i

far tie fiiu,nding ef a CaUege ;& t^jf. CoKtty"

Gift of
Yale Divinity School

DISSERTATION ON MIRACLES

CONTAIN INQ

AN EXAMINATION OF THE PRINCIPLES ADVANCED BY
DAVID HUME, ESQ.,
IN
AN ESSAY ON MIRACLES;
WITH A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE SUBJECT BY MR. HUME,
DR. CAMPBELL, AND DR. BLAIR.
TO WHICH ARE ADDED,
SEEMOIfS AND TRACTS.

BY GEORGE CAMPBELL, D.D.,
PRINCIPAL OF THE MARI5CHAL COLLEGE, AND ONE OP THE MINISTERS OF ABERDEEN ;
AUTHOR OF THE TRANSLATIOIT OF THE FOUR GOSPELS, ETC.

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

a ^eb) Ctittton.

LONDON:
PRINTED FOR THOMAS TEGG, 73, CHEAPSIDE ;
R. GRIFFIN AND CO., GLASGOW; TEGG AND CO., DUBLIN; AND
J. AND S. A. TEGG, SYDNEY AND HOBART TOWN.
MDCCCXXXIX.

WILLIAM TYLER,
PRINTER,
, BOLT COURT, LONDON.

ADVERTISEMENT.

It is not the only, nor even the chief design of these sheets,
to refute the reasoning and objections of Mr. Hume with
regard to miracles : the chief design of them is, to set the
principal argument for Christianity in its proper light. On
a subject that has been so often treated, it is impossible to
avoid saying many things which have been said before. It
may, however, with reason be affirmed, that there still re
mains, on this subject, great scope for new observations.
Besides, it ought to be remembered, that the evidence of any
complex argument depends very much on the order into
which the material circumstances are digested, and the man
ner in which they are displayed.
The Essa-y on Miracles deserves to be considered as one
of the most dangerous attacks that have been made on our
religion. The danger results not solely from the merit of
the piece : it results much more from that of the author. The
piece itself, like very other work of Mr. Hume, is ingenious ;
but its merit is more of the oratorial kind than of the " luio-
sophical. The merit of the author, I acknowledge, is great.
The many useful volumes he has published of history, as well
as on criticism, politics, and trade, have justly procured him,
with all persons of i,aste and discernment, the highest repu
tation as a writer. What pity is it that this reputation should
have been sullied by attempts to undermine the foundation
both of natural religion, and of revealed !
For my own part, I tliink it a piece of justice in me to
acknowledge the obligations I owe the author, before I enter
on the proposed examination. I have not only been much
entertained and instructed by his works ; but if I am pos
sessed of any talent in abstract reasoning, I am not a little
indebted to what he has written on liuman Nature, for the
improvement of that talent. If, therefore, in this Tract, I
have refuted Mr. Hume's Essay, the greater share ofthe merit
is perhaps to be ascribed to Mr. Hume himself. The compli-

IV advertisement.
ment which the Russian monarch, after the famous battle of
Poltowa, paid the Swedish generals, when he gave them the
honourable appellation of his masters in the art ofivar, I may,
with great sincerity, pay my acute and ingenious adversary.
I shall add a few things concerning the occasion and form
ofthe following Dissertation.
Some of the principal topics here discussed were more
briefly treated in a sermon preached before the Synod of Aber
deen, and are now made public at their desire. To the end
that an argument of so great importance might be more fully
and freely canvassed than it could have been, with propriety,
in a sermon, it was judged necessary to new-model the dis
course, and to give it that form in which it now appears.
The edition of Mr. Hume's Essays, to which I always refer
in this work, is that printed at iomc^ow, in duodecimo, 1750,*
entitled. Philosophical Essays concerning Human Understand
ing. I have, since finishing this tract, seen a later edition, in
which there are a few variations. None of them appeared
to me so material as to give ground for altering the quotations
and references here used. There is indeed one alteration,
which candour required that I should mention : I have ac
cordingly mentioned it in a note."]-
The arguments of the Essayist I have endeavoured to re
fute by argument. Mere declamation I know no way of
refuting but by analyzing it ; nor do I conceive how incon
sistencies can be answered otherwise than by exposing them.
In such analysis and exposition, wliich I own, I have attempted
without ceremony or reserve, an air of ridicule is unavoid
able : But this ridicule, I am well aware, if founded in mis
representation, will at last rebormd upon myself. It is pos
sible, that, in some things, I have mistaken the author's
raeaning ; I am conscious that I have not, in any thing, de-
designedly misrepresented it.
* As this advertisement was prefixed to the first edition of the Dissertation, I
was not a little surprised to observe, that the French translator declared, in the
first sentence of his A-vis au Lecteur, that he did not know what edition of Mr.
Hume's Essays I had used in this work. On proceeding, 1 discovered that my
advertisement has not been translated by him, which makes me suspect, that, by
some accident, it had been left out of the copy which he used. _
t Page 101.

CONTENTS.

Page
Preface . . ....... 1
Introduction . . . . . , . . . j i
PART I.
Miracles are capable of Proof from Testimony, and Religious
Miracles are not less capable or this Evidence than others.
Sect. I. Mr. Hume's favourite argument is founded on a false hy
pothesis ......... 15
II. Mr. Hume charged with some fallacies in his way of manag
ing the argument .... ... 29
in. Mr. Hume himself gives up his favourite argument . . 39
IV. There is no peculiar presumption against such miracles as are
said to have been wrought in support of religion . . 43
V. There is a peculiar presumption in favour of such miracles
as are said to have been wrought in support of religion . 49
VI. Inquiry into the meaning and propriety of one of Mr. Hume's
favourite maxims . . . . . . .51
PART II.
The Miracles on which the Belief of Christianity is founded,
are sufficiently attested.
I. There is no presumption arising from human nature, against
the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of Chris
tianity ......... 56
II. There is no presumption arising from the history of manlcind,
against the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of
Christianity . . . . . . . .63
III. No miracles recorded by historians of other religions are sub
versive of the evidence arising from the miracles wrought
in proof of Christianity, or can be considered as contrary
testimony .... ..... 80

VI

CONTENTS.

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

CONTENTS OF SERMONS, &c.

Sermon I. ......

. 135

Sermon II. ......

. 197

Sermon III. ......

. 231

Sermon IV. ......

. 249

Advertisement ......

. 251

Summary of the particulars of Sermon IV.

. 299

Address to the People of Scotland, &c.

. 803

Advertisement .......

. 304

Introduction ......

. 305

Chapter I. 

. 307

Chapter 11 

. 323

Chapter III 

. 348

PREFACE.

I HERE offer to the Public a new and improved edition of
my Dissertation on Miracles, first printed in the year 1762,
together with some other Tracts related to it, as supplying
additional evidences of the truth of our religion, displaying
its amiable spirit, and manifesting its beneficial tendency, in
respect, not only of individuals, but of communities and states.
The first of these is a Sermon on the Spirit of the Gospel,
preached before the Synod of Aberdeen in 1771. The se
cond, a Sermon preached before the Society in Scotland for
Propagating Christian Knowledge in 1777 ; the scope of
which is to show, that the success of the first publishers of
the gospel is a proof of its truth. The third is a Sermon
preached at the Assizes at Aberdeen, on the happy Influence
of Rehgion on Civil Society. The fourth also is a Sermon,
on the Duty of AUegiance, preached at Aberdeen in 1776,
on the Fast-day, on account of the RebeUion in America ;
and the fifth, an Address to the People of Scotland on the
Alarms that had been raised in regard to Popery.
On the Dissertation itself I have made a few amendments,
not very material I acknowledge, yet of some use for obvi
ating objections and preventing mistakes. It has been ob
served by several, that Mr. Hume has, since the Dissertation
first appeared in print, once and again repubhshed the Essay
to which it was intended as an answer ; not only without
taking the smallest notice that any thing reasonable, or even
specious, had been urged in opposition to his doctrine, but
without making any alteration of any consequence on what
he had advanced. I know but one exception, if it shall be
thought of moment enough to be called an exception, from
this remark. What, in former editions, had been thus ex
pressed, as quoted in the Dissertation,* " Upon the whole it
appears, that no testimony for any kind of miracle can ever
* Partl., .Sect, 1.

PREFACE.

possibly amount to a probability, much less to a proof," is
made in the octavo edition, published in 1767, " Upon the
whole it appears, that no testimony for any kind of miracle
has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof."
By this more moderate declaration, Mr. Hume avoids the
contradiction there was in the sentence to the concession he
had subjoined in a note. But no correction is given to many
other sentences, which needed correction not less glaringly
than this. For this conduct it is not easy to account, unless
on the hypothesis, that he had never read the Dissertation,
or that he had so low an opinion of it, as not to tliink it con
tained any thing which either required an answer, or deserved
his notice. What follows will probably satisfy the reader that
neither of these suppositions was the fact. That Mr. Hume
had read this attempt to confute his argument, and did not
think contemptuously of it, I have his own authority to affirm ;
for, soon after its publication, I was honoured with a letter
from him, one great purpose of which was to assign his rea
sons for not intending a reply. What he writes on this sub
ject shows sufficiently, though incidentally, that contempt was
not the passion which the perusal of this tract had raised in
his mind. As there is nothing in the letter which can lead
to an unfavourable reflection, either on the understanding
or on the disposition of the writer, (for to me it appears to
have an opposite tendency,) and as it assigns his own reasons
for not engaging farther in the controversy, I have been in
duced, in justice both to him and to myself, to publish it. I
'say, in justice to him ; for I am convinced that Mr. Hume
would not have considered it as redounding to his honour, to
have the construction above mentioned put upon his silence.
Yet it must be owned, that, to those who have never heard
himself on the subject, it is by far the most plausible con
struction. The letter is word for word as follows : —
" Sir, " It has so seldom happened, that controversies in philo
sophy, much more in theology, have been carried on without
producing a personal quarrel between the parties, that I must
regard ray present situation as somewhat extraordinary, who

PREFACE.

have reason to give you thanks for the civil and obliging man
ner in which you have conducted the dispute against me, on
so interesting a subject as that ^f miracles. Any little symp
toms of vehemence, of which I formerly used the freedom to
complain, when you favoured me with a sight of the manu
script,^ are either removed, or explained away, or atoned for
by civilities, which are far beyond what I have any title to
pretend to. It will be natiural for you to imagine, that I will
fall upon some shift to evade the force of your arguments,
and to retain my former opinion in the point controverted be
tween us ; but it is impossible for me not to see the ingenuity
of your performance, and the great learning which you have
displayed against me. I consider myself as very much ho-
noui-ed in being thought worthy of an answer by a person of
so much merit ; and, as I find that the public does you jus
tice, with regard to the ingenuity and good composition of
your piece, I hope you will have no reason to repent engag
ing with an antagonist, whom perhaps, in strictness, you
might have ventured to neglect. I own to you, that I never
felt so violent an inchnation to defend myself as at present,
\\ xen I am thus fairly challenged by you ; and I think I
could find something specious, at least, to urge in my own
defence : But as I had flxed a resolution, in the beginning of
my Hfe, always to leave the pubhc to judge between my ad
versaries and me, without making any reply, I must adhere
inviolably to this resolution, othervrase my silence, on any
future occasion, would be construed to be an inability to
answer, and would be matter of triumph against me.*
" It may perhaps amuse you, to leam the flrst hint which
suggested to me that argument which you have so strenuously
* As far as I recollect, Mr. Hume, whose curious theories have raised many
able opponents, has, except in one instance, uniformly adhered to this resolution.
But what no attack on his principles, either religious or philosophical, could
effectuate, has been produced by a difference on an historical question, a point
which has indeed been long and much controverted; but as to which we may
say, with truth, that it would not be easy to conceive how the interests of indi
viduals, or of society, could at present be affected by the decision, on whichever
side it were giveu. I believe Mr. Hume's best friends wish, for his own sake,
as I do sincerely, (for I respect his talents,) that he had given no handle for this
exception. A

* PREFACE.
attacked. I was walking in the cloisters of the Jesuits' Col
lege of La Fleche, (a town in which I passed two years of my
youth,) and was engaged in conversation with a Jesuit of some
parts and leaming, who was relating to me, and urging some
nonsensical miracle performed lately in their Convent — when
I was tempted to dispute against him ; and as my head was
full of the topics of my Treatise of Human Nature, which I
was at that time composing, this argument immediately oc
curred to me, and I thought it very much gravelled my com
panion. But at last he observed to me, that it was impossible
for that argument to have any solidity, because it operated
equally against the Gospel as the Catholic miracles ; which
observation I thought proper to admit as a sufficient answer.
I believe you wUl allow, that the freedom at least of this
reasoning makes it somewhat extraordinary to have been the
produce of a Convent of Jesuits ; though perhaps you may
think that the sophistry of it savours plainly of the place of
its birth. I beg my compliments to Mrs. Campbell ; and am,
with great regard, " Sir,
" Your most obedient humble Servant,
''Edin. June 7, 1762. David Hume."
The reader will perceive, from this letter, that Mr. Hume
had not only read my book since the pubhcation, but had
perused the manuscript before. The fact was, I had sent my
papers to a very respectable clergyman in Edinburgh, still
living, who was well acquainted with that author, and who has,
since that time, eminently distinguished himself in the world
by his own writings ; of whose judgment, as I had a high and
just esteem, I was desirous to have his opinion of my piece, in
respect both of argument and of composition, before I should
venture to lay it before the Pubhc. This gentleman, in re
turn, after giving his opinion in a candid and friendly manner,
added, that as he knew I was myself a httle acquainted with
Mr. Hume, there would be at least no impropriety, if I con
sented, in his showing him the manuscript. To this I heartily
agreed ; and did it the more readily, as I thought it very pos
sible that, in some things, I might have mistaken that author's

PREFACE.

meaning ; in which case, he was surely better qualifled than
any other person to set me right. That, however, had not
been the case ; for though Mr. Hume remarks very freely on
my examination of his Essay, he does not, in a single in
stance, charge me with either misunderstanding or misre
presenting him. In returning the raanuscript, Mr. Hume
accompanied it with a letter to my fi-iend, containing such
observations as had occurred to liim in the perusal. This
letter, with the writer's permission, was transmitted to me.
It is to it he alludes in the second sentence of that which
he afterwards wrote to me, and which is inserted above.
It cannot be denied, that, in the first letter, he appeared
not a httle hurt by the freedom of the manner in which his
principles and reasoning had been canvassed. To complaints
of this kind a few hiats are subjoined, as suggesting topics
from which a sufficient answer might be drawn to some of my
refutations and objections. In regard to a few particular
expressions complained of, I have, as he justly observes, either
removed or softened thera, that I might, as rauch as possible,
avoid the offence, without irapairing the arguraent. For the
hints he has thrown out, by way of reply, I consider rayself
as indebted to him. They have suggested objections which
had not occurred to me, and which required to be obviated,
that the argument might have aU the weight, and all the
illustration of which it is capable. I did accordingly, where
it appeared requisite, introduce, and, in my judgment, refute
the suggested answer. Thus I was enabled to anticipate ob
jections, and remove difficulties, which raight have occurred
to other readers, and been thought by sorae very raomentous.
But as the manuscript had, before then, been put into the
hands of the printer at Edinburgh, I could not, at Aberdeen,
avjiil myself of those hints so easily, as by making them the
subject of notes which I could soon transmit to the printer,
with directions in regard to the passages to which they refer.
I was not a httle surprised, that I could find nothing in reply
to my refutation of his abstract and metaphysical argument
on the evidence of testimony, displayed with so much osten
tation in the flrst part of his Essay, the production of which
argument, to the pubhc, seems to have been his principal
A 2

6 PREFACE.
motive for writing on the subject. All his observations of
any moment were levelled against the answers which had been
given to his more famihar and popular topics, employed in
the second part.— The letter, which is addressed to Dr. Hugh
Blair, Edinburgh, is as follows : —
" Sir, " I have perused the ingenious performance which you
was so obhging as to put into my hands, with all the atten
tion possible ; though not perhaps with aU the seriousness
and gravity which you have so frequently recommended to
me. But the fault hes not in the piece, which is certainly
very acute, but in the subject. I know you wiU say it hes
m neither, but m myseK alone. If that be so, I am sorry to
say that I beheve it is incurable.
" I could wish that your friend had not chosen to appear
as a controversial writer, but had endeavoured to estabhsh
his principles, in general, without any reference to a parti
cular book or person ; though I own he does me a great deal
of honour, in thinking that any thing I have wrote deserves
his attention : For, besides raany inconveniences which at
tend that kind of writing, I see it is almost impossible to
preserve decency and good manners in it. This author, for
instance, says sometimes obhging things of me, much beyond
what I can presume to deserve ; and I thence conclude, that
in general he did not mean to insult me : yet I meet with
some other passages more worthy of Warburton and his fol
lowers, than of so ingenious an author.
" But as I am not apt to lose my temper, and would stiU
less inchne to do so with a friend of yours, I shall calmly con-
municate to you some remarks on the argument, since you
seem to desire it. I shall employ very few words, since a
hint will suffice to a gentleman of this author's penetration.
" Sect. 1. I would desire the author to consider, whether
the medium by which we reason concerning human testimony,
be different from that which leads us to draw any inferences
conceming other human actions : that is, our knowledge of
human nature from experience ? Or why it is different ? I
suppose we conclude an honest man wiU not lie to us, in the

PREFACE.

same manner as we conclude that he will not dieat us. As
to the youthful propensity to beheve, which is corrected by
experience ; it seems obvious, that children adopt, bhndfold,
all the opinions, principles, sentiments, and passions of their
elders, as well as credit their testimony : Xor is this more
strange, than that a hammer should maie £in impression on
clay. beet. 2. No man can have any other experience but his
own. The experience of others becomes his only by the
credit which he gives to their testimony ; which proceeds from
his own experience of human nature.
" Sect. 3. There is no contradiction in saying, that all the
testimony which ever was really given for any miracle, or ever
wiU be given, is a subject of derision ; and yet forming a
fiction or supposition of a testimony for a particular miracle,
which might not only merit attention, but amount to a fuU
proof of it : for instance, the absence of the sun during 48
hours : But reasonable men would only conclude from this
feet, that the machine of the globe was disordered during
the time.
" Psge ^. I find no difficulty to explain ray meaning, and
yet shall not probably do it in any future edition. The proof
against a miracle, as it is founded on invariable experience,
is of that species or kind of proof, which is full and certain
when taken alone, because it imphes no doubt, as is the case
with aQ probabihties ; but there are degrees of this species,
and when a weaker proof is opposed to a stronger, it is over
come. " Page 29. There is very Uttle more dehcacy in telling a
man he speaks nonsense by impHcation, than in saving so
directly. " Sect. 4. Does a man of sense run after every sUly tale of
witches, or hobgobhns, or fairies, and canvass particularly the
evidence ? I never knew any one that examined and dehbe-
rated about nonsense, who did not beheve it before the end
ofhis inquiries.
" Sect. 5. I wonder the author does not perceive the reason
why ;Mr. John Knox and Mr. Alexander Henderson did not
work as many miracles as their brethren in other churches.

PREFACE.

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

* On the observation, page 120, &c. that none of the Reformers, either abroad
or at home, had ever pretended to the power of working miracles, notwithstanding
the enthusiasm with which the Essayist charges them in his history, and notwith
standing the great facility which he affirms there is in this way of imposing upon
mankind. To this he replies as above, " / wonder the autlun- does mt perceive," &c.
My return to this will be found in a note in the Dissertation.
t The reply to the observation with regard to Mahomet, will bo found in the
place referred to, partly in the text, and partly in the note at the bottom of the
page. X In pi^e 94 of the former edition 1 had asserted, that the oracular predictions
among the Pagans, and the pretended wonders performed by Capuchins and Friars,
by itinerant or stationary teachers among the Roman Catholics, could not be deno
minated miracles ascribed to a new system of religion. This remark drew from
Mr. Hume the reply as above, " / never read;' &c. To this objection the note
on that passage is intended as an answer : whether it be a sufficient one, the
reader will judge. In any event, he will, I persuade myself, do me the justice to
own, that I have not weakened my adversary's plea by my manner of stating it.
To avoid this, I have kept as close to the objector's own words as I could pro
perly, without naming and quoting him. Beside these observations, I hardly find
any thing in the letter, having the appearance of argument, which affects my
reasoning.

PREFACE.

"I could wish your friend had not denominated me an
infidel writer, on account of ten or twelve pages which seem
to him to have that tendency ; whUe I have wrote so many
volumes on history, hterature, pohtics, trade, morals, which,
in that particular at least, are entfrely inoffensive. Is a man
to be called a drunkard, because he has been seen fuddled
once in his hfetime ?
" Having said so much to your friend, who is certainly a
very ingenious man, though a httle too zealous for a philo
sopher ; permit me also the freedom of saying a word to
yourself. Whenever I have had the pleasure to be in your
company, if the discourse turned upon any common subject
of hterature or reasoning, I always parted from you both
entertained and instructed. But when the conversation was
diverted by you from this channel towards the subject of
your profession ; though I doubt not but your intentions
were very friendly towards me, I own I never received the
same satisfaction : I was apt to be tired ; and you to be
angry. I would therefore wish for the future, wherever my
good fortune throws me in your way, that these topics should
be forborne between us. I have, long since, done with all
inquiries on such subjects, and am become incapable of in
struction; though I own no one is more capable of conveying
it than yourself.
" After having given you the hberty of communicating to
your friend what part of this letter you think proper, I
remain, " Sir,
" Your most obedient humble Servant,
" David Hume."
It may not be improper, in order, as much as possible, to
prevent misapprehension, to add, that though I know that
several pieces on the same subject have been pubhshed since
the first edition of my Dissertation, I have not had the good
fortune to see any of them, except one printed along with
other Tracts by the late learned and accurate Dr. Price.
There is one in particular by Dr. Farmer, which I have
oftener than once inquired about, but have not yet been

10 PREFACE.
lucky enough to meet with. This, perhaps, is imputable to
the lateness of my inquiries ; for I acknowledge that I was
so much engrossed by other studies at the time of its first
appearing, that I did not thmk of reading more on that
article, till an apphcation to myself, for a new edition of the
Dissertation, suggested the propriety of consulting what
may have been written by learned men on the subject, poste
rior to the first edition. From some other works I have read
of Dr. Farmer's, I have reason to beheve that the piece
alluded to is both ingenious and acute; and from some
account of it, which I remember to have perused in a Review,
I have ground to suspect that his principles and mine on
that subject do not in all things correspond. At the same
time I recoUect to have thought, when reading the account,
that, on some points, the difference between us was raore in
expression than in sentiment. My only reason for men
tioning this circumstance here, is to prevent the misconstruc
tion of my silence in regard to him and other writers on the
same subject, whose sentiments may either coincide with
mine, or stand in opposition to them. My silence in such
cases proceeds neither from contempt nor ixova.policy. They
will corae nearer the truth, and do me more justice, who
shall ascribe it to ignorance.
I shall only add, with respect to the gentleman who did
me the honour to translate my Dissertation into French, that
though, upon the whole, he has acquitted himself admirably
of the task he had undertaken, and has, in many things,
improved upon his original, there are a few places in which
he seems not perfectly to have apprehended my meaning.
The cause of his mistake I find to have sometimes been an
ambiguity or obscurity in the Enghsh expression I had em
ployed. In such cases I have endeavoured to correct the
fault in this edition, and give to the diction all the perspi
cuity possible. There is no quahty in style raore iraportant,
whatever be the subject ; but in arguraentative v?ri tings it is
indispensable.

INTRODUCTION.

" Christianity," it has been said, " is not founded in
argument." If it were only meant by these words, that the
rehgion of Jesus could not, by the single aid of reasoning,
produce its full effect upon the heart, every true Christian
would cheerfully subscribe to them. No arguments, unac
companied by the influences of the Holy Spirit, can convert
the soiil from sin to God ; though, even, to such conversion,
arguments are, by the agency of the Spirit, rendered subser
vient. Again, if we were to understand, by this aphorism,
that the principles of our rehgion could never have been dis
covered by the natural and unassisted faculties of man ; this
position, I presume, would be as httle disputed as the former.
But if, on the contrary, under the colour of an ambiguous
expression, it is intended to insinuate, that those principles,
from their very nature, can admit no rational evidence of
their truth, (and this, by the way, is the only meaning which
can avail our antagonists,) the gospel, as weU as comraon
sense, loudly reclaims against it.
The Lord Jesus Christ, the author of our rehgion, often
argued, both with his disciples and with his adversaries, as
vrith reasonable men, on the principles of reason. With
out this faculty, he well knew, they could not be susceptible
either of religion or of law. He argued from prophecy, and
the conformity of the event to the prediction.* He argued
from the testimony of John the Baptist, who was generally
acknowledged to be a prophet.f He argued frora the mira
cles which he himself performed,^ as uncontrovertible evi
dences that God Almighty operated by him, and had sent
him. He expostulates with his enemies, for not using their
* Luke x»v. 25, &c. ; John v. 39 and 46. t ^ohn v. 32, 33.
t John T. 36 ; x. 25, 37, 38 ; xiv. 10, 11.

12 INTRODUCTION.
reason on this subject. Why, says he, even of yourselves,
judge ye not what is right ? * In like manner we are called
upon by the apostles of our Lord, to act the part of wise men,
Eini judge impartially of what they say.-\ Those who do so,
are highly coraraended for the candour and prudence they
discover in an affair of so great consequence. J We are
even coraraanded, to be always ready to give an answer to
every man that asketh us a reason of our hope ; § in meekness
to instruct them that oppose themselves ;\\ and earnestly to
contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints.*^
God has neither in natural nor in revealed religion left him
self without witness ; but has in both given moral and exter
nal evidence, sufficient to convince the impartial, to silence
the gainsayer, and to render inexcusable the atheist and the
unbehever. This evidence it is our duty to attend to, and
candidly to examine. We must prove all things, as we are
expressly enjoined in holy writ, if we would ever hope to
holdfast that which is good.**
Thus much I thought proper to premise, not to serve as an
apology for the design of this Tract, (the design surely needs
no apology, whatever the world may judge of the execution,)
but to expose the shallowness of that pretext, under which
the advocates for infldelity, in this age, commonly take shelter.
Whilst therefore we enforce an argument, which, in support
of our religion, was so frequently insisted on by its divine
founder, we wUl not dread the reproachful titles of dangerous
friends, or disguised enemies of revelation. Such are the titles
which the writer, whose sentiments I propose in these papers
to canvass, has bestowed on his antagonists ;f f not, I believe,
through mahce against thera, but as a sort of excuse for him
self, or at least a handle for introducing a very strange and
unmeaning comphment to the rehgion of his country, after
a very bold attempt to undermine it. We will however do
him the justice to ovra, that he hath put it out of our power
• Luke xii. 57. + 1 Cor. x. 15. + Acts xvii. 11.
§ 1 Pet. iii. 15. II 2 Tim. ii. 25. "H Jude iii.
** 1 Thess. V. 21. ff Page 204.

INTRODUCTION. 13
to retort the charge. No intelligent person, who hath care
fully perused the Essay on Miracles, will impute to the
author either of those ignominious characters.
My primary intention in undertaking an answer to the ;
aforesaid Essay hath invariably been, to contribute all in my
power to the defence of a religion, which I esteem the great
est blessing conferred by Heaven on the sons of men. It is
at the same time a secondary raotive of considerable weight, to
vindicate philosophy, at least that most important branch of ,
it which ascertains the rules of reasoning, from those absurd
consequences which this author's theory naturally leads us to.
The theme is arduous. The adversary is both subtle and
powerful. With such an adversary, I should on very unequal
terras enter the hsts, had I not the advantage of being on the
side of truth. And em eminent advantage this doubtless is,
as it requires but moderate abihties to speak in defence of a
good cause. A good cause demands but a distinct exposi
tion and a fafr hearing ; and we may say, with great pro
priety, it will speak for itself. But to adorn error vrith the
semblance of truth, and make the worse appear the better
reason, requires all the arts of ingenuity and invention ; arts
in which few or none have been more expert than Mr. Hume.
It is much to be regretted, that, on some occasions, he has so
apphed them.

DISSERTATION ON MIRACLES.

PART I.

MIRACLES ARE CAPABLE OF PROOF FROM TESTIMONY, AND
RELIGIOUS MIRACLES ARE NOT LESS CAPABLE OF THIS
EVIDENCE THAN OTHERS. SECTION I.
Mr. Hume's favourite argument is founded on a false
hypothesis.
It is not the aim of this author to evince, that miracles, if
admitted to be true, would not be a sufficient evidence of a di
vine mission : his design is solely to prove, that miracles which
have not been the objects of our ovra senses, at least such as
are said to have been performed in attestation of any rehgious
system, cannot reasonably be admitted byus, or beheved on
the testimony of others. " A miracle," says he, " supported by
any human testimony, is more properly a subject of derision
than of argument."* Again, in the conclusion of his Essay,
" Upon the whole it appears that no testimony for any kind
of mfracle can ever possibly amount to a probabihty, much
less to a proof, "f Here he concludes against all miracles :
" Any kind of mfracle" are his express words. He seems,
however, immediately sensible, that, in asserting this, he has
gone too far ; and therefore, in the end of the same paragraph,
retracts part of what he had advanced in the beginning: " We
may estabhsh it as a maxim, that no human testimony can
• Page 194. t Page 202.— >See Preface, p. 2.

16 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF
have such force as to prove a mfracle, and raake it a just
foundation for any systera of rehgion." In the note on this
passage he has these words : " I beg the hmi tation here made
may be remarked, when I say, that a miracle can never be
proved, so as to be the foundation of a system of rehgion :
For I own that otherwise there raay possibly be miracles, or
violations of the usual course of nature, of such a kind as to
admit of proof from human testimony."
So much for that cardinal point which the Essayist labours
so strenuously to evince ; and which, if true, will not only be
subversive of revelation, as received by us on the testiraony
of the apostles, and prophets, and martyrs, but will directly
lead to this general conclusion, " That it is irapossible for
God Almighty to give a revelation, attended with such evi
dence that it can be reasonably beheved in after-ages, or even
in the sarae age, by any person who hath not been an eye-
vritness of the miracles by which it is supported."
Now by what wonderful process of reasoning is this strange
conclusion made out ? Several topics have been employed for
the purpose by this subtle disputant. Among these there is
one principal argument, which he is at great pains to set off
to the best advantage. Here indeed he claims a particular
concern, having discovered it himself. His title to the honour
of the discovery, it is not ray business to controvert ; I con
fine myself entirely to the consideration of its importance. To
this end I shall now lay before the reader the unanswerable
argument, as he flatters himself it vriU be found ; taking the
freedom, for brevity's sake, to compendize the reasoning, and
to omit whatever is said merely for illustration. To do other
wise, would lay rae under the necessity of transcribing the
greater part of the Essay.
" Experience," says he, " is our only guide in reasoning
concerning matters of fact.* Experience is in some things
variable, in some things uniform. A variable experience gives
rise only to probabiHty; an uniform experience amounts to
a proof.f Probabihty always supposes an opposition of ex
periments and observations, where the one side is found to
overbalance the other, and to produce a degree of evidence
* Page 174. t Page 175, 176.

PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 17
proportioned tothe superiority. In such cases we must balance
the opposite experiments, and deduct the lesser number from
the greater, in order to know the exact force of the superior
evidence.* Our behef or assurance of any fact, from the
report of eye-vritnesses, is derived from no other principle
than experience ; that is, our observation of the veracity of
human testimony, and of the usual conformity of facts to the
reports of witnesses.f Now if the fact attested partakes of the
marvellous, if it is such as has seldom fallen under our obser
vation, here is a contest of two opposite experiences, of which
the one destroys the other, as far as its force goes, and the
superior can only operate on the mind by the force which
remains. The very same principle of experience, which gives
a certain degree of assurance in the testimony of witnesses,
gives us also, in this case, another degree of assurance against
the 'fact which they endeavour to estabhsh ; from which con
tradiction there necessarily arises a counterpoise, and mutual
destruction of belief and authority.}; Further, if the fact
aflirmed by the witnesses, instead of being only marvellous, is
really miraculous : if, besides, the testimony considered apart
and in itself amounts to an entfre proof; in that case there is
proof against proof, of which the strongest raust prevail, but
still vrith a diminution of its force, in proportion to that of its
antagonist. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature ;
and as a flrm and unalterable experience has established these
laws, the proof against a rairacle, from the very nature of the
fact, is as entire, as any argument from experience can possi
bly be imagined.§ And if so, it is an undeniable consequence,
that it cannot be surmounted by any proof whatever from
testimony. A miracle, therefore, however attested, can never
be rendered credible, even in the lowest degree." — This, in
my apprehension, is the sum of the argument on which my
ingenious opponent rests the strength of his cause.
In answer to this I propose first to prove, that the whole is
built upon a false hypothesis. That the evidence of testimony
is derived solely from experience, which seems to be an axiom
of this writer, is at least not so incontestable a truth as he
• Page 176. t Ibid. t Page 179. § Pago 180.

18 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF
supposes it : that, on the contrary, testimony has a natural and
origmal influence on behef, antecedent to experience, will, I
imagine, easily be erinced. For this purpose let it be re
marked, that the earhest assent, which is given to testimony
by children, and which is previous to aU experience, is in fact
the most imhraited ; that, by a gradual experience of mankind,
it is graduaUy contracted, and reduced to narrower boimds.
To say therefore that our diffidence in testimony is the
result of experience, is more philosophical, because more
consonant to tmth, than to say that our faith in testimony
has this foundation. Accordingly, youth, which is inex
perienced, is credulous ; age, on the contrary, is distrustful.
Exactly the reverse would be the case, were this author's
doctrine just.
Perhaps it will be said. If experience is allowed to be the
only measure of a logical or reasonable faith in testimony, the
question. Whether the influence of testimony on belief be ori
ginal or derived ? if it be not entirely verbal, is at least of no
iraportance in the present controversy. But I maintain it is
of the greatest importance. The difference between us is by
no means so inconsiderable, as to a careless view it may ap
pear. According to his philosophy, the presumption is against
the testimony, or (which araounts to the same thing) there is
not the smallest presumption in its favour, till properly sup
ported by experience. According to the explication given
above, there is the strongest presumption in favour of the tes
timony, till properly refuted by experience.
Ifit be objected by the author, that such afaith in testimony
as is prior to experience, must be unreasonable and unphilo
sophical, because unaccountable ; I should reply, that there
are, and must be, in human nature, some original grounds of
behef, beyond which our researches cannot proceed, and of
which therefore it is vain to attempt a rjatjonal account. I
should desire the objector to give a reasonable account of his
faith in this principle, that similar causes always produce si
milar effects ; or in this, that the course of nature will be the
same to-morrow that it was yesterday, and is to-day : Prin
ciples, which he himself acknowledges, are neither intuitively
evident, nor deduced from premises ; and which nevertheless

PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 19
we are under a necessity of presupposing in all our reasoning
from experience.* I should desire him to give a reasonable
account of his faith in the clearest infoi-mations of his me
mory, which he will flnd it ahke^impossible either to doubt or
to explain. Indeed, memory bears nearly the same relation
to experience that testimony does. Certain it is, that the
defects and misrepresentations of memory are often corrected
by experience. Yet should any person hence infer, that me
mory derives all its evidence from experience, he would fall
into a manifest absurdity. For, on the contrary, experience
derives its origin solely from memory, and is nothing else but
the general maxims or conclusions we have formed, from the
comparison of particular facts remembered. If we had not
previously given an implicit faith to raemory, we had never
been able to acquire experience. When therefore we say that
memory, which gives bfrth to experience, may nevertheless, in
some instances, be corrected hy experience, no more is im
phed, but that the inferences, formed from the raost hvely and
perspicuous reports of raeraory, sometimes serve to rectify
the mistakes which arise from such reports of this faculty as
are most languid and confused. Thus raemory, in these in
stances, may be said to correct itself. The case is often rauch
the same vrith experience and testimony, as will appear raore
clearly in the second section, where I shall consider the am
biguity of the word experience, as used by this author.
But how, says Mr. Hume, is testimony then to be refuted ?
Principally in one or other of these two ways •.—first, and
most directly, By contradictory testimony ; that is, when an
equal or greater number of witnesses, equally or more credi
ble, attest the contrary : secondly. By such evidence, either of
the incapacity or of the bad character of the witnesses, as is
sufficient to discredit them. What, rejoins my antagonist,
cannot then testimony be confuted by the extraordinary na
ture of the fact attested ? Has this consideration no weight at
all ? — That this consideration has no weight at all, it was never
my intention to maintain ; that by itself it can very rarely, if
ever, amount to a refutation against ample and unexception-
• Sceptical Doubts, Part 2.
B

20 MIRACLES' CAPABLE OF
able testimony, I hope to make extremely plain. Who has
ever denied, that the uncommonness of an event related is a
presumption against its reahty ; and that chiefly on account
of the tendency, which, expeSRence teaches us, and this author
has observed, some people have to sacrifice truth to the love
of wonder ?* The question only is. How far does this pre
sumption extend? In the extent which Mr. Hurae has as
signed it, he has greatly exceeded the hmits of nature, and
consequently of all just reasoning.
In his opinion, " When the fact attested is such as has
seldom fallen under our observation, there is a contest of two
opposite experiences, of which the one destroys the other, as
far as its force goes, and the superior can only operate on the
mind by the force which remains."f — There is a metaphysical,
I had almost said, a magical balance and arithmetic, for the
weighing and subtracting of eridence, to which he frequent
ly recurs, and with which he seeras to fancy he can perform
wonders. I wish he had been a httle more explicit in teach
ing us how these rare inventions must be used. When a
writer of genius and elocution expresses himself in general
terms, he will flnd it an easy matter to give a plausible appear
ance to things the most unintelhgible in nature. Such some
times is this author's way of writing. In the instance before
us, he is particularly happy in his choice of nietaphors. They
are such as are naturally adapted to prepossess a reader in his
favour. What candid person can think of suspecting the
impartiahty of an inqufrer, who is for weighing in the scales
of reason all the arguments on both sides ? Who can suspect
his exactness, who determines every ihmg'bj a, numerical com
putation? Hence it is, that to a superflcial riew his reasoning
appears scarcely inferior to demonstration ; but, when nar
rowly canvassed, it is impracticable to flnd an apphcation, of
which, in a consistency with good sense, it is capable.
In confirmation of the remark just now made, let us try
how his manner of arguing on this point can be apphed to a
particular instance. For this purpose I make the foUovring
supposition. I have hved for some years near a ferry. It
consists with my knowledge, that the passage-boat has a thou-
* P^s" '84. .,. p^gg J79_

PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 21
sand times crossed the river, and as many times retumed safe.
An unknown man, whom I have just now met, teUs me, in a
serious manner, that it is lost ; and affirms, that he himself,
standing on the bank, was a spectator of the scene ; that he
saw the passengers carried down the stream, and the boat over
whelmed. No person who is influenced in his judgraent of
things, not by philosophical subtleties, but by coraraon sense,
a much surer guide, will hesitate to declare, that in such a
testimony I have probable evidence of the fact asserted. But
if, leaving common sense, I shall recur to metaphysics, and
submit to be tutored in my way of judging by the Essayist, he
vrill remind me, " that there is here a contest of two opposite
experiences, of which the one destroys the other, as far as its
force goes, and the superior can only operate on the mind by
the force which remains." I ara warned, that " the very
same principle of experience, which gives rae a certain degree
of assurance in the testimony of the witness, gives me also, in
this case, another degree of assurance against the fact which
he endeavours to estabhsh ; from which contradiction there
arises a counterpoise, and mutual destruction of behef and
authority."* Well, I would know the truth, if possible ; and
that I may conclude fafrly and philosophically, how must I
balance these opposite experiences, as you are pleased to term
them ?- Must I set the thousand, or rather the two thousand
instances of the one side, against the single instance of the
other ? In that case it is easy to see, I have nineteen hundred
and ninety-nine degrees of eridence, that my information is
false. Or is it necessary, in order to raake it credible, that the
single instance have two thousand times as much eridence as
any of the opposite instances, supposing them equal among
themselves ; or supposing them unequal, as much as all the
two thousand put together, that there may be at least an
equihbrium ? This is impossible : I had for sorae of those in
stances the eridence of sense, which hardly any testimony can
equal, much less exceed. Once more, must the evidence I
have of the veracity of the witness, be a full equivalent to the
two thousand instances which oppose the fact attested ? By j
the supposition, I have no positive evidence for or against his
* Page 179.
b2

22 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF
) veracity, he being a person whom I never saw before. Yet ii
,' none of these be the balancing which the Essay writer means,
I despair of being able to discover his meaning.
Is then so weak a proof from testimony incapable of being
refuted? I am far from thinking so ; though even so weak a
proof could not be overturned by such a contrary experience.
,, How then may it be overturned ? First. By contradictory
' testimony. Going homewards I m.eet another person, whom I
know as httle as I did the former: flnding that he comes from
the ferry, I ask him concerning the truth of the report. He
affirras, that the whole is a flction ; that he saw the boat, and
all in it, come safe to land. This would do more to turn
the scale, than flfty thousand such contrary instances as were
supposed. Yet this would not reraove suspicion. Indeed, if
we were to consider the raatter abstractly, one would think,
that all suspicion would be reraoved : that the two opposite
testimonies would destroy each other, and leave the mind en
tirely under the influence of its former experience, in the same
state as if neither testiraony had been given. But this is by
no means consonant to fact. When once testimonies are in
troduced, former experience is generally of no account in the
reckoning ; it is but hke the dust of the balance, which hath
not any sensible effect upon the scales. The mind hangs in
suspense between the two contrary declarations, and considers
it as one to one, or equal in probability, that the report is true,
or that it is false. Afterwards a third, and a fourth, and a
flfth confirm the declaration of the second. I am then quite
at ease. Is this the only effectual way of confuting false
testimony ? No. I suppose again, that instead of meeting
with any person who can inform rae conceming the fact, I get
from some, who are acquainted with the witness, information
conceming his character. They tell me, he is notorious for
lying : and that his lies are coraraonly forged, not with a view
to interest, but merely to gratify a malicious pleasure which
he takes in alarming strangers. This, though not so dfrect a
refutation as the forraer, will be sufficient to discredit his re
port. In the former, where there is testimony contradicting
testimony, the author's metaphor of a balance may be used
with propriety. The things weighed are homogeneal ; and

PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 23
when contradictory eridences are presented to the mind, tend
ing to prove, positions which cannot be both true, the mind
must decide on the comparative strength of the opposite evi
dences, before it yield to either.
But is this the case in the supposition first made ? By no
means. The two thousand instances formerly known, and
the single instance attested, as they relate to different facts,
though of a contrary nature, are not contradictory. There
is no inconsistency in beliering both. There is no incon
sistency in receiring the last on weaker eridence, (if it be
sufficient eridence,) not only than all the forraer together,
but even than any of them singly. Will it be said, that
though the former instances are not themselves contradictory
to the fact recently attested, they lead to a conclusion that
is contradictory ? I answer. It is true, that the experienced
frequency of the conjunction of any two events, leads the
mind to infer a sirailar conjunction in time to come : But
let it at the same time be remarked, that no raan considers/
this inference, as having equal eridence with any one of those!
past events on which it is founded, and for the behef of which'
we have had sufficient testimony. Before, then, the method
recommended by this author can turn to any account, it
will be necessaiy for him to compute and deterraine, with pre
cision, how many hundreds, how raany thousands, I might say
how many myriads of instances, will confer such eridence
on the conclusion founded on them, as will prove an equipoise
for the testiraony of one ocular vritness, a man of probity, in
a case of which he is allowed to be a competent judge.
There is in arithmetic a rule called reduction, by which
numbers of different denominations are brought to the same
denomination. If this ingenious author shaU invent a rule
in logic analogous to this, for reducing different classes of
eridence to the same class, he wiU bless the world with a
most important discovery. Then indeed he will have the
honour to estabhsh an everlasting peace in the repubhc of
letters ; then we shall have the happiness to see controversy
of every kind, theological, historical, phUosophical, receive
its mortal wound : for though, in every question, we could
not even then determine, with certainty, on which side the

24 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF
truth lay, we could always determine (and that is the utmost
the nature of the thing admitsj with as much accuracy as
geometry and algebra can afford, on which side the proba
bihty lay, and m what degree. But tiU this metaphysical
reduction be discovered, it wiU be impossible, where the evi
dences are of different orders, to ascertain by subtraction the
superior eridence. We would not but esteem him a no
rice Ul arithmetic, who being asked, whether seven pounds
or eleven pence make the greater sum, and what is the dif
ference, should, by attending solely to the numbers, and
overlooking the value, conclude that eleven pence were the
greater, and that it exceeded the other by four. Must we
not be equal norices in reasoning, if we foUow the same
method ? Must we not fall into as great blunders ? Of as
little significancy do we find the balance. Is the value of
things heterogeneal to be determined merely by weight ?
Shall silver be weighed against lead, or copper against iron ?
If, in exchange for a piece of gold, I were offered some
counters of baser metal, is it not obrious, that till I know
the comparative value of the metals, in. vain shall I attempt
to find what is equivalent, by the assistance either of scales
or of arithmetic ?
It is an excellent observation, and much to the purpose,
wliich the late learned and pious Bishop of Durham, in his
admirable performance on the Analogy of Rehgion to the
Course of Nature, hath made on this subject. " There is a
very strong presumption," says he, " against the most ordi
nary facts, before the proof of them, which yet is overcome
by alraost any proof. There is a presumption of millions to
one against the story of Csesar, or of any other man. For
suppose a number of coramon facts, so and so circumstanced,
of which one had no kind of proof, should happen to come
into one's thoughts, every one would, vrithout any possible
doubt, conclude thera to be false. The hke may be said of
a single common fact."* What then, I may subjoin, shall
be said of an uncommon fact ? And that an uncommon fact
raay be proved by testimony, has not yet been made a ques
tion. But, in order to illustrate the observation above cited,
* Part II. chap. ii. b. 3.

PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 25
suppose, first, one at random mentions, that at such an horn-,
of such a day, ui such a part of the heavens, a comet will
appear; the conclusion from experience would not be as
milhons, but as infinite to one, that the proposition is false.
Instead of this, suppose you have the testimony of but one
ocular ^ritness, a man of integrity, and skUled in astronomy,
that at such an hour, of such a day, in such a part of the
heavens, a comet did appear ; you wUl not hesitate one mo
ment to give him credit. Yet all the presumption that was
against the tmth of the first supposition, though almost as
strong eridence as experience can afford, was also against
the truth of the second, before it was thus attested.
Is it necessary to urge further, in support ofthis doctrine,
that as the water in the canal cannot be made to rise higher
than the foimtain whence it flows, so it is impossible that the
eridence of testimony, if it proceeded from experience, should
ever exceed that of experience, which is its source ? Yet that
it greatly exceeds this eridence, appears not only from what
has been observed aheady, but stiU more from what I shaU
have occasion to observe in the sequel. One may safely
affirm, that no conceivable conclusion from experience can
possess stronger eridence, than that which ascertains us of
the regular succession and duration of day and night. The
reason is, the instances on which this experience is founded,
are both without number and without exception. Yet even
this conclusion, the author admits, as we shaU see in the
third section, may, in a particidar instance, not only be sur
mounted, but even annihilated by testimony.
Lastly, let it be observed, that the immediate conclusion
from experience is always general, and runs thus : — " This is
the ordinary course of nature." " Such an event may rea
sonably be expected, where all the cfrcumstances are entfrely
simUar." But when we descend to particulars, the conclu
sion becomes weaker, being more indfrect. For though aU
the known cfrcumstances be simUar, aU the actual cfrcum
stances may not be simUar ; nor is it possible in any case to
be assured (our knowledge of tilings being at best but super
ficial) that jJl the actual cfrcumstances are known to us.
On the contrary, the dfrect conclusion from testimony is

26 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF
always particular, and runs thus:— "This is the fact in such
an individual instance." The remark now made wUl serve
both to throw hght on some of the preceding observations,
and to indicate the proper sphere of each species of evidence.
Experience of the past is the only rule whereby we can judge
concerning the future: And as, when the sun is below the
horizon, we must do the best we can by the hght of the
moon, or even of the stars; so, in aU cases where we have no
testimony, we are under a necessity of recurring to expe
rience, and of balancing or numbering contrary observa
tions.* But the eridence resulting hence, even in the clearest
cases, is acknowledged to be so weak, compared with that
which results from testimony, that the strongest conriction,
built merely on the former, may be overturned by the
slightest proof exhibited by the latter. Accordingly, the
future has, in all ages and nations, been denominated the
prorince pf conjecture and uncertainty.
* Wherever such balancing or numbering can take place, the opposite evidences
must be entirely similar. It will rarely assist us in judging of facts supported
by testimony ; for even where contradictory testimonies corae to be considered,
you will hardly find that the characters of the witnesses on the opposite sides are
so precisely equal, as that an arithmetical operation will evolve the credibility.
In matters of pure experience it has often place. Hence the computations tbat
have been made of the value of annuities, insurances, and several other com
mercial articles. In calculations concerning chances, the degree of probability
may be determined with mathematical exactness. I shall here take the liberty,
though the matter be not essential to the design of this tract, to correct an over
sight in the Essayist, who always supposes that, where contrary evidences must
be balanced, the probability lies in the remainder or surplus, when the less num
ber is subtracted from the greater. The probability does not consist in the sur
plus, but iu the ratio, or geometrical proportion, which the numbers on the op
posite sides bear to each other. I explain myself thus. In favour of one sup
posed event there are 100 similar instances, against it SO. In another case
under consideration, the favourable instances are 60, and only 10 unfavourable.
Though the diiference, or arithmetical proportion, which is 50, be the same in
both cases, the probability is by no means equal, as the author's way of reasoning
implies. The probability of the first event is as 100 to 50, or 2 to 1. The pro
bability of the second is as 60 to 10, or 6 to 1. Consequently, on comparing
the different examples, though both be probable, the second is thrice as probable
as the first. I am sensible that the precise degree of probability is not entirely
determined, even by the ratio. There are other circumstances- to be considered,
where the utmost accuracy is requisite : but it does not appear necessary, in the
present inquiry, to enter deeper into the subject. See Dr. Price's Dissertation,
Sect. 2.

PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 27
From what has been said, the attentive reader will easily
discover, that the author's argument against miracles has
not the least affinity to the argument used by Dr. Tillotson
against transubstantiation, with which Mr. Hume has intro
duced his subject. Let us hear the argument, as it is re
lated in the Essay, from the WTitings of the Archbishop. " It
is acknowledged on all hands," says that learned prelate,
" that the aiithority either of the scripture or of tradition is
founded merely on the testimony of the apostles, who were
eye-vritnesses to those mfracles of our Sariour by which he
proved his divine mission. Our eridence then for the truth
of the Christian rehgion is less than the eridence for the
truth of our senses ; because even in the first authors of our
rehgion it was no greater ; and it is evident, it raust dimin
ish in passing from them to their disciples ; nor can any
one be so certain of the truth of their testimony, as of the
immediate objects of his senses. But a weaker eridence can
never destroy a stronger ; and therefore, were the doctrine
of the real presence ever so clearly revealed in scripture, it
were directly contrary to the rules of just reasoning to give
our assent to it. It contradicts sense, though both the
scripture and tradition, on which it is supposed to be built,
carry not such eridence with thera as sense, when they are
considered raerely as extemal eridences, and are not brought
home to every one's breast by the immediate operation of
the Holy Spfrit." * That the evidence of testimony is less
than the eridence of sense, is undeniable.  Sense is the
source of that eridence, which is first transferred to the
memory of the indiridual, as to a general reservoir, and
thence transmitted to others by the channel of testimony, f
That the original eridence can never gain any thing, but |
must lose, by the transmission, is beyond dispute. What ?
has been rightly perceived, may he misremembered ; what
is rightly reraembered, may, through incapacity, or through
ill intention, be misreported ; and what is rightly reported,
may be misunderstood. In any of these four ways, therefore, i
either by defect of raemory, of elocution, or of veracity in '
the relator, or by misapprehension in the hearer, there is a
* Page 173, 174.

28 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF
chance that the tmth received by the information of the
senses may be misrepresented or mistaken : now, every such
chance occasions a real dirainution of the eridence. That
the sacraraental elements are bread and wine, not flesh and
blood, our sight and touch and taste and smeU concur in
testifying. If these senses are not to be credited, the apostles
themselves could not have eridence of the mission of their
Master. For the greatest extemal eridence they had, or
could have, of his mission, was that which thefr senses gave
them of the reality of his mfracles. But whatever strength
there is in this argument, with regard to the apostles, the
argument, with regard to us, who, for those miracles, have
only the eridence, not of our own senses, but of thefr testi
mony, is incoraparably stronger. In thefr case, it is sense
contradicting sense ; in ours, it is sense contradicting testi
mony. But what relation has this to the author's argument ?
None at aU. Testimony, it is acknowledged, is a weaker
eridence than sense. But it has been afready evinced, that
its eridence for particular facts is infinitely stronger than that
which the general conclusions from experience can afford
us. Testiraony holds directly of memory and sense. What
ever is duly attested, must be remembered by the witness ;
whatever is duly remembered, raust once have been perceived.
But nothing similar takes place vrith regard to experience,
nor can testimony, with any appearance of meamng, be said
to hold of it.
Thus I have shown, as I proposed, that the author's rea
soning proceeds on a false hypothesis. — It supposes testimony
to derive its eridence solely from experience, wliich is false. —
It supposes, by consequence, that contrary observations have a
weight fri opposmg testunony, which the first and most ac
knowledged principles of human reason, or, if you hke the
term better, comraon sense, eridently shows that they have
not.-— It assigns a mle for discovering the superiority of con
trary eridences, which, ui the latitude there given it, tends
to mislead the judgment, and which it is impossible, by any
exphcation, to render of real use.

PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 29

SECTION II.
Mr. Hume charged ivith some fallaeies in his way of
managing the argument.
In tlie Essay there is frequent mention of the word expe
rience, and much use made of it. It is strange that the author
has not favoured us with the definition of a term of so much
moment to his argument. This defect I shaU endeavour to
supply ; and the rather, as the word appears to be equivocal,
and to be used by the Essayist in two very different senses.
The first and most proper signification of the word, which,
for distinction's sake, I shall caU personal experience, is that
given in the preceding section. " It is," as was observed,
" founded in memory, and consists solely of the general max
ims or conclusions that each indiridual hath formed from the
comparison of the particular facts reraerabered by him." In
the other signification, in which the word is sometimes taken,
and which I shaU distinguish by the term derived, it may be
thus defined : — " It is founded in testimony, and consists not
only of aU the experiences of others, which have through
that channel been communicated to us, but of all the general
maxims or conclusions we have formed from the comparison
of particular facts attested."
In proposing his argument, the author would surely be
understood to mean only persowa^ experience ; otherwise, his
making testimony derive its hght from an experience whicli
derives its hght from testimony, would be introducing what
logicians term a circle in causes. It would exhibit the sarae
things alternately, as causes and effects of each other. Yet
nothing can be more limited than the sense which is convey
ed under the term experience, in the first acceptation. The
merest clown or peasant derives incomparably more know
ledge from testimony, and the communicated experience of
others, than, in the longest life, he could have amassed out of
the treasure of his own memory. Nay, to such a scanty por
tion the savage himself is not confined. If that therefore must
be the mle, the only rule, by which every testimony is ulti-

30 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF
mately to be judged, our belief in matters of fact must have
very narrow bounds. No testimony ought to have any weight
with us, that does not relate an event, simUar at least to some
one observation wHch we ourselves have made. For exam
ple, that there are such people on the earth as negroes, could
not, on that hypothesis, be rendered credible to one who
had never seen a negro, not even by the most numerous and
the most unexceptionable attestations. Against the admission
of such testimony, however strong, the whole force of the
author's argument evidently operates. But that innumerable
absurdities would flow from this principle, I might easily
evince, did I not think the task superfluous.
The author himseK is aware of the consequences ; and
therefore, in whatever sense he uses the term experience in
proposing his argument, in prosecuting it, he, with great dex
terity, shifts the sense, and, ere the reader is apprised, insi
nuates another. " It is a miracle," says he, "that a dead
man should corae to life, because that has never been observed
in any age or country. There raust therefore be an uniform
experience against every rairaculous event, otherwise the event
would not raerit that appellation."* Here the phrase, an
uniform experience against an event, in the latter clause, is
imphcitly defined in the former, not what has never been
observed by us, but (mark his words) what has never been
observed in any age or country. Now, what has been
observed, and what has not been observed, in all ages and
countries, pray how can you. Sir, or I, or any man, come
to the knowledge of ? Only I suppose by testimony, oral
or written. The personal experience of every individual is
hmited to but a part of one age, and commonly to a narrow
spot of one country. If there be any other way of being
made acquainted with facts, it is to me, I own, an impene
trable secret ; I have no apprehension of it. If there be not
any, what shaU we make of that cardinal point, on which
your argument turns ? It is in plain language, " Testimony
is not entitled to the least degree of faith, but as far as it is
supported by such an extensive experience as, if we had not
had a prerious and independent faith in testimony, we could
never have acquired." * Page 181.

PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 31
How natiu'al is the transition from one sophism to another!
You wiU soon be convmced of this, if you attend but a little
to the strain of the argument. " A mfracle," says he, " is a
riolation of the laws of nature ; and as a flrm and unalterable
experience hath estabhshed these laws, the proof against a
mfracle is as entire as any arguraent frora experience can
possibly be imagined."* Again, "As an uniform experience
amounts to a proof, there is here a dfrect and full proof, from
the nature of the fact, against the existence of any mfracle. "f
I must once more ask the author. What is the precise meaning
of the -woiisjirm, unalterable, uniform ? An experience that
adnuts no exception, is surely the only experience which can
with propriety be terraed uniform, firm, unalterable. Now
since, as was remarked above, the far greater part of this
experience, which coraprises every age and every country,
must be derived to us frora testimony ; that the experience
may he firm, uniform, unalterable, there must be no contrary
testimony whatever. Yet, by the author's own hypothesis, the
mfracles he would thus confute are supported by testimony.
At the same time, to give strength to his argument, he is
under a necessity of supposing, that there is no exception from
the testimonies against them. Thus he falls into that paralo
gism, which is called begging the question. What he gives
vrith one hand, he takes vrith the other. He admits, in open
ing Ms design, what in his argument he imphcitly denies.
But that this, if possible, may be stiU more manifest, let us
attend a httle to some expressions, which one would iraagine
he had inadvertently dropt. " So long," says he, " as the
world endures, I presume, wUl the accounts of miracles and
prodigies be found in aU profane history. "J Why does he
presume so ? A raan so much attached to experience-, can
hardly be suspected to have any other reason than this — be
cause such accounts have hitherto been found in all the his
tories, profane as weU as sacred, of times past. But we need
not recur to an inference to obtain this acknowledgraent :
it is often to be met with in the Essay. In one place we leam,
* Page 180. + Page 181.
J Page 174, In the edition of the Essay, 1767, raentioned In the Preface,
his words are, ' in all history, sacred and profane.'

32 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF
that the witnesses for miracles are an infinite number ;* in
another, that aU rehgious records of whatever kind abound
vrith them.f I leave it therefore to the author to explain,
with what consistency he can assert that the laws of nature
are established by an uniform experience, (which experience
is chiefly the result of testimony,) and at the same time allow
that almost aU human histories are fuU of the relations of
miracles and prodigies, which are riolations of those laws.
Here is, by his own confession, testimony against testimony,
and very ample on both sides. How then can one side claim
a firm, uniform, and unalterable support from testimony ?
It vriU be in vain to object, that the testimony in support
of the laws of nature greatly exceeds the testimony for the
riolations of these laws ; and that, if we are to be determined
by the greater number of observations, we shall reject all rai
racles whatever. I ask. Why are the testimonies much more
numerous in the one case than in the other ? The answer is
obrious : Natural occurrences are much more frequent than
such as are preternatural. But are all the accounts we have
of the pestUence to be rejected as incredible, because, in this
country, we hear not so often of that disease as of the fever ?
Or, because the number of natural births is infinitely greater
than that of monsters, shall the eridence of the former be re
garded as a confutation of aU that can be advanced in proof
of the latter ? Such an objector needs to be reminded of what
was proved in the foregoing section — that the opposite testi
monies relate to different facts, and are therefore not contra
dictory; that the conclusion founded on them possesses not
the eridence of the facts on which it is founded, but only such
a presumptive eridence as may be surmounted by the slight
est positive proof. A general conclusion from experience is
in comparison but presumptive and indirect; sufficient testi
mony for a particular fact is direct and positive eridence.
I shaU remark one other fallacy in this author's reasoning,
befpre I conclude this section. " The Indian Prince," says
he, " who refused to beheve the first relations concermng
the effects of frost, reasoned justly; and it naturally required
very strong testimony to engage his assent to facts, which
• Page 190. f Page 191.

PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. -33
ai-ose fi-om a state of nature with which he was unacquainted,
and bore so little analogy to those events to which he had
had constant and uniforra experience : Though they were not
contrary to his experience, they were not conformable to
it."* Here a distinction is artfully suggested, between what
is contrary to experience, and what is not conformable to it.
The latter he aUows may be proved by testimony, but not
the former. A distinction, for which the author seems to
have so great use, it vrill not be improper to examine.
If my reader happen to be but little acquainted with Mr.
Hume's writings, or even with the piece here examined, I must
entreat him, ere he proceed any farther, to give the Essay an
attentive perusal; and to take notice particularly, whether, in
one single passage, he can find any other sense given to the
terms contrary to experience, but that which has not been ex
perienced. Without this aid, I should not be surprised that
I found it difficult to eonrince the judicious, that a man of so
much acuteness, one so much a philosopher as this author,
should vrith such formahty, raake a distinction, which not only
the Essay, but the whole tenor of his phUosophical writings,
shows eridently to have no raeaning. Is that which is contrary
to experience, a synonymous phrase for that which imphes a
contradiction? If this were the case, there would be no need
to recur to experience for a refutation ; it would refute itself.
But it is equitable that the author hiraself be heard, who ought
to be the best interpreter of his own words. " When the fact
attested," says he, " is such a one as has seldom fallen under
our observation, here is a contest of two opposite experiences, "f
In this passage, not the being never experienced, but even the
being seldom experienced, constitutes an opposite experience.
I can conceive no way but one, that the author can evade the
force of this quotation ; and that is, by obtruding on us some
new distinction between an opposite and a contrary experience .
In order to preclude such an attempt, I shaU once more recur
to his own authority. " It is no miracle that a man in seem
ing good health should die of a sudden." Why ? " Because
such a kind of death, though more imusual than any other,
hath yet been frequently obseryed to happen. But it is a
* Page 179. t Ibid.

34? MIRACLES CAPABLE OF
miracle that a dead man should come to life." Why .? Not
because of any inconsistency in the thing. That a body should
be this hour inanimate, and the next animated, is no more
inconsistent than the reverse, that it should be this hour ani
mated and the next inanimate ; though the one be common,
and not the other. But the author himself answers the ques
tion : " Because that has never been observed in any age or
country."* All the contrariety then that there is in miracles
to experience, does, by his own concession, consist solely in
this, that they have never been observed; thatis, they are not
conformable to experience. To his experience, personal or
derived, he raust certainly raean ; to what he has learned of dif
ferent ages and countries. To speakbeyond the knowledge he
has attained, would be ridiculous. It would be first supposing
a rairacle, and then inferring a contrary experience, instead
of concluding, from experience, that the fact is miraculous.
Now I insist, that, as far as regards the author's argument,
a fact perfectlyunusual, or not conformable to our experience,
such a fact as, for aught we know, was never observed in any
age or country, is as incapable of proof from testimony, as mira
cles are ; that, if this writer would argue consistently, he could
never, on his own principles, reject one, and admit the other.
Both ought to be rejected, or neither. I would not by this be
thought to signify, that there is no difference between amiracle
and an extraordinary event. I know that the forraer implies the
interposal of an inrisible agent, which is not imphed in the lat
ter. All that I intend to assert is, that the author's argument
equally affects them both. Why does such interposal appear
to him incredible? Notfrom any incongruity he discerns in the
thing itself: he does not pretend it: but itis not conformable
to his experience. "A miracle," says he, " is a transgression
of a law of nature." f But how are the laws of nature known
to us ? By experience. What is the criterion whereby we
must judge whether the laws of nature are transgressed?
Solely the conforraity or disconformity of events to our expe
rience. This writer surely wiU not pretend, that we can have
any knowledge d, priori, either of the law, or of the violation.
* ^"¦ge 181. t Page 182. in the note.

PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 35
Let us then examine, by his own principles, whether the
King of Siam, of whom the story he alludes to is related by
Locke,* could have sufficient Eridence, from testimony, of a
fact so contrary to his experience as the freezing of water.
He could just say as much of this event, as the author can say
of a dead man's being restored to life : " Such a thing was
never observed, as far as I could learn, in any age or country."
If the things themselves too he impartially considered, and
independently of the notions acquired by us in these northern
chmates, we should account the first at least as extraordinary
as the second. — That so pliant a body as water should becorae
hard like pavement, so as to bear up an elephant on its surface,
is as unlikely, in itself, as that a body inanimate to-day should
be animated to-morrow. Nay, to the Indian monarch, I raust
think, that the first would appear more a miracle, more contra
ry to experience, than the second. If he had been acquainted
vrith ice or frozen water, and afterwards seen it become fluid,
but had never seen nor leamed, that after it was melted it be
came hard again, the relation must have appeared marveUous,
as the process from fluidity to hardness never had been experi
enced, though the reverse often had. But I believe nobody will
question, that on this supposition it would not have appeared
quite so strange as it did. Yet this supposition makes the in
stance more parallel to the restoring of the dead to life. The
process from animate to inanimate we are aU acquainted with ;
and what is such arestoration, but the reversing of this process?
So little reason had the author to insinuate, that the one was
onlj not conformable, the other cow^rar^ to experience. If there
be a difference in this respect, the ffrst, to one alike unacquaint
ed with both, must appear the more contrary of the two.
Does it alter the matter, that he caUs the forraer "a fact
which arose frora a state of nature vrith which the Indian was
unacquainted ? " Was not such a state quite unconformable, or
(which in the author's language I have shown to be the sarae)
contrary to his experience ? Is then a state of nature, which is
contrary to experience, raore credible than a single fact con
trary to experience ? I want the solution of one difficulty :
the author, in order to satisfy me, presents rae with a thou-
* Essay on Human Understanding, Book iv. chap. 15. § 5.
C

36 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF
sand others. Is this suitable to the raethod he proposes m
another place, of admitting always the less miracle, and reject
ing the greater ? * Is it not, oil the contrary, admitting with
out any difficulty the greater mfracle, and thereby remoring
the difficulty which he otherwise would have had in admitting ¦
the less? Does he forget, that to exhibit a state of nature en
tfrely different from what we experience at present, is one ef
those enormous prodigies, which, in his account, render the
Pentateuch unworthy of credit?f "No Indian," says he in the
note, " it is evident, could have experience that water did not
freeze in cold chmates. This is placing nature in a situation
quite unknown to him ; and it is impossible for him to tell, d,
priori, what wUl result from it." This is precisely as if, in
reply to the author's objection from experience against the rais
ing of a dead man (suppose Lazarus) to life, I should retort:
" Neither you. Sir, nor any who live in this century, can have
experience, that a dead man could not be restored to hfe at
the comraand of one dirinely comraissioned to give a revela
tion to raen. This is placing nature in a situation quite im
known to you ; and it is impossible for you to tell, a priori,
what vriU result from it. This therefore is not contrary to
the course of nature, in cases where aU the cfrcumstances are
the same. As you never saw one vested with such a commis
sion, you are as unexperienced, as ignorant of this point, as
the inhabitants of Sumatra are ofthe frosts in Muscovy ; you
cannot therefore reasonably, any more than they, be positive
as to the consequences." J Should he rejoin, as doubtless he
would, "This is not taking away the difficulty; but, hke the
elephant and the tortoise, in the account given by some bar
barians of the manner in which the earth is supported, it only
shifts the difficulty a step further back : My objection stUl
recurs — That any man should be endowed vrith such power is
contrary to experience, (or, as I have shown to be the same in
this author's language, is not conformable to my experience,)
and therefore incredible : " — Should he, I say, rejoin in this
manner, I could only add, "Pray, Sir, rerise your own words
lately quoted, and consider impartially, whether they be not
* Page 182. + Page 206.
t See the latter part ofthe note on the following paragraph.

PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 37
as glaringly exposed to the like reply." For my part, I can
only perceive one difference that is raaterial between the two
cases. You fi-ankly confess, that with regard to the freezing
of water, beside the absolute want of experience, there would
be from analogy a presmnption against it, which ought to
weigh with a rational Indian. I think, on the contrary, in the
case supposed by me, of one comraissioned by Heaven, there
is at least no presumption against the exertion of such a mira
culous power ; there is rather a presuraption in its favour.
Does the author then say, that no testimony could give the
King of Siam sufficient evidence of the effects of cold on
water ? No. By implication he says the contrary : " It re-
qufred very strong testimony." WiU he say, that those most
astonishing effects of electricity lately discovered, so entirely
unanalogous to every thing before experienced — will he say,
that such facts no reasonable man could have sufficient eri
dence from testimony to believe ? No. We raay presume he
will not, from his decision in the former case ; and if he
should, the comraon sense of raankind would reclaira against
such extravagance. Yet it is obrious to every considerate
reader, that this arguraent concludes equaUy against those
truly raarveUous, as against mfraculous events ; both being
ahke unconformable, or ahke contrary, to former experience.*
* I cannot forbear to observe, that many of the principal terms employed in
the Essay, are used in a manner extremely vague and unphilosophical. I have
remarked the confusion I find in the application of the words experience, contra
riety, cmformity. 1 might remark the same thing of the word miracle. "A
miracle," it is said, p. 182, in tU note, "may be accurately defined,^ traks-
GRESSION of a law of nature, hy a particular volition of the Deity, or by (lie in
terposal of some invisiUe agent." The word transgression invariably denotes a cri
minal opposition to authority. Rapine, adultery, murder, are transgressions of
the laws of nature, but have nothing iu common with miracles. The author's
accuracy in representing God as a transgressor, I have not indeed the perspica^
city to discern. Does he intend, by throwing something monstrous into the defini
tion, to infuse into the reader a prejudice against the thing defined? But supposing
that, through inadvertency, he had used the term transgression instead of suspension,
which would have been more intelligible and proper ; one would at least expect, that
the word miracle, in the Essay, always expressed the sense of the definition. But
this it evidently does not. Thus, in the instance of the miracle supposed, (p. 203 in
Hie note,) he calls it in the beginning of the paragraph, " A violation of the usual
course of nature ;" but in the end, after telling us that such a miracle, on the evidence
c 2

38 MIRACLES CAPABLE OF
Thus I think I have shown, that the author is chargeable
with some fallacies in his way of raanaging the argument ;
supposed, "our present philosophers ought to receive for certain," he subjoins, (how
consistently, let the reader judge,) "and ought 'to search for the causes whence it
might be derived." Thus it is insinuated, that though a fact apparently miraculous,
and perfectly extraordinary, might be admitted by a philosopher, still the reality of the
miracle must be denied. For if the interposal of the Deity be the proper solution
of the phenomenon, why should we recur to other causes ? Hence a careless reader
is insensibly led to think, that there is some special incredibility in such an inter
posal, distinct from its uncommonness. Yet the author's great argument is built on
this single circumstance, and places such an interposition just on the same footing
with every event that is equally uncommon. At one time, he uses the word
miracle to denote a bare improbability, as will appear in the sixth section ; at another,
absurd and miraculous are, with him, synonymous terms ; so are also the miraculous
nature of an event, and its absolute impossibility. Is this the style and manner of a
reasoner ?
Let it, however, in further illustration of the question, be observed, that though, in
one view, miracles may be said to imply a suspension of the laws of nature, by the
interposition of an invisible agent, yet, in another and more extensive view, it may
perhaps be affirmed, that, in strictness, nature's laws are never sufepended. It will
serve to remove the apparent inconsistency, to consider that, when we speak of the
laws of nature, we commonly mean no more than those regarding the material world,
or the laws of matter and motion with which we happen to he acquainted. Yet
those which regard spiritual beings are as truly laws of nature as those which concern
corporeal. Our acquaintance with the former, if we can call it acquaintance, is
much more confined than with the latter t because the means of knowledge in the
one case are fewer, more subtle, and less accessible, than in the other. But we have
reason for analogy to believe, that every thing in the invisible, that is, in the moral
and intellectual, as well as in the visible or material world, is regulated by permanent
laws. In this view of the universal system, there is ground to think that the re
spective powers of the different orders of beings, and their interpositions, and if so,
divine illuminations themselves, are as really govemed by general laws, as the events
which result from physical causes, and take place in the material creation. In
regard to these also, the term suspension is sometimes loosely used, where there
is an interfering of powers, though it be acknowledged, on all sides, that, in the
¦ largest and most proper acceptation of the terms, there is no infringement of the
laws of nature. Thus, by the law of gravitation, a heavy body moves downwards,
towards the centre of the earth, till it be stopped by some intervening object. By
the law of magnetism, iron, one species of heavy bodies, may be attracted up
wards, from the earth, and kept hanging in the air. In familiar discourse we
might say, that the law of gravity is suspended by the magnetical attraction;
which means no more than that, in this instance, gravity proves a less powerful
attraction than magnetism. In other instances, magnetism may be the weaker
of the two. A loadstone, which will raise from the ground a piece of iron
weigbmg an ounce, wiU produce no sensible eflfect upon one of a pound weight.
But It IS evident that, in a more enlarged view, the laws of nature undergo no
suspension m either case, in as much as one, who is well acquainted with the

PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 39
that he all along avails himself of an ambiguity in the word
experience ; — that liis reasoning includes a petitio principii
in the bosom of it; — and that, in supporting his argument,
he must have recourse to distinctions, where, even himself
being judge, there is no difference.

SECTION III.
Mr. Hume himself gives -up his favourite argument.
" Mr. Hume himself," methinks I hear my reader repeating
¦vrith astonishraent, " gives up his favourite arguraent." To
prove this point is indeed a very bold atterapt : yet that this
attempt is not altogether so arduous as, at flrst hearing, he
will possibly iraagine, I hope, if favoured a while with his at
tention, fuUy to eonrince hira. If to acknowledge, after all,
that there raay be mfracles which admit of proof from human
testimony ; if to acknowledge, that such mfracles ought to be
received, not as probable only, but as absolutely certain ; or,
in other words, that the proof from human testimony raay be
such, as that aU the contrary unifomi experience should not
only be overbalanced, but, to use the author's expression,
should be annihUated : if such acknowledgments as these
are subversive of liis own principles ; if, by making them, he
abandons his darhng arguraent ; -this strange part the Essayist
eridently acts.
" I own," these are his words, " there raay possibly be mi
racles, or riolations ofthe usual course of nature, of such a kind
as to adrait a proof from huraan testimony, though perhaps''
(in this he is modest enough, he avers nothing ; perhaps) " it
wUl be irapossible to flnd any such in aU the recordsof history."
attraction both of the magnet and of the earth, can, in any proposed experiment, tell
for certain beforehand which will prevail. Thus, when we speak of miracles as sus
pensions of the laws of nature, the expression is admitted rather in apology for igno
rance, than as what ought to be accounted philosophical or strictly proper. The in
tervention of superior agents, the comparative powers of these agents, and their ope-
jations, may be, and probably are, regulated by the immuttible laws of the universo,
as much as whatever concerns the terraqueous globe, and the motions of the heavenly
bodies. This will serve further to explain my retort upon Mr. Hume in the preced
ing paragraph, in leUtion to the freezing of water, — which seo.

40 MIRAjCLES CAPABLE OF
To this declaration he subjoins the following supposition :
" Suppose aU authors, in aU languagesj agree, that from the
1st of January, 1600, there was a total darkness over the whole
earth for eight days :( suppose that the tradition ofthis extra
ordinary event is stiU strong and hvely among the people ; that
aU traveUers, who return from foreign countries, bring us ac
counts of the same tradition, without the least variation or con
tradiction — it is erident that our present philosophers, instead
of doubting of that fact, ought to receive it for certain, and
ought to search for the causes whence it might be derived."*
Could one imagine that the person who had made the above
acknowledgment, a person, too, who is justly allowed, by all
who are acquainted with his writings, to possess uncommon
penetration and philosophical abihties, that this were the same
indiridual who had so short while before affirmed, that a "mi
racle," or a riolation of the usual course of nature, "supported
by any human testimony, is more properly a subject of deri
sion than of arguraent ;" f who had insisted, that " it is not
requisite, in order to reject the fact, to be able accurately to
disprove the testimony, and to trace its falsehood ; that such
an eridence carries falsehood on the very face of it ;" J that
" we need but oppose, even to a cloud of witnesses, the abso
lute impossibihty, or," which is all one, " miraculous nature
of the events which they relate ; that this, in the eyes of all
reasonable people, will alone be regarded as a sufficient refu
tation ;"§ and who, flnally, to put an end to all altercation
on the subject, had pronounced this oracle, " No testimony
FOR ANY KIND OF MIRACLE can ever possibly
amount to a probability, much less to a proof." If
Was there ever a more glaring contradiction ?
Yet for the event supposed by the Essayist, the testimony,
in his judgment, would amount to a. probability ,¦ nay, to more
than a probabihty, to a, proof: let not the reader be astonished,
or, if he cannot fail to be astonished, let him not be incre-
* Page 203, in the note. + Page 194. J Ibid. § Page 196, &c.
II Pago 202. There is a small alteration made on this sentence in the edition of
the Essays in 1767, which is posterior to the 2nd edition of this Dissertation. See
Preface, page 3.

PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 41
dulous, when 1 add, to more than a proof, more than a full,
entire, and direct proof — for even this I hope to make erident
from the author's principles and reasoning. " And even sup
posing," says he, that is, granting for argument's sake, " that
the testimony for a mfracle amounted to a proof, it would be
opposed by another proof, derived from the very nature of the
fact which it woiUd endeavour to estabhsh."* Here is then,
by his ovm reasoning, proof against proof, frora which there
coiUd result no behef or opinion, unless the one is conceived
to be in some degree superior to the other. " Of which
proofs," says he, " the strongest must prevail, but still with
a diminution of its force, in proportion to that of its antago
nist. "-|- Before the author could believe such a rairacle as he
supposes, he must at least be satisfied that the proof of it from
testimonyis stronger than the proof againstit from experience.
That we raay form an accurate judgraent of the strength he
here ascribes to testimony, let us consider what, by his own
account, is the strength of the opposite proof from experience.
" A mfracle is a riolation of the laws of nature ; and as a firm
and unalterable experience has established these laws, the
proof against a mfracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as
entire as any argument from experience can possibly be iraa-
gined."J Again, " As an uniforra experience amounts to aj
proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature ofl
the fact, against the existence of any miracle. "§ The proof
then which the Essayist adraits from testimony, is, by his own
estimate, not only superior to a direct and full proof, but even /
superior to as entire a proof as any argument from experience|
can possibly be imagined. Whence, I pray, doth testimony '
acqufre such amazing eridence ? " Testiraony," says the au
thor, "hath no eridence, but what it derives from experience.
These differ from each other only as the species from the ge
nus." Put then for testimony the word experience, which in
this case is equivalent, and the conclusion will run thus : Here
is a proof from experience, which is superior to as entire a
proof from experience as can possibly be imagined. This
deduction from the author's words, the reader vrill perceive,
is strictly logical. What the meaning of it is, I leave to Mr.
Hume to explain.
* Page 202. t Page 180. J Ibid. § Page 181.

42 miracles capable of
What has been above deduced, how much soever it be ac
counted, is not aU that is imphed in the concession made by
the author. He further says, that the miraculous fact, so at
tested, ought not only to be received, but to be received /or
certain. Is it not enough. Sir, that youhave shovm that your
most fuU, most dfrect, most perfect argument may be over
come ? WUl notliing satisfy you now but its destraction ?
One would imagine, that you had conjured up this demon,
by whose irresistible arm you proposed to give a mortal blow
to religion, and render scepticism triumphant, (that you had
conjured him up, I say), for no other purpose, but to show
with what facihty you could lay him. To be serious, does not
this author remember, that he had oftener than once laid it
down as a maxim. That when there is proof against proof,
we must inchne to the superior, stiU with a diminution of
assurance, in proportion to the force of its antagonist?* But
when a fact is received for certain, there can be no sensible
diminution of assurance, such diminution always implying
some doubt and uncertainty. Consequently the general proof
frora experience, though as entire as any argument from ex
perience can possibly be imagined, is not only surmounted,
but is reaUy in comparison as nothing, or, in Mr. Hume's
phrase, undergoes annihUation, when balanced vrith the par
ticular proof from testiraony. Grreat indeed, it must be ac
knowledged, is the force of truth. This conclusion, on the
principles I have been endeavouring to estabhsh, has nothing
in it but what is conceivable and just ; but, on the principles
of the Essay, which deduce aU the force of testimony from
experience, serves only to confound the understanding, and to
involve the subject in midnight darkness.
It is therefore manifest, that either this author's principles
conderan his own method of judging vrith regard to mfracu
lous facts ; or that his method of judging subverts his princi
ples, and is a tacit desertion of them. Thus that impregna
ble fortress, the asylum of infidehty, which he so lately glo
ried in haring erected, is in a moment abandoned by him as
a place untenable. * Page 173. 180.

PROOF FRO.M TESTIMONY. 43

SECTION IV.

There i^ no peculiar presumption against such miracles as are
said to have been wrought in support of religion.
Is it then so, that the decisive arguraent the Essayist flat
tered hiraself he had discovered,* which, vrith the vrise and
leamed, was to prove an everlasting check to all kinds of su
perstitious delusion, and would consequently be useful as long
as the world endures ; is it so, that this boasted arguraent has
in fact httle or no influence on the discoverer hiraself? — But
this author may be well excused. He cannot be always the
metaphysician. He cannot soar incessantly in the clouds.
Such constant elevation suits not the lot of humanity. He
must sometimes, whether he wiU or not, descend to a level
with other people, and fall into the humble track of common
sense. One thing however he is resolved on : If he cannot
by metaphysic speUs silence the most arrogant bigotry and
superstition ; he will at any rate, though for this purpose he
should borrow aid from what he hath no liking to, trite and
popular topics — he wiU at any rate free hiraself from theu-
impertinent sohcitations.
There are accordingly two principles in huraan nature, by
which he accounts for aU the relations that have ever been
in the world, concerning mfracles. These principles are, the
passionfor the marvellous, and the religious affection;^ against
either of which singly, the philosopher, he says, ought ever to
be on his guard ; but incomparably more so, when both hap
pen to be in strict confederacy together : "For if the spirit
of rehgion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of
common sense ; and human testimony in these circumstances
loses aU pretensions to authority.''^ Notwithstanding this
strong affirmation, there is reason to suspect that the author
is not in his heart so great an enemy to the love of wonder
as he affects to appear. No man can make a greater con
cession in favour of the wonderful, than he hath done in the
passage quoted in the preceding section. No raan was ever
• Page 174. t Page 184, 185. % Page 185.

44 MIRACLES capable OF
fonder of paradox, and, in theoretical subjects, of every notion
that is remote from sentiments universally received. This
love of paradoxes, he owns himself, that both his enemies and
his friends reproach him vrith.* There must surely be some
founda;tion for so universal a censure. If therefore, in respect
of the passion for the marveUous, he differ from other people,
the difference arises from a particular delicacy in this gentle
man, which raakes him nauseate even to wonder with the
crowd. He is of that singular turn, that where every body
is struck with astoni«fhment, he can see nothing wondrous
in the least ; at the same time he discovers prodigies, where
no soul but hiraself ever dreamed that there were any.
We may therefore rest assured of it, that the author might
be conciliated to the love of wonder, provided the spirit of re
ligion be kept at a distance, against which he hath unluckily
contracted a mortal antipathy, against which he is resolved to
wage eternal war. When he but touches this subject, he loses
at once his phUosophic equanimity, and speaks with an acri
mony unusual to him on other occasions. Something of this
kind appears from the citations already made. But if these
should not satisfy, I shall produce one or two more, which
certainly vrill. There is a second*feupposition the author
raakes, of a miraculous event, in a certain manner circum
stanced and attested, which he declares, and I think with par
ticular propriety, that he would "not have the least inclina
tion to beheve." f At his want of inchnation the reader will
not be surprised, when he learns, that this supposed mfracle
is conceming a. resurrection ; an event which bears too strong
a resemblance both to the doctrine and to the rafracles of holy
writ, not to alarm a modern Pyrrhonist. To the above de
claration he subjoins, "But should this miracle be ascribed to
any new system of rehgion, raen in all ages have been so much
imposed on by ridiculous stories of that kind, that this very
circumstance would be a fuU proof of a cheat, and sufficient,
with aU raen of sense, not only to make them reject the fact'
but even reject it without further examination." Again, a
littie after, "As the riolations of truth are more common
m the testimony concerning rehgious mfracles, than in that
• Dedication to the four Dissertations. f Page 204, in the note.

PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 45
concerning any other matter of fact," (a point in which the
author is positive, though he produces neither facts nor ar
guments to support it,) " this must dirainish very much the
authority of the former testimony, and" (pray observe his
words) " make us form a general resolution, never to
lend any attention to it, with whatever specious pretext it
may be covered.'"
Never did the passion of an inflamed orator, or the intem
perate zeal of a rehgionist, carry him further against his ad
versary, than this man of speculation is carried by his prejudice
against rehgion. Demagogues and bigots have often warned
the people against hstening to the arguments of an enried and
therefore detested rival, lest by his sophistry they should be
seduced into the most fatal errors : the same part this author,
a phUosopher, a sceptic, a dispassionate inquirer after truth,
as surely he chooses to be accounted, now acts in favour of in
fidelity. He thinks it not safe to give rehgion even a hearing.
Nay, so strange a tum have matters taken of late with the raa
nagers of this controversy, that it is now the free-thinker
who preaches implicit faith; it is the infidel who warns us
of the danger of consulting reason. Beware, says he, I ad
monish you, of inqufring into the strength of the plea, or of
bringing it to the deceitful test of reason ; for, " those who will
be so silly as to examine the affair by that medium, and seek
particular flaws in the testimony, are alraost sure to be con
founded."* That rehgion is concerned in the matter, is
reckoned by these sages sufficient eridence of imposture. The
proofs she offers in her own defence, we are told by these can
did judges, ought to be rejected, and rejected without exami
nation. The old way of scrutiny and argument raust npw
be laid aside, haring been at length discovered to be but a
bungling, a tedious, and a dangerous way at best. What,
then, shaU we substitute in its place ? The Essayist has a raost
admirable expedient ; a shorter and surer method : he re
coraraends to us the expeditious way oi resolution. " Forra,"
says he, " a general resolution, never to lend any atten
tion to testimonies or facts urged by religion, with whatever
specious p-rvtext they may be covered."
* Page 197, in the note.

46 miracles capable of
I had almost congratulated Mr. Hume, and our enlightened
age, on this happy invention, before I reflected, that though
the apphcation might be new, the expedient itself, of resolv
ing to be deaf to argument, was very ancient, having been
often, with great success, employed against atheists and here
tics, and warmly recommended by BeUarmine and Scotus,
and most others of that bright fraternity the schoolmen : per
sons, I acknowledge, to whom one could not, perhaps, in any
other instance, flnd a resemblance in my ingenious opponent.
I am afraid that, after such a declaration, I must not pre-.
sume to consider myself as arguing with the author, who has,
in so peremptory a manner, resolved to attend to nothing that
can be said in opposition to his theory. " What judgment
he has," to use his own expression, " he has renounced by
principle, in these subhme and mysterious subjects."* If
however it should prove the fate of these papers, the forbid
ding title of thera notwithstanding, to be at any tirae honoured
vrith the perusal of sorae infidel, not indeed so riveted in un
belief as the Essayist, I would earnestly entreat such reader,
in the soleran style of Mr. Hume, " to lay his hand upon his
heart, and after serious consideration declare,"-]' if any of the
patrons of religion had acted this part, and warned people
not to try by argument the metaphysical subtleties of the
adversaries, affirming, that " they who were mad enough to
examine the affair by that medium, and seek particular flaws
in the reasoning, -wexe ahnost sure to be confounded; thatthe
only prudent method was, to form a general resolution
never to lend any attention to what was advanced on the op
posite side, however specious;" whether this conduct would
not have afforded great raatter of triumph to those gentlemen
the deists ; whether it would not have been construed by
them, and even justly, into a tacit conriction of the weakness
of our cause, which we were afraid of exposing in the light,
and bringing to a fair trial ? But -we scom to take shelter in
obscurity, and meanly to decline the combat ; confident as
we are, that reason is our ally and ova friend, and glad to
find that the eneray at length so violently suspects her.
* Pago 185. f Page 206.

PROOF FROM testimony. 47
As to the first method, by whicli the author accounts for
the fabulous relations of monsters and prodigies, it is freely
acknowledged, that the Creator has implanted in human
nature, as a spur to the improveraent of the understanding, a
principle of curiosity, which makes the raind feel a particular
pleasure in every new acquisition of knowledge. It is ac
knowledged also, that as every principle in our nature is hable
to abuse, so this principle will often give the mind a bias to
the raarveUous ; for the raore marvellous any thing is, that is,
the more unhke to all that has formerly been known, the
more new it is ; and this bias, in many instances, raay induce
behef on insufficient eridence.
But the presuraption that arises hence against the raarvel
lous, is not stronger in the case of rairacles (as vrill appear
from an attentive perusal of the second section) than in the
case of every fact that is perfectly extraordinary. Yet how
easUy this obstacle raay be overcome by testimony, might be
iUustrated, if necessary, in almost every branch of science, in
physiology, in geography, in history. On the contrary, what
an immense impediment would this presumption prove to the
progress of philosophy and letters, had it in reality one fiftieth
part of the strength which the author seems to attribute to
it. I shaU not tfre ray reader or rayself hy recurring to the
philosophic wonders in electricity, cheraistry, magnetism,
which, aU the world sees, may be fuUy proved to us by testi
mony, before we raake the experiments ourselves.
But there is, it seems, additional to this, a peculiar pre
sumption against religious miracles. " The wise," as the
author has observed with reason, " lend a very acaderaic faith
to every report which favours the passion of the reporter,
whether it magnifies his country, his family, or himself, or in
any other way strikes in with his natural inclinations and
propensities."* Now, as no object whatever operates more
powerfully on the fancy than religion does, or works up the
passion to a higher fervour ; so, in raatters relating to this
subject, if in any subject, we have reason to suspect that the
understanding wiU prove a dupe to the passions. On this
* Page 200.

48 MIRACLES capable OF
point, therefore, we ought to be pecuharly cautious thatwe
be not hasty of behef. In this sentiment we aU agree.
But there is one cfrcumstance which he has overlooked, and
which is nevertheless of the greatest consequence in the debate.
It is this, that the prejudice resulting from the rehgious affec
tion, raay just as readily obstruct as promote our faith in a
religious miracle. What things in nature are more contrary,
than one religion is to another religion ? They are just as con
trary as hght and darkness, truth and error. The affections
with which they are conteraplated by the same person, are just
as opposite as desire and aversion, love and hatred. The same
religious zeal which gives the raind of a Chnstian a propensity
to the behef of a rairacle in support of Christianity, wiU in
spire him with an aversion from the belief of a mfracle in
support of Mahometanisra. The sarae principle which wiU
make liim acquiesce in eridence less than sufficient in one
case, vriU make him require evidence more than sufficient in
the other.
Before, then, the remark of the author can be of any use in
dfrecting our judgraent as tothe evidence of rairacles attested,
we must consider whether the original tenets of the vritnesses
would naturaUy have biassed their minds in /azjowr of the mfra
cles, or in opposition to them. If the former was the case, the
testimony is so rauch the less to be regarded ; if the latter, so
rauch the more. Will it satisfy on this head to acquaint us,
that the prejudices of the witnesses raust have favoured the
miracles, since they were zealous promoters of the doctrine in
support of which those miracles are said to have been per
forraed? To answer thus would be to raisunderstand the point.
The question is. Was this doctrine the faith of the witnesses,
before they saw, or fancied they saw, the rairacles ? If it was,
I agree vrith him. Great, very great allowance must be made
for the prejudices of education, for principles, early, perhaps
carefuUy and deeply rooted in their minds, and for the reli
gious affection founded in these principles ; which aUowance
must always derogate from the weight oftheir testimony. But
if the faith of the vritnesses stood originally in opposition to
the doctrine attested by the miracles; if the only account that
can be given of thefr conversion, is the conriction which the

PROOF FROM testimony. • 49
miracles produced in them ; it must be a preposterous way of
arguing, to derive thefr conriction fi'om a rehgious zeal, which
would at first obstinatelj' withstand, and for some time hinder
such conriction. On the contrary, that the evidence arising
from mfracles performed in proof of a doctrine disbeheved,
and consequently hated before, did in fact surmount that ob
stacle, and conquer all the opposition arising thence, is a very
strong presumption in favour of that evidence; just as strong
a presumption in its favour, as it would have been against
it, had aU thefr former zeal, and principles, and prejudices,
co-operated with the eridence, whatever it was, in gaining an
entfre assent.
Hence there is the greatest disparity in this respect, a dis
parity which deserves to be particularly attended to, betwixt
the eridence of mfracles performed in proof of a rehgion to be
estabhshed, and in contradiction to opinions generally re
ceived; and the eridence of miracles performed in support of
a rehgion already estabhshed, and in confirmation of opuiions
generaUy received. Hence also the greatest disparity betwixt
the miracles recorded by the evangelists, and those related by
Mariana, Bede, or any monkish historian.
There is then no pecuhar presumption against rehgious
mfracles merely as such : if in certain circumstances there is
a presumption against them, the presuraption arises solely
from the cfrcumstances, insomuch that, in the opposite cfr
cumstances, it is as strongly in thefr favour.

SECTION V.

There is a peculiar presumption in favour of such miracles as
are said to have been wrought in support of religion.
In this section I propose to consider the reverse of the
question treated in the former. In the former I proved, that
there is no pecuhar presumption against rehgious miracles; I
now inquire whether there be any in their favour. The ques
tion is important, and intimately connected with the subject.

50 miracles capable of
The boldest infidel wiU not deny, that the imraortahty of
the soul, a future and eternal state, and the connexion of our
happiness or misery in that state with our present good or
bad conduct, not to mention the doctrines conceming the
Divine unity and perfections, are tenets which carry no absur
dity in them. They may be true, for aught he knows. He
disbeheves them, not because they are incredible in them
selves, but because he has not evidence of their truth. He
pretends not to disprove thera, nor does he think the task
incurabent on him. He only pleads, that before he can yield
thera his assent, they must be proved.
Now, as whatever is possible may be supposed, let us
suppose that the doctrines above mentioned are all infallible
truths ; and let the unbeliever say, whether he can conceive
an object worthier of the Dirine interposal, than to reveal
these truths to mankind, and to enforce them in such a man
ner as may give them a suitable influence on the heart and
life. Of all the inhabitants of the earth, man is incomparably
the noblest. Whatever therefore regards the interests of the
human species, is a grander concern than what regards either
the inanimate or brute creation. If raan was made, as is
doubtless not irapossible, for an after " state of immortahty ;
whatever relates to that immortal state, or may conduce to
prepare him for the fruition of it, must be imraensely supe
rior to that which concerns raerely the transient enjoyments
of the present life. How sublirae then is the object which
rehgion, and rehgion only, exhibits as the ground of super
natural interpositions ! "This object is no other than the in
terest of man, a reasonable and moral agent, the only being
in this lower world which bears in his soul the image of his
Maker ; not the interest of an indiridual, but of the kind ;
not for a liraited duration, but for eternity; an object at least
in one respect adequate to the majesty of God.
Does this appear to the Essayist too rauch like arguing h
priori, which I know he detests? It is just such an arguraent
as, presupposing the most rational principles of Deism, results
from those raaxiras conceming intelligent causes, and their
operations, which are founded in general experience, and
which uniformly lead us to expect, that the end wiU be pro-

proof I'ROM testimony. 51
portionate to the means. The Pagans of Rome had notions
of thefr divinities inflnitely inferior to the opinions concein-
ing God, which in Christian countries are maintained even
by those whp, for distinction's sake, are called Deists. Yet
such of the former as had any justness of taste, were offended
with those poets who exhibited the Celestials on slight occa
sions, and for trivial purposes, interfering in the affairs of
men. Why ? Because such an exhibition shocked all the
principles of probabiht)\ It had not that verisimilitude whicli
is absolutely necessary to render flction agreeable. Accord
ingly it is a precept, \rith relation to the machinery of the
drama, given by one who was both a critic and a poet. That
a god must never be introduced, unless to accomplish some im
portant design which could not be otherwise effected.* The
foundation of this rule, which is that of my argument, is
therefore one of those indisputable principles which are found
every-where among the earhest results of experience.
Thus it appears, that, fi'om the dignity of the end, there
arises a pecuhar presuraption in favour of such rairacles as
are said to have been wrought in support of religion.

SECTION VI.
Inquiry into the meaning and propriety of one of Mr. Hume's
favourite maxims.
There is a method truly curious, suggested by the author,
for extricating the mind, should the eridence from testiraony
be so great, that its falsehood might, as he terms it, be ac
counted miraculous. In this puzzling case, when a man is
so beset with miracles that he is under the necessity of admit
ting one, he must always take care it be the smallest ; for it
is an axiom in this writer's dialectic. That the probability
of the fact is in the inverse ratio of the quantity of miracle
there is in it. " I weigh," says he, " the one rairacle against
the other, and according to the superiority which I discover.
Nee Deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus incident. — Horat.
D

52 miracles capable of
I pronounce ray decision, and always reject the greater
Tinivfif If ^
Now,' of this method, which wiU no doubt be thought by
many tobe very ingenious, and which appears to the Essayist
both very moraentous and very perspicuous, I own I am not
able to discover either the reasonableness or the use.
First, I cannot see the reasonableness. " A miracle," to
adopt his own definition, " imphes the transgression," or
rather the suspension, " of some law of nature ; and that
either by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the inter
posal of some inrisible agent."f Now, as I should think, from
the principles laid down in the preceding section, that it would
be for no trifling purpose that the laws of nature would be
suspended, and either the Deity or an inrisible agent would
interpose ; it is, on the same principles, natural to imagine^
that the raeans, or rairacle perforraed, should bear a propor
tion, in respect of dignity and greatness, to the end proposed.
Were I therefore under such a necessity as is supposed by
Mr. Hurae, of admitting the truth of a miracle, I acknowledge,
that of two contradictory miracles, where aU other circum
stances are equal, I should think it reasonable to believe the
greater. I shall borrow an illustration from the author him
self. — " A miracle," he says, "may either be discoverable hy
men or not. This alters not its nature and essence. The
raising of a house or ship into the air is a risible mfracle; the
raising of a feather, when the wind wants ever so little of a
force requisite for that purpose, is as real a mfracle, though
not so sensible with regard to us. "J Surely, if any mfracle
raay be called little, the last mentioned is entitled to that
denomination, not only because it is an undiscoverable and
insensible rairacle, but because the quantura of miraculous
force requisite is, by the hypothesis, ever so little, or the least
conceivable. Yet if it were certain, that God, angel, or
spirit, were, for one of those purposes, to interpose in sus
pending the laws of nature, I believe most men would join
with me in thinking, that it would be rather for the raising
of a house or ship, than for the raising of a feather.
* Page 182. f Ibid, in the note. J Ibid, in the note.

proof from testimony.

But though the maxim laid down by the author were just,
I cannot discover in what instance, or by what application,
it can be rendered of any utihty. Why ? Because we have
no rule whereby we can judge of the greatness of rairacles.
I allow that, in such a singular instance as that above quoted
from the Essay, we may judge safely enough. But that can
be of no practical use. In almost every case that will occur,
I may warrantably aver, tiiat it wiU be irapossible for the
acutest inteUect to decide which of the two is the greatest
miracle. As to the author, I cannot find that he has favour
ed us with any hght in so important and so critical a ques
tion. Have we not then some reason to dread, that the task
wiU not he less difficult to furnish us with a measure by which
we can determine the magnitude of miracles, than to proride
us with a balance by which we can ascertain the compara
tive weight of testimonies and experiences ?
If, learing the speculations of the Essayist, we shall, in
order to be assisted on this subject, recur to his example and
decisions ; let us consider the miracle which was recited in
the third section, and which, he declares, would, on the evi
dence of such testimony as he supposes, not only be probable
but certain. For ray part, it is not in my power to conceive
a greater mfracle than that is. The whole universe is af
fected by it ; the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars. The
most invariable laws of nature with which we are acquainted,
even those which regulate the raotions of the heavenly bodies,
and dispense darkness and light to worlds; are violated. I
appeal to the author hiraself, whether it could be caUed a
greater, or even so great a rairacle, that all the writers at
that tirae, or even all raankind, had been seized vrith a new
species of epideraical dehriura, which had given rise to this
strange iUusion. But in this the author is remarkably un
fortunate, that the principles by which he in fact regulates
his judgment and behef, are often the reverse of those which
he endeavours to establish in his theory.
Shall I hazard a conjecture ? Itis, that the word miracle,
as thus used by the author, is used in a vague and impro
per sense, as a synonymous term for improbable ; and that
d2

54 miracles capable of
beliering the less, and rejecting the greater miracle, denote
simply beheving what is least, and rejecting what is most im
probable ; or StiU more explicitly, behering what we thmk
most worthy of belief and rejecting what we think least wor-
thy. I am aware, on a second perusal of the author's words,
that ray talent in guessing may be justly questioned. He
has in effect told us himself what he means. " When any
one," says he, " teUs me that he saw a dead man restored to
hfe, I immediately consider with rayself, whether it he
more probable that this person should either deceive or be
deceived, or that the fact he relates should really have hap
pened. I weigh the one miracle against the other ; and,
according to the superiority which I discover, I pronounce
my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the
falsehood of his testimony would be raore miraculous than
the event which he relates ; then, and not tiU then, can he
pretend to coraraand my behef or opinion." * At first, indeed,
one is ready to exclaim. What a strange revolution is here !
The behef of miracles then, even by Mr. Hume's account, is
absolutely inevitable. Miracles theraselves too, so far from
being irapossible, or even extraordinary, are the coraraonest
things in nature ; so comraon, that when any rairaculous fact
is attested to us, weare equallyunder the necessity of beliering
a miracle, whether we believe the fact or deny it. The whole
difference between the Essayist and us is at length reduced
to this single point. Whether greater or smaller rairacles are
entitled to the preference ? This mystery however vanishes
on a nearer inspection. The style, we find, is figurative, and
the author is all the while amusing both his readers and him
self vrith an unusual application of a famUiar term. What
is called the weighing oi probabilities in one sentence, is the
weighing of miracles in the next. If it were asked, For what
reason did not Mr. Hume express his sentiment in ordinary
and proper words ? I could only answer, I know no reason
but one, and that is. To give the appearance of novelty and
depth to one of those very harmless propositions which by
philosophers are called identical; and which, to say the truth,
• Page 182.

PROOF FROM testimony. 55
need some disguise to make them pass upon the world with
tolerable decency.
What then shall be said of the conclusion which he gives
as the sum and quintessence of the first part of the Essay ?
The best thing, for aught I know, that can be said is, that
it contains a most certain truth, though at the same time, the
least significant, that ever perhaps was ushered into the world
with so much solemnity. In order therefore to make plainer
English of his plain consequeyice, let us only change the word
miraculous, as applied to the falsehood of human testimony,
into improbable, which in this passage is entirely equivalent,
and observe the effect produced by this elucidation. " The
plain consequence is, and it is a general maxim worthy
of our attention. That no testimony is sufficient to
ESTABLISH A MIRACLE ; UNLESS THE TESTIMONY BE OF
SUCH A KIND, THAT ITS FALSEHOOD WOULD BE MORE
IMPROBABLE than the fact which it endeavours
TO ESTABLISH."* If the reader think himself instructed by
this discovery, I should be loath to envy him the pleasure he
may derive from it. * Page 182.

PART II.
THE MIRACLES ON WHICH THE BELIEF OF CHRISTIANITY IS
FOUNDED, ARE SUFFICIENTLY ATTESTED.
SECTION I.
There is no presumption, arising from human nature, against
the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of Chris
tianity.
From what has been evinced in the fourth and fifth sections
of the former Part, vrith regard to rehgion in general, t-wo
corollaries are clearly deducible in favour of Christianity.
One is. That the presumption arising from the dignity of the
end, to say the least of it, can in no rehgion be pleaded with
greater advantage than in the Christian : The other is. That
the presumption arising from the religious affection, instead
of weakening, corroborates the eridence of the gospel. The
faith of Jesus was promulgated and gained ground, not vrith
the assistance, but in defiance, of all the religious zeal and
prejudices of the tiraes.
In order to invalidate the second corollary, it will possibly
be urged, that proselytes to a new rehgion may be gained at
first, either by address and eloquence, or by the appear
ances of uncommon sanctity, and rapturous fervours of devo
tion ; that if once people have coramenced proselytes, the
transition to enthusiasm is almost unavoidable ; and that
enthusiasm will fuUy account for the utraost pitch both of
creduhty and falseness.
Admitting that a few converts might be made by the afore
said arts, it is subversive of all the laws of probabUity to ima-

THE MIRACLES, &C. 57
gine, that the strongest prepossessions, fortified with that ve
hement abhorrence which conti'adiction in religious principles
rarely fails to excite, should be so easily vanquished in raulti
tudes. Besides, the very pretext of supporting the doctrine
by miracles, if a false pretext, would of necessity do unspeak
able hurt to the cause. The pretence of miracles will quickly
attract the attention of all to whora the new doctrine is pub
hshed. The influence whicli address and eloquence, appear
ances of sanctity and fervours of devotion, would otherwise
have had, however great, wUl be superseded by the conside
ration of what is inflnitely more striking and decisive. The
mfracles wUl therefore fli-st be canvassed, and canvassed with
a teraper of mind the most unfavourable to conviction. It is
not solely on the testimony of the Evangehsts that Christians
believe the gospel, though that testiraony appears in all re
spects such as merits the highest regard ; but it is on the
success of the gospel ; it is on the testimony, as we may justly
caU it, of the numberless proselytes that were daily made to
a religion, opposing all the rehgious professions then in the
world, and appeahng, for the satisfaction of every body, to the
visible and miraculous interposition of Heaven in its favour.
The witnesses considered in this light, and in this light they
ought to be considered, vrill be found more than " a sufficient
number :" And though perhaps there were few of thera,
what the author would denominate " men of education and
learning ;" yet, which is raore essential, they were generally
men of good sense, and knowledge enough to secure them
against all delusion as to those plain facts for which they
gave their testimony ; men who (in the coramon acceptation
of the words) neither did nor could derive to themselves
either interest or honour by their attestations, but did there
by, on the contrary, eridently abandon aU hopes of both.
It deserves also to be remembered, that there is here no con
tradictory testimony, notvrithstanding that both the founder of
our rehgion and his adherents were from the flrst surround
ed by inveterate enemies, who never " esteemed the raatter
too inconsiderable to deserve their attention or regard ;" and
w-ho, as they could not want the means, gave erident proofs

58 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
that they wanted not the inchnation to detect the fraud, if there
had been any fraud to be detected. They were jealous of
their own reputation and authority, and foresaw but too clear
ly, that the success of Jesus would give a fatal blow to both.
As to the testimonies themselves, we may permit the author to
try them by his ovm rules.* There is here no opposition of
testimony ; there is no apparent ground of suspicion from the
character of the witnesses ; there is no interest which they
could have in iraposing on the world ; there is not a small
number of witnesses — they are innumerable. Do the histo
rians of our Lord dehver thefr testiraony with doubt and he
sitation ? Do they fall into the opposite extreme of using too
violent asseverations ? So far from both, that the most amaz
ing instances of dirine power, and the most interesting events,
are related without any censure or reflection of the writers on
persons, parties, actions, or opinions; with such an unparal
leled and unaffected simphcity, as demonstrates that they
were neither themselves aniraated by passion hke enthusiasts,
nor had any design of working on the passions of their readers.
The greatest rairacles are recorded with as Httle appearance
either of doubt or wonder in the writer, and with as little sus
picion of the reader's increduhty, as the most ordinary inci
dents : A manner as unhke that of impostors as of enthusiasts ;
a manner in which those writers are altogether singular ; and
I will add, a manner which can on no supposition be tolera
bly accounted for, but that of the truth, and not of the truth
only, but of the notoriety, of the events which they related.
They spoke like people who had themselves been long famili
arized to such acts of omnipotence and grace. They spoke
like people who knew that many of the most marveUous ac
tions they related had been so publicly performed, and in the
presence of multitudes alive at the time of their writing, as
to be incontrovertible, and as in fact not to have been con
troverted, even by their bitterest foes. They could boldly
appeal on this head to their enemies. Aman, say they, speak
ing of thefr Master, Acts ii. 22, approved of God among yqu,
by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in
? Page 178.

FULLY ATTESTED. .59
the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know. The
objections of Christ's persecutors against his doctrine, those
objections also which regard the nature of his miracles, are,
together with his answers, faithfuUy recorded by the sacred
historians : It is strange, if the occasion had been given, that
we have not the remotest hint of any objections against the
reahty of his mfracles, and a confutation of those objections.
But passing the raanner in which the flrst proselytes may
be gained to a new religion, and supposing sorae actually
gained, no raatter how, to the faith of Jesus ; can it be easily
accounted for, that, even with the help of those early con
verts, this rehgion should have been propagated in the world
on the false pretence of mfracles ? Nothing more easily,
says the author. Those original propagators of the gospel
have been deceived theraselves ; for " a religionist may be an
enthusiast, and imagine he sees what has no reality."*
Were this admitted, it would not, in the present case, re
move the difficulty. He must not only himself iraagine he
sees what has no reahty, he must raake every body present,
those who are no enthusiasts, nor even friends, nay, he must
make enemies also, imagine they see the same thing which he
imagines he sees : for the miracles of Jesus were acknow
ledged by those who persecuted him.
That an enthusiast is very hable to be imposed on, in what
ever favours the particular species of enthusiasm with which
he is affected, none, who knows any thing of the human heart,
will deny. But still this frailty has its limits. For ray own
part, I cannot find exaraples of any, even araong enthusiasts,
(unless to the conviction of every body they were distracted,)
who did not see and hear in the same raanner as other people.
Many of this tribe have raistaken the reveries of a heated
imagination for the communications of the Dirine Spirit, who
never, in one single instance, mistook the operations of their
extemal senses. Without marking this difference, we should
make no distinction between the enthusiastic character and
the frantic, wliich are themselves evidently distinct. How
shall we then accomit from enthusiasm, for the testimony
* Page 185.

60 ? the MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
given by the apostles Concerning the resurrection of their
Master, and his ascension into heaven, not to mention innu
merable other facts ? In these it was impossible that any,
who in the use of their reason were but one remove from
Bedlamites, should have been deceived. Yet in the present
case the unbeliever must even say more than this,, and, ac
cumulating absurdity upon absurdity, must affirra, that the
apostles were deceived as to the resurrection and ascension
of their Master, notwithstanding that they themselves had
concerted the plan of stealing his body, and concealing it.
But this is not the only resource of the infldel. If he is
driven from this stronghold, he can take refuge in another.
Admit the apostles were not deceived theraselves, they may
nevertheless have been, through mere devotion and benevo
lence, incited to deceive the rest of mankind. The religionist,
rejoins the author, " may know his narration to be false, and
yet persevere in it, with the best intentions in the world, for
the sake of promoting so holy a cause." *
Our rehgion, to use its own nervous language, teaches us,
that we ought not to he, ox speak wickedly, not even for God-,
that we ought not to accept his person in judgment, or talk,
or act deceitfully for him. Job xiii. 7, 8. But so very httle,
it must be owned, has this sentiment been attended to, even
in the Christian world, that one would alraost think it con
tained a strain of rirtue too sublime for the apprehension of
the multitude. It is therefore a fact not to be questioned,
that little pious frauds, as they are absurdly, not to say im
piously, caUed, have been often practised by innocent zealots,
in support of a cause which they firmly believed to be both
true and holy. But in all such cases the truth and hohness of
the cause are wholly independent of those artifices. A person
may be persuaded of the forraer, who is too clear-sighted to
be deceived by the latter : for even a fuU conviction of the
tmth of the cause is not, in the least, inconsistent with either
the consciousness, or the detection, of the frauds used in sup
port of it. In the Romish church, for example, there are
many zealous and orthodox behevers, who are nevertheless
* Page 185.

FULLY ATTESTED. 61
incapable of being imposed on by the lying wonders which
some of their clergy have exhibited. The circumstances
of the aposties were widely different from the circumstances
either of those behevers or of their clergy. Some of the mi
raculous events which the aposties attested, were not only the
evidences, but the distinguishing doctrines, of the religion
which they taught. There is therefore in their case an ab
solute inconsistency betwixt a conriction of the truth of the
cause, and the consciousness of the frauds used in support of it.
Those frauds themselves, if I may so express myself, consti
tuted the very essence of the cause. What were the tenets
by which they were distinguished, in their religious systera,
particularly from the Pharisees, who ovmed not only the
unity and perfections ofthe Godhead, the existence of angels
and deraons, but the general resurrection, and a future state
of rewards and pimishments ? Were not these their pecuhar
tenets, — "That Jesus, whom the Jews and Romans joined
in crucifying without the gates of Jerusalera, had suffered
that ignominious death, to make atonement for the sins of
men ? Rom v. 6, &c. ; that, in testimony of this, and of the
divine acceptance, God had raised from the dead ? that he
had exalted him to his own right hand, to be a Prince and a
Sariour, to give repentance to the people, and the remis
sion of thefr sins ? Acts U. 32, &c., v. 30, &c., x. 40, &c. ;
that he is now our advocate with the Father ? 1 John ii. 1 ;
that he will descend from heaven at the last day, to judge
the world in righteousness. Acts x. 42, xvii. 31 ; and to re
ceive his faithful disciples into heaven, to be for ever with
himself?" John xiv. 3. These fundaraental articles oftheir
system, they must have known, deserved no better appellation
than a string of hes, if we suppose them liars in the testiraony
they gave of the resurrection and ascension of their Mastei>
If, agreeably to the Jewish hypothesis, 'they had, in a raost
wonderful and daring manner, stole by night the corpse from
the sepulchre, that on the false report of his resurrection
they might found the stupendous fabric they had projected
among themselves, how was it possible they should conceive
the cause to be either true or holy ? They must have known,
that in those cardinal points on which all depends, they were

62 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
false vritnesses concerning God, wilful corrupters of the re
hgion of their country, and pubhc, though indeed dis
interested incendiaries, whithersoever they went. They
could not therefore enjoy even that poor solace, "that
the end wiU sanctify the means ;" a solace ^ri th which the
monk or anchorite sUences the remonstrances of his con
science, when, in defence of a rehgion whicli he regards as
certain, he, by some pitiful juggler- trick, imposes on the
creduhty of the rabble. On the contiary, the whole scheme
of the apostles raust have been, and not oiUy raust have been,
but must have appeared to themselves, a most audacious
freedom %ritli their Maker, a villanous unposition on the
world, and, I mU add, a most foohsh and ridiculous project
of heaping ruin and disgrace upon tiiemselves, without the
prospect of any compensation in the present hfe, or reversion
in the future.
Once more, can we account for so extraordinary a pheno
menon, by attributing it to that most powerful of all motives,
as the author thinks it,* " an ambition to attain so sublime
a character as that of a missionary, a prophet, an ambassador
from heaven?"
Not to mention, that such a to^;<^el•ing ambition was but Ul
adapted to the raean rank, poor education, and habitual cir
cumstances of such men as tiie aposties mostly had been ; a
desire of that kind, whatever wonders it may effectuate, when
supported by enthusiasm, and faith, and zeal, must have soon
been crushed by the outward, and to human appearance in
surmountable difficulties and distresses they had to encounter;
when quite unsupported from witiiui by eitiier faith or hope,.
or the testimony of a good conscience ; rather I should have
said, when they theraselves were haunted from witiun by a
consciousness of the blackest guilt, impiety, and baseness.
Strange indeed, it must be owned without a parallel, that in
such a cause, and in such circumstances, not only one, but
all, should have the resolution to persevere to the last, in spite
of infamy and torture ; and tiiat no one, among so many con
federates, should be induced to betray the di'eadful secret.
* Pago 200.

FULLY ATTESTED. 63
Thus it appears that no address in the founder of our
rehgion, that no enthusiastic credulity, no pious frauds, no
ambitious viewt, in the first converts, will account for its
propagation on the plea of mfracles, if fjilse ; and tiiat, conse
quentiy, tiiere is no presumption M-ising fi-om human nature
against the miracles said to have been wi-ought in proof of
Christianitv.

SECTION IL
There is no presumption arising from the history of mankind,
against the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of
Christianity.
In the foregoing section, I reasoned only from the know
ledge that experience affords us oi human nature, and of the
motives by which men are influenced in their conduct. I
come now to the exammation of facts, that I may know
whether the history of mankind wUl invalidate or corroborate
my reasonings.
The Essayist is confident, that all the eridence resulting
hence is on his side. Nay, so unquestionable a truth does this
appear to him, that he never atterapts to prove it: he always
presupposes it, as a point universaUy acknowledged. " j\Ien
in aU ages," we leam fi'om a passage already quoted, " have
been much iraposed on, by ridiculous stories of mfracles as
cribed to new systems of rehgion."* Again he asserts, that
" the riolations of truth are more common in the testimony
conceming rehgious rafracles, than in that concerning any
other matter of fact."f These assertions, however, though
used for the same purpose, the attentive reader -^ill observe,
are far from conveying the same sense, or being of equal
weight in the argument. The difference has been mai-ked
in the fourth section of the Ffrst Part of this Tract. The
oracular predictions among the ancient Pagans, and the
pretended wonders performed by capuchins and friars, by
itinerant or stationary teachers araong the Roman Cathohcs,
* Page 204, in the note. t Page 205, in tho note.

64 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
the author wiU doubtiess reckon araong rehgious miracles ;
but he can vrith no propriety denominate them miracles
ascribed to a new system of rehgion.* Nov^it is with those
of the class last mentioned, and with those only, that I am
concerned ; for it is only to thera that the rairacles wrought
in proof of Christianity bear any analogy.
I shall then exaraine impartially this bold assertion. That
" men in all ages have been rauch imposed on by ridiculous
stories of miracles ascribed to new systems of religion." For
my part, I am fully satisfied that there is not the shadow of
truth in it ; and I am utterly at a loss to conceive what could
induce an author, so well versed in the annals both of ancient
and raodern tiraes as Mr. Hurae, in such a positive manner to
advance it. I beheve it vrill requfre no elaborate disquisition
to erince, that these two, Judaism and Christianity, are,
of all that have subsisted, or now subsist in the world, the
only rehgions which claim to have been attended in their
first publication with the eridence of miracles. It deserves
also to be remarked, that it is more in conformity to common
language, and incidental distinctions which have arisen, than
to strict propriety, that I call Judaism and Christianity two
religions. It is true, the Jewish creed, in the days of our
Saviour, having been corrupted by rabbinical traditions,
* Should the author insist, that such miracles are nevertheless meant to establish,
if uot a new system, at least some ne-w point of religion ; that those which are
wrought in Spain, for example, are not intended as proofs of the gospel, but as
proofs of the efficacy of a particular crucifix or relic — which is always a new point,
or at least not universally received ; I must beg the reader will consider, what is the
meaning of this expression, a new point of religion. It is not a new system, it is not
even a new doctrine. We know, that one article of faith in the church of Rome
is, that the images and relics of saints ought to be worshipped. We know also, ^
th.it, in proof of this article, it is one of their principal arguments, that miracles
are wrought by means of such relics and images. We know further, that that
church never attempted to enumerate her relics and other trumpery, and thus to
ascertain the individual objects of the adoration- of her votaries. The producing
therefore a new relic, image, or crudfiac, as an object of worship, implies not the
smallest deviation from the faith estailislted ; at the same time the opinion, that
miracles are performed by means of such relic, image, or crucifix, proves in the
minds of the people, for the reason assigned, a very strong confirmation of the faith
estahiished. All such miracles, therefore, must be considered as wrought in support
of the received superstition, and accordingly are always favoured by the popular
prejudices. See Preface.

FULLY ATTESTED. 65
stood in many respects, and at this day stands, in direct op
position to the gospel. But it is not in this acceptation that
I use the word Judaism. Such a creed, I am sensible, we
can no more denominate the doctrine of the Old Testament,
than we can denominate the creed of Pope Pius the doctrine
of the New. And truly the fate which both institutions, that
of Moses, and that of Christ, have met with among men,
has been in many respects extremely similar. But when, on
the contrary, we consider the religion of the Jews, not as the
system of faith and practice which obtains at present, or has
obtained heretofore, among that people ; but solely as the
rehgion that is revealed in the law and the prophets, we must
acknowledge, that in this institution are contained the rudi
ments of the gospel. The same great plan carried on by the
dirine proridence for the recovery and final happiness of
mankind, is the subject of both dispensations. They are by
consequence closely connected. In the forraer we are ac
quainted vrith the occasion and rise, in the latter more fully
with the progress and completion of this benign scheme. It
is for this reason that the Scriptures of the Old Testament,
which alone contain the authentic rehgion of the synagogue,
have ever been acknowledged in the church an essential
part of the gospel revelation. The apostles and evangelists,
in every part of their vmtings, presuppose the truth of the
Mosaic economy, and often found both their doctrine and
arguraents upon it. It is therefore, I affirm, only in proof
of this one series of revelations, that the aid of rairacles has
with success been pretended to.
Can the Pagan religion — can, I shoiUd rather say, any of
the numberless reUgions (for they are totaUy distinct) known
by the common name of Pagan, produce any claim of this
kind that will merit our attention ? If the author know of any,
I wish he had mentioned it : for in aU antiquity, as far as my
acquaintance vrith it reaches, I can recollect no such claim.
However, that I raay not, on the one hand, appear to pass
the raatter too shghtly ; or, on the other, lose rayself, as Mr.
Hume expresses it, in too wide a field ; I shall briefly consi
der, whether the ancient rehgions of Greece or Rome (which.

66 the miracles of the gospel
of all the species of heathenish superstition, are on many
accounts the most remarkable) can present a claim of this
nature. Will it be said, that that monstrous heap of fables
we find in ancient bards, relating to the genealogy, produc
tion, amours, and achievements of the gods, are the miracles
on which Greek and Boman Paganism claims to be founded ?
If one should talk in this manner, I must remind him, first,
that these are by no means exhibited as evidences, but as the
theology itself; the poets always using the same affirraative
style concerning what passed in heaven, in hell, and in. the
ocean, where men could not be spectators, as concerning what
passed upon the earth : secondly, that all those raythological
tales are confessedly recorded many centuries after they are
supposed to have happened ; no voucher, no testiraony, no
thing that can deserve the narae of eridence having been pro
duced, or even alleged, in proof of them : thirdly, that the
intention of the writers seems to be solely the amusement, not
the conriction of their readers ; that accordingly no writer
scruples to model the mythology to his particular taste, or
rather caprice : but, considering this as a province subject to
the laws of Parnassus, all agree in arrogating here the im
memorial pririlege of poets, to say and feign, unquestioned,
what they please ; and, fourthly, that at least several of their
narrations are allegorical, and as plainly intended to convey
some physical or raoral instruction, as any of the apologues of
^sop. But to have said even thus much in refutation of so
absurd a plea, vriU perhaps to raany readers appear superfluous.
Leaving therefore the endless absurdities and incoherent
fictions of idolaters, I shaU inquire, in the next place, whether
the Mahoraetan worship (which in its speculative principles
appears more rational) pretends to have been built on the
evidence of miracles.
Mahomet, the founder of this profession, openly and fre
quently, as aU the world knows, disclairaed such eridence.
He frankly owned, that he had no commission nor power to
work miracles, being sent of God to the people only as a
preacher. Not indeed but that there are things raentioned
in the revelation he pretended to give them, which,,if true.

FULLY attested. 67
would have been miraculous; such are the nocturnal risits of
the angel Gabriel, (not unlike those secret interriews which
Numa, the institutor of the Roman rites, affirmed diat he
had vrith the goddess E^ria,) his getting from time to time
parcels of the uncreated book transmitted to him from heaven,
and his most amaOTng night-joumey. But these miracles
conld be no evidences of his mission. Why ? Because no
person was witness to them. On the contrary, it was because
his adherents had previously and implicidy beheved his
apostleship, that they admitted things so incredible on his
bare dedaiation. There is indeed one miracle, and bnt one,
which he often niges against the infidels, as the main support
of his cause ; a miracle for which even we, in this distant
region and period, have not only the evidence of testimony,
but, if we please to use it, all the eridence winch the con
temporaries and countrymen of this militair apostie ever
enjoyed. The mirade I mean is, the manifest divinity, or
supernatural excellence, of the scriptures which he gave
them : a miracle, concerning which I shall only say, that as
it falls not under the cc^nizance of the senses, but of a much
more &llible tribunal, taste in composition, and critical dis
cernment, so a principle of less efficacy than enthusiasm,
even the slightest partiality, may make a man, in this parti
cular, imagine he perceives what has no reahfy. Certain it
is, that notwithstanding the many defiances which the prophet
gave his enemies, sometimes to produce ten chapters, some
times one, that could bear to be compared with an equal
portion of the perspicuous book,* they seem not in the least
to have been convinced that there was any thing miraculous
in the matter. Nay, this sublime performance, so highly
venerated by every Mussulman, they were not afraid to
blaspheme as contemptible, calling it " A confused heap of
dreams," and "the silly febles of ancient times. "f
' Akaaa. Theehqwa — rfsbeeois — rf Jonas, of Hod.
t Of catde— oC Ae sprih — rf the Pmfhe'.^ That lie Alcorsn beais a -ray
Etnnf lesemUasce t; &e Talnud, is indeed evident; tnt I baldly think we oat
kave a hkhe stzikiiig iiKtence of Ae -p^&xs rf modem iiif.iels, -isa in ther eom-
pnii^ itii mod^ eooipaation to the -irri-diijs rf the Old and New Testament. I^
E

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

FULLY ATTESTED. 69
were the reasons, that an engine of such amazing influence was
never employed by one who assumed a character so eminent as
the chief of God's apostles, and the seal of the prophets ? Was
it the want of address to manage an imposition of this nature ?
business : I will not resolve on any thing, till ye be witnesses thereof. They an
swered. We are endowed with strength, and endowed with gi-eat prowess in war ; but
the command appertaineth to tliee : see, therefore, what thou wilt command. She
said. Verily, kings, when they enter a city, waste tlie same, and abase the most power
ful of the inhabitants thereof : and so will these do. But I will send gifts to them ;
and will wait for what those who shall be sent shall bring back. And when the
ambass.idor came to Solomon, that prince said, Will ye present mo with riches ?
Verily that which God hath given me is better than what he has given you : but yo
glory in your gifts. Retum to your people. We will sui-ely come to them with
forces, which they shr.ll not be able to withstand ; and we will drive them out
humbled ; aad they shall be contemptible. And Solomon said, O nobles, which of
you will bring me her throne, before they come and surrender themselves to me?
A terrible genius answered, I will bring it thee, before thou arise from thy place.
And one with whom was the knowledge of the scripture said, 1 will bring it to theo
in the twinkling of an eye. And when Solomon saw it placed before him, he said.
This is a favour of my Lord, that he may make trial of mc, whether I will be grate
ful, or whether I will be ungrateful : and he who is grateful, is grateful to his own
advantage ; but if any shall be ungrateful, verily my Lord is self-sufficient and mag
nificent And he said. Alter her. throne that she may not know it, to the cud we
may see whether she be directed, or whether she be of those who are not directed.
And when she was come, it was said. Is thy throne like this ? She answered. As
though it were the same. And we have had knowledge bestowed on us before this,
and have been resigned. But that which she worshipped besides God had turned her
aside, for she was of an unbelieving people. It was said to her, Enter the palace.
And when she saw it, she imagined it to be a great -water, aud she discovered her legs.
Solomon said. Verily this is a palace evenly floored with glass. She said, O Lord,
verily I have dealt unjustly with my own soul; and I resign myself, together with
Solomon, to God,' the Lord of all creatures." — Thus, poverty of sentiment, mon
strosity of invention, which always -betokens a distempered, not a rich imagination,
and in respect of diction the most turgid verbosity, so apt to be mistaken by persons
of 8 vitiated taste for true sublimity, are the genuine characteristics of the book.
They appear almost in every line. The very titles and epithets assigned to God are
not exempt from them : the Lord of the daybreak, the Lord of the magnificent throne,
the King of the day of judgment, &c. They are pompous and insignificant. If
the language of the Alcoran, as the Mahometans pretend, is indeed tho language
of God, the thoughts iire but too evidently the thoughts of men. The reverse ofthis is
the character of the Bible. When God speaks to men, it is reasonable to think
that he addresses , them in their own language. In the Bible you will find no
thing inflated, nothing affected in the style. Tho words ai-e human, but the sen
timents aro divine. Accordingly, there is, perhaps, no book in the world, as has
been often justly observed, which suffers less by a literal translation into any other
language.

70 the MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
None who knows the history of this extraordinary personage
will suspect, that he wanted either the genius to contrive, or
the resolution and dexterity to execute, any practicable ex
pedient for promoting his grand design ; which was no less
than that extensive despotism, both rehgious and pohtical, he
at length acquired. Was it that he had too much honesty to
concert and carry on so gross an artiflce ? Those who believe
him to have been an impostor in pretending a divine mission,
wiU hardly suspect him of such delicacy in the methods he
would take to accomphsh his aim. But in fact there is no
colour of reason for such a suggestion. There was no pro
digy, no miraculous interposition, which he hesitated to give
out, however extravagant, when he saw it would contribute
to his ends. Prodigies of which they had no other eridence
but his own allegation, he knew his adversaries might deny,
but could not disprove. His scruples, therefore, we may well
conclude, proceeded not from probity, but from prudence;
and were solely against such rairacles as must be subjected to
the scrutiny of other people's senses. Was it that miracle-
working had, before that time, become so stale a derice, that,
instead of gaining him the admiration of his countryraen, it
would have exposed hira to their laughter and conterapt ? The
most cursory perusal of the Alcoran will, to every man of
sense, afford an unanswerable confutation of this hypothesis.*
* It is observable, that Mahomet was very mnch harassed by the demands and
reasonings of his opposers with regard to miracles. They were so far from despising
this evidence, that they considered the power of working miracles as a never-failing
badge of the prophetical office ; and therefore often assured him, by the most solemn
oaths and prostestations, that they would submit implicitly to his guidance in reli
gion, if he would once gratify them in this particular. This artful man, who does not
Beem to have been of the same opinion with the Essayist, that it was easy for cunning
and impudence to impose, in a matter of this kind, on the credulity of the multitude,
even though an ignorant and barbarous multitude, absolutely refused to subject his
mission to so hazardous a trial. There is no subject he more frequently recurs to
in his Alcoran, being greatly interested to remove the doubts which were raised in
the minds of many by his disclaiming this power ; a power which, till then, had ever
been looked upon as the prerogative of the prophets. The following are some of
the reasons with which he endeavours to satisfy the people on this head :  1 st. The
sovereignty of God, who is not to be called to account for what he gives or
withholds. 2nd, The uselessness of miracles, because every man is foreordained

FULLY ATTESTED. 71
Lastly, was it that he lived in an enlightened age, and araongst
a cirihzed and learned people, who were too quick-sighted
to be deceived by tricks which among barbarians might have
produced the most astonishing effects ? Quite the reverse.
He hved in a barbarous age, and amongst an iUiterate people,
with whora, if with any, he had reason to believe the grossest
deceit would prove successful.
What pity was it, that Mahoraet had not a counsellor so
deeply versed in huraan nature as the Essayist, who could have
assured him that there needed but effrontery and enterprise ;
that with these auxiharies he had reason to hope the most im
pudent pretences would be crowned with success ? The too
timid prophet would doubtless have remonstrated against this
spirited counsel, insisting that it was one thing to satisfy
friends, and another thing to silence or convert enemies? that
itwas one thing to impose onxaexLsintellects, and another thing
to deceive their senses ; that though an attempt of the last
kind should succeed with sorae, yet, if the fi'aud were detected
by any, and he might expect that his adversaries would exert
theraselves in order to detect it, the whole raystery of craft
would be divulged, his friends would become suspicious, and
the spectators of such pretended miracles would become daily
more prying and critical ; that the consequences would infal
libly prove fatal to the whole design ; and that therefore such
a cheat was on no account whatever to be risked. To this me
thinks I hear the other replying with some earnestness, " Make
but the trial, andyou wiU certainly flnd, that what judgment,
nay, and what senses your auditors have, they will renounce by
principle in those subhme and mysterious subjects : they will
imagine they see and hear what has no reality, nay, whatever
you shaU desire that they should see and hear : their creduhty
either to believe, or to remain in unbelief; and this decree no miracles could
alter. 3rd, The experienced i-neffieacy of miracles in former times, 4th, The
mermj of God, who had denied them this evidence, because the sin of their incre
dulity, in case he had granted it, would have been so heinous, that he could not
have respited or tolerated them any longer, Sth, The abuse to which miracles
would have been exposed from the infidels, who would have either charged them
with imposture, or imputed them to magic. See the chapters — of cattle, — of
thunder, — of Al Hejir, — of the night journey, — of tho spider,— of the prophets, —
See Preface. '

72 the miracles of the gospel
(forgive a freedom which ray zeal inspkes) vn\l increase your
impudence, and your impudence wiU overpower their credu
hty. The smaUest spark raay here kmdle into the greatest
flarae ; because the materials are always prepared for it. The
avidum genus auricularum swaUow greedUy, without exami
nation, whatever soothes superstition and promotes wonder."
Whether the judicious reader vrill reckon that the prophet or
his coimseUorwould have had the better in this debate, I shaU
not take upon me to decide. One perhaps (if I might be in
dulged in a conjecture) whose notions are.fomided in meta
physical reflneraents, or whose resolutions ai-e uifluenced by
oratorical declamation, wUl inchne to the opinion of the latter.
One whose sentiments are the result of a practical knowledge
of mankind, wiU probably subscribe to the judgment of the
forraer, and wiU allow, that in this instance the Captain-Ge
neral and Prophet of Islamism acted the more prudent part.
Shall we then say, that it was a more obscure theatre on
which Jesus Christ appeared ? Were his spectators more
ignorant, or less adverse ? The contrary of both is manifest.
It raay indeed be affirraed with truth, that the rehgion ofthe
vrild Arabs was more repugnant to the doctrine of Mahomet,
than the rehgious dograas of the Jews were to those of Jesus.
But we shall err egregiously if we conclude thence, that to
this repugnancy therepugnancy of disposition in the professors
of these religions must be proportionate. It is a flne observa
tion of the raost piercing and coraprehensive genius which has
appeared in this age. That " though men have a very sti'ong
tendency to idolatry, they are nevertheless but httle attached
to idolatrous religions ; that though they have no great ten
dency to spiritual ideas, they are nevertheless strongly at
tached to religions which enjoin the adoration of a spiritual
being."* Hence an attachment in Jews, Christians, and
Mahometans, to their respective religions, wliich was never
displayed by polytheists of any denomination. But its spi
rituality was not the only cause of adherence which the Jews
had to their rehgion. Every physical, every moral motive,
concurred in that people to rivet their attachment, and raake
them oppose with riolence whatever bore the face of innova-
* De I'Esprit des Loix, liv, 25. chap. 2.

FULLY attested. 73
tion. Their rehgion and polity were so blended as scarcely
to be distinguishable : Thi-A engaged theix patriotism.. They
were selected of God preferably to other nations : This in
flaraed theix pride.* They were all under one spiritual head,
the high-priest, and had their soleran festivals celebrated in
one teraple : This strengthened their union. The cereraonies
of their pubhc worship were magnificent : This flattered their
senses. These ceremonies also were numerous, and occupied
a great part of their time : This, to all the other grounds of
attachment, superadded the force of habit. On the contrary,
the simpUcity of the gospel, as well as the spirit of humility,
and moderation, and charity, and universality, (if I may be
aUowed that term), which it breathed, could not fail to alarm
a people of such a cast, and awaken, as in fact it did, the most
furious opposition. Accordingly, Christianity had fifty tiines
raore success among idolaters than it had among the Jews. I
am therefore warranted to assert, that if the miracles of our
Lord and his apostles had been an imposture, there could not,
on the face of the earth, have been chosen for exhibiting them
a raore unfavourable theatre than Judea, On the other hand,
had it been any-where practicable, by a display of false won
ders, to make converts to a new religion, no-where could a
project of this nature have been conducted with greater pro
babUity of success than in Arabia. So much for the contrast
there is betwixt the Christian Messiah and the Orphan
Charge of Abu Taleb : So plain it is, that the mosque yields
entirely the plea of miracles to the synagogue and the church.
But from Heathens and Mahometans let us turn our
eyes to the Christian world. The only object here which
raerits our attention, as coraing under the denomination of
miracles ascribed to a new system, and as what raay be thought
to rival in credibility the rairacles of the gospel, are those said
to have been performedin the primitive church, after the times
of the apostles, and after the flnishing of the sacred canon.
These will probably be ascribed to a new system, since Chris
tianity, for some centuries, was not (as the phrase is) establish-
* How great influence this motive had, appears from Luke iv. 25, &c., and from
Acts xxii, 21, 22,

74 THE MIRACLES OF THF GOSPEL
ed, or (to speak more properly) corrupted by human autho
rity; and since, even after such estabUshment, there remained
long in the empire a considerable mixture of idolaters. ^ We
have the greater reason here to consider this topic, as it has
of late been the subject of very warm dispute, and as the cause
of Christianity itself (which I conceive is totaUy distinct) seems
to have been strangely confounded with it. From the raan
ner in which the argument has been conducted, who would
not conclude, that both raust stand or faU together I Nothing
however can be more groundless, nothing more injurious to
the rehgion of Jesus, than such a conclusion.
The leamed vmter who has given rise to this controversy,
not only acknowledges that the falsity of the miracles mention
ed by the fathers is no eridence of the falsity of the rairacles
recorded in scripture ; but that there is even a presumption in
favour of these, arising from those forgeries which he pretends
to have detected.* The justness of the remark contained in
this acknowledgraent, will appear more clearly from the fol
lowing observations.
Let it be observed, 1st, that supposing numbers of people
are ascertained of the truth of some miracles, whether their
conriction arise frora sense or frora testimony, it will surely be
adraitted as a consequence, that, in aU such persons, the pre
sumption against miracles from uncommonness raust be great
ly dirainished, in several perhaps totaUy extinguished.
Let it be observed, 2dly, that if true miracles have been
employed successfully in support of certain religious tenets,
this success will naturally suggest to those who are zealous of
propagating favourite opinions in religion, to recur to the plea
of rairacles, as the most effectual expedient for accomphshing
their end. This they will be encouraged to do on a double
account: _^rs<, they know that people, from recent experience,
are raade to expect such a confirmation ; secondly, they know,
that in consequence ofthis experience, the incredibihty, which
is the principal obstruction in such an undertaking, is in a
manner removed ; and there is, on the contrary, as in such
circumstances there certainly would be, a promptness in the
generality to receive thera.
* Dr. Middleton's prefatory discourse to his Letter from Rome.

FULLY ATTESTED. 75
«
Add to these, that if we consult the liistory of mankind, or
even our own experience, we shall be convinced, that hardly
has one wonderful event actuaUy happened in any country,
even where there have not been such visible temptations to
forgery, which has not given rise to false rumours of other
events similar, but stiU more wonderful. Hardly has any per
son or people achieved some exploits truly extraordinary, to
whom common report has not quickly attributed many others,
as extraordinary at least, if not impossible. As fame may,
in this respect, be compared to a multiplying glass, reasonable
people almost always conclude in the same way concerning
both : we know that there is not a real object corresponding
to every appearance exhibited, at the same time we know that
there must be some objects to give rise to the appearances.
I should therefore only beg of our adversaries, that, for
argument's sake, tiiey will suppose that the miracles related
in the New Testament were really perforraed ; and then, that
they wiU candidly teU us, what, according to their notions of
human nature, would, in all hkehhood, have been the conse
quences. They must be very partial to a darling hypothesis,
or httle acquainted with the world, who will hesitate to ovra,
that, on this supposition, it is not barely probable, but certain,
that for a few endowed with the miraculous power, there would
soon have arisen numbers of pretenders ; that from sorae rai
racles weU attested, occasion would have been taken to pro
pagate innuraerable false reports. If so, vrith what colour
of justice can the detection of raany spurious reports araong
the primitive Christians be considered as a presumption
against those miracles, the reahty of which is the most plau
sible, nay the only plausible account, that can be given of
the origin of such reports ? The presuraption is too eri
dently on the opposite side to need illustration.
It is not ray intention here to patronize either side of the
question which the Doctor's free inquiry has occasioned. AU
that concerns my argument is barely to erince, and this I
imagine has been erinced, that, granting the Doctor's plea to
be well founded, there is no presumption arising hence, which
tends in the lowest degree to discredit the rairacles recorded
in -holy -wxit ; nay, that there is a contrary presumption. In

76 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
further confii-mation of this truth, let me ask. Were there
ever, in any region of the globe, any similar pretensions to
miraculous powers, before that memorable era, the pubhca
tion of the gospel ? Let me ask again. Since those pretensions
ceased, has it ever been in the power of the raost daring en
thusiast to revive them anywhere in favour of a new system ?
Authentic miracles wiU for a time give a currency to coun
terfeits ; but as the former becorae less frequent, the latter
becorae raore suspected, till at length they are treated vrith
general contempt, and disappear. The danger then is, lest
men, ever prone to extremes, become as extravagantly incre
dulous as formerly they were credulous. Laziness, the true
source of both, always inclines us to admit or reject in the
gross, without entering on the irksome task of considering
things in detail. In the first instance, knowing some such
events to be true, they admit all without examination ; in
the second, knowing some to be false, they reject all without
examination. A procedure this, which, however excusable in
the unthinking herd, is altogether unworthy a philosopher.
But it may be thought, that the claim to miracles, in the
early ages of the church, continued too long to be supported
solely on the credit of those performed by our Lord and his
apostles. In order to account for this, it ought to be attended
to, that in the com-se of some centuries the situation of affairs,
with regard to religion, was reaUy inverted. Education, and
even superstition, and bigotry, and popularity, which the
miracles of Christ and his apostles had to encounter, came
gradually to be on the side of those wonders said to have been
performed in after tiraes. If they were potent enemies, and
such as, we have reason to believe, nothing but the force of
truth could vanquish ; they were also potent allies, and may
well be supposed able to give a teraporary triuraph to false
hood, especially when it had few or no enemies to combat.
But in discoursing on the prodigies said to have been per
formed in primitive times, I have been insensibly carried from
the point to which I propose in this section to confine my
self. From inquiring into miracles ascribed to new systems,
I have proceeded to those pleaded in confirmation of systems
preriously established, and generally received.

FULLY ATTESTED. 77
Leaving so remote a period, I propose, lastly, to inquire,
whether, since that time, anyheresiarch whatever, any founder
of a new sect, or pubhsher of a new system, has pretended
to miraculous powers ? — If the Essayist had known of any
such pretender, he surely would have mentioned him. But
as he has not afforded us any hght on this subject, I shall just
recall to the remembrance of my reader those persons who,
either as innovators or reformers, have made some figure in
the chm-ch. They were the persons from whom, if from any,
a plea of this kind might naturally have been expected;
especially at a time when Em-ope was either plunged in bar
barisra, or but beginning to emerge out of it.
Was ever, then, this high prerogative, the power of working
miracles, clairaed or exercised by the founders of the sects of
the Waldenses and Albigenses ? Did Wickhff" in England
pretend to it ? Did Huss or Jerom in Bohemia ? To corae
nearer raodern tiraes, did Luther in Germany, Zuinghus in
Switzerland, Calrin in France, or any other of the reformers,
advance this plea ! Do such of them as are authors mention
in their vn-itings any rairacles they perforraed, or appeal to
thera as the evidences of their doctrine ? Do contemporary
historians aUege that they chaUenged the faith of their audi
tors in consequence of such supernatural powers ? I admit, if
they did, that their miracles might be ascribed to a new system :
For though they pretended only to re-estabhsh the Christian
institution in its native purity, expunging those pernicious
interpolations which a false philosophy had foisted into the
doctrinal part, and Pagan superstition into the raoral and the
ritual ; yet, as the rehgion they inculcated greatly differed
from the faith and worship of the times, it raight, in this re
spect, be denorainated a new system ; and would be encoun
tered by aU the riolence and prejudice which novelties in reh
gion never fail to excite. Not that the want of real rairacles
was a presumption against the truth of their doctrine : the
God of nature, who is the God of Christians, does nothing
in vain. No new revelation was pretended to ; consequently
there was no occasion for such supernatural support. They
appealed to the revelation formerly bestowed, and by all par
ties acknowledged, as to the proper rule in this controversy :

78 THE JORACLES OF THE GOSPEL
they appealed to die reason of manfciiwl as the jndge : and
the reason of mankind was a competent judge of the con
formity of their doctnne to lias tmetring rub.
But how, upon die aitthor's principles, shall we accoimt
for this moderation in tlie xelaaners ? Were tbey, in Ids
jodgment, cahn inqnireis into trnti ? Were thev di^aaaan-
ate reastmers in defence of it? Far odiCTwise. He teUs
us, '•' Thev maj safely be pnmoanced to hare been univer
sally inflamed widi the Invest eadrasaasiiL."* And, doubt
less, we cannot expect from this hand a more amiable pe-
tore of thrar disciples. May not we, then, in our tmn,
safblv prononnce, this writer himself being judg^e. diat for a
man to imagine lie sees what has no reality, to impose in
ttii mannei not only oa his own tmdeigtandin^ but even
on his extemal senses, is a pitch of delusion higber than die
laziest enthusiasm can produce, and is to be imputed only
to downiight frenzy ?-j-
t Fe^sofe it viU ke fiesded, Aot tbe -waita^ ef ^Hrfay ws: f im Mi iifiil \if tfe
leasts IB :le Be&osaiieB as a. Pogs^ iri^£&- £^i >£ ^ee^ass wpithj <^bdBg <s-
cscdcd whli Sfce '.cLer aliases viodi Pa^teiT \ai. ^¦^vimcsi. Tts^ ds ws a!« ibe
li-giii: iamlKii Bsaades-soe fjew^ bj La&er, lai^ jiisdj poGEOgcg: &e&s£|beeiB
flse 2ii^ of BefKaaos, is endest &oe! Ae bisidet ia vUch be SEpaes ^oast Kanco,
tb££;--.<rCeef Oe Aaafa^tkllE. Tlis Ba% aiders: cr^saliaB, bad ss;=:ed Ae a^DS
flf £ Of^-^-gT^ fay^^PT A^iii^s: &k cmriBCS TjurArr nc^nesoZsttES. ss besB^ ia in
jafeiwifT^t^aagaaifaficBaf the taaedfinirtiiiiii. -LdtUatbeadaBi/'ssra b(^*^vb*
ji^& iis 3. tEtt&ei of ^'t'~ ' ^ ^ EZEWEis. G«d; let Ub jn-r^ izhja TJaUe
warxie: &r x£ is bj sed asas 'i^s:: Gtid deelaceE fc*^"^ Mhe& he ^nr^si s& exm*
at lEajj ¦raasB." Wben tbis Jig''™^*^ vas a&amnb seCaited ^ Mnadf %
tbi BseesisSs, «b« desiel t» kage b?? bb ova ncaSiea, '¦jr^p-srj Saoied aal de-
H'lAatj bad beeoae z:---. sb]^ aaEanted, boi qzfrje nAjpiMTi »ii ef Ae iimtthf,
frna vUck be bad les^rcd i: : bis r?:lT vss, Tbat ibe iabqi&s viA vbicb be
bad bee& «=*"^Jg«l lo bBs*^ so -irszsj i1 ip ji 1 1 ^ sc^ Ae saosm wUi vbidi bis ealCF-
)i^ lad beea !7-o-zred, ce^t -.: be icgazded as siraealaas : aad, indrfd^ sesS a
las SifflsBEZs «@e af Ab efiBiaB. Bat -^zaisz tbfe tt^nB^n. vss enoaeaas, «'
v^eAo- Ae :lv ' >=?^ g^ — — -Msseex vs& tmuht bit, is is sat ^7 largess to ia-
qiBRL Tb^ Em^l s eridar: &aai zz~ ^latf: Jir^t, Tbat Afe ¦i'''" — ", &f
IVvssi T^r^eifz^ Mjli.t#1« g 2£ a l^T*-^-^- tzidk, aciaoaje^ed iba£ ia b^jeds j^^bsib
qaesSiOBS ice^ are tfe oalj "^^B"^ af psaf : ageoa^^ Tbat sKwi&taafiag
tioE, be BeT9 atifiwyiMi, l^a Amr ef nzisfl^s, to Inspase oa Ae '''^'«»» of bii
beaiets; (if A^ ««e deesiel ia «hi»lA»g ~s,i Us sseeess a^ 1 n^ 1 imiiTiT
vae MSiitjj ibiiarj it vas ass tbeir »=gwgft_ bot Aeir aatesSaaf:::^ tisas 's^j de-
cored): Ira% Tts^ ±£: Atnlnynf*' Aeandi^ As^ F^i^V^ i^ bk aat-
lagsgiffi ^aaties Aat era eiisSed, £d aot fccStaA t» tbe paws cf »«liag

FULLY .\TTESTED. 79
Since the world began, tiiere hath not appeared a more
general propension to the wUdest fanaticism, a greater degree
of creduhty in every claim that was made to the iUapses of
the Holy Spirit, or a more thorough contempt of aU estabhsh
ed modes of worship, than appeared in this island about the
middle of the last century. It is astonishing, that when the
minds of men were intoxicated with enthusiasm ; when every
new pretender to divine iUuminations was quickly surround
ed by a crowd of foUowers, and his most incoherent effusions
greedUy swaUowed as the dictate? of the Holy Ghost ; that
in such a Babel of sectaries, none are to be found who ad
vanced a claim to the power of working miracles ; a claim
which, in tiie author's opinion, though false, is easUy sup
ported, and wonderfuUy successful, especiaUy among enthu
siasts, ^ et to !Mr. Hume himself, who has written the history
of that period, and who wUl not be accused of neglecting to
mark the extravagancies effected by enthusiasm, I appeal
whether this remark be just.
WiU it be aUeged as an exception, that one or two frantic
people among the Quakers, not the leaders of the party, did
actuaUy pretend to such a power ? Let it be remembered,
that this conduct had no other consequences, but to bring
upon the pretenders such a general contempt, as, in that fa
natical and gloomy age, the most uninteUigible jargon or
glaring nonsense would never have been able to produce.
WiU it be urged by the Essayist, that, even in the beginning
of the present century, this plea was rerived in Britain by the
French prophets, a set of poor visionaries, who, by the bar
barity by which they had been treated in their otm country,
^ad been wrought up to madness before they took refiige in
this ? I must beg leave to remind him, that it is manifest,
from the history of those delirious and unhappy creatures,
that by no part of their conduct did they so effectuaUy open
the eyes of mankind naturaUy credulous, discredit their own
inspirations, and ruin their caus<», as by this not less foohsh
than presumptuous pretence. Accordingly they are perhaps
the only sect, which has sprung up so lately, made so great a
miracles.  Sletdan, B. S. Lulk. De rotis ii:,?Hast. S;:. £pi.it. lu/ Frid. Sar,
/>»«(*, ap. Ciytr<esm, — See Pre&ce.

80 THE MIRACLES OF THE XIOSPEL
bustie for awhile, and which is nevertheless at this day totaUy
extinct. It deserves also to be remarked concerning this
* people, that though they were mad enough to iraagine that
they could restore a dead raan to life ; nay, though they pro
ceeded so far as to determine and announce beforehand the
day and the hour of his resurrection ; yet none of thera were
so distracted as to imagine that they had seen him rise ; not
one of them afterwards pretended that their prediction had
been fulfilled. Thus even a frenzy, which had quite disor
dered their intellects, could not in this instance overpower
their senses.
Upon the whole, therefore, till some contrary example be
produced, I raay warrantably conclude, — that the rehgion of
the Bible is the only rehgion extant, which claims to have
been recommended by the eridence of miracles ; that though,
in different ages and countries, nuraberless enthusiasts have
arisen, extremely few have dared to advance this plea ; — that
wherever any have had the boldness to recur to it, it has
proved the bane, ahd not the support of their cause. Thus
it has been evinced, as was proposed, that there is no pre
sumption arising from the history of the ivorld, which can in
the least invalidate the argument from miracles, in defence of
Christianity.

SECTION III.
No miracles recorded by historians of other reUgions are sub
versive of the evidence arising from the miracles wrought in
proof of Christianity, or can be considered as contrary tes-*
timony." Why is a miracle regarded as evidence of a rehgious doc
trine ? or, What connexion is there between an act of power
admitted to be supernatural, and the truth of a proposition
pronounced by the person who exerts that power?" These
are questions, which some of our infidels have exulted in as
unanswerable : And they are questions which it is proper to
examine a little ; not so much for their own sake, as because

FULLY ATTESTED. 81
a satisfactory answer to them may throw light on the subject
of this section.
A man, I suppose, of an unblemished character, advances
doctrines in religion unknown before, but not in themselves
apparently impious or absurd. We interrogate liim about
the manner wherein he attained the knowledge of those doc
trines. He affirms. That by no process of reasoning, nor in
any other natural way, did he discover them ; but that they
were revealed to him by the Spirit of God. It must be owned
there is a very strong presumption against the truth of what
he says ; and it is of consequence to inquire, whence that pre
sumption arises. It is not priraarily frora any doubt of the
man's integrity. If the fact he related were of an ordinary
nature, the reputation he has hitherto maintained would se
cure him fi'om being suspected of an intended deceit. It is
not from any absurdity or immoral tendency we perceive in
the doctrine itself. It arises principally, if not solely, from
these two circumstances — the extreme uncommonness of such
a revelation, and the great facihty vrith which people of strong
fancy may, in this particular, impose upon theraselves. The
man, I suppose, acquaints us farther, that God, when he com
municated to hira the truths he pubhshes, coraraunicated also
the power of working miracles, such as, of giring sight to the
bUnd, and hearing to the deaf, of raising the dead, and mak
ing whole the mairaed. It is erident, that we have precisely
the' same presumption against his being endued with such a
power, as against his haring obtained such a revelation. Two
things are asserted : There is one presumption, and but one,
against them : and it equally affects them both. Whatever
proves either assertion, reraoves the only presumption which
hinders our behef of the other. The raan, I suppose, lastly,
perforras the miracles before us, which he said he was com
missioned to perform. We can no longer doubt of a super-
natm-al communication : we have now all the evidence which
the integrity of the person could give us, as to any ordinary
event attested by him, that the doctrine he dehvers as from
God, is from God, and therefore true.
Nay, we have more eridence than for any common fact,
vouched by a person of undoubted probity. As God is both

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

FULLY ATTESTED. 83
the HoUander gets imported into the kingdom a sufficient
quantity of gunpowder, vrith the necessary artUlery. He
informs the monarch ofthis acquisition ; who having permitted
him to make experiments on some of his cattle and buildings,
perceives, with inexpressible amazement, that allthe European
had told him of the celerity and violence with which this de
structive powder operates, is strictly conformable to truth.
I ask any considerate person. Would not this be enough to
restore the stranger to the Indian's good opinion, which, I
suppose, his forraer experienced honesty had entitled him to ?
Would it not remove the incredibihty of the account he had
given of the freezing of water in northern countries? Yet, if
abstractly considered, what connexion is there between the
effects of gunpowder and the effects of cold? But the presump
tion arising from miracles, in favour of the doctrine published
by the performer as dirinely inspired, must be incoraparably
stronger ; since, frora what has been said, it appears to have
several pecuhar circumstances which add weight to it. It is
erident, then, that miracles are a proper proof, and perhaps
the only proper proof, of a revelation from Heaven. But it is
also erident, that miracles may be wrought for other purposes,
and may not be intended as proofs of any doctrine whatsoever.
Thus much being premised, I shall exaraine another very
curious argument of the Essayist: — " There is no testiraony,"
says he, " for any prodigy, that is not opposed by an infinite
nuraber of vritnesses ; so that not only the miracle destroys
the credit of the testimony, but even the testiraony destroys
itself."* In order to illustrate this strange position, he ob
serves, that, " in matters of religion, whatever is different is
contrary ; and that it is impossible the religions of ancient
Rome, of Turkey, of Siam, and of China, should all of them
be estabhshed on any sohd foundation. Every miracle there
fore pretended to have been wrought in any of these rehgions,
(and all of them abound in miracles,) as its direct scope is to
estabhsh the particular system to which it is attributed, so
it has the same force, though more indirectly, to overthrow
every other system. In destroying a rival system, it hkewise
* Page 190, &c.
F

84 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
destroys the credit of those miracles on which that system was
established ; so that all the prodigies of different rehgions are
to be regarded as contrary facts, and the evidences of these
prodigies, whether weak or strong, as opposite to each other.
Never did any author raore artfully avail hiraself of indefinite
expressions. With what admirable sleight does he vary his
phrases, so as to make the inadvertent reader look upon them
as synonymous, when in fact their significations are totally
distinct ? Thus what, by a most extraordinary idiom, is called
at first "rairacles wrought in a religion," we are next to
regard as " miracles attributed to a particular system," and
lastly, as " miracles, the direct scope of which is to establish
that system." Every body, I will venture to say, in begin
ning to read the sentence, if he forms any notion of what the
author means by a " rairacle wrought in religion," under
stands it barely as a miracle wrought among those " who
profess a particular religion ;" the words appearing to be used
in the same latitude, as when we call the traditional tales
current among the Jews, though they should have no relation
to rehgion, Jewish tales ; and those in like manner Mahome
tan or Pagan tales, which are current among Mahometans
or Pagans. Such a miracle, the reader, ere he is aware, is
brought to consider as a miracle attributed to a particular
system; nay further, as " a miracle, the direct scope of which
is to establish that system." Yet nothing can be conceived
raore different than the meaning of these expressions, which
are here jumbled together as equivalent.
It is plain, that all the miracles of which there is any record,
come under the first denomination. They are all supposed to
have been wrought before raen, or among men; and wherever
there are men, there is religion of some kind or other. Per
haps, too, all may, in a very improper sense, be attributed to
I a religious system. They all seera to imply an interruption of
) the ordinary course of nature. Such an interruption, wherever
it is observed, will be ascribed to the agency of those dirini-
ties that are adored by the observers, and so may be said to
be attributed by them to their own systera. But where are
the miracles (those of holy writ excepted) of which you can
say with propriety, it is their direct scope to establish a par-

FULLY ATTESTED.

ticular system ? Must we not tiien he strangely blinded by the
charm of a few ambiguous terms, if we are made to confound
things so widely different? Yet this confusion is the very basis
on which the author founds his reasoning, and rears this tre
mendous doctrine. That " a miracle of Mahomet, or any of
his successors," and, by parity of reason, a miracle of Christ,
or any of his apostles, " is refuted (as if it had been raen
tioned, and had, in express terras, been contradicted) by the
testimony of Titus Livius, Plutarch, Tacitus, and of all the
authors, Chinese, Grecian, and Roman Cathohc, who have
related any miracles in their particular religions." Here all
the miracles that have been related by men of different reli
gions are blended, as coraing under the coraraon denoraina
tion of miracles, the direct scope of which was to establish
those particular, rehgious systems; an insinuation in which
there is not even the shadow of truth.
That the reader raay be satisfied on this point, I must beg
his attention to the following observations concerning the
rairacles of profane- history. First, Many facts are related
as rairaculous, where we raay admit the fact without acknov/-
ledging the miracle. Instances of this kind we have in rela
tions concerning comets, eclipses, meteors, earthquakes, and
such hke. Secondly, The rairacles may be adraitted as genu
ine, and the raanner in which historians account for them re
jected as absurd. The one is a matter of testimony, the other
of conjecture. In this a man is influenced by education, by
prejudices, by received opinions. In every country, as was
observed already, men vrill recur to the theology of the place
for the solution of every phenomenon supposed miraculous.
But, that it was the scope of the miracle to support the theo
logy, is one thing ; and that fanciful men thought they dis
covered in the theology the causes of the rairacle, is another.
The inhabitants of Lystra accounted, from the -principles of
their own rehgion, for the miracle perforraed in their city by
Paul and Barnabas ; Acts xiv. 8, &c. Was it therefore the
scope of that rairacle to support the Lycaonian religion ?
Thirdly, Many miracles are recorded as pioduced directly
by Heaven, without the ministration of men : By what con
struction are these discovered to be proofs of a particular
F 2

86 THE MIRACLES OE THE GOSPEL
system ? Yet these also, wherever they happen, will be ac
counted for by the natives of the country, from the principles
of their ovm superstition. Had any of the Pagan citizens
escaped the ruin in which Sodom was miraculously involved,
they would doubtless have sought for the cause of this de
struction in the estabhshed raode of polytheism, and would
probably have iraputed it to the vengeance of some of their
deities, incurred by the neglect of some frivolous ceremony.
Would it therefore have been the scope of the miracle to
confirm this nonsense ? Fourthly, Even rairacles said to have
been performed by a man, are no eridences of the truth of that
raan's opinions ; such, I raean, as he pretends not to have
received by revelation, but by the exercise of reason, by edu
cation, or by inforraation frora other men ; no raore than a
man's being endowed vrith bodily strength greater than ordi
nary, would prove hira to be superior to others in his mental
faculties. I conclude with declaring, that if instances shall be
produced of rairacles wrought by men of probity, in proof of
doctrines which theyaflS.rm to have been revealed to them from
Heaven, and which are repugnant to the doctrine of the
Bible, then I shaU think it equitable to adrait, that religious
miracles contradict one another : then will reasonable people
be reduced to the dilegiraa, either of disproring the allega
tions on one side, or of acknowledging that rairacles can be
no eridence of revelation. No attempt however has as yet
been raade by anywriter to produce an instance of this kind.
" But will nothing less satisfy ?" rephes the author. " WUl
not the predictions of augurs and oracles, and the intimations
said to have been given by the gods or saints in drearas and
risions, of things not otherwise knowable by those to whom
they were thus intiraated; vriU not these, and such hke prodi
gies, serve in sorae degree as eridence ?" As eridence of what?
ShaU we say, "of any rehgious principles conveyed at the same
time by revelation ? No, it is not even pretended that there
were any such principles so conveyed ; but as eridence of
principles which had been long before entertained, and which
were originaUy imbibed from education, and from education
only. That the eridence here, supposing the truth ofthe facts,
is at best but very indirect, and by no means on the same foot-

FULLY ATTESTED. 87
ing with tiiat of the miracles recorded in the gospel, might be
easily evinced, if there were occasion. But there is in reality
no occasion, since there is no such evideuce of the facts as can
justly entitle thera to our notice. Let it be remembered, that
in the fom-th section of the First Part it was shown, that there
is the greatest disparity, in respect of eridence, betwixt mi
racles performed in proof of a religion to be established, and
iu contradiction to opinions generally received ; and rairacles
perforraed, on the contrary, in support of a rehgion already
established, and in confirmation of opinions generally received :
that, in the forraer case, there is the strongest presuraption/or
the miracles, in the latter against them. Let it also be re
membered, that in the preceding section it was shown, that the
religion of the Bible is the only rehgion extant which claims
to have been ushered into the world by miracles ; that this
prerogative, neither the Pagan rehgion, the Mahometan, nor
the Roraan Catholic, can, -srith any appearance of reason, ar
rogate ; and that, by consequence, there is one of the strongest
presumptions possible /or the miracles of the gospel, which is
not only wanting in the rairacles of other rehgions, but which
is contrasted by the strongest presumption possible against
these miracles. And though this presumption should not, in
all cases, be accounted absolutely insuperable, we must at least
say, it gives an immense superiority to the proofs of Christi
anity. It were an endless and a fruitless task, to canvass par
ticularly the eridence of all the pretended rairacles either of
Paganism or Popery, (for on this head Mahometanisra is
much more modest ;) but as the author has selected some,
which he considers as the best attested, of both rehgions, these
shaU be exarained severaUy in the two subsequent sections.
From this examination a tolerable judgraent raay be formed
concerning the pretensions of these two species of superstition.
But from what has been said it is evident, that the contra
riety which the author pretends to have discovered in the
miracles said to have been wrought, as he expresses it, in dif
ferent religions, vanishes entirely on a close inspection. He is
even sensible of this himself; and, as is customary with ora
tors, the more inconclusive his reasons are, so much the more
positive are his assertions. " This argument," says he,

88 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
"may appear over subtUe and refined;" indeed so subtile
and refined, that it is inrisible altogether ; " but  is not
in reality different from the reasoning of a Judge, who sup
poses that the credit of two vritnesses maintaining a crime
against any one, is destroyed by the testimony ,of two others
who affirm him to have been two hundred leagues distant, at
the same instant when the crime is said to have been com
mitted." After the particle but, vrith which this clause be
gins, the reader naturally expects such an explication of the
argument as vrill eonrince him, that, though subtile and re
fined, it hath solidity and strength. Instead of this, he hath
only the author's word warranting it to be good to all in
tents : " But is not in reality different," &c. The analogy
between liis example and his argument seems to be but very
distant ; * I shall, therefore, vrithout any comment, leave it
with the reader as I find it.
Thus it appears, that, for aught the author has as yet
proved, no miracles recorded by historians of other religions
are subversive of the eridence arising from the miracles
wrought in proof of Christianity, or can justly be considered
as contrary testimony.

SECTION TV.

Examination of the Pagan Miracles mentioned by Mr.
Hume.
Should one read attentively the Essay on Miracles, and
consider it solely as a philosophical disquisition on an abstract
question, like raost of the other pieces in the same coUection ;
* My French translator remarks, that, in a case which he supposes and illustrates
the analogy would be both close aud striking. I admit, that in the case supposed by
him, it would be so. But of such cases, I had observed before, that no example had
beeu produced. The miracles performed by Moses were manifestly in proof of his
mission, and consequently of the unity of the Godhead, his fundamental doctrine.
The like may be said of the miracles of Jesus, in regard to the doctrine which he
taught. But who can be said to have performed miracles in proof ot polytheism ? I
Imow not any. The remoteness of the analogy in the example adduced by Mr. Hume
was not meant as affirmed of any case supposable, but of any which had actually
occurred.

FULLY ATTESTED. 89
he could not fail to wonder what had induced the author so
suddenly to change sides in the debate, and, by doing so, to
contradict himself in terms the most express. Does he not,
in the latter part of that performance, as warmly contend for
the reahty of some miracles, as he had pleaded in the former
part for the impossibility of all ? It is true, he generally con
cludes concerning those, that they are "gross and palpable
falsehoods." But this serves only to render his conduct the
more mysterious, as that conclusion is always preceded by an
attempt to erince, that we have the greatest reason to receive
them as " certain and infaUible truths." Nay, so entirely
doth his zeal make him forget even his raost positive asser
tions, (and what inconsistencies raay not be dreaded frora an
excess of zeal .') that he shows rainutely, we have those very
eridences for the mhacles he is pleased to patronize, which,
he had strenuously argued, were not to be found in support
of any miracles whatever.
" There is not to be found," he affirms,* " in all history,
a miracle attested by a sufficient nuraber of raen, of such
unquestioned good sense, education, and learning, as to se
cure us against all delusion in theraselves ; of such undoubted
integrity, as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design
to deceive others ; of such credit and reputation in the eyes
of raankind, as to have a great deal to lose, in case of being-
detected in any falsehood ; and at the same time attesting
facts performed in such a public manner, and in so celebrated
a part of the world, as to render the detection unavoidable."
We need only tum over a few pages of the Essay, and we
shall find the author taking great pains to convince us, that
all these circumstances concurred in support of certain mi
racles, which, notwithstanding his general resolution, he has
thought fit to honour with a very particular attention.
He has not indeed told us how many witnesses, in his way
of reckoning, vrill constitute "a sufficient number;" biit for
some miracles which he relates, he gives us clouds oi wit
nesses, one cloud succeeding another : For the Mohnists, who
tried to discredit them, " soon found themselves overwhelmed
by a cloud of new witnesses, one hundred and twenty in num-
* Page 183.

90 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
ber."* As to the character of the witnesses, " most of them
were persons of credit and substance in Paris :"f again, those
miracles "were attested by witnesses of credit and distinction,
before judges of unquestioned integrity;" J and, they were
proved by witnesses, before the ofiicialty or bishop's court of
Paris, under the eyes of Cardinal NoaiUes, whose character
for integrity and capacity was never contested even by his
enemies: "§ again, "the secular clergy of France, particularly
the rectors or cures of Paris, give testimony to these impos
tures, than whom no clergy are more celebrated for strictness
of hfe and raanners. "|| Once more, one principal witness,
"Monsieur de Montgeron, was counsellor or judge of the
Parliaraent of Paris, a raan of figure and character ; "1[ ano
ther, "no less a man than the Ducde ChatiUon, a Duke and
Peer of France, of the highest rank and family."** It is
strange, if credit, and substance, and distinction, and capa
city, axe not sufficient securities to us that the witnesses were
not themselves deluded ; it is strange, ii uncontested integrity,
and eminent strictness oi hfe and manners, cannot remove
" aU suspicion of any design in them to deceive others;" it is
strange, if one who was counsellor oi the Parhament of Paris,
a raan of figure and character, and if another, who was a
Duke and Peer of France, of the highest rank and family,
had not " a great deal to lose, in case of being detected in
any falsehood :" nay, and if all those witnesses of credit and
distinction " had not also a great deal to lose ;" since the
" Jesuits, a learned body, supported by the civil magistrate,
were deterrained enemies to those opinions, in whose favour
the miracles were said to have been wrought ;"-t-f and since
Monsieur Herault, the heutenant " de police, of whose great
reputation, all who have been in France about that time
have heard ; and whose vigilance, penetration, activity, and
extensive intelUgence, have been much talked of ; since this
magistrate, who by the nature of his office is almost absolute,
was invested with full powers on purpose to suppress these
miracles, and frequently seized and examined the witnesses
¦* Page 197, in the note. t Ibid. } Page 195. § Page 196, in the note.
II Page 199, in the note. TI Page 195, in the note.
** Page 199, in the note. tt Page 195.

FULLY ATTESTED. 91
and subjects of them ; though he could never reach any thing
satisfactory against them."* As to the only remaining cir
cumstance, " their being performed in a public manner, and
in a celebrated part of the world," this concm-red also. They
were performed, we are told, " in a learned age, and on the
most eminent theatre that is now in the world ;"f besides,
twenty-two rectors or " cures of Paris, with infinite eamest
ness, pressed the Archbishop, an enemy to the Jansenists, to
examine those miracles, which they assert to be known to
the whole world, and indisputably certain."J
Thus the Essayist has laid us under the disagreeable ne
cessity of inferring, that he is either very rash in his general
assertions, or uses very great amphfication in his particular
narrations. Perhaps in both inferences we shall find, upon
inquiry, that there is sorae truth. In his History of Great
Britain he gives us notice,§ that he addressed hiraself " to a
more distant posterity than will ever be reached by any local
or temporary theology." Why did he not hkewise, in writ
ing the Essays, entertain this grand idea ? It would have
been of use to him. It would have prevented his falling into
those inconsistencies, which his too great attention and anti
pathy to what he calls a local or temporary theology only
could occasion ; and which, when that theology, according to
his hypothesis, shall be extinct, and when all our religious
controversies shall be forgotten, must appear unaccountable
and ridiculous. People wUl not then have the raeans of dis
covering, what is so obrious to us his contemporaries, that he
only assumes the appearance of an advocate for sorae mira
cles, which are disbeheved by the generahty of Protestants,
his countryraen, in order, by the coraparison, to vilify the
rairacles of sacred writ, which are acknowledged by thera.
But to descend to particulars, I shall begin with consi
dering those rairacles for which the author is indebted to the
ancient Pagans. First, In order to eonrince us, how easy a
matter it is for cunning and irapudence to impose by false
miracles on the credulity of barbarians, he introduces the story
• Page 197, in the note. t P»ge 195,
J Page 196, in the note. § James I. chap, ii.

92 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
of Alexander of Pontus.* The justness of the account he
gives of this impostor from Lucian, I shall not dispute. But
that it may appear how httle the Christian religion is affected
by this relation, notwithstanding some insinuations he has
intermixed vrith it, I shall make the following remarks.
It is of importance to know what was the profession of this
once so famous, though now forgotten, Paphlagonian. Was
he a publisher of strange gods ? No.f Was he the founder
of a new systera in religion ? No. What was he then ? He
was no other than a professed fortune-teller. What were the
arts by which he carried on this gainful trade ? The Essayist
justly reraarks, that " it was a wise policy in him, to lay the
first scene of his impostures in a country where the, people
were extreraely ignorant and stupid, and ready to swallow the
grossest delusion." For " had Alexander fixed his residence
at Athens, the philosophers of that renewed mart of learn
ing had imraediately spread through the whole Roraan em
pire their sense of the raatter ; which, being supported by so
great authority, and displayed by all the force of reason and
eloquence, had entirely opened the eyes of raankind." I shall
beg leave to remark another instance of good policy in him.
He attempted not to gain the veneration of the multitude by
opposing, but by adopting their religious prejudices. His
whole plan of deceit was founded in the estabhshed supersti
tion. The author himself will acknowledge, it would have
been extreme folly in him to have acted otherwise : and all
the world, I believe, \riU agree in thinking, that in that case
he could not have had the smaUest probabihty of success.
WTiat were the miracles which he wrought ? I know of none,
unless we wiU dignify with that narae some feats of legerde-
* Page 188,
t The learned and judicious author of the Observations on (lie conversion and
apostleship of St. Paul, has inadvertently said of Alexander, that he introduced a new
god into Pontus, The truth is, he only exhibited a reproduction of Esculapius, a
well known deity in those parts, to whom he gave indeed the 7iew name Glycon.
In this there was nothing unsuitable to the genius of the mythology. Accordingly
- wc do not find, tliat either the priests or the people were in tlie least alarmed for
tho religion of the country, or ever ch.ugcd Alexander as an innoralor in religious
matters. Ou the contrary, the greatest enemies he had to encouuier, were not the
religionists, but the latitudinarians.

FULLY ATTESTED. 93
main, performed mostly by candle-hght, whicli in many parts
of Europe we may daily see equaUed, nay far exceeded, by
those of modern jugglers. Add to these some oracles he pro
nounced, concerning which, if we may form a judgment from
the account and specimen given us by Lucian, we should con
clude, that, like other Heathen oracles, they were generally
unintelligible, equivocal, or false. Before whom did he exhi
bit his wonders ? Before none, if he could help it, that were
not thorough behevers in the popular system. His nocturnal
mysteries were always introduced with an avaunt to Atheists,
Christians, and Epicureans : and indeed it was dangerous for
any such to be present at them. Mr. Hume says, that "from
his ignorant Paphlagonians, he was enabled to proceed to the
enhstmg of votaries among the Grecian philosophers." On
what authority he advances this, I have not been able to dis
cover. He adds, "and raen of the most erainent rank and
distinction in Rome." Lucian mentions one man of rank,
Rutilianus, araong the votaries of the prophet ; an honest man
he caUs him, but at the sarae tirae the weakest, the raost super
stitious that ever hved. As to the military expedition, which
one wotdd imagine from Mr. Hume's expression the Emperor
had resolved on in consequence of the encouragement which
the delusive prophecies of this impostor gave him, we find,
on the contrary, it was undertaken before those prophecies
were uttered. But further. Did Alexander risk any thing
in assuming the character of the interpreter of Esculapius ?
Did he lose, or did he suffer any thing in defence of it ?
Quite the reverse : he enriched himself by this raost ingenious
occupation. I shaU say nothing of the picture which Lucian
gives of lus morals, of the raany artifices which he used, or
of the atrocious crimes which he perpetrated. It must be
owned, that the principal scope for calumny and detraction is
in what concerns the private life and raoral character. Lu
cian was an eneray, and, by his own account, had received the
highest provocation. But I avoid every thing, on this topic,
that can admit a question.
Where, I would gladly know, hes the resemblance between
this impostor and the first publishers of the gospel ? Every
one, on the most superficial review, may discover, that, in all

94 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
the material circurastances, they are perfect contrasts. There
appears not therefore to be great danger in the poignant re
mark with which the author concludes this relation : " Though
much to be wished, it does not always happen, that ewexy Alex
ander meets with a Lucian, ready to expose and detect his
impostures." Lest the full import of this emphatical clause
should not be apprehended, the author has been still more
explicit in the note : " It may here perhaps be objected, that
I proceed rashly, and form my notions of Alexander merely
from the account given of him by Lucian, a professed enemy.
It were indeed to be wished, that some of the accounts pub
hshed by his followers and accomplices had remained. The
opposition and contrast betwixt the character and conduct of
the same man, as drawn by a friend or an enemy, is as strong,
even in comraon hfe, much more in these religious matters,
as that betwixt any two men in the world, betwixt Alexander
and St Paul, for instance." Who can forbear to lament the
uncommon distress of an author, obhged every moment to
recur to unavailing wishes ? Mr. Hume, however, in this cala
mitous situation, solaces hiraself as well as he can, by suppos
ing what he cannot assert. He supposes what would have
been the case, if his wishes could have been gratified ; and
artfully insinuates in this raanner to his readers, that if we
had the character and conduct of the apostle delineated by
as able an enemy as Lucian, we should find the portrait as
ugly as that of Alexander.
Let us then for once suppose, what the author so ardently
wishes, that such an eneray had undertaken the history of Paul
of Tarsus. I can easily conceive what a different representa
tion we should, in that case, have had, of the mental endow
ments and raoral disposition, asweU as ofthe induceraents and
riews of this Christian raissionary. I can conceive also, that
both his actions and discourses might have been strangely dis
figured. But if the biographer had raaintained any regard, I
say not to truth, but to probabihty, there are are some things,
we may be absolutely certain, he would never have advanced.
He would not surely have said of Paul, that he was by pro
fession a cunning man, or conjurer ; one who, for a little
money, either told people their fortunes, or taught thera how

FULLY ATTESTED. 95
to recover stolen goods. He would not, I suppose, have
pretended, that wherever the apostle wont, he fiattered the
superstition of the populace in order to gain thera, and
founded all his pretensions on the popular system. He would
not have alleged that Paul enriched himself, or that he could
ever have the prospect of enriching himself, by his vocation ;
nay, or that he risked nothing, or suffered nothing, by it.
He could not have said concerning him, that he declined the
audience or scrutiny of men whose opinions in religion dif
fered from those on which his mission was founded. He durst
not have imputed to him the -wise policy of laying the scene
of his impostures only where ignorance, barbarism, and stu
pidity prevailed : as it is unquestionable, that our apostle tra
versed great part, not only of Asia Minor, but of Macedonia
and Achaia ; fixed his residence eighteen months at Corinth,
a city not less celebrated for the polite arts than for its po-
pulousness and riches ; preached publicly at Athens, before
the Stoics and the Epicureans, and even before the Areopa
gus, the raost venerable judicature in Greece ; not afraid of
what the phUosophers of that renowned raart of learning
might spread through the whole Roman empire concerning
him and his doctrine ; nay, and lastly preached at Rorae
itself, the raistress and raetropolis of the world.
The reader wiU observe that, in this coraparison, I have
shunned every thing that is of a private, and therefore of a
dubious nature. The whole is founded on such actions and
events as were notorious ; which it is not in the power of con-
teraporary historians to falsify; such, with regard to Alexan
der, as a votary could not have disserabled ; such, with regard
to Paul, as an enemy durst not have denied. We are truly
indebted to the Essayist, who, intending to exhibit a rival to
the apostle, has produced a character which we find, on mak
ing the comparison, serves only for a foil. Truth never shines
vrith greater lustre, than when confronted with falsehood.
The eridence of our religion, how strong soever, appears not
so irresistible, considered by itself, as when by comparison
we perceive, that none of those artifices and circumstances
attended its propagation, which the whole course of expe
rience shows to be necessary to render iraposture successful.

96 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
The next topic on which the ingenious author has be
stowed sorae flourishes, is the rairacle " which Tacitus re
ports of Vespasian, who cured a blind man in Alexandria by
means of his spittle, and a lame man by the raere touch of
his foot, in obedience to a rision of the god Serapis, who
had enjoined thera to have recourse to the Eraperor for
these miraculous and extraordinary cures."* The story he
introduces with informing us, that it is " one of the best
attested rairacles in all profane history." If so, it will the
better serve for a saraple of what raay be expected from
that quarter. " Every circumstance," he teUs us, " seems
to add weight to the testimony, and might be displayed at
large with aU the force of arguraent and eloquence, if any
one were now concerned to enforce the evidence of that ex
ploded and idolatrous superstition." For my part, were I
concerned to enforce the eridence of that exploded and
idolatrous superstition, I should not wish the story were in
better hands than in the author's. He is by no raeans defi
cient in eloquence ; and if soraetiraes there appear a defici
ency in argument, that is not imputable to him, but to the
subject, which cannot furnish hira vrith any better : and
though I do not suspect hira to be in the least concerned to
re-estabhsh Paganisra, yet it is well known that hatred to
his adversary raay as strongly aniraate an advocate to exert
hiraself, as affection to his client.
But to proceed to the story: first, the author pleads " the
gravity, solidity, age, and probity of so great an Eraperor,
who, through the whole course ofhis hfe, conversed in a fami
liar way with his friends and courtiers, and never affected
those extraordinary airs of dirinity assumed by Alexander
and Deraetrius." To this character, the justness of whicli I
intend not to controvert, I beg leave to add, what is equally
indubitable, and much to the purpose, that no Eraperor
showed a stronger inchnation to corroborate his title by the
sanction of the gods, than the prince of whom he is speaking.
This, doubtless, he thought the more necessary in his case, as
he was of an obscure family, and nowise related to any of his
* Page 192, &e.

FULLY ATTESTED. 97
predecessors. How fond he was of pleading visions, and pre
sages, and auguries, in his favour, all tho world knows.*
The author adds, " The historian, a conteraporary writer,
noted for candoui- and veracity, and withal the greatest and
most penetrating genius perhaps of all antiquity, and so free
from any tendency to superstition and credulity, that he even
lies under the contrary iraputation of atheism and profane
ness." Tius would say a great deal, if tlie character of the
historian were of any moment in the question. Doth Tacitus
pretend that he was himself a witness of the miracle ? No.
Doth he raention it as a thing which he believes ? No. In
either case, I acknowledge that the reputation of the relater
for candour and penetration raust have added weight to the
relation, whether considered as his testimony, or barely as his
opinion. But is it fair to plead the veracity of the writer in
proof of every popular ruraour mentioned by him ? His
veracity is only concerned to satisfy us, that it was actually
reported as he relates ; or that the attempt was made, and
the miracle pretended ; — a point which, I presurae, nobody
would have disputed, although the authority had been less than
that of Tacitus. Indeed the historian does not say directly
whether he believes the miracle or not ; but by his manner
of telhng it, he plainly insinuates that he thought it ridicu
lous. In introducing it, he intimates the utility of such re
ports to the Emperor's cause: "By which," says he, " the
favour of Heaven, and the appointraent of the Gods, raight
he urged in support of his title. "f When he naraes the god
Serapis as warning the bhnd man to recur to Vespasian, he
adds, in erident contempt and derision ofhis godship, "who
is adored above all others by the Egyptians, a people addicted
to superstition.'':}: Again, he speaks of the Emperor as in
duced to hope for success by the persuasive tongues of flat
terers. § A serious behever of the miracle would hardly have
used such a style in relating it. But to what purpose did he
* Auctoritas, et quasi majestas quffidam, ut scilicet inopinato et adhuc novo principi
deerat, hajc quoque accessit, — Sueton.
+ Queis ccelestis favor, et quaedam in Vespasianum inclinatio numinum ostende
re tur. J Quem dedita superstitionibus gens ante alios colit.
§ Vocibus adulantium in spem induci.

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

FULLY attested. 99
of interest, and ambition, and popularity, propagated a false
hood, should not afterwards be wiUing to expose themselves
as hars?
The author finishes the story thus : " To which if we add
the pubhc nature of the facts related, it wiU appear, that no
eridence can weU be supposed stronger for so gross and so
palpable a falsehood." As to the nature of the facts, we are
told by Tacitus, that when ^"espasian consulted the physicians
whether such maladies were curable by human art, they de
clared,* that "in the one the power of sight was not extinct,
but wotdd return, were the obstacles removed ; that in the
other, the joints had suffered sorae dislocation, which by a
salutary pressure might be redressed." From this account
we are naturaUy led to conclude, that the disorders were not
so conspicuous, but that either they might have been feigned,
where they were not ; or that cures raight have been pre
tended, where none were performed. I think it is even a
further presumption of the truth ofthis conclusion, that Sue
tonius, the only other Roraan historian who raentions the
miracle, (I know not how he hath been overlooked by Mr.
Hume,) differs frora Tacitus in the account he gives of the
laraeness. The one represents it as being in the hand, the
other as in the leg.f
There are other circumstances regarding this story, on
which I might make some remarks ; but shaU forbear, as it is
impossible to enter into a minute discussion of particulars
that appear but tririal when considered severaUy, without
growing tiresorae to the bulk of readers. I shall therefore
only subjoin these siraple questions. First, What Eraperor
or other potentate was flattered in his dignity and pretensions
by the rairacles of our Lord ? What erainent personage found
himself interested to support, by his authority and influence,
the credit of these miracles ? Again, What popular super
stition or general and rooted prejudices were they calculated
* Huic non exesam vim luminis, et redituram, si pellerentur obstantia : illi elapses
in pravum artus, si salubris vis adhibeatui, posse integrari,
f Manum ieger, — Tacitus, Dehili crure. — Suetonius. Mr, Hume, in the
last edition of the Essay, mentions Suetonius, hut takes no notice of this difference
between his account and that of Tacitus, G

100 ¦ the MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
to confirm ? These two circumstances, were there no other,
make the greatest odds iraaginable betwixt the rairacles of
Vespasian and those of Jesus Christ.
So rauch for the Pagan miracles mentioned by the author.

SECTION V.
Examination of the Popish miracles mentioned by
Mr. Hume.
The author soon descends from ancient to modern times,
and learing Paganism, recurs to Popery, a much raore fruit
ful source of lying wonders.
The first of this kind he takes notice of,* is a Spanish
rairacle, recorded in the Meraoirs of Cardinal de lietz. The
story, he says, is very raeraorable, and may well deserve our
consideration. " When that intriguing pohtician fied into
Spain, to avoid the persecution of his enemies, he passed
through Saragossa, the capital of Arragon ; where he was
shown, in the cathedral church, a man who had served twenty
years as a doorkeeper of the church, and was well known to
every body in town that had ever paid their devotions at
that cathedral. He had been for so long a time wanting a
leg, but recovered that limb by the rubbing of holy oil upon
the stump ; and, when the Cardinal examined it, he found it
to be a true natural leg, Uke the other." Would not any
person iraagine, frora the last words of the sentence, that the
Cardinal had ordered the raan to put off his shoes and stock
ings, that, by touch as well as by sight, he might be satisfied
there was no artifice used, but that both his legs consisted of
genuine fiesh and bone ? Yet the truth is, his Eminency did
not think it worth while to examine any one circumstance of
this wonderful narration, but contented himself with report
ing it precisely as it had been told him. His words hterally
translated are, " In that church they showed me a man,
whose business it was to light the lamps, of which they have a
prodigious number, teUing me, that he had been seen seven
* Page 19.3, &c.

FULLY ATTESTED. 101
years at the gate with one leg only. I saw him tliere with
two."* Not one word of trial or examination, or even so
much as a single question asked on the subject; not a syllable
of his finding the leg to be either true or false, natm-al or ar
tificial, hke the other or unhke. I have a better opinion, both
of the candom- and of the good sense of Mr. Hume, than to
imagine he would have designedly misrepresented this story in
order to render it fitter for his purpose. I believe the source
of this error has been solely the trusting to his memory in the
relation which he gave, and not taking the trouble to consult
the passage in the Memohs. This conjecture appears the
more probable, as he has made some other alterations, which
are nowise conducive to his design ; such as, that the man
had been seen in the church twenty years wanting a leg, and
that he was a doorkeeper ; whereas the raeraoir writer says
only seven years, and that he was a lamplighter.\
" This miracle was vouched," says the author, " by all the
canons of the church ; and the whole corapany in town were
appealed to for a confirraation of the fact, whom the Cardi
nal found, by their zealous devotion, to be thorough behevers
of the miracle." It is true, that the company in town were
appealed to by those ecclesiastics ; but it is also true, that De
Retz, by his own account, seems not to have asked any man a
question on the subject. He acknowledges, indeed, that an
anniversary festival, instituted in coraraeraoration of the rai
racle, was celebrated by a vast concourse of people of all ranks.
" Here," continues the Essayist, " the relater was also con
temporary to the supposed prodigy, of an incredulous and
libertine character, as well as of great genius." But of what
weight, in this affair, is either the genius or the incredulity of
• L'on m''y montra un homme, que servoit a allumer les lampes, qui y sont
en nombre prodigieux ; et Ton me dit, qu'on I'y avoit vu sept ans a la porte de cette
eglise, avec une seule jambe, Je I'y vis avec deux, Liv. 4, Pan 1654.
f Since finishing this tract, I have seen an edition of Mr. Hume's Essays, &c.
later than that here referred to. It is printed at London, 1760. I must do the
author the justice to observe, that, in this edition, he has corrected the mistake as
to the Cardinal's examining the man's leg, of which he only says, " The Cardinal
assures us, that he saw him with two legs." He still calls him a doorlceeper, and
says, that he had served twenty years in this capacity. In the edition 1767, men
tioned in the Preface, he has corrected the latter of these errors, and said seven years,
but retains the former.
G 2

10^ the miracles of the gospel
the relater, since, by Mr. Hume's confession, he had no faith
in the relation? Strange indeed is the use whichthe Essayist
makes of this circurastance. " What adds mightily," says he,
" to the force of the evidence, and raay double our stu-prise
on this occasion, is, that the Cardinal hiraself, who relates the
story, seeras not to give any credit to it." It does not in the
least surprise me that the Cardinal gives no credit to this re
lation ; but I am beyond raeasure surprised, that Mr. Hume
should represent this circumstance as adding mightily to the
force of the eridence. Is then a story which is reported by a
man of genius the raore credible that he does not believe it ?
or. Is it the raore incredible that he does beheve it ? What
would the author have said, if the Cardinal had told us that
he gave credit to the relation ? Might he not, in that case,
have very pertinently pleaded the great genius, and penetra
tion, and incredulity of the relater, as adding mightily to the
force of the evidence ? On that hypothesis he surely might,
for pretty obrious reasons. Uneomraon penetration qualifies
a raan for detecting fraud ; and it requires eridence greater
than ordinary to surraount incredulity. The belief there
fore of such a person as the Cardinal, who had not only the
raeans of discovering an iraposture, as he was contemporary
and on the spot, but the ability to discover it, as he was a •
raan of genius, and not over-credulo u ; his belief, I say,
would eridently have been no small presuraption of the truth
of the rairacle. How his disbehef can be in like raanner a
presuraption of its truth, is to me incoraprehensible. " Ay,
but," rejoins the author, " as he seeras not to give any credit
to it, he cannot be suspected of any concurrence in the holy
fraud." Very well. I am satisfied that a man's testimony
is the more to be regarded, that he is above being suspected
of concurring in any fraud, call it holy or unholy ; but I
want to know why, on the very same account, his opinion is
the less to be regarded ? For ray part, I find no difficulty in
beliering every article of the narration for which the Cardinal
gives his testimony : notwithstanding this, I may be of the
same opinion with him, that the account given by the dean
and canons, which is their testimony, not his, was all a fiction.
But it is not with the Cardinal's testimony we are here con-

FULLY attested. 103
cerned — about that there is no dispute : it is with his opinio-n.
-Are then a man's sentiments about a matter of fact, I must
insist on it, the less worthy of regard, either because he is a
man of genius, and not at all credulous, or because he cannot
he suspected of any concm-rence in a holy fraud ? Are they
the more improbable on these accounts ? The Essayist, when
he refiects, will be the last man in the world that would assist
in establishing a maxim so unfavourable, not only to candotu-,
but even to genius and scepticisra ; aiid indeed there are few,
if any, that would be greater sufferers by it than himself.
But lea\-mg this, as one of the unfathomable depths of the
Essay, I proceed to the other circumstances. " The miracle,"
says the author, " of so singular a nature, as could scarce
admit of a counterfeit." He did well at least to use the word
scarce ; for if every risitant was as httle desirous of prying
into the secret as the Cardinal, nothing could be more easily
counterfeited : " And the witnesses very nuraerous, and all of
thera, in a manner, spectators of the fact to which they gave
their testimony." By the very numerous witnesses, I suppose
he means the whole company in town, who were appealed to.
Thej' were all, in a manner, spectators ofthe fact. What pre
cise abatement the author intended we should make frora the
sense of the word spectators, on account of the qualifying
phrase, in a manner, I shall not presume to determine ; but
shall observe, from the Meraoirs, that it was not so much as
pretended by the canons that any of the citizens had seen the
miracle performed ; it was only pretended, that they had seen
the man formerly at the gate of the church wanting a leg.
Nor is it aUeged, that any of them was at more pains in exa
raining the raatter, either before or after the recovery of the
leg, than the Cardinal was. There were therefore properly
no spectators of the fact. The phrase, in a manner, ought, I
iraagine, to have been placed in the end of the sentence,
which would have run thus : "To which they, in a manner,
gave their testimony :" For no direct testimony was either
asked of them, or given by them ; their belief is inferred
from their devotion.
I have been the raore particular in my remarks on the cir
cumstances ofthis story, not because there was need of these

104 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
remarks ; for though to the Essayist the relation appeared
very memorable, to me, and I believe to most people, it ap
pears trifling ; but that the reader might have this further
speciraen of the author's talents in erabelhshing. To the
above-mentioned, and all other such idle tales, this short and
simple answer will by every man of sense be thought sufficient :
The country where the miracle is said to have been wrought, is
Spain; the people who propagated the faith ofit were the
Clergy. What comparison, in point of credibility, can be
made between miracles, which, with no visible support but
their own eridence, had at once to encounter, and did in fact
overcorae, the abhorrence ofthe priest and the tyranny of the
raagistrate, the insolence of the learned and the bigotry of
the superstitious ; — what coraparison, I say, can be raade
between such, and any prodigies said to have been performed
in a country, where all the powers of the nation, secular and
ecclesiastical, the literature of the schools, such as it is, and
the prejudices of the people, conspire in establishing their
credit ; a country sunk in the raost obdurate superstition that
ever disgraced human nature ;* a country where the awe of
the Inquisition is so great, that no person, whatever be his
sentiments, dares mutter a syllable against any opinion that
has obtained the patronage of their spiritual guides ? But
* This perhaps will appear to some to be too severe a censure on a country
called Christian, and may be thought to recoil on Christianity itself. I do not
think it fairly capable of such a construction. That the corruption of the best
things produces the worst, has grown into a proverb ; and, on the most impar
tial inquiry, I do not imagine it will be found, that any species of idolatry ever
tended so directly to extirpate humanity, gratitude, natural affection, equity,
mutual confidence, good faith, and every amiable and generous principle, from
the human breast, as that gross perversion of the Christian religion which is es
tahiished in Spain, It might easily be shown, that the human sacrifices offered
by Heathens have not half the tendency to corrupt the heart, and consequently
deserve not to be viewed with half the horror, as those celebrated among the
Spaniards, with so much pomp and barbarous festivity, at an auto da fe. It
will not surely be affirmed, that our Saviour intended any (iensure on the Mo
saic institution, or genuine Judaism, when he said. Woe unto you, Scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye compass sea and land to malce one proselyte, and wlien
he is made, ye make him twofold more the diild ofhdl than yourselves. Yet the
words plainly imply, that even Pagans, by being converted to the Judaism that
was then professed, were 7nade children of hell, and consequently corrupted in
stead of being reformed. See Matth. xxiii, 15.

fully ATTESTED. 105
that I raay not be accused of prepossession, or suspected of
exaggerating, I shall only give the sentiments of two eminent
foreigners (who were not Protestants, and may therefore be
supposed the more impartial) concerning that nation, and the
influence which the Holy Tribunal has both on their cha
racter and raanners. Voltaire,* speaking of the Inquisition
as established in Spain, says, " Their form of proceeding is
an infallible way to destroy whomsoever the inquisitors please.
The prisoners are not confronted with the informers ; and
there is no informer who is not listened to. A public crimi
nal, an infamous person, a child, a prostitute, are credible
accusers. Even the son may depose against his father ; the
wife against her husband. In fine, the prisoner is compeUed
to inform against himself, to divine, and to confess, the crime
laid to his charge ; of which often he is ignorant. This pro
cedure, unheard-of tUl the institution of this court, makes the
whole kingdom tremble. Suspicion reigns in every breast.
Friendship and openness are at an end. The brother dreads
his brother, the father his son. Hence taciturnity is becorae
the characteristic of a nation endued with aU the vivacity na
tural to the inhabitants of a warm and fruitful climate. To
this tribunal we must hkewise impute that profound igno
rance of sound phUosophy in which Spain hes buried, whilst
Germany, England, France, and even Italy, have discovered
so raany truths, and enlarged the sphere of our knowledge.
Never is human nature so debased, as when ignorance is
armed with power." " It is necessary," says Montesquieu,f
in the humble remonstrance to the inquisitors of Spain and
Portugal, " that we advertise you of one thing ; it is, that if
any person, in future times, shall dare assert, that, in the age
wherein we hve, the Europeans were cirihzed. You vrill be
quoted to prove that they were barbarians; and the idea
people wiU form of you, vriU be such as vriU dishonour your
age, and bring hatred on all your conteraporaries."
I COME now to consider the rairacles said to have been per
formed in the church-yard of Saint Medard, at the tomb of
* Essai sur I'Histoire Generale, chap. 118.
-(¦ De I'Esprit des Loix, liv. xxv. chap. 13.

106 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
Abbe Paris. On these the author has expatiated with great
parade, exultuig -that he has found in thera, as he iraagines,
what, in respect of number, and nature, and eridence, raay
outvie the miracles of holy writ. Yet should we adrait them
to be true, how they can be considered as proofs of any doc
trine, or how they can affect the eridence of the miracles
recorded in Scripture, it wiU not perhaps be easy to discover.
But setting that question aside, I propose to examine their
evidence; and that, not by entering into a particular inquiry
concerning each separate fact mentioned in Montgeron's
Collection, as such an inquiry would appear, to every judi
cious reader, both tedious and irapertinent ; but by raaking
a few general observations, founded in unquestionable fact,
and raostly supported even by the authority of Montgeron,
that doughty charapion of the Jansenist saint.*
First, Let it be remarked, that it was often objected by the
eneraies of the saint, and scarcely contradicted, never confut
ed, by his friends, that the prostrations at his sepulchre pro
duced more diseases than they cured. The ingenious author
lately quoted, in the account he gives of the affairs of the
church in the ninth century, taking occasion incidentally
to mention the rairacles of the Abbe, speaks of this circum
stance as a thing universally knovra, and undeniable.f " I
should not take notice," says he, " of an epideraical folly
with which the people of Dijon were seized in 844, occasion
ed by one Saint Benignus, who threw those into convulsions
who prayed on his torab ; I should not, I say, inention this
popular superstition, had it not been furiously rerived in our
days, in parallel circumstances. It seeras as if the same fol
lies were destined to raake their appearance, from time to
time, on the theatre of the world : But good sense is also the
sarae at aU times ; and nothing so judicious hath been said,
conceming the modern rairacles wrought on the torab of I
know not what deacon at Paris, as what a bishop of Lyons
* The . character of his book is very justly and very briefly expressed in Le
Siecle de Louis XIV,, in these words : " Si ce livre subsistait un jour, et que les
autres fussent perdus, la posterite croirait que notre siecle a ete un tems de har-
barie;'' chap. 33,
-f Essai sur I'Histoire Generale, chap. 21.

FULLY ATTESTED. J07
said concerning those of Dijon : A strange saint indeed, that
maims those who pay their devoirs to him. I should think,
miracles ought to be performed for the curing, and not for the
inflicting of maladies."
The second observation is. That the instances of persons
cured are extremely few, corapared with the raultitudes of
people in distress, who night and day attended the sepulchre
imploring in vain the intercession of the saint. The crowds
of sick and infirm who flocked to the torab for rehef, were by
all accounts innumerable ; whereas aU the cures which the
zealous and indefatigable Montgeron could produce vouchers
of, amounted only to nine.* The author therefore must be
understood as speaking with great latitude, when he says,
" There surely never was so great a number of miracles as
cribed to one person, as those which were lately said to have
been wrought in France, upon the tomb of Abbe Paris, the
famous Jansenist, with whose sanctity the people were so long
deluded."-)- If thousands of diseased persons had applied for
medicine to some ignorant quack, in the assurance of his
extraordinary abUities ; would it be raatter of surprise to a
reasonable man, that, of so many, eight or nine should be
found whose distempers had taken a favourable tum whilst
they were using his specifics, and had thereby given counte
nance to the delusion ? I think it would be a raatter of sur
prise that there were so few.
I shaU observe, thirdly. That imposture was actually detect
ed and proved in several instances. That the reader raay be
satisfied of this, I raust entreat hira to have recourse to the
Archbishop of Sens' Pastoral Instruction : a book which Mr.
Hurae could not, vrith propriety, take any notice of, having
positively asserted, that " the eneraies to those opinions in
whose favour the miracles were said to have been wrought,
* It must be owned, that the author of the RecueU after-mentioned, hath pre
sented us with a much greater number : but let it be remarked, that that author
does not confine himself to the cures performed openly at the tomb of the deacon ;
he gives us also those that were wrought in the private chambers of the sick, by
virtue ofhis relies, by images of him, or by earth brought from under his monument.
Nor is the CoUection restricted only to the cures effected by tho saint ; it includes
also the judgments inflicted by him.
t Page 195.

108 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
were never able distinctly to refute or detect them."* This
prelate, on the contrary, has not only given a distinct refuta
tion of some of these pretended miracles, but has clearly de
tected the deceit and little artifices by which their credit was
supported. I intend not to descend to particulars, and shall
therefore only refer the reader to the book itself, and beg that
he will peruse w:hat relates to the cases of Jacques Laurent
Menedrieux, Jean Nivet, Sieur le Doulx, Laleu, AnncCouh'n,
the widow de Lorme, as well as Mademoiselle le Franc, of
whom the Essayist has made mention in a note. In this
perusal, the reader will observe the shameful prevarications
of some Jansenist witnesses, for whom Mr. Hume would fain
apologize by telling us pleasantly, they were tampered witLf
I shall only add on this head, that the detection of fraud in
some instances, justly brings suspicion on all the other in
stances. A man whom I know to have lied to rae on several
occasions, I shall suspect on every occasion, when I have no
opportunity of discovering whether what he affirms be true
or false. It is in the same way we judge of the spirit and
conduct of parties as of individuals.
I observe, fourthly. That all the cures recorded by Mont
geron as duly attested, were such as might have been effected
by natural raeans. There are two kinds of miracles, to which
Mr. Hume has alluded in a note, though he does not directly
make the distinction. One is, when the event, considered by
itself, is e-vidently preternatural. Of this kind are, raising
the dead, walking on water, making whole the maimed ; for
by no natural causes can these effects be produced. The other
kind is, when the event, considered by itself, is natural, that
is, may be produced by natural causes, but is denominated
miraculous, on account of the raanner. That a sick person
should be restored to health, is not, when considered singly,
preternatural ; but that health should be restored by the com
raand of a raan, undoubtedly is. Let us hear the author on
this point : " Sometimes an event may not, in itself, seem to
be contrary to the laws of nature, and yet, if it were real, it
might, by reason of some circumstances, be denominated a
miracle; because, ?« /ac^, it is contrary to these laws. Thus,
* Page 195. f Page 197, inthe note.

FULLY ATTESTED. 109
if a person claiming a divine authority should command a
sick person to be well, a healthful man to fall down dead, the
clouds to pour rain, the \rinds to blow, in short, should order
raany natm-al events, which iraraediately follow upon his
comraand; these might justly be esteemed rakacles, because
they are really, in this case, contrary to the laws of nature.
For if any suspicion reraain that the event and coramand
concurred by accident, there is no miracle, and no transgres
sion of the laws of natm-e. If this suspicion be removed,
there is eridently a miracle, and a transgression of these
laws ; because nothing can be more*contrary to nature, than
that the voice or command of a raan should have such an in
fiuence."*— -From what has been said it appears, that these
two kinds of miracles must differ considerably in respect of
evidence, since the latter naturally gives room for a suspicion,
which is absolutely excluded from the former. In the former,
when the fact or event is proved, the miracleis unquestion
able. In the latter, the fact raay be proved, and yet the
rairacle raay be justly questioned. It therefore merits our
attention, that all the rairacles recorded in Montgeron's Col
lection were of the second kind. One of the raost considerable
of those cures was that of Don Alphonso de Palacios, who
had lost one eye, and was distressed vrith an inflammation in
the other. The inflamed eye was cured, but the lost eye was
not restored. Had there been a reproduction of the member
which had perished, a sufficient proof of the fact would have
been a sufficient proof of the miracle. But as the case was
otherwise, the fact vouched raay be adraitted, vrithout admit
ting any miracle. The cures said to have been perforraed
on those patients who were affiicted vrith paralytic or dropsi
cal disorders, or that performed on Louisa Coirin, who had a
tumour on her breast, wiU not appear to be entitled to a rank
in the first class. As httle can the cm-e of Peter Gautier
claim that honour. One of his eyes had been pricked with an
awl ; in consequence of which the aqueous huraour dropped
out, and he became bhnd of that eye. His sight was restored,
whilst he paid his addresses to the Abbe. But that a puncture
in the cornea of the eye will often heal of itself, and that the
t Page 181, in the note.

110 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
aqueous humour, after it has been quite lost, will be re
cruited, and consequently that the faculty of rision wUl, in
such a case, be recovered, is what every ocuhst can assure us
of. The loss of the watery humour is the constant effect of
a very comraon operation in surgery, couching the cataract.
Hence we raay learn how we ought to understand these
words of the author, " The curing of the sick, giving hearing
to the deaf, and sight to the bhnd, were every where talked
of as the usual effects of that holy sepulchre."* As there
fore the alleged miracles were aU of the second class, it is
only from the attendant circumstances we can judge, whether
the facts, though acknowledged, were miraculous or not.
In order to enlighten us on this point, I ohsexve, fifthly,
That none oi the cures were instantaneous. We have not
indeed the sarae hold of the deceased y^&&e, as of a hring pro
phet who pretends to work miracles. Those who attend the
latter, can know exactly to whom he grants the benefit of his
miraculous aid. They can judge also, whether the suppU-
cant's recovery be coincident with the prophet's vohtion or
command. In the forraer case, we cannot judge of either; and
consequently there is much greater scope for fancy and cre
duhty to operate. No voice was ever said to have proceeded
from the torab of the blessed deacon, as his votaries styled him.
They obtained no audible answer to their prayers. There are
however some circumstances, by which a probable conjecture
may be made concerning the efficiency ofthe saint in the cures
ascribed to him. One is, if the cure instantaneously followed
the first devotions at the tomb. Supernatural cures differ in
this particular, a,s much as in any other, from those which are
effected by natural means, that they are not gradually, but
instantly, perfected. Now of which kind were the cures of
St Medard? Frora the accounts that are given, it is erident
that they were gradual. That some of them were sudden is
alleged ; but that any of them were iristantaneous, or irarae
diately foUowed the first apphcation, is not even pretended.
All the worshippers at the torab persisted for days, several
of thera for weeks, and some for montlis, successively, daUy
imploring the intercession of the Abbe, before they received
* Page 195,

FULLY ATTESTED. IU
relief from their complaints ; and the relief which was receiv
ed, is, in most cases, acknowledged to have been gradual.
I observe, sixthly, That raost of the devotees either had
been using medicines before, and continued to use them dur
ing their apphcations to the saint ; or, that their distempers
had abated before they deterrained to solicit his help. That
the Spaiush youth had been using, aU the while, a raedicine
prescribed by an erainent ocuUst, was proved by the deposi
tions of witnesses ; that Gautier had begun to recover his
sight before he had recourse to the sepulchre, was attested,
not only by his uncle, but even by himself, when, as the
Archbishop of Sens inform us, he signed a recantation of
what he had formerly advanced. With regard to the rest, it
appears at least probable, from the circumstances of the proof,
that they were using the prescriptions of the physicians whom
they had consulted before they applied to the deacon, and who
were afterwards required to give their testimony concerning
the nature and mahgnancy of the different diseases.
The seventh observation is. That sorae of the cures attested
were incomplete. This was memifestly the case of the Spaniard,
who was reheved only frora the raost inconsiderable part of
his coraplaint. Even the cure of Mademoiselle Thibault,
which was as great a subject of exultation to the partisans of
the Abbe as any other, was not coraplete. Not only was she
confined to her bed for raany days after the decrease of her
dropsy, but she stiU remained incapable of moring two of her
fingers. SUva, physician to the Duke of Orleans, attested this ;
adding expressly, that he could not look on her as being cured.
The eighth and last observation I shall make on this subject
is, that the rehef granted some of them was but temporary.
This was clearly proved to be the case of the Spanish gentle
man. That soon after his return home, he relapsed into his
former malady, the prelate I have often quoted has, by the
certificates and letters which he procured frora Madrid, put
beyond controversy. Among these, there are letters front a
Spanish grandee, Don Francis Xarier, and from the patient's
uncle, beside a certificate signed by himself.
After the above observations, I believe, there wiU be no
occasion for saying rauch on this subject. The author has, in

112 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
a note, artfuUy enough pomted out his aim, that it might not
be overlooked by the careless reader.* " There is another
book," says he, " in tliree voluraes, (called Reeueil des Mira
cles de FAbbe Paris), giring' an account of raany of these mi
racles, and accompanied with prefatory discourses, wliich are
very weU wTote."* He adds, " There runs, however, through
* Page 196.
+ I am surprised that Mr, Hume has t.aken no notice of the profound erudi
tion displayed in the Reeueil, as I imagine its author is much more eminent for
this than for his talent in writing. Besides, his learning deserves our regard
the more, that it is of a kind rarely to be met with in the present century.
Where shall we find in these dregs of the ages, to adopt his own emphatical ex
pression, sueh an extensive knowledge as he has exhibited, of all the monkish
and legendary writings of the darkest and most barbarous, or, according to him,
the most devout ages of the church.' Or whence else, but from those produc
tions, could he have selected sueh admirable materials for his work ? Tho lives
and writings of the saints are an inexhaustible treasure for a performance of
this kind. It is true, St, Matthew, St. Mark, St, Luke, and St, John, havo said
little to his purpose, and he makes as litttle use of them. But is not this want
richly supplied in St. Cudbert, St. Edildride, St. Willibrord, St. Baudii, and five
hundred others of equal note.' One thing, however, I would gladly be informed
of, being utterly at a loss to account for it, — What entitled this author, who
seems not to be deficient in a veneration truly catholic for ignorance, superstition,
and barbarism, to speak contemptibly of Capgravius, Colganus, and Jacobus
de Voragine, author of Tlie golden Legend ? To be plain with him, this is a
freedom which does not at all become him ; for, of the few readers in this age
who happen to be acquainted with the authorities quoted in the RiCtieil, most,
if not all, will, I am afraid, be of opinion, that the writers last mentioned are
fully as credible, not less famous, and much more ingenious, than maliy of those
to whom he is so greatly indebted for his most extraordinary narrative. AVas
it for him then to scandahze titese few ? It is pity that a writer of such un
common reading and application should act so inconsistently, and undermine
his own cause. But passing his literature, which is unquestionable, I shall give
the reader a specimen of his talent in disputation. To the objection that had
been made, that the miracles of the deacon were gradual, he replies, "So was
the creation, the first of miracles, which employed no less thau si.x days," As
all that was done in that time is comprehended under one name, THK creation,
he concludes, very sagely, that it ought to be denominated one miracle. A
writer of this stamp would no doubt despise the answer which an ordinary
reader might make him ; — first. That every single production was a, perfect mira
cle ; secondly. That nothing could be more instantaneous than those produc
tions — God said, Let ihere be light, and ihere was ligld, ^c. ; and, lastly, That
the world was not created by the ministration of man, nor in the presence of
men, nor in order to serve as evidence of any doctrine. I must he forgiven
to remark, that, in the whole of this author's reply, he has unfortunately mis
taken the meaning of the objectors, who intend not to say that God may not

FULLY ATTESTED. 113
the whole of these, a ridiculous comparison betwixt the mi
racles of our Saviour and those of the Ahhe ; wherein it is
asserted, that the e\4dence for the latter is equal to that for
the former."* At fii*st reading, one is apt, with surprise, to
perform a miracle gradually, but that what is so performed has not tho same evidence
of ita being miraculous as what is done in an instant, and therefore cannot so well
serve as e^^dence of any doctrine. Now, that tlie miracles of Monsieur de Paris
were intended as evidence ofhis doctrine, and consequently of that of the appellants
from the bull Unigetiittis., he every where vehemently maintains. Another specimen
of this author's acuteness and ingenuity T shall give in a literal translation from his
own words, " But, it vriW. be said, in the earliest times of the church, miraculous
cures were commonly perfected iu an instant. True; and it is this which confirms
my doctrine. As it was ordinary then, to convert great sinners all of a sudden, it
was also ordinary to cure tbe sick all of a sudden. But such wonders in both kiuds
are for the commencement of tlie church, or for the renovation promised her. In
these days, which the French clergy have justly styled tlie dregs of the a^es, it is
much tbat God convert many sinners, and cure many sick, by slow degrees, at
the same time that he shows by some more shining examples, that his ai'm is not
shortened." * I am soiTy to be again so soon laid under the necessity of observing, that
the Essayist, by confiding too much in his memory, often injures the writers whom
he quotes. It is but doing justice to the author of the Bt'cueil to observe, that he
has, in no part of his performance, asserted that the evidence for the miracles of
Monsieur de Paris is equal to that for the miracles of Jesus Christ, Perhaps my
reader will be surprised when I tell him, — for I own I \vas exceedingly surprised when
I discovered, — that he has not only in the plainest terms asserted, but strenuously
maintained, the contrary. And for this purpose he has employed no less than twelve
pages ofhis work. He introduces the subject (Discourse 2. Part 1.) with observing,
that he and the rest of his party had been traduced by their adversaries, as equalling
the miracles of the Deacon to those of our Saviour. The impiety of such a com
parison be even mentions with horror, and treats the charge as an absolute calumny.
Hence he takes occasion to enumerate those peculiar circumstances in the miracles
of our Lord wliich gave them an eminent superiority, not only over those of his
saint, but over those of every other saint or prophet whatsoever. To this enumera
tion he subjoins. Tons ceux qui recourent a Monsieur de Paris ne sont pas gu6ris,
nous dit-on ; plusieurs ne le sont qu'en partie, ou d''une maniere lente, et moins
^clatante: il n'a point ressuscit6 de morts. Que s'ensuit-il~ dela, sinon que les
miracles que Dieu a op^r^s par lui, sont inf^rieurs a ceux que n6tre Seigneur
a op^r6s par lui-m^me.'' Nous Tavouons, nous inculquous cette v^rit6. " All
those, we arc told, who recur to Monsieur de Paris are not cured ; several are cured
but in part, or in a slow and less striking manner : he has raised no dead. What
follows, unless that the miracles which God wrought by him, are inferior to those
whieh our Lord wrought by himself -^ We acknowledge, we inculcate this truth."
Afterwards, speaking of evidence, he owns also, that the miracles of the Deacon are
not equally certain with those of Jesus Christ. The latter, be says, are more certain
iu many respects. He specifies the natural notoriety of some of the facts, the

114 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
imagine, that the author is going to make some atonement for
the tenets of the Essay, by turning advocate for the miracles
of Jesus Christ ; and by showing, that these are not affected
by his doctrine. But on this point we are not long held in
suspense. He subjoins, " As if the testimony of men could
ever be put in a balance with that of God himself, who Con
ducted the pen of the inspired writers." An ingenious piece
of raihery without question. Is it possible, in a pohter man
ner, or in more obliging terms, to tell the Christian world they
are fools? and that aUwho are silly enough to beheve the mira
cles recorded in Scripture, are not entitled to be argued with
as men. How ? They are so absurd as to believe the Scrip
tures to be the word of God, on the evidence of the miracles
wrought by our Lord and his apostles ; and that these mira
cles were wrought, they could not believe on any testimony
less than that of God, reporting them in the Scriptures : and
public and instantaneous manner in whieh most of them were effected, the number,
the quality, the constancy of the witnesses, and the forced acknowledgment of his
most spiteful enemies. He concludes this subject in these memorable terms ; —
Au reste, ce que je viens d'exposer sur la superiority des merveilles op6r6s par lo
Sauveur, je I'avois reconnu avec plaisir dans le premier discours, J'y ai dit en
propres termes, qu'il y avoit une difference infinie entre les miracles de Jesus Christ
et ceux de Monsieur de Paris. J'ai promis de ne jamais oublier cette difference,,
et j'ai tenu parole, J'ai remarqu^, dans le lieu oii il convenoit de le faire, que
cette difference infinie regardoit Vevidence des prodiges aussi-bien que leur grandeur ;
et que les incredules pouvoient nous dire, que ceux que nous produisions n'ont point
le m^me ^clat qu'ont eu ceux de n6tre Seigneur. " Finally, what I have just now
evinced on the superiority of the wonders performed by our Lord, I had acknow
ledged with pleasure in the first discourse, I said there, in express terms, that
there was an infinite difference bet-ween (he miracles of Jesus Christ and those of
Monsieur de Paris, I promised never to forget this difference, and I have kept my
promise, I remarked in its proper place, that this infinite difference regarded the
evidenee as well as the greatness of the prodigies ; and that the incredulous might
object that those which we produce have not the same lustre with those of our
Saviour," I have been the more particular on this point, not so much to vindicate
the author of the Reeueil, as to show the sense which even the most bigoted par
tizans ofthe holy Deacon had, of the difference between the miracles ascribed to him,
and those performed by our Lord, I cannot avoid remarking also another difference ;
I mean that which appears between the sentiments of this author as expressed hy him
self, and his sentiments as reported by the Essayist, It is indeed, Mr, Hume, a
judicious observation you have given us, that we ought to " lend a very academic
faith to every report which favours the passion of the reporter, in whatever way it
strikes in with his natural inclinations and propensities," Page 200.

FULLY ATTESTED. 11 J
thus, by maTnng inspiration and miracles reciprocally founda
tions to each other, they, in effect, admit both without any
foundation at alL After this handsome compliment to the
fiiends of holy writ, he thinks hiniself at hberty to be very ex
phcit on the comparative evidence of the miracles of the Abbe
and those of Jesus : " If these writers indeed were to be con
sidered merely as human testimonv, the French author is eery
moderate in his comparison ; since he might, tcith some appear
ance of reason, pretend, that the Jansenist miracles much sur
pass the other, in evidence and authorirv." Was ever so
rough an assault preceded by so smooth, hut so insidious a
preamble ? Is it then still the fate of Jesus to he betrayed with
a kiss ? But, notwithstanding this author's declaration, no
Christian will have reason to dread the issue ofthe comparison.
Mr. Hume has not entered on particulars, neither shall I enter
on them. I should not incline to tire my reader with repe
titions, which in a minute inquiry would be inevitable ; I
shall therefore only desire him, if he think it needful, to pe-
jrnse a second time the eight foregoing observations. I^et him
try the miracles of our Lord by this touchstone ; and I per
suade myself he will he satisfied, that there is no appearance
of reason to pretend that the Jansenist miracles much surpass
the other, or even equal them, in evidence and authority.
The author triumphs not a httle in the observation, that
the reports of the prodigies performed hy the Deacon were
violently opposed by the civil magistrate, and hy the Jesuits,
the most leamed societv in the kingdom. He could see the
importance of this circumstance in the case of Abbe Paris,
though not in the case of Jesus Christ. But that the differ
ence of the cases, as well as their resemblance, may better ap
pear, it ought likewise to be observed, that Jansenism, though
not the ruling fection, was at that time the popular faction ;
that this poptilarity was not the effect of the miracles of the
Abbe, but antecedent to these miracles ; that, on the contrary,
the Jesuits were extremely unpopular; and that many, who
had no more faith in the miracles of Saint Medard than Mr.
Hume has, were well pleased to connive at a delusion, which
at once plagued and mortified a body of men that were be
come almost tmiversallv odious.

116 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
I shall only add, that nothing could more effectually expose
the folly of these pretensions, than the expedient by vvhich
they were made to cease. In consequence of an order from
the King, the sepulchre was enclosed with a wall, and the
votaries were debarred from approaching the tomb. The
author says in relaton to this,* " No Jansenist was ever em
barrassed to account for the cessation of the miracles, when
the churchyard was shut up by the King's edict. Certain it
is, that God is master of his own graces and works." But
it is equally certain, that neither reason nor the gospel leads
us to think, that any human expedient will prove successful,
which is calculated to frustrate the decrees of Heaven. Both,
on the contrary, teach us, that men never more directly pro
mote the designs of their Maker, than when they intend di
rectly to oppose them. It was not thus that either Pharisees or
Sadducees, Jews or Gentiles, succeeded in their opposition to
the miracles of Jesus and his apostles. The opinion of Ga
mahel, Acts V. 38, 39, was undoubtedly judicious : If this
counsel, or this work, be of men, it will come to nought ; but if
it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it : beware, therefore, lest
ye be found flghting even against God. To conclude. Did
the Jansenist cause derive any advantage from those pretended
miracles ? None at all ; it even suffered by them. It is
justly remarked by Voltaire,f that " the tomb of the Deacon
Paris proved, in effect, in the minds of all people of sense,
the tomb of Jansenism." How unhke, in all respects, the
miracles recorded by the Evangelists !
Thus I have briefly inquired into the nature and evidence,
first of the Pagan, and next of the Popish miracles, mentioned
by Mr. Hume ; and have, I hope, suificiently evinced, that
the miracles of the New Testament can suffer nothing by the
comparison ; that, on the contrary, as, in painting, the^shades
serve to heighten the glow of the colours ; and, in music, the
discords to set off the sweetness of the harmony ; so the
value of these genuine miracles is enhanced by the contrast
of those paltry counterfeits.
* Page 198, in the note, f Siecle de Louis XIV. chap. .33.

FULLY ATTESTED. 117
SECTION VI.
Abstracting from the evidence for particular facts, we have
irrefragable eridence, that there have been miracles infor
mer times; or such events as, when compared with the present
constitution of the ivorld, tvould by Mr. Hume be deno
minated miraculous.
I READILY concur with Mr. Hume in maintaining, that
when, merely by the force of reason, we attempt to investi
gate the origin of worlds,* we get beyond our sphere, and
must infalhbly bewilder ourselvesin hypothesis and conjecture.
Reason indeed (which vainly boasts her all-sufiiciency) has
sometimes pretended to carry men to this amazing height :
But there is ground to suspect, that, in such instances, the
ascent of reason, as the author elegantly expresses it,f has
been aided by the vsdngs of imagination. If we will not
be indebted to revelation for our knowledge ofthis article,
we must, for aught I can perceive, be satisfied to hve in ig
norance. There is, however, one question distinct from the
former, though akin to it, which, even from the principles of
reason, we may with great probability determine : The ques
tion I mean is. Whether the world had an origin or not ?
That there has been an infinite, eternal, and independent
series of finite, successive, and dependent beings, such as men,
and consequently that the world had no beginning, appears,
from the bare consideration ofthe thing, extremely incredible,
ifnot altogether absurd. The abstract argument used on
this head, might appear too metaphysical and refined : I shall
not therefore introduce it ; but shall recur to topics which
are more famihar, and which, though they do not demon
strate that it is absolutely impossible that the world has ex
isted from eternity, clearly evince that it is highly improbable,
orlrather, certainly false. These topics I shall only mention,
as they are pretty obvious, and have been often urged with
great energy by the learned both ancient and modern. Such
* Essay XII, Of the Academical or Sceptical Philosophy, part 3.
i- Essay XI, Of a Particular Providence and Futuro State.
h2

118 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
are, the late invention of letters, and of aU the sciences and
arts by which human hfe is civilized ; the known origin of
most nations, states and kingdoms ; and the first peophng of
many countries. It is in our power at present to trace the
history of every people backwards to times of the greatest
barbarity and ignorance. Europe, though not the largest of
the four parts into which the earth is divided, is, on many
S-ccounts, the most considerable. But what a different face
does Europe wear at present, from what it wore three thou
sand years ago ? How immense the odds in knowledge, in
arts, in pohcy, in every thing ? How easy is the intercourse,
and how extensive the acquaintance, which men can now
enjoy vrith all, even the remotest regions of the globe, com
pared with what was, or could have been enjoyed, in that
time of darkness and simphcity ? A man differs not more from
a child, than the human race now differs from the human
race then. Three thousand years ago appear indeed to mark
a very distant epoch ; and yet it is but as yesterday, com
pared vrith etemity. This, when duly weighed, every think
ing person will acknowledge to be as strong moral evidence
as the subject can admit, (and that I imagine is very strong,)
that the world had a beginning. ?
I shall make a supposition, which will perhaps appear whim
sical, but which will tend to elucidate the argument I am en
forcing. In antedilurian times, when the longevity of man
was such as to include some centuries, I shall suppose that a
few boys had been transported to a desert island, and there
left together, just old enough to make shift to sustain them
selves, as those in the golden age are fabled to have done, on
acorns, and other spontaneous productions of the soil. I shall
suppose, that they had lived there for some hundreds of years,
had remembered nothing of their coming into the island, nor
of any other person whatsoever; and that thus they had never
had occasion to know, or hear, of either birth or death. I
shall suppose them to enter into a serious disquisition con
ceming their own duration, the question having been started.
Whether they had existed from eternity, or had once begim
to be ? They recur to memory : But memory can furnish
them with nothing certain or decisive. Ifit must be allowed.

FULLY ATTESTED. Il9
that it contains no trace of a beginning of existence, it must
also be allowed, that it reaches not beyond a few centuries at
most. They observe besides, concerning this faculty, that
the farther back it goes, it becomes the more indistinct, ter
minating at last in confusion and darkness. Some things
however they distinctly recoUect, and are assured of. They
remember they were once of much lower stature, and of
smaller size ; they had less bodily strength ; and all their men
tal faculties were weaker. They know, that, in the powers
both of body and of mind, they have advanced, by impercep
tible degrees, to the pitch they are now arrived at. These
considerations, especiaUy when fortified by some analogous
observations they might have made on the growth of herbs
and trees, would have shown the probabilitj' to be entirely
on the side of those who asserted that their existence had a
beginning: And though, on account of the narrow sphere of
their knowledge and experience, the argument could not have
appeared to them in aU its strength, we, from our larger ac
quaintance with nature, even abstracting from our knowledge
of man in particular, must be satisfied, that it would have been
strictly analogical and just. Exactly similar, the very same
I should rather say, is the argument I have been urging for
the origination of the species. Make but a few alterations in
phraseology; for memory substitute history and tradition; for
hundreds of years, say thousands ; for the powers of body and
mind, put the arts and sciences ; and with these, and perhaps
one or two more such variations, you will find the argument
as appUcable in the one case as in the other. Now, if it be
granted, that the human species must have had a beginning,
it will hardly be questioned, that every other animal species,
or even that the universe, must have had a beginning.
But in order to prove the proposition laid down in the title
of this section,- it is not necessary to suppose that the world
had a beginning. Admit it had not, and observe the conse
quence : Thus much must be admitted also, that not barely
for a long continued, but for an eternal succession of gene
rations, mankind were in a state little superior to the beasts ;
that of a sudden there came a most astonishing change upon
the species; that they exerted talents and capacities, of which
*

120 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
there appeared not the smaUest vestige during the eternity
preceding; that they acquired such knowledge as procured
them a kind of empire, not only over the vegetable and ani
mal worlds, but even, in some respect, over the elements, and
aU the unwieldy powers of matter ; that, in consequence of
this, they were quickly raised much more above the state they
had been formerly and eternally in, than such their former
and eternal state was above that of the brute creation. If
such a revolution in nature, such a thorough, general, and
sudden change as this, would not be denominated miraculous,
it is not in my power to conceive what would. I could not
esteem it a greater miracle, hardly so great, that any species
of beasts which have hitherto been doomed to tread the earth,
should now get wings, and fioat about in the air.
Nor wiU this plea be subverted by that trite objection.
That mankind may have been as much enhghtened, perhaps
myriads of years ago, as they are at present; but that by some
universal calamity, such as deluge or conflagration, which,
after the rotation of many centuries, the earth possibly be
comes hable to, aU traces of erudition and of science, aU traces
both of the elegant and of the useful arts, may have been
effaced, and the human race, springing from a few who had
escaped the common ruin, may have emerged anew out of
barbarity and ignorance. This hypothesis does but substi
tute one miracle for another. Such general disorder is
entirely unconformable to our experience of the course of
nature. Accordingly, the destruction of the world by a
deluge, the author has numbered among those prodigies, or
miracles, which render the Pentateuch perfectly incredible.
If, on the contrary, we admit, that the world had a begin
ning, (and wiU not every thinking person acknowledge, that
this position is much more probable than the contrary ?) the
production of the world must be ascribed either to chance,
or to intelligence.
ShaU we. derive all things, spiritual and corporeal, from a
principle so insignificant as bhnd chance ? Shall we say, with
Epicurus, that the fortuitous concourse of rambUng atoms has
reared this beautifid and stupendous fabric ? In that case, per
haps, we should give an account of the origin of things, which,

FULLY ATTESTED. 121
most people wiU think, could not properly be styled miracu
lous. But is it, because the formation of a grand and regular
system in this way is conformable to the experienced order of
nature ? Quite the reverse. Nothing can be raore repugnant
to universal experience, than that the least organic body, not
to mention the glorious fi'ame of nature, should be produced
by such a casual jumble. It has therefore, in the highest de
gree possible, that particular quality of miracles, from which,
according to the author's theory, their incredibihty results,
and may doubtless, in this loose acceptation ofthe word, be
termed miraculous. But should we affirm, that to account
thus for the origin of the universe, is to account for it by
miracle ; we should be thought, I am afraid, to speak both
weakly and improperly. There is something here, if I may
so express myself, which is far beyond the miraculous ; some
thing for which I know not whether any language can afford
a proper appeUation, unless it be the general appellations of
absurdity and nonsense.
Shall we then at last recur to the common doctrine, that
the world was produced by an intelligent cause ? On this
supposition also, though incomparably the most rational, it is
evident, that in the creation, formation, or first production of
things, call it by .what name you please, a power must have
been exerted, which, in respect of the present course of nature,
may be styled miraculous. I intend not to dispute about a
word, nor to inquire, whether that term can, in strict pro
priety, be used of any exertions before the establishment of
the laws of nature. I use the word in the same latitude in
which the author commonly uses it in his reasoning, for every
event that is not conformable to that course of nature vrith
which we are acquainted by experience.
Whether, therefore, the world had, or had not a begin
ning ; whether on the first supposition, the production of
things be ascribed to chance or to design; whether, on the
second, in order to solve the numberless objections that arise,
we do, or do not, recur to universal catastrophes ; there is no
possibUity of accounting for the phenomena which at present
come under our notice, vrithout haring at last recourse to
Miracles ; that is, to events altogether unconformable, or.

122 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
if you wiU, contrary to the present course of nature known to
us by experience. I cannot conceive an hypothesis, which
is not reducible to one or other of those above mentioned.
Whoever imagines that another might be framed, which is
not comprehended in any of those, and which has not as
yet been derised by any system-builder ; let him make the
experiment, and I wiU venture to prognosticate, that he will
stiU find himself clogged with the same difficulty. The con
clusion therefore above deduced maybe justly deemed, tiU the
contrary is shown, to be not only the result of one, but ahke
of every hypothesis, of which the subject is susceptible.
Thus it has been erinced, as was proposed, that, abstract
ing from the eridence for particular facts, we have irrefragable
evidence that there have been, that there must have been,
miracles in former times, or such events as, when compared
with the present constitution, of the world, would by Mr.
Hume be denominated miraculous.

SECTION VII.
Revisal of Mr, Hume's Examination of the Pentateuch.
Allowing to the conclusion deduced in the foregoing
section its proper weight, I shaU also take into consideration
the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses ; or rather I shaU
endeavour impartiaUy to rerise the examination which those
books have already tmdergone by the Essayist.* It is, iri
this case, of the greatest importance to know, whether the
evidence on both sides has been fairly stated.
" Here then we are first to consider a book," which is
acknowledged, on all hands, to be the most ancient record in
the world, " presented to us," we admit, "by a barbarous
and ignorant people,"f at the same time exhibiting a system
* Page 205.
t The author adds, " wrote in an age when they were still more barbarous,"
These words I have omitted in the revisal, because they appear to me unintel
ligible. The age in which the . Pentateuch was written, is indirectly compared

FULLY ATTESTED. 123
of Theism, or natural religion, which is both rational and
subhme ; with which nothing that was ever compiled or pro
duced on tliis subject, in tlie most enlightened ages, by the
most learned and polished nations, who were unacquainted
witii that book, will bear to be compared.
Mr. Hume himself must allow that tliis remark deserves
attention, since his reasoning in another performance, whicli
he calls The Natural History of Religion, would lead us to ex
pect the contrary. He there mauitains that Polytheism and
Idolatry are, and must be tlie religion of rude and barbarous,
and consequently of ancient ages ; that the true principles of
The'ism, or the behef of oue almighty and wise Being, the
crfeator, the preserver, and the riUer of heaveii and earth, re
sults fi-om the greatest improvements of the imderstanduig hi
phUosophy and science. To suppose the contrary, says he,
is supposing, that "while men were ignorant and barbarous,
they discovered truth ; but feU into error, as soon as they
acquired learning and politeness."* This reasoning is just,
wherever rehgion is to be considered as the result of human
reflections. Wliat account then will the author give of this
wonderful exception ? That the reverse is here the case, it is
impossible for him to dissemble. The people he liimself calls
ignorant and barbarous ; yet they are not idolaters or poly
theists. At the time when the book which he examines was
composed, he seems to think, they even exceeded themselves
in barbarity ; yet the sentiments of these barbarians, on the
subject of rehgion, the senthnents which that very book pre
sents to us, may well put to silence the wisdom of the pohtest
nations on the earth. Need I remind Mr. Hume of his ex
press declaration, that if a traveUer were transported into any
unknown region, and found the inhabitants " ignorant and
barbarous, he might beforehand declare them idolaters, and
thereis scarce a possibility ofhis being mistaken ?"f I
know no satisfactory account that can be given of this excep
tion on the principles of the Essayist : nevertheless, nothing
is more easy than to give a satisfactory account of it, on the
to another age, he says not what : and all we can make of it is, that this people were
more barbarous at that time than at some other time, nobody knows when.
• Natural History of Religion, I, + Ibid,

124 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
Christian principles. This account is that which is given by
the book itself. It is, that the rehgious tenets of that nation
were not the restdt of their reasonings, but proceeded from
divine revelation. The contrast we discern betwixt the Is
raelites and the ancient Greeks and Romans is remark
able. The Greeks and Romans, on all the subjects of
human erudition, on all the hberal and the useful arts,
reasoned hke men ; on the subject of reUgion, they prated
like children. The Israelites, on the contrary, in all the
sciences and arts, were children ; but, in their notions of re
hgion, they were men — in the doctrines, for example, of the
tmity, the eternity, the omnipotence, the omniscience, the
omnipresence, the wisdom, and the goodness of God; in
their opinions concerning proridence, and the creation,
preservation, and government of the world ; opinions so ex
alted and comprehensive, as, even by the author's acknow
ledgment, could never enter into the thoughts of barbarians.
But to proceed in the rerisal : We have here a book, says
the Essayist, " wrote in all probabiUty long after the facts it
relates." That this book was vn-itten long after some of the
facts it relates, is not indeed denied ; that it was written long
after all, or even most of those facts, I see no reason to be
heve. If Mr. Hume meant to signify, by the expression
quoted, that this was in all probabiUty the case, why did he
not produce the grounds on which the probabihty is founded ?
ShaU a bold assertion pass for argument ? or can it be ex
pected, that any one should consider reasons, which are only
in general supposed but not specified ?
He adds, " corroborated by no concurring testimony ;" as
Uttle, say I, invalidated by any contradicting testimony ; and
both for this plain reason, because there is no htunan compo
sition that can be compared with this in respect of antiquity.
But though this book is not corroborated by the concurrent
testimony of any coeval histories, because, if there ever were
such histories, they are not now extant ; it is not therefore
destitute of aU collateral eridence. The foUowing examples
of this kind of eridence deserve some notice. The dirision of
time into weeks, which has obtained in many countries, for
instance among the Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, and north-

FULLY ATTESTED. 125
ern barbarians ; nations whereof some had little or no inter
course with others, and were not even known by name to the
Hebrews ;* the tradition which in several places prevailed
concerning the primeval chaos from which the world arose ;
the production of all living creatures out of water and earth
by the efficiency of a Supreme Mind ; f the formation of man
* The judicious reader will observe, that there is a great difference between the
concuiTence of nations in the division of time into weehs^ and their concurrence in the
other periodical divisions, into yeai^s^ monihSj and dai/s. These divisions arise from
such natural causes as are every where obvious ; the annual and diurnal revolutions
of the sun, and the revolution of the moon. The division into weeks, on the con
trary, seems perfectly arbitrary : consequently, its prevailing in distant countries,
among nations which had no communication with one another, affords a strong pre
sumption, that it must have been derived from some tradition (as that of the creation)
which has been older than the dispersion of mankind into different regions. It is easy
to conceive, that the practice, in rude and barbarous ages, might remain through
habit, when the tradition on which it was founded was entirely lost ; it is easy to
conceive, that afterwards, people addicted to idolatry, or who, like the Egyptians, had
become proficients in astronomy, should assign to the different days of the week the
names of their deities or of the planets.
+¦ This in particular merits our attention the more, that it cannot, by any explica
tion, be made to agree with the doctrine which obtained among the Pagans, commonly
called ihe mi/thoIogj/. Ovid is so sensible of this, that, when he mentions a deity as
the efficient cause of the creation, he leaves hira, as it were, detacbed from those of the
popular system which it was his business as a poet to deliver, being at a loss what
name to give him, or what place in nature to assign him : Quisquis fuit ille deorum ;
whichever of tlie gods it was. He well knew, that, in all the catalogue of their divini
ties, the god who made the world was not to be found ; that these divinities them
selves were, on the contrary, produced. out of the chaos, as well as men and beasts.
Mr. Hume, in his Natural History qf Religion,, IV. remarks this conduct in Ovid,
and ascribes it to his having lived in a learned age, and having been instructed by
philosophers in the principle of a divine formation of the world. For my part, I
very much question whether any nation was ever yet indebted for this principle to
the disquisitions of philosophers. Had this opinion never been heard of till tho
Augustan age, it might indeed have been suspected that it was the daughter of phi
losophy and science ; but so far is this from being the case, that some vestiges of it
may be traced even in the earliest and most ignorant tinges. Thales the Milesian,
who lived many centuries before Ovid, had, as Cicero in his first book, De Tiatura
deorum., informs us, attributed the origin of all things to God. Anaxagoras had also
denominated the forming principle, which severed tho elements, created the world,
and brought order out of confusion, intelligence., or mind. It is therefore much more
probable, that these ancients owed thia doctrine to a tradition handed down from the
earliest ages, which even all the absurdities of the theology they had embraced had
not been able totally to erase, though these absurdities could never be made to
coalesce with this doctrine. At the same tirae I acknowledge, that there is some
thing so noble and so rational in the principle, TJiat the world was produced hy
an intelligent cause, that sound philosophy will ever bo ready to adopt it, when

126 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
last of all, in the image of God, and his being vested with
dominion over the other animals ; the primitive state of inno
cence and happiness ; the subsequent degeneracy of mankind ;
their destruction by a fiood ; and the preservation of one
family in a vessel. Nay, which is stiU stronger, I might plead
the vestiges of some such catastrophe as the deluge, which
the sheUs and other marine bodies that are daily dug out of
the bowels of the earth, in places remote from the sea, do
clearly exhibit to us : I might urge the traces, which stiU re
main in ancient histories, of the migration of people and of
science from Asia (which has not improperly been styled the
cradle of the arts) into many parts both of Africa and Europe :
I might plead the coincidence of those ¦ migrations, and of
the origin of states and kingdoms, vrith the time of the dis
persion of the posterity of Noah.
once it is proposed. But that this opinion is not the offspring of philosophy, may
be reasonably deduced from this consideration also, that they were not the most
enlightened or philosophic nations amongst whom it was maintained in greatest
purity, I speak not of the Hebrews, Even the Parthians, Medes, and Persians,
whom the Greelts considered as barbarians, were genuine theists ; and, notwith
standing many superstitious practices which prevailed among them, they held the
belief of one etemal God, the Creator and the Lord of the universe. If this princii)le
is to be derived from tbe utmost improvement of the mind in ratiocination and sci
ence, which is Mr, Hume's hypothesis, the phenomenon just now observed is unac
countable. If, on the contrary, it is to be derived originally from revelation, pre
served by tradition through successive generations, nothing can more easily be ac
counted for. Traditions are always longest retained, and most purely transmitted, in
or near tbe place were they were first received, and amongst a people who possess
strong attachment to their ancient laws and customs. Migrations into distant coun
tries, mixture of different nations, revolutions in government and manners, yea, and
ingenuity itself, all contribute to corrupt tradition, and do sometimes wholly cHace it.
This I talte to be the only admissible account, why so rational and philosophical a prin
ciple prevailed most in ages and countries in wbich reason and philosophy seemed to be
but in tbeir infancy. The notion, that the Greeks borrowed their opinions on this,
Bubject from the books of Moses, a notion for which some Jewish writers, some
Christian fathers, and even some modems have warmly contended, appears void of all
foundation. These opinions in Greece, as has been observed, were of a very early
date ; whereas that there existed such a people as the Jews, seemed scarcely to have
been known there till about the time of the Macedonian conquests. No sooner
were they known than they were hated, and their laws and customs .universally
despised. Nor is tbere the shadow of reason to think, that the Greeks knew any
thing of the sacred writings till a considerable time afterwards, when that version
of them was made into their language, which is called Tlie translation of ilte
Seventy,

FULLY ATTESTED. 127
But to return: tlie author subjoins "resembUng those
fabulous accounts which every nation gives of its origin." It
is unluckily the fate of holy writ with this author, that both
its resemblance, and its want of resemblance, to the accounts
of other authors, are ahke presumptions against it. He has
not indeed told us wherein it resembles fabulous accounts :
and, for my part, though the charge were just, I should ima
gine httle or nothuig to the disadvantage of the Pentateuch
could be deduced from it. It is universaUy agreed among the
learned, that even the most absurd fables of idolaters derive
their origin from facts, which having been, in barbarous ages,
transmitted only by oral tradition, have come at length to be
grossly corrupted and disfigured. It is nevertheless probable,
that such fictions would stUl retain some striking features of
those truths from which they sprang. And if the books of
Moses resemble, in anything, the fabulous accounts of other
nations, it would not perhaps be difficult to prove, that they
resemble only whatever is least fabulous in these accoimts.
That this wiU be found to be the case, we may reasonably
presume, even from what has been observed aheady ; and, if
so, the resemblance, so far fr-om being an argument against
those books, is eridently an argument in their favour. In
order to remove any doubt that may remain on this head, it
ought to be attended to, that, in a number of concurrent tes
timonies, (where there coiUd have been no prerious concert),
there is a probabihty independent of that which results from
our faith in the witnesses ; nay, should the witnesses be of
such a character as to merit no faith at aU. This probabihty
arises from the concurrence itself. That such a concurrence
should spring from chance, is as one to infinite, in other
words, moraUy impossible : if therefore concert be excluded,
there remains no other cause but the reahty of the fact.
It is true, that " upon reading this book, we find it fuU of
prodigies and miracles ;" but it is also true, that many of
those miracles are such as the subject it treats of must un
avoidably make us expect. For a proof of this position, I
need but refer the reader to the principles estabhshed in the
preceding section. No book in the world do we find written

128 THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL
in a more simple style : nowhere does there appear in it the
least afiectation of ornament ; yet nowhere else is the Al
mighty represented, as either acting or speaking in a man
ner so becoming the eternal ruler of the world. Compare
the account of the creation which is given by Moses, with
the rarings of Sanchoniatho, the Phenician philosopher,
which he has dignified with the title of cosmogony ; or
compare it with the childish extravagances of the Greek
and the Latin poets, so justly likened by the author to a sick
man's dreams ;* and then say, whether any person of can
dour and discernment will not be disposed to exclaim, in
the words of the prophet. What is the chaff to the wheat?
Jer. xxui. 28. The account is what we should call, in re
ference to our experience, miraculous : but was it possible
it should be otherwise ? I believe the greatest infidel will
not deny, that it is at least as plausible an opinion that the
world had a beginning, as that it had not. If it had, can
it be imagined by any man in his senses, that that particular
quality should be an objection to the narrative, which he
previously knows it must have ? Must not the first produc
tion of things, the original formation of animals and vege
tables, require exertions of power, which, in preservation
and propagation, can never be exemphfied ?
It will perhaps be objected. That if the miracles continued
no longer, and extended no further, than the necessity of
creation required, this reasoning would be just ; but that in
fact they both continued much longer, and extended much
further. The answer is obrious : it is impossible for us to
judge, how far the necessity of the case required. Imme
diately after the creation, things must have' been in a state
very different from that which they are in at present. How
long that state might continue, we have not the means of dis
covering : but as, in human infancy, it is necessary that the
feeble creature should for some time be carried in the nurse's
arms, and afterwards, by the help of leading-strings, be kept
from falling, before he acquire strength to walk ; it is not
unUkely that, in the infancy of the world, such interpositions
* Natural History of Religion, XV.

FULLY ATTESTED. 129
should be more frequent and requisite, till nature, attaining
a certain maturity, those laws and that constitution should
be established ^^hich we now experience. It wiU greatly
strengthen this conclusion, to reflect, that in every species of
natural productions with wliich we are acquainted, we inva
riably observe a similar feebleness in the indiriduals on then-
first appearance, and a similar gradation towards a state of
greater perfection and stabihty. Besides, if we acknowledge
the necessity of the exertion of a power, which in reference
only to our experience is caUed miraculous, the question, as
is weU observed by the judicious prelate formerly quoted,*
" whether this power stopped immediately after it had made
man, or went on and exerted itself farther, is a question of
the same kind as, whether an ordinary power exerted itself in
such a particular degree and manner, or not." It cannot,
therefore, if we think reasonably on this subject, greatly
astonish us, that such a book should give " an account of a
state of the world, and of human nature, entirely difierent
from the present ; of our faU from that state ; of the age of
man extended to near a thousand years ; and bf the destruc
tion of the world by a deluge."
Finally, if in such a book, mingled with the excellences
I have remarked, there should appear some difficulties, some
thuigs for which we are not able to account; for instance,
" the arbitrary choice of one people as the favourites of
Heaven; and their deUverance from bondage by prodigies
the most astonishing imaginable,-" is there any thing more
extraordinary here, than, in a composition of this nature, we
might have preriously expected to find ? We must be im
moderately conceited of our own understandings, if we
imagine other^se. Those favourites of Heaven, it must be
likewise owned, are the countrymen of the writer ; but of
such a . ViTiter as, of aU historians or annalists, ancient or
modem, shows the least disposition to fiatter his countrymen.
Where, I pray, do we find him either celebrating their vir
tues, or paUiating their vices ; either extolhng their genius,
or magnifying their exploits ? Add to all these, that, in every
• Analogy of Religion, &c. Part II. chap, ii, sect, 2,

130 the miracles of the gospel
thing which is not expressly ascribed to the interposal of
Heaven, the relation is in itself plausible, the incidents are
natural, the characters and manners such as are admirably
adapted to those early ages of the world. In these particu
lars there is no afiectation of the marvellous ; there are no
" descriptions of sea and land monsters ; no relations of won
derful adventures, strange men and uncouth manners."*
When all these things are seriously attended to, I persuade
myself that no unprejudiced person vrill think that the Pen
tateuch bears falsehood on the face of it, and deserves to he
rejected without examination. On the contrary, every un
prejudiced person will find (I say not, that its falsehood
would be more miraculous than aU the miracles it relates ;
this is a language which I do not understand, and which only
serves to darken a plain question ; but I say, he will find)
very many and very strong indications of authenticity and
truth ; and will conclude, that all the eridences, both intrinsic
and extrinsic, by which it is supported, ought to be impar
tially canvassed. Abundant evidences there are of both
kinds : some hints of them have been given in this section ;
but to consider them fuUy, faUs not within the Umits of my
present purpose. * Page 185.

FULLY ATTESTED. 131

CONCLUSION.
What is the sum of all that hath been now discussed ? It
is briefly this : That the author's favourite argument, of which
he boasts the discovery, is founded in error,* is managed with
sophistry, •\ and is at last abandoned by its inventor,'^, as fit
only for show, not for use: that he is not more successfulin the
collateral arguments he employs; particularly, that there is no
peculiar presumption against religious miracles ;\\ that onthe
contrary, there is a peculiar presumption in their favour :^
that the general maxim, whereby he would enable us to decide
betwixt opposite miracles, when it is stript of the pompous
diction that serves at once for decoration and for disguise, is
discovered to be no other than an identical proposition, which,
as it conveys no knowledge, can be of no service to the pause of
truth. -^ that there is no presumption, arising either from hu
man nature,** or from the history of mankind, -\-\ against the
miracles said to have been wrought in proof of Christianity ;
that the evidence of these is not subverted by those miracles
which historians of other religions have recorded ;XX iho.t
neither the Pagan, \\\\ nor the Popish^^ miracles, on which
he hath expatiated, will bear to be compared with those of holy
writ ; that, abstracting from the evidence of particular facts,
we have irrefragable evidence that there have been miracles
in former times ; ^^ and, lastly, that his examination of the
Pentateuch is both partial and imperfect, and consequently
stands in need of a revisal.***
" Our most holy rehgion," says the author in the conclu
sion of his Essay, "is founded on faith, not on reason ; and
it is a sure method of exposing it, to put it to such a trial as
it is by no means fitted to endure." If, by our -/host holy re
ligion, we are to understand the fundamental articles of the
Christian system, these have their foundation in the nature
* Part I. sect. 1. t.Sect. 2, + Sect, 3, || Sect, 4,
§ Sect. 5, t Sect. 6, ** Part II, sect. 1.
++ Sect 2. tt Sect. 3, || || Sect, 4, §§ Sect. 5.
HU Sect, 6. *** Sect. 7, I

132 conclusion.
and decrees of God ; and, as they are antecedent to our faith
or reasonings, they must be also independent of both. If
they be true, our disbelief can never make them false ; if they
be false, the belief of all the world will never make them true.
But as the only question between Mr. Hume and the defen
ders of the gospel is. Whether there be reason to beUeve
those articles ? By our most holy religion he can mean only
our behef of the Christian doctrine : and concerning this
behef we are told, that it is founded on faith, not on reason;
that is, our faith is founded on our faith ; in other words, it
has no foundation, it is a mere chimera, the creature of a
distempered brain. I say not, on the contrary, that our most
holy religion is founded on reason, because this expression, in
my opinion, is both ambiguous and inaccurate ; but I say, that
we have suflicient reason for the behef of our reUgion; or, to
express myself in the words of an apostle, that the Christian,
if it is not his own fault, may be ready always to give an an
swer to every man that asketh him a reason ofhis hope.
So far therefore am I from being afraid of exposing Chris
tianity, by submitting it to the test of reason ; so far am I
from judging this a trial which it is by no means fitted to
endure, that I think, on the contrary, the most riolent attacks
that have been made upon the faith of Jesus, have been of
serrice to it. Yes ; I do not hesitate to aflSlrm, that our reli
gion has been indebted to the attempts, though not to the in
tentions, of its bitterest enemies. They have tried its strength
indeed, and, by trying, they have displayed its strength ; and
that in so clear a hght, as we could never have hoped, with
out such a trial, to have viewed it in. Let them therefore
write, let them argue, and, when arguments fail, even let them
caril against religion as much as they please ; I should be
heartily sor^, that ever in this island, the asylum of hberty,
where the spirit of Christianity is better understood (however
defective the inhabitants are in the observance of its precepts)
than in any other part of the Christian world; I should, I say,
be sorry, that in this island so great a disserrice were done
to religion, as to check its adversaries in any other way than
by returning a candid answer to their objections. I must
at the same time acknowledge, that I am both ashamed and

conclusion. 133
grieved, when I observe any friends of religion betray so
great a diffidence in the goodness of their cause, (for to this
diffidence alone it can be imputed), as to show an inchnation
for recurring to more forcible methods. The assaults of in
fidels, I may venture to prophesy, will never overturn our
religion. They will prove not more hurtful to the Christian
system, if it be allowed to compare small things with the great
est, than the boisterous vrinds are said to prove to the sturdy
oak. They shake it impetuously for a time, and loudly
threaten its subversion ; whilst, in effect, they only serve to
make it strike its roots the deeper, and stand the firmer ever
after. One word ' more with the Essayist, and I have done.
" Upon the whole," says he, " we may conclude, that the
Christian religion not only was at first attended with mi
racles, but, even at this day, cannot be believed by any rea
sonable person vrithout one. Mere reason is insufficient to
eonrince us of its veracity ; and whoever is moved by faith
to assent to it ;" that is, whoever by his behef is induced to
beheve it, " is conscious of a continued miracle in his own
person, which subverts all the principles of his understand
ing, and gives him a determination" to beUeve what is most
contrary to custom and experience." An author is never so
sure of writing unanswerably, as when he writes altogether
uninteUigibly. It is impossible that you should fight your
enemy before you find him; and if he hath screened himself
in darkness, it is next to impossible that you should find him.
Indeed, if any meaning can be gathered from that strange
assemblage of words just now quoted, it seems to be one or
other of these which foUow : either, That there are not any in
the world who beheve the gospel ; or. That there is no want
of miracles in our own time. How either of these remarks,
if just, can contribute to the author's purpose, it will not, I
suspect, be easy to discover. If the second remark be true,
if there be no want of miracles at present, surely experience
cannot be pleaded against the belief of miracles said to have
been performed in time past. Again, if the first remark be
true, if there be not any in the world who beUeve the gospel,
because, as Mr. Hume supposes, a miracle cannot be beheved
I 2

134 conclusion.
without a new miracle, why all this ado to refute opinions
which nobody entertains ? Certainly, to use his ovra words,
" The knights-errant who wandered about to clear the world
of dragons and giants, never entertained the least doubt con
cerning the existence of these monsters." *
Might I presume faintly to copy but the manner of so
inimitable an original, as the author has exhibited in his con
cluding words, I should also conclude upon the whole. That
miracles are capable of proof from testimony, and that there
is a full proof of this kind for those said to have been wrought
in support of Christianity : That whoever is moved, by Mr.
Hume's ingenious argument, to assert, that no testimony can
give sufficient evidence of miracles, admits for reason, though
perhaps unconsciously, a mere subtilty, which subverts the
evidence of testimony, of history, and even of experience it
self, giring him a determination to deny, what the common
sense of mankind, founded in the primary principles of the
understanding, would lead him to believe.
• See the first paragraph of Essay XII, Of the Academical or Sceptical Philosophy,

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

SEEMOE^,

PREACHED
BEFORE THE SYNOD OF ABERDEEN,
APRIL 9, 1771.

SERMON I.

2 Tim. i. 7.
God hath not given us the spirit of fear ; but of power, and
of love, and of a sound mind.
There are two ways in which we may be profitably employ
ed, in considering at large the rehgious institution of our
Lord Jesus Christ. Our inquiries may be directed either to
the proofs by wliich it is supported, or to the spirit which
it breathes. In the former, by the discovery of the truth of
our rehgion, it is rendered the object of our faith ; in the
latter, by the contemplation of its beauty, it becomes more
immediately the object of our love.
I say, more immediately ; because, though this is the di
rect, it is not the only consequence of such a contemplation.
As Christianity claims to be of heavenly extraction, it is rea
sonable to expect that it should bear some resemblance to the
original from which it springs. The lineaments of goodness
and wisdom, of majesty and grace, may be justly looked for
in the ofispring of the Father in heaven, who is unerringly
wise, and infinitely good, the source and the standard of aU
exceUence : And if these Uneaments be discovered, they are
no inconsiderable eridence of the justice of the claim. Be
tween the child and the parent, there wiU sometimes be found
so striking a hkeness, as vrill be sufficient to convey, to a dis
cerning spectator, a stronger conriction ofthe relation subsist
ing between them, than could be effected by any other kind
of proof. Whatever therefore tends to exhibit our religion
as amiable, is, in fact, an intrinsic eridence of its truth; and
consequently tends as really, though not so directly, to ren
der it credible, as arguments deduced from prophecy or mi
racles. Add to this, that the attacks of infidels are as often
levelled against the internal character, as against the external

138 the spirit of the gospel.
evidence of revelation. The vindication of the first is there
fore as necessary for subverting the cause of infidehty, as the
illustration of the second.
Besides, it is not barely by being beheved, (though that is
a most important point,) that rehgion produces its effect on
the mind. The devils believe, and tremble, Jamesii. 19. Their
faith, so far from conducing to their happiness, becomes an
instrument of their misery. They hate the doctrine which
they cannot avoid behering. We must possess the love as
well as the belief of the truth, if we would be saved by it ;
2 Thess. u. 10. For this reason it is assigned as the grand cri
terion of that faith which is available in God's account, that
it is afaith which worketh by love. Gal. v. 6. Every other
criterion is but the result of this. It is solely in consequence
of this that it sanctifieth, John xvii. 17, 19, purifying the
heart. Acts xv. 9, and giring the mind a victory over the
world, 1 John v. 4.
It also merits our attention, that where love is wanting, it
cannot be expected that beUef should be durable. Religion
is an object that can scarcely be riewed by any human crea
ture with indifference. If it fail to kindle affection in the
soul, it wiU not fail to awaken dread, which commonly asso
ciates vrith aversion. Now it is the general bent of our na
ture to disbeheve what we dislike. How easy is the task of
the declaimer or the withng, when he is employed in decrying
or ridiculing tenets which his hearers wish to be false ? The
apostle Paul acquaints us, that the lying wonders, and other
deceitful arts to be practised by the man of sin, in seducing
the disciples of Christ, would prove successful only among
those who harbour not the love of the truth, 2 Thess. ii. 10.
If therefore the religion of Jesus, on such an examination
of its spirit as we now propose, shall appear to be altogether
lovely, we have ground to hope, that, with the blessing of
God, our faith itself will be strengthened, our love, that ani
mating principle of obedience, Rom. xui. 10, without which
faith is unprofitable and dead, James ii. 14, 17, vrill be in
flamed, and our perseverance more effectually secured.
Nor will it, I hope, be thought by any, that the subject is
unsuitable either to the occasion or to the audience. It would

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.

139

be difficult to imagine an occasion, on which the spirit of the
gospel would be an improper topic for a sermon ; and as to
the audience, I have too high a respect for my fathers and
brethren present, not to be persuaded that they are as deeply
sensible as I myself am, that we all stand in need of the same
means and assistances, for producing, advancing, and secur
ing our faith, love, and perseverance, that even the meanest
of our hearers stands in need of. And if the same helps are
equaUy necessary to us on our own account, they are of more
importance on the account of others. To us the ministry of
reconciliation is intrusted, 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. As Christian
pastors, we are honoured to be the ordinary instruments of
conveying the knowledge and the temper of religion to the
people. That we may reflect light on others, we must our
selves be preriously enhghtened : that we may be fitted for
infrising into the hearts of our hearers the spirit of the gospel,
we need first to experience its infiuence on our own. In order
then to prove successful helpers of the faith and joy of our
fellow Christians, as by our office we are bound to be, (Rom.
X. 17 ; 2 Cor. i. 25,) one useful expedient doubtless is, to
prove faithful assistants and monitors to one another. The
sketch that I propose to give, considering the dignity of the
subject, must, I know, have many imperfections. But I will
not injure my Reverend auditors by an apology; or once
suppose, that what I have to offer on such a subject will not
be heard with patience, and weighe'd with candour.
The words of Paul to Timothy, now read in your hearing,
shall serve as the foundation of this discourse : God hath not
given us the spirit of fear ; but ofpoiver, and of love, and of a
sound mind. On this subject I propose, my brethren, with
the assistance of Heaven, first. To premise a few things for
ascertaining the import of the expressions used by the apos
tle ; — secondly. To inquire into the spirit of false religion, as
here denominated the spirit of fear, and as standing in op
position to the character given of the true ; — thirdly. To in
quire into the spirit of true religion, here styled the spirit of
power, and of love, and of a sound mind : showing, as I pro
ceed, that with the greatest justice this character is ascribed

140 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
to the religion of Christ ; — and to conclude with some reflec
tions. I. In the first place, I premise a few things in order to
ascertain the meaning of the apostle's words, particularly of
the term spirit, as used in my text.
Is it necessary to observe, that by the spirit is often meant
in the New Testament the Holy Ghost, the third of the sacred
Three in whose name we are by baptism initiated into the
Christian communion ; and that when any of the disciples of
Jesus are said in Scripture to receive the Spirit, it is always
meant, that, by the operation of that dirine Person on their
minds, they obtain either the more ordinary graces of faith,
hope, and charity, which are essential to the Christian Ufe ;
or the more extraordinary, the power of working miracles, of
prophecy, of speaking strange languages, and other such-Uke?
These gifts the vrisdom of God thought fit to bestow in the
early times of Christianity, that by means of such incontestable
evidences of its divinity, its doctrine might be more quickly
propagated in the world. But as they were intended solely
¦for answering a particular and temporary purpose, they were
but circumstantial and temporary. When once the end was
effected, there was no further occasion for the means. Ac
cordingly they have long since ceased in the church of Christ.
Whereas the first mentioned, though more common in the
dispensation, yet being of the essence of his religion, and
therefore more excellent in their nature, must continue whilst
he has followers on the earth.
Some have thought, that by the words of my text the apos
tle intended to signify the spiritual gifts last enumerated, the
extraordinary and miraculous ; and it must be acknowledged,
that the word power is often employed in Scripture to denote,
by way of eminence, the power of working miracles. But that
this is not the meaning of the term in the passage before us,
will appear from the foUovring considerations. First, The
original word, in this verse xendexed power, is also often used
by this apostle to signify the virtues of self-government; 1 Cor.
iv. 19; Eph. iii. 16; Col. i. 11. Secondly, Power is here
coupled with love, and with a sound mind ; two qualities

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 141
which are never ranked among the miraculous gifts of the
Holy Ghost. Thirdly, The spirit of power stands here in
opposition to the spirit of fear, which manifestly denotes an
habitual disposition or temper of soul. From all these it is
abundantly evident, that, in this place, the inspired penman
intended, if I may so express myself, to dehneate the prin
cipal features of the Christian character. Accordingly the
word spirit may very reasonably be understood to denote a
prevaihng disposition of soul. This disposition he exhibits
to us as the badge of our rehgious profession, as the gift of
God through Jesus Christ our Lord: God hath not given us,
us the behevers in Jesus, distinguished ahke by this faith
from Jews and Gentiles, the spirit of fear; but he has given
us the spirit of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
The same term is frequently, in the language of holy writ,
and even in common language, employed to denote both cause
and effect. Thus the luminary itself, and the rays issuing
from it, we indiscriminately denominate Ught: And that in
Scripture idiom the word spirit often signifies an habitual
frame or temper, is undeniable. In this way it behoves us to
understand these phrases, the spirit of meekness, the spirit of
slumber, the spirit of jealousy, and many others, which fre
quently occur in sacred vyrit. We are therefore to conceive
the apostle as exhibiting here the outline of the Christian
character, as describing in brief that temper of soul which
the rehgion of Jesus is so admirably fitted to inspire into
those who by faith receive it. This temper, this internal
signature of genuine Christianity, I shaU in the sequel, for
distinction's sake, denominate the spirit of the gospel. It is
the same which, in the New Testament, is sometimes called
the spirit of Christ, and sometimes the spirit of adoption, or
sonship; Rom. viii. 9, 15 ; Gal. iv. 6.
Need I add, that by such expressions are not meant either
the doctrines of our rehgion or its moral precepts, considered
severaUy, its promises or its threatenings, its positive insti
tutions, or the examples of virtue which it holds up to our
imitation ; but that temper of mind which is the result of these,
that character which all the branches of Christianity, each in
the way suited to its particular nature, conspire to produce

142 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
in the soul of the believer, or, whicli is the same thing, in
that person on whom this religion has its proper influence.
So much for ascertaining the import of the words.
II. I proceed, as I proposed, in the second place. To in
quire into the spirit of false religion, as here characterized a
spirit of fear, and as standing in opposition to the character
given of the true.
It hath been long a common artifice of atheistical and in
fidel authors, industriously to confound, in their writings, the
words religion and superstition, as if they were synonymous.
A few indeed of late, more refined in their notions on this
subject than their predecessors, observing, that into the cha
racter of religionists of different denominations, there entered
very different, nay contrary principles, have nicely distin
guished between these two kinds of false religion, superstition
and enthusiasm; which, though in some respects opposite in
their nature and tendency, agree in this, that -each lays claim
to the appellation of religion. Hence those vyriters have
taken occasion to consider every thing that comes under this
name, as a particular mode of one or other, or a certain
combination of both.
That there is a foundation in nature for the distinction
which has been made between these extremes, is not to be
denied ; but that rehgion, properly so called, though it has
been often, through the ignorance and corruption of men,
blended with these, is in its nature totally distinct from both,
and participates of neither, I hope in the sequel fully to evince.
For this purpose I am previously to consider the spirit of
false religion. Its character may be learnt from my text, both
from what is directly ascribed to it, and from what is insinuat
ed concerning it. First, The apostle here ascribes to it, that
it enfeebles and intimidates the soul. When Paul expressed
himself in this manner, God hath not given us the spirit of
fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind, it is ma
nifest that he meant to mark the difference, in respect of its
influence on the temper, to be found in that sublime doctrine
which he taught, as well from every possible species of false
religion', as from the Judaism that then obtained amongst his

THE SPIRIT dF THE GOSPEL. 143
countrymen, and from the various forms of polytheism that
prevailed in the rest of the world.
Terror then, or unaccountable and unbounded fear, is one
of the commonest, and at the same time one of the ugUest
features in false religion. If I might be indulged a littie in
criticising on the apostle's expression, I would remark, that
the original word, which in my text is rendered /ear, occurs
nowhere else in the New Testament.* It does not signify
simply the passion of fear, or any particular exertion of that
passion ; but it is one of those terms that are always em
ployed in a bad sense, and serve to denote something vicious
in the mental habit, which, uncontroUed by an enlightened
conscience, fosters passion into disease.
There is a fear that is reasonable and proper ; there is a
fear that is unreasonable and weak. None ofthe appetites or
affections belonging to human nature are eril of themselves.
A little reflection \riU satisfy the attentive inquirer, that they
are all admirably calculated to promote the welfare, both of
the indiridual and of the species. But then it was the pur
pose of heaven, we even read it in our frame, that all the in
ferior powers of the soul should be informed by reason, and
controlled by conscience. The evil then only takes place,
when the passion, emancipating itself, and disdaining all re
straint and control, is directed towards an improper object,
or cherished in an undue degree. It is this which is in Scrip
ture aptly styled inordinate affection. The passion of fear
was implanted in our mind to rouse us on the approach of
danger. The intention eridently was, that, when to avoid
danger is both possible and lawful, we may be stimulated
timely to avoid it ; and when otherwise, that we may be
suitably prepared to encounter it. It is not in the want of
fear, or a hvely sense of danger, that true fortitude consists.
On the contrary, were we destitute of the passion, we should
be incapable of the rirtue. No person would call it courage
in an infant, or a blind man, to move vrith unconcern on the
summit of a precipice. Their unconcern would arise, not
from strength of mind, or any positive quality, but from a
• The word is SiiKia. Its conjugates, Sst\o£, and dtiKiau), occur sometimes in
the New Testament, but always in a bad sense.

144

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.

defect, ignorance and bUndness. It is not therefore in the
extinction of fear that magnanimity consists. That man is,
in the best sense of the word, magnanimous, in whom fear
habituaUy waits the information of reason, and stoops to the
command of duty.
Nor is fear to be excluded altogether from the precincts of
religion. If the supreme Lord of the universe ought to be
considered as a lawgiver, there must be danger in riolating
his laws. To affirm that there is none, and that the observ
ance and the transgression are alike in their consequences, is
to annihUate the very notion of a law. It is giving and re
fusing to God the character of lawgiver vrith the same breath.
A soul then conscious ofthe riolation, and yet not susceptible
of the passion, would as manifestly labour under a defect, as
the bhnd man or infant in the case supposed. One of the
greatest motives to reformation and future rigilance, would
in such a character be totally wanting. If a reverence for the
laws of our country, and when one is tempted to transgress,
a fear of incurring their sanction, be qualities essential in a
good citizen, a reverence for the laws of our nature, and an
awe of his sentence who is the righteous Judge of the world,
are no less essential in a good man. The fear of God, then,
thus understood and quahfied, is not only irreproachable,
but even incumbent on creatures so constituted and so situ
ated as we are, conscious of sin and frailty, and daily exposed
to temptation. It is vrith reason, therefore, that it is so often
inculcated in sacred writ.
It is true, we are there informed, that perfect love casteth
out fear, 1 John iv. 18. But it ought to be remembered,
that perfect love also casteth out sin. For love, we are told,
is the fulfilling of the law, Rom. xiu. 10 ; and the whole of
the dirine commandments are summed up by our Sariour in
the love of -God, and the love of our neighbour. Matt. xxii.
35, &c. For this reason, fear, which implies an apprehen
sion of danger, can never be incumbent on those who, hke
the holy angels, are in absolute security. Hence we discover
what is the great foundation of religious fear in a rational .
being such as man. It is the consciousness of guilt, or moral
eril, by violating the law of his nature, which is the law of

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 145
God. And the reason that this fear is enjoined on men as a
duty is, that it may serve the upright as a guard to their in
tegrity, and the corrupt as a monitor to repentance. As from
the former observation we discover the grounds of pious fear,
from that now made we perceive its use and influence ; and,
by means of both, we are enabled to distinguish it from aU
superstitious terrors whatsoever, and consequently from that
spirit of timidity, which, by the apostle's account, is so far
from being the spirit of the gospel, that it is a perfect con
trast to it.
The panics of superstition often arise unaccountably, at least
from no adequate cause ; and always tend to what is insigni
ficant, if not pernicious. The cause is often inadequate. An
echpse of the sun, or an uncommon appearance in the sky, has
struck whole nations with amazement and terror. From the
Uke bhnd apprehensions have sprung the absurd doctrine of
omens, and the iUusive arts, now justly exploded, of augury,
astrology, and dirination. Even when there is a real cause
of fear, the effect often (if any thing on so serious a subject
ought to excite laughter) we should call ridiculous. A late
author observes. That " when the old Romans were attacked
vrith a pestilence, they never ascribed their sufferings to their
rices, or dreamed of repentance and amendment. They never
thought that they were the general robbers of the world,
whose ambition and avarice made desolate the earth, and re
duced opident nations to want and beggary. They only creat
ed a dictator in order to drive a nail into a door, and by that
means they thought that they had sufficiently appeased their
incensed deity."* This is in the true genius of superstition.
The fears of the people are alarmed by a general calamity : at
once ignorant, timid, and credulous, they vrill admit any thing
as the cause of their suffering, and will recur to any thing as
an expedient for rehering them, which the knavery or the folly
of those who have their confidence shall suggest. It is so far
lucky when nothing more hurtful is suggested than the driv
ing of a nail into -a door. Sometimes this ignoble principle
leads the infatuated worshippers to seek to propitiate their
dirinity by exercising cruelty on themselves. Thus it was the
* Natural History of Religion, XIV.

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

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 147
Isa. i. 1 1 — 13. To show, after aU, that the prophet did not
mean to drive them to despondency, but to call them to re
pentance, he concludes. Put away the evil of your doings ;
cease to do evil, learn to do well, relieve the oppressed, judge
the fatherless, plead for the widow. Isa. i. 16, 17.
I shall afterwards have occasion to observe, that many who
have been more highly favoured than even Israel was, and more
fiiUy enUghtened by the celestial beams of divine truth, have
not escaped incurring the same imputation. But, alas ! my
brethren, it is a just, though melancholy reflection, that it is
not in the conduct or the dogmas of those who call themselves
Christian, or, to adopt our Sariour's phrase, who say to him.
Lord, Lord, (Matt. rii. 21,) that we are to look for the spirit
of the gospel : but it is in what we learn from this sacred
volume ; it is in the Uves of Christ and his apostles ; it is in
the doctrine they taught, the maxims they inculcated, the
motives they urged, the institutions they estabhshed.
From what has been said it follows, that there are two
principal characteristics of the dread infused by superstition,
that clearly distinguish it from that reverential fear which
true rehgion demands of us. The first is in the cause ; igno
rance, or rather misapprehensions of God, and a perversion
of the sense of right and wrong : the second is in the effect ;
something frivolous at best, often flagitious. In either case,
even in that which to a superficial riew may appear quite
harmless, the tendency is plainly to lull the conscience, and
give security in sin. The spirit of superstition is in Scripture
very properly termed a spirit of bondage, Rom. riu. 15.
Through this medium, the Dirine Being appears to the wor
shippers as a capricious and tyrannical master to his wretched
slaves. They wiU not say so ; perhaps they will not beUeve
that they think so : But their latent sentiments belie their
professions, and erince, that when they use a different lan
guage, they but flatter him with their tongue. If it is true
of the love which animates the perfect, that it excludes fear,
it is equally true of the fear which awes the superstitious,
that it excludes love. For this reason it has been justly ob
served of superstition, that whatever be the outward appearance
it assumes, there is always more or less of demonism at bottom.

148

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.

Diametrically opposite in both respects, in cause and effect,
is the fear of the religious. It is foimded in a veneration of
the perfections and moral government of God, in a sense of
human frailty and depravity. Its tendency is, to produce ri
gilance for the preservation and improvement of whatever is
praiseworthy in the character, and for the reformation of
whatever is amiss. That the superstitious should be misled
by the same errors and grossness of imagination in fixing on
the remedy, that they were misled by in accounting for the
cause of the horrors raised in their minds, is by no means to
be wondered at ; but that any person of discernment should
not perceive, or any person of impartiahty should not acknow
ledge, the difference in this respect between the spirit of re
hgion and the spirit of superstition, is indeed wonderful. An
atheist, who admits the distinction between moral good and
ill, (and this he may admit as well as the distinction between
beauty and deformity,) must be sensible of the difference now
pointed out : he must be sensible, that the aspect of the de
mon Superstition is not more mahgnant, than that of the
cherub Religion is friendly to society.
But it is not by this horrid feature only that false rehgion
is distinguished from the true. The apostle, by contrasting
it with the spirit of power, and of love, and ofa sound mind,
suggests to us, that in the counterfeit there is always weak
ness in conjunction often with malevolence, and sometimes
even with a species of insanity.
From what has been said it is erident, that the terrors of
superstition imply weakness or imbecihty of mind : as they
arise from ignorance of God, and of one's self, a ritiated un
derstanding, frequently accompanied vrith a perverted con
science. But the same cause produces different effects on the
temper, as it happens to be differently allied. In the appre
hensive and timorous, the effect is Superstition ; in the arro
gant and daring, it is Enthusiasm. Ignorance is the mother
of both by different fathers. The second she had by Pre
sumption ; the first by Fear. Hence that wonderful mixture
of contrariety and resemblance in the characters of the chU
dren. There have been times, and there are places, in which
some of the priesthood have maintained that ignorance is the

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 149
mother of devotion. Have not such unwarily betrayed, by
this adage, to what family their devotion belongs ? Can it
be related to that rehgion wherein the knowledge of God is
of more account than burnt-offerings ? Hos. vi. 6. We must
own indeed, that its affinity to that worship which Pagan
Athens anciently paid to the imknown God, Acts xvii. 23,
cannot reasonably be disputed.
Further, it was remarked, that a degree of malevolence
often enters into the composition of false religion. It is
natural to suppose, that the temper of the adorers will take
a tincture from the character they ascribe to the dirinity they
adore. The more powerful and the more perfect in other
respects he is conceived to be, the greater is the infiuence
which the moral dispositions they attribute to him will have
upon their own. Nor are we to judge of those dispositions
by the terms in which the devotees speak of their deity, but
by the actions and conduct which they impute to him, and
by the sentiments wherewith they themselves ar,e affected.
As it has been observed of false rehgion, that it is founded
on injurious apprehensions of the dirine nature ; so in super
stition, particularly where the terrible predominates, these
must imply a considerable share of mahgnity. And it merits
our attention, that, in this respect, the errors of those who
maintain the unity of the Godhead, are more pernicious than
even the absurdities of polytheists, in that they have a greater
influence on the temper of the votaries. With the latter,
the character of the gods, Uke human characters, are avow
edly a mixture of good qualities and of bad ; mth the former,
the deity, in whatever colours they actually paint him, must
stiU be celebrated as the pattern of excellence. Conse
quently, to be similarly affected with him, to hate those
whom they suppose his enemies, and whom he hates, will be
regarded by the worshippers even as a duty; and a duty so
much the more meritorious, the stronger their obligations
are, on other accounts, to love them. And from hating to
exterminating, when that is practicable, the transition, as
fatal experience has shown, is not difficult.
But however different in some respects the character of the
enthusiast is supposed to be, there will be found, on exami-
k2

150 XHE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
nation, a stronger likeness in this very article than could at
first be imagined. Nothing indeed can be more opposite
than hope and fear, presumption and timidity ; yet nothing
can be more like than some of the consequences of these upon
society. The fanatic considers himself as Heaven's favourite;
and believes this to be either his peculiar prerogative, or, at
least, a privilege he enjoys in common with a few. Hence a
contempt of the far greater part of his species. And as those
of this stamp are ever ready to canonize their own wildest
reveries as divine iUuminations, and to consider their own
decisions as the oracles of God ; on finding that they are not
implicitly received as such by others, their pride instantly
takes the alarm. And what shall serve to restrain its fury,
when conscience and religion, the natural checks of passion,
are corrupted and silenced? nay, which is worse, when false
religion, and a misinformed conscience, are made to declare
in its favour ? Opposition then is branded with the name of
impiety, and contradiction with that of blasphemy. Their
own revenge, on the contrary, they dignify with the title of
zeal; and malice against the person of an antagonist, they
call love to his soul.
As to the last criterion mentioned, which stands opposed
to a sound mind, it but too manifestly results, both in the
superstitious and in the enthusiastic, from the other criteria
already mentioned. By both are the dictates of common
sense and the admonitions of conscience alike rilified and
neglected. These, as merely human, and therefore fallacious
guides, are superseded, in the one, by the most frivolous
observances, which an authority that he calls venerable, or
immemorial custom, hath imposed ; and in the other, by the
extravagances of a heated brain. The symptoms of distem
per are indeed different in the two characters. The su
perstitious person more resembles the idiot, and the enthu
siast the madman. But as it will be allowed, that idiocy
and madness are more nearly related to each other than
either is to a sound mind ; so the two species of false rehgion
mentioned (however much they may be regarded as extremes)
are more nearly connected with one another, than either is
with that religion which alone merits the denomination of
the true.

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 151
What has been advanced with regard to superstition, wiU
be readily admitted by all who are ever so httle acquainted
with the history of the world. As to what has been said of
enthusiasm, it may appear more doubtful. Its most extrava
gant flights are much rarer; and though its fervours are
more riolent wliile they last, they are extremely transient ;
and unless persecution minister fuel, they subside of them
selves, and die away. Yet the effects of its rage have been
too frequent not to vouch the truth of what has been affirmed.
On the other hand, nothing is more inveterate than super
stition. It insinuates itself silently and slowly ; but is cruelly
tenacious of its hold, and consequently by far the more
dangerous of the two.
I shall only add, that it is not every mistake, even in
regard to the dirine nature, which can with propriety be
denominated either superstitious or fanatical ; though every
mistake on this subject is doubtless of dangerous tendency
in rehgion. But those errors only can be so denominated,
which affect the moral attributes and government of God,
which confound the natural distinctions of right and wrong,
which inspire confidence where there is no ground of hope,
or terror where there is no cause of fear.
So much for an outhne of the character of both sorts of
false rehgion, superstition and enthusiasm.
III. I come now, in the third place, to inquire into the
character of true religion, which is deUneated in my text as
a spirit of power, of love, and of a sound mind : of power,
implying self-command, or the due government both of pas
sion and appetite ; of love to God and man, which is the end
of the commandment, 1 Tim. i. 5, and the bond of perfectness.
Col. iii. 14. Each of these I once proposed to consider
severally, explaining their nature, clearing them from the
misrepresentations which false glosses have introduced, and
showing in what manner the rehgion of Jesus illustrates and
enforces them. I had even proceeded some way on this
plan : but sensible at last that it was impossible to compre
hend the whole in one discourse, I determined to desist, and
to satisfy myself with the discussion of the third particular in

152 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
the character, a sound mind. There is one reason, at least,
for entering more minutely into this part of the subject, that
it has been less attended to, and that this inattention has been
the source even of those evils which have affected the other
part of the character.
A sound mind is here opposed to a frantic or disordered
imagination, wherein the hght of reason is obscured, if not
extinguished, by the terrors of superstition, or the arrogance
of fanaticism. Nor is there any lineament whereby True
Rehgion may be more perfectly distinguished from every
pretender which falsely assumes her name, than this good
sense, or soundness of mind, that gives the finishing to her
character. In what regards the moral maxims of the gospel, and the
dispositions which they are fitted to inspire, objectors have not
found much matter of wrangUng. Their consonance to the
soundest dictates of the understanding, and the clearest in
timations of conscience, is generaUy adniitted. But it wiU
be asked. Can this conformity to reason be affirmed also with
regard to the speculative truths vrith which our rehgion brings
us acquainted ? WiU the bright doctrines of revelation be
found to have any coincidence with the discoveries we can
make by the tvrilight of our natural faculties ?
Before we can answer these questions inteUigibly, it vrill
be necessary to premise a few things which may contribute
to throw hght on the subject, and which are but too httie
minded in discussions of this nature. First, then, let it be
remarked, that it is one thing to say, that the discovery of a
particular truth is beyond the reach of reason, and another
to affirm, that there is in such a tenet a contrariety to reason.
Again, let it be observed, that to say there is something in
such a proposition above our comprehension, is one thing,
and to advance, that such a proposition is absurd, is another.
I add one remark more, which is, that the far greater part
of the natural knowledge with which a man of science is ac
quainted, he neither did derive, nor by any exertion what
ever could derive, from his mental powers ; but that he has
gotten it by information from without ; and that the only
legitimate apphcation of the intellectual faculty was, to en
able him to apprehend the facts, and canvass the eridence.

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 153
I shall not enter into a separate discussion of the above
observations ; but shall take notice of some things whicli may
serve at once to satisfy us of their truth, and to assist us in
applying them. The history of past ages we derive solely
from testimony. Our knowledge of countries which we never
saw, and the much greater part of natural history, must pro
ceed to us entirely from the same source. It will be admitted,
that on these topics, vrithout such extraneous information, a
man of the most enhghtened reason, and the most acute dis
cernment, could never investigate aught beyond the sphere
of his corporeal senses. If then we receive from a book, pre
tending to contain a divine revelation, the account of what
happened in a period preceding the date of the eiril history,
can it be justly sustained as an objection to the veracity of
the writer, that he unravels a series of facts, which, by no use
or improvement of reason, it would have been in our power
to discover ? This identical objection would operate equally
against aU the histories, natural or eiril, foreign or domestic,
and travels and voyages, that ever were, or ever vrill be in
the world. Nor is this reasoning applicable only to such
events as the creation, the fall, and the deluge. Its apphca
tion to the discoveries revelation brings concerning the de
signs of Heaven for our recovery and final happiness, stands
precisely on the same footing.
On the other hand. Are we to receive, with an undistin
guishing creduhty, every report without examination ? By
no means. We have seen what is not the province of reason,
let us now consider what is. An account is brought me of a
distant country by one who has had an opportunity to be well
informed. Many things he relates appear at first incredible,
because unlike every thing I have seen or known. The in
habitants, he tells me, after killing their enemies, make a re
past of them : they scruple not to bury the liring child with
the dead mother, if the infant has not been weaned before the
parent's death ; and the children suffer the parents to perish
for want, when, through age and infirmities, they become
burdensome.* Such manners, though strange, I sliould not
* Some of these customs have been ascribed by travellers to some of the wild
Americans and Greenlandeis. See Crantz, Charlevoix, &c.

154 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
on reflection pronounce impossible. Who can say, what all
the possible consequences are of ignorance, barbarity, re
venge, anarchy, and sloth ? But if the historian or traveller
should inform me, that their laws were foimded on moral
sentiments the reverse of ours ; that it was criminal to speak
truth, and meritorious to lie ; laudable to break a promise, and
culpable to keep it ; that ingratitude was accounted an heroic
virtue, and gratitude a detestable rice ; — I should not hesitate
a moment to pronounce, that no faith whatever was due to
his narrative. Society can subsist, notwithstanding many
rices, which, through a general deprarity of manners, human
laws might be too feeble to restrain. But with such laws and
maxims as the last-mentioned, the existence of society is in
compatible. Their effect must be, not to draw men together,
but to drive them asunder, and make them flee one another like
wild beasts. Again, suppose the relater should acquaint us,
that the people of whom he wrote had made some progress
in abstract knowledge, but that the axioms on which their
sciences were founded were opposite to ours ; that with them
two and three were equal to seven, a part was greater than
the whole, and other such-hke : The intuitive discernment
we have of the moral absurdity of those, and the natural in
consistency of these positions, is what no eridence could van
quish. On the other hand, the credibility of the facts related
is no proof of their truth, though it be a foundation for in
quiry. The next prorince of reason is, to examine the eri
dence by which the veracity of the writer is supported.
As to the incomprehensibihty, or, to speak with greater
precision, the imperfect comprehension of some infaUible
truths, this holds equally of many of the discoveries of reason
as of the informations given us by dirine revelation. I know
not a clearer deduction from reason than this : " Something
has existed from etemity." It is an immediate conclusion from
two self-erident principles : " Something now exists ;" and,
" Whatever begins to exist must have a cause." Yet what is
more incomprehensible than eternal duration, or existence
without beginning ? To prevent mistakes, let it be observed
further, that there is a difference between saying, that there
is something in a doctrine which we cannot perfectly compre-

TUE SPIRIT OF lUK. l.OSPEL. 155
houd, and saving, tliat such >\ proposition is uninteUigiblo. A
sentonoo which to us is nnintolligiblo, we can neither boHove
nor disbi-liovo. It is words witiiout nioaning.  Wo niay,
tlnoughoustinii, aoquiosco in phrases, and ovon acquire a sort
of rovoroiioo lor sounds, whioh wo do uot uiulorstand — acase
not at all luioommon ; but in such aoquiosoonoe, whatever
nauie we give it, llievo is pvoperl v nothing of opinion or belief.
Now, to ai>ply what lias been said, it is admitted, that iu
holy writ many grand iliseovovios are mado to which human
luiassistod reason uever conld havo attained, no more than it
ean attain lo the knowledge of tho inhabitants of Saturn, or
ot" any otiier oi' the planets, Tho powers of the mind have
thoir limits as well as those of tho body. We may as reason
ably propose to reaoh the stars with our tingor, as to extend
our mental taeulties beyond the bounds whieh Omnipotoueo
has pveseribed to theni. It is likewise admitted, that many
thing's !U-o revealed to us, ot" wliieh wo have but an iniperl'ect
eonipreliension. Tho same holds, as was observed, of many
of the diseovorios of the light of nature. Almost all that
relaios to the etonial, inlinito, aud iiulepeiulent One, may be
reekoned of this number. It will be farther adniitted by the
eaiidid, that tliere are some things in the saored volume whicli
thoy do not understand. From the revolutions that happen
in a traek ot" ages, from the great ditVereiiees to be fouud in
the notions and eustoins whieh obtain in ilistant regions, from
the iiii[iovt"eetioii ofthe knowledge wliich iiiodenis eau aequire
in aneient langunges, dillienlties iiiiist avise as to the import
of thing-s, whieh were perteetlv intelligible to the people to
whom tliey were addressed. Nothing ean be eleaver from
Seripture. than that every thing it contains is uot given as of
equal eonseqiionee. Some things are iutvodueed iiieident;dly
iu illustration of other things, and eireumstaiiees, trivial in
theiiiselves, require to bo inent ioued tor eouneeting a narra
tion of iiiiporl.ince. Perhaps in the prophetical writing-s it
was intended, that m.-uiy things should uot be understood till
after their aeeoniplishnieut. But this we may warrantably
aflinii. that the great truths whieh require om- faith, and the
preeepts which demand our obedienee, are pnt iu sueh a
variety of lights, and so (rocpiontly inculcated, as tt) leave
no reasonable doubt about their nieaiiing.

156 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
The only thing therefore that remains for the rindication
of the gospel on this article, is to observe, that it presents us
with nothing contradictory, either to any speculative truth
deducible from reason, or to any moral sentiment which the
universal suffrage of mankind shows to have the sanction of
conscience. I am not ignorant, that our rehgion has been
impeached on this head. But is it not manifest, that, in this
charge, difficulties have been confounded with absurdities,
things beyond the investigation of reason with things repug
nant to it, and things imperfectly comprehended with things
self-contradictory ?
On the other hand, it is not to be dissembled, that the
absurd glosses and incoherent comments which have been
sometimes made on the sacred text, have given too great
scope to the enemies of the faith, for the charge of inconsis
tency and nonsense. But let accusations of this kind hght
where they may ; it is with the gospel as we find it pure in the
fountain, and not as it is but too generally corrupted in the
streams, that we are concerned. It has fared with the institu
tion of Jesus, as it did with that of Moses : Corruptions have
been introduced into both from the same source, and the com
mandments of God have been made of no effect by the tradi
tions ofmen. Superstition and enthusieism have gone to work,
and conspired in disfiguring the beauty, and destroying the
simpUcity of the truth as it is in Jesus. Whether men have
derived their opinions from the reveries of their ovrai fancy,
or imbibed them implicitly from those in whom they con
fided, they have commonly had recourse to the Bible, not
to inquire without prepossession into the doctrine contained
there, but to seek for arguments in support of the tenets they
had preriously adopted.
Hence the many curious expedients by which the gospel, if
I may so express myself, has been put to the torture, to make
it speak the various and discordant sentiments of the multifa
rious and jarring sects into which the Christian world is im-
fortunately spht. Every party, one would think, fancies itself
possessed ofthe only key to the heavenly treasure contained
in the Bible. Certain it is, that every party finds things there
which none but themselves can discover. Nevertheless, in

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 157
the general modes of expounding, almost aU seem to be pretty
weU agreed. The true partisan, of whatever party he be,
neglecting the plain declarations of Scripture (which are far
the most numerous) as of no moment, recurs chiefly, for the
support of his system, to those passages wherein there is some
difficulty. Again, when it suits his purpose, renouncing the
use of common sense, what the ordinary idioms of language
and rides of interpretation require to be understood figura
tively, he explains hterally ; what, on the contrary, the scope
of the context requires to be understood as literal, he explains
as figurative. By such ingenious methods, which give so
large a field for imagination to range in, he never fails to
attain his end. Persons of the most repugnant sentiments
make the experiment with equal success. The Scripture is
neither ambiguous nor obscure ; but men's judgments are
pre-engaged ere they examine it. They do not try other
teachers by this rule, but this rule by the doctrine of some
favourite teacher. They admit it only in the sense it pleases
him. Hence it is made the foundation of various systems.
But it would be no hard matter to erince, that any perform
ance whatever, the Alcoran for example, or the Mishna, or
the Sadder, might be made to support their theories with the
same facihty.
Where do we now find any attention paid to these impor
tant lessons of our Lord ? Be -not ye called Rabbi : for one is
your Master, (leader, guide,* as the word imports,) even
Christ, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father
upon the earth ; for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Neither be ye called masters ; for one is your Master, even
Christ, Matt. xxui. 8 — 10. On the contrary, the Christian
world has gotten many masters and rabbies, fathers and guides,
under whom, as their respective leaders and heads, they seve
raUy class themselves, and to whose several tribunals in doc
trine, we must own, if we speak impartially, they more pro
perly make Christ himself amenable, than them to his.
But whence came originally these deviations from good
sense, from that soundness of mind which shines forth in the
* The original word is ico.Jjjyijnjs, which has properly this power. It occurs
thrice in the passage quoted, and nowhere else in tbe New Testament,

158 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
writings of the apostles and the evangelists, and is so rarely
found (I may say never without some alloy) in the religious
compositions of after ages ? One great spring of this eril was
that rage of dogmatizing which so early showed itself in a
variety of shapes. When the doctrine of Jesus began to
spread through all the States of Greece, and to make many
proselytes among that ingenious, inquisitive, and disputatious
people, who were then divided into phUosophical sects, it
might naturally be expected that converts from different sects
who had not thoroughly imbibed the spirit of the religion
they had so recently been taught, still retaining a tincture of
their former sentiments in regard to theology and morals,
and so warped from the truth in different ways, would soon
disagree among themselves concerning the doctrine of that
gospel which they had received. Each would exercise his
ingenuity in giving such a turn to the dictates of revelation
as would make them appear conformable to his favourite
opinions, and would concihate both, where they appeared
to clash. When the rein is once given to Fancy, she is not
easily curbed even in her wildest excursions. Subtle and
inventive heads would be daily pubhshing their own risions
as the oracles of God.
Even in the apostolic age, these seeds of dissension were
beginning to spring up. Paul perceived the evil ; and hav
ing traced the cause, gave warning of the danger : Beware,
says he, lest any man spoil you through philosophy, and vain
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the
world, and not after Christ, Col. ii. 8. It is not his riew to
discourage the pursuit of science, or to dissuade from the
study of the works of God, which, by his own testimony,
(Rom i. 19, 20,) are one way of leading to the knowledge of
their author : But, using words according to their accepta
tion at the time, he aUudes to the philosophic systems then in
vogue, as is imphed in the expression, after the tradition of

* F, Paul, in his History of the Council of Trent, B, 2. after relating their decrees
on Justification, says, very pertinently, "In che baveva gran parte Aristotele coU'
ha.ver distinto essattamente tutti i generi di cause ; a che, se egli non fosse adoperato,
noi mancavano di molti articoli di fede." Tbat synod, however, has not been singular
in exposing themselves to an imputation of this sort.

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 159
Now, what would be the consequences of this presumption
on the doctrinal part of om- rehgion ? It cannot be doubted
but that some ofthe truths of revelation would be explained
away to make room for the dreams of visionaries. Thus there
were some, in the infancy of the church, who had so far de-
riated from the faith as to affirm, that the resurrection was
past aheady; 2 Tim. ii. 18. Another, and more common
consequence was, to incorporate into the body of Christian
doctrine a number of adventitious tenets, to which it had
no affinity, and with which it was very ill fitted to coalesce.
This is no doubt that wood, hay, and stubble, which the great
instructor of the Gentile world, so often quoted, informs
us that some conceited builders would pile up on the only
foundation, Jesus Christ ; 1 Cor. in. 12. A third consequence
would be, that men, getting beyond the sphere of human
knowledge, would come at last, in their airy flights, to mis
take shadows for reahties, to substitute signs for ideas, and
words for things, fighting with one another about names and
phrases to which no precise meaning can be affixed. This
is what our apostle warns Timothy to avoid, calling it pro
fane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so
called, 1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 16; and in another place,
vain jangling ; and assures us, that those who had turned
aside to it, understood neither what they said, nor whereof
they affirmed, 1 Tim. i. 6, 7. An eril this, which has in
fested the church from the beginning, and but too plainly
infests it to this moment.
The two last consequences seem to have arisen from the
absurd presumption, to which men have ever shown them
selves prone, of the all-sufficiency of their own powers. Not
satisfied with the naked declarations of holy writ, they must
inquire into the manner in which every promise is to be ful
filled, and every effect is to be produced, and every operation
is to be conducted. On aU these points, they have dared to
pronounce dogmatically. Other dogmatists have arisen, no
less confident in their own abilities, who have entered into
the question, and given a contrary decision. Then was
kindled the theologic war. The people were dirided. Some
listed themselves under one captain, others under another.

160 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
Each party had recourse to Scripture as a common magazine
for arms wherewith to encounter the adverse party. Each
imagined he succeeded in the apphcation, and, confident of
his own prowess and ability, each boasted of the rictory. In
process of time, councils were called to end the strife.
Councils thought that it suited their dignity on every ques
tion to be decisive ; and out of their decision of one ques
tion, several others have arisen.
Now, the radical error was the notion, that religion was
concerned on a particular side, or that the Scripture had
said any thing which could serve to decide the point debated.
Religion was concerned in the discouragement of such con
troversies, alike impertinent and presumptuous. But the
way which was taken was the surest method possible to give
them weight.
Methinks I hear it asked with surprise. Is there any ques
tion relative to religion on which the Scripture is neutral ?
I must beg leave to ask in return. Was it the intention of
the Scripture to render man omniscient ? — Are there not
many things on every subject which we cannot apprehend?
- — And are there not, particularly on the subhmest of all
subjects, the divine operations, certain things which God
has not seen meet to communicate to us, and which, conse
quently, it is neither pious nor modest in us to inquire into ?
And if one man be audacious enough to overleap the fence,
and enter on interdicted ground, is it for us to be equally
impious, and, in order to encounter him, to commit the same
trespass ? Secret things, says Moses, belong to the Lord our
God ; but those things which are revealed, belong to us, and
to our children for ever, Deut. xxix. 29. Our Sariour on
every occasion shows a disposition to check questions of mere
curiosity about things beyond our sphere, the knowledge of
which God had reserved to himself: Matt. xvni. 1, &c.;
Luke xiii. 23, &c.; .John xxi. 21, 22; Acts i. 6, 7. And
are there not questions from which the apostle Paul admo
nishes us to abstain altogether ? FooUsh and unedifying* ques
tions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes, 2 Tim. ii. 23.
*" Airai^EVTuq, improperly rendered here by our translators unlearned. The
word occurs often in the Septuagint, and signifies impertinent, uninstructive.

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 161
The apostie's example was conformable to his precept.
Some in his time began to dogmatize on the ministry and
mediation of angels, from which they inferred the propriety
of worshipping them. As to the inference, he expressly con
demns whatever might injure the purity and simphcity of
worship : But as to the dogmas on which those teachers
founded. Does he think it necessary to estabhsh a theory of
his own in opposition to theirs, according to the invariable
policy of succeeding ages ? Does he even so much as say
whether their opinions be true or false ? He does neither :
He only informs us, that they are points in which we have
no concern, and of which we have not the means of arriving
at the knowledge. Intruding, says the apostle, speaking of
a teacher of this stamp, into those things which he hath not
seen. And what is the cause ? Arrogance and self-conceit:
Vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind. Col. u. 18; fondly elated
vrith his own imagined subhme discoveries.
Happy had it been for the church, if its rulers had con
tinued to be actuated by that soundness of mind which was
so weU exempUfied, and so warmly recommended, by the first
propagators of the faith. A general sense of the futUity of
such speculations and verbal controversies, and their perni
cious tendency in subverting charity, the end of all religion,
in promoting contention, the bane of social hfe, and in ex
posing the gospel to the derision of unbelievers, as though it
were intended solely for a subject of altercation, would have
quashed those discussions on their first appearance, and put
their authors out of countenance. If any thing could have
mortified them, it would have been to find, that they met, I
say not with contempt, but pity instead of admiration ; and
that by those very means by which they wanted to display a
more than ordinary acquaintance with what they termed the
mysteries of religion, they had only betrayed a more than
ordinary ignorance of its spirit.
Heresy, as it is caUed, or error in points wherein religion
is supposed to be concerned, has been compared to the hydra,
a many-headed monster of the poets. In nothing does the
comparison hold more closely than in this, that when by the
ecclesiastic sword, wielded by popes or councUs, any of those

162 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
heads have been struck off, at least double the number have
sprung up in their room. Agreeably to the warning which
had been given, 2 Tim. u. 16, they have increased to more
ungodliness. Now, if fanaticism excited the broachers of such imperti-
nencies, superstition confirmed the attachment oftheir adhe
rents. The effects were correspondent to the cause. Hear
the apostle as to both : If any man consent not to wholesome
words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the
doctrine which is according to godUness ; he is proud, knowing
nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words whereof
cometh t-nvy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disput
ings of men of corrupt minds, 1 Tim. -vi. 3, &c. How far
church history justifies the observation, let every intelligent
hearer judge.
But it is not the doctrine of the gospel only that has been
thus ritiated. The same spirit of false rehgion, the declared
enemy of a sound mind or sober reason, began also to infect
the morals. What tended only to make men resigned to
Heaven, and useful to mankind; what tended to promote
rational piety, temperance, justice, and beneficence, was in
no estimation at all. Extravagances, the most marvellous
and the most frantic, such as dishonoured the name of reli
gion, and rendered men worse than useless, were considered
as the most subUme attainments in the Christian hfe.
Rehgion prohibits our being the slaves of appetite, com
mands us to subdue sensual desires, and brings the body into
subjection to the law of the mind. We must not be the
votaries of pleasure, if we would be agreeable to God. The
less pleasure then, says superstition, we admit on any account,
and the more pain we infiict on ourselves, we are the more
perfect, and the more acceptable to him. Hence vows of
abstinence, vows of cehbacy, and others of the same kind, by
which monks and anchorets seclude themselves from theworld,
and take a dispensation from discharging duties, which by
the irrevocable law of our nature, every man owes to his fel
lows. ReUgion forbids covetosneuss, restrains anxiety about
worldly things, and commands us to seek first the kingdom of
God. From the same spirit of interpreting, which pays no

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 163
regard to the meaning or purpose of a precept, have sprung
vows of poverty, as they are called ; or, as they sliould be
called, vows of idleness. As the Pharisees had a commodious
expedient for releasing children from the duty they owed their
parents, by what had at least the name of a donation to the
altar. Matt. xv. 3, &c. ; 'Mark rii. 9, &c., so these think
they consecrate themselves to God, by swearing solemnly that
they shall be unprofitable to men ; rather, indeed, that they
shaU be pubhc nuisances, lay a tax on the sweat of industry,
and intercept the alms held forth by the hand of charity to
real indigence. For the gospel acknowledges iiQ poor but
those who not only are in want, but whom Provid't;nce has
rendered incapable of earning a subsistence to themselves.
With regard to others, the maxim is. They that wiU not
work, neither should they eat, 2 Thess. in. 10.
In such absurdities, however, we must do them the justice to
acknowledge, that they have not been singular. From sacred
history we leam, that the votaries both of Baal and of Mo
loch were actuated by the like principle. Similar penances
and austerities are practised at this day by the Mahometan
Derrises : nay, a much higher pitch of perfection is attained
by those Indian mendicants, the Fakiers, devotees of the
Being with the thousand names. And what shall we say of
the holy tortures so unmercifully inflicted on their own flesh
by the Chinese Bonzes, another set of itinerant mendicants, in
honour of the god Fo ? For him, too, they con over their ro
saries, and make processions and pilgrimages.* Superstition
is the same under every denomination. The form and the
garb may be different, but the spirit is the same. In every
age and every nation it may be easily distinguished by this
indehble mark, that it makes the serrice of its supposed
dirinity the very reverse of a reasonable service, and conse
quently of the character which Paul gives us of the service of
the true God, Rom. xii. 1.
* This eastern superstition, by the account we have of it from Pere du Halde,
a Jesuit missionary, bears an astonishing resemblance to the corruptions wbich have
been introduced into tbe Christian church. Both have their invocations, in turning
over their beads. But whether the syllables, 0 mi to fo, pronounced by a Chinese,
have more or less virtue than the syllables Jesu Maria, pronounced by a Romanist,
let him who thinks a sound mind has any concern in religion, say,
L

164 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
Another engine of superstition, by which she has tainted
the morals of the gospel, is a distinction she has suggested be
tween the cause of God and the cause of rirtue or integrity.
These, she artfuUy insinuates, may in certain circumstances
be found to clash. When that happens, the latter must be
sacrificed to the former. The immorality of the action,
considered by itself, is not to be regarded, but the good
to which it may be rendered conducive. When immoral
actions are employed to promote the interests of religion,
the end sanctifies the means, the purity of the motive effaces
the crime.
By this accursed casuistry, fraud and perfidy, rebellion,
murder, and treason, have been sometimes justified, nay, even
canonized : they have been celebrated as a kind of heroism
in piety, and a triumph of grace over nature. — AVherever
this doctrine has been learnt, it was never learnt in the school
of Christ. It strikes at the root of both natural and revealed
religion, undermines the foundation of the love of God, and
subverts all the eridence of the essential difference between
good and iU, right and wrong.
Such maxims seem to have been imputed to the primitive
Christians (for what evil was not imputed to them ?) by some
of the most rancorous of their foes. The apostle Paul treats
the imputation as a calumny, and speaks of the maxim with
abhorrence. If, says he, in the character of an objector, the
truth of God hath more abounded through my lie to his glory,
why yet am I also judged as a sinner ? and not rather, {as we
be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let
us do evil, that good may come ? whose damnation is just,
Rom. iii. 7, 8. His opinion on this subiect was the same with
that of the pious Job, who considered it as a wretched apology
for deceit or lying, to say, that it was in the service of God ;
Job xiii. 7, 8. In fact, an excuse of this sort is but adding
absurdity, not to say blasphemy, to vrickedness, and repre
senting purity itself as our corrupter. The cause of God is
the cause of universal rectitude : that it must ever continue
such, results from the immutabihty of God. This is the
law of our nature, and founded in the moral perfections of
its author. This, by the concurrent voice of conscience and

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL, 1G,J
of revelation, we are taught to revere as the invariable mle
of our conduct.
Piety and good sense both require, that we leave the direc
tion of events to the superintendence of that all-wise Prori
dence which rules the world, and is constantly employed in
educing good from eril. Of the remote consequences of
things, we short-sighted creatures are veryincompetentjudges.
Our case would be deplorable indeed, all society must quickly
go to wreck, if we had not a directory more exphcit than
such a foresight to recur to. The dictates of conscience,
according to Paul, show the work of God's law written on
the heart; Rom. u. 14, 15. It is the same searching spirit
which Solomon aptiy calls the candle of the Lord; Prov. xx.
27. The voice of conscience, therefore, is the voice of God;
and God cannot contradict himself.
By this monitor I am forbidden to betray a trust. You,
who are no doubt a subtUe casuist, teU me, " The present
case is particular, and not to be determined by a general rule,
which may do very weU in ordinary cases. In this indiridual
instance, even treachery is meritorious, as it may be made
subserrient to the cause of rehgion." The cause of rehgion!
Impossible ! Had you said, the cause of irreligion, the cause
of the deril, the father of Ues and murder, I could have un
derstood you. You resume, " The interest of the church of
Christ may be promoted." That we may understand one
another, and not fight in the dark, permit me, good Sir, to
ask a plain question. What is the church of Christ? For if
we recur to the New Testament for an explanation, it is no
other than the community of his faithful disciples, actuated
by his Spirit ; for if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,
he is none of his, Rom. viu. 9. I shaU add one question
more. What is the interest of this church ? In the riew wliich
our religion gives of it, it is not their wealth, or rank, or fame,
or even the security of their Uves and fortunes ; but it is their
advancement in feith and purity. Can I, then, by corrupt
ing one of the members, and hazarding the infection of the
rest, advance the purity of the whole ? Indeed, if you mean,
by the church, according to the acceptation of the word with
many, a certain order of raen only ; and if you mean by their
l2

166 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
interest, their lucrative offices, dignity, and power, and the^
credit of those dogmas on which the whole is foimded; I shall
admit, that the cause of the church, in your sense of the
word, and the cause of virtue, which is the cause of God,
may be as opposite as truth and falsehood, heaven and hell.
" But you can quote the best authorities, learned theo-
logues, profound scholars, inrincible doctors: You can do
more ; you can support your opinion by the rescripts of popes,
and precedents taken from the practice of councils." To a
mind not blinded by superstition, all your authorities signify
nothing. On one side is the voice of God; on the other
are the sophisms of weak, corrupt, and interested men. He
will reply. Let God be true, and every man a liar, Rom. iii. 4.
" But you are illuminated by the unerring Spirit of God."
It is not within the compass of possibility to produce a proof
of your claim, which shall counterbalance the evidence I
have, that it is contrary to the will of Heaven to Ue, to be
tray, to murder. Miracles themselves would not answer your
purpose. Reason and Scripture both teach me, and it is
allowed on all sides, that these cannot be admitted in proof
of what is either absurd or impious. Should one work a
miracle at noon, in order to prove that it is midnight ; could
his proof have any other effect but to confound ? Before it
could eonrince, all the foundations of belief, and consequently
the evidence of its own reahty, must be entirely rased.
There are doctrines, then, which are not to be admitted
on the authority of pontiffs and councils. An apostle of
Christ is our warrant for using a much bolder expression, and
saying, there are doctrines which, though an apostle of Christ
or an angel from heaven should preach to us, we ought not
to receive. Gal. i. 8. And of this sort surely, is that which
calls evil good, and good eril ; which puts darkness for light,
and light for darkness ; which puts bitter for sweet, and sweet
for bitter, Isa. v. 20; which corrupts morality in the foun
tain, and depraves the discernment that God has given us of
right and wrong. If the light that is in thee be darkness,
hoiu great is that darkness ! Matt. ri. 23.
I now consider another stronghold of superstition, the
ritual of worship, and the effects which by this article have

o

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 167
been produced on the religion of Jesus. If wc attend to the
Christian institution in its native simplicity, as it appears in
the New Testament, nothing can seem in this respect less
adapted to furnish a handle to the superstitious. No reve
rence is inculcated for times or places, no sanctity ascribed to
utensils or vestments, no distinction made of aliments, as re
commending more or less to the favour of Heaven. Its cere
monies were few and simple, calculated for promoting faith
and purity. Ceremonies, however, there must be, in a reli
gion intended for man, who is constituted of a body as well
as a soul — the body containing the organs necessary both for
conveying information to the soul, and for communicating to
others her sensations. Ceremonies also there must be in a re
hgion intended for society, which requires a certain external
order wherein men are to join. And to every thing in which
men can be occupied, time and place are requisite. The
noblest things are capable of being perverted to the rilest
purposes ; and in the general dechne of good sense and cha
rity, foUy can never be at a loss for tools to work with, or
matter to work upon.
It is difficult to express one's self on this subject with such
precision as not to run the risk of being misunderstood one
way or other, and perhaps of misleading the unwary. As
the outward institutions are the means devised by infinite
Wisdom for our improvement in faith and holiness, to depre
ciate the means must in effect prove injurious to the end ;
and a general neglect of them has but too manifest a ten
dency to atheism and irreligion. On the other hand, as they
are but the means, immoderately to exalt them leads as mani
festly to superstition and hypocrisy ; and that by bringing
men either themselves to substitute the means for the end,
or to seek to raise their character by taking the advantage of
this error in others. This perhaps, considering the weakness
of human nature, is that extreme to which the generality of
mankind are most Uable. The tendency of the first is the
disuse of the means, of the second, the abuse of them. As
both are subversive of true reUgion, we ought never, through
fear of one extreme, which to us may appear the worst, to
permit men unwarned to run into the other. This fear did

168 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
not deter the prophets under the old dispensation, nor our
Sariour and his apostles under the new, from representing
tilings plainly as they were, and particularly from remon
strating in the warmest manner against the superstitious use
that was often made of the ordinances of rehgion. The only
sure chart by which the Chiistian course can be directed, is
the truth. We can never safely turn aside from it either to
the right hand or to the left.
It is impossible for an unprejudiced mind to exanune the
gospel vrith attention, and not perceive, that it is repugnant
to its genius to lay any stress on mere externals. — Every cere
monial performance, however highly venerated by the people
amongst whom our Lord resided, and to whom the gospel
was first pubUshed, is represented as incapable of recom
mending the soul to God. God required mercy and not sacri
fice. Matt. ix. 13 ; xii. 7. The Sabbath was made for man,
and not man for the Sabbath, Mark ii. 27. It was not that
which went into the mouth that defiled the man. Matt. xv. 1 1 ;
nor was it their endless ablutions of the body that could
purify the conscience. Matt. xv. 20 ; Mark rii. 3, &c. It
was not the worshipping in the Temple, nor on Mount Ge
rizim, that was the thing of consequence, John iv. 20 — 23.
The apostles talk in the same strain. Circumcision is no
thing, and uncircumsision is nothing, 1 Cor. rii. 19; Gal. v.
6; ri. 15. Meat commendeth us not to God, 1 Cor. riii. 8.
The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, Rom. xiv. 17.
The Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands.
Acts rii. 48. Our Lord plainly acquaints his disciples, that
no pretensions of intimacy with him, zeal in his cause, or
regard to positive appointments, would be of any avail to a
worker of iniquity ; Matt. vii. 22, 23 ; Luke xui. 26, 27. —
As to the Jewish ceremonies, they are termed a yoke of
bondage. Gal. v. 1 ; a yoke which neither they of that age
nor their fathers were able to bear, Actsxv. 10. The church,
or commonwealth of God, whilst under them, was considered
as in a state of nonage, hke a child not arrived at the full
exercise of reason, under tutors and preceptors, subjected to
many cumbersome regulations, which derive their utihty and
fitness fi-om his insufficiency. They are therefore styled the

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 169
elements of this world, Gal. iv, 1 — 3, and weak and beggarly
elements. Gal. iv. 9.
The institution of Christ, on the contrary, is exhibited to
us as a spiritual law, Rom. viu. 2 ; a law of rational and
manly hberty, James i. 25 ; u. 12. The few exterior rites
which it admits are regarded purely as means ; and conse
quentiy the value of the observance must arise, either from
its being used with a riew to improvement, or from its being
a genuine expression of devout affection, or a sincere engage
ment to a Christian life. — But is there not something more
in them ? Have we not ground to beheve that they ai-e ac
companied with the dirine benediction ? Yes, doubtless, the
pious and suitable use of them is so accompanied. In any
other use prayer is abominable, Prov. xxviu. 9, £ind sacri
fice profane, Isa. Ix^d. 3.
Quickly, indeed, did men begin to lose sight of the use,
when employed in the exercises of rehgion. Ceremonies
were daUy multipUed ; and, under pretence of being render
ed more awful, they were graduaUy disguised by such mum
meries, that at length it was not possible to conceive any other
purpose they could answer, but to beget in the ignorant a
stupid wonder, and in the fearful a superstitious dread. The
very multiphcation of mere rites, which are but secondary
and instrumental, takes off men's attention from that which
is primary and essential. But the matter did not rest here.
It was indeed impossible that it should. Miraculous rirtues
began to be ascribed to the bare celebration of the rites ; and
astonishing tenets began to be broached about their nature
and efficacy. Every thing moral, every thing spiritual, in
the divine serrice, came to be suppUed by things merely sen
sible. In process of time the understanding was conceived
to have so httle concern in the matter, that it was of no con
sequence whether the language employed in worship was
understood by the worshippers or not. Penance was substi
tuted in heu of repentance, pubhc worship dwindled into
pageantry, and private devotion into telhng of beads. Thus
the most sublime, the most manly, the most rational institu
tion, at length sunk into the most abject, the most puerUe,
the most absurd ; I might add, the most benevolent religion.

170 THE SPIRIT OF T.HE GOSPEL.
into the most malignant superstition. O degenerate Chris
tians ! if yet I can call you Christians, who has bewitched
you ? Are ye so foolish, haring begun in the spirit, are ye
now made perfect by the fiesh ? Dare ye say, that ye have
stood fast in the hberty wherevrith Christ has made you free;
and that ye have taken care not to be entangled again vrith a
yoke of bondage ?* Ye have had warning. Ye see with what
severity the apostle treated in others the very slightest
symptoms of this disease, now so inveterate in you. Gal. iu,
1, &c. ; V. 1, &c. But what effect have either reproaches or
admonitions had on yon ?
I must indeed acknowledge, that so great and so universal
a defection could not fail to furnish the adversaries of our
religion with at least a plausible argument against it, if this
very defection had not been so expressly and so particularly
foretold in Scripture. That it has been so foretold, produces
now a contrary effect, and supphes the friends of Christianity
with a strong argument in its defence.
But to return : To ascribe a virtue to an outward form,
unaccompanied by any disposition that can render it signi
ficant,-)- I take to be of the essence of superstition, and in a
great degree subversive of true religion. It represents the
ordinances of Jesus as no better than magical speUs. For
where is the difference, if the effect in both result purely
from words and gestures ? Besides, who vriU think of purity
of heart, if washing the body wiU do the business ? who vrill
study reformation of life, if punctuality in certain rites will
cancel his guilt ? J
* Mt) raXw Zvyu SaXeiag tvcx^''Sc. The apostle says, fwyai, without the ar
ticle. Our translators have not so properly rendered it the yoke, as though it related
only to the Jewish, Those ceremonies he opposes, not because they were Jewish, but
because they were a grievous yoke, and gendered to bondage.
•f- This is what the council of Trent has called the opus operatum.
X Audio, videoque, plurimos esse qui in locis, vestibus, cibis, jejuniis, gesticula-
tionibus, cautibus, summam pietatis constituunt ; et ex his proximum judicant contra
praeceptum evangelicum. Unde fit, ut cum omnia referantur ad fidem et caritatem,
harum rerum superstitione extinguatur utrumque. Procul enim abest a fide evange
lica, qui fidit hujusmodi factis ; et procul abest a caritate Christiana, qui ob potum aut
cibum, quo recte quis uti potest, exasperat fratrem, pro cujus lil>ertate mortuus est
Christus, Erasmi Ixdvofayca. — The whole dialogue is an illustration of this
truth.

THE SPIRIT or THE GOSPEL. 171
To enmnerate the particular instances of this abuse would
be endless : I shall only specify one, which is very general.
Has not the remission of sins been ascribed to the rite of bap
tism ? and, in consequence of this, has not the indispensable
necessity of that ordinance to salvation been strenuously main
tained ? I own I mention this sentiment the rather, because
it is a remainder of the old leaven, which many of the Re
formed have not yet entirely purged out. ShaU I be deemed
to derogate from a Christian institution of the greatest uti
hty, when rightly understood and used, because I would
clear it from those misrepresentations which tend to pervert
its nature, and frustrate its design ? On the same principle,
the prophets and apostles, and even Christ himself, could
not have escaped the censure of rilifying the most solemn
rites of dirine appointment, when, vrith some warmth, they
represented to a superstitious nation, that they ascribed to
them an efficacy which did not belong to them. On the con
trary, by acting thus, the ordinance is in the most effectual
manner honoured, the reasonableness of the service shown,
and the ways of God vindicated.
Of such formahsts in devotion as can suppose that the most
precious gifts of Heaven depend upon extemal rites, aUow me
to ask. Was not the faith and confession of the thief on the
cross available to his salvation, without baptism ? Luke xxiii.
39, &c. Was not Cornehus the centurion in a state of ac
ceptance vrith God, before his being in this manner admitted
into the church, and outwardly assuming the yoke of Christ ?
The demonstration of his being so by the gifts of the Holy
Ghost, is the very cause assigned by Peter of his admitting
him, and those with him, though uneireumeised, to baptism :
Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did to us
who believed onthe Lord Jesus Christ, what was I that I could
withstand God? Acts xi. 17. Afterwards, aUuding to the
same memorable event, he says, God, who knoweth the hearts,
bare them ivitness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did
to us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying
their hearts by faith. Acts xv. 8, 9. Is not this telling us,
God showed us evidently by those extraordinary gifts, that
he had received them into favour as his people ; and could

172 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
we, after that, without impiety, refuse to admit them by the
symbol of baptism into our communion as brethren ?
It wiU scarcely be pretended by any whose sole rule of
faith is holy writ, that baptism is of greater efficacy under the
new economy than circumcision was under the old. That
this ceremony was essential to a state of acceptance with God,
was the doctrine of many Jewish Rabbies, and ofali the Ju
daizing teachers among the Christians; Acts xx. 1. Super
stition, of whatever time or place, and however diversified, is
uniform in character, and always attends more to the form
than to the power, to the letter than to the spirit, of every
institution. The contrary side, vrith regard to circumcision,
the apostle Paul has maintained, in a manner which admits
no reply. Thus he argues concerning Abraham: — We say,
that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How
was it then reckoned ? when he was in circumcision, or in un
circumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And
he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness
of the faith which he had yet been uneireumeised, Rom. ri.
9 — 11. But we need not found our reasoning entirely on
the analogy of the two ordinances. The same argument
which the apostle here uses will apply literally to the point in
hand. The fact lately quoted is as apposite in the one case
as the story of Abraham is in the other. " We say, then,
that the hearts of Cornehus, and the other Gentiles who were
with him, were purified by faith : How were they purified ?
Was it in baptism, or before being baptized ? Not in baptism,
but before being baptized. And they received the sign of
baptism, a seal of the purification by faith, which they had
yet being unbaptized."
The doctrine that we are now combating is precisely the
same with that which Paul so warmly combated in those Ju-
daizers. The apphcation only is different. It is not against
the ceremony of circumcision that his arguments are levelled,
as I propose soon clearly to evince, but against the principle
by which the ceremony was enforced, and which he considers
as subversive of the spirit of reUgion. What was that prin
ciple ? It was that which attached the pardon of sin and the
favour of God to external observances. It is a inatter of little

TIIE SPIRIT OF TH£ GOSPEL. 173
consequence what the particular observance is. It was the
spirit of Judaism, and not the form that he so vehemently
and so successfuUy opposed. I do not mean, by Judaism,
the Old Testament dispensation as given by Moses, but as
adulterated afterwards by the traditions of the elders, and the
Rabbinical commentaries. The former, the pure Mosaic
establishment, the apostle vindicates from this charge. Ac
cording to it. He is not a Jew who is one outwardly ; -neither
is that circumcision which is outward in theflesh : but he isa
Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the
heart, in the spirit, whose praise is not of men buf of God,
Rom. ii. 28, 29. The same is the doctrine of the apostle
Peter, concerning that baptism by which we Christians are
saved. It is not, he tells us, the washing away of thefllth of
theflesh, but the answer ofa good conscience towards God,
1 Pet. ui. 21. In neither case is it the sign itself; but it is
that renovation of mind which is stipulated by it. Baptism
is represented as a sign of regeneration ; and, by a very com
mon idiom, those quahties are sometimes attributed to the
sign which belong properly to the thing signified. In this
place, however, the apostle has so qualified his expression as
not to leave a colour for mistake. I shall therefore conclude
this argument by saying, in the spirit of both apostles, and
almost in the words of the former, " He is not a Christian
who is one outwardly ; neither is that baptism which is out
ward in the fiesh : but he is a Christian who is one inwardly;
and baptism is that of the heart, in the spirit, whose praise is
not of men, but of God."
Thus I have given a sketch of the most general principles
of corruption, which, when men seemed to think that a sound
mind had no concern in religion, tainted the Christian system
in every part, in doctrine, morals, and worship. I have hi
therto taken notice only of those causes which hold of the
spirit of false religion. That other causes co-operated, is but
too erident. From the turn things quickly took, the decep
tion of the many came to be regarded as the interest of the
few. I do nqt mean by this to charge the whole clerical or
der, or even the greater part of them, as knowingly sacrificing
the truth to secular riews. I would not affirm, that even in

174 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
the leaders themselves, all were to be put to the account of
priestcraft, and nothing to that of superstition or enthusiasm.
That motives will operate upon us, whereof we are in some
respect unconscious, is a truth which I shall soon exemplify
in two of the disciples. The understanding is too generally
the dupe ofthe passions ; and we are easily brought to beheve
what would gratify a predominant inclination. It is with
peculiar propriety said in Scripture, that a gift blindeth the
wise, Exod. xxiu. 8. His imagined interest even perverts
his judgment. A man may be said, in some sense, conscien
tiously to pursue a course, to which originally avarice, or the
lust i^of dominion was the prime mover. But in so great a
variety of agents, there would no doubt be a variety of mo
tives, and often a mixture of these in the same person. That
covetousness and ambition joined their aids, it is impossible
to doubt, when one considers how uniformly all the abuses
pointed to the aggrandizement of a particular class.
How much was Peter shocked at the impiety of Simon
Magus, who offered him money for the power of conferring
the Holy Ghost by the imposition of his hands ! Acts riii.
18, &c. What would have been the apostle's indignation
to have seen his pretended successors set a price on the par
don of sin, a gift of Heaven, of inflnitely more consequence
than miraculous powers ! Once he was astonished at his Mas
ter's declaration, that it was difficult for a rich man to enter
into the kingdom of God ; Matt. xix. 23, &c ; Mark x. 23,
&c. ; Luke xriii. 24. &c. ; but how much greater would his
astonishment have been to find, that the only difficulty now
was for a poor man to get thither ; and that the woes de
nounced against the rich, and blessings pronounced upon the
poor, ( Luke ri. 20, 21, 24, 25,) ought all to be reversed!
Nor was this the only instance of an opposition in the
maxims that were afterwards adopted, to those of him, who,
being the founder and the finisher of the faith, cannot be
supposed to have left any thing defective for them to supply,
much less any thing vsrrong for them to alter. The benign
language ofhis doctrine was, I will have mercy , and not sacri
flce. Matt. ix. 13 ; xii. 7 ; the exercise of the moral virtues,
rather than any ritual performances. Theirs, on the contrary,

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 175
clamours loudlj- in our ears. •' I wUl have sacrifice, and not
mercy." Christ told his aposties, that he sent them forth as
sheep in the midst of wolves, strictiy charging them to be
wise as serpents, and harmless as doves, Matt, x, 16. It was
after the revolution of not many ages, when those who pre
tended 10 derive their authority from this celestial source,
having gotten the power into their hands, showed them
selves, by die most cruel eridences, to be wolves in the midst
of sheep.
What shall I say of that spirit of persecution, the disgrace
of humanity, the reproach of reUgion, the poison of life, which
most preposterously, under the banner of the cross, has tyran
nized with unrelenting fury ? What is that kingdom of God,
permit me to ask the persecutor, which you desire to promote
by such sangmnaiy methods ? Paul teUs us. The kingdom of
God is righteousness, and peace and joy in fhe Holy Ghost,
Rom. xiv. 17. To this the knowledge of the truths of the
gospel is indeed eminently subserrient. But are the threats
of racks and gibbets the eridences of tmth, or the means of
giving conriction to the understanding ? " Perhaps not ; yet
they may induce people to profess the true faith, whether
their profession he sincere or hypocriticaL"' Is it'then the
way of promoting truth, to tempt men to become liars ? Do
you advance righteousness by forcing them to commit iniqui
ty ? Do you contribute to their peace, by TnaViTig them give a
mortal wound to conscience, and rase the foundations of hope
and joy ? -•' Ay, but though they should be dissemblers, their
chUdren maybe orthodox behevers; and, by proper examples
of wholesome severity, others through terror are made sub
missive to the spiritual powers." I see we differ too widely
in first principles, to be fit for arguing together. Two things
vou assume, which, in my judgment, are incompatible with
the Spirit of Christ. One is, That we, may do evil to pro
mote a good end : the other is. That Jesus came to esta
blish the most absurd tyranny of a few, bestowing on them
the extraordinary privilege of tramphng on aU the most sa
cred rights of mankind ; for what is more sacred than vera
city, than probity, than peace of conscience ? I am satisfied,
on the contrary, that not even the apostles themselves were

176 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
vested by their Master with any dominion over the faith of
others. This dominion, though you, forsooth, presume to
claim it, was explicitly disclaimed by them. Their only mean
of converting was persuasion ; their weapons, reason. Scrip
ture, and the demonstration of the Spirit; their only armour,
wisdom, meekness, fortitude, and patience ; 2 Cor. i. 24 ;
V. 11, 20; 2 Tim.ii. 24, 25. O incorrigible! are you stUl so
much in the spirit of Judaism, that no Messiah will suit you
without a temporal kingdom ? It is not an extemal profes
sion, but an internal character, in which the hfe of Christ's
rehgion consists. Wlioever aims a blow here, aims it at the
heart, at the very ritals of his institution. For the kingdom
of God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say,
Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is
within you, Luke xvii. 20, 21. Wouldst thou know then, 0
zealot, whether thou pertainest to this spiritual kingdom ?
Search for its characters in thy own heart ; and be assured,
that if thou dost not find them there, thou hast neither part
nor lot in this matter.
But you do not know the fiend by which you are actuated.
Shall I attempt the discovery ? Pride is hurt by contradic
tion. If this contradiction be in things of moment, or things
we fancy such, and if persisted in, it seems to betray a con
tempt of our judgment ; a contempt which we cannot easily
brook, and have commonly but too strong a propensity to
resent. This propensity is ricious ; and it is what the spirit
of the gospel, which is a spirit of love and forbearance, tends
powerfully to correct. But if, unhappily, we be tinctured
vrith the venom of superstition or fanaticism, or if we be
duped by the rillany and worldly aims of those in whose
understanding we put confidence, we begin to riew things in
another manner : we christen our rirulence by the name of
zeal; and a most impure fiame, brought originaUy from hell,
we think it our duty to cherish as the holy fire of God's altar.
We have an admirable example in the history of our Lord,
which so perfectly confirms what has been said, both in rela
tion to mistaken zeal and the true spirit of the gospel, that
if aught could surprise us on this head, it would be surpris
ing, that any who durst call themselves his followers should

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 177
SO flagrantiy take up the idea of the chsciples against their
Master. It came to pass, saj^s the Evangelist, Luke ix. 51,
&c. when the timetvas come that he should be received up, he
stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem ; and sent messengers
before his face. And they went, and entered into a village of
the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not
receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Je
rusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this,
they said. Lord, wilt thou that we command flre to come down
from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did ? But he
turned, and rebuked them, and said. Ye know not what manner
of spirit ye are of: For the Son of man is not come to destroy
men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another
village. The Samaritans, by our Sariour's own account, were in
the wrong in those articles wherein they differed from the
Jews ; John iv. 22. In the opprobrious style that is now so
hberaUy bandied from sect to sect among Christians, they
would have been heretics and schismatics. Bigots they cer
tainly were, as appears from the matter of offence just now
recited. Yet these pleas could have had no weight vrith the
two disciples in support oftheir argument, had they before that
time thoroughly imbibed the spirit of the gospel. And have
not some other passages of the Jewish history, equally foreign
to the purpose, such as Samuel's hewing Agag before the
Lord, and the extermination of the Canaanites, been strenu
ously pleaded by persons of opposite sects for the glorious
pririlege of butchering one another in honour of the God of
peace ? Infatuated men ! know your brethren. Your diffe
rences are merely accidental. A different education, or a
small change in extemal cfrcumstances, would have set each
of you on the side opposite to that on which he now appears.
And ye may depend upon it, that even in that case the alter
ation in you would not have been material : it would have
been more apparent than real, more in garb than in charac
ter. Ye are essentially one, actuated in every respect by the
same spirit.
Is there then such a thing as Christian zeal ? And if there
be, how shall we distinguish it, that we may not, like the two

1/8 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
disciples, mistake our motive, and imagine ourselves zealous
when we are only proud and rindictive ? There is such a
thing as Christian zeal; and it is easily distinguished. Being
the offspring of knowledge, and nourished by love, its great
object is inward purity: to distinctions merely exterior it
pays little regard. There is in it an ardour for the truth,
not that men may be either allured or terrifled into a verbal
profession of what they do not in their hearts beheve, (the
grossest insult that can be offered to truth,) but that they
may attain a rational conviction. The interest of truth itself
it desires to promote for a still further end ; that by means of
it, love may be kindled both to God and man ; that by means
of it, temperance, and justice, and piety, and peace, may
flourish on the earth. A man thus minded will not sacrifice
the end to the means ; nor do a false, unjust, or cruel action,
even for the sake of truth itself. The persecutor (supposing
aU worldly motives totally excluded) is at best, in the eye of
true zeal, one who, for the sake of the form of godliness,
would extirpate its power, and trample aU that is most sacred
and valuable among men.
To Christian zeal let us contrast the zeal of sectarism.
Perhaps it wiU be needful to explain the term. Any person
who has entered into my sentiments, wiU not misunderstand
me so far as to suppose, that I mean to throw an oblique
reflection on sects which have not the advantage of a legal
estabUshment. I know the word is sometimes used in this
iUiberal way. But a man who has a just notion of the dig
nity of rehgion, is incapable of the meanness of piquing him
self on a circumstance merely secular and local, which may as
readily favour, and does as frequently support error as truth ;
the grossest superstition, or the wildest fanaticism, as the
purest and most reasonable worship. I mean, then, by the
zeal of sectarism in any person, that ardour, which, attending
chiefly to party distinctions, seeks to increase the number of
retainers to that sect, established by law or unestablished,
(the word is applicable to both,) to which he himself happens
to be attached. Every judicious man vriU frankly own, that
a zeal of this kind sometimes appears in characters where
there never appeared a spark of zeal for the conversion of a

THE SPIRIT OF TIIE GOSPEL. 179
soul from sin to God ; for that love, joy, peace, long-suffer
ing, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance,
which are the ornaments of our nature, the fruits ofthe Spirit,
(Gal. v. 22, 23,) and the glory of the Christian name. I do
not say that these two kinds are never united. I know the
contrary. But I say, they are often separate ; and that
therefore there is no necessary connexion between them. As
to the former, who were more remarkable for the sectarian
zeal than the Pharisees, that compassed sea and land to make
one proselyte ? Whether they had an equal share in the lat
ter kind, let the sequel of the account declare : They made
him twofold more the child of hell than themselves ; Matt.
xxui. 15. And in modern times you wiU flnd, in that com
munion or sect which can boast a legal establishment in most
kingdoms of Europe, perhaps more zealots on the Pharisaic
model, than could be coUected out of all the other commu
nions. In fact, this zeal is but a species of party spfrit at the
most. If a community be divided into factions, whatever be
the ground of dirision, (it may be different systems in politics,
different theories in philosophy, as well as differences in reli
gion,) it is natural for every party-man to wish to augment
the number of his party. Every additional suffrage is ima
gined to add something in confirmation ofhis own judgment.
This principle operates on rehgious parties more strongly
from the conceived importance of the subject.
If, added to this, there be any of those riolent prejudices
which are so easily infused and cherished in a weak under
standing and contracted temper, there results that most un
lovely form we caU bigotry, which would fain pass herself on
the world for zeal, but in disposition has no more resemblance
to her than superstition bears to religion, or the hatred of man
to the love of God. We have already taken notice of their
difference in nature and origin. With regard to the effects,
we may say, they are not only dissimilar, but in some things
opposite ; insomuch, that our mistaking the one for the other
is even matter of astonishment. The object ofthe first is the
form, of the second the power of godhness. The means they
employ are extremely unlike. Bigotry persecutes; Zeal per
suades. The former, where she cannot exterminate, will
M

180 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
create dirision. She has a bitterness of Spirit that cannot
brook opposition in the merest trifle. She wiU not associate
with those who cannot conform in every thing to her humour.
A mote she magnifies into a mole-heap, and a mole-heap into
a mountain. At once jealous and inflexible, and consequently
of a temper the reverse of that of the peace-maker, she is ever
discovering a reason for making a breach where there is none,
and for widening it where it has mUuckily been made. The
latter, in all these particulars, acts a contrary part. Candid
in judging, and warmed with kindness, she always aims at
union, assiduously promoting peace. She understands the
import of moderation and mutual forbearance, and can cor
dially receive as brethren persons who differ in some senti
ments ; avoiding matters of doubtful disputation, and what
ever might prove a cause of stumbling to the weak. In brief,
as Zeal is constantly attended and inspfred by Charity, she
may at all times be distinguished by the company of her
amiable friend. This last you caimot fail to know, if you at
tend to the picture that has been drawn of her by the mas
terly hand of our apostle, in the most inimitable colours,
1 Cor. xiu. Who, on the other hand, is the most intimate
companion of Bigotry, let the uncharitable judgments, ma
hgnity, and calumny, for which she is so remarkable, declare.
The impartial must see, and the charitable vrill lament, the
envenomed misrepresentations which, to the detriment of the
common cause, the bigoted of every denomination give of
the opuiions and practices of every other.
I observed that one great engine of false zeal is dirision. It
vriU be worth while to consider this more particularly, and
inqufre into that factious spfrit which has so much infested
the Christian world, to the great scandal of the friends, and
the no smaU triumph of the enemies of rehgion. -People are
commonly ingenious enough to derise excuses for what is the
natural result of the worst passions of thefr frame. Let us
fairly canvass those pleas which are generally used on this
subject. — One is, the danger of contracting impurity by an-
intermixture vrith the impure. The argument of such ad
vocates for separation is justly represented by the prophet —
Stand by thyself: come not near to me; for I am holier than

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.

181

tkm, Isa. lxv. 5. There are two things, (I speak to the au
thors and promoters of dirision, whoever they be,) of which
ye would need to be ascertained, before ye introduce strife
and dissension among those who live in unity ; knowing,
that where these are, there is confusion, and every evil work ;
James iu. 16. The first thing I would have you be assured
of is, that ye have truth on your side. It is not every spe
cious deduction by inference from Scripture, that ought to be
put on the same footing with those doctrines which are clearly
revealed there. I know that aU bigots are equally dogmati
cal on every point. And it is not difficult to account for this.
They hold aU their opinions by the same tenure of imphcit
faith. But no discerning person, no one who is properly capa
ble of forming a judgment, ever pretended, that there was
for every opinion equal eridence. If the apostle of the Gen
tUes may be credited, there are even in religion matters of
doubtful disputation, which ought never to disturb the har
mony of Christians, much less make a rent in their commu
nion ; Rom. xiv. The second thing of which ye would need
to be weU informed is, that the ground of separation be a
matter of importance. The consequences of a breach are
important, and the cause would need to be proportionate.
" But is not every point important that concerns religion ? "
Admitted. Yet we have the best authority to affirm, that
there are weightier and less weighty matters of the law; Matt.
xxin. 23. Nay more, as was hinted afready, we are autho
rized to affirm, that there are points regarding rehgion, about
which, though we differ in judgment, we ought not to divide.
Some have, very weakly in my opinion, introduced the
example of the primitive Christians in separating from Jews
and Pagans, as furnishing a good defence of separation among
Christians from one another. Concerning the former it is
alleged, that the cfrcumstance which most incensed their
enemies against them was, that they would admit no inter
community with those of other religions ; that is, say they,
with those who did not perfectly concur with them in their
rehgious sentiments. There is a misunderstanding here,
which I shaU endeavour to unravel. The matter well de
serves to be traced from the beginning.
m2

1S2 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
Our Lord Jesus Christ did not only himself attend the ser
vice in the svnagogue every Sabbath, and in the temple on
the solemn festivals, but commanded his disciples to do tiie
same : Tlie Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. What
soever therefore they bid you observe, that observe, and do,
^latt. xxiu. 3. Yet it is well known, that om- Lord had some
exceptions to their doctiine, as well as to tiieir lives. The
conduct of lus aposties, and his other foUowers of the Jewish
nation, continued in this, after his ascension, to be conform
able to his example and insti-uctions. They punctually
attended both the synagogue-worship, (Acts ix. 20; xiii. 5,
14, &c. ; xiv. 1 ; xvii. 1, 2, 17. x^du. 4,) and the teinple-
serrice, (Acts U. 46 ; iii. 1 ; xxi. 26 ; xxii. 17 ; xxiv. 18,) as
we learn from the Acts of the Aposties, notwithstanding that
the nation had openly rejected and crucified the Messiah.
Thefr maxim was, that whereto they had attained, they
should walk by tiie same rule, Phil. in. 16. Both Jews and
Clu-istians had attained to the knowledge of one God, a spi
rit of infinite perfection ; and the latter found notliing unsuit
able in the practice of concurring with the former in adoring
their common Creator, and in hearing those Scriptures read
which both sides admitted to be divinely inspired ; though
sometimes the reading was accompanied with explications
which Chiistians could not approve. Nor does it appear
tiiat they desisted fropi this conformity, tiU the Jews, by a
sentence of excommunication, compelled them to desist, as
our Lord had predicted, John :K.vi. 2. Were we to examine
this conduct by modern ideas, I am afraid the aposties them
selves would not escape the charge of latitudinarian. But,
in those times, separation, in the way now practised, was
a thing utterly unknown. Few sects of Clu-istians differ so
widely in thefr prmciples, as the Pharisees and Sadducees
among the Jews did ; yet it deserves our notice, that both
attended worship in the same temple, and in the same syna
gogues. Neither of them became separatists, in the sense in
which the word is understood amongst us.
Even the Christians themselves were not wholly without
diversity of opinions in the apostoUc age. The grand ques
tion which first occupied them was about the Mosaic cere-

THK SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 183
monies, Acts xv. 1. This point was determined at Jerusa
lem, in a convention of the aposties, elders, and brethren,
bv a resolve alike moderate and judicious, Acts xv. 6, &c.
^Ith regard to the Jewish converts there was no dispute :
thev had been in the use hitherto of giving the same punc
tual obedienee to the rites of the law, since thefr conversion
to Christianity, as before ; and there was no new injunction
given them now : they were left entirely to thefr freedom.
As to the Gentile brethren. Acts xix. 23, &c., about whom
alone the debate was started, they were requfred only to ab
stain from a few things, which were particularly scandalous
to the Jews : and in other respects were declared free from
any obligation to the observance of the Mosaic institution.
There was, it would appear, in that assembly, none of those
riolent sticklers for uniformity, so common in after times,
when mens zeal began to fix on the exterior part only. I
cannot help observing by the way, that those who are vested
with the most undoubted titie to authority, are generaUy
more moderate in the use of it, than those whose power is
questionable, at least, if not usurped. In consequence of this
judgment, botii Jewish and Gentfle disciples lived in fiill
communion together as Christians, notwithstanding that the
one set observed a multitude of rites not minded bv the other.
The matter did not rest here. Several Jewish brethren,
who had the most enlarged riews of the gospel dispensation,
b^an, when they were among Gentfles, and not in hazard of
scandalising thefr countrymen, to omit observing the le^al
rites altogether. Others, of weaker minds, and narrower
riews, could not smmount the scruple of abandoning customs
which, fiom thefr infancy, they had been taught to revere ;
Acts xxL 20. In neither of these classes was there any dis
obedience to the decree given at Jerusalem, which did not
ordain any thing with r^ard to the Jewish proselytes ; and
by its sflence did indeed permit, but not command, them to
retain thefr ceremonies. There was a thfrd class, who, in
open defiance of that decree, maintained the indispensable
necessity of circnmcision to salvation; and, consequently,
wanted to writhe this yoke about the necks of aU the Gentile
converts. It is worth whfle to observe the different manner
in which Paul treated these different classes.

184 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
With the first he concurred in opinion ; at the same time
he enjoined them, not to say or do any thing that might be
offensive to the weak, who were those of the second class ;
insisting, that there were opinions which, though true, were
not of that consequence, that we ought to endanger the in
terests of charity by an unseasonable display of them. What
tenderness does he not show even to the errors of those who,
though weakly scrupulous, were trvdy conscientious ? This
topic he has touched occasionaUy in almost all his writings :
but he has fuUy discussed it in the epistle to the Romans,
chap. xiv. ; and in such a manner, that it would be impossi
ble to say, whether the spirit of love, or of a sound mind,
shines forth most conspicuously in the discussion.
The thfrd class he treats in a very different manner ; and
strains every nerve to detect thefr sophistry, and prevent their
infiuence. Was it that the Jewish rites were worse than any
other ? No ; but it was because that doctrine, which made
the favour of Heaven depend on mere ceremonies, was totally
subversive of the spirit of the gospel. And such the doctrine
of the Judaizing teachers eridently was : Except ye be cir
cumcised, said they, after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be
saved, Acts xv. 1. Nothing could be more contradictory to
all the rational and generous sentiments which the gospel of
Jesus inspfres, than this slarish and superstitious tenet. We
have seen afready, that no man could make, or require others
to make, greater allowances than he did for the observance
of those very rites, when that observance did not proceed
from this absurd principle ; a principle which tended at once
to degrade in our conceptions the Dirine Majesty, to pervert
the natural sense which God has given us of right and
wrong, and to shake, at least, if not overturn, the doctrine
of our reconciliation by Jesus. The apostle, then, was sen
sible of the difference between truth and importance even in
rehgious matters.
Without distinguishing these several classes, we shaU never
be able to perceive the consistency of the apostle's conduct
on this head. When he says at one time. Circumcision is
nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, 1 Cor. rii. 19; which
plainly imphes, that we are neither the better nor the worse
for submitting to this ceremony ; and at another, as he did

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 185
to the Galatians on whom the Judaizing teachers had made
an impression. If ye be circumcised, Christ shall proflt you
nothing. Gal. v. 2 ; it must be owned, there is in these an
apparent inconsistency. It may be plausibly urged against
him. If aU we have by Christ shaU be forfeited by our re
ceiving this seal of Judaism, and subjecting ourselves to the
yoke of the law, why did Paul hiniself, after his conversion,
circumcise Timothy ? Acts xri. 1, &c. Why did he, whenhe
was among the Jews, Uve agreeably to the ordinances of the
law, and, along with others, go through the ceremonies of
purification in the temple. Acts xxi. 26, for the discharge of
a vow?* Why doth he teeat the distinction of days, and of
meats, and the other legal observances, as matters of indif
ference, and enjoin on aU sides mutual forbearance on these
articles ? Rom. xiv. It vriU be impossible, in a satisfactory
manner, to answer these- questions, without admitting the
distinction above explained. From the whole, however, it is
indisputable, that there was not among Christians a perfect
unanimity on every point, even in the apostoUc age ; that, not
withstanding this, they Uved in harmony and unity, and in
fuU communion vrith one another, as became brethren in
Christ. That the church had no intercommunity in sacred matters
vrith idolaters, is indeed equally incontestable. Is there then,
* I know that some have censured the apostle for this step, and considered it
as a culpable compliance with an advice which savoured too much of the wis
dom of the world. The bad success of this expedient they look on as a provi
dential rebuke for temporizing, I am not satisfied of the justice of this censure,
for the following reasons : — 1. Our apostle being of the Jewish nation, was evi
dently at liberty to use the ceremonies, if he pleased. 2, Though he expressly
declares tbem not available to salvation, he never pronounces them either unlaw
ful or inexpedient for those who were Jews by birth, 3, He avows it to be his
ordinary method, among the Jews, to live as a Jew ; 1 Cor. ix, 20. 4, If
Paul had not previously had a vow, and during its continuance observed the ab
stinences prescribed by the law, can it be imagined, that one who bad any regard
to piety or truth, would have either advised or consented to such dissimulation
in a solemn act of religion .' S, That he actually had " vow, and observed the
precept relating to it, when he had no temptation to temporize, is evident from
Acts xviii, 18, 6, That the bad success of tbis expedient should he construed as
a rebuke from Heaven, is a supposition as arbitrary, as it would be to affirm
that when Peter was beaten by order of the Sanhedrim, this should be inter
preted as a divine reproof for his teaching in the temple, where he had been
apprehended.

186 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
say modern sectaries, no sufficient ground, except idolatry,
for breaking from all feUowship in religious matters ? That
idolatrous worship is a sufficient reason (whether the com
munity from which we separate be called Christian or not)
there can be no question. That it is the only reason, I do
not say. If, as a condition of communion, a positive assent
to opinions, or approbation of practices, were required, which
we could not give without falsehood, this also would be a
sufficient ground. It can never be our duty to he or dissemble.
I do not say, that these are all the just grounds of separation ;
though I cannot at present recollect any other. But this I
do say, that where it is once made on Christian grounds, it
is much oftener the effect of pride and passion.
Allow me to ask, on the other hand. Is there no danger
from separation ? Is it of no consequence, think ye, to in
crease so epidemical an evil ? Paul thought not so hghtly of
the matter, when he so warmly checked the flrst motions of
this spirit in the Corinthians, though it had no appearance
of creating an open rupture: 1 Cor. i. 11, &c. iii. 3, &c.
Is Christ, the head, dirided, that ye make so little account
of disjoining the members ? or is each sect arrogant enough
to appropriate him to themselves ? Is there no danger of
giring to your several leaders the honour which belongs only
to your Lord ? Was any of those teachers crucifled for you ?
or were ye baptized in his name ? It is but too erident, what
ever ye may pretend, that ye do call men Rabbi and Father ;
that ye do admit other masters than Christ, to whose several
dictates and glosses ye are blindly devoted. Ye do not say,
indeed, I am of Paul, and I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas ;
but ye have gotten names much less respectable, which ye
substitute in their place. When such contentions subsist
amongst you, are ye not carnal, and walk as men ? Is not
your conduct more influenced by the passions of the men of
this world, than by the example and maxims of Christ ?
To set this matter in another hght : Is there no danger
of wounding charity, the end of the commandment, and the
bond of perfectness ? Is there no danger of narrowing the
sphere of that brotherly love, which every disciple of Jesus
owes to every other ? Is there no danger that ye vitiate your

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 187
own temper ; that your minds rankle against your brethren ;
that, from attending too close to what ye judge faulty in them,
ye come at length to be incapable of discovering any good
in them at all ? This is but too common a progress. The
mind, uneasy under an antipathy of which it is become
unable to get rid, casts about for means to justify it. These
it will never be difficult to flnd, when one is in the humour
of seeking for them. Every ill is then exaggerated, and
every good misconstrued. It is the character of Charity, that
it thinketh no eril, 1 Cor. xiii. 5. In the track we would
warn you against, ye are almost sure of contracting an inti
macy with her antagonist. Malice, which thinketh no good.
Were there no danger of these things, it is not your prefer
ring other pastors, or even some differences in opinion and
extemal order, that should ever have induced me to use a ^
single expostulation on the subject.
It was the remark of a late witty author, that " we have
rehgion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make
us love one another."* The fact is but too generally expe
rienced. Yet when we consider the remark, it must at first
appear a paradox. For if the perfection of religion would
produce the perfection of love, surely a less degree of the
former should produce a less degree of the latter ; but that
it should produce hatred, which is the opposite of love, seems
inconceivable. The riddle, however, upon attention, is easily
solved. The religion that produces hatred will not be found
to differ only in degree from that which produces love, but
in spirit and in kind. When, therefore, from what we call
religion, we feel such an effect upon our minds, we have but
too great reason to suspect that we have more of the sectary
than of the Christian in us, and that our rehgion has in it
more of the false than of the tme ; that our zeal is bigotry,
and our supreme regards no better than a dotage about
questions and strifes of words, vain janglings, and oppositions
of science falsely so caUed.
But there is something more here than has been yet ac
counted for. Weak judgment and ungovernable passions
may give rise to those differences that breed division ; but
* Swift,

188 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
when sects are once formed, political causes co-operate in
producing that mahgnity which they so commonly bear to
one another. It becomes in some respect the interest or
credit of thefr respective leaders, to keep the party together.
No method is so effectual for attaining this end, as to magnify
every point on which they differ from others as of the utmost
consequence, and to make the whole attention of thefr adhe
rents centre there. Others are represented as being in the
high road of perdition. For this purpose every passage in
Scripture about heathens and idolaters is miserably wrested,
that it may appear intended for their neighbours of other
sects. These are sometimes Pharisees and Sadducees, some
times pubhcans and sinners, and always They that are without.
For any of their own fraternity occasionaUy to join in worship
with those of another party, is no better than bowing the knee
to Baal; for they themselves only are the small remnant, the
elect, the little flock ; and, exactly in the spirit of Judaism,
they think God has no concern about aU the world besides.
Nothing can equal the dogmatism and arrogance vrith which
one sect pronounces sentence against another, except perhaps
the dogmatism and arrogance with which that other retaliates
upon them. If this pohcy have in it of the wisdom of the
serpent, it is not in conjunction vrith the innocence of the
dove. If it have the vrisdom of the serpent, it has his venom
too. It has not the signature of the wisdom that is from
above, which is pure, peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated,
full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without
hypocrisy, James in. 17. On the contrary, earthly in its
nature, and derilish in its tendency, it is at best but the
subtlety of the old serpent who begufled Eve, who has con
tributed so much to extfrpate love from the earth, and to
sow the seeds of discord in its stead.
In what words shaU I address those simple ones who allow
themselves to be deceived by so iU-disguised an artifice ? If
one of the parties in any common quarrel should, after telhng
you his story, insist with you not to hear his adversary, whom
he abuses very hberaUy, assuring you that he would only
mislead your judgment ; could ye entertain a favourable idea
of that man's cause ? If ye were constituted judges in it.

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 189
would ye be in this manner induced to give your decision
without hearing both sides ? Are ye siUy enough, then, to be
guUed in regard to rehgion, a matter wherein ye yourselves
are so deeply "concerned, by a trick so poor, that it could not
impose on a person of common sense in the most trifling
occurrence ? Have ye eyes ? Look around you : Do ye not
perceive hundreds, nay thousands, seduced by the very same
methods and sentiments opposite to yours, and made to en
tertain as horrid a notion of you as it is possible for you to
entertain of them ? Ye are certain that they are deluded; and
they are certain that ye are deluded ; and both have equal
reason. Ought not this to make you suspect an expedient,
which ye must acknowledge is so often used successfuUy in
the cause of *ror ? Properly in that cause only. For is it, I
pray you, rice or rirtue that shuns the hght ? Is it truth or
falsehood that declines an open trial ? Reason will teU you,
your Lord and Master wUl teU you, (for ye stiU caU him Mas
ter and Lord,) that it is rice and falsehood ; John iu. 20, 21.
But if his word had half the weight vrith you that the verdicts
of your Rabbies have, ye could not be imposed on by such a
contemptible piece of priestcraft. Perhaps ye are of a party
(for I know there are such parties) which holds the name of
priest in abhorrence, which detests the term clergy, and all
other titles of that stamp. It may be so. Words are but
sounds, and ye may be riolently attached to the thing, in
whatever way ye stand affected to the name. Does any one
claim or exercise a dominion over the faith of others ,? That
man is a priest in the most odious sense the word bears. Does
he support his claim by anathematizing those who do not
acknowledge it ? He avails himself of one of the most exe
crable, though at the same time one of the commonest engines
of priestcraft. " But who," says he, " claims any such domi
nion ? We know them not." I wiU teU you them. WTio-
ever says, either in so many words, or in what is equivalent,
" Be guided by me only, and such as concur with me in their
opinions ; but on the peril of damnation hear no other:" that
man claims it, whoever he be. It is he that assumes the title
of Rabbi, that chooses to be caUed Master and Father upon
earth, and thus usurps the office' of his Lord. As his account

190 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
only of the doctrine of Jesus is heard by you, as his explica
tions only are regarded, as his solutions only of every doubt
are admitted, ye are Christians just so far, and of such a form,
as it pleases him ye should be : ye inadvertently constitute
him umpire over your Master himself, and become much more
properly his followers than the followers of Christ.
Would it be thought credible, if experience did not vouch
the fact, that a policy, covered by so thin a disguise, could
prove successful ; an antiquated and stale device, employed
alike by men of the most repugnant sentiments and opposite
interests ; a device which carries the suspicious mark of con
scious weakness in the front of it ? One thing, however, truth
compels me to urge in excuse for those who employ these
secluding, damning, and terrifying methods. 4t is a case of
necessity vrith them. The party cannot dispense with these
arts. Rob them of this defence, and they are undone. If
you examine impartially, you will soon be satisfied, that no
cause ever yet had recourse to such base shifts, which could
be supported by any better.
I cannot forbear, whether I am heard or not, addressing a
few words to those presumptuous men, who thus consign each
other to damnation for not agreeing with them in opinion on
every article. It is for your own sakes I speak ; for with me
it is a very smaU thing that I should be judged by you, or
by man's judgment. Thou callest thyself a disciple of Jesus :
Hast thou no regard to the commandment of thy Lord ? Or
has he given a more express commandment than this ? Judge
not, that ye be not judged : For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged ; and with what measure ye mete, it shall
be measured to you again. Matt. rii. 1, 2. Does not he on
whom thou darest to sit in judgment, profess to be a disciple
of Jesus as well as thou ? Whether he be really so or not,
is another's affair, and not thine. Who art thou, says Paul,
that judgest another man's servant ? to his own master he
standeth or falleth, Rom. xiv. 4. Besides, is there not one
appointed Judge of aU the earth ? and darest thou usurp his
office ? Why dost thou judge thy brother ? or why dost thou set
at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judg
ment-seat of Christ, Rom. xiv. 10. There is one lawgiver.

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 191
says the apostle James, who is able to save and to destroy :
Who art thou that judgest another? James v. 12. In every
view this practice is condemned. It is fraught with danger
to yourselves, with injury to your neighbour, and with impiety
to your Lord.
Nothing is more common with polemic writers, than to
complain of the pride of those who impugn their theories. It
requires no great penetration to discern, that the pride of the
writer is the source of the complaint. The charge is com
monly reciprocal, and just on both sides. Would you know
which is the proudest ? You will not mistake the matter
greatly in concluding, that it is he who on this topic makes
the loudest clamour. But of all the species of pride and
presumption that have ever yet appeared, it is certainly the
most extravagant, for a puny mortal, the insect of a day, a
reptile of the dust, to arrogate the prerogative of omniscience,
to ascend the throne of the Most High, and to point the
thunders of Almighty power. Is it to be wondered that such
a disposition should produce a spirit of persecution ? It would
be mfraculous if it did not. Can the man who does not hesi
tate to usurp one function of Omnipotence, hesitate to usurp
another ? Would he who scruples not to pronounce sen
tence, scruple to execute it ifit were in his power ? Yes, upon
reflection I am persuaded, that far the greater part of those
blind zealots themselves would stop here. We are however
too amply warranted by experience to say at least, that
they wiU not scruple to consign him to a stake in this world,
whom they do not scruple, in their usurped capacity of
judges, to consign to heU-flre in the next.
We sometimes hear much of Antichrist amongst our con-
trovertists. Who is Antichrist ? It is an usurper, who, under
pretence of honouring Christ, supplants him, perverting the
power he has assumed to the seduction of the disciples,
2 Thess. ii. 3, &c. We have seen already, that, in the po
litical artifices we have been combating, there is a double
usurpation of the prerogatives of our Lord, both as the only
infaUible instructor of his people, and as the supreme judge-
of the world. This is therefore that mahgn spirit of Antichrist,
whose baleful influences have, alas! been but too widely
difiused, to the unspeakable hurt of that godlike charity, with-

192 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
out which, with all our pretensions to faith, and zeal, and
knowledge, we are at best but sounding brass and tinkling
cymbals, 1 Cor. xiii. 1 — 3.
What then shaU we say of those who differ from us in
important articles ? What shall we say ? That, in our judg
ment, they err, not knowing the Scriptures. What more
should we say ? It belongs to the Omniscient, the Searcher
of hearts, and to him only, to say whether thefr error, ifthey
be in an error, proceeds from prarity of disposition, or from
causes in which the wiU had no share. Is it for us to deter
mine, how much wood, and hay, and stubble, may be reared
up onthe only foundation, Jesus Christ? Though the foreign
materials, by the apostle's account, will be consumed in the
flery trial theymust undergo, yet the builder himself vrill be
saved, 1 Cor. iii. 15. We are ever, like Peter, turning aside
from the point in hand, (which is what immediately concems
ourselves,) and, by a curiosity much less justiflable than his,
inquiring, what wiU become of this man? When such a ques
tion arises in thy mind, O my fellow-Christian, think thou
hearest the voice of thy dirine Master checking thy imper
tinence in the words addressed to the apostle. What is that
to thee ? Follow thou me ? John xxi. 22.
IV. I proceed now, in the last place, to make some reflec
tions on what has been advanced.
1 . Ffrst, I observe. That though the spirit of tr.ue rehgion,
and the spirit of false, be not only different, but opposite,
there may nevertheless be a portion of each in the same dis
position. Man has been said, not unjustly, to be a mass of
contradictions. The union just now mentioned, however in
congruous, is not more so than that of rice and rirtue, truth
and error, which, though equaUy opposite, are often blended
in the same character. From the specimen we have seen of
false zeal in two of the disciples, it would be unjust to con
clude, that they were then totally unacquainted vrith true re
hgion. Instances may be supposed, and have actuaUy hap
pened, in which the genuine spirit of the gospel has power
fuUy resisted in the mind, and happUy overcome the motions
of a misguided zeal, derived from a superstitious or fanatical
education. Examples might no doubt be produced of a ric-

THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 193
tory onthe other side, when the influence of early prejudices,
deeply and firmly rooted, has, on a particular occasion, mis
led one to act a part extremely unsuitable to the real piety
and benevolence which have uniformly shone in the rest of his
conduct. How far the plea of a misinformed conscience
wiU go in extenuation of the crimes it occasions, it belongs
not to us, but to the great Judge of aU the earth, to deter
mine. If, then, there appear erident marks of superstition or en
thusiasm in a character, let us not conclude that all must be
false, that there can be nothing there of true rehgion, or the
spfrit of the gospel. If there be an erident mixture of both,
let us not conclude that there must be a natural affinity be
tween true rehgion and false. A due attention to what has
been said wiU satisfy us, that both ways of arguing are abso
lutely untenable.
2. I observe, secondly. That, from the spirit of the party,
we cannot always infer with justice what spirit predominates
in an indiridual belonging to that party. In what sects that
were not idolateous, did there ever appear more of super
stition, rancour, and furious zeal, than among the Pharisees
and the Samaritans ? Yet in both, our Sariour, who knew
what was in man, John u. 25, found persons to whom he
could give an lionourable testimony; persons, too, who were
not in every thing superior to popular opinions and party
prejudices. That the apostles themselves had not_ attained
this superiority tiU about the time of their Lord's ascension,
is manifest from the question they put to him after his resur
rection. Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to
Israel ? Acts i. 6. Both the above observations ought to teach
us modesty in the opinions we form of men's characters.
It has been remarked already, that some principles are in
thefr nature and origin superstitious. Such is the opinion
which a late eminent writer* remarks to prevail among the
Indians, that the water of the Ganges has a sanctifying rirtue ;
and that the dead whose ashes are thrown into it, are secured
of an admission into Elysium. " What matters it," says he,
" whether one hve rirtuously or not ? He can order his body
* De TEsprit des Loix, liv. 24, ch, 14,

194 THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.
to be thrown in the Ganges." Are absurdities of this kind
pecuhar to Paganism ? Are there not some European coun
tries in which men may say, with equal reason, " What mat
ters it how one lives ? He can on his death-bed obtain the
riaticum." And by their doctrine of sacraments, it is even
of no consequence whether the dying man be sensible of what
is done, or insensible. It is manifest, that these two dogmas
are materially the same ; they differ only in the form.
On the other hand it must be acknowledged, that there
are no religious institutions, how pure soever, which may not
be superstitiously or fanatically used. A minister's convers
ing vrith the sick on the hope of the gospel, and joining with
them in prayer, are duties which, when properly performed,
have a natural tendency to prove solacing and instructive to
the distressed, to the spectators, and to the minister himself.
But if any person be absurd enough to consider the prayer
of a minister, at the bedside of one in the agonies of death,
as a passport to heaven, his sentiments do not differ essen
tially from theirs who rely on extreme unction, or the priest's
absolution, as the grand security.
3. I observe, thirdly. That that set of opinions and prac
tices is the most dangerous, which looks vrith the malignest
aspect on love, and tends most to contract its circle. The
sectarian spirit has inverted the rule laid down by our Lord,
which was, to judge of teachers and their doctrines by their
fruits, Matt. rii. 15, &c. The method now almost universally
followed, is, to judge of their fruits by their doctrines. If
these be not to our taste, the other cannot be good : if these
receive our approbation, the other must be very bad ere they
displease us. Every sect has its own Shibboleth. One inqufres
about opinions; another, about ceremonies; a third, about
ecclesiastical polity and hierarchy, proposing, as the sole au
thentic eridence of our being Christians, the examination of
certain endless genealogies ; as if Christ had intended that all
his disciples should be antiquaries, because otherwise they
could not have the satisfaction to know whether they were his
disciples or not. Unfortunately for these people, all such
spiritual pedigrees are so miserably lame, that if their rule
were to be admitted, we should be involved in darkness on
this subject from which no antiquary could extricate us : and

THE SPIRIT OF TIIE GOSPEL. 195
there would not remain the slightest evidence that there were
a single Christian on the earth. We shall however be satis
fied with Paul's rule on this subject, who enjoins every man,
in order to make this important discovery with regard to
himself, carefuUy to examine his own heart, 2 Cor. xiii. 5.
Strange indeed, that none of these curious tests have been
recommended to us by Christ, in order to direct us to the
choice of teachers. Still more sti-ange, that all sects should,
as it were by general consent, overlook the only rule he gave
on this subject. He did not enjoin the examination of cap
tious questions, disputes often about words and phrases ; he
knew how unfit the bulk of mankind are for discussions of this
sort. His rule is level to the capacity of aU, and probably
for this reason has been so little regarded. Teachers and
doctrines are to be distinguished by thefr fruits. That doc
trine is the soundest, which has the happiest influence on the
temper and lives of those who receive it ; which operates
most powerfuUy by love to God, and love to man. That,
on the contrary, is to be deemed the worst, which has the
unhappiest influence on the temper and life. We do not
therefore send you to the inextricable mazes of disputation
and logomachy, but to the only infalUble test which Christ
himself has given us. It vriU not, sure, be imagined, that
we mean, hke the too narrow-minded disciple, to forbid any
man to cast out devils in the name of Christ, because he
followeth not with us, Mark ix. 38 ; Luke ix. 49 : but we
mean to wam every man against the influence of that teacher
who would cast in derils in the name of Christ, whether he
foUow vrith us or not. For we know no worse derils than
contention, bittemess, spiritual pride, uncharitable judg
ments, detraction, malevolence. We mean further, if possible,
to abate the rancour of sects towards one another, and to
make the interests of charity surmount that worst species of
priestly poUcy which but too much abounds in them aU.
4. I remark, fourthly. That some of the strongest objec
tions of infidels do not properly affect the gospel : they affect
only the corruptions which have been introduced by men into
this divine reUgion. It may be added, that the same adven
titious materials have been the foundation of the greater part
of the controversies among Christians themselves.

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

THE SUCCESS OF THE FIRST PUBLISHERS OF THE
GOSPEL, A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH:
A
SEEMON, PREACHED
BEFORE THE SOCIETY IN SCOTLAND
FOR PROPAGATING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE,
AT THEIR ANNUAL MEETING,
EDINBURGH, FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 1777.

N i;

Edinburgh, June 6, 1777.
At a General Meeting of the Society in Scotland for Propagating
Christian Knowledge,.
Resolved,
That the thanks of this Society be given to the Reverend Dr.
Campbell, for his excellent Sermon preached this day before
them ; and that he be desired to permit the same to be printed for
the use of the Society. Jambs Forrest, Cleric.

SERMON IL

1 CoR. i. 25.
The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness
of God is stronger than men.
It would scarcely be possible to conceive a new rehgion at
tended with more disadvantageous cfrcumstances than was
the Christian rehgion on its first appearance ; and of which,
consequentiy, the success in the world would, humanly speak
ing, be more improbable. Nothing could be worse adapted
to the prejudices thatprevaUed^mong Jews and Gentiles than
its tenets : nothing could be less accommodated to the uni
versal deprarity of maimers than its precepts. Both the ob
scurity and the fate of its Founder seemed ahke insuperable
obstacles to the advancement of his cause. And as to the per
sons whom, under the title of Apostles, he selected to be the
insteuments of promulgating his doctrine, they were such as,
in the judgment of aU reasonable men, would have been suffi
cient, though every other cfrcumstance had been favourable,
to render the scheme abortive. Truly, therefore, may we say,
that if this counsel or this work had been of men, it must have
come to nought. Any one of the particulars above mentioned
would have been enough to stifle it in the birth ; how much
more would aU of them when combined together ? But there
is no wisdom nor understanding, nor counsel, against theLord,
Prov. xxi. 30. His thoughts are not our thoughts, neither
are our ways his ways. Justly is this dirine institution repre
sented in the prophetic language under the emblem of a stone,
something at first to appearance inconsiderable, cut out with
out hands, not by human skiU or dexterity, which became a
great mountain, and filled the whole earth, Dan. u. 34, 35.
For the foolishness of God, as ye have it in the passage read

200 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL,
to you as the foundation of this discourse, is wiser than men,
and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
The apostle, in these words, is far from insinuating that
there can be any thing in the supreme all-perfect Mind ana
logous to what we understand by the texxns folly and weakness.
But, by an usual figure, he considers the extraordinary con
duct of Proridence manifested in this new institution, under
the denomination which the adversaries were pleased to give
it ; and affirms, that the measures which the Ruler of the
world had adopted, and which to them were foolishness, would
be found to have more vrisdom in them than the wisest plans
of human contrivance ; and that the means employed by Hea
ven, however weak they might be reckoned, would be strong
enough to baffie all the most rigorous efforts of the sons of
earth. Nay more, however shallow the measures, and however
impotent the instruments may be, not in appearance but in
reality, when attended only by natural and ordinary means,
they will prove perfectly efficacious when attended by such as
are supernatural and extraordinary. God, when he is pleased
to interpose miraculously, can effect his purpose, not only
without the intervention of man, but by such human agency as
seems better calculated to defeat the end than to promote it.
This, we leam from the context, was, in several important re
spects, the case with the first promulgation of the gospel.
To throw Ught on this doctrine, and to point out the use
we ought to make of it, shall, vrith the aid of Heaven, be the
tJtimate scope of this discourse. The argument couched in
my text, and illustrated in the concluding part ofthis chapter
and the beginning of the next, may be thus expressed : " The
human and natural means originally employed for the propa
gation of the gospel, would, vrithout the divine interposition,
have proved both foohsh and weak, and therefore utterly
incapable of answering the purpose. The purpose was, never
theless,, by these means fully answered : consequently, they
must have been accompanied with the divine interposition,
and our religion is of God, and not of man." I shall first,
therefore, endeavour to erince the truth ofthe first proposition,
and show the utter inability of the natural means employed
in promulgating the gospel, to effect the end : — I shall next

A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 201
erince the truth of the second, pointing out the rapid and
unexampled success of the means that were employed ; — and
shall conclude vrith obserring the influence which the obvious
consequence of these deductions ought to have upon us, and
the improvement we ought to make of this doctrine.
I BEGIN with the unfltness of the means, that is, the natu
ral and ordinary means, admitted by infidels as weU as Chris
tians to have been employed ; for it is of such means only I
am here speaking. Let it be observed, that under this I com
prehend the genius of the doctrine taught ; because, whether
supernatural in its origin or not, it may have in it a natural
fitness for engaging attention and regard, or, on the contrary,
a natural tendency to ahenate the minds of men, and render
them inattentive and averse. In this riew, the spfrit and
character of the institution itself ought to be regarded as
natural means, either of promoting, or of retarding, its pro
pagation. Let us then examine briefly the two principal
cfrcumstances afready suggested — the doctrine, and the pub
hshers. It is to the former that the term foolishness is more
especiaUy appUed, as weakness is to the latter.
The doctrine of the cross, in particular, the great hinge of
aU, was, in every riew, exposed to universal dishke and deri
sion. Considered as an article of faith in this new rehgion,
as exhibiting the expiation of sin, and consequently as the
foundation of the sinner's hope of dirine pardon and accept
ance, to men unprincipled as they were, it both shocked their
understanding, and was humiliating to thefr pride. Con
sidered as a practical lesson, and a warning of the treatment
which the disciples might expect when such horrible things
had befaUen thefr Master, to foUow whom in suffering they
were speciaUy caUed, nothing could tend more powerfully to
aUenate their wUl, being opposed by all their most rooted
passions, love of hfe, aversion to pain, and horror of infamy.
And even considered only as a memorable event in the history
of him whom all the proselytes to this institution were bound
to acknowledge as their lawgiver and king, it was exceedingly
disgustful, being contradictory to all the notions to which
from infancy they had been habituated, in regard to the

202 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL,
protection of Proridence, and the marks whereby Heaven dis
tinguishes its favourites destined for honour and authority.
Paul, accordingly, takes particular notice of the bad recep
tion which this doctrine met with from both Jews and Gen
tiles, in consequence of the inveterate prejudices entertained
against it. The preaching ofthe cross, says he, is to them that
perish, to them who reject and despise the gos'^ei, foolishness ;
but to us who are saved, who by faith give it a grateful recep
tion, it is the power of God, 1 Cor. i. 18. However much
the Jews and the Greeks differed from each other in their
rehgious principles as weU as customs, they concurred in a
most hearty destestation of this, which made so fundamental
an article of the Christian dispensation. They riewed it dif
ferently, according to their different national characters; but
the effect, an indignant rejection, was the same in both. Our
apostle, who perfectly understood the difference, has marked
it with the greatest accuracy : The Jews require a sign, an
evidence of the interposition of Omnipotence, which may
overpower thefr minds, and command an unhmited assent ;
and the Greeks seek after wisdom, the elaborate productions
of oratory and ingenuity, which may at once eonrince thefr
reason, and gratify their curiosity : but we preach Christ cru
cified; a doctrine so far from suiting the inchnations of either,
that to the Jews it is a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks
foolishness. Both agree to reprobate this doctrine, but dif
ferently, according to their different tempers. To the He
brew, it is an object of abhorrence ; to the Grecian, of con
tempt. He adds, but to them who are called, those who are
dirinely instructed, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of
God, and the wisdom of God, 1 Cor. i. 22 — 24.
Nor can we justly wonder that so strange a doctrine as this
of the cross, so repugnant to flesh and blood, should, upon
the trial, prove so unwelcome to carnal men. If we inquire
but ever so httle into the cfrcumstances of the case, we shaU
flnd, that its reception could not have been any other than it
was. The Jewish nation was at that time spht into sects,
which in many things entertained opinions opposite to one
another. Nevertheless, all who expected the Messiah, of
whatever sect, concurred in the belief that he would be, what

A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 203
the world caUs, an illustrious prince, a mighty conqueror, who
would subdue kingdoms, and establish for lumself a new uni
versal monarchy, or secular empire, (for of a spiritual king
dom they had no idea,) wherein his own nation would be
exalted above aU the nations of the earth. From these senti
ments the Samaritans (however much they differed from the
Jews in other respects) seem not to have dissented ; in these
sentiments aU our Lord's disciples had been brought up ; and
to these sentiments, in spite of the manifest tendency of liis
instructions and example, they, by their own account, firmly
adhered during his hfe, and even for some time after his re
surrection. Nor do they seem ever to have relinquished these
sentiments tUlthe descent of the Holy Ghost, after the ascen
sion, on that memorable day of Pentecost, on which the pro
mulgation of the evangehcal economy may properly be said
to have commenced.
But it is not enough to say, that the Messiah held forth to
this people in the gospel, and that which the glosses and tra
ditions ofthe Rabbies had taught them to expect, were per
sonages widely different. They were, in most respects, the
reverse of one another. The people had not yet learnt, that
God, though not in the tempest, the earthquake, nor the
thunder, may yet be found in the small and feeble voice.
Thefr heads were occupied with ideas of grandeur and ma
jesty merely human. When they were thinking of the royal
palace, thefr attention was caUed to the shop of the artificer.
Is not this the carpenter ? (Mark ri. 3,) say they, with a mix
ture of astonishment and contempt. Instead of riches and
splendour, behold poverty and humihty : For a potentate and
warrior, they had only a peaceful citizen: In Ueu of one
whose undertakings were, in the sight of aU mankind, to be
crowned vrith glory and success, they were presented with a
man incessantly hunted by misfortune from his cradle to his
grave ; whose friends were few and enemies innumerable ;
one who in their eyes had nothing desirable, or, to adopt the
expression of the prophet, had no form nor comeliness, Isa. lin.
2 ; one who accordingly, from his first appearance in pubhc,
was by aU the men of power and infiuence hated, derided, de
famed, persecuted, dishonoured, and at last cruelly murdered.

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

A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 205
sensual affection and obdurate prejudices, and in respect of
whom, to adopt the apostie's simiUtude, 2 Cor. in. 14, the
veil which covered the face of Moses, too splendid for their
weak organs, remained unremoved ; — we cannot, I say, won
der, that to them the Messiah's cross should prove a stum
bling-block. It in reahty did so. The undoubted fact
confirms the reasoning : And the reasoning is, from their
avowed principles, so unquestionable, as to be equivalent to
the clearest testimony of the fact.
Nor were the prepossessions of Pagans less impregnable,
tiiough built on different grounds. Of all nations the Jewish
was the most contemned and hated by both Greeks and Ro
mans. That their contempt and hatred were unreasonable,
I readily aUow. But it is only with the fact I am here con
cerned, and that is incontrovertible. It were easy, however,
to account for it from several pecuharities in the Jevrish con
stitution, which made them be reckoned by others supersti
tious, unsociable, intolerant, self-opinioned, and untractable.
Thefr refusal of aU intercommunity with those of other na
tions in matters of rehgion, a thing unexampled amongst
idolaters, thefr distinction of meats into clean and unclean,
and their laws in regard to ablutions, which very much in
terrupted even thefr eiril intercourse with Gentiles, conspired
in ahenating the minds of strangers. Though not deflcient
in courage and natural sagacity, their being but little ac
quainted vrith the arts of war and government, made thera
appear inconsiderable in the eyes of the Romans : their
ignorance of philosophy and the flne arts rendered them
despicable to the Grecians. It would not have been easy
to make the people of either nation expect great beneflts of
any kind from a Jew. But to talk to them of such a one as
their Messiah or Saviour, that is, as the terms were ex
plained by the preachers, the purchaser of the remission of
sins, of dirine favour, of eternal hfe and happiness, nay, as
the person constituted by the Deity judge of all the earth,
could, to men so ill affected to that people, hardly appear
otherwise than as absolutely ridiculous. How much then
was the ridicule enhanced, when they were further informed,
that this Messiah, this man of circumcision, of the race of

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

A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 207
doctrine could not fail to appear impious and execrable, (and
for a time it did so even to the apostles,) to men so prepos
sessed as were the Gentiles it could not fail to appear non
sensical and absurd.
Nay, it is manifest from the writings of the early apologists
for Cliristianity, in the second and third centm-ies, that this
docti-ine continued long to be a principal matter of offence to
the enemies of oui- religion, and was regarded by such as an
insm-mountable objection. They treated it as no better than
madness, to place confidence in a man whom God had aban
doned to the scourge of the executioner, and the indelible re
proach of the cross. Yet this doctrine was from the begin
ning, so fai- from being taught covertly by the apostles, as
one would have thought that a small share of pohtical wis
dom would have suggested; it was so far from being dis
sembled and palhated, that it appeared to be that, particular
of thefr rehgion of which, in spite of the utter abomination
it raised in others, in spite of aU the obloquy it brought upon
themselves, they were chiefly ostentatious. With our apostle
the cross of Christ is a phrase in familiar use for denoting the
whole of this new economy. The foes of the gospel he calls
enemies of the cross of Christ, Phihp. in. 18. To the Corin
thians he says, he determined to know nothing among them,
gave Jesus Christ, and him crucified, 1 Cor. ii. 2. The of
fence taken against Christianity he styles the offence of the
cross. Gal. v. 1 1 ; and the grand object of his glorying was
what to others appeeired the greatest scandal, the cross of
Christ. So much in general (for your time does not admit
my entering into particulars) of the foolishness of the doc
trine. Let us next consider the weakness of the instruments, the
first missionaries of this new religion. What were they ?
We should certainly think, that a trust of this kind, requiring
the most consummate skiU and address to manage properly,
could not, with the smaUest hope of success, be committed to
any but men who, to great natural shrewdness and acquired
knowledge, had all the advantages that result from being
acquainted with the world, and conversant in public life. If
to these, wealth, nobility, and authority were added, so much

208 THE SUCCESS OF TIIE GOSPEL,
the better. But were the first pubhshers of the gospel men
of this sort ? Nothing can be conceived more opposite. A
few fishermen of Galilee, and some others of the lowest class
of the people, poor, ignorant, totaUy unacquainted with the
world ; vrithout any risible advantages natural or acquired ;
men who, before they received this extraordinary mission,
had been obliged to drudge for bread within the narrow limits
of a toilsome occupation, and had probably never dared to
open their mouth, in places where men of condition (their
betters, as we familiarly express it) were present : Such were
the agents employed in effecting the greatest revolution ever
produced upon the earth. Was it in a rude and unlettered
age that this religion was first broached? or was it only 'to
the illiterate that its promulgators were charged to communi
cate it ? It was at the time when Rome was in the zenith of
her power ; it was at the time when all the Grecian arts and
sciences shone forth in their meridian glory ; it was then
that these plain unexperienced men were commissioned, not
cautiously to impart this doctrine in a whisper to persons of
a particular stamp, but to proclaim it to all indiscriminately,
as from the house-tops, to preach the gospel to every creature,
Mark xri. 15. These lowly ministers of Jesus did accord
ingly publish it to the Jews in the temple and in the syna
gogues, and to the Gentiles in the forums of their cities, and
in other places of public resort. Their undaunted spirit and
freedom, considering what they were, did indeed amaze their
superiors, and all who heard them. When the High-priest,
and other members of the Sanhedrim, saw the boldness of
Peter and John in the spirited and pertinent reply they made,
and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men,
they marvelled. Acts iv. 1 3.
How different is the policy of Heaven, pardon the expres
sion, from that of earth ! How truly is the matter represented
in my context ! God hath chosen the foolish things of the
world to confound the wise ; and God hath chosen the weak
things of the world to confound the things which are mighty ;
and base things of the world, and things which are despised,
hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to
nought things that are, that no fiesh should glory in his pre-

A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 209
sence, 1 Cor. i. 27 — 29. The apostles were very sensible
of thefr defects, in respect of natural talents, rank, and edu
cation ; they knew well, that by men of fashion, men of the
world, they were counted as the filth of the world, and the
offscouring of all things, 1 Cor. iv. 13. But as their zeal
was kindled solely in behalf of the cause of thefr Master, they
never affected to conceal or extenuate these defects. They
neither disdainfully undervalued those acquired advantages
which they had not, but which were possessed by many of
thefr antagonists, nor vainly arrogated to themselves any
merit from the success that attended their preacliing : Thefr
humble language was. We have this treasure, the doctrine of
the gospel, the inestimable riches of Christ, in earthen vessels;
not vessels of gold or silver, as men of eminence among the
great and learned might be called, but vessels of the very
coarsest materials, those denominated the dregs of the people,
that the excellence of the power may be of God, and not of us,
2 Cor. iv. 7.
We are apt to attend but carelessly to the report of facts
to which our ears have been long famUiarized. Such is that
of the low condition of those who were the first heralds of the
gospel of peace. Besides, to us, the very title apostles con
veys certain ideas of respect and dignity, which, as it were,
hide from us the meanness and obscurity of their outward
state. In order, therefore, to rouse our attention to this cir
cumstance, ofthe utmost importance to the right understand
ing of my argument, let us consider what would be, I say not
probably, but certainly, the effect of such an attempt in our
own age and nation, made by such Ul-prorided, and, as we
should say, despicable insteuments, unaided from above, in
opposition to aU the estabhshed powers, religion, laws, and
learning of the country. Yet we have no reason to beheve
that our fishermen are, in any respect, inferior to the fishers
of those days on the Lake of Gennesaret. It would not per
haps be difficult to prove, that, in point of education, in this
part of the island at least, they are even superior. But to
render the paraUel complete, and to make it taUy perfectly
with the infidel hypothesis about the promulgation of the
gospel, we must conceive something stUl more marvellous ;

210 the SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL,
namely, that a few such men in this country, so wretchedly
accoutred, so unfurnished with human means, friendless and
pennyless, unacquainted with every language but their mother-
tongue, of which they can speak only a prorincial and bar
barous dialect, form the vast project of traversing Holland,
France, Germany, and the other countries on the Continent,
in order to make converts abroad, to impose on all mankind,
and to pubhsh throughout the world a scheme of doctrine
they had preriously concerted among themselves. With the
least refiection we see the absolute impracticabihty of such a
plan, when brought home to ourselves. Indeed it is so glar
ingly impracticable, that it is not easy for us to conceive that
such an extravagance could ever enter into the heads of men
in their senses. Yet not one jot better equipped were the
apostles, if we abstract from supernatural aid, than such pro
jectors as I have now supposed. In point of language, a
most essential circumstance, they could be no way superior.*
Now the nature of things, my brethren, was the same then
that it is at present, and means which we perceive now to be
perfectly inadequate, must have been always so. I do not
talk of the improbability that such sort of men should, at the
risk of peace, Uberty, life, and every thing valuable, and with
out any imaginable motive, have conceived a project so
fantastic, because so totally beyond their sphere, as that of
subverting all the rehgious estabhshments on the face of the
earth, of extirpating at once opinions, ceremonies, laws, which
had subsisted for many centuries, and even whole orders in
society, by substituting, in heu of all these, a new theory of
theirs, founded in a false story of their ovm devising: Nor do
I talk of the absurdity of imagining, as some have done, that
men who were neither fools nor mad, (and if they had been
either, their success would not have been less unaccountable),
should, in a matter entirely subjected to the testimony of
thefr senses, have imposed upon themselves, and thought they
* The speech of the common people has always most of the peculiarities of the
province. We have no reason to think that the dialect of any of the twelve was
preferable to that of Peter, Yet he was detected at Jerusalem by a servant-maid,
from his uncouth idiom and accent, to be a Galilean : at a time when, we may
believe, he would gladly have concealed his country, by disguising his tongue, if it
liad been in his power ; Matt, xxvi. 73.

A PROOF OF ITS TRUTII. 211
were promoting truth, if it was not so : but I talk at present
of the impossibility of such agents succeeding by natural
means, in such a design, however formed. To account for
the success, therefore, we must necessai-ily admit the divine
original of the whole, and have recourse to the concm-rence of
him who calleth the things that are not as though they were,
Rom. iv. 17; and who alone can destroy the wisdom of the
wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
With such an almighty assistant, and nothing less wiU ac
count for it, they might weU be superior to fear and appre
hension, and might boldly chaUenge all human opposition,
and say. Where is the wise ? where is the scribe ? where is the
disputer of this ivorld ? Hath not God made foolish the wis
dom ofthis world? 1 Cor. i. 19, 20.
But it will perhaps be urged, that the apostle Paul ought
to be considered as an exception from the general remark I
have been explaining. Was not he a man of letters, bred
up at the feet of Gamahel, a famous Jevrish doctor, and in-
steucted in all the scriptural and traditionary leaming of the
Jews ? Nay, does it not appear, that he was not altogether
unacquainted with the writings of the Grecian poets ? — It is
indeed true ; and as we judge of every thing by comparison,
so, when he is compared with his brethren in the apostolate,
he may be denominated learned. But it ought to be ob
served, that as his leaming consisted chiefiy, I might almost
say solely, in the Scriptures, and the rabbinical doctrine of
the Pharisees, it is notorious in how Uttle esteem that kind of
erudition was among the Gentiles, of whom he was eminently
the apostle. Of whatever account, therefore, this knowledge
might have been, had his mission been only or chiefly to the
Jews, I must think it was of very little, if any at all, to the
Greeks and Romans. To them, all Jewish literature ap
peared no better than uninteUigible, and therefore insigni
ficant jargon ; or, as Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, con
temptuously styled it. Questions of words and names, and of
their law. Acts xriii. 15. AVhatever use Paul might have
made of his leaming, in disputing with the Jewish doctors, it
could be of no service in his disputes with the philosophers
of Greece, and the literati of Rome. It is remarkable, there-

212 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL,
fore, that the only man among the first preachers of the gos
pel, who was in any degree quahfied to cope with the
leamed men of Judea, was not sent to them, but to nations
amongst whom his Hebraistic knowledge could give him no
advantage ; whereas Peter, who is by way of eminence styled
the Apostle of the Cfrcumcision, as the other is of the Gen
tUes, Gal. u. 7, 8, '^Peter, I say), though of thefr own coun
try, was but one of the untaught rabble, who, on account of
the meanness of thefr birth and station, as weU as their ig
norance, were by the haughty scribes and nUers accounted
the refuse of the earth. This people, say they, who know not
the law, are cursed, John vii. 49. Xor could Paul, in re
spect of rank, claim great superiority over the rest : he was
only a handicraftsman, haring been bred a tent-maker; a
business which he occasionaUy exercised, for the support of
himself and his attendants, during his apostleship.
Ay, but had not this man aU the advantage resulting from
the Grecian arts of Ic^c and rhetoric ? Did he not speak
thefr language with elegance and purity ? I know the apostle
has had some steenuous and weU-meaning advocates, espe
ciaUy among the modems, not infidels, but Christians, who,
vrith more zeal than judgment, have maintained the affirma
tive. I am far from denying that this eminent servant of our
Lord possessed considerable talents, in respect of natural elo
quence, depth of thought, steength of reasoning, and nervous
ness of expression : but that his Greek diction was pure and
classical, or that in composing he foUowed the rules laid down
by rhetoricians, we have the greatest reason to deny. His
works that are extant do, to every able and candid judge of
these matters, show the contrary. The contrary was admitted
by the best critics and orators among the Greek fathers,
who must be aUowed more capable of judging of propriety,
fluency, and harmony in thefr native tongue, than any modem
can be in a dead and foreign language.* Further, the con
trary is fi-ankly owned by the apostle himself. Nay, he in
sists, that according to the Dirine counsel it must be so, this
being of a piece with aU the other natural means God had
employed in the work. Thus he was sent to preach ihe
* Sich were Origen and Chrys^A-.pfm.

A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 213
gospel, as he teUs us in tiie context, notwith ivisdom of words :
Why? Lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect,
1 Cor, i. 17. ShaU we then maintain his oratorical talents
in spite of himself, and in spite of the frrefragable reason he
adduces from the analogy of tiie divine procedure in this
whole dispensation ? It would be paying him but a bad com
pliment, to extol his elocution at the expense of his veracity ;
for we are under a necessity' of denying one or other. It
appears, that his enemies made a handle of the rudeness and
inelegance of his style, to injure his reputation, especiaUy at
Corinth, where oratory was much in vogue. But though he
vindicates himself from thefr other censures, he invariably
admits the teuth of this. Though rude in speech, says he,
yet not in knowledge ; 2 Cor. xi. 6 ; and, / came not with
excellency of speech, or of wisdom, 1 Cor. u. 1 ; and. The
things of God we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom
teacheth, 2 Cor. xi. 13 : again. My speech, and my preaching,
was not with enticing words of man's wisdom. He assigns the
reason, the same in import vrith that given formerly, that
your faith should not stand in the wisdom ofmen, but in the
power of God, 1 Cor. u. 4, 5. Speaking of thefr sentiments
conceming him. His letters, say they, are weighty and power
ful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contempt
ible, 2 Cor. X. 10. The power ascribed to his letters undoubt
edly refers to the sense conveyed in them, and the ardour of
spirit by which they are animated. That they did not con
ceive any part of thefr merit to be the purity or harmony of
the style, is manifest from the latter part ofthe character, espe
ciaUy when compared with what is repeatedly acknowledged
in other places. Paul, therefore, had neither the graces of
person, nor the ornaments of elocution, to recommend or en
force his doctrine. His language to Greek ears, must have
appeared idiomatical, not to say barbarous. And as his sort
of learning was but iU adapted to the people of Greece, Italy,
or Asia Minor, among whom his mission chiefiy lay, he did
not possess that superiority over the other apostles which is
commonly imagined. Justly, therefore, might we apply to a
Christian who should zealously assert the classical purity of
our apostle's style, the rebuke which our Lord once gave to
o2

214 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL,
Peter, on an Occasion not unsimilar : Thou savourest not the
things that be of God, but the things that be of men, Matt.
xvi. 23. The weakness, the inifrmity, or, if you will, the
insufficiency of these messengers of the new covenant, was
their glory and their boast. Their motive was, that the
power of Christ might rest upon them, 2 Cor. xii. 9, and
be manifested by them. To men of the world, indeed, the
doctrine appeared not more foolish, than the ministry was
weak. I have now, as I purposed, in the first place, shown the
inability of the natural means employed in promulgating the
gospel, to effect the end.
I proceed to consider, secondly, the rapid and unexampled '
success of the means that were employed. As to the rapidity
of the success, need I use many words to erince a point so evi
dent, and so universally acknowledged ? The canon of Scrip
ture was not finished, that generation had not passed, when
Jesus Christ had disciples and churches in Judea, Samaria,
Syria, Phenicia, Mesopotamia, Arabia, the countries of Asia
Minor, Greece, Macedonia, Italy, Egypt, and as far as Ethi
opia. This we learn, partly from the books of the New Tes
tament, partly from the authentic remains of the apostoUc
fathers. Whilst the faith of the gospel was deeply rooted
in all those who professed it ; whilst nothing but faith could
induce any one to make the profession; whilst the professors
themselves were harassed on every side with the most riolent
persecutions, — 'the Church of Christ, in spite of all oppo
sition, and every species of discouragement, increased daily.
In less than three centuries, — for I reckon not from the birth
of Christ, but, as in a computation of this kind we ought to
reckon, from the first pubUcation of the gospel at Jerusa
lem on the day of Pentecost, — ^in less than three centuries,
Christiariity haring pierced into Gaul, Spain, Britain, and
the African countries lying on the Mediterranean, became
the predominant religion of the Roman Empire, which com
prehended the p-reater and better part of the then known
world. Nor was its extent Umited by the empire : it did
indeed, with v/onderful celerity, overspread the most populous

A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. -ilO
countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Since its establish
ment by human laws, it has been put on so different a foot
ing, and the methods taken for propagating it have been, on
some occasions at least, so completely altered, and so little
warranted by the spirit and precepts of that religion, that
the success or want »f success of these methods can hardly
affect our present argument.
Now, as it is admitted on all hands, that the success of the
first preachers of the gospel was great and rapid, I maintain,
that it stUl remains unexampled. I do not mean to state a
comparison between conversion and conquest; between sub
duing the mind by persuasion, by what our apostle empha
ticaUy caUs the foolishness of preaching, 1 Cor. i. 21, and
conquering the body by the sword. In the one, both the
reason and the wiU are gained by teaching ; in the other, a
feigned assent is sometimes extorted by riolence, and main
tained by terror. It does not therefore in the least concern
my argument, what the success was of the Mahometan, I say
not doctrine, but arms. Their engine was war, not preach
ing. The weapons of their warfare were carnal, those of the
gospel spiritual.. Their aim was submission, not belief ; the
external profession of the mouth, not the internal conviction
of the understanding. When the hke methods came to be
adopted by Christians, (for too soon, alas! they were adopted,
a sure sign that the reUgion of Jesus was then grossly cor
rupted' and debased,) the success is doubtless to be accounted
for in the same manner. Every candid person wUl admit, that
the success of Charlemagne over the Saxons, is no more an
eridence of dirine favour than that of Mahomet over the Arabs.
But when all attempts of this kind are set aside, one will
perhaps be at a loss what to bring into comparison with the
first promulgation of the gospel. It is not, however, for want
of numerous and repeated trials, even in the way of preach
ing; but when the effect is inconsiderable, or not corres
pondent to the expectation raised, the attempt itself comes
gradually to be either quite forgotten, or little minded.
Crusades, wars, and massacres, have not been the only
methods employed by Rome, not over-scrupulous about the
means, when the advancement of the hierarchy, that is, the

216 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL,
extension of her empire, is the end. She knows how to
employ preachers, as well as inquisitors, executioners, and
soldiers. Nay, it is no more than doing her justice to acknow
ledge, that no church whatever, no state, no society, has done
half so much in this way as she has done. But with what
effect ? Has there appeared, in any p'art of the world, even
where her missionaries have been most numerous, any fruits
of their missions which bear a resemblance to the fruits so
quickly produced everywhere by the apostles of our Lord ?
Let the most sanguine votaries of that church, who know any
thing of the matter, say so, if they dare.
What then is the reason of the difference ? Had the latter,
the apostles of our Lord, any advantages (observe, I speak
of human and natural advantages) which the former, the
Popish missionaries had not ? Quite the reverse. Every such
advantage has been on the side of the missionary, not one on
the side of the apostles. They are not ignorant artificers of
the lowest class whom Rome engages in such a business.
She has too much worldly wisdom (notwithstanding her
arrogant and not very consistent pretence to miracles) ever to
employ such messengers. Neither do her apostles go without
the utmost preparation, that not only a leamed education,
according to the times, can give them, but such particular
instructions, study, and disciphne, as will serve best to quahfy
them to accoriimodate themselves to those to whom they are
sent, to gain upon the people, and to bear vrith fortitude the
difficulties and hardships they may be obhged to encounter.
It is plain, therefore, that she puts no confidence in her
supernatural powers, and acts precisely as though she were
conscious she had none. Indeed, since the estabhshment at
Rome of the congregation de propagandd fide, no attention,
no pains, no expense, have been spared, that could serve for
procuring all necessary information, in regard to the lan
guages, arts, manners, and customs of the different nations
and tribes to whom it is judged proper to send preachers;
that they may be furnished, as much' as possible, with every
human and natural assistance for the work in which they are
engaged. Yetwhat has been the success hitherto ? If one were
to judge by the exaggerated accounts that have sometimes

A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 217
been given by the missionaries themselves, we should think
them wonderful indeed. But if we judge by the more im
partial representations given by others, or by, what is still a
better criterion, the remaining effects of their missions, we
must pronounce them inconsiderable. In many places there
is not now a vestige of their labours : In other places, the
teaces that have been left are, I may say, equivocal as well as
few. Father Charlevoix, one of thefr- own people, in his ac
count of the North American savages, observes, that the mis
sions had been very unsuccessful among them ; and, what is
more surprising, mentions one missionary, who had ingra
tiated himself so far with one of thefr tribes, that they would
even have chosen him for their chief, who nevertheless had
not been able to persuade one single person among them to
embrace Christiaaoity.*
Well, but if the attempts have not proved so successful in
the West, what wonders in the way of conversion have not
been performed by Saint Francis Xarier and his associates
in the East? Indeed there is no man in these latter ages who
has been so much, and I beheve so deservedly, celebrated
for his labours in this way, as this friar, whom Rome has
dignified with the titie of The Apostle of the Indies. He
was certainly a most zealous promoter of a cause which he
doubtless beheved to be the cause of God. His pious inten
tions deserve the commendation of those who can pity his
errors and absurdities. Regard to the voice of conscience,
even though a misinformed conscience, is still respectable.
But is it not weU knovm, that this famous missionary was not
only a man of leaming, the best that was then to be had,
but, along with his companions, acted under the auspices of
the viceroy of Goa, the metropolis of the Portuguese settle
ments in India ; and where, for the greater security of the
faith, they soon thought proper to estabUsh the inquisition ?
Is it not erident, that in most places where the missionaries
exercised thefr function, they were under the protection of the
rictorious fieets and armies of the King of Portugal ? And
even where these had not reached, the terror of their name
had reached, and was of no little serrice to these itinerant
* Letter xxxi.

218 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL,
teachers. How unlike the case of the poor fishermen of Ga
lilee ? Miracles, indeed, stupendous miracles, were pretended
to by them, and those of their party : For we have only the
representations of one side. Itis surprising they were so often
at a loss for one miraculous power, the gift of tongues, so
common in the primitive church, which would have been of
greater service to them than all the rest together. This how
ever they laudably supplied the best way they could, by the
use of interpreters, as well as by study and apphcation.
An eminent French preacher of the last century has af
firmed, in a panegyrical sermon on this apostle of the Pope,
that he spread the light of the gospel through more than three
thousand leagues of country, and subjected no less than fifty-
two kingdoms to Jesus Christ. These are big words : But
where, I pray, is that country ? and where are those king
doms ? This is rather too riolent an hyperbole, even for an
orator. The conquests made by the Portuguese arms, in
like manner as those made since by other European powers,
Protestant as well as Popish, are not surely to be called
kingdoms converted by preaching the gospel. Yet, abstract
ing from these settlements, or, if ye will, usurpations, it
would be difficult to point out so much as one of those fifty-
two kingdoms subdued to Christ. Of the same kind is that
other assertion in the same discourse, that Xarier has more
than repaired in the East all the hurt done to Rome by
Luther and Calrin, and the other reformers (heresiarchs, as
he terms them) in the West. Can there be a clearer de
monstration of the little regard that is due to the word of a
panegyrist and party-man ? At this day, even in the East,
those reformers have more disciples than Rome has. But,
alas ! it is not by what the apostle calls the fooUshness of
preaching that disciples have been gained there to either
side. The greater part have been transplanted from Europe,
or are the descendants of those who were first transplanted
thither. The rest are the effects more of conquest than of
conversion. But what shall be said of the wonderful success of Xarier
in the islands of Japan ? It was indeed as signal as it has
proved transitory. Nothing could be more promising than

A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 219
the appearances were for some time. But there was a latent
seed of corruption in the doctrine which those missionaries
unknowingly misnamed the gospel, that, springing up, pro
duced a plentiful crop of its ordinary fruits, pride, ambition,
violence, and faction. These provoked a persecution, which
quickly terminated in the total extinction of that infant
church. Francis Solier, a Jesuit, who vw-ites the ecclesiastic
history of Japan, expresses his astonishment, that God
should have permitted the blood of so many martyrs to be
shed, without serring (as in the first ages of Christianity) as
a fruitftd seed for producing new Christians. But this can
be no matter of wonder to the inteUigent beUever. The
truth is, the cause was not more different at that time
(though under the same name) from what it had been, than
were the usual methods by which it was propagated, " The
Christianity of the sixteenth century," says a late writer,
" had no right to hope for the same favour and protection
from God, as the Christianity of the three first centuries.
The latter was a benign, gentle, and patient rehgion, which
recommended to subjects submission to their sovereign, and
did not endeavour to raise itself to the throne by rebellion.
But the Christianity preached to the infidels of the sixteenth
century was far different. It was a bloody, murderous reli
gion, that had been inured to slaughter for five or six hundred
years. It had contracted a very long habit of maintaining
and aggrandizing itself, by putting to the sword all that
resisted it. Fires, executions, the dreadful tribunal of the
inquisition, crusades, buUs exciting subjects to rebelhon, sedi
tious preachers, conspiracies, assassinations of princes, were
the ordinary methods employed against those who refused
submission to its orders."* The ingenuous confession of a
Spaniard, more honest, it would appear, than wise, may be
pleaded in justification of the sanguinary precautions taken by
the emperor of Japan. Being asked by the King of Tossa,
one of the Japanese isles, and probably one of the fifty-two
kingdoms mentioned by Bourdaloue, How the King of Spain
got possession of so great an extent of country in both
hemispheres 1 he answered frankly. That he used to send
* General Dictionary, Article Japan, Note E,
*

220 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL,
friars to preach the gospel to foreign nations ; and that,
after haring converted a considerable number of Heathens,
he sent his forces, who, joining with the new converts, con
quered the country. The Christians in that island (such
Christians as they were) paid dear for this indiscreet confes
sion. Poor, then, if we may judge by the present effects,
has been the success of their missions among barbarians.
Have they succeeded better in cirilized nations ? Their mis
sions in China, it is true, have subsisted for centuries. But
vrill the candid and judicious, even of that communion, say,
that the consequences have been proportioned to what might
have been expected from the assiduity, labour, and expense
bestowed on them ? Most Roman Catholics themselves con
sider the greater part of the Chinese proselytes as more than
half Pagans still. What will Protestants then reckon them?
I know not any thing done by Romanists in modern times,
that appears more favourable than what has been effected
by some Jesuits in the inland parts of South America, in
the country caUed Paraguay. But of this, I am afraid, we
have not as yet sufficient knowledge to enable us to form a
judgment that can be depended on. Some things, however,
will deserve our notice, that we may be satisfied that there is
no similarity in this case to the primitive pubUcation of the
gospel. In the first place, those Jesuits are to be considered
more as the founders of a polity than as the pubhshers of a
reUgion. Rehgion indeed makes an essential part of their
estabhshment : still it is but a part. Nothing could be more
opposite to the conduct of the apostles, whose sole object was
to preach the doctrine and law of Christ, and, vrithout in
terfering in the least vyith the rights of civil governors, to
bring men every-where to the obedience of the faith. I ob
serve, secondly, that instead of those poor, ilUterate, and ob
scure men, who first promulgated to the world the everlasting
gospel of the Son of God, we have here some select members
of an opulent, leamed, and political society, who were careful
to be preriously instructed in the language, manners, and
religious observances of the people whom they were to teach ;
men who had most attentively studied the pohcy of the ancient
South-American states, particularly of the Incas of Peru, and

A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 221
the arts they had successfuUy employed in subduing the fero
city of their neighbours. I observe, thirdly, that it was more
by insinuation, and indirectly, than by open and professed
teaching, that the knowledge of Christianity was introduced
by them. Thefr direct and only object long appeared to be
to teach those savages agriculture, the most necessary manu
factures, the art of buUding, and the other arts most condu
cive to cirilization ; and when in this way they had sufficiently
recommended themselves to their confidence, to take occasion
of inculcating, especially on the children intrusted to their
care, thefr rehgious principles. The method of the apostles
was much shorter ; they did not find the least necessity for
such artificial management.
Nor was it only in South America that the Popish mis
sionaries found it convenient to recur to these arts. Of how
much consequence it has been for promoting the success of
the Chinese mission, that those charged with it were able
mathematicians, astronomers, geographers, physicians, and
natural philosophers ; and how much thefr knowledge in the
sciences conduced to procure them the attention and respect
of the natives, all the world knows. Where was the man of
these modem apostles who could say, as the apostle Paul,
the poor Hebrew artisan, did to the Corinthians, I determined
not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him
crucified? Short, we may beheve, would have been their
abode in China, and in other places too, had they proceeded
on this plan. But Paul needed not to depend on any human
supplements or assistances whatever. Nothing indeed could
be more unlike, or rather greater contrasts, in aU respects,
than the first ambassadors and the last, those of Jesus Christ
and those of the Roman Pontiff. The last were possessed of
those accomphshments which preserved them from appearing
despicable to any : the manifest superiority of their knowledge
in the elegant, as weU as in many of the useful arts, made
them be respected as ahnost a superior order of beings, even
by those whom they could not persuade to tum Christian.
The first, on the contrary, on account of their low rank, and
ignorance of the arts of cirihzed Ufe, were acknowledged to
be, in many respects, but weak and contemptible instruments.

222 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL,
even by those who were converted by their ministry. This
was eridently the case of him who of them all had the best
pretensions to knowledge and education. Not to mention
the pageantry, even the rich sacerdotal vestments used by the
Romish clergy in their worship are naturally fitted to make
an impression on the senses, not only of barbarians, but of
the weak and superstitious even of polished nations. How
different must the ordinary and homely garments of the
primitive preachers have appeared, worn constantly in their
peregrinations ! for they were not permitted to carry with
them so much as a change of raiment. Matt. x. 1 0 ; Luke
ix. 3. Nor is this so tririal a circumstance as to some per
haps, on a superficial riew, it will appear. Yet, after all,
vrith every human and natural advantage, what have been the
fruits of the last labours compared with those of the first?
Have we not got ample reason, in this view also, to adopt
the apostle's words, and, on contrasting Christ's humble
delegates with the accomplished ambassadors of Rome, to
say, Where, now, is the wise ? where is the scribe ? where is the
disputer of this world? Hath not God made fooUsh the wisdom
of this world? For God hath chosen the foolish things of this
world to confound the wise, the weak to confound the mighty,
the base and the despised, yea and things that are not, to
bring to nought things that are, that no flesh should glory in
his presence. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men,
and the weakness of God is stronger than men. If riches and
learning, and the most refined pohcy, with the countenance
and support of the secular powers, cannot, though combined,
accomphsh what, in opposition to all these, is effected with
ease by poverty and ilUterate simplicity, can we hesitate a
moment in pronouncing. This is the finger of God?
I PROCEED, in the last place, to the improvement we ought
to make of the doctrine now explained.
The first use it points to, is to strengthen our faith in the
dirine original of the holy rehgion we profess. This is the
immediate conclusion of the premises I have been illustrating
and supporting. For if there was an utter inability in the
natural means employed in propagating the gospel, without

A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH.

223

divine interposition, to effectuate the end ; if the end, never
theless, has by these means been effectuated in a way which
no human and natural advantages whatever could emulate,
it must have been accompanied by divine interposition. Our
rehgion is therefore of God, and not of man.
If we do not enjoy the advantage of being eye-witnesses
of present miracles, we have sufficient evidence of those per
formed in ancient times. We have not only the amplest and
most unexceptionable testimony that they were performed,
but we have so many and so remarkable consequences of the
performance, as it is utterly impossible for us otherwise to
account for. Nor is this a modern riew of the matter, arising,
as might be supposed, fr-om our ignorance, and the distance
of that period : It is, on the contrary, a very ancient and
striking argument ; and seems, from the first ceasing of mi
raculous powers, to have affected every judicious and refiecting
Christian. Observe how Augustine, who Uved above fourteen
hundred years earher than we, and who had good occasion
to know what the effects of the apostohc labours had been,
argues with the infidels of his day fr-om the same topic.
" If," says he, " ye wiU not beUeve the mfracles ofthe apos
tles, ye must at least beheve this mfracle, that the world was
by such instruments, without mfracles, converted." This
was, in his judgment, as it is, for the reasons I have assigned,
also in mine, more incredible, or, if ye vrill, more miraculous,
than aU the miracles which the gospel requires us to beheve.
I repeat it. The reality of the supernatural facts recorded in
holy writ, is the oidy plausible, the only rational account that
can be given of the effects produced, both on the first pro
pagators of the faith themselves, and on their hearers, Jews
and Gentiles of aU denominations. On every other hypo
thesis, at every step I advance, I meet with difficulties insur
mountable. To say, that these poor, simple, unbred, ignorant,
timid men, purposely derised so unfeasible an imposture,
and, wretchedly Ul-prorided as they were for so desperate
an enterprise, attempted at aU risks to persuade the world,
on their word, to receive it, is to me an absurdity equal to
any that can be found in the most legendary performance.
I do not find it one jot more admissible to affirm, that they

224 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL,
had preriously imposed upon themselves, and believed the
falsehoods they advanced. No enthusiasm, no fanaticism,
nothing less than insanity, vrill account for such delusion in
a matter, not of opinion or speculation, but (as it was to
them) of sense, of sight, and feeUng. And if, to all their
other disadvantages, they were really insane or frantic,
their success will, if possible, be still more wonderful. Such
is the misfortune of the infidel solutions of this matter, that
if you attempt to hghten any part of their scheme of those
weights that oppress it, you are sure to lay a hearier load on
some other part. And indeed, without the addition of mad
ness or idiocy, the success of such men in such an under
taking, supposing no interposal of heaven, requfres a greater
share of credulity to admit, than will be found requisite in a
reasonable Christian.
God has not, in respect of revealed, any more than in re
spect of natural religion, left himseh" without a witness. Suffi
cient eridence has been, and will be always given. But diffe
rent sorts of eridence suit the different stages of the church.
Visible miracles were proper, they were even necessary, to
attest a revelation pretending to be from God ; an event
really miraculous, but needing attestation, because not sensi
bly so to those who did not receive it immediately from
Heaven. The fruits produced by the miracles then wrought,
and which, on every other supposition but the truth of the
miracles, are totally inexplicable ; and the fulfilment of pro
phecies then given, which we may call intelligible, if not
palpable miracles, are the eridences that suit more the ma
turity of the church. The intrinsic evidence arising from
the nature and genius of the dispensation itself, belongs ahke
to every period. Things are better balanced than we ima
gine. In the third and fourth centuries they had "a nearer
and therefore doubtless a distincter view of the amazing
success which had attended the first preaching of the gospel,
notwithstanding all the disadvantages the preachers laboured
under. But then they could not know so weU from experi
ence as we of later ages may, that it is not in the power of
all human talents, natural and acquired, though combined
together, to produce a parallel to that success.

A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 225
Let us not therefore fancy ourselves excused in our unbe
lief, or disobedience, because we have not precisely that sort
of eridence which others had. If we resist sufficient evidence,
we are equaUy culpable with those who were regardless of all
the proofs, those demonsteations of the Spirit and of power,
that were given by our Lord and his apostles. If we do not
enjoy the advantages of those of that age, we do not labour
under thefr disadvantages, which are more considerable than
we perhaps are aware of. Such are the inveterate prejudices
which thefr education had infused, in direct opposition to the
doeteine, and the contempt, nay even the ridicule, which the
paltry appearance (as in the language of the world we should
term it) of those heavenly ambassadors could not faU to cre
ate. These things tend more to preclude attention and inquiry
than men are apt to think. It is with the understanding, the
eye of the mind, as vrith the bodUy eyes : However good they
are, and however strong the Ught may be, they vriU never
perceive that from which they are always tumed.
I OBSERVE, secondly. That from any thing hitherto ad
vanced, we cannot justly infer the inutility of human leam
ing in the cause of rehgion. It was for a special reason, and
in singular cfrcumstances, that God was pleased to reject the
use of it in the first promulgation of the gospel. When this
new dispensation was ushered into the world, that its origin
might be nowise equivocal, the aid of power, riches, leaming,
and oratory, which have great infiuence on the minds of men,
was absolutely rejected : the very reverse were chosen in the
insti-uments God saw meet to employ — ^weakness, poverty,
ignorance of the world, and ofthe arts and sciences ; that no
considerate person might be at a loss to what to ascribe the
effects produced ; that the exceUency of the power, to the
conriction of every impartial spectator, might be of God,
and not of man. There was a time, and a time of great
danger too, it was in the reign of Jehoshaphat, when God
by his prophet commanded his people not to be dismayed, or
even to fight for the common safety ; teUing them, that the
battle was God's ; that they needed only to stand stiU, and
see the salvation of the Lord with them, 2 Chron. xx. 14, &c.

226 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL,
In hke manner, when God delivered Israel from the Midi
anites by the hand of Gideon, of an army of thirty-two thou
sand he permitted only three hundred to go to battle, and
with so smaU a force totally routed an innumerable host of
ahens. Judges rii. 1 , &c. But neither of these cases was ac
cording to the usual procedure of Providence. On aU ordinary
occasions, it was the express command of heaven, to all that
were capable, to fight for their brethren, their sons and their
daughters, thefr vrives and their houses, remembering the
Lord, who is great and terrible, and confiding in him, Neh.
iv. 14. It is only in extraordinary cases (such as the first
promulgation of the gospel) that the ordinary means are dis
pensed vrith. These are in part the talents which God re
quires us to lay out in his serrice.
There have been some who, without attending to the pe
culiarity of the case, have rashly concluded, from some
expressions in the New Testament, that learning of every kind
is rather an obstruction than a help in propagating religion.
But on this topic they preserve no uniformity in their manner
of arguing. Who will deny, that we ought to study the lan
guage of a people who speak a different language, before we
attempt to instruct them ? Yet this branch of learning was
as much superseded by the gift of tongues, so common in the
apostolic church, as the other branches were by the other
supernatural gifts. And they were all set aside for the same
reason — not a natural unfitness, but, on the contrary, a natu
ral fitness, for attracting respect, and producing persuasion ;
since, in consequence of this fitness, the effect might errone
ously be ascribed to them ; and the miraculous interposition
of Heaven, to which alone it ought to be attributed, might be
excluded or overlooked. In that singular case, the battle was
God's peculiarly : The people were to stand still, and see his
salvation : Nothing was to be done but by particular direc
tion. Now he chooses to operate by the intervention of
natural means, and commands us to quit us like men, assidu
ously to exert every talent that may with probability be pro
fitably employed in this serrice. The common reply, though
true, is not satisfactory. That human learning has by misap
plication been greatly abused in matters of religion ; for what

A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. ^327
talent is there that has not been abused and misappUed ? But
if, on account of the abuse, we were to renounce the use of
a thing in itself good, all means whatever ought to be laid
aside : even preaching, than which nothing has been more
abused, must be given up for ever.
Let it not be imagined, that what was said in regard to the
use made of arts and sciences by the Popish missionaries, was
with a riew to condemn or discredit such expedients ¦: it was
only with an intention to show, that there were many causes
to which the success of those missionaries, comparatively
httle, might be attributed, without recurring to miracles;
whereas there was nothing that could account for the asto
nishing success of the apostles, in whom all those advantages
were wanting, but miracles alone. It was not to depreciate
the wisdom of man, but to show that the foolishness of God
is wiser. So far from condemning the Roman Catholics in
this, I approve, I applaud thefr zeal, their soUcitude, their
perseverance : I only regret they are so much mistaken in
the object ; and that it is not for the simple truth as it is in
Jesus, that these quahties are exercised. I exceedingly re
gret, that it has fared with the gospel in their hands, as it did
with the Mosaic law in the hands of the Scribes and Phari
sees — that the precepts and glosses of men have corrupted
and disfigured the word of God ; and that the traditions of
the Romish, as formerly of the Jewish rabbies, have, in many
instances, rendered the divine commandment of none effect.
If our industry were equal to theirs, we might well expect
superior success from the superiority of our cause. Let us
not hesitate to take example in what is praiseworthy from those
whom in other respects we disapprove. Our Lord did not
scruple to recommend to his disciples, as a lesson of pru
dence, the provident care even of an unfaithful steward; For
the children of this world, says he, are in their generation
wiser than the children of Ught, Luke xri. 8. The Romanists
claim the high prerogative of working miracles ; yet they
pursue such politic measures as show that they lay no stress
on that pririlege. There are, on the other hand, enthusiasts
who, though they do not in words arrogate supernatural
power, act as if they possessed it, treating with contempt the

228 THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL,
ordinary and natural means. Both are in extremes ; and I
shall only say of them, that if the latter speak with more
honesty, the former act with more judgment.
Still, however, we are to be understood vrith this limitation,
that the means Employed must never be repugnant to the
unalterable rule of truth and right, or to the spirit of that
holy religion which we desire to propagate. A good end
will never sanctify bad means. Men have too often, in the
cause of God, as they pretended, had recourse to deceit and
riolence. These unhallowed instruments, so contradictory
to the precepts, and so subversive of the spirit of the gospel,
they have thought they consecrated, by christening them
pious frauds, and wholesome severities. Let us ever remem
ber, that it is impossible that the God of mercy and truth
should accept such detestable offerings : Thou shalt destroy
them that speak leasing, says Darid. The Lord will abhor
both the bloody and the deceitful man. Psalm v. 6.
I observe, thirdly, and I conclude vrith it. That though
in these days no missions can hope for success comparable
to that which attended the ministry of the apostles, this con
sideration ought not to discourage such attempts, or lessen
the ardour of Christians for the advancement of the gospel.
It was fitting that' the ministry of the Son of God, and of
his elect servants, by whom the foundations of the church
were laid, should be signalized by the most glorious manifes
tations of dirine presence and agency. This was to serve to
all future ages as a proof that the commission came from God.
But let it not be suspected by any, that God vrill ever fail
to countenance the cause of his Son, the cause of truth and
rirtue, and to honour those vrith his approbation who exert
themselves to promote it. For one to say, " Because I can
not do good equal to that which vrith the aid of miracles the
first preachers of the gospel did, I will do none at all," would
be talking neither like a Christian nor like a reasonable per
son. The great and the rich have it in their power to be
more extensively useful to their fellow creatures than the
ignoble and the poor : are the latter therefore exempted
from being as useful as they can ? God requfres of every man

A PROOF OF ITS TRUTH. 229
according to what he has, and not according to what he has
not, 2 Cor. riu. 12. WiU it be a good apology for tiie ser
vant who receives one talent, to say, " Because I received
not, hke some others, five talents, I thought it unnecessary to
employ myself in the improvement of so small a stock ?" The
case of indiriduals, and that of whole generations, is in this
respect simUar. To do what we can to diffuse the light of
the gospel, and communicate the benefits thereof to others,
is what every motive of piety to God and benevolence to men
requires of us. And we may say, with the greatest justice,
that none deserve better of mankind, than those whose labour
and wealth are employed in promoting the interests of their
fellow-creatiu-es, the most valuable for time and for eternity.
For this reason, the disciples of Jesus will entertain a due
veneration for that truly Christian and truly patriotic Soci
ety, who have honoured me with thefr commands to address
you on this occasion. Their assiduous attention has long
been fixed, and by the blessing of Heaven has not been fixed
Ul vain, on the most subhme and important of aU objects,
the extension of the kingdom of Messiah, and the salvation
of the souls of men. I speak not thus to eonrince you ofthe
just title they have to your esteem : This is a very small
matter to those who seek not the praise of men, but that
which comes from G od, the omniscient and unerring Judge.
But I speak to awaken the same zeal in the breasts of you,
my hearers, and to excite every one of this assembly to co
operate, to the utmost of his power, in promoting the same
noble ends.
And let us all add fervent prayers to strenuous and rirtuous
endeavours. Pray, said Darid, Psalm cxxii. 6, for the peace
of Jerusalem. Our Jemsalem is the church of Christ, the
antitype of that metropohs, the true city of the great King.
Of HER we may justly say. They shall prosper that love thee.
Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy
palaces ! For our brethren and companions' sakes we will
say. Peace be within thee. Because of the house of the
Lord our God, we will seek thy good.
p2

THE HAPPY INFLUENCE OF RELIGION ON CIVIL
SOCIETY:

SEEMOIf,
PREACHED
AT THE ASSIZES AT ABERDEEN,
SUNDAY, MAY 23, 1?79.

SERMON III.

Prov. xiv. 34.
Righteousness exalteth a nation.
There is no subject on which libertines show more incon
sistency, than on what regards the advantages derived from
rehgion to eiril society. When their design is to vindicate
thefr open contempt of its principles, and violation of its pre
cepts, they faU not to represent it as a burden both intolerable
and unnecessary, and which, without yielding any benefit
that can be caUed a compensation for so great a sacrifice, re
qufres a degree of self-denial that nearly approaches to a re
nunciation of Uberty. On the other hand, when they attempt
to account for its origin, and the universality of its reception
in some form or other throughout the world, they constantly
recur to the arts of poUticians, who have seen the absolute
necessity of this expedient for keeping the people in subjec
tion, and adding authority to thefr laws. They do not seem
to advert, that these pleas are incompatible with each other ;
and that, in regard at least to the utihty of rehgion, they
confessedly oppose the common sense of mankind ; since they
exhibit the leaders, and lawgivers, in every nation, as concur
ring, though not by concert, in the conviction, that without
the reverence of some power superior to human, man would
be ungovernable. Yet the behef of the existence and agency
of such a power is, on other occasions, treated with ridicule
by those sages, and represented as a principle not only use
less, but extremely cumbersome. And if, upon reflection,
any of them relax a httle on this article, and admit that it
maybe of use that the gross of mankind believe the superin
tendency of a Supreme Being over the affairs of the world,
particularly over the actions of men, they ought doubtless to
account those persons bad citizens as weU as infidels, who, by

234 THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION
their practice, conversation, or writings, attempt to under
mine such useful principles, and, as far as in them lies, to
loose the bands which, by giring additional strength to so
cial duties, bind men more closely to one another.
Though it were easy to demonstrate, both from the nature
of the thing, and from the most authentic history, that reli
gion neither is, nor could have been, (as some have profanely
represented it,) a state device for keeping the" people in awe ;
it must be owned, that the necessity thereof for preserring
the peace and order, and for promoting the happiness of
social life, was very early observed, and has been universally
acknowledged. But, as there may be some, who, though
they admit the fact in general, may not clearly perceive the
connexion, and consequently may not be sufficiently fortified
against the carils of infidelity and scepticism, now so common,
I purpose at this time to lay before you some of the principal
arguments, whereby religion is proved to be of the utmost
importance to the security and weU-being of eiril society.
This happy tendency of the reUgious character to advance
national prosperity, is, in my judgment, the sentiment in
tended to be conveyed by Solomon in my text. Righteousness
exalteth a nation. For though, by the word righteousness.,
sometimes no more is meant than the rirtue oi justice, it much
oftener in Scripture language denotes " the conscientious
observance of our duty resulting from the fear of God," and^.
in this acceptation, is equivalent to the term religion. Now,
to the prevalence of this principle the vrise king of Israel
ascribes, in a great measure, the flourishing state of a nation
or polity. To illustrate his sentiment is the scope of the
present discourse.
Ye ask, " How is religion conducive to the exaltation and
felicity of the body-poUtic or nation ? " I answer. It conduces
to this end in these four different ways : by the tendency and
extent of its laws ; by the nature and importance of its sanc
tions ; by the assistance which it gives to the civil powers,
both in securing fidehty and in discovering truth ; and by
the positive enforcement of equity and good government on
the rulers, and of obedience and submission on the people.
Let it be observed, that though, in this discourse, I speak of

ON CIVIL SOCIETY. 235
rehgion in general, I am always to be understood as referring
to the Christian reUgion in particular. It is indeed true, that
even those religions, if we may call them so, many or most
of whose fundamental principles are erroneous, may, in a
poUtical view, be considered as beneficial, and infinitely pre
ferable to atheism or total irreligion ; yet it is certain, that in
this, as well as in other more important respects, no form of
superstition cari bear to be compared with that religion which
alone has God for its author, and the greatest good of man
kind, both temporal and eternal, for its object.
I proceed to make a few observations, and your time vrill
admit but a few, on the four heads of discourse now men
tioned. They are so many topics of argument, by which the
great truth contained in my text. That righteousness, or true
and practical reUgion, exalteth a nation, is at once both ex
plained and erinced.
I. I begin with showing, that rehgion conduces to the wel
fare of the community, by the tendency and extent of its laws.
Conceming the tendency of the laws of the Christian in
stitution, it is impossible for an inteUigent person to doubt,
that it is to promote the happiness of human society. The
whole of practical reUgion is summed up by the great Author
and Finisher of our faith, in two fundamental precepts. Matt.
xxii. 37 — 40 : The flrst enjoins us to love God with all our
heart, and with all our soul, and with all our mind : The se
cond, wluch is Uke to the first, and founded on it, enjoins us to
love our neighbour as ourselves. The apostle Paid accordingly
has, with great propriety, comprehended all social duties in
the latter of these precepts. Owe no man any thing, says he,
Rom. xii. 8 — 10, but to love one another; for he that loveth
another, hath fulfilled the law. For this. Thou shalt not com
mit adultery; Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not steal;
Thou shalt not bear false witness ; Thou shalt not covet ; and
if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended
in this saying, namely. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy
self. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour ; therefore love is
the fulfilling of the law. To the same purpose our blessed
Lord, Matt. vii. 12, has comprised all the duties incumbent

2S6 THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION
on every man to every other, under this exceUent moral
maxim. Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye
even so to them : for this, he adds, is the law and the prophets.
It would be mispending time to attempt to prove, that the
strict observance of these precepts would both prevent the
greatest erils which disturb the peace of society, and would
conduce, in the highest degree, to promote mutual confidence,
harmony, and good-wiU, among fellow-citizens. This is a
truth so evident, that, as far as I can learn, it has never been
denied or disputed by any: It has only been regretted, that
we have so few examples of the influence of precepts so inef
fably important and divine. But this very regret implies a
conviction, or rather is a confession of their goodness, and of
the happy effect which religion must have on society, where-
ever it meets with a suitable reception.
I include under this head not only the tendency, but the
extent of the laws of rehgion. In regard to their tendency,
there is a manifest co-operation with the municipal laws of aU
weU-governed countries, whereby the persons, the Uves, the
liberty, and the property of the people are secured from un
just invasion or attack. But in point of extent, the difference
Ues here. It is the aim of religion to remove the causes of
those calamities by which society is injured, whilst human
laws reach only their destructive consequences. These crop
the weeds, but the other plucks them up by the roots. The
only things which are, or can be, subject to man's jurisdiction,
are what we call overt acts, that is, external and discoverable
actions ; the principles of the heart, out of which are the
issues of life, are subject to God's jurisdiction, and to it only.
There is a weakness or imperfection inherent in the former,
and incurable, inasmuch as it necessarily results from the im
perfection of human knowledge and of human power. It is
solely by the influence of rehgion, that this deficiency can, in
any measure, be supplied. When the dirine testimony is
received vrith faith and love, it applies medicine to the spiri
tual diseases, and gives health and rigour to the soul. Hu
man laws, for the protection of peace and good order in
society, may concur with the dirine law in sajdng. Thou shalt
not commit adultery, Exod. xx. 14 ; but it is only the word

ON CIVIL SOCIETY. 237
of God that teacheth us, That whosoever looketh on a ivoman
to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in
his heart. Matt. v. 28. By the former, indeed, we are com
manded to do no murder : From the latter we learn, that
whosoever hateth his brother is, in God's account, a murderer,
1 John iii. 15. It suits the language even of human law
givers to say, " Thou shalt not steal :" But it belongs
pecuharly to the dirine authority to add. Thou shalt not
covet, Exod. xx. 17. This chaiacter of religion, under the
titie of " The word of God," is admirably well delineated
by the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. The word
of God, says he, Heb. iv. 12, is quick and powerful,
and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to
the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints
and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents
of the heart.
Thus it is erident, that reUgion, in respect both of the
salutary tendency of its precepts, and of their extent, as
reaching to the purifying of the heart, must, wheresoever it
is beUeved, conduce greatly even to the temporal happiness
and flourishing state of the community.
II. I proceed, in the second place, to show, that religion
eminently promotes the same end, by the nature and impor
tance of its sanctions, the rewards which it promises, and the
punishments which it, threatens.
It has been often pleaded on this topic, and sometimes
with an afr of triumph, that though the sanctions of human
laws are but temporal, and those of rehgion mostly eternal ;
yet as the former are risible and more immediate, and the
latter inrisible and more remote, the former have incompa
rably greater influence over the generaUty of men than the
latter. But were we to admit this as a fact, it does not over
turn my argument. In every statute of man which does not
contradict the commandment of God, religion leaves the hu
man and legal sanctions to operate with thefr ftdl force upon
its votaries. If its pecuUar sanctions are admitted to be of
any weight at all, (and it can hardly be thought that they
wiU not weigh with some,) they are just so much weight

238 THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION
superadded to the other, and contributing to the same end,
the pubhc welfare.
But as to the comparative influence of the two kinds of
sanctions, those of religion and those of the legislature, it
appears to best advantage when the laws of reUgion and the
laws of the state unfortunately run counter to each other.
This was actually the case of the primitive Christians, when
Christianity was persecuted, and the very profession of it
declared criminal. Were there not some, were there not
even multitudes, who then showed the inflnite superiority of
its sanctions over all that human art and malice could set in
opposition to them ? Were there not then those whose con
duct demonstrated, that they had thoroughly imbibed that
great lesson given by their Master, Be not afraid of them that
kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do :
But fear him, which, after he hath killed, hath power to cast
into hell? Luke xii. 4, 5. Were there not then those who
showed, in the most conrincing manner, that the Uvely hope
of a glorious immortahty can surmount the horror of instant
death, accompanied with ignominy and torture ? Rehgion
and the State were then at variance. And though the con
flict was purely defensive on the part of the former, 'and
what, to judge after the manner of men, we should pro
nounce very unequal, inasmuch as she never, even in self-
defence, employed the arm of flesh, those earthly weapons
which were so cruelly used against her — her patience and
perseverance were at length crowned with rictory, and, not
withstanding her many disadvantages, she triumphed over
all opposition. Now, if religion was then, though a passive
yet so formidable an adversary, when forced, against her
natural bent, to take an adverse part, have we not reason to
beUeve, that when, in conformity to her native disposition,
she is engaged in the same cause, she will prove an active
and a powerful ally ?
But it is not barely by the addition of the sanctions of
heaven, hell, and etemity, to those of the municipal laws,
fomided in the principles of natural justice, that reUgion co-,
operates with the civil powers, promoting the same end, the
peace of society ; there are many cases wherein the sanctions

ON CIVIL SOCIETY. 239
of the latter have no influence at all, whilst those of the for
mer operate with all their force. " It is a very small mat
ter," said an ancient Heathen,* " to be good in the legal
sense." The reason is, those transgressions whicli come un
der the cognizance of human tribunals, must be in a parti
cular manner cfrcumstanced, so as to be comprehended in
the precise deflnition which the legislature has adopted.
Hence it happens, as every judicious person vrill admit, that
a man may be notoriously a consummate villain, a disobe
dient son, an unnatural father, a cruel husband, a tyranni
cal master, a Utigious neighbour, and in every respect a bad
citizen, whom nevertheless no human laws can reaeh. Nor
is there a possibUity of redressing this grievance in any po
lity, but by what would prove a still greater grievance, by
conferring on magistrates and judges such a latitude of dis
cretionary power as would render them quite arbitrary.
The case is very different with the sanctions of religion,
which always regard the motive, the disposition and the in
tention of the agent, more than the outward cfrcumstances
of the action.
Further, though the crime should be such as to fall exact
ly under the description of the law, it may be so secretly
committed, as to elude the eye of even the most rigilant
magistracy: And where, in that case, is the curb against
the blackest guUt, if none is to be found in rehgion ? Our
judges, being men, are necessarily weak and iniperfect.
They require informations, the examination of witnesses,
and other sorts of eridence. In rehgion, the same just, om
niscient, and aU-perfect Being, is both the witness and the
judge. How admirably is the strength of this motive illus
trated in the story of Joseph ! He seems to have been
secure from aU human detection. But he well knew, that
there was a witness greater than man, from whose all-seeing
eye it was impossible he should be screened : How can I do
this great wickedness, said he, and sin against God? Gen.
xxxix. 9.
It is but too erident, that in this hcentious age we have
few such examples. But what does the smaUness of the
* Exiguum est quiddam ad legem boDum esse, — Seneca.

240 THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION
number erince ? Not the want of efficacy in the sanctions of
reUgion to prove a check on men's actions, but the want of re
hgion amongst us to supply by its sanctions a check on ours.
It does not refute the position of the royal Preacher, that by
the blessing of the upright the city is exalted, Prov. xi. 11 ;
it only shows, that there are few upright in the city to exalt
and bless it. Religion operates solely by faith. It has no in
fluence on any, farther than it is believed. We cannot then
wonder, that, in those walks of life wherein scepticism and
infldelity abound, we should flnd the utmost dissoluteness of
manners. We might justly wonder, were it otherwise. A
corrupt tree cannot produce good fruit, no more than a
good tree can produce eril fruit. What diabolical pains
and assiduity have not sometimes been employed, especially
among those of superior rank, to extirpate every religious
principle from the minds of females, whose more delicate
sensibihty renders them more susceptible than men of the
influence of rehgion ? And what has been the consequence
of this, which is indeed the worst species of debauchery ? In
too many, such an open disregard to the most sacred engage
ments, such shameless profligacy as, in that sex, was vrithout
example in this country in former ages. But those men have
no title to complain of the effects, who, by their dissolute
example, and stiU more by their impious conversation, have
proved the principal cause of the evil.
Again, where is the check, but from the sanctions of reU
gion, on those despotic princes who have raised themselves
by thefr arms, or have been raised by a servile people; above
aU law and control ? To such men, religion, and rehgion
only, can be of power enough to curb the riolence of the pas
sions. And where there is no religion, there is no restraint.
Every considerate person will admit, that the conclusion
formed by Abraham, Gen. xx. 11, that there could be no
security for his wife's person, or his own life, against the un
bridled desires of an arbitrary prince, who might do what he
pleased, was a just and natural conclusion from the princi
ple assumed by him. That there was no fear of God in that
place.

ON CIVIL SOCIETY. 241
For, let it be observed further, that rehgion is not entire
ly without influence, even on those who are not entitled to
be called reUgious. It deters from the commission of crimes,
by its threatenings, those whom its charms have not allured
to the practice of virtue. An excellent illustration of the in
fluence of rehgion in the case of absolute monarchs, is given
by a late writer of great genius and peneteation : " A prince
who loves religion, and fears it, is a tame lion, which yields
to the hand that strokes him, and to the voice that soothes
him : He who fears rehgion, and hates it, is an untamed
lion, which bites the chain that restrains him from throwing
himself upon the passengers : He who has no religion, is
that terrible animal, unsubdued, and at large, which is
not sensible of his hberty but when he tears in pieces and
devours." *
Permit me to add on this head, that though the principal
sanctions of rehgion are future and eternal, these are not its
only sanctions. There are some which are present and tem
poral : The approbation and the reproach of conscience ; &
belief in the superintendency of Proridence, in the course of
which God is often pleased to defeat the secret machinations
of the vricked, making the mischief intended for another to
return upon the head of the contriver ; and not seldom to
bring unexpectedly to hght the hidden things of dishonesty,
to the disgrace of those who were the perpetrators, are, though
regarding the present life only, not to be considered as en
tfrely without effect.
Thus I have shown, in the second place, that rehgion pro
motes the peace and prosperity of the nation, by the nature
and importance of its sanctions.
III. I maintain, thirdly. That it promotes the same end,
by the aid which it gives to the civil powers, both in securing
fldehty, and in discovering truth.
Men's conriction of the weakness of all human ties, when
opposed to some powerful inducement from interest, ambi
tion, or sensuahty ; their consciousness how little, in case of
such a competition, faithfulness could be secured by any
* De TEsprit des Loix, liv. xxiv, ch, 2,

242 THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION
promise, or veracity by any protestation, has made them uni
versally borrow help from rehgion, to fumish them with
an additional security in aid of human engagements and alle
gations. Hence the origin of oaths, not only of fideUty to a
trust, and of aUegiance, but also in matters of eridence, in
bearing testimony, both in eiril causes and in criminal. Now,
an oath is in fact a solemn appeal to God, who knows all
things, who has distinguished himself by the title of the God
of truth, and who is the avenger of aU deceit and vrickedness.
By connecting vrith the affirmation a declared sense of the
Divine presence and justice, a he is loaded with the guilt of
impiety ; and that which would otherwise have been consi
dered, though unjustly, as but a venial trespass, a shght de
parture from the duty we owe to others, is riewed in the
more atrocious light of an affront to the Majesty of Heaven
whose omniscience appears to be directly insulted, and whose
omnipotence appears to be defied.
I do indeed most readUy admit, that as in every Ue there
is an infringement of the law of God, a conscientious man
will, from motives of piety as well as justice, be restrained
from it. He knows, that aU sins whatever, even those called
sins of the second table, which are committed more dfrectly
against his neighbour, strike ultimately against God, the
supreme Legislator, of whose law they are the riolations ; and
for this reason I should not hesitate to pronounce of a truly
good man, that his word is equivalent to his oath. But, alas !
we have too much reason to think, that this integrity is not
so common as might be vrished. How far it is, where found,
to be attributed to a sense of religion, is submitted to the
candid and judicious ; but in regard to the bulk of mankind
we may safely affirm, that though reUgion meets not vrith
that reception which can empower it to influence the whole
tenor of their conduct, it so far impresses thefr imagination
as is sufficient for restraining them from the perpetration
of crimes, especiaUy such crimes as are universaUy accounted
the most flagitious. Now in this number perjury is always
classed. If even then this weak impression of a power supe
rior to human, this very imperfect degree of the fear of God,
were, by the universal prevalence of that atheism, and con-

ON CIVIL SOCIETY. 243
tempt of religion, which are risibly making rapid progress
amongst us, and alreadj- infecting the lower classes of men,
(if it were, I say,) totally banished the land, it may be re
ferred to the detemunation of those whom worldly considera
tions only can affect, whether this event, which appears so
desfrable to many, would conduce to the honour and purity
of our famiUes, tiie security of om- properties, liberties, and
lives. Amongst an unprincipled people, in whom is no beUef
of Deity or Providence, heaven, hell, or eternity, can we be
so vain as to imagine that there would be much regard to the
ties of truth and justice?
On those, whose bfrth, education, or circumstances, have
brought them into the upper walks of life, it has been often
thought, that a sense of honour would have considerable
influence, and prove an effectual restraint at least from some
rices, though there were very Uttle sense of virtue, and none
at aU of religion. But, as far as I can recollect, it has been
admitted by the sages of all times and countries, that, without
a sense of rehgion of some sort or other, there could be no
dependence upon the vulgar.
In respect of what is called a sense of honour, I beg leave
to remark, that as this principle does not regard the moral
prarity of the action, nor yet its pemicious consequences
either to indiriduals or to society, but solely the disesteem
wherein it happens to be among those caUed the fashionable
world; so there are some of the most enormous crimes, which,
in thefr effects, prove ruinous to indiriduals, and subversive
of the peace of famihes, from which this principle of honour
affords no protection whatever. It were easy to show, did
time permit at present, what horrid injustice, ingratitude,
treachery, cruelty, falseness, (for, in affairs of gaUantry, what
man of fashion thinks there is any thing dishonourable in the
breach of vows ?) nay, what worthlessness in many respects,
may be perfectly compatible vrith the unaccountable charac
ter, the offipring of pride and caprice, A Man of Honour.
And even in those few cases wherein something hke moral
quaUties, such as veracity and courage, come within its pre
cincts, as it always has respect to the opinions of others, the
sentiments in vogue ; so, wherever absolute secrecy can be
Q

244 THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION
secured, it is totally disarmed. Indeed, in regard to all those
rices which may be perpetrated in such a manner as to elude
discovery, and give a defiance to the most inquisitive curio
sity, where can be the curb on persons of any class, if all
sense of virtue and religion are wanting ?
" True," say some, " if both are wanting ; but will not
the former prove sufficient without the latter?" I shall only
answer. That though I will not presume to say what in every
supposable situation would possibly infiuence a human cha
racter, I will venture to pronounce, that if ye make a sepa
ration between those two which God and conscience have
joined together, and divorce reUgion from virtue, ye wiU find •
ye have deprived the latter of her steadiest friend, her best
comforter, her firmest support. And whatever may be the
pretences or appearances of human virtue, when destitute of
religion, I should not account him a very vrise man, who
would put equal confidence in her as in what Job denomi
nates man's true vrisdom, namely, the fear of the Lord, Job
xxriii. 28.
" Ay, but there are so many hypocrites that wear the mask
of rehgion, that one is not safe to place any trust here at
aU." True, some such characters are stiU to be found,
though hypocrisy cannot be accounted the vice of the age.
And do we not also sometimes find villains under the mask
of honesty ? Now, if no person in his senses ever imagined
that the detection of rillany brought a discredit on honest
men, or a suspicion that there is no honesty in the world,
can any thing but the grossest prejudice lead us to conclude
unfavourably of religion, because of the detection of some
hypocrites ? The standard coin never sinks in.our estimation,
in consequence of the many discoveries that are daily made
of artful but worthless counterfeits.
On the whole, therefore, agreeably to what I proposed, in
the third place, to prove, we see how necessary the aid of
religion is for securing fideUty to engagements, arid for the
discovery of truth in judicatories, both in eiril causes and in
criminal. IV. I come now, in the fourth and last place, to observe

ON CIVIL SOCIETY. 245
the utility of religion to a State, by the positive enforcement
which it gives of equity and good government on the rulers,
and of obedience and subjection on the people.
In regard to the first part of this head, I have in some
measure prevented myself, when speaking of the sanctions
of rehgion, and showing that they are the more necessary in
the case of despotic sovereigns, inasmuch as, being by their
station raised above control, there is no check upon them
beside religion. I shaU only, therefore, at this time, vrith all
possible brerity, point out the general riews that revelation
gives of aU human governors. It is this which Reminds them
that magisteacy is a teust, for the faithful discharge whereof
they are accountable to God, who, in the course of his prori
dence, has conferred it on them ; that consequently they who
mle over men ought to be just, ruling in the fear of God ;
that they judge woi /or otow ultimately, but for the Lord, who
is with them in the judgment, 2 Sam. xxiu. 3 ; 2 Chron. xix.
6, 7. Is it a disadvantage to mankind, that those who are
supreme here, and uncontroUable, are taught to refiect, that
they must themselves appear hereafter, in the quaUty of sub
jects, before the tribunal of Him who is higher than the highest;
and that thefr conduct, especiaUy in ruling and judging, must
undergo a strict scrutiny, under the eye of the King of kings
and Lord of lords — that unerring Judge, who is no respecter
of persons, with whom there is no iniquity, and in whose
tremendous presence the distinctions which obtain amongst
us mortals, of high and low, mighty and weak, rich and poor,
are aU entfrely levelled ? Nay, would it not, on the contrary,
be of unspeakable advantage to the world, that aU magis
trates, lawgivers, and judges, were firmly persuaded of these
important truths ?
On the other hand, if a pious sense of rehgion is the best
security for good govemment on the part of rulers, it is also
the most effectual means of ensuring submission and obe
dience on the part of subjects. Without some impressions
of this kind, it would be difficult to persuade men that they
are under any tie to obedience and subjection to others of
thefr own species, when any strong temptation from interest
or ambition should incline them to revolt. Their submission
q2

246 THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION
would be such only as necessity compelled, not as a sense of
duty disposed them to yield. Consequently they could have
no motive to restrain them from rebellion, whenever it should
appear they could rebel successfully. But religion enforces
our allegiance, not from the fear of the magistrate, (a motive,
however, which it leaves in fuU force,) but from a principle
of conscience towards God ; not only for wrath, says Paul,
but FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE, Rom. xUi. 5. And Peter, to the
same purpose. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man,
FOR THE Lord's sake. For so is the will of God, that with
well-doing ye.may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men,
1 Pet. U. 13, 15.
Thus I have endeavoured briefiy to illustrate and erince
the important truth laid down in my text, that righteousness,
or religion, exalteth a nation. I have shown, that in aU the
four ways enumerated, — to vrit, by the tendency and extent
of its laws ; by the nature and importance of its sanctions ;
by the aid it gives to the eiril powers, in securing fidelity
and in the discovery of truth ; and by the positive enforce
ment of good govemment on rulers, and of obedience on sub
jects — ^it conduces to the temporal good of the society. This,
I acknowledge, is comparatively but a secondary considera
tion ; for what is all worldly and temporary prosperity, com
pared with that exceeding great and eternal weight of glory
which shall hereafter be revealed ? But though it be a con
sideration much inferior to the other, yet as holy writ occa
sionally directs our attention to it, we are certain that it
ought not to be overlooked. For, had present advantages
been totally unworthy the Christian's notice, the great apostle
of the Gentiles had never thought it worth while to observe
to us, 1 Tim. iv. 8, 9, that godUness is profltable unto all
things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that
which is to come; adding. This is a faithful saying, and
worthy of all acceptation.
I shall conclude vrith subjoining these two inferences : —
First, If the above representation of things be just, the se
cular powers ought to give all possible countenance to religion,

ON CIVIL SOCIETV. 247
the principal support of their authority, and to the ordinan
ces of dirine worship, tiie principal external means by which
a sense of religion is propagated and preserved among man
kind. If men in the more elevated ranks of Ufe, those men
especiaUy who are vested with a share of either the legislative
or the executive power, should display, in their conduct or
conversation, a contempt of our Christian profession, they
would not show themselves more plainly to be bad Christians
in the common acceptation of the term, than to be (what
possibly they would Uke worse to be accounted) injudicious
magistrates, and ill-affected citizens, and consequently in all
respects bad members of the commonwealth. We all know
how prone inferiors are to imitate their superiors. And such
is the deprarity of human nature, that the rices of the great
are much more readily copied than their rirtues. Every man
(whatever his condition in the world may be) is obliged to
be exemplary ; but the obhgation is much stronger on those
whose example, by reason of thefr exalted stations, is capable
of being much more beneficial, or much more hurtful, than
that of ordinary men.
Secondly, If reUgion is of such indispensable necessity for
the support of eiril society, what shall we think of the pa
triotism or pubhc rirtue of those who assiduously endeavour,
as far as their influence extends, to undermine its ftindamen-
tal principles, and set men loose from all its obUgations ? Do
not such appear to be as real enemies to their country as to
Christiamty ? Some perhaps would not scruple to add, ene
mies to human nature. Let people but coolly ask them
selves. If our free-thinkers, our speculative and philosophical
latitudinarians, should succeed in the dark design they seem
sometimes so zealously to prosecute ; and if the disbehef of
the principles, and the disregard to the rites of rehgion,
which afready appear in too many, and plainly show their
evil influence on the morals of the age, should, agreeably to
the ordinary course of things, descend to the lowest ranks,
and become universal, what vrill be the consequence ? Who
can hesitate to answer, The utter fall of religion. Let it
not be pretended, that there is no danger from the reason
ings of the sceptic, because these are far above the compre-

24;8 THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION, &C.
hension of vulgar understandings : for those men wiU fondly
adopt the conclusion, who are incapable of apprehending
aught of the premises. The authority of great names among
the learned will ever be to them a sufficient foundation.
And if once our faith is subverted, is any so blind as to ima
gine that reUgion wUl fall alone ? Can her disgrace fail to be
accompanied by that of rirtue and good manners ? In such
general ruin, what will be safe ?' Can we be vain enough to
imagine, that our laws and liberties, or any part of the
constitution, wUl long surrive ? The subject is too full of
horror to expatiate on. I leave it to the serious reflections
of my hearers.

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

SEEMON,

PREACHED

AT ABERDEEN, DECEMBER 12, 1767,
BEING THE FAST-DAY APPOINTED BY THE KING, ON
ACCOUNT OF THE REBELLION IN AMERICA.

ADVERTISEMENT.

It is not of any importance to the Public, to be made ac
quainted with the motives which have induced the Author to
publish the foUowing Sermon ; he will only say, that he had
no such intention when he composed and preached it. But
there are two points on which, he doubts not, many readers
wiU think he stands in need of an apology. Of them he
begs a candid attention to what follows, as the best that he
can offer.
It may be said, that Uttle can be expected new, especiaUy
in a sermon, on a subject which has now so long engrossed
the pubUc attention, and engaged many able and ingenious
writers on both sides. The Author readily admits the truth
of this remark. If there be any thing here that can be called
new, it is the consideration of what our reUgion teaches to be
the duty of Christians in cfrcumstances hke ours. This topic
has not been touched, at least in any of those writings which
he has read on the present controversy. But though there
be httle or nothing new in the thoughts, every author has his
pecuhar manner and arrangement. One manner is better
adapted to one set of readers, another to another. If the
sentiments then be just, and if they be arranged and ex
pressed with tolerable perspicuity, it may be hoped that
there are some to whom they -vrill be useful.
The second point on which the author flnds he must apo
logise for himself, is his entering at all on such a subject in
a sermon. Indeed the prejudices of some are so strong on
this article, that he scarcely expects that any thing he has to
advance will entirely remove them. The cry is, " What has
the minister of the gospel to do with matters of state, or
Christianity with human politics ? " The ambiguity of the
terms poUtics and matters of stale gives a specious appearance
to the objection. The church, no doubt, would be a very

252 ADVERTISEMENT.
improper place for the discussion of many points relating to
national interest, and of questions of jurisprudence, which
might be very pertinent in the cabinet or the senate. But
when a question arises that affects the title of the magistrate
to demand, and the obligation of the subject to yield, obedi
ence ; if the precepts of the gospel at all concern our conduct
as citizens, it must be the duty of a Christian pastor to point
out to his flock what these precepts command, and what
they prohibit.
Our Saviour, in his last charge to his apostles, expressly
enjoined them to teach all those whom they should convert
and baptize, to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded
them. Matt, xxriii. 20. Now, it is as reaUy a commandment
of our Lord, that we should render to Ccesar the things that
are Ceesar's, as thkt we should render to God the things that
are God's, Matt. xxu. 21. Have not his apostles accordingly,
Paul and Peter in particular, given most exphcit directions
on this very head ? Paul not only recommends this duty him
self to Christian congregations, but, in the instructions he
gives to Titus, who was also a minister, specifies it by name
as an important duty, which he ought not to neglect recom
mending to his people. Put them in mind, says he, to be
subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates. Tit.
ui. 1 . Can we then think ourselves excused in omitting to
teach and enforce so momentous a duty, so strongly recom
mended to us both by the example and by the precept both
of our Lord and of his apostles? In the general order
Christ gave his disciples, to teach the people to observe all
things whatsoever he had commanded them, were they at
liberty to make an exception of this ?
Some perhaps vriU reply, " Were the duty recommended
only in general terms by the minister as a Christian duty,
no objection could reasonably be made ; but to enter into a
detail of fiicts, or an argumentative discussion on such a sub
ject, is what appears unsuitable to the place." To this the
author has only to answer. The manner, whether general or '
particular, derives it suitableness entirely from the occasion
and eircumstances. When people regularly do vvhat they
ought in any instance, and when their minds are in no danger

advertisement. 253
of being perverted by false principles, it is perhaps enough to
remark their obligations passingly : But the case is different,
when, by misrepresentations of fact, or by sophistical argu
ments, their minds begin to be alienated fi-om their duty, and
they learn to call evil good and good evil, to put darkness for
light and light for darkness, bitter for sweet and sweet for
Utter. It is then the business of the preacher, if preaching
be not a mere matter of form, to do what he can to inform
them better, both as to the fact and as to the argument.
Can then the observance of the duty we owe to magistrates
he an unseasonable subject at present, when so many are at
such uncommon pains (some doubtless through mistake, and
some through iU design) to undermine it ?
The pulpit, without question, would be an improper place
for canvassing the economical regulations which might pro
perly be adopted in the government of famiUes : But if tenets
should be advanced, and warmly recommended, totally sub
versive of the honour due from children to thefr parents,
and of the obedience due from servants to thefr masters,
would he deserve the character of a minister of Christ who
chose to continue sUent, and, under the silly pretext that the
pulpit was not intended for discussing family affairs, would
take no concern in the controversy ? ShaU we flnd men that
are indefatigable in distributing poison, and shall not those
who have it in their power, be at some pains to administer
the antidote ?
It has in hke manner been urged, that, " under these plau
sible pretences, the pulpit hath sometimes been made the
instrument of raising sedition, and of doing the greatest
mischief to the pubUc." The charge is indeed but too true :
But is that a good reason for not employing it for the con
teary purpose of inculcating allegiance and loyalty? The pul
pit has also been often employed in the service of error : ShaU
it therefore never be used for the advancement of truth ? It
has often been perverted to be instrumental in kindling per
secution : ShaU it therefore be accounted improper to use it
in recommending the moderation, the meekness, and the gentle
ness of Christ ? Besides, wiU" those who abuse the pulpit, by

254 advertisement.
employing it to a bad purpose, be the less disposed to do so,
because nobody dares oppose them from the pulpit ?
From the manner in which some talk of the business of a
preacher, one would imagine, that, in their apprehensions, he .
ought ever to be occupied (as preachers have been but too
often occupied) in doating about questions and strifes of words,
discussing aU the futile logomachies ofthe schools, which gen
der contention, envy, bigotry, and wrath, but minister not to
godly edifying, to pious and practical instruction.
The author begs leave to add, that he hopes the doctrine
here maintained may be of some serrice, independently of
the American disputes which have occasioned its publication.
There is a real danger arising from the loose and repubUcan
principles now so openly professed, and so assiduously dis
seminated, through the British Isles, which, should they still
make progress, as they seem to have done for some years
past, might, after the present controversy is settled and for
gotten, involve this country in the most direful calamities.
On the other hand, he is happy to observe that this quarrel
has excited some persons of great learning and penetration,
fully capable of doing justice to the subject, to examine more
narrowly than had been done before, into the origin, nature,
and end of civil government.* It may be expected as the
consequence, that the vrild schemes of our political rision-
aries, for there are visionaries in politics as weU as in rehgion,
will in due time be properly exposed, and at length aban
doned by every body.
* The public has been promised by an eminent writer, one entirely equal to the
subject, an examination of Mr, Locke-s Tlieo-ry of Government, It is earnestly
wished by many, that an inquiry so useful in itself, and so peculiarly seasonable at
present, may not be unnecessarily deferred.

SERMON IV.

Prov. xxiv. 21.
Meddle not with them that are given to change.
Our rehgion teaches us to consider aU afflictions as chastise
ments for sin, and as mercifully intended by our heavenly
Father to bring the afflicted to reflection and repentance.
National calamities we are taught to regard as the punish
ments of national vices, and as warnings to the people to be
think themselves, and reform. In the day of adversity con
sider, is an admonition equaUy apposite, as applied to indi
riduals, and to nations.
When the teouble itself, whether private or pubhc, is the
immediate and natural consequence of particular rices, it is
more especially a caU to examine into those rices which are
the dfrect source of our calamities, that by the grace of God
we may forsake and avoid them. Thus a bad state of health
caused by debauchery, specially warns the suffering person
of the necessity of temperance in the indulgence of appetite :
and the miseries of a eiril war, whether incurred by immo
derate stretches of power on the one side, or produced by a
wanton abuse of liberty on the other, are loud and particular
caUs to the correction of these enormities.
If this be a just representation, no Christian can reason
ably doubt that our present distressful and threatening cir
cumstances, in regard to America, ought to be thus viewed
by every British subject on both sides of the Atlantic. War
of every kind points more directly to the deprarity of our
minds and the corruption of our manners, than do those pub
lic calamities, famine, pestilence, and earthquake, which are
considered as proceeding immediately from the hand of God.
These are all to be regarded as the punishments, but not as

256 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
the natural effects of sin ; whereas war is to be riewed
equaUy in both Ughts. Whence come wars and flghtings
amongst you, says James ; come they not hence, even of your
lusts that war in your members ? chap. iv. 1. It is vrithin
the human breast that this mighty mischief is conceived :
There the fire is hghted up, which afterwards bursting forth
sets the world on flame.
In every war, then, foreign or domestic, there is on one
side or the other, not seldom on both, some immorahty or
guilt wliich is the direct cause. The superintendency of Pro
ridence is doubtless to be acknowledged in this, as in every
other event. And therefore affliction of every kind ought to
excite us to self-examination, prayer, and repentance. But
those which people more directly bring upon themselves, ought
to lead them to inquire into the immediate cause, that so -the
present eril may, as far as depends on them, be soon reme
died, and such a proper sense of their duty attained, as may
at least be some security that they will not be insteumental
in fomenting the latent mischief, but will, on the contrary,
do what they can to check its progress. Besides, to enter
tain just notions on these subjects, is one of the surest means
of guarding men against the Uke erils in time to come.
Not indeed that wars of any kind, and especiaUy intestine
wars, always spring from opinion or principle. Their primary
and ordinary source is much more properly represented in
the words of the inspired writer, to be our lusts that war in
our members. It is men's avarice, ambition, or revenge. At
the same time it must be owned, that the flrst movers in such
commotions are but few ; the bulk of their followers, misled
by their artiflces and misrepresentations, drive on blindfold,
as they are' stimulated, not knovring what they do. Nothing
therefore can more expose people to be the dupes of wicked
and designing men, than either to have no principles at all
on this subject, or to entertain wrong principles. The few
can do nothing without the many. The former generally are
hurried on by their passions : the latter, by the erroneous
notions which those who flnd their account in deceiring them
are indefatigable in sowing and cultivating. For this reason,
if the gross of the people be in the viTong, they are more to

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 257
be pitied than condemned ; for they often do the greatest
mischief with the best intentions imaginable. Like Paul,
before his conversion, they have a zeal for God and for their
countey, but it is not according to knowledge. Like him also,
many of them, we may reasonably beheve, would act a con
trary part, if they should come to be convinced of their
error. When people are gone a certain length in an eril
course, we see from experience that it is next to impossible
to reclaim and convince them. It is consequently one ofthe
best offices that we can do to our counteymen and fellow-
Christians, when pernicious errors begin to be diffiised, and
to be plausibly, or at least popularly supported, to use our
utmost endeavours in the way of prevention, by propagating
and defending what both reason and Scripture show to be
the truth.
This consideration, you will readily suppose, has led me to
make choice of these words of Solomon as the ground of my
discourse, Medde not with them that are given to change.
Our gracious sovereign has very properly called us, on this
occasion, to humble ourselves before the Divine Majesty, to
implore his merciful interposition in our favour, that, being
warned by the tremendous judgments of a eiril war raging in
the colonies, we may be induced to repent of our sins, amend
our Uves, and thus avert the Dirine anger : I judged there
fore, that I could not better employ a smaU portion of a day
set apart for so pious a purpose, than in arming you against
those errors in particular, which have contributed so much
to our present calamities ; and in shovring the obligations
which, as men, as citizens, and as Christians, you he under to
give obedience to the powers which Proridence has set over
you, and not to meddle with them that are given to change ;
that is, to avoid giring your countenance or aid, either by
speech or by action, to the measures of those who-would, on
shght pretexts, subvert aU estabUshed order and throw every
thing into confusion.
I am not ignorant that it may plausibly be urged against
the propriety of discussing these points in this audience, that
very few of us can be charged with entertaining principles
tending to vindicate the resistance made to authority in the

258 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
remote parts of the British empire. In general, therefore,
we need not a refutation of opinions which we do not hold.
The assertion I acknowledge to be just in point of fact, and
rejoice that on the best grounds I can affirm that it is. But
I am far from thinking it conclusive in point of argument.
Though there be few, there are some. And such writings as,
in my judgment, instil and propagate the most unchristian
and most dangerous doctrines on this subject, are daily cir
culated among us. The few may in process of time grow
to be the many. The greatest ills are often inconsiderable in
their beginning ; and sometimes the most memorable revolu
tions may be traced up to very shght causes. Frequent mis
representations and clamours breed discontent: discontent
gradually produces disaffection : disaffection, long conti
nued, settles into disloyalty ; and this last waits but an op
portunity to bring forth rebellion. Preventive remedies, it is
well known, are commonly more effectual than corrective
ones. And often, had the proper medicines been taken in
time, those diseases might have been cured, which, allowed
through neglect to become inveterate, baffle the art of the
physician. Besides, the medicine I mean to administer is
of that safe kind, which, if it do no serrice, or be not neces
sary, vrill do no hurt.
It is only by the instruction and reformation of particulars,
however smaU a part each is of the whole, that the general
instruction and reformation can be effected. And the national
sentiments are no other than those which prevail with the
majority of the indiriduals of whom the nation is composed.
Let us then, in the present great national contest, inquire
impartially where the radical error Ues ; for that there is an
error some-syhere, is allowed on both sides.
Now, the better we are informed in the rights of magistracy
in general,- and in the chief circumstances of the present case
in particular, there is the greater probability that our conduct
shaU be regulated by the obhgations we he under, and that it
shall be steady and uniform. On these two topics, therefore,
the rights of magistracy, and the grounds of the present
colonial war, I purpose, with the aid of Heaven, to offer a
few observations.

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 259
The precept in my text. Meddle not with them that are
giveii to change, evidently prohibits us from favouring inno
vations in matters of government, or concurring in riolent
and irregular measures, for the purpose of effecting some
change either in the governors or in the form of government.
Such alterations or amendments in the laws as may be regu
larly and constitu tionaUy introduced, and may be conducive
to the improvement of the body pohtic, are by no means
¦comprehended in the prohibition given by this sage monarch.
It is, on the contrary, the duty of every one in office, to
exert the power which the constitution gives him in such a
way as will most promote the pubhc welfare, correcting what
ever is amiss, and improving whatever is found defective.
The precept contained in my text may no doubt be trans
gressed, either by the governors or by the governed. It is
with regard to the latter that I intend at this time principally
to consider it : And for this end I must beg your patient
attention to the following remarks : — ¦
First, It ought to be remembered, that the general precept
to be observed by the people in regard to their rulers is, to
obey them. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers,
says Paul; and. He who resisteth the power, resisteth the ordi
nance of God. Again, Be ye subject, therefore, not only for
wrath, but for conscience sake, Rom. xiu. 1,2, 5. To the
same purpose the apostle Peter, Submit yourselves to every
ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the
king as supreme, or to governors, as to them that are sent by
him, for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of
them that do well. He adds. For so is the will of God, that
with weU-doing ye may put to silence ihe ignorance of foolish
men, 1 Pet. ii. 13 — 15.
" Are we then to conclude, that resistance to governors is
in all cases unlawful, and that whatever part they act, how
ever oppressive and tyrannical, the governed have no choice
but obedience and submission?" I do by no means affirm
this. ¦ There- are few general rules that admit no exception.
Consider the commandment. Thou shalt not kill, Exod. xx. 13.
Does it import that in no possible cfrcumstances one man is
permitted to take the life of another ? No, certainly. Not-

260 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
withstanding this unlimited prohibition, we all allow, and
have sufficient warrant from Scripture for allowing, that in
several cases, as in the judicial punishment of crimes, in self-
defence, and in lawful war, it not only may be vindicated,
but is even a duty, to deprive another of life. Nor let it be
urged, that the term rendered kill, ought to have been trans
lated commit murder; for it is certain that the Hebrew word
is of as extensive signification as the English, and applied
indifferently to lawful as to unlawful killing. Children, obey
your parents, says the apostle Paul, IN ALL THINGS.
The same injunction is also given to servants in regard to
their masters. Col. iii. 20, 22. This, one would think, ex
cludes all exception, if words can exclude it. Yet I believe
no Christian will urge, that there would be an obhgation to
obedience from this precept, should a parent command his
child, or a master command his servant, to steal. I shall
offer btit one other instance, an instance which nearly re
sembles the point in hand. Our Lord has given us this
express prohibition. Resist not evil. Matt. v. 39, and that
without any restriction whatever. Yet if this were to be
understood by Christians as admitting no exception, it would
among them abolish magistracy itself. For what is magistracy,
but, if I may be allowed the expression, a bulwark erected
for the defence of the society, and consequently for the very
purpose of resisting evil, for repelhng injuries offered or
committed, either by foreign enemies from without, or by
its own corrupted members from within ? — Therefore, unless
the nature of the thing require it, we cannot' conclude so
much from a general proposition.
And that the nature of the thing does' not in this case re
quire it, is manifest from this consideration, that govemment
obhges us in conscience to obedience and submission, only
because it is the means appointed by Proridence for pro
moting one of the most important ends, the good of society.
If this institution therefore should, in any instance, so far
degenerate into tyranny, that all the miseries of a civil war,
consequentonresistance,wouldbeless terrible than the slavery
and oppression suffered under the government, then, and
only then, could resistance be said to be either incumbent as

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 261
a duty, or even lawful. It cannot reasonably be denied, that
the principle of self-defence is as natural and justifiable in
communities as individuals.
Thus much I thought it necessary to premise, for the sake
of truth, and that it might not be imagined I mean to argue
on the slavish, uimatural, and justly exploded principles of
passive obedience and non-resistance ; prmciples whose mani
fest tendency is the estabhshment and support of despotism.
At the same time it is but doing- justice to the argument to
take notice, that if there be a danger, on the one hand, of
tying the knot of aUegiance wluch binds the subject to the
sovereign too hard, there is no less danger, on the other, of
making it too loose. Nothing is more common than for
people to run from one extreme to another. We have in
deed happily abandoned the absurd tenets above mentioned,
but is there no reason to dread that many in this island are
running precipitately into the opposite error ? an error whose
dfrect tendency is anarchy, which commonly terminates in
usurpation and tyranny, the very thing proposed to be
avoided by resistance. That we may be properly guarded
against so fatal a mistake, I hope, my brethren, to be indulged
on this head a httle further, whilst I consider, as briefiy as
possible, the extent both of the precept and of the exception.
The extent of the precept to obey governors, can only be
ascertained by attending to the end of government. Now the
end of govemment is, as was observed, the good of society,
especiaUy of the governed, who make the major part. Paul,
speaking of the magistrate, says. He is the minister of God to
thee for good, Rom. xiu. 4. It will be asked, on the other
side, " Can this consideration entitle him to obedience, when
he adopts a measure, that, instead of promoting the public
welfare, is really hurtful ?" That we may be furnished with
a proper answer to this question, we must remark, first, that
the apostle mentions the end of magistracy , which is the good
of society, as the great foundation of allegiance, not the end
of every measure which the magistrate may think proper to
adopt. He is but a man, and therefore fallible as well as
others. He is liable both to error and to rice. Many mea
sures he may adopt that are improper ; notwithstanding which,
r2

262 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
the end of the office, the common good, may be promoted by
him. And true public spirit incites us equally, in what re
gards the community, to prefer the greatest of different good
things and the least of different ills. Now there may be many
bad measures adopted by the ruling powers, which neverthe
less could not do half the mischief that would necessarily
ensue from the subversion of authority. For it ought always
on this subject to be taken into consideration, that resistance
strikes immediately, not only against the particular measure
resisted, but against the office of the magistrate, and there
fore tends totally to subvert authority, and unhinge the con
stitution. If then by resisting we loose, as much as in us
hes, the bands of society, and introduce anarchy, with all its
baneful consequences, on account of any measures, the ill ef
fects whereof are not so much to be dreaded as those wherein
the nation would be involved by the dissolution of govern
ment, we run into a greater eril to avoid a less.
Letit be further observed, that in bad measures themselves
there is a great difference. Some are denominated bad be
cause inexp edient, that is, not well adapted to the end intended
by them. Thus a tax may be laid on one commodity which
distresses the people more, and yields less to the revenue,
than if it had been laid on another. Others are termed bad
because immoral, as when any thing is commanded contrary
to the law of God. In regard to the first, there cannot be a
shadow of doubt. For if every man were at hberty to judge
for himself, how far the means adopted by his superiors were
fitted to the end, and consequently how far he were obUged
to give obedierice to the laws, there could be no govemment
at aU. The people would be either in a state of perpetual
warfare, or at perfect Uberty to do as they please. If the
latter were the case, it would be absurd to talk of laws or
orders ; the only proper terms would be counsels or advices.
Among such, and only among such, it might be justly said,
" Every man is his own legislator." But this state of things
(for a constitution it cannot be called) may suit the perfec
tion of angels, who are all good and wise, but vriU never suit
the prarity of human nature. In regard to the other sort of
bad measures, where something sinful is enjoined, it is certain

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.

263

that no man is bound to yield an active obedience to a hu
man law, which, either fr-om the Ught of nature or from re
velation, he is persuaded to be contrary to the Divine law.
Here the maxim takes place, "We ought to obey God
rather than man."
But even as to such laws, the subject is not always entitled
to oppose the magistrate by force. In the days of the apos
tles, the Christians submitted to any sufferings rather than
give obedience to the heathen laws in favour of idolatry ; yet
they neither made war upon the magistrate, nor pulled down
the images, altars, and temples of idolaters. " Is reUgion
then never a sufficient ground of active opposition to the
ruling powers?" That cannot justly be inferred neither.
Govemment has for its object the whole society, not a sepa
rate part. There is therefore a great difference between what
may be caUed an attack on the rights both natural and eiril
of the whole, such as is the rehgion of the community, and
an infringement of the natural rights of a few.
A man's right to his opinions may be truly said to be both
natural and unalienable. As they depend not on his will, it
is not in his power to alter them. And no law is obhgatory
which commands a man to he. ReUgious toleration, there
fore, may justly be considered as fi natural right. The two
most definable, though not the only limits to aU civil laws,
are the impossible and the immoral. A law commanding
men to beheve certain reUgious tenets, attempts the impos
sible, and is therefore not so properly tyrannical as absurd.
Laws can have no more effect on the behef or opinions of
any who are capable of forming opinions, than they can have
on the bodUy senses. A law commanding men, under pains
and penalties, to profess opinions in religion which they dis
beheve, enjoins something immoral, and is therefore at once
impious, tyrannical, and absurd. It undermines its own
foundation, requiring an obedience which cannot be yielded
without subverting the authority of conscience, whence all
sorts of obligation, eiril and religious, originate. It proposes
what is in pohtics the greatest of absurdities, to make people
good citizens, by making them bad men. But the duties
enjoined by the law of nature may also be enforced by civil

264 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
laws under eiril sanctions. Of this kind are almost all the
criminal laws in every country.
Further, there is a great difference between the submission
due to measures tending to the preservation of what is esta
blished, and the submission due to measures tending to its
subversion ; and that without taking into consideration the
goodness or the badness of the estabUshment. The former
is favourable to public tranquUlity and order, because con
ducing to that which the community, whether right or wrong,
esteems its good : the latter is hardly ever attempted without
endangering, and not sometimes without overturning the pub
lic tranquiUity. New, as it is a principle of common sense,
that a less evil should be borne to prevent a greater, so it is
a fundamental principle in government, whose end is com
mon utihty, that private interest should give place to pubhc.
It holds in general, therefore, that no man, or body of men,
constituting but a smaller part of the community, are entitled
to resist the magistrate by force in what is properly a private
quarrel, even though they should think themselves, and be
ill fact unjustly treated by him. For there is a very greiat
difference between not being obliged to give an active obe
dience, and being entitled to make an active resistance.
I admit, that cases may be supposed so atrociously barba
rous, that nature would reclaim against the severity of this
doctrine, and the heart of every feehng person would justify
the oppressed in giving way to the impulse of that most
natural and rooted principle, self-defence. But such cases
are uncommon anywhere, and hardly ever to be found in
free or Umited governments. Yet, even in such cases, the
very utmost we can say is, that humanity and candour would
admit the greatness of the provocation as an apology for the
resistance, which would be considered as excusable, not re
garded as incumbent. In support of authority a positive
precept is pleaded ; in support of such a resistance as has
been now supposed, the utmost that could be urged is an
implied exception resulting from extraordinary circumstances.
In every case in which the rule holds, to transgress it is an
invasion of the rights of others, not only the rights of the
magistrate, but the rights of the society whose peace and

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. ~65
order we disturb ; whereas, in the particular case above _
stated, not to avail one's-self of the exception, is only to
yield of one's own right, a thing which in most cases is
entfrely in one's own power. ,
Our duty as Christians often requfres us to act this part,
and to resign a private claim for the good of others. The
example of our Lord teaches it, who, to avoid contention
and offence, provided himself miraculously with the tribute
money, when he might have pleaded a legal exemption from
paying it. Matt. xvii. 24, &c. To such particular cases the
Tpxecei^t, Resist not evil, ought to be understood as principally
apphcable. That we ought patiently to endure private in
juries, rather than, by endeavouring to obtain redress, hurt
a more important and pubhc interest, is alike the dictate of
true pateiotism and genuine Christianity. Why do ye not
rather, says Paul to the Corinthians, take wrong ? Why do
ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 1 Cor. -vi. 7.
Rather than what ? Rather than bring scandal on the
Christian community, rather than breed variances amongst
yourselves. I observe further, that the cause which justifies resistance
would not only need to be both important and public, but
clearly and by the community understood to be so. It were
madness in one or a few, in a case wherein the peace and
fehcity of ALL are concerned, to decide for the whole.
The immediate mischiefs to society would be manifest, the
remote advantages uncertain. Nor is it less evident, that
where the case is in any degree doubtful, our only safe way
is to foUow the precept which enjoins obedience, and not an
exception, about the existence of which we are dubious.
Nor need any other reason be assigned for this conduct,
than that it is conformable to the general precept, which we
are commanded to follow as our rule. As this therefore is
a Christian duty in every case, unless where the exception
actually obtains, it is incumbent on us in every case, unless
where we perceive that the exception obtains. Whatsoever
is not of faith, is sin, Rom. xiv. 23. There is no middle
way. The dirine precept is solely in favour of obedience r
to disobey is in fact to decide in favour of an exception, which.

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

* It does not overthrow this system, as has been objected, that the people
must judge, whether, in any exigency that arises, they ought to recur to resist
ance ; nor does it follow, that they have a rigid to resist, whenever they think it
necessary. Their right commences with the real, not with the imagined, neces
sity. They judge therefore, and must consider themselves as judging, in peril
of incurring, by rash judgment, the complicated guilt of murder, rebellion, and
tbe worst of parricides, the destruction of their country. Antecedently to every
action that can be called a man's own, he must both judge and determine. But
did ever any body conclude hence, that he has a right to do whatever lie deter
mines ; in other words, tbat he cannot deterraine wrong ? " War is a dreadful
evil." Yet one nation has a right to make war on another in certain eases.
Now, if there is such a right, every nation must judge for itself, when it ought
to be exercised. But was it ever deduced as a consequence, that this right can
not mean less than a right in every people to make war on every other, whenever
tliey think it necessary ? On the contrary, " those who involve a people in it
needlessly" — I use the objector's own words, — " vrill find they have much to an
swer for. Nothing can ever justify it, but the necessity of it," (surely he means
real, not supposed or pretended necessity, for this is never wanting,) " to secure
some essential interest against unjust attacks," Have they less to answer for
who kindle a civil war, of all kinds the most dreadful .' Will less serve to jus
tify it?  In this particular, our republicans have advanced higher claims in
favour of the people, than the votaries to the patriarchal scheme ever did in
favour of the sovereign. The former scruple not to ascribe a real infallibility to
tbe multitude: I never heard of any of the latter, however bigoted to the
principle of divine, hereditary, indefeasible right, that attributed so much of
divinity to the monarch. These will not hesitate to admit that a king may be
a tyrant, though in their judgment, it does not belong to the nation either to
check or to chastise him ; whereas the former will not allow that the people
©ver can be rebels. I am hopeful, however, they will not maintain that' th«

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 267
In these observations I have all along argued from what
both reason and Scripture show to be the end of government,
public utility — a principle sufficiently simple and intelhgible,
and fi-om which alone every just hmitation may easily be
deduced. I have not mentioned the original compact, one
of the hackneyed topics of writers on pohtics. My reason
is, I neither understand the word, as applied by those writers,
nor know where to find the thing to which they refer. That
there may have been poUties founded in compact, I make no
question; but the history of the world will satisfy every rea
sonable person, that in many more cases, perhaps thirty to
one. States have arisen from causes widely different. If those,
however, who use the expression, mean no more when they
say that magistrates have violated the original compact, and
are therefore no longer entitled to the obedience of the sub
ject, than I mean when I say, they so manifestly counteract
the great end of magistracy as renders resistance itself less a
pubhc eril than obedience, I shall admit the phrase, though
I cannot help considering it as both an obscure and an im
proper way of expressing a plain sentiment. But if some
thing further be meant, I should like, before I say any thing
for, or against it, to have some eridence of the existence of
such a compact, and hkewise to know a httle of its contents.
As the matter stands, I consider it as one of those phrases
wliich are very convenient for the professed disputant, be
cause they are both indefinite and dark, and may be made
to comprehend under them aU the chimeras of his own ima
gination. Many such have been introduced into this con
troversy, which, as they only serve to perplex it, are very
apt to mislead the unwary.
I retum to my subject. Various circumstances in different
countries have given rise to the establishment of various
forms of govemment. Though these are far from being equal
people every where, and in all ages, have been endowed with this infallible discern
ment of what is necessary. Will they say tbat the Israelites in tbe wildemess were
possessed of it'wben they compelled Aaron to make the golden calf, and celebrated
a festival in its honour;, or when, upon hearing the report of the spies, they
tumultuously clamoured for the election of a captain to lead them back to Egypt ?
Yet they seem to have been almost unanimous in thinking these measures absolutely

268 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
in point of excellence, public good requires, that, except in
cases of extremity, each should be preserved from violence.*
It may be objected, that, on my principles, a bad constitu
tion can never be amended or improved. I answer. To
attempt the amendment by force, that is, by subverting the
public peace, and throwing all into confusion, is to seek to
attain a distant good, about the attainment of which we are
uncertain, at the price of a certain and immediate evil, in aU
probability greater than the good can compensate, if attained.
In aU states, especially in all cirihzed states, as was already
hinted, there are constitutional methods of effecting useful
alterations and improvements. Against the proper appli
cation of these, there can lie no objection. Those only are
the innovators alluded to in my text, who by irregular, vio
lent, and unconstitutional methods, by resistance and revolt,
seek to subvert the established order.
Here a question may pertinently be put, " May it not
happen, that the innovations which give rise to national
calamities have originated with the rulers ? If they, by as
suming an unusual power, overleap the bounds of the consti
tution, fixed by immemorial custom, by fundamental laws,
or by positive convention, do they not come within the de
scription of the persons given to change ?" It is not to be
denied that this may be the case, and sometimes has been.
It is besides an undoubted truth, that the rights and liberties
of the people are as real, and as valuable, and ought to be
held as sacred a part of the constitution, as the powers and
prerogatives of the magistrate.
When Charles I. attempted to govern without a parha
ment, and to impose taxes on the people by his own autho
rity alone, he doubtless, and aU those who adrised and
abetted such measures, were to be ranked with them that are
* "But does not this sentiment," say our adversaries, "ascribe right to pos
session, however acquired ? Might it not serve to legalize even the American
Congress V Not at all. No possession that cannot be denominated peaceable
and established, in other words, no possession from which the people, instead of
deriving the blessings of order, internal peace, and protection, reap nothing but
the greatest of curses, confusion, civil war, and tbe total insecurity of every thing
valuable, property, liberty, and life, can be legalized by a sentiment founded in
regard to public tranquillity.

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 269
given to change. Nay, however unusual the application may
be, it was properly tlicy ^^¦ho did not submit to what Paul
denominates the ordinance of God, the powers that be. The
king with us possesses tiie whole executive power, and con
stitutes an essential branch of the legislative ; but as the
¦ executive, from tiie nature ofthe tlung, is subordinate to the
legislative, he, by assuming in his own person the authority
ofthe whole legislature, usurped what did not belong to
him, and thereby opposed God's ordinance. But though
the usurpation may be justly said to have originated with
the Crown, it cannot be affirmed that it ended there. The
House of Commons of the Long Parliament quickly showed
the same propensity to usurpation and despotic power. They
usurped the authority of the Crown and of the Peers, both
which constituent members of the state they suppressed,
taking the whole business of legislation on themselves. They
usurped likewise the rights of the people. Delegated for a
hmited time only, they maintained by the sword the posses
sion they had once obtained, after the time in which they had
any legal authority was expired ; and were at last ignomi
niously expeUed by a new usurper, a creature of their own ;
thus receiving in themselves that recompence of their error
which was meet.
They eminently evinced the danger and the madness of
desti-oying a good constitution, in the delusive hope of erect
ing, what some of them no doubt fancied, a better, in its
stead. The wounds given by the stretches of prerogative
had been healed, the public grievances redressed, sufficient
security of the rights and pririleges of all orders obtained,
when the House of Commons, obserring their ascendancy
over the Crown and the House of Lords, and intoxicated
with the power they had acquired, beyond their most san
guine expectation, and beyond the example of all former
ParUaments, not knovring where to stop, persisted in thefr'
riolence, till they involved the nation in blood, murdered
the kmg, and overset the constitution.
But, descending from former tiines, and from the gene
ral topic of the rights of the magistrate, and the duty of the

270 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
subject, let us now inquire a little (which was the second thmg
I proposed to do) into the merits of the contest wherein we are
at this time unhappily engaged with our revolted brethren in
America. The examination of tiiis question vrill lead to the
discussion of some points, which, though affecting the general
nature and foundations of government, eould npt have been
so properly introduced under the former head. Can we then
with justice charge the civil war that now rages in our colo
nies, on the tyranny or misgovernment of the ruhng powers ?
Has any thing been done that could be said justly to provoke
their revolt, to render resistance the necessary means of self-
preservation, and so to exempt them, in using it, from the
charge of rebelUon ? Or, on the other hand. Have artful and
ambitious men, both on their side of the water and on ours,
had the address, for their own private ends, to mislead a
people whom wealth and luxury have corrupted, and ren
dered prone to hcentiousness and faction ? Have these false
friends and sham patriots inflamed their minds vrith imagi
nary invasions of their rights, and with fears and jealousies
for which there is no foundation ? In such a situation it is of
great consequence to people to examine the matter impar
tially. This is the first step, and when properly executed,
gives some ground to hope, that on whichever side the fault
lies, it may in time be corrected.
The scene of action, it is tme, Ues far from us ; but we are
aU deeply concerned in the consequences. Besides, in a go
vernment which has so great a mixture of democracy as the
British, it is of importance that the measures of the adminis
tration be supported by the favour of the people, if right ; and
that they be checked by the general disapprobation, if wrong.
The one tends to confirm, the other to correct them. In this
country, no ministry (and it is our happiness and glory that
it is so) can long persist in a train of measures universally
condemned. But if, amongst us, such is the influence ofthe
popular suffrage, we ought aU to be the more careful that we
be weU informed. The ferment excited in the colonies, and
the clamour raised by a faction amongst ourselves, are, in one
view, of the most alarming nature. The clamour is not
levelled barely against the ministry, or even against the
8

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 271
government, but against the whole legislature of the country.
Its too manifest aim is to foment in the people a seditious
and ungovernable spirit, destructive of all authority, than
whicli nothing can be conceived of more ruinous tendency to
the constitution. Notlung could vindicate tliis conduct, but
the most flagrant danger of oui- rehgion, laws, and liberties.
And I wiU venture to affirm, what will not be contradicted by
the candid and judicious, that these great national concerns
were never in less danger from the ruhng powers than in the
present reign.
I am sensible, that discussions of this sort are not easily
adapted to the pulpit, nor can a political controversy, as it is
called, (though in fact a controversy in which morals and
religion are nearly concerned,) be accounted level to the
capacity of an ordinary audience. I shall not therefore enter
into the numerous articles that have been made matter of
dispute since this question began to be agitated. This is
what neither propriety nor your time wiU permit me to do.
But that our aUegiance and loyalty may be not only more
rationaihnt more durable, as proceeding from knowledge and
principle, I shall consider a httle that which may be called
the hinge of the controversy, and which gave rise to all the
other and smaUer points in question. Now this point is
eridently the right claimed by the British Parliament to tax
our fellow-subjects in America.
And first, in matters of government and legislation, that
which immemorial custom has estabhshed, unless opposed by
some natural or divine law, is always regarded as obligatory.
Now, that taxes have been imposed by Parliament even from
the first settlement of the colonies, has been put beyond a
doubt by the writers on that side of the question.* First,
they were taxed, and under the odious form of an excise too,
by the Long Parliament in the time of the eiril wars — by that
very patriotic ParUament which the American demagogues
set up to themselves as a standard every way worthy their
imitation. After the Restoration, they were in Charles H.'s
time taxed by Parliament. Nor was this measure considered
* See The Rights of Great Britain asserted. Remarks on the 13th Parliament,
Answer to the Declaration of the Congress, &c.

272 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
as unconstitutional after the Revolution. On the contrary^
the former act was, in the reign of William IIL, confirmed
and explained by a new one. In Q-ueen Anne's time, the
act estabhshing the post-office, and the act for raising a duty
from seamen for the support of Greenwich Hospital, are
made to bind the colonies as well as the island of Great
Britain. There are acts to the same purpose in the reigns
of George I. and of George II. To these acts the colonies
then submitted ; for they had not then discovered their natm-al
and unahenable right to pay no taxes but such as had been
imposed vrith thefr ovm consent. The real ground of the
difference is. Then they were poorer and more humble, now
they are richer and more proud.
Nor do their charters, as has been falsely pretended, give
any support to such exemption. In one of them the right
of taxing by ParUament is reserved in express terms, and in
others it is reserved manifestly by imphcation, in as much as
immunities from being taxed are granted for a limited term
of years, in some longer, in others shorter.
But it is ridiculous to pretend an exemption from being
taxed, whUst they acknowledge, as they have always done till
of late, the power of the British Parhament to make laws on
other articles which shall bind the colonies. Yet some are
inconsistent enough to maintain, that our legislature has
power to do the one, but not the other. I should be glad to
know on what the distinction is founded. Not on any posi
tive convention; or on any act of the legislature asserting its
right in the one case, and disclaiming it in the other. It is
not pretended. Is then the distinction one of those which are
founded in the nature of things ? Impossible. What? Have
we the command of their persons, their hberties, thefr lives,
but not of thefr purses ? May we declare what is criminal in
them, what is not? and what crimes shall be punished vrith
imprisonment, what with exUe, what with stripes, and what
vrith death, but cannot affect a single shiUing of their coin ?
Is then the union between a man and his money more inti
mate than that between his soul and his body ? One would
be tempted to beheve, that it had been in the head of some

THE DUTY OF ALXEGIANCE. 213
miser, whose treasure is his God, that his absurd conceit had
fii-st beeu gendered.
I own I am exceedingly surprised at the inconsistency of
those men, in other respects not deficient in understanding,
who maintain the legality of the navigation act, confining
the trade of the plantations, and yet deny the legality of tax
ing them. The fomier is, in my opinion, in several respects,
more exceptionable than the latter ; and, in some instances
at least, a hardship on them, without being an advantage to
us. But pray, consider, wherein Ues the difference ? We
by resfraining part of their trade to ourselves, may oblige
them in some instances to seU to us for sixpence the pound,
what, if the market were open, they would get sevenpence
for from others. Is not this precisely the same as to them,
as if we should permit them to seU where they please, and
exact in name of duty a penny on the pound weight ? It is
even worse ; for, by confining the trade, the demand is less
ened, and consequently a check is put on the industry that
would be employed on that article.
But let it not be imagined, that all the restraints are laid
on the colonists for our benefit, as has been most micandidly
pretended by some of the advocates on the other side. There
are many restraints laid on us also by the legislature for their
benefit. Perhaps it were better for both, that all such acts
were revised. Taxes, if imposed vrith judgment, are gene
rally less prejudicial than monopolies. But (whatever be in
this) that the restrictions are reciprocal is manifest. In re
gard to some of thefr staple commodities, we are, for their
benefit, prohibited, under severe penalties, to cultivate them
in our own country ; at the same time that we are not allowed
"to purchase them from any other nation, though we should
get them both cheaper and better. Drawbacks and bounties
are given to our merchants on exporting hence American
commodities imported. This is an advantage to the Ameri
cans, as, by raising the demand and price, it encourages their
cultivation and labour, and an advantage to our traders in
such articles, whom it enables to deal more extensively, and
underseU others ; but to the nation in general, a detriment
rather than a profit, inasmuch as the nation must always, by

274

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.

some impost or other,'compensate to the government the
value of the bounty.
Indeed, the more consistent patrons of the American cause
deny that the legislative power of the British senate can
justly extend to the colonies in any thing. Kyou ask them.
Why ? The answer is ready : " Men cannot be bound by
laws to which they have. not given thefr consent." This ap
pears to them an axiom in politics as clear as any in mathe
matics. And though, for a first principle, it has been won
derfuUy late of being discovered, they are so confident of its
self-eridence, that they never attempt to prove it ; they
rather treat with contempt every person who is so weak as to
question it. These gentlemen, however, wiU excuse me, as
I am not certain that I understand them, and am a little
nice about first principles, when I ask, what is the precise
meaning they affix to the term consent ? For I am much
afraid, that if they had begun with borrowing from the ma
thematicians the laudable practice of giring accurate defini
tions of their terms, and always adhering to those definitions,
we had never heard of many of their newfangled axioms.
It is certain that, in the common acceptation, consent
denotes a declared concurrence in opinion in regard to any
measure, or a joint approbation of that measure. In this
sense of the word, a law is made by the consent of those only
who voted for it. It may happen, then, in the House of
Commons, when the House is thin, and a law passes by a small
majority, that the actual consenters to the statute may be less
than the twentieth part ofthe representatives ofthe people.*
But to this I am quickly answered, that " there is compre
hended imder the term not only an actual and expUcit, but a
virtual and implicit consent. Now the minority of the mem
bers present, vrith aU the absent, are conceived as virtually
and imphcitly consenting to the deed of the majority of the
members present." Here then is an acceptation of the term
obtruded upon us, ere we are aware, so very different from
* The House of Commons consists of 558 members. Of these, in all cases, ex
cept that of disputed elections, iu which they act in a juridical not in a legislative
capacity, 40 make a House, whereof 21, the majority, is not the 26th part of the whole
number.

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 275
the former and ordinai-y acceptation, as to be in effect the
reverse. Yom- virtual and implicit consent to a measure
may comprise, in some instances, what I should call an actual
and explicit dissent from it, a disapprobation, or perhaps a
declared abhorrence of it. Of tiiis kind are many of the vir^
tual and implicit consents given in both houses of Parliament.
The rirtual consent of the electors, those against, as well as
those for, each successful candidate, to all that shall be enact
ed in Parhament, either with, or against the approbation of
thefr member, is liable, if possible, still more glaringly, to the
same objections. Could a man be said to speak EngUsh, at
least could he be said to speak truth, who should affirm that
the city members and the members for Middlesex consented
to the act for shutting up the port of Boston, the act for re
straining the trade of the colonies to Great Britain and Ire
land, and the Quebec act ? If he could affirm this with trutii
and propriety, one cannot help concluding that it is shame
less in any of those gentlemen to raise so much clamour
against acts to which they have given their consent. And if
he could not affirmit, without exposing himself to be charged
with teUing an untruth, to what purpose is it to employ, in
the very maxims on which ye found, terms in so vague and
so Ulusive a maimer, that, on some occasions, their meaning
is in effect the contrary of that which ye give them on other
occasions, and of that which they uniformly bear in common
language ? I know no purpose but one it can answer, a pur
pose it has often answered, a purpose it still but too well
answers — to darken, to perplex, and to mislead.
When these people are pushed for an explanation, their
virtual and implied consent dwindles to no more at last, than
that, by our constitution, the minority are so far determined
by the act of the majority, and those who have no voice in
the election, as weU as the electors, by the majority of the
elected present at the passing of any act, as to be obUged to
submit to it as the law of the land. This, indeed, is a lan
guage which I understand : but ye must observe, that in this
sense it may with equal truth be affirmed, that, in the aris
tocratical state of Venice, the people are bound by no laws
but those to which they have given their consent ; because, by
s

276 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
their constitution, the plebeians are determined by the deed
of the patricians, and are therefore to be understood as virtual
and implicit consenters. Nay, ye may extend the maxim to
the inhabitants of Turkey, who, by the constitution of their
country, may vrith equal propriety be considered as consent
ing to the declared wiU of the Grand Signior. The will of
a majority from which I differ, is no more my wiU ; thefr
opinion, which I disbeheve, is no more my opinion, than if
they were the will and opinion of a single person only. In
this respect number makes no odds. And I can never, vrith
out a perversion of speech, be said to be self-governed, if my
conduct must be regulated by the will and opinion of others,
and not by my own.
The source ofali the blundering, so frequent on this subject,
is the crude and contradictory conceit, that govemment can
be rendered compatible with perfect freedom. Nothing can
be clearer than that the only man perfectly free, or self-direct
ed, whose wiU is in every thing his law, is the savage, a being
that is independent of every body. The very basis of poh
tical union is a partial sacrifice of Uberty iox protection. The
savage who first enters into this state, must be sensible that
he impairs his freedom to increase his security. He is wUl
ing to be, to a certain degree, dependent, and consequently
less his ovni master, that thereby he may insure his Ufe, his
property, and even the exercise of his freedom, so far as it
remains unaffected by the laws of the community. This
holds, though in different degrees, whatever be the form of
govemment adopted, be it of one, of a few, or of the many.
In each it is equaUy essential that the wUl of the indiridual
be controlled ; (and what is this but the abridgment of his
hberty ?) in the first by the will of the prince, in the second
by that of the nobles, in the thfrd by that of the people,*
¦* There is a strange inaccuracy in the manner of talking some have used on
tbis subject. " The state,'' say they, " which is governed by its own will, that is,
by the will of the majority of its members, is the only state that can be called
free, being under self-government, and so its own legislator." Be it so. But
when, ere we are aware, ye slide in as identical, " Every man in such a state is
self-governed, and his own legislator," ye obtrude upon us a proposition, which,
so far from coinciding, is inconsistent with the fonner. The individual in such
a community is, in every thing wherein the community interposes, govemed not

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 277
" Is there then no difference bet\\'ecii one govermncut and
another, between what is thought the most despotic and the
by his own will, but by theirs, by the will of tlie majority of his foUow-citizona
though diametrically opposite to that whicli his reason approves, and to which
his disposition inclines him. " But he has a vote in public measures, .and if he
be of the majority, there is a coincidence of his will with that of the state." Un
doubtedly. But then, if ho be of tho minority, is not his will in opposition to
that of the state? Yet, in contradiction to his own, he must conform to the will
of the state ; consequently, is not self-governed ; consequently, by your own ex
planations, is TKi freeman, but the slave of the state. The state is free, but he is
a dave. Occasional coincidences do not alter the case. The will of the despot
may, in several instances, be coincident with that of his slave, Tho latter is not
the less a slave in obeying him, though his yoke be the easier ; for the concur
rence is accidental. Ye insist, that, "by entering into such a polity, a man con
sents once for all to be govemed by the will of the majority. The will of the
majority, therefore, is properly thenceforth considered as his. If so, he is still
free, and. his own legislator, even when acting in opposition to his judgment and
choice." Do ye not perceive, that this reply, if it have any weight, affects only
the founders of the republic who enter personally into such engagements.' But
m fact it is a palpable sophism. A man is only so far free, as his actions are
directed by what is his will, not by what was his will ; by his pai-ticular opinion
of the known case, not by a general acquiescence in he knew not what. By
such an acquiescence, on the contrary, every body allows that he binds himself.
Now, as far as he is bound, he is no longer free. A poor man, in the time of
&mine, barters his liberty for bread, engaging his service for life to his rich
neighbour. Such things have often happened. Now, if one of our modern
political philosophers, seeing this man afterwards groaning under the drudgery
and intolerable hardships of his condition, should, to comfort him, tell him, in
the pompous language of his part)', tbat he is as free as his master, that he ia
self-governed, self-directed, and his own legislator ; because the will to which
he consented to subject himself, ought from that moment to be considered as
his ovm; who, I pray, would not accuse a comforter of this stamp of insulting
the wretch's misery with the most inhuman mockery ?
Once more : In your paragon of republics, every mjan, of whatever quality,
character, station, or circumstances, has an equal share in governing; because,
to exclude any man from this honour, which ye deem hia birthright, and to
enslave him, ye affirm are the same. It has been asked, (but I have not yet
heard of any answer,) why not every womxm and every (MLd ? How unworthily
soever these are treated in other polities, we should not imagine that in your per
fect model, where we are made to expect the very elixir of freedom, the greater
part of the species would be left in absolute thraldom. Is it the doctrine of
these patrons of the natural rights of huraanity, that woman is, and ought to be,
doomed the irredeemable captive and drudge of that lordly creature MAN? Is
this her destiny even with the friends of freedom ? There can be no doubt of
it : for, if they will give her no suffrage in national councils, no voice in legis
lation, she is not governed by her own will, is not her own legislatrix, and there
fore, by their fundamental axioms, has no liberty, but is the hopeless slave of
s2

278 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
freest?" There are many differences, but they result from
principles totally distinct from those in which some modern
poUtical schemers affect to place them. One momentous
difference is, when, by the constitution, the authority of the
laws is paramount to that of any persons, however eminent
in station. In this case the people are governed by established
rules, which they know, or may know if they will; and
are not liable to be punished by their superiors, unless they
transgress those rules. Such are properly under a legal go
vernment. When the reverse obtains, and men are hable to
be harassed at the pleasure of their superiors, though guilty
of no transgression of a known rule, they are under arbitrary
power. Again, the government is not only denominated legal,
hut free, where, from its structure, there arises the highest
probability that the laws shall be both equitable, and adapted
to public utility. 'When positive statutes coincide with the
natural sentiments of right and ideas of fitness, our minds
so entirely approve them, that we do not consider them as
restraints additional to those to which our mental powers
have subjected us. But when betwixt these, instead of coin
cidence, there is contrariety, the condition of tbe people is
unnatural, and so far slavish as the laws prove a galhng yoke,
to which nothing but terror can secure obedience. In this
respect the odds in forms of government is very great.
In regard to our own. That one of the essential branches
of the legislature is elective ; that its members must be men
of such rank and fortune as give them a personal interest in
preserring the constitution and promoting the public good ;
that they are elected from all the different counties and
boroughs in the island, by those who have a principal concern
both in agriculture and in trade ; that they are but temporary
legislators, and may soon be changed ; that the lavs^s they
those whose will she receives for law, I cannot help thinking this exclusion
the more inexcusable, that their enlarged plan, which admits all men, without
distinction of rank, education, or circumstances, could have sustained no con
ceivable injury, had they overlooked also the distinctions of age and sex. This
would, without endangering tbeir scheme in the least, have added to it more
liberality, aa well as uniformity. Indeed, to add to its absurdity and confusion,
will be admitted, by every cool and impartial inquirer, to be beyond the compass
of possibility.

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 279
make for otherl must affect themselves ; these are the great
bulwarks of BRITISH FREEDOM, as they afford the
supreme council of the nation the best opportunities of know
ing, and the strongest motives for enacting what is most be
neficial, not to one part of the country, or to one class of the
inhabitants, but to the whole. And- if so, the people will very
rarely be laid under hurtful, and not often under unreason
able, that is, unnecessary restraints. The more this is the
case with a people, thev more they enjoy of civil liberty, and
the freer is thefr- government.
Another important difference in pohtical models, in respect
of freedom, is, when the legislature is so constituted as to
secure alike against the tyranny of the great, and the mad
ness of the multitude. The first of these is an invariable
effect, in some degree, of absolute monarchy, and in the
highest degree of unhmited aristocracy, where the power is
lodged in an hereditary nobihty. The second is as invariably
the consequence of pure democracy. The populace in every
nation are, and must be, from the laborious and circumscrib
ed way of life to which necessity subjects them for subsist
ence, ignorant and credulous, an easy prey to ambitious,
worthless, and designing men. And fatal experience erinces,
that none can be more unjust and cruel, or more blind and
precipitate, than an incensed rabble : " Never is human
nature so debased," says a celebrated foreigner, " as when
ignorance is armed with power."* The guard there is in the
British constitution against both extremes, is justly account
ed its principal exceUence. The only other difference I shall
mention is, the security there is under some civil establish
ments of impartial judgment to litigants, and a fair trial to
those accused of crimes. Thereby the people are defended
against encroachment and oppression, both from neighbours
and from rulers. These are the principal distinctions be
tween legql and arbitrary, free and slavish, as apphed to
governments. These are in Uke manner real and weighty
distinctions, very unhke the illusive dreams of our political
castle-builders. • Voltaire, Hist. Geu. chap. 118,

280 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
But if any where the idea of such a democracy, wherein
every member is his ovm lawgiver, is realized, it is, as has
been justly observed by some writers, in the diets and dietines
of Poland ; for, in the estabhshed anarchy of that country,
every member, that is, every nobleman, for the commons are
no better than slaves, has it in his power to stop the proceed
ings of the whole. The real, not the nominal consent of
every indiridual, is there literally necessary. The conse
quence is, that nowhere, under sophi, mogul, or sultan, is
there less order, less hberty, less security than there. Every
man is at the mercy of every man. Every man has it in his
power to do much and public mischief, not one to do any
public and substantial good. Is then this chaotic jumble,
for I can call it neither government nor constitution, the
great idol of our modem repubhcans ? I cannot allow myself
to think so. But I am certain of one thing, that it is the
only model which their fantastic maxims serve in any degree
to justify.
I do not say that that model, bad as it is, is an exact re
presentation of the modem political monster self-legislation;
that it equals the extravagance implied in the definition given
of a free or legal government, the only government wherein
the people are under an obligation in conscience to obey the
magistrate. " It is," say they, " a state wherein every man
is govemed by laws of his own making." These are indeed
fine words, and an admirable topic they fumish to popular
declaimers. But if ye do not choose to be fascinated by un
meaning phrases, ye need only reflect, and the charm dis
solves of itself. Who is so ignorant as tb need to be told,
that the system of laws in every cirilized nation, €i\e freest,
if ye will, in the universe, is the work of ages; and that no
persons liring can, in any sense, be said to be makers of
them ? Our consent could not have been asked to the making
of laws, before we had an existence ; and it is no otherwise
that we give it to them now, than as we give it to the laws of
the universe, in accommodating ourselves to them the best
way we can. Nay, there are many of them which, though
we submit to them, we may disapprove, and would alter, if
we could. To say they are the work of our ancestors, is no-
9

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 281
thing to the purpose. Wc are as distinct persons from them,
as from the people of France or of Egypt ; and our inclina
tions and sentiments may be as different from theirs, as from
those of any other nation whatever. And though it be true,
that the present generation has some share in the business
of law-making, as well as former generations, it is equally
toue, that, in a state considerably advanced in civihzation, all
the laws that can be made in the time of any one set of
legislators, wiU scarcely be found to exceed the ten thousandth
part of the whole code.
But if, by aU this parade of big words, no more is meant
than the acquiescence which, from a principle both of pubhc
utihty and of private, we give to the laws of our countiy, it
might vrith equal truth be affirmed, that the laws of nature,
whereby the heats in summer, and the storms in winter, and
the more temperate weather in spring and autumn are con
ducted, are of our making, because we find it both our duty
and our interest to acquiesce in them. Once more : If aU those
glorious pririleges so pompously displayed, sink, on the scru
tiny, into a mere passive submission and acquiescence, and if
this be the true basis of civU Uberty, the inhabitants of Persia
or of Japan have more freedom than we Britons, as their ac
quiescence wiU be found much perfecter than ours. The less
power the people have in matters of legislation and govern
ment, the more these matters vrill be considered by them as
on a footing vrith the laws of the universe, and beyond thefr
reach. On the contrary, the greater power they have, the
more they will be accustomed to scrutinize pubUc measures,
and the more they vrill find themselves disposed to grumble.
I have afready observed, that with those reasoners whose
sentiments on this subject I have been examining, no form
of govemment, wherein thefr radical maxims have no place,
can be ca&ed just or legitimate, or can lay amoral obUgation
on the people to obedience. " Every other form," say they,
" as it is founded in riolence of one kind or other, so, when
a proper opportunity offers, may justly be overturned by
riolence, nay, ought to be overturned, that room may be
made for a free and rightful government, the only one that
binds the conscience." I should think that the bare mention

282 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
of consequences so baneful to society, logically deducible
from a set of principles, would startle the benevolent and
judicious, and make them coolly re-examine the principles
which lead to such conclusions, by whatever respectable names
they come recommended. I know that some such paradoxes
as 1 have been combating have been adopted, or rather hastUy
thrown out in the heat of disputation, and party confficts
unfriendly to the discovery of truth, by writers whose fame,
in other respects deservedly great, has drawn a veneration
even for their crudities. But let us not be so much dazzled
by any name, how illustrious soever, as to sacrifice to it the
rights of truth and justice.
Consider, I pray you, is it credible, that in at least nine
teen nations out of twenty now existing in the world, (I ad
mit, for argument's sake, that there are some which come
within their description,) the people are under no obUgation
to obey the ruling powers ? Is there no right but that of
the stronger subsisting among them? How does this doc
trine quadrate with that of the New Testament ? I hope
I speak to the disciples of Christ, to those who believe the
Scriptures to be a revelation from God. If so, I persuade
myself, my hearers wiU not be rash in admitting any theory
which will not bear the test of Holy Writ. We have afready
tried those novel maxims of our modem republicans by the
Ught of REASON ; let us bring them also to the Christian
touchstone, the BIBLE. This is a field on which, as far as
I have observed, the combatants have not yet entered. But
surely, if we have not renounced the faith of Jesus, it is of
the utmost consequence to us to know how far any princi
ples, however artfully inculcated, are conformable to the
heavenly lessons transmitted from our Dirine Master. Hear
his faithful servant Paul : Let every soul be subject to the
higher powers; for there is no power but of God. The powers
that be are ordained of God, Whosoever therefore resisteth
the power, resisteth the ordinance of God : And they that
resist, shall receive to themselves damnation, Rom. xiii. 1,2.
Can any thing be more expUcit? By the most moderate
interpretation, this threatening must denote divine punish
ment either here or hereafter. No hmitation is annexed.

TIIE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 283
from which we can learn that the precept was meant to ex
tend to the subjects of only one species of civil pohty. Ma-
gisfrates, on the contrary, are here denoted by terms of the
most extensive signification, that we may know that the in
tention was to comprehend those under every constitution.
They are the higher, or the ruhng powers, and the powers
that be; those under the conduct of Proridence settled among
you, democratical or monarchical, hereditary or elective.
And if we inquire. What were the powers actually in being
at" the time, to which the people were commanded to be
subject? the answer is plain. They were the powers of the
Boman government ; not of the commonwealth, but of the
empire, a new species of military monarchy, elective indeed,
but not by the people either coUectively or representatively;
irregular, arbitrary, and such as suited not in any respect
what modern theorists caU a just and legitimate government.
In regard to tribute, the point so hotly agitated with us at
present, nothing can be more express : — Render to all their
dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom,
fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour, Rom. xiu. 7.
What shall we say to this passage, if aU custom and tribute
are naturally and essentially free gifts on the part of the peo
ple, and if consequently no tribute or custom could be due to
any man to whom they had not preriously, either personally
or by their representatives, freely given and granted it ? But
with this doctrine, it seems, the apostle was utterly unac
quainted. The Jews indeed had a system of their ovm with regard to
taxing, qiute different from the American system, (of which
they certainly had no conception), but plainly pointing to the
same object, an exemption. Their doctrine was, that " God's
elect people, the holy nation, the descendants of the patri
archs, were not taxable by idolaters such as the- Romans,
uneireumeised and profane." This was the grand topic of
declamation of their patriots ; for they too had their patriots.
Their objection, as it had some colour from the Old Testa
ment, could not fail to appear plausible to a people vrith
whose prejudices, pride, and selfishness, it perfectly coincided.
But did our Saviour, when consulted by them, give his sane-

284 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
tion to thefr sentiments ? Did he by his answer court popu
larity, and the fame of patriotism ? I use the term in its
modem degradation. Quite the reverse. Though, by his
manner of answering, he eluded the mahce his enemies
showed in putting the question, nothing can be more deci
sive than his reply. After asking them to show him the tri
bute money, and being told that it bore Casar's image and
superscription, he immediately rejoined. Render therefore to
Ccesar the things which are Ceesar's, and to God the things
which are God's, Matt. xxU. 21 ; plainly intunating, that as
they derived the advantages of protection and eiril order
from the Roman govemment, of which the currency of its
coin was an eridence, they ought not to refuse contributing
to its support. Yet it is certain, that to any tax exacted by
the Romans, the consent of no Jew was ever asked. Is it
so then, that this original, this unahenable, this indefeasible
right, to which, in the turgid dialect of America, the laws of
nature and of nature's God entitle every man, that no part
of his property can be ahenated viithout his consent, was to
taUy unknown to our Lord and his apostles ?* Did they not
• It is indeed scarcely credible, that any who entail slavery on their fellow-
creatures, whom they buy and sell like cattle in the market, (and some such, it
ia said, are in the Congress), should have the absurd efitontery to adopt this lan
guage. If they really believe their own doctrine, what opinion must they en
tertain of themselves, who can haughtily trample on what they acknowledge to
be the tmalienable rights of mankind .-' Will they dare to elude this charge by
declaring, tbat they do not consider negroes and Indians as of the human species ?
That they account them beasts, or rather worse, one would naturally infer from
tbe treatment they too commonly give them. But I have not yet heard that
they openly profess this opinion. How well does their cenduct verify what has
been remarked with great justice of all those republican levellers who raise a
clamour abont the natural equality of men, and (te'r indefeasXble rights, that they
mean only to level all distinctions above them, and pull down their superiors, at
the same time that they tyrannize over their inferiors, and widen, as much as
possible, the distance hetween themselves and those below them. Indeed thia
character, if I understand him right, is given to the southern provincea, particu
larly Virginia and the Carolinas, by their celebrated patron, Mr, Burke, [See
his speech, March 1775,] Nay, the haughtiness of domination, as he expresses
it, exercised over the wretches in tbeir power, is, by the MAGIC of his elo
quence, converted into an argument with their superiors, the British l^sla-
ture, to treat these petty tyrants with greater lenity than would be proper
towards persons more humble and humane. An ordinary genius would have
deduced tbe opposite conclusion ; for if any people deserve to have judgmefd

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 285
discover, what is clear as demonstration to aU our western bre
thren, that without such consent, by whatever law or statute
the tax was imposed, it could be no better than statutable
plunder?* Or, knowing it, did they dissemble the matter,
take the aid of equivocation, tliat they might conceal it from
the people, and court the favour of tiie great ? Will any
Chiistian affirm this : and not rather, that if they had known
of such a right, they would have furnished their countrymen
with this additional ai-gument in support of their plea ; in
structing them better in the prerogatives of the species, which
were not the less thefrs, because they were so stupid as not to
find them out ?
Further, did the ifrst pubhshers of the gospel never reflect
that Judea was one country and Italy another ; that the Jews
and the Romans were two very distant peoples, different in
origin, manners, laws, and language, and of rehgions oppo
site in every article, and incompatible ? The argument would
have been incomparably stronger in their case than it is in
our present contest, which admits only the plea of distance.
Has Paul in particular acted the pohtician in this affair ?
Has he shrewdly given an ambiguous order to pay tribute to
whom tribute is due, that, on the one hand, he might appear
a dutiful subject to the Pagan magistrate, and, on the other,
might suggest to Christians an excellent pretence for eluding
the obUgation, by maintaining that there is none to whom tri
bute is due ? Far be such rile artifices, the disgrace even of
Jesuits, fi-om the select missionaries of THE TRUE AND
FAITHFUL WITNESS. Far be such execrable casuis
try from being charged on the Word of GOD, the Oracle
of truth. Indeed if the whole passage is attended to, we shaU
find that the apostle has left no scope for this poor subterfuge.
For this cause, says he, pay ye tribute also, for they are God's
ministers attending continually on this very thing. He does
not hesitate to ascribe to them a dirine commission, in the
character even of iaxers. Now nothing is more certain than
witlioiti mercy, it is they u-lio sliow no mercy. I do not say, however, tbat this ought
to be our rule of dealing with them. " Let mercy, though unmerited, still triumph
over judgment,"
* A favourite phrase of the Congress.

28G THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
that in the Roman empire in those days, the people, through
out the provinces, were assessed either by the imperial autho
rity or by the senate ; and had no share, either personally
or by representatives, in assessing themselves : for the senate
was not chosen by the people. I entreat you, my brethren,
for the sake oi truth, for the sake of that worthy name by which
ye are called, for the sake oiyour own souls, and those of
your fellow-Christians, to compare impartially the language
of our Lord and his apostles with that of our modern dema
gogues : and, from the difference ye find in them, judge of
the different spirit which they breathe. Not a single hint do
we get from those, that " taxation and representation are
inseparable ; no suggestion that for Christians tamely to sub
mit in an article of this nature, would be to sacrifice their
liberties, to be lost to every sense of rirtue, to sell themselves
and their posterity to perpetual servitude." Let those do it
who can ; I own it is impossible for me to reconcile this lan
guage with that of the gospel.*

* Nothing has astonished me more in the course of this controversy, than to
observe that some leamed men on the opposite side should imagine, tbat they
can conciliate their favourite maxims with the precepts of the gospel. One in
particular, of whose abilities and piety I have a very great opinion, and to whoae
sentiments I have in this discourse frequently alluded, has (I am convinced very
sincerely) bestowed the highest encomiums on Christianity, as the perfection of
religion and of reason. But truth compels me to remark, that, if the principles
of his party he well-founded, those encomiums are exceedingly misplaced ; their
system not having a greater enemy on earth than the gospel. Once admit their
notions of the only just and legitimate government, and ye transform tbe pub
lishers of our religion into preachers of slavery, both internal and extemal. To
inculcate on the Romans obedience to rulers on whom they had no check, and
submission to edicts in the framing of which they had no share, directly or indi-
' rectly ; what waa it, on the system of our American advocates, if it was not
preaching up intemal slavery, which subjecta the community to the will of a part .'*
And in regard to other nationa, as Jews and Greeks, to command tbem to obey
the emperor, and magistrates deputed by him ; what was it less than preaching
up extemal slavery, which subjects nations to a distant and foreign power .' As to
thia sort, we are not left to infer it : We are told plainly, " Such was the slavery
of the provinces subject to ancient Rome. How unreasonable and injurious then
waa it to be an advocate for such h. power, to attempt to reconcile men to it, by
maintaining that resistance will expose them to divine vengeance .' Yet, on the
principles of our adversaries, thus unreasonable and thus injurious (there is no
dissembling it) were Jesus Christ and his apostles Peter and Paul — Jesus Christ
to his countrymen in Judea, Peter to the Jews in dispersion, and Paul to the

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 287
So strong did the argument from the words of Paul appear
against the papal usurpations on the secular powers ; for if
every soul must be subject to them, (and it was to the Ro
mans the words were addressed,) tiie bishop or pope can plead
no exemption ; — so strong, I say, did this argument appear,
that some of the canonists could conceive no way of eluding
it hut by maintaining, that aU such injuctions ai-e merely
prudential advices ; that as the Christians were then the
weaker party, who, if they had not paid willingly, would have
been compelled, and might have suffered in other respects,
the apostle thought it adrisable for them to comply, since
they could not make thefr- condition better by a refusal:
Cretans, on whom he strictly enjoined Titus to inculcate those enslaving doctrines.
And if, to make no difference in enforcing obedience on those ivitlmi, and those
wiUtout, that community which might be strictly denominated ROMAN ; if,
without suggesting any distinction, to employ the same sanctions, the divine
favour and the divine displeasure with them both, be to maintain that resistance
is no tes criminal in the one case than in the other ; and if to maintain this be,
as has been affirmed, to insult those to whom this language is addressed— I do
not see in what manner our antagonists will clear our Lord and his apostles
ftom this ugly imputation. — " But has nothing been alleged from Scripture on
the other side ?" It is true, tbat =. few passages which, as appears from the ex
pressions employed, and from the context, relate solely to the spiritual kingdom
of the Messiah, and the means whereby it ought to be promoted and supported,
have most unnaturally been forced into tbe service of political projectors : Yet
nothing can be clearer, than that the intention of those places, so far from being
to prescribe a model to worldly polities, was to contradistinguish the church,
a heavenly polity, to all of them. They do not therefore invalidate the methoda
proper to be used in these, but expressly prohibit the Christian pastors from
admitting those methods into the service of religion. However much therefore
those instructions may militate against the erection of a spiritual tyranny, or
hierarchy, like the Romish, they nowise affect the secular power. This, with
ita various arrangements and offices, though of a different nature, operating by
different means, and to a different end, so far from being superseded by the other,
is declared also to be Hie ordiTiance of God, and necessary to human society in its
present corrupt state. It happens unluckily for our opponents, that as monarchy
was the established power in the time of our Lord and his apostles, when these,
in their injunctions, deacend to pai-ticulara, they always specify the subordina
tions of kingly government. In short, the argument from Scripture, in every
view I take of it, appears so fall, so explicit, so decisive, that I could undertake
to demonstrate, that the dissolute and execrable lessons of a late father to his son,
on the subject of aduUery and dissimulation, are not more iiTeconcilable to the
pure morals of Christianity, than the libertine and hardly less pernicious max
ims, though susceptible of a more specious colouring, of some democratical de
claimers.

288 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
Those precepts, then, are to be viewed in the same hght as
we should riew the counsel of a friend, who, when we were
setting out on a joumey, should warn us, that, if we meet
with highwaymen on the road, we ought to give them our
money rather than endanger our hves. — A curious tum, I
must acknowledge, to the dictates of inspfration.
At the same time I do but justice to those casuists when
I confess, that I have not heard any thing so specious, for
obriating so strong an argument from Scripture, advanced
by any of our champions on the side of the Araerican revolt.
For this reason I shall suppose, that such of them as think
the doctrine of the Bible of any consequence in the debate,
satisfy thefr consciences with the gloss above-mentioned. Be
it, then, that there is no right in any government not esta
bhshed and upheld by universal consent, but the freebooter's
right, the right of the stronger ; that there is no law in such
but club-law ; that there is no motive to submission, but that
which ought to influence us, in case we were encountered
by pirates, robbers, or ruffians of whatever denomination ;
that there is no difference between these and eiril rulers,
but such as obtains between less and greater -riUains, not a
difference in kind, but in degree : On this hypothesis, if the
apostle had been adrising Christians as to the conduct they
should maintain in case of being attacked by robbers, his
style and reasoning ought to have been the same. But wiU
any Christian, vriU even a candid infidel, who has read the
apostle's vmtings, affirm that he would have used the same
arguments ? Would his reason for thefr compliance have
been, that robbery is of God ? that the highwayman is his
minister for thefr good, expressly commissioned to rob on the
highway ; that resisting him is resisting God's ordinance, and
the sure way of incurring the Dirine vengeance ?" or. Could
this have been called arguing on the merely prudential con
sideration of not idly opposing a superior force ? Barely to
unfold what is imphed in some opinions, is a sufficient refii-
tation. But what can more exphcitly exclude this absurd,
not to say blasphemous cavU, than what foUows, Be ye sub
ject also not only for wrath but for conscience sake; not only
fr-om fear of wrath, the punishment that may be inflicted by

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 289
the offended magistrate, but (even if that could be eluded)
act thus from a principle of duty towards God, who requires
it of you.
A celebrated foreigner, a repubhcan too of the new model,
whose understanding, though very acute, has, in several in
stances, proved the dupe of a warm imagination and strong
passions, intoxicated with the chimerical msixims I have
aheady considered, has with inflnite labour chalked out the
plan of a democracy perfectly Utopian, such as never was,
and never wUl be brought into effect. This man, though a
professed admirer of the gospel, and at times he would make
us think a beUever, had too much discernment not to dis
cover, and too much candour not to acknowledge, that it is
unpossible to reconcUe Christianity -with the idol of a repub
hc which he had reared up. I am surprised that none of
the worshippers of this IDOL, in our island, seem to have
attended to this remark.* As httle have they attended to
another of the same author, that it is only in a very smaU
city that his scheme is practicable.f I am not so much asto
nished that they have not discovered, what to me is equaUy
plain, that common sense (with which I could never find the
gospel at variance in any thing) is not less its foe than Chris
tianity. That our reUgion strongly inculcates the duty of subjects
to the magistrate, (which this philosopher caUs being favour
able to tyraimy,) is undeniable. It gives no preference to one
form of government above another ; it does not enter into
the question, but it is friendly to order and to the pubhc
.. peace, which it will not permit us rashly to infringe ; it teaches
us to respect the dispensations of Proridence, and to seek the
good of the society whereof we are members. The ancient
landmarks of the constitution it forbids us to remove, in the
presumptuous hope that we shaU place them anew better
than our fathers have done. Nay more, it unites in such a
manner our allegiance to the sovereign, and loyalty to the
constitution of our country, with piety towards God, as shows
that there is an intimate comiexion between these duties.
* Rousseau, Du Contrat Social, liv. iv. chap. 8.
t Liv. iii. chap, 15,

290 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
Fear the Lord and the king, says Solomon, and meddle not
with them that are given to change. To the same purpose
Peter, Fear God, honour the king, 1 Pet. u. 17. And in
the words I have often referred to from Paul, the duty is
all along enforced from a principle of reverence to God.
At the same time it does not preclude the constitutional
support of any eiril right, Paul, though as sensible as any
man of the shortness of life, and of the smallness of its value
compared with eternity, did not disdain oftener than once to
assert his right as a denizen of Rome, happily joining the
spirit of the Roman with the moderation of the Christian ;
Acts xvi. 37 ; xxii, 25. And in the former part of this
discourse I have shown, I hope with sufficient eridence, that
none of the expressions recommending the duty of allegiance,
if candidly interpreted by the same rules which are admitted
in interpreting other precepts similarly expressed, can be
understood to exclude an exception in cases of extreme
necessity. It was also observed, that in the general tferms
employed in Scripture, there is manifestly included the whole
oi the civil constitution. And the whole is more to be re
garded than a part. Even the royal power, however consi
derable, is still, in respect to the constitution, but a part.
In regard to the present quarrel, it may justly be said that
it is the whole that is attacked. Indeed the ringleaders of
the American revolt, the members of their Congress, have,
in their last declaration, pointed all their malice against the
King, as though, in consequence of a settled plan, he had
been adopting and pursuing tyranmcal measures in order to
render himself absolute. They have accordingly spared no
abuse, no insult, by which they could infiame the minds of
an unhappy and deluded people. Thefr expressions are such
as decency forbids me to repeat. The means they employ are
indeed of a colour with the end they pursue. But let those
who can lay claim to any impartiality or candour but refiect,
and say, in what single instance our benign sovereign has
adopted any measure but by the adrice of the British legis
lature, or pursued a separate interest from that of the British
nation. It is solely concerning the supremacy of the Par
liament, the legislative body of Great Britain, and not con-

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. ^91
cerning tiie prerogatives of the crown, that we ai-e now con
tending. And ought not this circumstance to enhance our
obhgation to concur with alacrity, as far as our infiuence will
extend, in strengthening the hands of the government, now
laid under a necessity of seeking, by arms, to bring back to
thefr duty those insolent and rebelhous subjects ?
I am unwilhng to quit the argument, without taking notice
of every plea that may seem to be of weight on the other side
of the question. Some of the more moderate advocates for
these people wiU plead, that, without recurring to any demo
cratical and newfangled principles, or to the footing on wliich
the colonists themselves, and some of their most sanguine
champions in this country, think proper to place thefr de
fence, these few questions, for clearing the point, may per
tinently be asked. Ffrst, " Whether or not have the British
Americans a eiril and constitutional right (let the terms na
tural and unalienable, with the other nonsense employed for
taking in the rabble, be exploded) to aU the pririleges of
British subjects?" Secondly, "Is it not a distinguishing
pririlege of British subjects, that they are not taxable but by
thefr representatives ?" And, thfrdly, " If this be the case,
can the Americans be regularly or justly taxed by a Parha
ment in which they have no representatives ? "
In answer to the first question. It is admitted they are en
titied to aU the privileges of British subjects. In answer to
the second. If the members of the House of Commons are,
as the objector surely means to signify, the representatives
only of those by whom they are elected, it is not the pririlege
of aU British subjects that they are not taxable but by their
representatives. This is the pririlege of those only who are
in a certain way quaUfied. It is not above one in twenty of
the people of England, or above one in a hundred of the
people of Scotland, who have a voice in the election of mem
bers of Parhament. But if the members represent also those
who are not thefr electors, and have no power, no infiuence
whatever, fri electing them, it will be impossible to assign a
good reason why they may not be denominated the represen
tatives of all the subjects in America, as well as in Britain.
This leads dfrectiy to the answer to the third question. If,
T

292 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
as has been computed, there be at least between six and
seven milhons of people in Great Britain, who are taxed by
a Parhament in which they are not represented, it can be
deemed neither unreasonable nor unconstitutional, that there
should be about two milUons in America in the same situa
tion. It would be uncandid not to admit, that there is some dif
ference in the cases. The members of the House of Com
mons, in almost every tax (for there are some exceptions) *
they lay on their British fellow-subjects, tax themselves in
proportion. The case is different in regard to their fellow-
subjects in America. But this is an inequality that neces
sarily results from the difference of situation ; and is, besides,
more than counterbalanced by some motives and difficulties
that will ever effectuaUy prevent the legislature from going
the same lengths in taxing the American subjects which it
may safely go in taxing Britons.
But it is notorious, that the former have declared against
every method that has yet been devised for removing this
capital objection, the only one of consequence in the cause.
The simplest method would doubtless be, to allow them a
certain number of representatives in the House of Commons.
Against this proposal they have always loudly and vehemently
exclaimed. Do they favour what has also been suggested in
this controversy, that a particular and moderate rate should
be fixed, according to which the subsidies levied from them
should uniformly bear a certain proportion to those leried
from Great Britain ? To this they have given no better re
ception than to the other. Yet this would effectually remove
the grand difficulty, that the ParUament, by loading the Ame
ricans, would ease themselves. In this case, on the contrary,
no burden could be brought on them but when a propor
tionably greater is laid on the British subject. Have they
then proposed any method themselves for remoring tius ob
stacle, this great stumbhng-block ? Nothing that I know of,
* The following, and perhaps some more, may be regarded aa exceptions -—The
act establishing the post-office; from this tax the privilege of franking exempts aU
members of parliament. The act imposing a tax on seamen for the aupport of Green
wich Hospital, The act for laying an excise on ale and beer brewed for sale

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 293
but a total immunity, or what is equivalent, to bt> left to do
as they please. This, and only this, will content them.
Will any considerate person say, that this is a reasonable
motion on their part ? Nothing can be less so. The colonies
indeed, by tlieir own pi-orinci;il assemblies, have been in the
practice of raising a small part, and but a small part, of what
is necessary for the internal administration of justice and the
govemment of the colony : But in this way they have not
hitherto raised money for defi-aying the more pubhc and un
avoidable expenses of the government in the protection of the
whole. Nor indeed is this an adequate method of doing it,
considering the independency of the provinces on one another ;
considering the difficulty of adjustment, when every one of
so many is left entfrely to itself; considering too the natural
selfishness of men, which leads them to shift the burden, as
much aspossible, off themselves, and throw it upon their neigh
bours. In the two last wars, which were entered into solely
for the defence of the colonies, and in consequence of the cla
mour raised by them and their agents in this country, this
nation was involved in more than seventy millions of debt.
And of this enormous sum they have not agreed, nor wiU agree
to any rule, by which a certain contingent, however low, may
be ascertained as what ought to be leried from them.
ShaU I give you the sum of aU their proposals to their
British feUow-subjects, before they formaUy renounced thefr-
aUegiance ? I shall doubtless be accused of treating with ridi
cule a very serious business. But let it be observed, that
when people are absurd in their propositions and demands,
the naked truth makes their conduct ridiculous. — That it
does so, can reflect only on themselves ; since to expose their
absurdity is the ineritable consequence of a just representa
tion. I am not sensible that, in the foUowing account, the
real purport of thefr overtures and pretensions are, in any
respect, misrepresented, or even heightened. What they
claim, and what they offer, appear to amount to no more
than this : — " We wiU do your king the honour to acknow
ledge him for our king ; we wiU never refuse to pay him that
compUment, prorided no more than comphment is understood
by it. Judicial proceedings shall be in his name ; and his
t2

294 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
name (which vrill serve as weU as any other name) shall
stand at the head of our proclamations. Nay, he shall no
minate to certain offices among us, prorided it be in our
power to feed or starve the officers, or at least to permit them
to act, or tie up their hands, as we happen to like or dishke
thefr conduct. Though we are not satisfied with the reason
ableness of the thing, we shaU, for the present, submit to the
restraints laid on our trade by the act of narigation, prorided
we have none of your military to guard the execution of that
act ; and prorided, further, that when any of our merchants
are accused of smugghng, thefr cause be tried by a jury of
smugglers ; or, if any of our people be charged vrith sedition
and riot, they be tried by a jury of the mob — for this, we
think, is in the tme spirit of trial by jury, which is, that a
man be tried by his peers. We do not mean, however,
that this pririlege shaU extend in the same manner to your
custom-house officers, and other dependants of the crown, who,
if they shouldbe senthither, and be accused of any crime, shaU
be tried by a jury too, not indeed of custom-house officers, but
of our liberty-men, that is, our rioters and contraband traders,
with their patrons and abettors." And who can doubt that
they are fit depositaries of the Hves and properties of revenue
officers and soldiers ? " We wiU not be so disrespectful,
(however httle we value it,) as to decline participating in aU
the pri-rileges of British subjects, inheritance, succession,
offices, honours, and dignities amongst you, equaUy with the
natives oi Great Britain. Further, we vriU aUow your nation
the honour not only of being at the principal charge in sup
porting the intemal govemment of our provinces, but also
of protecting us, at your own expense, defensively and offen
sively, against aU our enemies, real or imaginary, by sea and
land, whenever we shall think proper to raise a clamour; and
we wiU in retum agree to give you " — How much ? — " Just
whatever we please, and, if we please, nothing at all." A
most extraordinary covenant, wherein aU the obhgations are
on one side, and every thing is discretionary on the other.
Is this the manner in which indiriduals, or even private ¦
companies, contract with one other ? Yet there are no doubt
many indiriduals, and perhaps some private companies, in

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 295
whom it might be safe to repose so implicit a confidence :
But to recommend to the people of one nation to take this
method in treating with those of another, can scarcely be
viewed otherwise than as an insult to their vmderstandings.
I may add, that of aU nations the last in whom we could vrith
safety place so great a trust is the North Americans, if the
unamiable portrait, which I am strongly inclined to think
exaggerated, but which one of their v^armest friends and
ablest advocates has drawn of them, is a just representation
of the original, and if they are such a proud, flerce, jealous,
restive, untractable, suspicious, litigious, chicaning race of
pettifoggers, as he seeins to exhibit them ;* and I may add,
if they are grossly insincere and false, as the conduct of their
worthy representatives, the Congress, exhibits them to every
one who wiU take the trouble to compare what they say of
the article of rehgion in the Quebec Act in thefr AppUcation
to the people of Great Britain, with what they say ofthe same
article in thefr Address to the people of Canada. Their
duphcity in this particular, and in some others, has proved
matter of confusion to such of their partisans in this country
as have a regard to truth and candour.f Certain it is, how-
* Mr. Burke's Speech, March 22, 1775.
t In their application to the people of thia island, they say, " We think the legis
lature of Great Britain is not authorized hy the conatitution to eatablish a religion
fraught with sanguinary and impious tenets." Again, " Nor can we suppress our
astonishment, that a British Parliament shonld ever consent to establish in that
country [Canada] a religion that has deluged your island in blood, and dispersed
i-inpiety, bigotry, persecution, murder, and rebellion, through every part of the world."
REBELLION, too, in this black catalogue. Oh the sanctimonious assurance of some
men! Quis tulerit GRACCHOS de seditione querentea ?
In their Address to the inhabitants of the province of Quebec, after enumerating
the rights which they affirm the Canadians ought to possess, they add, " And
what is offered to you by the late Act of Parliament in their phice ? Liberty of
conacience in your religion .' No : God gave it to you ; and the temporal powers
with which you have been, and are connected, firmly stipulated for your enjoy
ment of it. If laws divine and human could secure it against the despotic
rapacity of wicked men, it was secured before ;" that is, when the city and pro
vince were surrendered, on capitulation, to his Britannic Majestji, Thus what,
in the former Address, we are told the legislature of Great Brilain is not autho
rized by the constitution to do, we leam from tbe latter, is no more than .con
firming a right to which the laws of God and the faith of contracts entitled that

296 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
ever, that their terms of reconciliation, if they can be called
terms, where all the concessions are exacted from one side,
and nothing engaged for on the other, are, on every principle
of common sense, utterly unworthy of regard. Better far to

people; and wbich therefore it would have been both impious and treacheroua
in this nation to infringe. Nay, what is, if possible, more surprising, we leam
hence that the British Parliament, instead of doing too much for the establish
ment of the Romish religion in that region, has done too little. The Congress
is kind enough, therefore, to give them notice of this, and to warn them, that
hy the o«rf, all their rights, civil and religious, " are subject to arbitrary altera
tions by the govemor and council ; and power is expressly reserved, of appointing
such courts of criminal, civil, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as shall be thought
proper." They add, " Such is the precarious tenure of mere vnll by which you
hold your lives and RELIGION." What a fine topic for declamation in abus
ing the British legislature these orators would have had, if the Roman Catholic
religion had not been estahiished in Canada! With what avidity would these
zealous Protestants have laid hold of this circumstance, with what triumph
would they have expatiated on it, in order to inflame the minds of the Popish
Canadians ! As to that religion itself, which they have represented in their
Application to the people of Britain as the most frightful monster, it appears, in
their Address to the inhabitants of the province of Quebec, the most harmless
thing in nature. " We are too well acquainted," mark the meanness of these
flatterers, " with the liberality of sentiment distinguishing your nation, to imagine
that difference of religion will prejudice you against a hearty amity with us. You
know that the transcendent nature of freedom elevates those who unite in the cause,
above all such low-mindecf infirmities. The Swiss cantons furnish a memorable
proof of this truth. Their union is composed of Catholic and Protestant States,
living in the utmost concord and peace with one another ; and thereby enabled,
ever since they bravely vindicated their freedom, to defy and defeat every tyrant
that has invaded them." Really, Gentlemen, this is too much. For though such
profound politicians, engaged in such immense undertakings, may find it quite
necessary to dispense with the rigid rules of common hf>nesty.i it would be proper to
do it more co'ccrtly. Som&semblance of that antiquated and cumbersome virtue,
has always hitherto been judged convenient, even for the greatest Machiavels in
politics. Your harefa,ced manner may create a suspicion of a defect of another sort,
a defect, in common sense : and it is to be feared that this imputation will do you
more hurt than the other.
It would not, however, be equitable to form a judgment of the people from the
conduct of these trustees. When we consider the turbulence of the times wherein
the members of the Congress were elected, the factious spirit that had diffused itself,
and the seditious projects that were hatching, we have reason to believe, that few
men of candour and moderation, of equity and good sense, would stand foi-th can
didates for the office. Ajid if, by any chance, there were some such among them,
there is Uttle ground to think, that, during the general ferment, they would be
honoured with the popular suffrage. The wisest and the best, we may justly con
clude, have withdrawn from their elections altogether. And what the natural con
sequence would be, is very evident.

THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE. 297
let them have their beloved independence. I am not sure
that this would not have been the best measm-e from the
beginning.* I say this, however, with all due submission
and deference, for I am far from considering myself as a
proper judge in so nice a question.
What then is the conclusion of the whole ? It is precisely
that we foUow the admonition of the wise man, with whicli
we began, that we fear the Lord and the king, and meddle
notwith them that are given to change. Whilst we sincerely
repent of the misimprovement of former mercies, which have
provoked Heaven against us, let us act as free, yet not using
our liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, a practice too common
in these days, but as the servants of God ; entertaining a
proper detestation of that modern political hypocrisy, which,
under the disguise of patriotism, (a name once respectable,
now brought into disgrace by frequent misapplication,) at
tempts to screen the worst designs and most pernicious prac
tices. Let us often reflect, that it is no new thing to find
men who promise liberty to others, while they themselves are
the servants of corruption, 2 Pet. u. 19. Such there were
m the days of the apostles. Of such, Peter in particular
warns Christians to beware. The description he gives of
them bears too striking a resemblance, in many principal
features, to the factious and disaffected of our own time, not
to deserve our most serious attention. Like some of our
American orators and popular tribunes, they dehghted in a
boastful, tumid, and bombastic diction : They spoke gkeat
SWELLING words of vanity, 2 Pet. ii. 18. They despised
government, were presumptuous, self-willed, and not afraid to
speak evil of dignities, 2 Pet. U. 10.
In regard to the body of the people, our deluded fellow-
subjects on the other side of the Atlantic, let us consider them
as objects of our pity more than of our indignation. In be-
haU of the mere populace, the unthinking multitude, it may
with truth be pleaded ahnost in every insurrection, that their
ignorance is their apology : ITiey know not what they do : They
are but the tools of a few aspiring, interested, and designing
* Dr. Tucker has advanced some very plausible arguments in support of this
measure. See his Tracts.

298 THE DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE.
men, both on their side of the water and on ours. Already,
alas ! they have severely felt the effects of their folly. Let
us ardently pray to the Father of lights and of mercy, that
he would open the eyes of the people, and turn the hearts oi
their leaders. Too long already have they been wandering
in the dark, not knovring whither. Pretending to pursue
liberty, they have turned their back upon it, they have fled
from it. Seeking to avoid slavery, they have plunged head
long into it 1 — May God, who ruleth the raging of the sea,
and stilleth the noise of the waves, still the tumults of the
people ! May he soon restore them to their senses, for their
sakes and ours !
It is neither our duty nor our interest to wish ti^em, or any
part of the British dominions, in a state of servitude ; but we
ought to wish and pray, that aU our present differences may
be composed in such a manner, as, by providing against the
like disturbances in time to come, may effectually secure a
lasting peace. This is not more for our benefit than it is
for theirs. And indeed the interest of both, if rightly un
derstood, will be found to be the same. The radical evil in
their governments seems to have been, even in the judgment
of some of their friends,* that the constituent members of
their states were not equally balanced ; the repubhcan part
was more than a counterpoise to both the rest. This, to
superficial thinkers, (who conceive democracy and freedom
as synonymous,) is regarded as so much gained to the side of
liberty. There is not a more egregious error. The effect
is indeed constantly an increase of hcentiousness ; than which
no kind of tyranny is a greater enemy to rational and civil
liberty. If recourse is had to matter of fact, I am persuaded
those colonial governments will be found to have been the
most turbulent, the most unhappy, the most licentious, I will
add, the most intolerant, and such as by cousequence gave
the least security to the liberty and property of individuals
wherein the excess of power on the democratical side has
been the greatest. — May God, who bringeth hght out of
darkness, and order out of confusion, make all our troubles
terminate in what shall prove the fehcity of all !
* See Mr. Burke's Speech, March, 177S.

TABLE,

CONTAINING A SUMMARY OF ALL THE PARTICULARS
ABOVE TREATED.

Advertisement. — Apology for examining this subject
in a sermon, and for publishing . . . Page 251
Introduction. — Afflictions call to repentance. Bad
effects of particular vices, warnings to forsake those
vices ......... 255
The cause of war ....... ib.
The guUty authors but few, — the multitude misled by
their arts. The utility of exposing these arts early 256
Division. — Observations:^!. On the rights of ma
gistracy : 2. On the grounds of the present colonial
war  258
PART I.
Alterations constitutionaUy made not innovations . 259
The duty of subjects obedience. The principle of non-
resistance in any case, not justly deducible. Gene
ral precepts often admit exceptions , . . ib.
The very reason of the precept shows there may be
cases excepted ........ 260
The cause which justifies resistance must be, — 1. Im
portant. Nothing less than such tyranny as is
more insupportable than civil war . . . . ib.
Difference between inexpedient and immoral, in hu
man laws  262
Though no immoral command ought to be obeyed, it
foUows not that every such command may be resisted 263
2. Public. The cause of the whole not of a part.
Toleration in religion, a natural right. The chief
limits to civil laws, the impossible ahd the immoral. ib.

300 table.
The support of an establishment, whatever it be, gene
rally favourable to public tranquillity, and therefore
entitled to acquiescence or passive obedience Page 264
If uncommon barbarity may excuse resistance in a pri
vate cause, it can never exalt it into a virtue, as in
the cause of the pubhc. It is even virtuous to resign
a private right for the good of society . . . ib.
3. Understood by the community to be both impor
tant and public. When doubtful, our only safe
guide the precept ...... 265
A right in the people to resist in cases of necessity, can
not justify resistance where the necessity is not real.
Note  ; . 266
The author's reason for not recurring to the original
compact .  267
Obj. These principles unfriendly to improvement : —
answered. Criminal innovations may origuiate with
the rulers ....... 268
The case of Charles I. and the Long Parliament . ib.
The madness of destroying a good constitution, in the
hope of erecting a better in its stead . . . 269
part II.
The present question important . . . . ib.
It affects the whole legislature. The right of taxing
America the hinge of the controversy . . .271
This right favoured — 1. By custom, both before and
since the revolution : — 2. By the colonial charters :
— 3. Bythepracticeof the fe^fM^atere in other articles ib.
The doctrine of an essential difference between money
acts and other acts, ridiculous. Restraints on trade
reciprocal ....... 273
American objection to British laws from the want of
their consent  274
Ans. If consent were necessary, none would be bound
by a law but they who voted for it. The futihty of
what is called virtual or implied consent . . ib.
If consent means only the acquiescence required by the
constitution, this the same in all governments, even
the most arbitrary ...... 275

table.

301

No self-government, where a man is governed by the
opinion and will of others, whether one or many,
and not by his ovra. Perfect liberty incompatible
with civil society. There, Uberty always in part
sacrificed for protection .... Page 276
The liberty of the state mistaken for that of its mem
bers. Women and children, on the prmciples of our
republicans, absolute slaves. Note . . • 277
The distinction of legal and arbitrary, free and slavish,
as applied to government ..... 278
Advantages of the British constitution . . . ib.
By modern repubhcan maxims, Poland the most per
fect government ....... 280
The body of laws in no civUised country the work of
persons now Uving. Our acquiescence such as we
give to the laws of the universe, whereof we are
surely not the makers . . . . . . ib.
Modern repubhcans think their model the only lawful
govemment. Terrible consequences of this doctrine 281
The reverse of that of the gospel .... 282
The Jevrish notion on the subject of taxes different
from the American, but the object the same. Their
title to exemption not admitted by our Saviour . 283
A singular ef&ontery in men who keep slaves, to ex
claim about life, liberty, and property, as the un
alienable rights of mankind. Note . . . 284
The Jews, though both a distant and different nation
from the Romans, and not concurring in assessing
themselves, expressly enjoined to pay . . . ib.
By the maxims of our repubhcans, Christ and his
apostles preachers of slavery, both internal and ex
ternal. Note  286
Obj. The apostoUcal injunctions on this head, pruden
tial advices ........ 287
Ans. This plea confuted by the terms used . . 288
Rousseau, a famous repubhcan, admits that Chris
tianity and his system are incompatible . . . 289
The part which our rehgion takes in regard to the
constitution . . . . . . . . ib.

302

table.

Not unfavourable to the constitutional support of civil
rights  Page 290
The malice of the Congress to the King : the present
not so properly the king's quarrel as the nation's,
particularly the legislature's ..... ib.
The Americans have no more a constitutional than a
natural title to what they claim. Not one in twenty
of the people of Britain represented in Parliament 291
The disadvantage the Americans sustain in this re
spect, the necessary consequence of their situation.
No remedy that has been suggested relished by
them. Their manifest aim immunity . . . 292
They contribute but a part of the expense of their ovra
internal government ; no part of what is necessary
for the defence of the whole, or for discharging the
debt incurred by the two last wars, though entered
into for their protection, and in consequence of their
clamours  293
The sum of their proposals to Great Britain. Great
advantages demanded:, their returns discretionary . ib.
A character of the colonists given by one of their friends 295
The duplicity of the Congress in regard to the estab
lishment of the Roman Catholic religion in Canada.
The character of the people not to be concluded
from the actions of the Congress. Note . . 296
CONCLUSION.
Caution against allowing the pretence of liberty to be
tray us into licentiousness  297
Pretenders of this stamp in the apostohc age. The
people objects of pity more than of resentment . ib.
Not the interest of Britain that America be enslaved.
The interest of both the same. A vulgar error, that
government is the freer the more republican. The
great blunder in the American governments, they
were too republican. Their good, as well as ours,
requires that this be rectified .... 298

AN

ADDRESS
TO TME
PEOPLE OE SCOTLAND,

UPON THE

ALARMS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED
IN REGARD TO
POPEEY, 1779.

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous
judgment. — John vii. 24.

ADVERTISEMENT.

The Author would not have been so late in giving his
judgment to the Pubhc on the alarm that has been raised
about the danger of the Protestant religion, if the duties of
his ofiice had permitted him to do it sooner. He cannot,
however, consider it as being yet too late. The National
Assembly of this Church has not yet interposed. It is not
to be doubted that an application from them will be urged
at their ensuing meeting. The Author is the more solicitous
to give his sentiments in this manner, as it will not be in his
power to be present. And though he spoke his mind freely
on the question in the last Assembly, matters have pro
ceeded so far since that time, that he could not excuse him
self, if he omitted to give this additional and more ample
testimony to the world of his judgment on the whole of this
important subject.
He hopes that what he here offers will be attended to with
coolness, and weighed with impartiality. He is influenced
by no motive but the love of truth and reUgion, and a de
sire of promoting the honour of this Church, and the peace
of this country. Intelligent readers vriU not accuse him of
being too favourable to Popery. Such, he is afraid, if they
suspect him of partiality, will be inclined to think that it is
aU on the other side. Thus much he will acknowledge, that
his abhorrence of the spirit of that iUiberal superstition,
heightens the dislike he has to what bears so striking a re
semblance to it in the spirit now raised in this country.
He has been induced the more readily to take this method
of delivering his sentiments, because he is certain he can in
this way do greater justice to the argument, and with more
effect, than by any assistance it would be in his power to give
the cause in the Assembly-house. Whatever be the conse
quence, he vrill at least have the satisfaction to reflect that
he has done his duty.

INTRODUCTION.

In all the questions wherein reUgion and moraUty are con
cerned, it becomes Christians, especiaUy Protestants, to recur
in the first place, to that which they all acknowledge an infal
lible standard, and Protestants the only infallible standard,
of truth and right, THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. I know
not any point of conduct, on which a Christian, if he will im
partially consult them, may not find there the amplest infor
mation of his duty. The precepts and the example of our
Lord Jesus Christ in particular, as weU as the actions and
the writings of his apostles, furnish us with materials in
abundance, both for forming our principles and for directing
our practice. In the present controversy, may I be allowed
to ask. Has that recourse been had, by the parties on either
side, to this pure fountain of Ught, which might have been
expected? It does not appear that there has. Let our
first inquiry then be. What is the mind of the Spirit on
this subject ?
It has been pleaded, that the present dispute, in regard to
the repeal of certain penal statutes against Popery, though
it be in part, is not whoUy of the rehgious kind ; it is in a
great measure also a political question. The safety of the
constitution, it is said, in church and state, may be affected
by the issue. This, in the second place, wiU deserve our
serious consideration, that we may discover not only what
truth there is in it, and to what conclusion it would lead, but
who the persons are whom it ought chiefly to influence.
It may not prove improfitable, in the third place, to in
quire briefly, what are those expedients which Christians, and
especiaUy pastors, in a consistency with both the spirit and
the letter of the gospel, are authorized to employ, for re
pressing error and superstition, and promoting the belief
and obedience of the truth ?

306

INTRODUCTION.

Such a candid and impartial attention as the importance of
the subject requires, to the following attempt at solving these
questions, is earnestly requested from every pious reader.
The most zealous person, whatever side he has chosen, ought
to reflect, that, being a man, he is faUible, and, consequently,
that it is possible he may be mistaken in his choice. We
have the best authority to afiirm, that a man may be zealously
affected, yet not well affected. Gal. iv. 17: may "have a
zeal of God, but not according to knowledge," Rom. x. 2.
Hearken then to the apostle's admonition : " Beheve not
every spirit," not even your ovra, imphcitly, for we often
" know not what manner of spirit we are of : but try the
spirits, whether they be of God, because many false prophets
are gone out into the world," 1 John iv. 1. "To the law and
to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it
is because there is no light in them," Isa. vui. 20.

AN

ADDRESS.

CHAPTER I.

The Doctrine of the Gospel in regard to Persecution,
particularly of Persecutors.
The name of persecutor is justly become so odious that I
know no sect of Christians who do not disclaim the character
with abhorrence. Even Papists wiU not confess that they
persecute. By their own account, they only administer
wholesome severities, for recovering those who have swerved
from the truth, or, if irreclaimable, for deterring others from
foUowing their pernicious courses, for defending themselves
against their machinations, and for giving a timely check to
the contagion of heresy. These, say they, are purposes the
most salutary imaginable. They maintain further, that what
is done in support of truth, however cruel it may appear, is
not persecution ; that those punishments only deserve to be
branded with that opprobrious appeUation which are employed
in defence of error. But as they themselves are always in
the right, they can never be in hazard of inflicting these.
So says the Romanist, and, by sajdng so, demonstrates,
either that he is himself a persecutor on principle, or else,
that there is no such thing as persecution on the earth : For
what is any man's immediate criterion of truth, but his own
opinions, in which it is but too evident, that the most confi
dent are not always the best founded ? On this footing, the
more opinionative a man is, (which is far from saying, the
more wise he is,) the more he feels hims'elf entitled to be the
scourge of aU who think differently from him. Nor is it
possible for any man to have another rule here but the
strength ofhis conviction, which, ifit entitle one, entitles all
equally, Jew, Pagan, Christian, or Mahometan. I do not

308 address to the
know that any beside Roman Cathohcs barefacedly avow this
doctrine, but I should be justly chargeable with gross par-
tiaUty did I aver, that no sect but theirs acts in a way which
this hypothesis alone could justify. Other parties do not,
with equal arrogance, claim infallibiUty, but often, with great
er inconsistency, they exact such a respect to their decisions,
as can be vindicated only on the supposition that they are
infalUble. The true definition of persecution is, to distress men, or
harass them with penalties of any kind, on account of an
avowed difference in opinion or reUgious profession. It
makes no material odds whether the distress be inflicted by
legal authority, or by the exertion of a power altogether law
less. In the former case, the evil is chargeable on the com
munity ; in the latter, solely on the perpetrators and their
abettors. But this difference, in regard to the authors, does
not alter the nature of the thing : Nor does the greater or
less severity of the punishments make any difference but in
degree. It is also proper to observe, that the true subject
of either toleration or persecution, is not opinion simply, but
opinion professed. To claim to ourselves the merit, that we
do not persecute for conscience sake, because we tolerate aU
the opinions which a man keeps to himself, ahd never dis
closes to us, is so exceedingly absurd, that one is at a loss to
conceive how a man can be in eamest who advances it.* If
that only be persecution which is aimed at secret and con
cealed opinion, and if opinion revealed be a proper subject
of correction by the magistrate, who does not incur thereby
the imputation of intolerance, it is evident that our Lord
himself was uot persecuted, his apostles were not, as little
were the primitive Christians or the Protestants. And who,
shaU we say, are persecutors by this criterion ? This wonder
ful plea cancels the charge at once against Jews, Mahome-
* Short View of the Statutes, &c. Rem. iii " As to persecution for conscience
sake, it is in no case allowable, A man may be an atheist, a blasphemer, an idolater,
a rebel, a Papist, or aU in one if contradictions can exist together, and yet, if he be
only so in his heart, and do not disturb others, no human laws should interfere. Our
laws against Popery never did, and never will interfere in this way. They do not
allow persecution even of our persecutors,'*

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 309
tans, and Pagans, who never wreaked their vengeance against
a man's secret sentiments, but always against those which he
propagated, or at least professed. Nay, if it were possible
to devise a plea that could clear Papists themselves from the
guilt of persecuting, it would be this.
Having said thus much for fixing the meaning of the word,
and ascertairdng what is properly deiiomiiiated^e/'«ecM^/o>/, I
shall inquire into its lawfulness, on the principles of Chris
tianity. Were I to plead the cause of toleration \^ith Pagans,
Mahometans, or Deists, I should, for topics of argument,
recur directly to the light of reason, and the dictates of con
science; I should examine what the principles of humanity
and natural right suggest on this subject. This is the only
common ground on which we could enter the lists together.
But as it is solely mth Christians and Protestants that I am
concerned in the discussion of this question, I shaU, waving
all other topics, recur to sacred writ, particularly the New
Testament, an authority for which we all profess the pro
foundest veneration. Here we have a fuU and unerring
directory, in all that concerns the discharge of every Chris
tian duty, particularly in what regards the propagation and
defence of the gospel.
The methods whereby, according to the command of oiu-
Lord, his religion was to be propagated, were no other than
teaching, and the attractive influence of an exemplary life.
" Go," said Christ to his disciples, " and teach aU nations,"
Matt. xxvUi. 19: "Preach the gospel to every creature,"
Mark xvi. 15: And, "Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father
which is in heaven," Matt. v. 16. And when their doctrine
should meet with no retum but contempt and scorn, they are
enjoined only to warn such despisers, by shaking off the dust
of their feet, of the spiritual dangers to which they expose
themselves. Matt. x. 14. Nay, if men should proceed so far
as to retum them evil for good, and reward their wholesome
instructions vrith persecution, theu* orders are, when perse
cuted in one city, to flee to another. Matt. x. 23. In general,
with regard to the character they are uniformly to maintain,
they are commandedlto " be wise as serpents, but harmless
u2

310 ADDRESS TO THE
as doves," Matt. x. 16. This last qualification is added to
apprise them, that it is solely the wisdom of the serpent, not
liis venom and his tooth, that they must endeavour to arm
themselves with. Indeed, of the whole armour of God to be
employed in this warfare, the apostle Paul (if I may so ex
press myself) has given us a catalogue. " Stand, therefore,"
says he, " having your loins girt about with truth, and having
dn the breastplate of righteousness, and yom- feet shod with
the preparation of the gospel of peace ; above all, taking the
shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench ail the
fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation,
and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Praying always with all prayer and supplication, and watch
ing thereunto vrith all perseverance and supplication for all
saints," Eph. vi. 14, &c. Behold the Christian's panoply.
But for the use of other arms, offensive or defensive, in the
battles of faith, I can iind no warrant.
But though this suited the infancy of the church, when she
was yet feeble and tender, now that she is grown hardier
and more robust, is it not reasonable that she should change
her plan, and assume, in addressing her adversaries, a bolder
note ? Is there no permission giveii by our Lord, to have
recourse, when that should happen, to other weapons ? Had
his disciples no hint" of the propriety, or rather necessity of
penal statutes, for adding weight to their teaching, for check
ing the encroachments of error, and chastising the insolence
of those who should dare, in the maturity of the church, to
controvert her judgment 1 Not the slightest suggestion of
such an alteration. On the contrary, it appears inconsistent
with the nature of the church derised by our Saviour, and
modelled by his apostles. Hear himself, in that good con
fession which he witnessed before Pontius Pilate : " Jesus
answered. My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom
were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I
should not be deUvered to the Jews : but now is my king
dom not from hence," John xriU. 36. Swords and spears,
and all such instruments of hostility, are suited to the defence
of secular and worldly kingdoms. If my kingdom were of
this world, then would my servants fight. But such weapons

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 311
are preposterous when employed in support of a dispensation
quite spiritual and heavenly. In regard to it the order is,
" Put up again thy sword into his place ; for all they that
take the sword shall perish with the sword," Matt. xxvi. 52.
The maxims of the apostles we find entirely conformable
to the lessons tiiey had received from their Lord. " Know-
mg the terror of the Lord," says Paul, " we persuade men,"
2Cor. V. 11. Our only method is persuasion, not compul
sion. The only terrors we set before men, are not the
terrors either of the magistrate or of the mob : they are the
terrors of the Lord, the dread of incurring the divine dis
pleasure, and the tremendous judgment of the world to
come ; as, on the other hand, the only allurements are the
dirine promises. " Though we walk in the flesh," says the
same apostle, " we do not war after the flesh. For the wea
pons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God
to the puUing down of strongholds, casting down imagina
tions, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the
knowledge of God, and bringing into captirity every thought
tothe obedience of Christ," 2 Cor. x. 3, &c. Are those spi
ritual weapons now so blunted, that, without the coarse im-
plements.suppUed by human laws, they would be of no uti
hty ? In regard to gainsayers and adversaries we are taught,
that as " the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle
to all men, apt to teach, patient," so he is in particular to
" instruct in meekness those that oppose themselves, if God
peradventure wUl give them repentance to the acknowledg
ing of the truth," 2 Tim. u. 24. Meekly and patiently to
teach is the duty of the minister ; the effect of this teaching,
that is, the conversion of the sinner, or the conviction of the
erring, must be left to the supreme Disposer of events. The
very utmost enjoined Christians in regard to the obstinate,
and irreclaimable, is, after repeated unsuccessful attempts and
admonitions, to avoid their company. Tit. iii. 10.
The disciple ought doubtless to be formed on the amiable
pattern exhibited by his Master, whose character it was, as
deUneated by the prophet, that he would not contend nor
raise a clamour, nor make his voice be heard in the streets ;
that he would not break the bruised reed, nor quench the

312 ADDRESS TO THE
smoking flax, Isa. xhi. 2, 3 ; who was not less eminent for all
the mUd and gentle virtues of humility, condescension, can
dour, humanity, and benignity, than for those which excite
higher admiration, patience, firmness, fortitude, purity, and
justice, not to mention the most comprehensive benevolence
or love. So remarkably did those shine forth in all the or
dinary occurrences of his life, and so deep seems the impres
sion to have been that they generaUy made, that Paul alludes
to tins feature in our Lord's character as to a thing univer
sally known and felt, and even recurs to it as a form of ob
testing, the more effectually to engage attention and persuade.
" Now I Paul myself," says he, " beseech you by the meek
ness and gentleness of Christ," 2 Cor. x. 1. These are the
quahties by which he himself from the beginning attracted
the notice ofthe people. " I am meek and lowly in heart,"
Matt. xi. 29. His discourses were not more energetic than
they were gracious. They breathed humanity and kindness
to a degree that astonished all. The graciousness, no less
than the authority with which he spoke, . excited universal
admiration, Luke iv. 22 ; Matt. rii. 28, 29. In short, the
feUow-feehng he had of our infirmities, his patience and for
bearance towards the refractory, his compassion of the igno
rant, and even of them that were out of the way, -were, more
than his miracles, the instruments by which the thickest spi
ritual darkness was dispelled, the most inveterate prejudices
surmounted, the hearts even of the most reluctant won, and
the world subdued to the obedience of the faith.
Is it not most natural to think, that a cause will be best
supported by the same means by which it was founded, and
by which it received its first footing in the earth ? Ought there
not to appear in the servant some proportion, some traces
of the spirit of the master ? To the dispensation ofthe gos
pel, which is the dispensation of grace, mercy, and peace,
ought there not to be a suitableness in the methods employed
to promote it ? Shall we then think of any expedient for
defending the cause of Christ, different from those which he
himself and his apostles so successfuUy employed ? Nay, it
were well if all that could be said were, that we employ
different measures from those employed by them. Some of

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 313
ours, I am afraid, on examination, will be found to be the
reverse of theirs. Christ engaged by being lovely, we would
constrain by being frightful. The former conquers the heart,
the latter at most but forces an external and hypocritical
comphance, a thing hateful to God, and dishonourable to the
cause of his Son.
But, say our opponents in this argument, Popery is a su
perstition so baneful as not to deserve any favour, especially
at the hands of Protestants. Its intolerance to them, and
persecuting spirit, if there were nothing else we had to accuse
it of, would be sufficient to justify the severest treatment we
could give it. This treatment to Papists could not be called
persecution, but just retahation, or the necessary means of
preventing perdition to ourselves. — I do not say that either
Popery or Papists deserve favour from us. On the contrary,
I admit the truth of the charge against them, but not the
consequence ye would draw from it. Let Popery be as black
as ye will. CaU it Beelzebub, if ye please. It is not by
Beelzebub that I am for casting out Beelzebub, but by the
Spirit of God. We exclaim against Popery; and, in exclaim
ing against it, we betray but too manifestly, that we have
imbibed of the character for which we detest it. In the most
unlovely spirit of Popery, and with the unhallowed arms of
Popery, we would fight against Popery. It is not by such
weapons that God has promised to consume the man of sin,
but it is by the breath of his mouth, that is, his word.* As
for us, though we be often loud enough in our pretensions
to faith, our faith is not in his word. We have no faith now
in weapons inrisible and impalpable. Fire and steel suit us
a great deal better. Christians, in ancient times, confided
in the dirine promises ; we, in these days, confide in acts of
Parhament. They trusted to the sword of the Spirit, for the
defence of truth and the defeat of error ; we trust to the sword
of the magistrate. God's promises do well enough, when the
legislature is their surety : But if ye destroy the hedges and
• 2 Thess. ii, 8, In our translation it is the spirit of his mouth. The original
term signifies, breath, wind, spirit. When it is connected with mouth, lips, or nostrils
as in this passage, it ought to be rendered breath. There is doubtless an allusion to
Hos. vi. 6, " I have slain them by the words of my mouth."

314 ADDRESS TO THE
the bulwarks which the laws have raised, we shall cry with
Israel in the days of Ezekiel, " Behold, our bones are dried,
our hope is lost, we are cut off for our parts," Ezek. xxxvU.
1 1 . There is no more security for the true reUgion. Pro
testantism is gone ! aU is lost ! we shall all be Papists pre
sently. Shall we never reflect on the denunciation of the
prophet, " Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and
maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the
Lord?" Let me tell those people, so distrustful in God's
proridence and promises, and so confident in the arm of
flesh, that the true religion never flourished so much, never
spread so rapidly, as when, instead of persecuting, it was per
secuted, instead of obtaining support from human sanctions,
it had all the terrors of the magistrate and of the laws armed
against it. "Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy ; are we
stronger than he ?" 1 Cor. x. 22.
Ye say, " Popery deserves no favour ;" but are the deserts
of others the rule of our conduct towards them ? Does the
institution of Christ command, or even permit us, to retaliate
the injuries of others ? Is the great rule which he has given
us, as containing the sum of the law and the prophets,
" Whatsoever ye find that others do unto you, do ye also so
unto them ?" Is it, " Remember to render good for good,
and eril for eril to every man ?" Has our Lord adopted the
adage of the Pharisees, " Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and
hate thine enemy ?" Has he said, " Bless them that bless
you, and curse them that curse you ; and for them that spite
fully use you and persecute you, be sure that, when ye have
it in your power, ye spitefully use and persecute them in re
turn ?" If this be the language of Christ, I have done ; my
reasoning is at an end, and I have totally mistaken the matter..
But if, in every article, it is opposite ; if that authority which
ought ever to be held by Christians of aU authorities the
most venerable, has enjoined, not " Whatsoever men do,"
but, " Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do
ye even so to them," Matt. rii. 12 ; if the law of retahation,
which says. Eye for eye and tooth for tooth, is expressly set
aside. Matt. v. 38, &c., and his commandment is, " Love
your enemies, do good to them that hate you ; bless them

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 315
that curse you, and pray for them that despitefully use you
and persecute you," Matt. v. 41 ;— if these, I say, are the
dictates of Christ, how indecent, not to give it a worse name,
must any argument appear in the mouth of a Christian,
which subverts the fundamental maxims of the Master he
professes to serve. Not to inention, that there is real injus
tice in retaliation on sects and parties, when they are not the
same indiriduals on whom they retaUate mth those who
committed the cruelties complained of. Popery is doubtless
a most intolerant reUgion; yet it would be both uncharitable
and unjust to deny that there are many Papists who would
not persecute. Protestantism, from its radical principles, is
much more tolerant ; it would, notwithstanding, be most
uncandid, rather indeed contemptibly partial, to afiirm, that
Protestants have never persecuted.
I am not ignorant that there are Christian commentators,
who, by their glosses, elude the force of the plainest precepts
of our Lord, much in the way the Jewish rabbies invahdated
the commandments of God. " Christ," say such, " does not
mean, in those expressions, the enemies of our nation, much
less the enemies of our faith ; it is only personal enemies he
is speaking of." That aU sorts of enemies are included, there
is not a shadow of ground to doubt. But that he had much
more an eye to the enemies of our religion than either to
national or to personal foes, wiU be erident to those who at
tentively consider the scope of this dirine discourse. The
very kinds of injuries specified, are those he had expressly
told them they would be made to suffer for his name's sake.
And one principal riew of those subUme instructions, is
plainly to fortify their minds, and prepare them for bearing
properly what they must soon expect to meet with, purely
on account of rehgion.
But the precepts of our Lord are best illustrated by his
example. It may therefore be worth while to examine in
what manner he was affected with regard to the antipathy
and mutual rancour that subsisted in his time between the
Jews and the Samaritans. These stood on a footing vrith
each other somewhat similar (but incomparably worse) to
that of Protestants and Papists amongst us before the late

316 ADDRESS TO THE
alarms. As to the principles on which they differed, Jesus
explicitly declared for his countrymen the Jews. " Ye wor
ship ye know not what," said he to the woman of Samaria ;
" we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews,"
John iv. 22. Did he therefore adopt the passions of his
countrymen ? Did he betray the smallest particle of the ma-
Ugnity with which they were infiamed towards a people whose
schism and distinguishing tenets he was as ready to conderan
as they? Let his conduct, on the occasion referred to, serve
for an answer to the question. He entered freely into con
versation with the woman, and did not disdain to ask her,
though a Samaritan, to supply him with a little water. This
(however small a matter it may appear to us) exceedingly
surprised her, knovring the inhospitable maxims to which
both parties, but especially the Jews, so rigidly adhered.
Nor did his condescension and affabihty more surprise this
stranger, than they did his own disciples on their return, who
marvelled that he talked with the woman. Probably nothing
less than the very great respect they entertained for their
Master hindered them from being scandalized at his modera
tion, which in any other person they would have denominat
ed lukewarmness in the cause of religion, and want of zeal
against the enemies of God's people. Ye know what foUowed :
He stayed with them two days, and made many converts.
Nor was this the only occasion he took of showing his
disapprobation of the intemperate zeal of his countrymen in
regard to that people. A lavi^er once, to try him, asked,
""Who is my neighbour ?" Luke x. 29, &c. Our blessed
Lord, knowing the corrupt explanations, on this head, cur
rent among the Jews, especially among those of this man's
profession, knowing also that a direct answer could serve only
to awaken caril and contradiction, did, in order to surmount
his prejudices, address himself, as was usual with him on aU
moral questions, directly to the heart. Ye have his answer
in the well known parable of the traveUer who fell among
thieves, and who, though a Jew, was overlooked by a Priest
and a Lerite his countrymen, and reheved by a Samaritan.
The intention, which shines forth conspicuously throughout
the whole, was to stigmatize, in the strongest manner, that

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 317
unrelenting bigotry, that inhuman intolerance, which, through
the wonderful influence of self-deceit, both parties cherished
in themselves, under the notion of zeal for God and love to
then country ; it was to mollify their minds towai-ds each
other, and brmg them to admit a reciprocal affection produc
ing an interchange of good offices. If the parable had repre
sented the sympathy as exercised by a tender-hearted Jew
towards a suffering Samaritan, his purpose had been frustrat
ed. The proud Pharisee, untouched by the misfortunes of
people he abhorred, would have remonstrated, that his coun
tryman, instead of acting laudably in assisting one whom he
would denominate an adversary of God, had acted shamefully
and weakly, in allowing the nobler principles of zeal and
patriotism to be overcome by womanish pity. But its being
represented as exercised by a Samaritan to a Jew, gave a dif
ferent aspect to the whole. It laid open at once the dignity
and humanity of the action. It was impossible to withhold
approbation. The approved, nay admired generosity of an
enemy, was too strong an argument to approve the Uke gene
rous conduct on the other side, for one who could make any
pretensions to reason and justice to resist. Our Lord, after
relating the parable, appeals to the lawyer himself for the
answer to his ovra question : " Which now of these three
thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the
thieves ? And he said. He that showed mercy on him. Then
said Jesus unto him. Go and do thou likewise." Act thyself
the worthy part which thou canst not but commendin another.
Think every man thy neighbour, and entitled to the offices
of charity and humanity, who stands in need of thy assistance.
Let no personal feud, no national enmity, no opposition of
rehgion, prove an obstruction to the exercise of the godhke
principle of love. Surely then we are not at liberty to do
eril to those to whom we are commanded to do good.
On another occasion, after cleansing ten lepers, it did not .
escape our Lord's observation, nor did he fail to make it be
remarked by others, that the only grateful person who re
turned to give God thanks was a Samaritan, Luke xvii. 16,
&c. ; a sure evidence, that it is not always just to conclude the
badness of men's disposition or practice from the falsity of

318 ADDRESS TO THE
some oftheir rehgious tenets. This single heterodox sectary
had more piety and gratitude than the nine more orthodox
Jews. In general it deserves to be remarked, that the zeal
of our blessed Master, far from leading him to inflame the
minds of the populace against those who maintained errone
ous doctrines in religion, influenced him, on the contrary, to
moderate their heat, and bring them' to make every candid
allowance for differences, even gross corruptions in principle
which, from whatever guilty causes they originated, might
be, in those who then entertained them, the natural effects of
accidental circumstances.
A Pharisee of those days, a very zealous sect, though their
zeal was of a different complexion from our Lord's, a fast
friend, in his own account, to the Jevrish interest and reUgion,
might have plausibly exclaimed against this lukewarmness, as
he would have termed it. " Would this teacher persuade
us," might such a one say, " to forget the days of our fore
fathers, and the sufferings they endured from the hands of the
Samaritans ? Can we, without uneasiness for ourselves, receive
these instruments of cruelty into favour ? Are we altogether
unconcerned for what may be the fate of generations yet un
born ? Ought we ever to forget what trouble they gave to
our ancestors in the days of Cyrus ; how they exerted them
selves, to the utmost, to frustrate their pious purpose of re
building the house ofthe Lord? Ezra iv. Is this a subject
on which we can be silent ? Must we overlook all their mali
cious and insidious attempts against our nation, the calumnies
they wrote to Artaxerxes, representing us as irreconcilable
enemies and rebels, in order to incense that monarch against
us, and excite him to exterminate us from the face of the
earth ? Can we ever cease to remember their insults, their
ambushes, and thefr plots to massacre our progenitors, who
were reduced to the greatest distress through thefr mahce,
insomuch that our builders were under the hard necessity of
working in the work of God's house vrith one hand, whUst
they held a weapon for the defence of their Uves with the
other, and durst not, for fear of being surprised, put off thefr
clothes day or night ? Neh. iv. Shall aU their treacherous
schemes to circumvent us, be for ever obhterated, their hypo-

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 319
critical professions, their lying rumours, their hireUng pro
phets ?" Neh. vi. This is but a specimen of the materials for
invective which this subject would have afforded to the zea
lots of those days ; for many other such accusations, undeni
ably true, might have been brought from the later parts also
of their history : from all which they might have exclaimed,
much in the strain of some late publications, and with equal
plausibihty and justice, " Is it come to this ? Are we so de
generate as to be persuaded by any man to destroy the fences
of our religion, to break down our barriers, and hug Sama
ritans in our bosom ; to put these enemies of God and man
on the same footing with our brethren and countrymen, and
. to love them as our fiiends and neighbours ? The days have
been when Jews did not need any warning of this kind."
It is but too manifest, that at the very time that our Sa
riour sought to cure his kinsmen the Jews of that bitter un
godly zeal with which they were affected to the Samaritans,
the latter had not abated a tittle of their ancient bigotry against
the Jews. In proof of this, witness the treatment whicli Christ
himself received from them, when passing through their
coimtry in his way to Jerusalem, near the time of the pass-
over, Luke ix. 51, &c. " AVTien the time was come," says
the sacred historian, " that he should be received up, he
stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers
before his face ; and they went and entered into a rillage of
the Samaritans, to make ready for him." Probably no Jew
but himself would, particularly on this occasion, have chosen
to be thefr guest. But his condescension and hberality of
mind were ill understood by that bigoted race, and worse
requited. They did not receive him ; because his face was
" as though he would go to Jerusalem." They would not so
much as suffer him to come under their roof. Their reason
was, he was going to Jerusalem to celebrate the passover.
This was matter of high offence. One great article of dis
pute between the two nations was, whether Jerusalem was
the place which God had chosen as the seat of his temple,
where sacrifice should be offered and the festivals kept, or
Mount Gerizzim in Samaria. His going at this time to the
Jewish capital, showed plainly his opinion onthe controverted

320 ADDRESS TO THE
point. This opposition to their judgment their pride could
not brook. In aU fiery zeal, if men would but be impartial
with themselves, they would find a greater share of pride at
bottom, than they are willing either to perceive or acknow
ledge. "And when his disciples James and John saw this,
they said. Lord, wUt thou that we command fire to come
dovra from Heaven, and consume them, even as Ehas did?"
Ah ! how much did they stUl retain not only of the pre
judices, but of the furious zeal of the Pharisees ! How littie
had they imbibed of the amiable disposition of their Mas
ter ! Nothing so Uke a bigot of one side, as a bigot of the
other. Though they hate one another mortally, they are, jn
the internal frame of their mind, essentiaUy the same. Their
differences are in comparison merely circumstantial and ex
ternal. If the unreasonableness and bad temper of one side
could justify the unreasonableness and bad temper of the
opposite, this outrageous zeal of the two disciples would make
that of the Samaritans appear very moderate. " But Jesus
turned and rebuked them, and said. Ye know not what man
ner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to
destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to
another rillage."
This rebuke given to two apostles should, methinks, make
men a little more modest in regard to their zealous fervours,
lest they also be found, on examination, totally to mistake
the spirit they are of. Pride, which can tolerate neither
opposition nor contradiction, which takes fire at every affront,
real or imagined, particularly an affront offered to the un
derstanding by an avowed difference of judgment, and that
resentment which is the natural offspring of pride, are but
too apt to screen their deformity under the decent garb of
zeal. This rebuke, however, serves to teach us, that the de
structive zeal neither partakes of the spirit of our Master, nor
is adapted to promote the end of his coming. Pure, and
holy, and harmless was that zeal, that heavenly fiame by which
he was actuated. Like that which Moses saw in the bush,
Exod. ui. 8, it burned, but consumed nothing. " They went
to another rillage," says the evangehst. He pocketed this
public affront, as the men of the world would say, and meanly

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 321
left the insult unrevenged. Had the Samaritans deserved
this lenity and indulgence at his hands, or at the hands of the
Jewish nation ? Far from it. But his inquiry was not what
they deserved, but what it became him to do ; what suited
the cause of piety, humanity, and universal love, in whicli he
was engaged. The question, " Have they deserved this fa
vour ?" used in the way it has been of late, savours very little
ofthe disciple of him who said, " If ye love them which love
you, what reward have ye ? do not even the publicans the
same ? and if ye salute your bretiiren only, what do ye more
than others ?" Matt. v. 46, 47.
It is remarkable, that among the many slanders cast upon
our Lord by his enemies, one of them was, that he was a Sa
maritan. Calumny, an insidious liar, seeks always, in order
to gain credit to her Ues, to give them some sort of connexion
with truth ; for this renders them more efficacious in imposing
on the rabble. Somewhat of this artifice appears in all the
aspersions thrown upon our Lord. It was then impossible
that, from such a people, his open disapprobation of the viru
lence with which they spoke of Samaritans, and the inhu
manity which they harboured in thefr heatts against them,
should not draw upon him that ignominious epithet. And
if things proceed but a Uttle longer with us in the train they
have been in of late, may we not expect to see every man of
moderation amongst us, who values a conformity to the spirit
and precepts of his Master more highly than the blind ap
plause of the deluded multitude, branded as a Papist, or at
least a friend of Popery ?
Some have proceeded so far, as was lately observed by an
honourable gentleman in the House of Commons, as to pub
hsh inflammatory pamphlets, recommending the dissolution
of aU the bonds of society vrith Papists. The author seems
to have taken the Jewish treatment of the Samaritans, which
our Lord so plainly reprobates, for his model. I freely own
my model is the reverse of his : It is the disposition and sen
timents of Jesus Christ. I am glad to find, that those who
have assumed the title of Friends of the Protestant Interest,
(however much I disapprove their conduct in other respects,)
have, with marks of disapprobation, disclaimed the unchris-

322 ADDRESS TO THE
tian performance. In regard to the writer, my fijst and
most earnest wish is, that, by the blessing of God, he may
arrive at the knowledge of Christianity, and become a Chris
tian himself; for hitherto his knowledge has gone no deeper
than the surface. And if that wish cannot be obtained, my
second is, that he may no longer dishonour the name of Pro
testant, if he bear that name, but turn Papist altogether, of
which he is more than two-thirds already, and these two-
thfrds not the most amiable part of the character.
But to retum: If, vrith respect to retahation, such were the
maxims of our Lord Jesus Christ, as has been represented,
and such was the pattern given by him, can we, who profess
to be his disciples, imagine that these ought to have no in
fluence in determining our conduct ? Had the apostle Peter
any meaning, or were they mere words of course that he used,
in teUing us that we are specially called to the imitation of
Christ, " who, when he was reriled, reviled not again ; when
he suffered, he threatened not, but committed himself to him
that judgeth righteously ?" 1 Pet. ii. 21, &c. Was it meant
to serve for a lesson to us, or as a vain boast of his own virtue,
and that of his fellow-apostles, that Paul exclaimed, " Being
reriled, we bless ; being persecuted, we suffer it ; being de
famed, we entreat ?" 1 Cor. iv. 13. But perhaps they did so,
because they were then weak, and could do nothing better !
They could not then retaliate in so effectual a manner as to
answer their purpose, and therefore thought it prudent to
submit, and make the best of the circumstances which they
could not remedy ! — I have heard that some Popish casuists
when pushed by adversaries who contrasted their methods of
propagating the faith vrith those of the apostles, have replied
in this manner : but I should be sorry to think that any Pro
testant were capable of adopting a casuistry which tarnishes,
or rather annihilates, the most shining rirtues of the saints
and martyrs of Jesus, and renders thefr example of little or
no significancy to us.
Thus, I hope, it has been made sufficiently evident, that
neither the example nor the precepts, either of Christ, the
dirine author of the evangelical institution, or of his apostles,
authorise the use of the sword or any such carnal weapons for

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 323
the advanceraent of religion ; that they fortify our minds with
meekness, faith, and patience to beai-, but in no case permit
us to inflict persecution, not even in requital of that which
we ourselves have formerly been made to suffer ; that the
necessary consequence of such unsanctified measures is to sub
vert the power, for the sake of establishing the form of godli
ness, and to make us sacrifice the spirit of our religion — that
charity which animates the whole — to a mere lifeless j/X^wrf.

CHAPTER II.
The Conclusions to which sound Policy would lead us, in regard
to the Toleration of Papists.
As to the propriety, considered in a poUtical Ught, of giving
such a toleration to Papists in Scotland, as has been already
grafted in England and Ireland, I must observe, in the first
place, that this is a point the decision of which belongs pro
perly to the legislature. To me it appears particularly ira
proper in ecclesiastical judicatories to meddle with it. It is
a question solely regarding the safety of the body pohtic. If
the constitution will not be endangered by such a measure,
the principles of reason, and consequently of sound policy,
and also the principles of Christianity, as has been shown,
lead us to conclude that it ought to be adopted ; othervrise,
not. Now the question, in regard to the danger of the con
stitution, is surely of the department of the estates of the
kingdom assembled in Parliament. And though every httle
borough corporation, parish meeting, society of artificers and
others, corporate and not corporate, weavers, cobblers, porters,
&c. &c., presume that they are wise enough to direct the
King, Lords, and Commons, and that they themselves under
stand better what concems the interest, security, and govern
ment of the nation, this absurd conduct cannot hurt such
societies. They have no reputation to lose. Great allowances
ought to be made, and vrill be made, by superiors, for their
folly and ignorance. But would it become the supreme judi
catory and representative of this national church, in imita-

324 , ADDRESS TO THE
tion of such examples, to step out of their line, and, without
the most urgent necessity, to obtrude upon the legislative
body their adrice unasked? Nothing, in my opinion, would
more effectually lessen the dignity of that venerable court.
There is but one case in which I conceive there would be
any propriety in such a measure ; and of this I shaU take
notice afterwards.
But some will object, " Why do you talk of going beyond
our Une ? Are not our ecclesiastical assemblies the natural
guardians of our religion ? Who then so proper as they to
give warning of the danger, and to use the precautions which
ought to be employed in order to prevent it or ward it off? "
I do not know precisely what meaning ye affix to the word
guardians ; but in one sense I certainly admit, that both our
pastors and our ecclesiastical judicatories are guardians in
their several spheres. But this implies no more than that,
when they apprehend danger, they ought to double their
•dihgence in using the spiritual weapons above taken notice
of, which the gospel supplies thera with, for defending the
people against seduction of every kind ; and that, if there
has been any remissness in discharging the ministerial duties
in time past, there may be more vigilance and greater exer
tions in time to come. But their guardianship, I imagine,
never extended so far as to entitle them, from any fancied
necessity, to counteract the very spirit of their religion, and,
for their Master's serrice, to oppose alike his precepts and
example. Yet such is manifestly the nature of that recourse
to the secular arm, so strenuously argued for by some ; a
recourse which originated among Papists, and would have
been left vrith Papists, if Protestants had been in aU respects
consistent vrith themselves.*
But, however improper it may be in our judicatories, as
such, to interfere with the legislature in this affafr, we may
be permitted, as indiriduals in this land of Uberty, for the
• Short View, Rem. iii, " The very name of religious toleration is justly dear to
every Protestant," He must be very shallow who does not perceive, that, with such
Protestants as these writers, it is then only the name that is dear. " The idea of
persecution for conscience sake is most odious and detestable." Qu. Have they
expected to he read hy none but fools ,-*

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 325
sake of quieting the minds of weU-meaning people, freely to
canvass the question ofthe expediency ofthe projected tole
ration. This is the privilege, if used discreetly, of all British'
subjects, in regard to public measures. — I shall, therefore,
with all due deference to my superiors, submit my sentiments
on this head to the candid examination of the reader.
It has been said, and very justly, that in every state, as in
every indiridual, there is a right of self-preservation, which
imphes, amongst other things, that of protecting itself against
riolence offered, either from without or from within, from
foreign hostile states or from its own seditious and corrupt
members, and consequentiy of repelhng force by force. It
has been urged further, that it is the duty of the magistrate,
who is the trustee, and consequently the servant of the state,
not only to defend the community when attacked, but to
watch for its safety, and, by every just method which the
constitution empowers him to use, — that is, as far as his trust
extends, — to prevent every danger which may be foreseen, as
weU as to remove that which is present. Both positions are,
in my opinion, undeniable.
Now on these, and on these only, is founded the nrngis-
frate's title to interfere with reUgious sects. Opinion is na
turaUy beyond the jurisdiction of magistracy, whose proper
object is pubhc peace or national prosperity. As this cannot
be injured or interrupted by men otherwise than by their
actions, these are strictly aU that are immediately cognizable
by civil judicatories. As however it is unquestionable, that
opinion has great influence on practice, so the open profes
sion of such opinions as are manifestly subversive of the na
tural or civU rights of the society, or of the rights of indiri
dual members of the society, is undoubtedly to be regarded as
an overt act which falls under the cognizance of the magis
trate. It is only in this view that opinion ought ever to be
held as coming under his jurisdiction. Considered in a religi
ous riew, as true or false, orthodox or heterodox, and conse
quently as affecting our spiritual and eternal interests, it is
certainly not of the department of the secular powers. Yet
this distinction has nof always been observed. And those in
power, from considerations of a spiritual nature, which were
X 2

326 ADDRESS TO THE
totally without their province, have thought theraselves bound
by the raost sacred ties, to do all they could for the encour
agement of their own opinions, because supposed to be sound,
and for the suppression of every opinion as unsound, which
stood opposed to them.
Hence that spirit of intolerance which has for many cen
turies proved the bane of Christendom, and which still con
tinues the bane of raany countries in Europe, as well as in
other quarters of the globe. Nothing can be more evident
than that, if the magistrate is entitled, nay obliged, by all the
weight of his authority, to crush opinions merely because
erroneous, and conceived by him pernicious to the soul, this
obhgation must be inherent in the office of magistracy, and
consequently incurabent on every magistrate. Now, as his
only immediate rule for what he is bound to cherish, and
what to crush, is, and can be no other than his own opinions,
and (the magistrate having no more claim than private per
sons to infaUible direction) as the same variety of sentiraents
may be, nay in different ages and nations has been, in those
of this rank as in those of any other ; it will be found, on
this hypothesis, the duty of rulers to suppress and persecute
in one country, and at one period, what it is the duty of
rulers in another country, or even in the same country at
another period, to cherish and protect. This consequence,
how absurd soever, is fairly deducible frora the aforesaid
principle, and ought therefore to be held a sufficient demon
stration of the absurdity of that principle. One of the many
unhappy consequences which has flowed from the iniquitous
but general practice of acting in conformity to that false
tenet is, that the minds of parties, even those whose differ
ences in opinion are merely speculative, and could never, if
left to theraselves, have affected the peace of society, have
been exasperated against one another. Jealousy and envy
have arisen, and been fostered by rautual injuries. Every
sect has been led to riew in every other a rival and an enemy,
a party from which, if raised to power, it would have every
thing to dread. And as this almost equally affects both sides,
each has played the tyrant in its turn. As men's conduct is
influenced more by passion than by cg*)1 reflection, all have

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 327
been very slow in discovering the falsity of the principle,
the magistrate's right of interfering, when there is no risible
danger to the state. This right, though sometimes contro
verted by the weaker party, the prevalent sect has always
affirmed and defended, thinking itself entitled to a mono
poly of the principle, as being alone, in its own account, on
the side of truth. The remembrance too of injuries received,
instead of opening their eyes, and showing them the ruinous
consequences of that radical error, has but served to rivet
them in it, and make them avail themselves of it in their turn.
Nay, so inconsistent a creature is raan ! those who but a
httle before strenuously raaintained the right of private judg
ment, are no sooner raised to power, than they obstinately
refuse that right to others. As they have been accustomed
to look on the other party as enemies, and liave been badly
treated by them, they think they derive hence an additional
right to persecute them from the law of retahation.
This, I acknowledge, renders reUgious sects, in another
riew, an object of attention to the magistrate. A party whose
avowed principles, considered by themselves, have nothing
hostile to society, may from its strength and habitual enmity
to the predominant sect, endanger the public peace. Hence
it may happen, that eiril governors, thaugh perfectly indif
ferent which of two sects they shaU favour, may find it in
compatible with the safety of the state to give equal counte
nance to both : Perfect equahty, where there is reciprocal
hatred, could not long subsist, vrithout giring rise to reci
procal hostihties. The utmost vigilance could not always
prevent this effect, which might, in the end, overturn the
constitution. But where the pubhc tranquillity has been
long the sole object of the magistrate, there is hardly any
risk of his adopting those measures which cause men's minds
to rankle, and produce in their breasts that most unlovely
and unchristian disposition one towards another.
It is admitted, that when the pubhc peace is in danger, it
is his duty to interpose. Sedition or rebelhon is not entitled
to take shelter in religious sentiments, nor can the plea of
liberty of conscience justiy avail any man, for invading the
liberty or property, sacred or civil, of another. So much for
11

328 ADDRESS TO THE
what appears to be the original rights of the eiril power in
what concerns sects in reUgion. It must be owned, however,
that there are many particular circumstances, which, when
they occur, ought, in a great measure, to restrain the exer
tion of a power otherwise warrantable. When parties are
already formed, and of long continuance, though their funda
mental principles be unfriendly to the rights of society, thefr
numbers, and weight, and other considerations, may fender
an indulgence, otherwise unmerited, the more eligible mea
sure, because in its consequences the less evU. It may how
ever be reraarked, in passing, that though there be several
prudential considerations which may render it proper to ex
tend favour to those whose tenets, or temper, or both, show
that they but ill deserve it, no consideration can give the
magistrate a right to prosecute any party whose principles,
viewed in a political light, are nowise unfriendly to the rights
of their fellow-citizens, or of the state, and whose disposition
and conduct is peaceable and inoffensive.
Now, to apply the principles above laid down to the case in
hand ; what shall we say of the tenets of Papists in regard to
the secular powers .*" Are they, or are they not friendly to
civil government in general, or to the present govemment
of this island in particular ? As to the first of these questions,
all Papists, it must be owned, acknowledge a certain obedi
ence to be due to a foreign and independent power, the Pope.
And though this, by some of them, (for they are not unani
mous,) is said to be only in spirituals, yet, in matters of ju
risdiction, it has never been possible to ascertain the precise
boundary between spirituals and temporals. Nor can it be
denied that, in doubtful cases, superstition incUnes strongly
to favour the claims of the former. This, if it should be
an error, the superstitious always consider as the safer error
of the two. And in regard to the second question, they were
doubtless, till of late, in this part of the island, generally dis
affected to the present royal family. Nor could any person
wonder that it was so, considering the cause of the abdication
of James VII. grandfather to the Pretender.
As to the aspect which their tenets bear to civil society — for
it is neither in a rehgious nor in a moral riew, but solely in a

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 329
political, that I am here considering them — it raust be acknow
ledged that to social union thefr principles are nowise adverse.
Witness those kingdoms and states in Europe, where the
whole, or the greater part, of the people are Popish. It has
been remarked, however, that the Romish reUgion is not
equaUy favourable to a free government as the Protestant.
But though there be something like a serviUty of spirit in
imphcit faith, or the behef of infalUbiUty in any huraan tri
bunal, which is more congenial to pohtical slavery, it cannot
be said that the former is incompatible with civil freedom.
This country, as weU as others, was free, even when Roraan
Cathohc ; and it would not be just to deny, that there have
been of that communion eminent patrons of the hberties of
the people.
As to the aspect with which the party in general (I speak
not of indiriduals) eyes other sects, it is certainly very un
favourable. Her doctrine concerning the spiritual state, both
here and hereafter, of aU who dare dispute her decisions,
whom she denominates heretics and schisraatics, does not
tend to cherish affection towards them. In this, however,
she is not singular. The case is the same with all fanatical
sects. But as temper is not formed entirely by principle,
but is often as much the result of habit and accidental cir
cumstances, there are great differences in this respect m dif
ferent places. In those Popish countries where they have
none of any different sect Uving among them, and httle occa
sion to know any thing of such but by the representations of
thefr priests, it cannot be doubted that the people put Pro
testants almost in the same class with demons. They con
sider thera as a sort of derils incarnate. I must acknowledge,
that in those Protestant countries, or those parts of Protestant
countries where theyhave no Papists, and consequently know
nothing of them but by hearsay, their judgraent is equally
unfavourable. But in those nations which have long enjoyed
the blessings of peace and toleration, where Protestants and
Papists hve together as in Holland, where both are protected,
and neither is allowed to injure the other — they come soon to
consider each other as human creatures and brethren, and to
contract mutual friendships and intimacies, scarcely minding

330 ADDRESS TO THE
the difference of reUgious sentiments. And even in this
country, it is notorious, that in those parts where Papists are
least known, they are most hated and dreaded. There is
nothing which more strongly recommends toleration to a
benevolent heart, than that it has a powerful tendency to hu
manize the tempers of the most opposite sects, and conciliate
them to a friendly intercourse of good offices to one another.
This serves to lay the mind open to conviction, by remoring
gently and graduaUy those rooted prejudices which are the
greatest obstruction to it.
Upon the whole, the question comes to this. Whether so
inconsiderable a party, (for both in number of people and in
property, thefr proportion is so very smaU as not to be worth
mentioning), of such a character as is above deUneated, (and
I have endeavoured to do it with the utmost impartiality,
neither exaggerating nor extenuating thefr faults), can be of
any danger to the constitution of this country ? It ought
always to be taken into consideration, that it is not proposed
that they be admitted into any, even the lowest offices of
magistracy or legislation, or any place of pubhc trust. It
ought also to be remembered, that if at any time any unfore
seen evil or danger should arise from that quarter, the legis
lature, of which they can make no part, and on which, con
sidering their very great inferiority ui all respects, they can
have no conceivable influence, have it always in their power
to give a timely check to it.
In regard to the mahgn aspect of Popery towards sectaries,
as she calls them, whom doubtless she considers as rebeUious
children ; has not experience, in this and other countries,
fuUy erinced, that even Papists can be softened by good
usage ; that lenity and toleration deaden the asperity which
the bare name of heretic (till they become famiharized to
thefr persons) raises in thefr minds ? And as to the disaffec
tion of which they are suspected to the reigning family, why
should we judge more harshly of them on this head, than of
those Protestants amongst us, much more nuraerous, who
have been known formerly to have the same attachments to
the Stuart famUy with them ? I do not speak thus to raise
an odium against any party : I would be the last man in

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND.

Britain to attempt it. Besides, it is evident to every one who
reflects, that we can have nothing to fear from our nonjurors,
a party which has been sensibly dechning for many years
past : I only inention them for the sake of observing, that if
we admit that many famiUes, once in that way, have, within
these last thirty years, changed their political creed, it does
not seem reasonable to suspect, that many Papists, in the
same time, may not have changed theirs.
In some respects the change is less to Papists than to thera.
The dirine right of monarcliical government on the patriar
chal plan, as it is caUed, and consequently the indefeasible
hereditary right of the abdicated famUy to the crown of these
realms, is no principle of Popery. The attachment of Pa
pists was a personal attachment, or at most a consequence of
thefr attachment to the cause for which that faraily suffered.
But in regard to forras of government, or particular gover
nors, thefr reUgion leaves them at full Uberty. A Papist may
be a repubUcan, or a friend to monarchy, absolute or limited.
In these matters he is no way confined by his rehgion. And
that he should change in an attachment not fomided in prin
ciple, is nothing extraordinary. He may be eonrinced that
prescription takes place in government, and, for the peace of
society, ought to take place, as weU as in other matters : that
without admitting this principle, there would be few or no
legal rulers now existing in the world, as most sovereignties
may be traced backwards to manifest usurpation. Whatever
judgment therefore he may form of the Revolution, there is
no inconsistency in his being a loyal subject to the present
royal famUy. And in regard to such as shall take the oath
prescribed by the Act of Parliament for England, or the like
oath proposed for Papists here, I shaU only say that it would
be extremely uncharitable to suppose them all perjured.
But as some things have been plausibly urged against the
credibihty of thefr oaths, it may be worth while to bestow on
this point a httle raore attention. It is said, " The dispens
ing power of the Pope, his infalUbility, the principle that no
faith is to be kept with heretics, all serve to invahdate their
promises and oaths, especiaUy when given to those whom they
regard as ^heretics." That the Popes have claimed such a

332 ADDRESS TO THE
dispensing- power in loosing the obUgation of the most so
lemn vows and contracts, and that many people have been
bhnd enough to credit this most arrogant and impious claim,
it would be to give the Ue to aU history, even the most au
thentic, to deny. Such also is the power they have claimed
and exercised of deposing kings and emperors, and of loos
ing thefr subjects from their aUegiance. Such also are thefr
pretensions to infalUbility, their corrupt maxims, subversive
of faith given to heretics, in aU which they have been sup
ported by hfreling and prostitute writers among the clergy,
friars, canonists, and expectants of preferment in the church.
But to say thus much is one thing, and to say that these
points are received universaUy as doctrines of the church, is
another. We ought to be just even to enemies.
In regard to the last of the above maxims, that faith is not
to be kept to heretics, though it was never asserted, in so
many words, by any council, it is unquestionable, that the
council of Constance came so near giring it thefr sanction,
in the decree they pronounced for the ease of the emperor's
conscience, whom they had seduced to act a most perfidious
part, as weU as in the whole of thefr infamous proceedings
with regard to Huss, that though it cannot be called an esta
bhshed principle of thefr rehgion, it has received that coun
tenance from the spiritual powers among them, which fur
nishes but too good a handle for the clamours and jealousies
of Protestants. And I vrill acknowledge, in passing, that as
I could put no confidence, where religion is concerned, in
the faith of a man who would rindicate a procedure so sub
versive of that security in engagements which is the most
essential bond of society, so I Can never consider that man as
dangerous, who, in this age and country, has the egregious
foUy to attempt the rindication. But in general, when re
course is had to experience, I am satisfied there is no ground
to consider it as a maxim so prevalent in that party, as to
destroy aU faith in their promises. If its prevalence were so
great, what hindered them in England from taking the oath
of supreraacy, or the forraula in Scotland? These would
have secured thera against raany inconveniences to which
their religion exposed thera. And if there be some instances

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 333
of their swearing falsely from the temptation of interest, can
we say that perjury is absolutely unexampled amongst our
selves ? It is well known that, in England, Papists had it in
thefr power to reUeve themselves, by means of certain oaths,
before the passing of the late act. But those oaths were
different from that now enacted. Now, a man who thinks
he may take oaths, and be under no obUgation, or who
thinks he has it in his power to obtain a dispensation from
that obUgation, has no reason to make any distinction be
tween one oath and another. The dispensing power serves
equally for aU. Now, that those in England, who on no con
sideration could be induced to take the oaths forraerly re
quired, do not hesitate to take that required by the late act,
is eridence sufficient to a reasonable person, that they consider
this as what they may vrith a good conscience take, but not
the former.
" But how is it possible," some will object, " that they
can conscientiously abjure so many high prerogatives of the
sovereign pontiff, the successor of St. Peter, and vicar of
Jesus Christ ? Such are, his dispensing power, his supremacy
in temporals, and his infaUibility ; since it is unquestionable,
that these prerogatives he has both claimed and pretended
to exercise ?" To this I can only answer, that it is a known
fact that Roman Catholics themselves are not unanimous in
regard to the justice of those clairas. For example, it is a
tenet universaUy held by them, that the church is infallible;
but in the explanation of this tenet they differ exceedingly,
as well as in the directions they give where we ought to seek
for her unerring oracles. Some send us to the Pope with
whom alone, according to them, this amazing pririlege is
lodged ; sorae to the Pope and ecumenical council acting in
conjunction ; some to the council, though without the Pope ;
some to the church universal, that is, to whatever opinions
universally obtain in those they term catholic countries.
So notorious it is, that even among Papists there are that
are more, and there are that are less, papistical. Accord
ingly, some even of their writers denominate those Pontiflcii
Papists, by way of distinction, who defend all the exorbitant
claims of the papacy. Nay, so certain it is that the Romanists

334 ADDRESS TO THE
themselves are greatly divided on this head, that the famous
council of Constance above referred to, as well as the council
of Pisa that preceded it, asserted its own superiority above
the Pope in the most express terms, and indeed acted in an
entire conformity to this doctrine.* It is not just, there
fore, (for our religion does not permit us to speak deceitfully
even for God, Job xiii. 7,) to talk of the Pope's infalhbihty,
dispensing power in respect of oaths, and the lawfulness of
perfidy to heretics, as doctrines universally received in the
church of Rome. These, and several such absurdities, vrill
be found, from a proper attention to ecclesiastic history, to
have ebbed and flowed, in that church, with knowledge and
ignorance. In proportion as knowledge increased, those
opinions lost credit; as ignorance increased, they gained
credit. Whatever influence authority raay have on weak
minds, in making speculative dograas, however nonsensical,
be received with veneration, there is a principle in huraan
nature, which, till the raind is wholly immersed in supersti
tion and darkness, wiU effectuaUy prevent such moral absur
dities from being generally assented to. Nay, a principle of
' I cannot help observing here a ridiculous blunder in the writers of tho Sha-rt
View, &c. Rem, ii. Speaking of the condemnation of Huss, they add, " to the
everlasting disgrace of an infallible Pope," &c. They have certainly derived
all their knowledge of that affair from Dr. W, A. D,'s letter to Mr. G. H, This
should prove a caveat to those who pick up their information in this manner,
not to venture a single step beyond their authority. That council acknowledged
no Pope at the time that Huss was condemned. Pope John XXIIL, who
called them together, they deposed, on an accusation of the most shocking crimes,
conceming which I shall only observe, that heresy and schism were in the num
ber. Of the other two pretenders to the popedom, (for there had been no fewer
than three ever since the council of Pisj^) neither of whom they acknowledged,
Gregory XII, resigned, and Benedict XIII. they afterwards deposed, and then
proceeded to the election of Martin V. The council of Constance are justly
chargeable with many things atrocious and tyrannical; but of the acknowledg
ment of the Pope's infallibility they are entirely guiltless. The blunders of these
writers in reasoning are not less remarkable than their misrepresentations of fact,
and misapplications of Scripture, Let it serve as one out of many instances of
their extraordinary mode of arguing about oaths. An oath, say they. Rem. iv,,
renouncing certain principles, implies that they were the man's principles before ;
and as an oath alters not one's principles, they are his principles still. By this
wonderful method, if a man take the oath of aUegiance, he cannot give surer
evidence that he is disloyal, and his taking the abjuration demonstrates him a
Jacobite.

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 335
honour, as well as a sense of right, go far to check the pro
gress of those disgraceful maxims.
I shaU only add to the above reraarks, that even in regard
to those whose conformity to the civil establishraent raay not
be so cordial as could be wished, (for that there raay be some
such instances who can deny ?) it wiU still have this good
effect, riewed in a poUtical Ught, that it will be a check both
on thefr actions and on thefr conversation. Principles openly
and solemnly abjured, it raay be supposed that raen, espe
ciaUy those of a sacred character, will, for thefr own sakes,
not be forward to avow, and still less to inculcate. There
is therefore here a real accession of strength to the civil esta
bhshment, without the smaUest prejudice that I can perceive
to the Protestant interest.
But the incompetency even of the British Parliament for
making such a change in the laws wherein religion is con
cerned, has been boldly asserted. The establishment of the
present presbyterian church of Scotland was declared, January
1707, a fundamental article of the union of the two king
doms, not to be altered afterwards even by the joint legisla
ture of both. In the act declaring this, there is a clause
perpetuaUy confirming the 5th Act Pari. 1690, which was
the act establishing Presbytery, and ratifying the Confession
of Faith. In this there is a general ratification of aU former
acts made against Popery. But the acts now proposed to be
in part repealed, could never be comprehended in that clause,
because they were not former but posterior acts. The writers
of the Short View* argue in a way entfrely their own. " The
acts," say they, " directly relating to this one, and conse
quently ratified vrith it, and unalterably established, are chiefiy
three. Act 2d, Pari. 1700, Act 3d, 1702, Act 2d, 1703."
Now that these acts are related to Act Sth, 1 690, as they all
relate to rehgion, nobody will dispute ; but that they were
ratified by an act ten or twelve years before they were made,
these gentlemen have the whole honour of discovering. Let
it be observed, that these acts, though posterior to the Act
1690, were prior to the Act 1707. Yet this act, for the
security of religion at the union, passes over those more
* Rem. i.

336 ADDRESS TO THE
recent acts in relation to Popery, and only declares perpetual
an act made so many years before them ; thereby plainly
leaving the intermediate acts to the wisdom of the British
legislature, to confirm, repeal, or alter at any time, as they
should find expedient, and only giring perpetuity to the act
that first, after the Revolution, established the Presbyterian
form of government, and ratified the Confession of Faith.
This arguraent (shaU I call it ?) by which these writers say
modestly " thefr averment is surely proved to a demonstra
tion," I have been the more particular in exposing, because,
in a certain event, it is capable of being raade a very bad
use of araong the people.
" But whatever be in the corapetency of Parliament, must
not the proposed repeal be highly prejudicial to the Protes
tant interest?" say those who consider theraselves as the
patrons and friends of that interest. " Will it not throw
down all our fences, open the door to Jesuits, serainary
priests, &c. and give liberty to the open profession and exer
cise of Romish idolatries, as weU as give fuU scope to their
rile artifices for the perversion of our youth ?" All this
appears specious to those who do not reflect, and consider
things severally and attentively. Ffrst, they may profess
thefr reUgion openly and safely. Be it so. I cannot see how
that cfrcumstance alone can contribute to their increase. The
Quakers (a most harmless race) have long enjoyed that pri
rilege ; yet it does not appear that they have been increasing.
I think the contrary has been the fact. But if one were to
derise a method for giring consequence to those of that way,
and producing a change favourable to their increase, he
could not devise a better than to get aU those laws against
Papists enacted against Quakers, especially if, by high pre
miums, wretches were bribed to turn informers, and con
tribute to the execution of the laws.
The bulk of mankind are more influenced by their pas
sions in forming their opinions, than by reason. Render
people objects of our compassion, bring us once heartily to
sympathize with them as with persons oppressed, not for any
crime, but for what they cannot reraedy, thefr opinions, and
ye have done a great deal to make us turn proselytes, and go

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 337
over to those whom we cannot help pitying as persons suffer
ing under the greatest cruelty and injustice. If the sufferers
should display some patience and fortitude, they will need
no stronger arguments to persuade spectators more remarkable
for sensibiUty of heart than acuteness of understanding, that
they must have truth upon thefr side. They wiU reverence
them as saints. Wo to that nation, whose laws every sensible
and honest heart must be convinced there is greater rirtue in
disobeying than in obejang ! This is the case with persecuting
laws, though the persecutors should have truth upon their
side. K men, through fear of the punishments ye enact,
behe thefr conscience, and in so doing sin against God, ab
jure what they beheve, and profess what they think damnable
errors, ye compel them to destroy their peace of mind, make
shipwreck of faith, and of a good conscience. They sin hei
nously ; " for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." And ye
legislators and judges, authors, promoters, and executors of
such iniquitous laws, ye who ought to be the terror of eril
doers and the praise of them that do weU, ye are their temp
ters, seducers, and corrupters. The generality of men have
a feehng of this, though they cannot reason upon it or explain
it ; and such a feehng has great influence among the people.
The only way I know of preventing this, is by steehng the
heart against aU compassion, resolring steadily to persist, and
stick at nothing, tUl the end is attained. " There is nothing
so ridiculous," says a late writer,* " in respect of policy, as a
moderate and half-way persecution. It only frets the sore ;
it raises the Ul-humour of mankind, excites the keener spirits,
moves indignation in beholders, and sows the very seeds of
schism in men's bosoms. A resolute and bold-faced perse
cution leaves no time or scope for these engendering distem
pers or gathering ill-humours. It does the work at once,
by extirpation, banishment, or raassacre." It is indeed a
fact well authenticated by history and experience, that per
secution can never do serrice to a cause, unless it be carried
the utmost length possible, as in Spain and Portugal. Now,
if such a thing were practicable in this country, (as, blessed
? Charact, Mis. ii. chap, 3.

338 ADDRESS TO THE
be God, it is not), will any Protestant stand forth and say it
would be desirable ?
Yet that any thing less does unspeakable hurt to the cause
it was meant to serve, might, if necessary, be verified by a
cloud of witnesses — such as the first planting of Christianity,
the reforraation both abroad and at home. I shall however
at this time go no farther for eridence than to what happened
in this country in the last century. When the episcopal form
of church government was estabhshed at the Restoration, if
our eiril and ecclesiastic rulers had had any share of raode
ration, prudence, or comraon huraanity, the rainds of raen
would, without great difficulty, have been pretty generally
concihated to the establishraent then raade, as neither in doc
trine nor in form of worship, (for they used no hturgy), could
the difference be called raaterial. But the spirits of our go
vernors at that time were such as would bear no contradiction,
and brook no delay. Their immediate recourse was to penal
statutes, the first thing always thought of by men of strong
passions, but weak judgment. Statutes were accordingly
enacted, breathing vengeance against all who would not con-
foi-m in every thing to the ecclesiastical model that had been
erected. They too pleaded the right of retaliating. And
it would be doing them great injustice to deny, that the con
duct of those who had preceded them, had, on this head,
supplied thera vrith plenty of matter. A persecution ac
cordingly was commenced, and furiously carried on. Num
bers of unhappy men, (infatuated, as some would call them),
who never meant to be criminal, but who could not be brought
to think it their duty to profess, through fear of human
punishraent, what they did not beUeve, were daily sacrificed
to the rage of their stiU more infatuated rulers. What was the
consequence ? Did they, by these means, stop the progress
of schism, as they caUed it, and effect the so rauch desired
uniformity? Quite the reverse. The tyranny of the ruhng
powers ahenated the minds of the people ; insomuch that, at
the Revolution, wherever the persecution had been hottest,
the friends of Presbytery were the most numerous : On the
contrary, in those parts where the people had been blessed
with pastors and rulers that were raen of moderation and of

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 339
a Christian spfrit, there was a very general conformity to
the estabUshed model.
But it will be replied, " We do not seek to persecute ; we
desfre only that things may continue as they are : — Papists
were not persecuted before the proposed repeal ; and we do
not see why they should ask any indulgence beside what was
so generally granted them." Is it not evident that the in
dulgence they had was merely by connivance ? It was no
legal toleration. And is it agreeable to any body to remain
on so precarious a foot, and at the raercy of every body ? It
must be owned that the law was rarely executed, in conse
quence ofthe temper ofthe tiraes, and the lenity of our go
vernment. Yet there are some instances of its having been
executed. And what was the reason that it was not oftener?
It was the conriction which men have, when their minds are
not inflamed by fanatic zeal, that the law was too severe,
and, when self-defence does not render it absolutely neces
sary, (which, God be thanked, is not our case,) not recon
cilable with the principles either of humanity or of justice; —
it was, I say, this conriction that prevented its execution.
Nay, so strongly do men seem to be persuaded of its injus
tice, that many who are against the repeal declare solemnly
that they would never give information against a Papist, or
take any concern in the execution of that law. Now, if it
was a just and necessary law, why startle at the execution,
which ought to be esteemed a pubhc serrice ? Why were not
Papists — not for any wilful or intended crime, but for what,
through the misfortune of their education, (which might have
been our own case,) they beUeved in their conscience to be
thefr duty, — why were they not informed on, dragged before
the magistrate, stripped of their property, driven naked from
their famiUes and homes, banished into foreign countries to
beg or shift for bread, it may be in their old age, among
strangers, the best way they could ; and if they retumed, why
were they not hanged without mercy ? for this, we are told
coolly, is unavoidable,* to make the law effectual. But if
acting thus would be unjust, why suffer a law to remain in
force, which, if it answer no other purpose, will at least an-
* Short View : Note on the Extracts from King William's Act,
Y

340 ADDRESS TO THE
swer this bad purpose of being a reproach to the nation and
a severe retort against every Protestant, who, in arguing vrith
a Papist, urges the different spirit of the two religions ?
" But just or unjust," say some, " it is better to have it as
a rod over their heads." That is, in other words, " Though
we have no mind to do injustice at present, we wish to have
it in our power to be unjust with irapunity when we please,
nay, to bribe others to be riUains, (for the law gives a high
reward to inforraers,) that those who have no religion at aU,
no sense of virtue or honour, who neither fear God not
regard man, may be tempted by avarice." Is this a law be
coming a Christian nation ? Is it such as it would become
the ministers of religion to interpose for either preserring or
enforcing ? " Woe to him," saith the prophet, Hab. ii. 12,
" that establisheth a city by iniquity." And shall the city
of God itself, liis church, his cause, the cause of truth and
purity, be established by such accursed means ? Are we Pro
testants ? And do we say, " Let us do eril that good may
come?" Yet of such the apostle tells us, Rom. iii. 8, that
their " daranation is just." I have ever been taught, as a
Christian principle, and a Protestant principle, that a good
cause ought to be promoted by lawful means only ; and that
it was in the true spirit of Popery to think that the end would
justify the means. We are now adopting all their raaxiras,
and making them our ovra. We seem resolved that we shall
have nothing on this head to reproach Papists with. A great
outcry has been raised of late about the progress of Popery.
I join in the complaint. I see her progress where I least
expected it ; and I lament it heartily, the more especiaUy as
she comes in so questionable a shape. If we must have Popery,
I would, above aU things, have her retain her own likeness.
The deril is never so dangerous as when he transforms him
self into an angel of Ught.
Besides, how grossly impohtic, as weU as unjust, is the pro
posed opposition ? If we have any regard to our Protestant
brethren in Popish countries, shall we fumish the ruling
powers there with a plausible pretext for persecuting them ?
"See," say they, referring to the Presbyterian church of
Scotland, " in what manner we should be treated, if these

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 341
our countryraen of the same principles with thera should ever
arrive at power." This, we all know, is the common w'ay of
arguing. It is far fi-om being a just vvay ; for a concurrence
in doctrine does not necessarily imply a concurrence in the
methods to be employed in defending it. But we need the
less wonder that others should argue thus, when we argue
thus ourselves. The Papists in Paris, about two hundred
years ago, massacred the Parisian Protestants ; and the Papists
in Leland acted the like tragedy in the last century on Irish
Protestants ; therefore we are entitled to punish for those
execrable deeds the Papists of the present age in this country,
however guUtless of those murders, however harmless in their
hfe and conduct we have hitherto found them ; though we
can charge them with no crime, but that they are Papists.
It is said to have been a law amongst our clans in ages of
barbarity, that when a person belonging to one clan mur
dered a man belonging to another, the murderer, if found,
was to be hanged as he deserved ; but if he could not be
found, the first man of the same clan that could be found
should be hanged in his stead. There is such a similarity
in this to the mode of retaliation on sects, that both must
certainly have sprung from the same source, the same original
code of natural right !
But whencesoever this principle has arisen, it is certainly
but too prevalent in most religious sects ; and, if we resolve
to act upon it, we do what we can to establish persecution
every where to the end of the world. We plead, that we
persecute Papists because they persScute us ; and they plead,
that they persecute us because we persecute them. Our
conduct vrill at this time be the more unjustifiable, because
not only in Protestant countries, but even in some Popish
coimtries, the ruhng powers are greatly relaxing in this
respect. Shall we then give a check to their humanity, by
teaching them, from our example, to account our brother
Protestants a more pemicious and dangerous race than they
formerly imagined them to be ?
God forbid that I should put on a foot of equality the dis
position of any in this country, with that of inquisitors and
crusaders. I will not allow myself to think so badly even of
the most riolent. But I cannot avoid obserring, that when
Y 2

342 ADDRESS TO THE
once we are in this train with any adverse sect, it is impos
sible' to say how far we may think ourselves obliged to go.
The same plea of necessity to render former measures effec
tual, may carry us such lengths as in the beginning we should
have looked on with horror.
But to return : The repeal can never do hurt, because it
is the repeal of a statute which seems, even in the judgment
of our antagonists on this question, to have done no good.
So far from occasioning the decrease of the number of Papists,
they have been, we are told, increasing for many years back
wards. And this perhaps is the first instance in which the
inefficacy of a law has been used as an argument against the
repeal of it. This act, though severe, is not severe enough
to extirpate Papists ; at the same time it is much too severe,
considering the sentiments and manners of the times, for any
but persons of no character to assist in executing it. Thus
it gives Papists all the advantage of a plausible plea of suffer
ing persecution, without being materially hurt by actual per
secution. In some other countries, where Romanists, though
not of the estabhshment, have enjoyed for centuries a legal
toleration, we do not hear of any clamours about their in
crease, or of any dread of danger arising from them. Why
then should not this nation, since we have so strong eridence
that severity wiU not answer, be induced to make the experi
ment of what may be effected by the more humane and more
Christian-hke pohcy of other nations ? In many instances, as
has been observed by the best writers on jurisprudence, the
unconscionable severity 'of laws has rendered them useless,
nay made them serve to promote, instead of checking, the
growth of those erils against which they are pointed. They
make those very persons screen offenders, who would other
wise assist in conricting them. — So much in regard to the
justice and expediency of the measure in general.
I shall now take the freedom to consider a httle, with all
respect to my ecclesiastical superiors, the propriety of their
interfering in this business. I have no right to lay down
rules ; but, as a brother and fellow minister, I offer my opi
nion on a case in which the cause of religion in general, and
the character of ministers of the gospel in particular, are con-

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 343
cerned. I have not the reraotest wish that any regard may
be paid to my judgment, further than is due to the reasons
by which it is supported. It was obsei-ved before, that the
question of the expediency or danger of the measure, in re
spect of the public, is not properly of the department of our
judicatories. The only question that can strictly be said to
come imder thefr cognizance as church courts, is that dis
cussed in the former chapter. Whether the toleration or the
persecution of such people, be most conformable to the spirit
and laws of our holy rehgion ? There are extraordinary cases,
in which, I acknowledge, it may be pardonable, perhaps
commendable, in the pastors to step aside a httle, for the
sake of doing some signal serrice whereby the cause they are
engaged in may be advanced, and the honour of the Master
whom they serve promoted. Let us see whether an applica
tion from the representative of this church, of the kind that
was proposed at the last raeeting of the General Assembly,
and wUl, in aU probabUity, be again moved at the ensuing,
would answer these important ends. Waring the arguments
afready used, and which to me appear unanswerable, I shall
only here advert to two things ; first, to what suits the
ministerial character to do ; and, secondly, to what will pro
bably be the consequences of the measure proposed in the
last Assembly, if it shall now be adopted.
In regard to the former, it is the observation of an ingeni
ous modem, that the magistrate and the pastor are both de
nominated God's ministers, but in very different senses. The
magistrate is the minister of dirine justice ; the pastor is the
minister of dirine goodness and grace. A most just and per
tinent observation. The former accordingly beareth not the
sword in vain : the latter cometh announcing peace through
Jesus Christ our Lord. The serrice he is engaged in is
styled the ministry of reconcihation. The forraer operates
chiefly by fear, being the terror of eril doers; the latter
chiefly by love, in the display he raakes of the tender raercies
of God and the love of Jesus. There is a beauty in preserv
ing consistency of character ; and, on the contrary, there is
something singularly shocking to men whose taste is not
totally depraved, in a gross violation of character. Sangui-

344 ADDRESS TO THE
nary measures are, on certain occasions, very suitable in the
officer of justice : but it ill becomes the messenger of peace
to breathe out, like Saul, the Pharisee (unconverted indeed,
but not the less zealous,) threatenings and slaughter. The
sense of what became a minister of the new covenant, a
preacher of good-vrill to men, was so strong on the minds of
the primitive Christians, that when our reUgion came first
into favour vrith the magistrate, it was looked on universaUy
as a becoming action in the niinisters to use their good offices
in behalf of an unhappy creature who had exposed himself
to the stroke of public justice, wherever any favourable cir
cumstances could be pleaded in extenuation of his crime.
But in no case whatever was it thought suitable that he should
interpose to caU for vengeance. That the servant of the
Prince of Peace should prove a peacemaker, mediator, and
intercessor, was entirely consonant to the nature of his office ;
but that he should interpose as an avenger, or as an instiga
tor of others to vengeance, or to riolent and rindictive mea
sures, was considered as a practical denial of the Lord that
bought him, who came not to destroy men's lives but to save
them ; and as what suited more the character of that being
whom they called the adversary and accuser of the brethren.
If, by some means or other, our legislature had been in
cited to tliink of imposing new restraints, or infUcting new
pains and penalties on Papists, or on dissenters of any deno
mination, it would have been excusable, nay, on account of
the motive, might have been thought praiseworthy in the
ministers of reUgion, to represent, with all due respect, that
they hoped, by the use of arms more evangehcal, the end
might be attained, and the public sufficiently secured from
danger. But the interposition proposed at present is of a
very different kind. To what shall I compare it ? A culprit
more unfortunate than criminal stands before his judge. The
sword is unsheathed and ready to strike. Several humane
persons intercede, mention every aUeriating circumstance,
propose taking security of the conrict that he shall behave
himself properly, and beg that the sword may again be
sheathed. The magistrate relents, and is on the point of
complying, when a person of a grave aspect interposes, who.

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 345
though he carry the olive branch, the ensign of peace, in his
hand, with a countenance more stern than meek, to the sur
prise of every body, cries to the officer of justice, What are
you going to do ? No security can bind that wretch ; and no
where can the sword of justice be sheathed at this time so
properly as in his bowels ! — This parable I leave to the re
flection of ray readers.
I shaU add a few words on the consequences of the appU
cation. I admit that if made, it will possibly be successful,
not from any conriction of the propriety of making it, or of
the fitness of what is asked: But a fiame, little to our credit,
has been raised in the country ; and it raay be thought that
yielding to the humour, however reprehensible, and granting
what is asked is a less eril than a positive refusal might
prove, especially considering the state of public affairs at pre
sent. But the question of greatest moment is. In what light
wiU the apphcation represent the spirit of our people in ge
neral, and this national church in particular, to the consti
tuent branches of the British senate ? It should be remem
bered how different the fate of the like biU was in England,
and even in Ireland, where that sect, vrith some colour of
reason, might have been accounted dangerous. But here !
where comparatively they are so inconsiderable both in num
ber and property  1 could say a great deal, but I forbear.
I wUl not dissemble. I am both ashamed and grieved, that
there shouldbe occasion to say any thing on such a subject.
In what Ught wUl our conduct appear, when contrasted
with that of the English and Irish Bishops, whom it would be
absurd as weU as uncharitable to accuse of indifference in
such a cause, and who, as raembers of the legislature, readily
concurred in granting the rehef desired in thefr countries ?
Is it possible that any of us are simple enough to imagine,
that, with judicious persons, the comparison will redound to
our honour ?
Yet amid so many grounds of mortification, I am happy to
have it in my power to say, that in the last Assembly, a most
respectable Assembly, and far the most numerous I ever wit
nessed, (and I have vritnessed many,) a motion for an appU
cation of this nature was thrown out, as altogether improper
4

346 ADDRESS TO THE
and unbecoming, by a very great plurality of voices. It
ought also to be attended to, that this happened when men
had nothing to influence their judgraent but the merits of the
question ; not a single person, that I know of, haring had the
least knowledge of such a motion till it was made in the
house. Tumultuous conventions and raobs and other lawless
excesses had not then been artfully produced, to terrify those
who could not be eonrinced. I had never before so distinct
¦ an idea of what is called in ecclesiastic history preaching a
crusade ; at the same time I raust regret, that I should ever
have acqufred additional knowledge on this subject from any
thing to be seen in this Protestant land.
I beg it may also be observed, that Popery is not the only
adversary we have to struggle with. I do not speak of the op
position we are exposed to from other sects much more nume
rous : I speak of the infldelity, the scepticisra, the open pro
faneness and contempt of all religion, that so much abound in
this age and country, a far more formidable foe than Popery.
Is it a matter of no consequence to us, how our conduct may
affect this evil, either by adding strength to it, and furnishing
libertines vrith new argum ents for fortifying themselves in
their impiety, or by acting such a part as must tend to silence
and confute them ? It is well known that persons of this
starap are the declared enemies of our order. Let us try to
draw instruction from the reproaches, and even the aspersions
of our enemies. Amongst other things they arraign all cler
gymen, of whatever sect, for a pride which takes fire at the
least contradiction, for an ambition or lust of power which
makes all rivalry insupportable ; and, as the natural conse
quence of these, for a persecuting spirit, which all possess
against the common enemy, and every single sect possesses
against every other. The common maxira of these men is,
" Priests of all religions are the same." That the character
which they draw, is done with rauch exaggeration and raale
volence, no impartial person vrill deny. Nor will it be denied
by such, on the other hand, that the unaraiable spirit too
often displayed by those who ought to have been not only
defenders, but patterns of religion, has given too great scope
for such accusations.

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 347
It was lately proposed in Sweden, a Lutheran, and there
fore a Protestant country, to give a toleration to all dissenters.
This measure would have chiefly affected Calrinists, and next
to tiiem, if I mistake not, Papists. The clergy opposed it :
But, as the other estates of the kingdom approved the mea
sure, it took place. Should we now, Uke the Swedish clergy,
interpose in order to frusti'ate the gracious intentions of the
legislature, would it not contribute to confirm the irreligious
in thefr errors ? Could we be sm-prised that they should ex
claim in triuraph, " It is precisely as we thought. They are
all the same thing at bottom ; Papist, Lutheran, Calvinist,
&c. &c. Their differences consist in a few trifling ceremo
nies, or uninteUigible logomachies, but the same spirit per
vades the whole, the same pride, the sarae intolerance, the
same inchnation to domineer, and to crush aU that oppose
them." I know it mil be said, " What have we to do to
mind the speeches of the profane and graceless? They neither
do nor wUl favour us, whatever part we act." I imagine that
even the profane and graceless ought not to be despaired
of, and consequently that their sentiments and speeches ought
not to be altogether disregarded. Such are not always irre
claimable. Much less ought we to furnish them with what
may serve not only to confirm them in their pemicious course,
but to prove the instruments of gaining over others to their
party. The apostie Peter did not think the sentiments even
of heathens were to be despised by the disciples, and there
fore enjoined thera to be careful that their conversation might
be honest among the Gentiles, that they raay be asharaed who
falsely accuse their gpod conversation in Christ, 1 Pet. ii. 12;
iii. 16. And the apostle Paul makes the opinion of infidels
of so great consequence, that he expressly requfres that re
gard be had to it, even in the election of a Bishop : " He
must have a good report of thera which are vrithout," 1 Tira.
iu. 7. Shall we then think it a matter of no moment, that
we give occasion to the enemies of God to blaspheme ? Does
it appear to us a thing absolutely indifferent, that the good
ways of the Lord are, by our means, eril spoken of among
them who know not God, and obey not the gospel of our

348 ADDRESS TO THE
Lord Jesus Christ ? Is it aU one whether fools be recovered
by us, or confirmed in their folly ?
I conclude with my most fervent prayers to the God of
grace and Father of raercies, that he would be pleased to di
rect the great council of our church, as on every occasion, so
particularly on the present; that he would inspire them with
the araiable spirit of their Master, with the wisdom that is
from above, which is not like the vrisdora of the worldling,
earthly, sensual, deviUsh, but first pure, then peaceable, gen
tle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits,
without partiality, and without hypocrisy ; that we raay all
know, by experience, that the fruit of righteousness is sown
in peace for them that make peace.

CHAPTER III.
Tlie proper and Christian Expedients for promoting ReUgious
Knowledge, and repressing Error.
It requires but Uttle art to make ignorance jealous. The
multitude every where are ignorant, and, by consequence,
easily inflamed with jealousy. It requires but few (some
times a single person has been sufficient) of those in whom
the populace confide, to suggest that there is danger, and
they are instantly alarmed ; they ask neither eridence nor
explanation. As the flame spreads, its influence on every
indiridual increases. Each is actuated not only by the fer
vour originally excited in himself, but by that which is, as it
were, reflected from every countenance around him. When
the fury ofthe people, from a notion of gross injury, is worked
up to a certain pitch, the^ are no longer capable of control.
They encourage one another by their number and rage :
There is nothing which they do not think themselves able
to effect : They run headlong into the most riolent excesses.
Whatever be the cause they contend for, they have not so
rauch as an idea of any other expedients than such as are
dictated by fury. It happens then alraost invariably, that they
overshoot the aira of those who first raised the alarra, and

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 349
awaked their jealousy. And when they interpose to restrain
them, they generally find it impracticable : for the people
then have no ears for any language but that of their passions.
In vain are they reminded, that more moderate methods were
pointed out to them fi-om the beginning. If the rabble are
to be set to work, they must be aUowed to go to work their
own way. They have neither capacity nor patience for
pursuing moderate methods.
For these reasons it would not be consonant to justice to
charge the effects of the popular frenzy wholly on those who
at first were active in alarming them. As little would it be,
on the other hand, whoUy to exculpate the ffrst instigators.
That they did not foresee the ffres that would be kindled,
and the destruction that would ensue, and were therefore not
the intentional causes of the particular outrages, justice as
well as charity require us to admit ; but that any one, who
inflames the minds of the multitude, must be sensible that
he endangers the peace of his country, as weU as the property
and hves of his fellow-citizens, and therefore, by all the prin
ciples of law, is responsible for the consequences, cannot be
denied. And, even on the principles of sound morahty, he
is so far answerable, as the consequences actually were, or
might have been, foreseen by him. Nor is it easy in this
case to find an apology for the heart, that is not at the ex
pense of the understanding.
But we can say the less in behalf of those from whom the
eril originated, because their more moderate methods are as
reaUy unjustifiable, on the maxims of the gospel, as the raore
riolent methods of the multitude. The difference between
them is not so much in kind as in degree. The introduction
of force into the serrice of reUgion, whether applied by the
magistrate or by the mob, has ever proved, and wiU prove,
the bane of true religion. It is the establishment of the pro
fession of rehgion on the ruins of its spirit. It is attempting
to support Christianity by undermining virtue. It presents
the strongest temptations to what every one who reflects,
whatever be his system of opinions, must admit to be the
grossest crimes. It is one of the earUest corruptions of anti
christian Rome, the spiritual Babylon, and the source of

350 ADDRESS TO THE
most of her o4;her abominations. I may add, it is a sure evi
dence that we have not yet recovered from the intoxication
occasioned by the envenomed cup of which she has made all
nations drink, when we so entfrely adopt her sentiments, and
speak her language. IU does it beflt in particular the shep
herds of Christ's flock to recur to such unsanctified expe
dients. " To what expedients shall we then recur, when
immediate danger threatens ?" To such only as are (if I may
be allowed the expression) congenial to the serrice.
But let it be observed, that there is not always danger
when the cry is raised. There is no more real danger here
at present to Protestantisra frora Popery, than there was in
England to Episcopacy in Queen Anne's tirae from Protes
tant dissenters, when the like cry of the danger of the church,
frora a cause as trivial, excited such tumults throughout that
nation : or than there was to Christianity itself not thirty
years ago from Judaism, on occasion of the naturalization
bill, or Jew bill, which put all England in a ferment. The
mode of arguing adopted at that time in England, in regard
to Jews, was remarkably similar to that now used in this
country in regard to Papists. If Jews, it was said, were
aUowed but liberty, they would soon become possessed of
power : if they were, in any case, permitted to acquire real
(or what we commonly call heritable) property, they would
soon be proprietors of the whole kingdom : if entire freedom
were given to their rehgious profession, Judaism would soon
become predominant ; circumcision in less than a century
would be established by act of Parliament, and our churches
would aU be converted into synagogues. Then would com
mence the persecution of Christians ; and, for this purpose,
crosses, not crucifixes, would be erected in every market
town. By I know not what infatuation it happens almost every
where, that the bulk of the people seem disposed to think,
that if any sect, how insignificant soever, were to enjoy the
same freedom in its religious profession with those of the
estabhshment, though without any share of power, it would
quickly be preferred by every body, aiid the estabhshed wor
ship would be totally deserted. One would think that at

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. ,351
bottom there lurked some apprehension, that the established
model is of all reUgious professions the raost unpopular in
the country, or would soon become so, if any competitor
were adraitted ; that consequentiy they imputed the prefer
ence given it by the people solely to their ignorance, and
were inchned to suspect, that, on a fair examination, it would
prove the raost irrational and the raost unscriptural. They
act as though they thought, that without its legal preroga
tives, particularly without the signal advantage of penal
statutes, suppressing, or at least checking, other sects, it
would not have so much as an existence. Now what is most
extiaordinary is, that the people who seem to be actuated by
such unaccountable suspicions, are not those who think most
unfavourably of the estabUshment ; on the contrary, they are
commonly the greatest sticklers for its absolute perfection in
every article. I do not accuse one national church, or one
sect in particular, of this absurdity ; it is pretty comraon to
all : In this respect. Popery, Prelacy, Presbytery, are the
same. Now of aU religious parties, the Papists, to do thera jus
tice, are the most excusable in entertaining these suspicions.
The reason is erident. No party can worse bear being
brought to an open trial. Error, Uke rice, shuns the hght :
Vfrtue and tmth ought, on the contrary, to seek it. To the
latter it is as beneficial, as it is fatal to the former. It was in
the night, whUe men slept, in the dechne of all useful know
ledge, and the rapid advance of ignorance and barbarity, that
the tares of Popery were sown by the enemy among the wheat
of the gospel, that good seed which had been sown by the Son
of Man. What was nourished by ignorance, and could have
been nourished by it only, must be hurt by knowledge. No
wonder then that Popery should dread inquiry, should admit
no competition, should not give so much as a hearing to
an adversary wherever she can avoid it. Reason is against
her. Scripture is against her, nay antiquity (which with those
unversed in history, never with the knowing, she is fond to
plead) is against her. What has she then to trust to, but
the tyrant's iron rod ? But for Protestants to show the like
illiberal suspiciousness, is to betray their own cause, and sin

352 ADDRESS TO THE
against the majesty of truth. Truth requires but the Ught;
because, in regard to her, to be known is to be loved : error
screens herself in darkness, being conscious, that, in regard
to her, to be seen is to be hated. It is the common sign of
a bad cause to be suspicious of itself, and to avoid a fair
inqufry. This is one of the raany eril symptoms which
strongly mark the cause of Rome.
But, in order to a fair inqufry, some things are preriously
necessary. Such are the means of knowledge, and the means
of support to those employed in conveying knowledge. In
these days we have no ground to look for miraculous assist
ance. The church, now arrived at maturity, is largely sup
plied vrith all necessary eridence vrithin herself, and no longer
needs those props and supports she was obliged to lean upon
in her infant years. But the effects produced by those mira
cles still remain with us as eridences of the reality of the ac
count ; and the fulfilment of prophecies in regard to the pro
gress, the most memorable events, the establishment and the
defection of the church, which in the early days they could
not have, amply supply to us the want of present miracles.
If we use properly the spiritual weapons suited to this spirit
ual warfare, we shall have no reason to despair of success.
That human means ought to be employed, none but the
merest enthusiasts wiU deny. Only let them be such human
means as suit the cause of truth and charity.
If Popery, as has been contended, has been, in some places,
on the increase, it vriU be found, on inquiry, that it has been
only where the people unhappily are far removed from the
means of knowledge. The eril itself, which is ignorance,
points out the cure. .Introduce the Ught, and the darkness
is dispeUed. In large and extenrive parishes in the High
lands they often recur to Popish teachers, because they have
no other. Where there is gross ignorance, there are also,
no doubt, barbarity and superstition. And wherever these
are, the absurdities of Popery are better suited to the taste
of the people than the doctrines of a more rational rehgion.
Now, that in parishes in the Highlands and Western Isles,
some of sixteen, some of twenty-five, some of thfrty miles in
length, and from five to seven in breadth— some containing

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 353
near three thousand inhabitants, where the}! have but one
Protestant pastor — how can they escape being perverted to
Popery ? This must appear a necessary consequence, when
we consider the uncommon zeal which Papists have always
shown for making proselytes.
Now, for redressing this grievance what is to be done ? I
know only two methods, compulsion and persuasion. If we
recur to the first — and after it, though by no means a Chris
tian method, the general hankering seems to be — what will
our penal laws signify m those islands and tracts of land
where the Papists, in nuraber compared with the Protestants,
are afready, by the accounts that have been given,* as thirty
to one in some places, in others as twenty, in others as ten ?
Or what end would it answer, though we should get laws ten
times more severe than those in force at present ? Can we
imagine that any person, however weU inclined to the work,
would be so mad as to attempt in those districts to execute
the laws ? Sanguinary statutes, in such cases, do but show
the impotence of the legislative power, and embolden people
the more openly to set it at defiance. They vriU have this ad
ditional motive in a cause like this, that the more daring their
transgression of our laws is, the greater wiU be their merit
with thefr party, because done for the interest of the church.
Can any person who reflects be so infatuated as to think,
that in this way any serrice will be done to Protestantism ?
That such fruitless attempts wiU do it great disservice, one
must be totaUy bhnded by his prejudices not to perceive.
The minds of the people will more than ever be alienated
from us ; thefr numbers wiU strengthen their resolution ; and
thefr success wiU ensure thefr perseverance. To me it is ma
nifest, that in such parishes at least the repeal proposed will
be favourable to the other, and the only Christian method of
-persuasion, because it will be of great use to us for gaining
thefr confidence, and bringing them without suspicion to join
with us in other ordinary affafrs. If we will not admit per
sons who offer themselves as friends and fellow-citizens, and
accept such serrice from them, for the defence of the state, as
* See the account published by the Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge
in 1774,

354 ADDRESS TO THE
they think they can in a consistency with their duty give us,
we in a manner force them to combine with one another, for
their own defence, against us. We gain to ourselves, besides,
all the odium of being persecutors, vrithout gaining any thing
to the cause. They will have all the advantage of the plea
of being persecuted for conscience sake, vritliout sustaining
any loss by persecution. We arm their minds with preju
dices against us, and deprive ourselveg of the power of ever
gaining on them by softer methods. In brief, if nothing mil
please but the antichristian plan of converting by the sword,
and if we are now so unaccustomed to evangelical weapons
that we should be utterly at a loss how to use them, we have
no chance at all, on that plan, if we set about the work in a
faint-hearted manner, and adopt the measures of Antichrist
by halves. We shall but expose ourselves, and be found in
the end to have done more ill than good.
" Well, if we are not to~ go faintly to work," it may be
asked, " what is the stout-hearted method you would pro
pose ?" I answer. What would the Papists, our admired
masters in this motley spiritual temporal warfare, have done
in the Uke case ? For though in words we loudly condemn
thefr conduct, we are ever recurring to their example for a
pattern, and to serve as a justification of ourselves. I should
rather ask. What did they when heretics were so numerous
that penal laws could have no effect ? Their aim was then to
subdue them by the sword. They instituted a crusade, and
made war upon them as the enemies of Christ. This was
thefr method with the Albigenses. Soldiers were inhsted in
Christ's name ; for those pretended servants would fight for
him, in spite of himself. An army was accordingly sent to
eonrince the heretics oftheir errors, after the mihtary fashion,
and convert them at the point of the sword. Those who
were so obstinately unreasonable as not to be eonrinced by
such weighty arguments, were butchered without mercy.
Christ's kingdom had, in their hands, totaUy changed its
character. By his account, it was not proper for his servants
to fight, unless his kingdom were, what it was not, a worldly
kingdom. By their account, nothing was so proper. But
the mystery is unravelled when we reflect, that the kingdom

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 355
they fought for was in fact a worldly kingdom, misnamed
Christ's. Now, if we are capable of adopting the like mea
sures, arid, in order to grace the annals of Scotland for the
eighteenth centm-y, were to institute a Protestant crusade,
we are, I am afraid, but ill furnished (admitting we obtain
all the assistance we can expect fi-om the secular arm) with
the means of executing such a plan. The Pope is much
better prorided in resources for an undertaking of this sort.
His soldiers, beside all temporal advantages, receive out of
the church's inexhaustible treasury plenty of pardons and
indulgences, and a sure passport to heaven, in case they
should die in the cause. We have abandoned all pretensions
to such trumpery, and, however convenient it might be for
us, I question whether it would be in our power now to
resume it.
There is np exaggeration, or hyperbole, in what I say ; I
insist on it seriously, that if the Popish and not the Christian
mode of conversion is to be adopted, there is not a step on
this side the utter extfrpation of those that will not yield at
which we can stop, without doing the cause of Protestantism
more injury than serrice. Now it is only in those Highland
parishes that I find any complaints of the increase of Popery.
The smaUest degree of attention to the above-raentioned
accounts, pubhshed by the Society, raakes it erident, that it
has been occasioned neither by the want of penal laws nor
hy afidlure in the execution, for in both respects they were on
the same footing with other parts of the country, but by the
want of instruction. The places that we deserted, they oc
cupied. Can we wonder at this ? Would we have the people
he atheists ? If we will give them no reUgion, can we blame
them for accepting one frora those that are wilhng to'give it?
In the Lowlands, which are far raore populous, where the
parishes are much less extensjve, and generally well supplied
hoth in ministers and schoolmasters, we find no reason for
such complaints. In regard to people of rank, we have been
rather gaining ground than losing it. The only places where
there is immediate occasion for a check are the Highlands
and Westem Isles ; and in these it is plain, that any coercive
methods which have- yet been thought of, would prove totally

356 ADDRESS TO THE
ineffectual. It would be irapossible in that way to answer
any valuable purpose, unless we were to proceed to such ex
tremities, as I hope (notwithstanding the ugly appearances
of late in some of our principal cities) we have not retained
so much of the spirit of Popery as to be able to think of.
If it is in vain then to recur to the weapons of Babylon, let
us be induced to betake ourselves to the armoury of Christ.
Had we but half the zeal that we may be Christians ourselves,
which we have that others may not be Papists, there would
be no occasion for arguments on this head. Nothing can be
more manifest, than that the great cause ofthe eril complained
of is the want of Protestant teachers, both pastors and school
masters. And the principal causes of this deficiency are, the
immoderate extent of parishes, and the want of livings. If
a proper method could be devised for suppljdng this defect —
if new erections were made from time to time where most
needed, and the new erected parishes suitably supplied — there
would be great ground to hope that, in process of time, a
considerable change, in respect of Christian knowledge,
might be effected. We shall be convinced of this truth if
we but reflect, that, in the Highlands, Popery and ignorance
are always found to go together. And even where the
measure proposed may have little effect at flrst, in sur
mounting prejudices and producing conversions, it will not
be without its use in preventing further seductions.
But the great difficulty lies here. How are the teachers to
be supported ? Where are our funds ? Great zeal has apT
peared of late for the Protestant interest. In order to oppose
any parliamentary relief to Papists, money, I ara told, has
been contributed, and subscriptions given to a considerable
amount. Sorae noted boroughs and corporations have even
gone so far as to engage lawyers for opposing it in Parha
ment. I should be happy to have it in my power to convince
these people, of what is a most certain, and, in my judgment,
a most erident truth, that the money thus contributed vriU
be of real serrice to the cause which they vrish to promote,
if given for raising a fund for supplying the Highlands pro
perly with teachers, of which there isstUI such manifest need.
I appeal to those zealous persons themselves, if they can but

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 357
reflect coolly on any thing, whether this be not, beyond all
compaiison, a raore feasible way (and let me add, a more
creditable way) of serring the cause of Protestantisra, than
to throw money away on lawyers, in order to prevent the
repeal of a law which, by their own confession, has not been
of the smaUest utility for checking the evil complained of.
But it may be said, that though such an appUcation of the
money were agreed to by the contributors and subscribers,
it would go but a short way, perhaps not farther than the
endowment of a single parish, if even so far. This however
would be something. But what I have yet mentioned is not
the whole. There are many in the country, not only private
persons but communities, who highly disapprove the proposed
opposition to the repeal; who think it would be not only dis
honourable, and unbefitting the cause of Christianity, but
even prejudicial, though attended vrith success ; who never
theless would gladly embrace an opportunity of contributing
to advance the cause by Cluistian methods, and of demon-
sfrating to the world, that they are not (as they have been
misrepresented by persons whose zeal far outstrips their judg
ment) people who care for none of these things. Let but
an attempt of this kind be set on foot, and more perhaps will
be given than is at present imagined.
ItwiU be said, " Was there not a coUection made by order
of Assembly, a few years ago, for the purpose now mention
ed, which amounted to a very sraall matter ? We have not
great encouragement, then, to expect much in this way."
To this I reply, Is^, The generahty of mankind are apt to
he remiss and inattentive to things of this nature, till some
remarkable event happen to rouse them. The alarms lately
raised have suppUed us with such an event. 2dly, The ex
ample of the liberality of those coraraunities and indiriduals
who had intended the sarae good end, though by raeans we
thmk neither judicious nor justifiable, might, it would be
hoped, excite emulation in others who would choose to show
that they are not inferior in their ardour for the Protestant
cause, when its advanceraent is not pursued by Romish ex
pedients. 3dly, It may not be improper, ifit shaUseem raeet
to the wisdora of our ecclesiastical superiors in the ensuing

358 ADDRESS TO THE
Assembly, to recommend to synods or presbyteries to choose
fit persons, both ministers and elders, for receiving subscrip
tions frora persons of rank and others vrithin their respective
jurisdictions, beside appointing a coUection to be raade in the
parish churches frora the common people, and to recommend
also to the Royal Boroughs, which are all represented in the
Assembly, to obtain the aid of their respective corporations
for a serrice that in every view should be admitted by Pro
testants to be pious, charitable, and Christian, in respect
both of the end and of the raeans. Were a plan of this kind
to be adopted, I should not doubt of our getting Uberal as
sistance from many wealthy persons in England, from Scotch
men abroad, and even others well affected both to the Pro
testant reUgion and to the cause of liberty. The money col
lected ought doubtless to be intrusted to the management of
the Society in Scotland for propagating Christian Know
ledge, whose known integrity and zeal, as weU as their ac
quaintance with the state of the Highlands and Western
Isles, render them of all persons the fittest for such a trust.
I had the first suggestion of a scheme of this kind from a
gentleman of this place, who thinks as I do in regard to our
late alarms ; but who, if a method becoming Christians and
Protestants be agreed to, I have reason to beheve, will, as
well as many others, contribute Uberally. If raeasures of this
kind should be adopted, I think it would not be a difficult
matter to erince, that the proposed repeal, instead of doing
hurt, would be of service, in more ways than one. But to
conclude. —
Is there not at least some probabiUty, that if this, or some
thing of the kind, were done, a reformation in the High
lands might in part be effected ?— But what do they them
selves, that espouse measures of coercion, say is to be ex
pected in their way ? I shall suppose they succeed. The act
of King WilUam, about which the dispute arose, reraains as
it was. And what vrill the cause of Protestantisra gain there
by in the Highlands? or what will the cause of Popery lose?
It would be easier to point out, on the other hand, what will
be the probable loss of Protestantism, and gain of Popery.
The measures pursued wiU prove a good handle for working

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 359
up what at present is no more than a passive compliance with
Popery, as being the only rehgion that is rendered accessible
to them, into an active zeal for the cause, and an implacable
hatred of those whom they will be raade to consider as not
only their enemies but the eneraies of God. And what
effect the appearance of persecution raay have, in places
abounding with Papists, on weak and ill-instructed Protes
tants, I vriU not say. For ray part, I acknowledge that my
dislike to Popery is so great, that I would never do it so
much honour as to give it either martyrs or confessors to
boast of. The method I propose has a direct tendency to
remove the eril, without exasperating men's minds ; and, far
from bringing a disgrace upon our church and nation, it wiU
redound greatly to our honour.
Indeed, I can conceive but one objection against it, which
is, I own, as tiraes are, a great one, namely, that it is a Chris
tian method. For, to say the truth. Christian methods of
conversion are become so pbsplete in Christendom, that it
looks rather roraantic to propose them. This makes me fear
much lest that objection alone prove sufficient to defeat the
project. We are very zealous vrithout doubt, and so are the
Papists. And what does thefr zeal raostly, and ours too,
amount to ? Just to this, that we can be persuaded to do
any thing for God's sake, except to love God and our neigh
bour. Of aU tasks this is the hardest. For the sake of God
men wiU divest theraselves of humanity ; and, to advance thefr"
church, wiU sacrifice every remain of virtue, will even turn
assassins and incendiaries. But how few in comparison can
be persuaded, for God's sake, to make a sacrifice of their
pride, of thefr revenge, of their maUce, and other unruly pas
sions ? Who can be induced to be humble, to be meek, to be
humane, to be charitable, to be forgiving, and to adopt their
Master's rule of doing to others as they would that others
should do to them ?
Permit me, then, my dear countrymen, fellow Christians
and feUow Protestants, to beseech you by the meekness and
gentieness of Christ, that ye would maturely weigh this
most momentous business, and not suffer your minds by any
means to be corriipted from the simphcity that is in Christ.

360 ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND.
Reraember, oh remember, that if ye would serve God indeed,
ye must serve him in his own way. We show an absolute
distrust in hira, and a want of faith in the principles for
which we pretend to be zealous, when we cannot restrain
ourselves to those means only for the advancement of his
cause, which are warranted by his word. — God grant you
understanding in all things.

THE END.

W. Tyler, Printer, 5, Bolt-court, London.

3 9002 00769 4350