and indignation, 
 when prefled upon men with penalties and zeal. 
 
 Whatever God reveals as truth, muft necefiarily 
 appear to be truth, becaufe revealed. All doSirines 
 and precepts, therefore, coming from God, which 
 are ncceffary for man to believe and pra5fife, muft 
 fo appear ; they muft have the fignatures and cha- 
 ra^erijiics of divine wifdom: for light and trtttb 
 bring therr 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 a(5b as a wife and good being, nor with man as a 
 reafonable creature. Goodnefs and wifdom delight to 
 difcover themfelves what they are ; for as they can- 
 not appear better, 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 
 good^ and confequently no reafon to believe he re- 
 quires any obedience of u:-. 
 
 The do^rines, which are called the revelation of 
 God, that do not appear to have their foundation in 
 reafon and Jiature (both which have God for their 
 foundation) do not appear to be of God. If he be a 
 God of underjianding, he will not require men to 
 ferve him without their iinderfiandings ; but fo they 
 muft do, if they beheve and aft without knowing 
 why or wherefore : therefore if God reveals to man 
 his duty, he reveals to him the apparent reafons of 
 his duty, which are the proper motives to it, or God 
 delights in man's ignorant andftupid obedience -, and 
 no wonder then he is io ignorantly and (lutidh obeyed. 
 
 And 
 
( ^34 ) 
 And then, tho' revelation fays, Light is come int^ 
 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 ; Ip the truth of his word 
 muft appear to them to whom he reveals it, or the 
 truth muft be doubtful^ and confequently it muft 
 be doubtful^ whether it be ^// zvord or no. And as 
 that cannot be of the hght, which is not difcoverable 
 by it ; fo that cannot be the revelation of ivifdom 
 and goodnefs^ in which the apparent ?narks of wifdom 
 and goodnefs are not revealed. 
 
 Your antagonift feems to triumph in your giving, 
 the rational Chrijliar^% fcheme, without being par- 
 ticular in your anfvver to it •, to fhew \vha,t caiife he 
 has of triumph, I therefore attempt it. 
 
 The Scheme. 
 ^hey argue ^ that as the 
 religion of nature^ abfo- 
 lately coriftdered^ afid in 
 its full extent^ is only 
 known to God, ifhejhculd 
 he pleafed to make a fu- 
 pernatural revelation of 
 fuch parts of that law to 
 us, which our unajfijled 
 reafon could never have 
 difcovered, fuch a revela- 
 tion ought to be gratefully 
 received, and readily ac- 
 knowledged. For tho* no 
 do^rine that has not its 
 foundation in reafon and 
 nature, can he a religious 
 do5irine ; yet doctrines 
 that have fuch a founda- 
 tion, tho* that does not ap- 
 pear^ 
 
 'The Ansvv^er. 
 This argil ment is found- 
 ed on a wrong hyppthe- 
 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 thole relationf^ 
 and circurntiances x^- 
 quire, which fets afide all 
 fuperncrtwrdl 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 iuch as not on- 
 ly have, but appe.ir to' 
 have their foundacion in 
 reafon and nature : for if 
 'we 
 
( '35 
 
 jp'ear, may, if God pleafes, 
 be commumlated to us, ei- 
 ther by himjelf immedi- 
 ately, or mediately by his 
 agents, without any re- 
 firiSlion on, or repugnancy 
 to any of his attributes. 
 And this, fay they, is the 
 cafe of all fupernatwal 
 do^rines contained in the 
 fcriptures, which collec- 
 tively compofe the Chri- 
 Jlian faith % thefe are fo 
 man) revelations of the 
 law of nature, which un- 
 ajfifled reafon could net 
 difcover -, and tho* they 
 Yemain incomprchenfihle, 
 and lie out of the reach of 
 reafon, yet when that 
 which is imperfeii is done 
 away, and faith is turned 
 into vifion, they will then 
 appear to us to be found- 
 ed in truth and reafon. 
 
 ) 
 
 we are to receive things, 
 not as what they appear 
 to be to us, but as what 
 they are in themfelves, 
 then God requires of us 
 a c6ndu6l above the abi- 
 hties he has furniflied us 
 with, which is repugnant 
 to all thofe moral attri- 
 butes we afcribe to deity. 
 And as the foundation o^ 
 fucli religion does not ap- 
 pear to be in God, in na- 
 ture, or in reafon •, there- 
 fore 'tis unnatural and ir- 
 rational, without any ap- 
 pearance of a foundation 
 at all ', therefore, v/here- 
 evcr it is contained, or 
 whatever it iis called, it is 
 contrary to triith and vir- 
 tue ; and when that comes 
 to pafs, which will not, 
 then things will appear to 
 be true, which are not. 
 
 Let the gentleman now behold this rational Chri- 
 ftian fcheme, and fee how formidable it is, how de- 
 jiru5live of all your chje£fions j how eafy is this Jlub- 
 born fubjcol reduced ! and by what plain arguments 
 is it anfwered and refuted ? Thus it is reducible to 
 your queftion, " Whether thofe do6lrines that can- 
 *' not be perceived to have their foundation in the 
 *' reafon and nature of things, are, notvvithi'tanding, 
 " certainly thus founded -, " and I think it evident- 
 ly appears from what has been faid, they are hot : 
 ** VVhether therefore they are to be fo allowed, only 
 
 «' be- 
 
{ '36 ) 
 
 *' bfcaufe they are contained in the fcriptures,** will 
 fcarce be made a queftion by any reafonable querift. 
 Therefore, the reafonablenefs and apparent truth of 
 every do5irine refpeSiively^ is necejfary to prove it 
 rights or zuhether it be divinely infpired. 
 
 (P. 25.) If Chrijlians do not agree about what 
 revelation reveals, 'tis evident they are in the dark, 
 and it is no wonder, if darknefs caufes doubts. If 
 the nature of 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- 
 helievers be convinced by them ? 
 
 (P. 28.) The queftion, at length, agreed to is. 
 Whether all the do^rines 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. PFhat can be more fupernatural, more above 
 the comprehenfion of reafon, than the manner ofGod^s 
 exifience \ yet you will not infer, that bccaufe this is 
 a fupernatural matter, therefore the exiftence of fuch 
 £L being is incapable of being apparently reafonable, 
 &c. but the manner of God's exiftence, and the ex- 
 ijlence of fuch a being, are two diftinfl things. 
 Granting the manner of God*s exiftence to be a fu- 
 pernatural fubjedt to man, as being above the com- 
 prehenfion of his reafon, therefore the manner is in- 
 capable of examination by us, becaufe incomprehen- 
 iible ; but that God does exift, we judge to be not 
 
 above 
 
( '37 ) 
 piboye human reafon to apprehend and examine, 
 
 therefore 7ioi a fufernatural matter ; the other which 
 is, we can neither examine nor beUevc. 
 
 This gentleman is not wiUing to grant, that natu- 
 ral and fupernatitral are contrndiitoi y terms, there- 
 fore gives this definition. TVhatsvcr we call f-uper- 
 nattiral is as much comprehe::ded within the immenfe 
 fyftem of nature^ and has t:s found a ion there^ as 
 th'ofe very obje5fs that are the moji familiar to us, 
 mid ejfecmed ni'fl natural and common. Then nature 
 comprehends all things, and there is nothing fuper^ 
 natural. So all miracles and prophecies, but llich 
 as are within the circle of nature, are dijfbanded : and 
 I believe, in this one explanation, that revelation^ 
 wiiich is the matter contefted, is explained away •, 
 for this definition will not comprehend the fuperna- 
 tural zvorks of won.icr^ andwcnderfiil do^rines, de- 
 livered ill the fcriptures j and is an evafion, only 
 for the fike of a retreat to more fccure defence : but 
 nature teaches nothing above fenfe and reafon, and 
 reafon knows nothing i"!eyond nature ; but fuperna- 
 turals are fet up to confound both. 
 
 Now to the former quellion, which is the point 
 of debate ; JVhether the fcriptures are divinely re- 
 vealed? (P. 38.) Our author fays, The Jleps that 
 are proper to be taken on this occafion are, to fjjew 
 that the fcriptures were written by perfons divinely 
 infpired\ — the feveral writers infer ted no do£lrines as 
 grounded on divine authority, but fuch as were really 
 fo \ — th' original fcriptures have been faithfully tranf' 
 mitted down to us. 
 
 Firft then, the fcriptures were, written by perfpyis 
 divinely infpired. 
 
 One argument is, that the old-tejlament-writers 
 wen infpired, if the new were, becaufe ratified by 
 ihem. There are many now that believe the fcrip- 
 tures were infpired, and yet don't underftand them, 
 
 T no;^ 
 
( '38 ) 
 
 nor can ag-ee about them, thelc then arc not in- . 
 fpired with proper underflanding •, (o by the appli- 
 cation of prophtcies from the old-teftament- writers, 
 by the new, it is plain ihey underjiood them tiot^ and 
 therefore w re not infpired ; the p^oof of which is 
 fh.wn by Mr. Collin* s fcheme of literal prophecy, and 
 Mr. Pnriipes enquiry into the Jewijh and Chrijiiaft 
 revelation. 
 
 An argument tliat the new-teftament- writers were 
 divinely infpired is, that " they performed what all 
 the wifdoni and ifnprovemenfs of natural reafon, and 
 the moji inquijitive philofophers were not able to per- 
 form : What ? they infer ted in their writings a com^ 
 pleat fyftent of morality ^ and all the principles and du- 
 ties of natural religion. This is aiTerted, but how 
 is it proved ? All our prophets, indeed, prophefy fo j 
 but it feems to me, that God has put a lying fpirit 
 in the mouth of all thefe our prophets, . What philo- 
 fophers ever wrote upon morals, that have not given 
 as compleat a fyftem ? and v/hy are fcraps of mo- 
 rality, fcattered here and there, called a fyftem? 
 and why a compleat fyflem, when the effential part 
 of a moral fyfi em is wanting, viz. rules for the well 
 governing a nation \ and v/hen the morals want mend-r 
 ing by explanation, to give fome a more loofe^ others 
 a more reflraimd fenfe ? and when there are thofe 
 that no art can mend, and therefore are explained 
 ..away? Thefe things are fo eafily proved, that they 
 are too well knovv n to need it : however, fee fome 
 of them below *. 
 
 * Mat. V. 28, 79, 30. 32, 33. 3^^ 39» 40* 42* 44» 48. 
 vi. 14, 15, 19, 25, 26, ^"<r. 
 vii. \, 6i 7, 8. 
 yiii. 22. 
 X. 37. 38. 
 Ixvi. 24. 
 xviii. 22. 
 xix. 21. 
 
 :<xiu. 9. ic. i^^'Other 
 
( 139 ) 
 
 Another proof given of the infpiration of thefe 
 Writers is, that they recovered and rejiored the trui 
 hgbt of reafon^ at a time whsit the zvifeji jnen ac- 
 knowledged it did no where appear. I wifli the gen- 
 tleman had informed us who thofe wife men were ; 
 fure, they were not thofe that came out of the eafi 
 to worftiip the infiint Jesus, the new-born God •, 
 for they, as far as I can examine, never had exift- 
 ence, but in Matt!iewV^-7//)c'/. I want to be in- 
 formed, how the true Hght of reafon difappcared ? 
 and how it has appeared fince •, and how by their 
 means ? Were not men the fame rational beings then, 
 as now ? Has the \'^orld been wifer fmce the infpired 
 age ? or were thejnfpired themfelves mnde wifer by 
 their infpiration ? Have mankind, by their means, 
 thought or aded more rationally ? Does the general 
 nature of things change ? If nor, how came the hu- 
 man nature to fuffer fuch an alteration ? Was vnin- 
 ]dn(\ ignorant \.\\Qr\y and is he not fo now, and has 
 been fo ever fince ? Is he any better or wifer than 
 before? not a jot. What wonderful rellcration 
 have they then made of the light of reafcn? H.ith 
 the Cbrijlian part of the world been wifer or better 
 than the reft ? rather worfe. Have they not com- 
 mitted all manner of the moft favaee and inhuman 
 vackednefs/(?r Chrifi^ s fake ? How 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 light of reafon, is romantic ; 
 and if ever it was the cafe, one would be tempted, 
 "as you fiy, to think it unavoidable, and therefore 
 innocent. 
 
 A third argument given to prove thefe writers 
 infpired is, they delivered ru'es and infiru5lions for 
 the proper nmnner of worflnppir.g God \ a point which 
 Socrates diffuaded Alcibiades from attempting., — and 
 likcw fe acknczvledged to his pupil ^ that this matter 
 
 T s- was 
 
( HO ) 
 
 tras not difcovfrable by human rcajon aJone^ fho* it 
 was fiicb an i'niportant fubjeSf, fo neceffary to be 
 k?iGwn, that he fore f aw the fupr erne being would fend 
 an efpecial meffenger on purpofe to inflru^ men in tt. 
 'Tis pofTible Socrates might fay lb, for aught I 
 know of the man, but 'tis more hkely fome Chri- 
 flian has made him fay what he never faid. But 
 why did Socrates difluade Alcibiades from delivering 
 rules and inftrudion'; for the proper manner of wor- 
 fhipping God ? Why, becaufe 'tis what the world 
 are not likely ever to agree about •, and what this 
 boafled revelation itfelf is unable to make even be- 
 lievers do. The moll fincere followers of the Chart a 
 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 
 demonflrate its wondrous fupernatural light to ano- 
 ther. And fome think, 'tis highly neceffary a new 
 revelation fhould be given to explain the old \ for 
 tho' we give hundreds and thoufands a year to have 
 it explained, that the whole world is not able to do 
 it, that it might pafs for heavenly lights if there 
 was no human reafon in the world •, but that the lat- 
 ter puts the former out, and difcovers its palpable 
 darknefs. Alas ! for the pitiful inhabitants of that 
 part of the world who have miferably felt its effeds, 
 as 2. fire without lights who have not been warmed^ 
 but burnt with it ; not enlightened by the ivifdom of 
 its do5irines^ but confounded and dazzled with the 
 onyfieries of its godlinefsl Ah! that the fad was 
 falfe which you have faid, that " millions of people 
 *' have fallen a facrifice to Chrijlian piety." Hap- 
 py had it been for every Chrijlian nation, it this was 
 a grofs imputation of ground lefs calumny^ as your op- 
 ponent calls it ; but 'tis as certain a truth, as 'tis a 
 melamholh one. By this may be fetn, of what ex- 
 cellent fer vice ro mankind their rules and inllrudi- 
 
 ens 
 
( hO 
 
 ons for worfhipping God have been •, and in what 
 proper manner they have been given, or brought 
 down to us, underilood, and praftifed all the way. 
 Certainly the tree is known by its fruits. It may 
 be thought ^^r//<^/ in me, as an exam'aier, to fay tbefe 
 things •, but they are the fruits of my examination. 
 
 Yet the gentleman, exulting, fays, as if he had 
 proved his points, when he has but named them, 
 (p. 40.) Had 7iot the Deity immediately di elated to^ 
 and impreffed upon the mind of each writer^ the mat- 
 ters fpecijied above, (or before) by what natural 
 caufes could it have happened, that this collect ion of 
 writings (the new tefi anient) fijoutd be fo vajily dif- 
 ferent from all others^ and fo greatly exceed them^ n\ 
 to co'/nprehend in it a republication of the true urtgi - 
 nal religion of reafon anl nature, exa^ly diflinguijhed 
 and feparated from all the corruptions which polythe- 
 ifniy idolatry, and fuperflition^ had introduced and 
 mingled with it •, and bring to light priiu.fval truths^ 
 that had been hid from ages and gencrptlons. And 
 yet the Deists, the only people in the world that 
 adhere to the true original religion of reafon and v.i- 
 ture, and are feparated from all the corruptions here 
 mentioned, cannot find in it thefe prir/icsial truths 
 boalled of, therefore this boafiing is not good, bc- 
 caufe it is the mere compliment of his hunible 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 ad '.^efs makes 
 even error look like it, as well as the feem'^ng rea- 
 fon with which he clothes his arguments, which, 
 without all doubt, appear cogent to the believer ; 
 for they flievv the^i;ra.'/ abilities of the man, in diaC 
 he maintains a very bad pofirion, with very great 
 art. lie has indeed the labouring oar, who main- 
 ■ tains error againll truth, lie labor hoc opus tfl^ where- 
 as reafon and nature render the work eaf\', and the 
 ^q)s that trace th . m .'.;e | leaf ,i;t. Yv^c 
 
( 142 ) 
 
 We arc now to take for granted the moral cha- 
 mbers of unknown perfons^ and upon this founda- 
 tion we are to allow that they inferted no doctrines as 
 grounded on divine authority, but fuch as were really 
 fo ; and to fuppofe otherwife, is an ungenerous unjufi 
 jufpicion." This i?, I muft own, a moft complai- 
 fant method of gaining a point, and complimenting 
 away a man's underftanding. It difplays extremely 
 much the gentleman, but not the philofopher. Or, 
 indeed, it looks like attempting to get that by beg- 
 ging, which cannot be got by labour. Let the wif- 
 dom and truth of the do£frines fpeak for themfelves, 
 let their nature and tendency fhew 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 confijl- 
 ency of all the gofpel do^rines is a weighty argument, 
 that the feveral writers have not confounded their 
 own private conceptions with the doBrines they re- 
 ceived by divine infpiration. Was there any weight 
 in this argument, it might be eaiily proved againft 
 them, that neither the hijtcry nor doSirines are con- 
 fiftent. I own that the evangelical phyficians with 
 us have a way oi plaifiering up old fores, but they 
 cannot heal them. Stories may 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 probab'e, and the other feennngly rea- 
 Jcnable, yet this is no proof of the veracity of either ; 
 but if inccnfiftencies plainly appear, 'tis a weighty 
 argument againft their being ot divine authority. 
 
 The laft remaining circumftance he alTerts is, that 
 the original fcriptures have been faithfully tranfmitted 
 down to us. That is more than any man alive can 
 be fure of. How is this pofTible to be proved, 
 when the original copies, and writers are unknown. 
 
 *Tis 
 
( >43 ) 
 
 ■ I'is not certainly known where^ when, by whom, 
 and in what language, they were firft written. AU 
 tlie accounts we have of them is by the moft mcer- 
 tdin traditions of a church, notorious in every age 
 for lyes and forgery, and through the hands of 
 feds and fadions, that have ever, from the firft 
 age of the church condemned each otherfor interpo- 
 lations, and forging evangehcal hiftories, apoftohc 
 a(5ts, epiftlcs, and revelations, which were not fepa- 
 rated till much later ages •, and ail that has been re^ 
 ceived for canonical, has not been fo made, till time 
 had worn out the objedions againft them, and pow- 
 er had deftroyed thole objections. There is not re- 
 maining any one book in the new tcftament, but 
 fome Chrijlian fe^ has condemned. The upper- 
 moft feft Wcjs always orthodox, and have dturcyecj 
 both books and men, that have been againft them, 
 when they have had them in their power. It was 
 authority, and the prevailing opinion, more than 
 reafon or divine infpiration, were the ruks of deter- 
 mining what they fmce cill the true from the fpu- 
 rious. That the original fcripturcs have not been 
 faithfully tranfmitted down to us, I hare elfewhere 
 ihewn. 'Twas more than a century before the gof- 
 pels were made public -, therefore 'tis a queftion if 
 they had any apoftolic original : and fince 'tis con- 
 fcfied by believers themfelves, from the earlieft 
 ages, that there have been corruptions in the text 
 itfelf ; and even with us, there are perpetually ob- 
 jections to the tranflatiors of it, that 'tis otherwife 
 in the original, and tb'.: the originals (fo called) have 
 various readings. The Chrijlians reading in their 
 churches the goipels and epiltles that zve have, is no 
 proof of i-hcir being genuin? •, they alfo read thofc 
 that are counted fpuricus, as well as thofe that time 
 ^nd authority have called genuine. When thefe 
 
 things. 
 
( H4 ) 
 thing?, and a thoiifand mere like tliefe, have been 
 infinuated and anfwered a thoufind times over, no- 
 thing can prove di vim infpiration better than its own 
 divme nature^ and^intrinjic zvorth. 
 
 This gentleman tells us, (p. 44.) that 'T'ertullian 
 feems to ajfert^ that fever al originals were remaining 
 in hi: tinie, which was in the third century. I make 
 no doubt of it, but cjoubt mucli if they had one cen- 
 tun* of cxiftence before his time. 
 
 Again. The fenfe of the goffel has oftentimes been 
 fadh perverted, but the text has been tranfmitted pure 
 and untainted to t.^is day ; then it was impure and 
 tainted in the original, as appears by the inconf.fi- 
 encics and tinintelligible matters therein contained. 
 Indeed, a Deift 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 produ6lion. But how 
 has the gofpel text been ^ranfniitted pure and un- 
 tainted to the people, when lonjc Fapifts and Pro- 
 tejlants accufe each orher of a corrupt tranflation ? 
 
 (I*. 45.) Our Chrijiian advocate infinuates, that 
 St, Matthew, a-ad the other evangelifts, were equally 
 qualified, and equally difpofed to give a punctual ac- 
 count of the religion ^/ Jesus Christ, as Plato and 
 Xencpr^on were to give a true reprefentation of the 
 religion cf their mafter Socrates. Then the evange- 
 lifts were as learned and wife as Flato and Xtnphon^ 
 or Plato and Xenophon were as unlearned and tgno- 
 rant as they. The contrary we have been all along 
 taught ; but it feems we are taug'-.t any thing that 
 will cftabliili 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 fubfance of all Chrijiian 
 doctrines and duties originally contained in the new 
 
 teflameniy 
 
( H5 ) 
 
 iejiament^ our prefent copies correfpond as eifa5fly wittj 
 their originals^ as thofe of the Grecian writers above- 
 mentioned do with theirs. What in reafon then can' 
 be expected better than it is? If the original bd 
 plain and pure^ what need lias it of explanations ? 
 for can man's learning mend God's wifdom? If it be 
 not, that which is originally and naturally bad, na 
 explanations can make good, without changing its 
 original nature -, which is dellroying the original by 
 altering it. If it be divinely pure, or not, the world 
 o^ 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 
 coil ; for if it be, we need them not •, and if it be 
 not, let them leave lis to the guidance of dame na.- 
 ture, and the government of good laws. 
 
 Now it fcems we are come to a period in this 
 i^atcer, becaufe what follows is a new fubjed:, which 
 concerns only the peculiar doftrines of Chrijlianity.'i 
 one of which has been already confidcred, viz. the 
 RESURRECTION OF Jesus, which though you fay 
 afFecls but a part, your Chriftian adverfary is of 
 another opinion : his words to you are thefe ; IVhat 
 part, I prry^ whatfingle doilrine cf Chriftianity does 
 the trifj of the witneffes affe6l ? Nothing lefs than ths 
 rcfurreclion of Jefus Chrijt -, a do5lrine which, by the 
 plaineft and moji notorious confequence, affects the 
 WHCLL. CAUSE J a do5lrine with which the truth of 
 all Chriftianity is fo infeparably conne£fed, that they 
 muft confeffedly Jfand or fall together •, therefore, I 
 think F may be excufed from meddling with any 
 other parts at diis time, till that is actually an; 
 fwered •, which I believe will not be, 'till he comes' 
 again in glory ; and then all our objeftions will be 
 perfedly anfwered j our human reafon be eternally 
 
 U baffledy 
 
( '46 ) 
 
 baffled, and hide itfelf in everlafting confufion. 
 But we are advifed to judge nothing htfore 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 neceflary, that falls in our 
 way. lam, 
 
 and dejire always to remain, 
 
 a faithful Friend and Servant 
 
 to Tou and Truth, 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 I Have met with a little author y written in favour 
 of the Great Obfervator on St. Paul, who fays, 
 Deijls do not examine ; but he expreffes himfelf ac- 
 cording to his little wit, for it is examination and rea- 
 fon that makes men fincerely Deijis or Moral Philo- 
 fophers. For my own part, I can fafely fay, that if 
 I had ntv^T fe'ioujly thought, a.nd Jlri^ly examined, 
 I had not been a dijbeliever . Men never render them- 
 felves more contemptible, than when they affert grofs 
 falfhoods. I think, he that has an honeft heart has 
 the root of the matter in him. Let men fay what 
 they v/ill, and wrangle about religion as they pleafe, 
 which they moft Ihamefully 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 nevf 
 transforming fcripture by different words and expli- 
 cations ; v.'hich are only fo many fhifts and evafions, 
 to avoid the light that difcovers their darkr^cfs : And 
 iince every one hath their different expofitions, and 
 
 always: 
 
( 147 ) 
 
 always find new ones, when newly prefled with th» 
 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 defective and erroneous. 
 
 I have now faid all that I defire to fay on thefe 
 fubjedts, which will be teflimonies 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 is 
 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, 
 than the happy enjoyment of reafonabk liberty, of 
 all things the moft defirable, and the moft valuable 
 to all thofe that can tafte and enjoy the bleflings and 
 benefits of it. 
 
 FINIS.