SECTION I.
The Design.

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

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

Both Christ and his apostles pro­posed the evidences of their mission, in two very different situations: they proposed them to those who had not yet expressed prejudice against the gos­pel, or against the proofs of its divinity which were offered: and they propo­sed them to those who were already engaged in opposition, and had actu­ally moved objections. In these oppo­site situations, they proposed them in different manners, which it will be necessary to examine separately. Each was proper in the circumstances in which it was used. Each has pecu­liar advantages, by means of which it affords collateral evidence of the truth of the gospel. When we con­sider [Page 4] both together, we shall perceive, that the evidence of our religion was proposed in a manner which is ab­solutely complete, and which bears the strongest marks of a divine ori­ginal.

SECTION II.
The manner in which the Evidences of Christi­anity were originally proposed.

WE shall begin with examining the manner in which Christ and his apostles proposed the eviden­ces of the gospel to those who had not yet opposed it, or expressed preju­dice against it. This we may call their original manner. The New Testa­ment affords us the means of ascer­taining it with precision. In addres­sing those who did not raise objec­tions against the gospel, it was their uniform method, to satisfy themselves with barely exhibiting its evidences. They laboured not to prove by ar­gumentation, that these evidences were sufficient; they were not at [Page 6] pains either to prevent or to remove every objection which might be start­ed; they explained not minutely the particular manner in which each evi­dence supports their mission.

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

He exhibited the proof of his mis­sion arising from miracles, with equal simplicity. He made no commenta­ry on the very first miracle, which he wrought in Cana; he left it to mani­fest forth his glory ^* merely by its na­tural force. When he entered more professedly upon his ministry in Ga­lilee, his manner was entirely similar: he taught in their synagogues, and preached the gospel of the kingdom, and cast out de­vils, and healed all manner of sickness, and all manner of diseases among the people ^†. He published his doctrine, he perform­ed miracles sufficient for proving that it was from God: but we are not in­formed that he employed arguments [Page 8] for evincing that his miracles were proper and conclusive evidences. Through his whole public life, he re­ceived them that followed him, and spake unto them of the kingdom of God; and, to induce them to believe him, healed them that had need of healing ^*. He did miraculous works of the most various and the most stupendous kinds: he satisfied himself with having done them; he entered into no laboured detail of the circumstances which show­ed their reality, into no nice reflections on the strength of these circumstances, into no subtile explications of the con­nexion between miracles and doctrines: he left his miracles to speak for him in their own language, and to support both their reality and their force by their own internal characters of truth and divine power. Read the New Testament, and you will find that this [Page 9] account suits far the greatest part of the miracles which are recorded. He cast out an unclean spirit in the synagogue of Capernaum ^*; he cast out a legion of devils, and permitted them to enter into a herd of swine ^†; he loosed the tongues of persons dumb by reason of the possession of evil spirits ^‡; he cast out a devil from the daughter of a Syro­phenician woman, without going near to the place where she was ^‖; he cu­red a lunatic whose distemper was in­veterate, obstinate, and extreme ^**; he restored sight to many blind per­sons ^††; he restored vigour to a lame man, at the pool of Bethesda ^‡‡; he re­moved [Page 10] the palsy from a centurion's servant, by a word spoken at a dis­tance ^*; a fever left Peter's mother-in-law, on his only touching her hand ^†; a woman was cured of an issue of blood, by touching the hem of his gar­ment ^‡; at different places and on different occasions, in the several pe­riods of his ministry, multitudes afflict­ed with almost all possible sorts of dis­eases were brought to him, or came in his way, and he cured them all ^‖; he raised the widow of Nain's son, and the daughter of Jairus, from the dead ^**; at one time, he fed above five thousand, with five loaves and two [Page 11] fishes ^*; and at another time, four thou­sand, with seven loaves and a few little fishes ^†; at one time, he rebuked the sea, and turned the storm into a calm ^‡, at another, he walked upon the wa­ters when they were tossed with waves, and afterwards composed the winds ^‖; once he directed Simon and his com­panions to a draught of fishes, miracu­lous on account both of their number, and of their being found when they had toiled all night without catching any thing ^**; and again he directed the same Simon to catch a single fish, which equally showed his miraculous power, because it brought the precise sum of the tribute demanded from [Page 12] him ^*. In all these instances, and in many others, he wrought miracles without making any reflections on their credibility or on their force. In­deed, miracles can prove nothing till their own reality be established. But how is the reality of a miracle esta­blished most effectually? Doubtless by its being wrought in such circum­stances as render men attentive to it, and force them to perceive it by their own senses. Without this, the most peremptory assertions that it was wrought, will not satisfy those who must have seen it if it had been wrought; and if it was attended with such circumstances as we have suppo­sed, assertions of its reality are super­fluous. It was by the manner of his working them, that our Saviour ren­dered the reality of his miracles obvi­ous and undeniable; they were in themselves appeals to the senses of [Page 13] men; and when he found it necessa­ry to take any notice of their certain­ty, he generally did no more but put them upon judging by their own sen­ses: when he had cleansed a leper, by putting forth his hand, and touching him, saying, I will, be thou clean; he did not expatiate on the undeniable certainty of the miracle: he needed not: but, that men might of themselves judge concerning its certainty, he simply said, show thyself unto the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded for a TES­TIMONY unto them ^*. Miracles are proofs of a doctrine, only when they are performed with a professed inten­tion to answer this purpose. It was therefore necessary for our Saviour to declare, that his miracles were intend­ed to be evidences of his divine mis­sion, in order to establish a connexion between them and his doctrine. But [Page 14] it was by no means necessary, that he should make this declaration at the time of working every miracle. As he laid claim to a divine mission, and con­stantly delivered his doctrines in the name of God, a general declaration of the intention of his miracles, with an appeal to them on some particular oc­casions, was sufficient for rendering them vouchers of his mission; and, from the evangelical history, he ap­pears to have done no more. It is not improbable that he appealed to his mi­racles in some instances where it is not taken notice of by the evangelists: but his appeals to them in almost all the instances which are recorded, were oc­casioned by opposition and objections; and this gives us abundant reason for concluding that he was at least very sparing in enlarging even on their ge­neral intention. He insists, that, when he had wrought his miracles, he had gi­ven [Page 15] sufficient evidence of his doctrine, and done all that was incumbent on him for the conviction of mankind. He represents it as enough to render Cho­razin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum in­excusable, that mighty works had been DONE in them ^*. They had seen his miracles: this alone, he telIs them, ought to have convinced them of his mission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘"BUT may not this simple, unar­gumentative manner of propo­sing the evidences of the gospel, be urged as an objection against it? Is it not dishonouring Christianity, to assert that it is not founded on argu­ment? And does not this manner of proposing its evidences, give too great countenance to that assertion?"’ The assertion, that Christianity is not founded on argument, will be disho­nourable to our religion, or not, ac­cording to the sense in which it is un­derstood. [Page 35] It is a very old objection ^*: when ancient infidels urged it, they meant, that Christ and his apostles did not, like the Greek philosophers, prove each particular doctrine by a distinct train of argument deduced from first principles, but proved them all from the authority of the revelation in which they are taught. This is true: but it is no objection, provided the authority of that revelation be fully established: on the contrary, it is one of the excel­lencies of the gospel; it promotes its u­tility, it renders it fit for the bulk of mankind. Modern infidels turn the objection into another form: they as­sert, and endeavour to prove, that our Saviour and his apostles neither ‘"made nor intended any appeal to the un­derstanding ^†."’ This would be a [Page 36] real and strong objection, if it had any foundation in truth. But every per­son who has read the New Testament, knows, that it contains many passages in which men are commanded to exer­cise their reason in judging of Christi­anity, commended for exercising it, or blamed for neglecting to exercise it: and when he knows this, needs he to inquire, what arguments are brought to prove the objection? Whatever they are, they must be mere sophisms. When we are certain, by seeing posi­tive instances of it, that persons do actually address the understanding, an attempt to prove by subtile ratiocina­tions, that they do not, is as ridiculous as it would be to undertake to prove that the sun shines not, when we see him shining. Indeed a person may address the understanding, and yet address it improperly. It is addressed improper­ly, if no real evidence be offered: if [Page 37] you endeavour to convince me, and yet propose no solid or conclusive ar­guments, you either insult me, or be­tray your own weakness. It might be said, that Christianity is not founded on, or, to speak more properly, sup­ported by argument, if the evidences which its author professes to bring, were not rational and just ^*. But in order to prove that they are not, it must be evinced, that Christianity is not re­commended by the excellence of its doctrines, by miracles, and by prophe­cies, or that all these have no degree of fitness for convincing the understand­ing, of its truth and divinity. This will be, at least, a laborious task: the assertion, in this sense of it, has no ten­dency to shorten the work of infidels; it is not one expeditious and decisive [Page 38] argument against Christianity; but it is the very conclusion which they must ultimately prove. All the objections of the most various kinds, which infi­dels have ever moved, are but so many attempts to prove it: all the defences of Christianity, which have ever been made, are intended to confute it. It can receive no shadow of countenance from any thing which we have said: we have been speaking only of the manner in which the evidences of the gospel were originally proposed, not at all of the nature or strength of the evidences themselves. The present question is not, whether the evidences of the go­spel be such in themselves, that, when properly proposed, they will prove it to be a divine revelation; but it is, whether, supposing them real and suf­ficient evidences, that which we have described, was a proper manner of pro­posing them? These questions are to­tally [Page 39] distinct. The manner in which they were actually proposed, may total­ly exclude the display of curious and subtile argument; and yet the eviden­ces themselves may be truly rational, such that the utmost efforts of argument cannot invalidate them, and even ca­pable of being supported by the nicest reasonings. Suppose excellence of doc­trine, the working of miracles, the te­stimony of the spirit of prophecy, to be evidences of a divine mission; and from the whole account which we have given of our Saviour's manner, it is not more obvious, that he declined amusing men with intricate reasonings, than it is, that he presented real and strong evi­dence to them on every occasion.

EVIDENCE ought, no doubt, to be proposed in a proper manner: argu­ments of real strength may be stated in so imperfect a manner, that they shall [Page 40] produce no conviction. If it could be proved, that this was the case of Chri­stianity, it would give some reason for saying, that it was not supported by argument. IT may be thought, that this receives some colour from the re­presentation which has been given of the manner of our Saviour and his apo­stles: but it is only in appearance. Re­mote as this manner is from an osten­tation of reasoning, it may notwith­standing be the properest that could have been employed. It has often hap­pened, that infidels have deduced ob­jections from topics which are so far from yielding them support, that they answer just the contrary purpose, when they are attentively examined, and pur­sued through their genuine consequen­ces. It happens in the present case: the manner in which the evidences of the gospel were originally proposed, is no sort of presumption against the divine [Page 41] mission of Jesus; it is, on the contrary, a presumption for it, a collateral proof of it.

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

But though the evidence of matters of fact does not necessarily require rea­soning, yet it often admits reasoning. Reasoning may be used in some cases, for ascertaining the real circumstances of the fact from which we draw our inference, that it may give the mind an impulse to draw it. When there are opposite probabilities, reasoning may be used for determining which of them ought to preponderate. When objections are raised against the just­ness of a particular inference, it may be vindicated by reasoning. Reasoning may be employed for investigating the general principles of belief in mat­ters of fact, for giving an account how we come to yield to these principles, [Page 47] for explaining the theory of evidence, and for showing that our conclusion, in a particular instance, is agreeable to that theory, and supported by it. But it is by no means necessary that a per­son enter into all these reasonings, in order to his obtaining conviction in any case. If evidence be presented suitable to the case, it will beget con­viction, tho' we attend not to any of these sorts of reasoning, tho' we have never reflected how we come to be convinced, tho' we be not aware of all the objections which may be raised against the sufficiency of the evidence, tho' we be not able to answer them all particularly, if they were proposed to us. It is enough that the evidence be in its nature fit for operating on the human understanding: then con­viction will arise spontaneously on the exhibition of it. This holds with re­spect to all subjects. Metaphysical [Page 48] acuteness hath raised several objections against the certainty of mathematical evidence. Is it not, nevertheless, suf­ficient for convincing a man, that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, to make him acquaint­ed with the ordinary demonstration of that proposition? Is not the conviction produced in this way, perfectly ra­tional? Will any person pretend, that it is moreover necessary, to inform him of all the metaphysical difficulties, and to obviate them, before he can rea­sonably yield to the force of the de­monstration? Every man is fully satis­fied, that bread will nourish him, that arsenic will poison him, by simply re­flecting that these substances have uni­formly produced these effects, in all former trials. Would you think it ne­cessary for promoting his conviction in this case, or for rendering it rational, first to inform him of all the doubts [Page 49] which may be raised concerning the certainty, that the future course of na­ture will be similar to the past, or that bodies having the same sensible quali­ties, have also the same powers and virtues; and then to remove these doubts, and to prove that they ought not to obstruct his belief? Or would the drawing out of the argument from experience, in this philosophical form, render the belief of an ordinary man, either firmer or more rational than it was before? To perceive evidence, is one thing; to account for evidence, is quite a different thing: the former on­ly is necessary for conviction. In like manner, to propose evidence proper in a particular case, is totally different from laying down a theory of evidence, or from giving an abstract proof of the sufficiency of it, or an explication of the manner in which it works convic­tion: the former is all that is fit, or neces­sary, [Page 50] in addressing the bulk of mankind on any subject. Our Saviour and his a­postles addressed mankind in that very manner. They wrought miracles, for instance, and cited prophecies, in proof of their mission. If these be at all evi­dences of a divine mission, they are such evidences, that the simple exhibi­tion of them is sufficient for producing conviction. It must be remembered, that these evidences do not appear to us in the very same light, as they did to those to whom the gospel was origi­nally proposed. In order to judge what was sufficient for them, we must carefully distinguish their situation from our own; we must suppose ourselves placed in their circumstances. Who­ever attends to the controversy con­cerning the truth of Christianity, will perceive that circumstances peculiar to us, have occasioned far the greatest part of the reasoning used on either [Page 51] side. On this account, though a va­riety of arguments may be necessary for convincing us of the truth of Chri­stianity, it by no means follows, that the same arguments were necessary for their conviction, to whom our Saviour and his apostles spoke. With respect to them, there was scarce even scope for reasoning. Almost all the reason­ings, for instance, which have been in­troduced concerning the proof from prophecy, are employed in showing, that the prophecies of the Old Testa­ment were intended of the Messiah. Ought our Saviour to have entered in­to these reasonings, in preaching to the Jews? To us, they may be necessary: but to them, they would have been superfluous: they were persuaded al­ready that these prophecies related to the Messiah; if they were really fulfil­led in Jesus, the fulfilment would be perceived whenever they were atten­tively [Page 52] compared with the correspondent events; a simple appeal to the predic­tions, was sufficient for exciting their attention. Our reasonings concerning miracles likewise, are employed chiefly in proving, that the works ascribed to Christ and his apostles, were really done by them: in the first publication of the gospel, there was no room for these reasonings; if the works were at all done, they saw them with their eyes. No person who is fully persuaded, that the extraordinary facts recorded in the gospel, really happened, will hesitate to pronounce them miraculous; but the sight of them could not fail to strike the mind more vigorously, than any conception of them which we can form by the force of imagination; and, by reason of the superior strength and vi­vacity of their impression, they who saw them, would pronounce them mi­raculous, more quickly and confident­ly [Page 53] than we do. Besides, the scruples which have been moved on this head, arise from suppositions, that we may be ignorant of some circumstances of these facts, necessary for determining their real nature: having only a relation of them, we may find room for doubts, and disputes, and reasonings; but they could find none; they were eye­witnesses of the facts with all their real circumstances; if these did render them plainly miraculous, they needed no arguments to prove that they did, they must perceive it by their own senses; if these circumstances did leave the mira­cle equivocal, no arguments could prove that they did not. We may add, that they to whom our Saviour and his apostles proposed the evidences of their mission without reasoning, al­lowed miracles to be a proof of a divine mission; these teachers had not this conviction to produce by argumenta­tion; [Page 54] they found their hearers already in possession of it, and had nothing to do but to lay hold of it by working mi­racles. If then it be supposed, that the gospel really had the evidences al­ledged, and that these evidences are in their nature proper proofs of a reve­lation, it is certain, that the bare ex­hibition of them was originally suffi­cient: there was no need of refined reasonings, or subtile deductions: the manner of proposing them is liable to no exception. If there be any defect, it must ly either in this, that the go­spel was not really attended with the evidences alledged; or in this, that these evidences, supposing them real, are not proper or sufficient proofs of a revelation: let either of these be evin­ced, if it can be; but still the argu­ments urged, will strike only at the mat­ter of the evidence, not at the manner in which it was proposed.

[Page 55] It is almost only inattention to the nature of that evidence by which the gospel is supported, that bestows any plausibility on the assertion, that the first publication of the gospel was in a manner unfit for producing a rational conviction of its truth, or on the topics which are urged in proof of that asser­tion. It has been urged, for instance, that a ready assent to the gospel was demanded; that no time was allowed for doubt or deliberation; and that therefore a rational assent neither was expected, nor was possible ^*. There is here a gross misrepresentation of the matter of fact: but, tho' there were none, the argument would avail little: the evidence offered for the gospel, was not intricate reasoning in proof of each of its doctrines separately, which would have required long time for [Page 56] examination: miracles were wrought, and led them to conclude, at one step, the divine mission of those who wrought them, and consequently the truth of all the doctrines which they delivered in the name of God. It has been ob­served with the same view, that a ready acquiescence was greatly approved, but could not admit deliberate examina­tion ^*. But supposing the evidence offered, such in its own nature as to require no long examination, as to be fit to work immediate conviction in those to whom it was exhibited, was it not really commendable to attend to it without prejudice, and to yield to it readily? It might be perceived in an instant: and a captious caviller, who will raise thousands of difficulties in the plainest case, is not a very approveable character. We are apt to regard nice­ty in admitting evidence, and scrupu­losity in canvassing every possible diffi­culty [Page 57] attending it, as a mark of supe­rior understanding, and to represent an assent yielded without this, as on that account irrational. But this deci­sion is not altogether just. What ren­ders our assent rational in any case, is its being yielded to real and proper e­vidence, not our being acquainted with the foundations of that evidence, or with all the objections that may be rai­sed against it. Assent is irrational on­ly when it is yielded to improper evi­dence, not when it is yielded readily and at once to such as is proper. Its being yielded readily, is a sign of a sound understanding: its being with­held till the evidence has been enforced by a multitude of arguments, and clear­ed from a multitude of cavils, is truly a symptom of a diseased understanding. It is when the stomach digests whole­some food easily, by its own force, that it is sound and strong: it is distemper­ed, [Page 58] when it cannot digest it without ar­tificial preparations and assistances. We dread the imputation of credulity: but incredulity is as truly an intellectual weakness. To be imposed upon by insufficient evidence, shows a defect in understanding; but to reject sufficient evidence, or to yield to it with difficul­ty, shows a defect equally great and real, tho' not so universally acknow­ledged. No doubt, a talent for raising difficulties and objections, and con­triving ingenious solutions of them, shows acuteness: but it is a species of acuteness which, if it be indulged, de­stroys true strength of understanding; for this consists in the ability to distin­guish sufficient from insufficient evi­dence, quickly, and without any more arguments than the nature of the case renders absolutely necessary. If we could perceive evidence on all subjects by simple intuition, without any argu­ments, [Page 59] our understanding would be much more perfect than it is: it is its imperfection, that renders reasoning at all necessary for our perceiving evi­dence, or being convinced by it. When natural evidence is presented, it is al­ways an imbecillity of understanding, that renders subtile reasoning necessary for its operating on the mind: the greater real strength of understanding a person possesses, the less reasoning will be necessary for bringing him to assent. When men are backward to assent to suitable evidence, it proceeds from a perversion, mistaken indeed for an improvement, of understanding, ac­quired by application to false know­ledge, and fostered by intellectual va­nity. The generality of mankind are not naturally subject to this perversion; it would be superfluous labour to mul­tiply reasonings, after evidence has been exhibited to them. Our Saviour [Page 60] exhibited evidence sufficient to extort their assent, if their natural principles of belief were not perverted: more was needless: laboured arguments concern­ing that evidence, might have been necessary medicines for the distempered understanding; but it was Christ's in­tention, in the cases now under consi­deration, to give food to the sound. Thus, the manner in which the evi­dences of the gospel were originally proposed, was altogether sufficient for the conviction of those in addressing whom it was used: it therefore affords no presumption against the truth of Christianity.

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

Further, the method in which our Saviour and his apostles proposed the evidences of the gospel, was not only sufficient for bringing men to believe the gospel: it was the fittest for this pur­pose. The more simply evidence can be, in any case, proposed, consistently with clearness, the more readily it will produce conviction: nice reasonings, if they be not absolutely necessary, on­ly burden the evidence, and perplex the understanding. With respect to mathematical truths, the evidence of which can be rendered perceptible on­ly by a chain of reasoning, the more minutely the demonstration is pursued, [Page 66] the fewer the steps omitted, the evi­dence generally strikes the more easily, and is the more irresistible. But even here, there are certain limits: a de­monstration may be drawn out so mi­nutely as to weaken the conviction; the steps may be rendered so many, that the difficulty of retaining them, overbalances the effect of the clearness with which the connexion of ideas is perceived in each separate step. It is certainly in learning those mathemati­cal truths which require the longest series of steps in a demonstration of them, that the generality find the greatest difficulty. Thus, even in sub­jects which belong to its proper pro­vince, reasoning may be carried to a degree of precision which obstructs its end, and obscures the evidence. This will happen still more readily in mat­ters of fact, which we are naturally formed for inferring, without a long [Page 67] chain of reasoning, from the simple view of what affords evidence for them. In delivering a science, and that too to studious persons, it is justly reckon­ed a method improper for producing conviction, to observe every difficulty or objection, and to confute it parti­cularly, as you go along. Few will dispute the propriety of the censure which Bacon passes on the scholastics, for pursuing this very method. ‘"The manner amongst them was this, says he; upon every particular position or assertion, to frame objections, and to those objections solutions; which solu­tions were for the most part not confu­tations, but distinctions: whereas in­deed the strength of all sciences is, as the strength of the old man's faggot, in the band. For the harmony of a science supporting each part the other, is and ought to be the true and brief confutation and suppression of all the [Page 68] smaller sort of objections. But, on the other side, if you take out every axiom, as the sticks of the faggot, one by one, you may quarrel with them, and bend them, and break them at your pleasure: so that, as was said of Seneca, Verborum minutiis rerum frangit pondera; so a man may truly say of the schoolmen, Quaesti­onum minutiis scientiarum frangunt solidita­tem. For were it not better for a man in a fair room, to set up one great light, or branching candlestick of lights, than to go about with a small watch­candle into every corner? And such is their method, that rests not so much upon evidence of truth proved by ar­guments, authorities, similitudes, ex­amples, as upon particular confuta­tions and solutions of every scruple, cavillation, and objection; breeding for the most part one question, as fast as it solveth another; even as in the former resemblance, when you carry [Page 69] the light into one corner, you darken the rest ^*."’ It is the very method re­commended by this great philosopher, that Jesus took in proposing the evi­dences of his religion: The represen­tation here given of the contrary me­thod, is, with little variation, applica­ble to that which infidels affect to think it reasonable, that he should have ta­ken. This method would be improper even in delivering a science; but it would have been much more improper in laying down the evidences of the Christian religion. This religion, it must be remembered, was intended, not for the entertainment of the spe­culative, but for the use of the whole of mankind: the properest manner, therefore, of proposing its evidences, was that which was fittest for the con­viction of the bulk of mankind; and what was fittest for this purpose, there [Page 70] is little difficulty in determining. Pro­pose to an ordinary man, evidence really suited to the nature of the sub­ject, and to the principles of human understanding; he assents without he­sitation. Inform him of all the excep­tions to which that evidence is liable; prove that these exceptions are not suf­ficient to destroy its force; ascertain its precise degree of strength; point out its foundation in human nature; explain the manner in which it produ­ces belief: he cannot understand you, he is bewildered; if he continues to be convinced, it is owing to your first simple representation of the evidence, not to your subsequent refinements; these tend rather to make him lose sight of the point which ought to be belie­ved. All men are formed capable of being convinced by real evidence; but all men are not capable of reflect­ing on the manner in which their con­viction [Page 71] is wrought, or of understand­ing the theory of evidence: to attempt to teach them this, in order to their conviction in a particular instance, is not only unnecessary, but improper al­so; with respect to the generality of mankind, it in no degree promotes the end, it answers no purpose at all. In any ordinary case, every sensible man would chuse the former method, as the only proper one. If you want to convince a person of the probability of any future event, you will naturally mention the similar past events from which it derives its probability. You will not surely think it necessary or proper, to explain the foundation of our believing that the future will re­semble the past, to prove the stability of the laws of nature, or to enlarge on the other topics which are very proper­ly discussed in philosophical specula­tions concerning the nature of our rea­sonings [Page 72] from experience. The absur­dity of taking this method, would be perceived at one glance. If by the former method you fail of convincing a plain man, you shall in vain hope to accomplish it by having recourse to the latter. That is indeed the method which is always employed by ordinary men, and which succeeds best with them: nay, it is constantly employed even by the most subtile logicians, not only in ordinary life, but in all cases of science where their logical principles are not directly in their view; and it is a method so perfectly adapted to the human understanding, that it often produces ready and unreserved assent in those whose logical principles would, by being recollected, tend to suggest objections and create doubts. Rea­soning of a simpler kind than what we have described, is sometimes employed in proving matters of fact. When the [Page 73] evidence is only probable in a slight degree, there must be an induction of many circumstances, and many excep­tions must be removed, before it can at all appear: but so unfit are reason­ings of any considerable length or in­tricacy, for convincing the generality, that they can scarce enter into subjects of this kind. When multitudes of pro­babilities must be accurately balanced against their contraries, it is almost im­possible to bring the generality to con­ceive any evidence, or to form any opinion in the case. Reasoning of all the kinds which have been menti­oned, has in course of time been un­avoidably introduced into the defence of Christianity: When unbelievers at­tempted to show that Christianity is improbable, it then became necessary to collect and estimate, both the cir­cumstances from which its proof arises, and those which are supposed to be [Page 74] contradictory; when they deduced ob­jections from abstract theories of evi­dence, it became necessary to answer them, by arguments arising likewise from a just theory of evidence. But in originally proving the truth of the gospel, this would have been absolute­ly unfit, because by no means adapted to the conviction of the generality of mankind. Jesus chose the properest, nay the only proper method. He sim­ply proposed the evidences of the go­spel as they were; he reasoned not con­cerning their force; he did not search out every difficulty which a captious spirit might lead men to apprehend in them, and give a particular answer to it. The method which he used, is the fittest method for leading mankind to believe the gospel; the contrary me­thod would have been absolutely im­proper. In this manner proposed, the evidence of the gospel would most ef­fectually [Page 75] produce belief, if it was real and suited to human nature: if it was not fit to produce belief when thus pro­posed, no reasoning could enable it to produce it in the bulk of mankind. Lay before an ordinary man, the evi­dences of the gospel, in a plain man­ner; if he be not convinced by this, it will be to little purpose, to endeavour to convince him by a subtile discus­sion of their force. To be convinced by the former, requires only his being a man; to gain conviction by the lat­ter, requires that he should have more­over become a philosopher. The latter manner may give greater entertain­ment to the curious; but the former is the best and shortest way to conviction. It hath been said, with a design to de­preciate the gospel, that ‘"the apostles knew nothing of reasoning, and would have been easily entangled in a syllogism ^*."’ Be it so. But is not [Page 76] this true of the generality of mankind, as well as of the apostles? Intricate rea­soning would, therefore, have been improper in proving a religion intend­ed for the generality. Our Saviour's manner was such as enabled unlearned apostles, to address the unlearned in a way the fittest possible for producing conviction. If the evidences of the gospel are sufficient for conciliating belief, attention to the manner of pro­posing them, will naturally strengthen that belief, for it is the best manner that could have been chosen. God has adapted the evidence of the gospel to the powers of the generality: Christ has proposed it in a manner suited to its nature, and to their apprehensions: by this the gospel is declared, not ob­scurely, to be the offspring of the same wisdom which fixed the human consti­tution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE internal evidence of Christiani­ty, arises from its excellence: Jesus al­ways [Page 94] exhibited this evidence; all that he taught, had striking characters of perfection. But, notwithstanding the absolute purity of his doctrine, the Jews frequently found fault with it: and their cavils, sometimes with re­spect to this, and sometimes too with respect to other topics, led him to il­lustrate, to vindicate, and to urge, the excellence of the gospel. Even when he answered them in the simplest manner, they gave him occasion to en­large more fully and clearly on parti­cular points, than he had done before; to rectify mistakes; by the confuta­tion of them to instil juster principles; and thus to give a more ample exhibi­tion of internal evidence, to render the excellence of his religion more conspicuous. Sometimes their objec­tions proceeded merely from their mis­taking his meaning. He took occasion from them to deliver his sentiments [Page 95] more plainly; and thus taught doctrine; the excellence of which was more ob­vious, and therefore sitter for leading them to conclude of themselves, that it was divine. When he asserted, that he was the bread of life, and told them, that he would give them his flesh for meat, and that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood ^*, they foolishly under­stood his words in a literal sense, and in this misapprehension were greatly offended at his doctrine ^†. The me­taphor was perfectly familiar to them; therefore he thought it not necessary to relinquish it: but he abundantly il­lustrated his meaning, tho' he conti­nued to use the same figurative terms ^‡; he told them plainly, that by eating and drinking he intended believing on him ^‖; he informed them that his dis­course [Page 96] was figurative throughout ^*; and he gave them a key to it, by fore­telling his ascension into heaven ^†, which might have naturally led them to conceive his meaning, which insi­nuated at once the real nature of his kingdom, and which would be an il­lustrious evidence of his having come from heaven, and that both in itself, and by being the accomplishment of his predictions. On one occasion, when he was speaking of his death, and his subsequent exaltation, they imagined that he intended to kill him­self. He corrected their mistake, and said all that was necessary for their comprehending his true meaning; he pointed out the source of their mistake, he intimated that he came from hea­ven, that he was sent by God, and e­ven that he was the Messiah, whom it was dangerous to reject; he informed [Page 97] them pretty plainly of his crucifixion, than which nothing could have a stronger tendency to rectify their wrong opinion of a temporal Messiah; and all this in such a way, that many believed on him ^*.

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

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

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

When the Jews could find no fault with what our Saviour had already said, they often put questions to him, on [Page 107] purpose to lead him to utter such senti­ments as were censurable, and might thus give them an opportunity of rai­sing objections against his doctrine. On all these occasions he baffled their ma­lice, by delivering doctrines so excel­lent as reflected new lustre on the truth of his religion. A lawyer came to him with an insidious intention to dis­cover, whether he would teach any thing inconsistent with the law of Mo­ses, and said, What shall I do to inherit e­ternal life? Jesus not only gave an an­swer with which he could find no fault, but explained the extent of our duty to others, so justly, and in a manner so wonderfully fit for touching the heart, as signally displayed his divine wisdom ^*. The Pharisees asked him, with the like malicious intention, con­cerning the lawfulness of divorce. He proved the unlawfulness of this abuse, [Page 108] which, by reason of the love of pleasure, had become very general among them, in the most convincing manner; from the original institution of marriage, ac­knowledged by themselves, and rela­ted in their own scriptures; by assign­ing the true reason why Moses had gi­ven any permission to this practice in the law; and by informing them that his gospel enjoined the strictest mora­lity on this head ^*. After he had en­tered publicly into Jerusalem, all his enemies, in concert, assaulted him with subtile questions. The Pharisees and the Herodians together, began with asking him, Is it lawful to give tribute un­to Cesar, or not? secure that he would either expose himself to the resentment of the Roman Governor, by forbid­ding it, or appear to the people to re­nounce the character of the Messiah, by allowing it. But he showed his divine [Page 109] wisdom, by giving such an answer as not only disappointed their designs, but also fixed the real bounds between their duty to God, and their duty to the Emperor, which did not at all in­terfere, except in their imagination, and reproved each of them for the ex­treme into which they were apt to run, and by which they both trangressed one of these duties, under colour of fulfilling the other: and they could not take hold of his words before the people; and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace ^*. Next the Sadducees attacked him, by proposing an argument against a future state, which they thought was founded in the law, and which they reckoned unanswerable. Far from being per­plexed by their subtlety, he showed at once that it had not the least degree of force, but proceeded altogether [Page 110] from a mistake; he gave a just concep­tion of the nature of a future state, an important doctrine, concerning which men had always formerly run into ab­surdities; and he showed that a future state was directly implied in the scrip­tures which the Sadducees themselves received; and when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine ^*. To make a farther trial, a Pharisee asked him, Which is the first and great commandment? By his answer, he set a­side all the superstitious determinations of the Scribes in favour of one ceremo­nial precept, or another; he repre­sented real piety and virtue as the sub­stance of religion; he took occasion, tho' the question did not render it ab­solutely necessary, to inculcate the love of our neighbour, as preferable to all duties, except love to God; he thus [Page 111] gave a noble summary of morality, which extorted the approbation of the Scribe who had proposed the question ^*. In a word, whenever any persons endeavoured to entangle him, he showed such divine wisdom, that they found all their attempts to be in vain, and he delivered instructions so pro­per and useful, as heightened the ex­cellence of his gospel.

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

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

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

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

Men were eye-witnesses of the mira­cles which Christ performed; they could not therefore call their reality in question: but they objected against their force; and thus gave him occa­sion, by answering their objections, to state the evidence for the truth of Chri­stianity, which miracles contain. They oftener than once asserted, that his mi­racles were performed by magic, not [Page 141] by the power of God, and therefore were no proofs of a divine mission. When he had healed one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb, all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of Da­vid? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, He doth not cast out devils, but by Beel­zebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, E­very kingdom divided against itself, is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself, shall not stand: and if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else, how can one en­ter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? And then he will spoil his house. He that is not with me, is against me; and he that [Page 142] gathereth not with me, scattereth abroad ^*. The reasoning is strong and unanswer­able, and demonstrates that their as­sertion was even absurd. If the devil had enabled a person to work miracles, they would not have been such mira­cles as Jesus wrought, for many of these consisted in dispossessing devils; nor would they have been wrought in con­firmation of such doctrine as Jesus taught, for it was most opposite to all that an evil spirit would wish to be propagated in the world. Christ's mi­racles could not be performed by the assistance of the devil, for if they were, the devil must have been intent on the destruction of his own power, and the subversion of his own interests. The assertion was therefore absurd in itself, but it was peculiarly absurd in the mouth of Jews: they affirmed that ma­ny [Page 143] of their own nation had performed miracles by the power of God, and, on the testimony of these miracles, ac­knowledged these to be divine messen­gers: it was the grossest inconsistence after this to ascribe Christ's miracles to the devil; for his doctrine was as holy as theirs, and his miracles were much greater and more numerous, and con­sequently more undeniably derived from omnipotence. They ought with­out hesitation to ascribe them to the Almighty, and to regard them as a full proof that Jesus was, what he claim­ed to be, the Messiah. They plainly proceeded from power superior to that of Beelzebub, and able to vanquish him; for they tended directly to overthrow his dominion. If it be a just maxim, that he is to be regarded as an enemy who with-holds assistance, much more ought Christ to be considered as an e­nemy to the devil, when he was doing [Page 144] every thing to ruin his kingdom, both by his miracles themselves, and by the doctrine for which he wrought them; the accomplice of the devil he could not possibly be.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The prejudices of the Jews led them also to miss in Jesus, some of the cha­racters which they imagined were pre­dicted concerning the Messiah; and [Page 178] thus gave him occasion to show, either that these characters did belong to him, or that they were not predicted cha­racters of the Messiah. They collected from a plain prophecy, that the co­ming of the Messiah ought to be pre­ceeded by that of Elias; and because Elias had not come in the manner they expected, they thought that Jesus could not be the Messiah. This very diffi­culty was proposed to our Saviour, and removed by him. His disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the Scribes, that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things: but I say unto you, that Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him what­soever they listed: likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist ^*. There is a very remarkable [Page 179] instance which, it will appear probable on examination, falls under this head. The Jews asked a sign from Jesus at se­veral different times. At the first pas­sover after he began his public mini­stry, when he had driven the sellers of cattle, and the changers of money out of the temple, the Jews said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou dost these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.—But he spake of the temple of his body ^*. After he had performed a miraculous cure, so re­markable that all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? and after he had proved by the most con­vincing reasoning, that his miracles were wrought by the power of God, and therefore were evidences that the kingdom of God was come unto them; cer­tain of the Scribes and Pharisees answered, [Page 180] saying, Master, we would see a sign from heaven from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jo­nas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth ^*. Soon after our Saviour had for the second time fed a great multitude by a miracle, the Pharisees afraid, it would seem, lest all men should follow him, and eager to dis­credit him, by demanding what he had oftener than once declined giving, and what they therefore thought them­selves certain that he could not give, came with the Sadducees, and tempting, de­sired him that he would show them a sign from heaven. He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather, for the sky is red; and in the [Page 181] morning, It will be foul weather to day, for the sky is red and lowering: O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas ^*. In the first instance, the demand was made imme­diately after an action which implied his assuming very great and extraordi­nary authority; and before this time he had been declared to be the Son of God by the miraculous testimony at his baptism, he had been pointed out for the Messiah by John, who was owned to be a prophet, he had himself wrought some miracles, and he had just done what may not improperly be consider­ed as partaking of the nature of a mi­racle. In the other two instances, the demand was almost immediately occa­sioned by very stupendous miracles, [Page 182] which he had performed. These cir­cumstances, as well as the manner in which the demand itself is expressed, naturally lead us to think, that it was not a great miracle in general, but some one determinate sign, which they had in their eye, and which was pecu­liarly reckoned the sign of the Son of man. It is sometimes called a sign from heaven, and we can scarce doubt, that they meant the very same sign in all their different demands: this having been once refused, they repeatedly asked it with an air of triumph, as if they ex­pected that it would be refused, and thought that no evidence without it, could prove Jesus to be the Messiah. It is remarkable too, that Jesus con­stantly refused the sign which they ask­ed; and that his answer is always to the same purpose, tho' expressed in dif­ferent ways, and never fails to include an intimation of his own resurrection [Page 183] from the dead. This last circumstance is the more remarkable, because he scarce ever intimated his resurrection in speaking to the promiscuous multi­tude, except when a sign was asked. In order to account for these circum­stances, and to understand the real im­port, as well as the propriety, of Christ's answers to their repeated demand, let us endeavour to ascertain, what was most probably the real nature of the sign which they expected. Daniel had said concerning the Messiah, I saw in the night-visions, and behold one like the Son of man, came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him: and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him ^*. The Jews mistook the sense of this prediction; they seem to have concluded from it, [Page 184] that the Messiah would come down from heaven in visible glory, in the character of a temporal prince, put himself at their head, and lead them forth to conquer all their enemies, and to erect an universal empire: and when­ever they asked a sign from Jesus, their meaning was, that he should appear in this very manner. Indeed they had come to reckon such an appearance so proper and determinate a mark of the Messiah, that it was a common peri­phrasis for his name. This is plain from what happened at our Saviour's trial: The high priest said, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ the Son of God. Jesus an­swers in terms equivalent to those of Daniel's prediction, Thou hast said: ne­vertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven ^*. [Page 185] This was intended to be a direct answer to the question, and it was understood to be such. If this was their meaning, we may perceive how naturally they made the demand immediately after he had assumed extraordinary authority, or wrought great miracles: they were astonished by these, they could scarce help suspecting that Jesus was more than an ordinary person, though they were very unwilling to suppose it: yet still they missed in him, what they reckoned an essential character, nay the precise characteristic of the promi­sed Messiah, his coming down from hea­ven in the manner defined by their in­terpretation of Daniel's prediction: they therefore asked him to put his claim out of doubt, by exhibiting this sign. They might have been led to make this demand, not only by their unbelief, but also by some degrees of suspicion, that Jesus would perhaps [Page 186] give this proof of his being the Messiah afterwards, though the time for it was not yet come: the latter of these causes had, it may be, some influence upon them when they made the demand at first; but in the succeeding instances they were actuated solely by the other. Our Saviour's refusing a sign when it was demanded, has been a great subject of objections, and has particularly been alledged as a proof, that he was unwil­ling to give all the evidence of his mis­sion, which he might have given, or to satisfy the understandings of men. ‘" The Pharisees, it is said, tempting him, asked a sign; that is, some testimonial of the truth of his declared mission: And what did this request produce? Why, he sighed deeply at their per­verseness, who were so hard to be convinced, and stiled them a foolish and adulterous generation for their pre­sumption. Now this desiring a ra­tional [Page 187] evidence for their discipleship, the seeking after a sign, as the scripture terms it, had, if he had indeed appeal­ed to their understandings, been so far from any thing criminal or blame­worthy, that it had been in all rea­son their indispensible duty; where­as it was, it seems, in Faith, an un­warrantable, presumptuous, and wanton curiosity ^*.—The coming desirous to canvass the evidence, though from no other principle per­haps, originally, than that of grati­fying a light curiosity, were, one would imagine, a turn of mind to be favourably entertained, and care­fully cherished in a novice, by any who was sollicitous to gain proselytes by such means, and conscious of ha­ving any thing of the kind to pro­duce to him. But, on the contrary, we find our Master ever disclaiming, [Page 188] with the severest resentment, all fol­lowers of that complexion; and no temper check'd and discourag'd with so constant an aversion, as this of, as it is opprobiously termed, seeking a sign ^*."’ This objection almost re­futes itself, though we take not in the peculiar nature of the sign which they demanded: The assertions, that they asked only some testimonial of his decla­red mission, that they desired a rational evidence for their discipleship, that they came desirous to canvass the evidence, that this was the disposition which Je­sus held criminal, are all so directly contradictory to the real circumstances in which the demand was made, that they can scarce be imputed to other principles than want of candour, and an intention to mislead: From these circumstances it is plain, that far from being possessed of this laudable temper, [Page 189] they were not impelled to make the demand even by a principle so little blameable as light curiosity, but were ac­tuated by perverseness and prejudice, which had already made them with­stand the clearest evidence, and the greatest miracles, and which it was in vain to expect to conquer by working more miracles: It was therefore as rea­sonable to refuse to work more, as it is, not to persist in reasoning with a man who shows that he reasons only for the sake of contention, without any con­cern to discover truth. But when we recollect what was the sign which they desired, the objection is even absurd. It was a sign which they were led to ex­pect, only by their false notions of a temporal Messiah; it was absolutely in­consistent with the truth of the Messiah's character; to have given it, would have been to become just such a deli­verer as the Jews expected; it was [Page 190] therefore impossible that it could be gi­ven. Instead of giving it, it was proper to affirm expressly, as Jesus did affirm, that it never would be given, and that it did not belong to the Messiah justly conceived. Whenever a sign was asked, he appealed for the certainty of his mission, to his own resurrection from the dead. So far was he from refusing any rational evidence of his mission, that even their perverseness hindered him not from voluntarily pointing out the strongest. His resurrection was in itself the most stupendous miracle; and its force was increased by its being in this manner appealed to, for it thus became the accomplishment of prophecies ut­tered by him. But there is a farther propriety in his foretelling it, when they required a sign: it was a plain in­sinuation, that their opinion of the manner of the Messiah's appearance was wrong, that he was not such a [Page 191] prince as they expected; for by it he informed them expressly, that he must be put to death, before he entered on his kingdom. His answer was therefore fit for leading them to a juster interpre­tation of Daniel's prophecy, and for preventing their rejecting the Messiah, because he wanted a character which was never predicted of him. There is another occasion on which the Jews demanded a sign. We have not yet taken notice of it, because it may now be examined with greater advantage by itself. The day after he had first miraculously fed a great multitude, while he was teaching them in expres­sions borrowed from that miracle, and urging them to believe on him, they said unto him, What sign showest thou then, that we may see and believe thee? what dost thou work ^*? They thus intimated, that it would be soon enough to receive him as the Messiah, when he assumed the [Page 192] kingdom, in the manner which, they imagined, was fixed by Daniel's pre­diction, that without this, no miracles of another sort could prove his claim; and they particularly insinuated that his having given one meal to a multi­tude by miracle, was nothing extraor­dinary, but far inferior to Moses's ha­ving fed many more, for a longer time, with manna from heaven ^*. His discourse on this occasion, is much larger and more complex than any of the answers which he gave to the same demand at other times. There are many reasons for this; they expressed their contempt of the miracle of the loaves, as well as asked a sign; he spake figuratively, in allusion to that miracle, on purpose to inculcate its fitness for proving that he was impowered to be­stow eternal life; several particular difficulties were moved in the course of his sermon; so that his answer to [Page 193] the demand of a sign, is interspersed with a variety of other subjects. Many things, however, which he said, tend directly to show them that they were mistaken in the nature of the sign which they expected, and to lead them into right apprehensions of the man­ner and design of the Messiah's coming. Thus, tho' he came not down in the manner which, they imagined, Daniel had foretold, he assures them several times, that he actually came from hea­ven ^*: particularly, when they insinu­ated that this could not possibly be, because he was descended of earthly parents, he affirms very expressly that, this notwitstanding, he did come down from heaven, and intimates that, by the ancient prophets, the Messiah ought not to come from heaven in such a way as they expected, which would have made the Jews flock to him ea­gerly, without the need of any extra­ordinary [Page 194] means: The Jews then murmu­red at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven: and they said, Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from hea­ven? Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves: no man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him; so far am I from coming with visible pomp, and con­spicuous majesty, and striking signs: and I will raise him up at the last day: This is in a manner foretold, for, It is written in the prophets, and they shall be all taught of God ^*. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me: not that any man hath seen the Father, save he WHICH IS OF GOD, he hath seen the Father.—I am that bread of life: your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead; this is the bread which COMETH [Page 195] DOWN FROM HEAVEN, that a man may eat thereof and not die; I am the living bread, which CAME DOWN FROM HEA­VEN ^*: he uses such expressions as may at the same time imply, that they ex­aggerated [Page 196] the miracle of the manna, most extravagantly. In order to lead them to rectify their mistake, he fur­ther informs them plainly, that the sal­vation and life which he would bestow [Page 197] was very different from the temporal deliverance and prosperity which they expected under the Messiah; whence they might easily collect that the man­ner of the Messiah's appearance would likewise differ from their notion, which suited only a temporal king: he con­stantly represents what he promises, as salvation and life which would be gi­ven, only at the last day, in conse­quence of their being raised again from their graves, and therefore obvi­ously as wholly spiritual and eternal; he seems even anxiously to keep this in view ^*. Nay, he tells them express­ly, that, far from being such a triumph­ant Messiah as they looked for, he was to die; and that, from his death, the blessings which he promised would re­sult: the meat that I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world ^†. He assures them, likewise, that he would [Page 198] ascend again into heaven; what and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? ^* This is equivalent to the mention of his resurrection, on si­milar occasions; it is an intimation, that he would be proved to be the Mes­siah by an appearance as remarkable as the sign which they demanded; and it is an intimation of the ture nature of his kingdom, and of the manner of his entering on it. Finally, to this inti­mation he subjoins the following cau­tion, It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life ^†. This certainly implies a warning, that his present discourse was designedly fi­gurative, and therefore ought not to be grossly interpreted: but it may like­wise imply a hint, that their mistakes about the Messiah, and particularly their expectation of what they called a sign from heaven, proceeded from [Page 199] their understanding the figurative ex­pressions of the ancient prophecies, in too strict and literal a sense; and, that his account of himself and his kingdom, was really agreeable to the spirit and the true meaning of them. Thus the substance of his discourse, on this oc­casion, is the same with that of his an­swers to the demand of a sign at all o­ther times, tho' the form be different; and it has the directest tendency to show them that they were mistaken, to warn them against suspending their saith on a sign, the expectation of which had no foundation, except in their own imaginations, and against rejecting him, in opposition to the strongest evidence, merely because this fancied sign attend­ed him not.—As the expectation of a temporal Messiah, and that interpreta­tion of the prophecies, from which it had been deduced, were deeply im­bibed by the Jews, so even the apostles [Page 200] retained them, till they were fully illu­minated by the effusion of the Holy Ghost, after Christ's ascension. They believed him to be the Messiah, but they never doubted that he would some time or other assume the character which they supposed to belong to the Messiah; and that, at that time, whenever it should happen, the sign from heaven would be given. In this temper, and with the same notions which the Jews had in all their demands, it was that, after his lamentation over Jerusalem, they asked him privately, When shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming? ^* In answer to these questi­ons, Jesus foretels very particularly the calamities and ruin which were coming upon Jerusalem; after an account of many of them, he describes the total subversion of the Jewish polity, which would be the issue of them, in terms highly figurative, but very familiar in [Page 201] the prophetic stile; Immediately after the tribulation of those days, shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken ^*. He adds, And then shall ap­pear the sign of the Son of man in heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory ^†. Here we find that the sign which was asked so often, was indeed what we have supposed it to be, and that the expectation of it was derived from that very prophecy of Daniel, which we have pointed out: the two clauses of the verse are equivalent, and the last of them is expressed in Da­niel's very words; then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and thus they shall see the accomplishment of what Daniel really intended by the fi­gurative [Page 202] expressions which he uses, they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with the dominion or power and the glory which was given him by the Ancient of days. By the manner in which he alludes to the prediction on this occasion, he expressly contra­dicts their interpretation of it, as being inconsistent with Daniel's real mean­ing. For, first, he gives such intima­tions of the time when this sign would be exhibited, as plainly showed that they were totally mistaken in expecting it at his entering on his kingdom: and, secondly, he lets them know that they likewise mistook its nature. They ex­pected that the Son of man would de­scend visibly from heaven, to take up­on him the government of the Jews, and to lead them out to victory over all their enemies, and that he would come cloathed with such majesty and splendour as should make all know him [Page 203] for the Messiah, and follow him: But he informs them that they ought to ex­pect something almost totally the re­verse of this, the Son of man, not de­scending visibly, but interposing pow­erfully and irresistibly, not for raising the Jews to universal empire, but for executing dreadful judgment and de­struction on them. They could scarce fail to perceive that coming in the clouds of heaven implied executing judgment, for the expression is used several times in their own scriptures, and always means no more than this ^*; they not­withstanding strained it to a literal sense, to the meaning of a visible ap­pearance, in Daniel's prediction, and, tho' they understood it to imply the execution of judgment, yet it was on­ly upon their enemies, not upon them­selves. But Jesus informed them that [Page 204] it did not here, any more than in other passages, denote a visible appearance, that it meant simply the execution of judgment, and that the Jews them­selves were the objects of that judg­ment. ‘"A sign, says Jesus, has fre­quently been asked of me; I will now tell you, what sign ought to have been expected: if the Jews had known what it is, they would not have been so sollicitous for it; it is very different from what they sup­pose it to be: the whole Jewish na­tion shall be utterly dissolved by the severe vengeance of God; this is the sign of the Son of man which shall ap­pear in heaven, for this is all that Da­niel means by the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, in the passage on which they found their expectation of a sign."’ On this occasion, then, Jesus not only assured them that the sign which they looked for, would not [Page 205] be given, but also pointed out where their mistake lay, and explained the true meaning of the prophecy on which they founded it.

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

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

WE have now seen, in what manner Christ and his apostles supported the truth of Christianity in consequence of opposition made to them, and objec­tions raised against them. In this situ­ation, they did not satisfy themselves with simply exhibiting the evidences of their mission. Christ himself asserted [Page 227] both his mission and his dignity, in the most unreserved manner: He not only gave a more ample exhibition of excel­lent doctrine, but he likewise affirmed, both that his religion is excellent, and that its excellence proves it to be di­vine: He urged his miracles as illustri­ous vouchers of his being sent from God, he vindicated them from the ex­ceptions that were taken against their force, and he appealed to them as di­rect proofs of his particular doctrines, as facts which showed an actual exer­tion of the very powers which these doctrines ascribed to him: He took oc­casion to strengthen the evidence of his being a divine teacher, by giving many plain instances of supernatural knowledge: He showed that the anci­ent prophecies were accomplished in himself; he pointed out some whole predictions, and some important cir­cumstances in other predictions, which [Page 228] they overlooked, and by overlooking which they were led into mistakes, and hindered from perceiving that he was the Messiah; by these means he account­ed for such circumstances relating to himself, as gave them offence, and show­ed that, tho' they suited not the idea which they had formed of the Messiah, yet they were plainly foretold by the prophets, from whom they ought to have derived their idea of him; he e­vinced that no essential character of the Messiah was wanting in him, and that it was, in some instances, their inatten­tion to him, and in others their igno­rance of the true sense of the prophe­cies, that led them to imagine it: Fi­nally, he collected the several eviden­ces of his mission, joined them into one proof, and enforced this proof up­on his hearers. The apostles exactly copied the example of their master, when they found proper opportunities.

SECTION V.
The advantages of their having used this man­ner in consequence of opposition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 265] By doing no more at first, but pre­senting the evidences of his mission, he showed, in a striking manner, his sense of the truth of his claim, and of the au­thenticity of his credentials. But did that sense require, that he should not enforce these evidences, when men ac­tually resisted them, and called their solidity in question? On the contrary, it required that he should. This was e­ven absolutely necessary for showing that he was sincere in claiming a divine mission, and secure of his title to it. If he had neglected it, it would have na­turally been construed into an acknow­ledgment that his mission was false, and that the evidences of it, which he pretended to give, were indefensible; it would have undeniably implied the want of just concern for the success of his undertaking, and an indifference unsuitable to its importance, and re­pugnant to the character of a divine [Page 266] teacher. When a man's title to any thing is called in question, not to as­sert it, is in fact to relinquish it. Af­ter all the evidence which Christ had exhibited, his mission was called in question; not to affirm it, would have been to renounce it. He himself thought so. On one occasion, the Jews found fault with him for asserting his real character; they affirmed it not only to be vain-glorious, but also to be an indication of imposture: in his answer, he intimates that not to have born te­stimony to himself, in the circumstances in which he bare it, would have im­plied a consciousness that he came not with the authority of God, nor had a title to the dignity which he assumed, that he knew not whence he came, and whither he went: tho' I bear record of my­self, says he, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go ^*. Can any impartial man consider, that [Page 267] he bare record to himself only in con­sequence of opposition, and attend to the manner in which he bare it, and not admit the defence? Spontaneous anxiety to foresee and prevent every possible difficulty, is a sign of that su­spiciousness which commonly attends deceit: but a readiness to listen to ob­jections and to obviate them, when they are actually proposed, is an indi­cation of a very opposite temper. We can desire no stronger evidence, that a man is convinced himself, and willing to refer his claim to the reason of man­kind. Jesus gave the most unquesti­onable evidence of this, and on ac­count of his having given it, his reli­gion deserves the greatest credit.

In being contented at first with only presenting evidence in great abun­dance, he signally displayed that ge­nuine dignity, that true greatness of soul, which despises parade and osten­tation. [Page 268] But it was in no way incon­sistent with the perfection of this tem­per, to illustrate that evidence when it had been misunderstood, and to incul­cate it by reasoning, on those who, of themselves, perceived not its force. He had exhibited the strongest eviden­ces of a divine mission; yet men had not attended and yielded to them: in this situation, to remind them that he had exhibited them, to appeal to them as designed and valid proofs of his mission, to point out where their force lay, and to insist that men ought on account of them to receive him in the character to which he laid claim, was neither meanness nor ostentation. It was the very opposite; to have declined it, would have shown an ill-placed af­fectation of the same false dignity, which might lead an impostor superci­liously to refuse to give any evidence at first. It would have been an expres­sion [Page 269] of that pride and haughtiness which mimics majesty, but really im­plies a great degree of meanness. Con­descension is an essential ingredient in natural majesty; it mixes with all the exertions of it; it is so obviously pre­dominant in them, that pride never fails to put on the appearance of it on some occasions; but it cannot practise it so gracefully as to hide the design. When Jesus met with opposition, his readiness to satisfy every scruple, evi­denced the most unaffected condescen­sion; it was a plain expression of that benevolence which constitutes the di­vinest character.

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

By the manner in which Christ ju­stified the evidences of his mission, and [Page 271] inculcated them on those who opposed him, no less than by the manner in which he originally presented them, he is a perfect contrast to impostors. Ma­homet runs spontaneously into vaunt­ing; he abounds in it, when no natu­ral occasion is given for the least ap­proach to it; he seeks out occasions for it: it proves itself to be the genuine offspring of presumption, ambition, or some other principle equally unhallow­ed. Without giving any evidence, he is continually talking in the most mag­nificent terms of the certainty of his mission. When he is charged with ha­ving produced no evidence, he neither produces any, nor proves that he had already produced what was sufficient; sometimes he denies that it was neces­sary to produce any, sometimes he ex­aggerates the few shadows of evidence, which he had luckily found means of giving, and always he multiplies asser­tions [Page 272] of his mission, and boldly de­nounces judgment against all who ask a proof of it. When objections were raised, which would have required a particular confutation, if he had had it in his power, he deigns not to enter on it; he satisfies himself with the re­petition of his confident assertions, his arrogant boasts, and his presumptuous comminations. It is not by argument that he enforces or justifies his claim; that would have required evidence as a foundation on which it might have been reared: but it is by declamation; this, being destitute of a foundation, is indeed wholly unsubstantial, but it tends to conceal the want of evidence, and upon the inconsiderate it counter­feits the effects of evidence; of all that he had in his power, it was the method best suited to his purpose. Jesus was of a very different spirit. He never uses expressions which can be even mis­construed [Page 273] into boasting, except when he is constrained to it by the most na­tural and pressing occasions. Even then, his assertions of his mission and his real character, cannot be justly termed ostentatious; whatever he claims, he likewise proves to belong to him: he claims it only in consequence of proof; it is always to evidence undeniably produced, that he appeals; and on it he rests his cause; which of you, says he, convinceth me of sin ^*? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not ^† : If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin ^‡. He never exaggerates the evidences which he had given; he inculcates the suffi­ciency of them much seldomer than he presents evidence without being at any pains to set it off. Yet he never de­clines answering such objections as re­quire an answer: he does not rest sa­tisfied [Page 274] with affirmations that they are frivolous; he actually removes them by just and striking arguments from e­vidence which he had before exhibited; he generally too exhibits further evi­dence; and, when he has done both, he leaves men to feel it, he is not solli­citous to affirm that he has. The evi­dences which Christ produced were strong, they were suitable to the senti­ments of those to whom they were pro­posed, they were similar to those evi­dences on which they gave credit to their own religion, but far superior in degree: these circumstances showed, that their resisting them proceeded from vicious temper, or prejudice wil­fully indulged; the absolute futility of their exceptions confirmed it. Was it improper, to warn them of the danger to which this exposed them? The warning was given in severe threaten­ings: but it could not be fairly given [Page 275] in another way; and therefore in this si­tuation, severe threatenings had entire propriety. Are these similar to the denunciations of impostors? In no o­ther particular doth it seem that Christ resembles them so much as in his threat­enings: but even in these, it only seems; there is a wide and essential difference. Mahomet threatens men, if they will not believe without any evidence, he employs this engine to terrify men from asking a proof of his mission; this is mere arrogance and effrontery: Christ threatens only those who obsti­nately and wickedly resisted the strong­est evidence; this was no more than what a real concern for their happi­ness rendered necessary.

THIS whole argument will acquire still greater force, if we consider the nature of Christ's answers to the objec­tions proposed to him, and of his rea­sonings concerning the truth of his re­ligion. [Page 276] His arguments were always suitable to the divinity of his character. They were not calculated for merely confounding and silencing men; they had a direct tendency to remove their mistakes; they both enlightened and satisfied the understanding. They are not in any degree intended to make a show of ingenuity; they always lead to conviction by the shortest road, with­out so much as the appearance of any other view. The argument is never deduced from abstruse or distant prin­ciples, it is never carried on by subtile and intricate reasoning: it is always concise, clear, and cogent; it is dedu­ced from obvious principles, and such as will be most readily admitted; it is, in all its parts, level to common capa­cities, and proper for begetting imme­diate conviction; it is by a happy, but artless, address, set in such a point of view, that, while it convinces, it both [Page 277] engages the attention, and touches the heart. In the reasonings by which the truth of Christianity is supported in the New Testament, there is nothing mean, nothing artificial, nothing in a­ny respect weak or suspicious. They are at once such as tend naturally to the illustration of real and strong evi­dence; such as are best fitted for over­coming the prejudices of men, and working conviction in them; and such as are worthy of a divine teacher. But are all the reasonings in the New Te­stament, of this sort? Are there not some, especially in Paul's writings, which appear to be in a considerable degree subtile and intricate? I will not affirm, that there are none to which this character may be applied. But a great part of the intricacy of such rea­sonings as seem most to deserve the character, is only apparent, arising from our ignorance of some things [Page 278] proper for throwing light upon them, from our affixing mere modern ideas to some of the expressions employed, or from other causes which had no in­fluence upon those to whom the apo­stles wrote. Besides, they are compa­ratively very few; and these few are employed, not in proving the truth of Christianity, but for other purposes: still therefore the description which has been given, holds generally of the scripture reasonings, and universally of those by which the truth of the gospel is supported. But if, among the many concise and simple arguments for the truth of Christianity, which are con­tained in the New Testament, one or two intricate and subtile reasonings should be found, they would not be sufficient to invalidate what we have said; they would rather serve to show, that our religion is capable of a defence [Page 279] in every stile and manner which has any degree of propriety.

THUS the manner which Christ and his apostles adopted on occasion of op­position and objections, in all the lights in which we can consider it, not only gives great advantage for the vindica­tion of Christianity, but also carries on and compleats a separate and col­lateral proof of the truth of this reli­gion; a proof of it arising from this, that its evidences were proposed, tho' differently in different situations, yet always with entire propriety. In Christ's manner of supporting his mis­sion, the genuine marks of a divine teacher shone forth, but naturally va­ried just as the case required. Cun­ning will sometimes enable a man who only affects a character, to escape de­tection in one situation, in which he has carefully practised his part: but [Page 280] if a person sustain a character with e­qual propriety in opposite situations, especially in sudden changes of cir­cumstances, there can be no surer proof that it is his natural charac­ter.

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

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

[Page 283] JESUS began with simply exhibiting the evidence of his mission. This was sufficient for convincing the attentive and the unprejudiced, provided the e­vidence was in its nature solid: it was in addressing those who had not yet shown themselves destitute of these cha­racters, that he contented himself with this. He saved them the labour of at­tending to exceptions which had no weight with them, and solutions for which they had no need; he led them to faith by the direct road. But all were not of that disposition; many neglect­ed the evidence which he gave, or cal­led its force in question: whenever they did, the evidence was pointed out, and shown to be conclusive. Objections were formed against the evidence: im­mediately they were answered, and that in such a manner, that men would ne­ver have repeated them, if they had, as was certainly incumbent on them, first [Page 284] refuted the answers already made. The exhibition of the evidence of the go­spel, without any illustration, convin­ced many of its truth; by this, that e­vidence proved itself to be very strong, and strictly natural. Had it been al­ways illustrated when it was exhibited, there would have been no opportunity given for its showing in this way, how strong it really was; it would have been taken for granted, that its weakness or obscurity absolutely required all this il­lustration, in order to make it to be perceived. But many causes may hin­der the strongest evidence from produ­cing belief in individuals; they did hinder the evidence of the gospel from bringing all to whom it was exhibited, to believe: in this case, it was shown by just reasoning, that the evidence was notwithstanding strong, and that its not prevailing universally, was ow­ing only to the indisposition of men's [Page 285] minds. A simple exhibition of it, suc­ceeded in convincing many; here its strength was exerted, and, by the ex­ertion, displayed: on occasion of the in­credulity of others, its strength was ex­amined, and, by the examination, justi­fied. If its strength had not been real, it could in neither way have appeared so conspicuous. The generality of man­kind are not capable of entering into long trains of argument; they are per­plexed by a series of reasons, objections, and answers; they are rendered inca­pable of determining any thing. In or­der to obtain a rational conviction of the truth of Christianity, they need not attempt what they are unequal to; plain evidence is presented to them; there is no need of intricate reasoning to enable them to perceive it: they are desired only to attend to it; if they do, they will sustain no loss by not enter­ing into the labyrinths of controversy; [Page 286] if they be but honest, it will by its own power force their assent. But some are prone to argumentation, ready to start difficulties, fond of canvassing them, and disposed to suspend their assent, till they be cleared. Christ often met with such persons; he listened to eve­ry difficulty which they proposed, he gave a patient hearing even to the merest cavils; he offered solutions of them all; the solution had always soli­dity enough to silence the acutest, and to convince the impartial that all ought to have been satisfied: at the same time, the argument exceeded not the com­prehension of the most ordinary man; it never failed to have a surprizing, and almost singular degree of concise­ness and perspicuity. If Christ had found no opportunity for this, his revelation would have given Christians no direct assistance in answering objections which might have been afterwards raised a­gainst [Page 287] it. The defect would not have been of very fatal consequence: if the evidence was real, it is enough that it was addressed to reasonable creatures; they had already, by the constitution of their nature, faculties proper for di­stinguishing real evidence from spuri­ous, and for detecting the fallacy of such cavils as prejudice or scepticism may oppose to the former. But even so immaterial a defect adheres not to the Christian revelation. Jesus had op­portunities, of preventing objections which might have had a specious ap­pearance, if room had been left for them; of answering others, and, in answering them, of producing princi­ples so extensively applicable, that we have not only examples which we may imitate, but also materials which we may successfully employ, in the defence of our religion. There are very diffe­rent characters among men; but Christ [Page 288] proved his mission in a way suited to them all: the manner in which he o­riginally proved it, is the fittest possible for the conviction of the attentive, the candid, and men of ordinary capacity; but he proposed it likewise in a way fit to satisfy the speculative, the inqui­sitive, the captious, and the prejudiced. His manner is nicely adapted to uni­versal conviction; the objections must be very strong, which can show that there was no real evidence given, where a manner so suitable to very bright evidence was preserved, and pursued through all its natural varia­tions; there is scarce a possibility that there should be such objections. That the evidences of the gospel were given in a way so fit, in all respects, for pro­ducing faith, is a very strong presump­tion, that they are sufficient, that Chri­stianity is true, and that infidelity is [Page 289] not excuseable in persons of any turn of understanding.

IT is not the only excellence of the manner in which Christ proved his mis­sion, that it is equally adapted to the conviction of the most opposite sorts of men: it is moreover a natural expres­sion of that character which he assumed. He spontaneously and readily exhibi­ted evidence in the greatest abundance. To have done otherwise, would have been a strong presumption that he could produce none; it would have left his claim without any real foun­dation; it would have betrayed, either a consciousness of imposture, or such an indifference to success, as is not consist­ent with a real mission for any import­ant purpose. By readily giving evi­dence, he shows, that he was conscious of the truth of his mission, and of his power to support it; and that he desi­red [Page 290] to support it only by the most le­gitimate means, that he sought to bring men to believe, only by a copious and undisguised address to the natural prin­ciples of belief; he shows, that, with the condescension essential to true great­ness, he was willing to do every thing really necessary for promoting the end of his coming. He never of his own accord laboured to set off the evidence which he had given. This showed his sense of the strength of that evidence; it showed that he understood well in what way the bulk of mankind ought to be addressed; it showed that he was free from the artifice by which persons of a subtilizing and disputatious turn, often confound plain men, and hide the want of evidence from others; it showed that he was remote both from the meanness of ostentation, and from the suspiciousness attendant upon false­hood and cunning. But whenever the [Page 291] evidence of his mission was called in question, he readily defended it, illu­strated it, and frequently too made an addition to it. This was a new and well-placed expression of conscious sin­cerity: it was in this situation that rea­soning and disputing became consistent with dignity of character; here indeed, true dignity required it; and in the manner of all his reasonings, dignity was uniformly preserved. Impostors act a part in all respects the reverse of this. In exhibiting evidence, they are very sparing; by this alone they forfeit all right to credit, and betray their falsehood; to require that we should believe, and yet not to give evidence, is to mock us, and insult our under­standings. They attempt to justify their sparingness, by pretending that they disdain to gratify the perverse and incredulous: this is a mere affec­tation of dignity intended to conceal [Page 292] their inability to satisfy a rational en­quirer; it can proceed from no better source, for dignity is so ill put on, that haughtiness is mistaken for it. In as­serting that they ought to be believed, in magnifying any appearances of evi­dence which they think they have gi­ven, they are liberal, they are immode­rate. It is in despising this, that true dignity would have expressed itself: this is the greatest meanness; it is the silliest vanity, it is the most disingenu­ous artifice. They support their cause, not by reasoning, but by declamation; they employ it most when they are not among those who oppose them: when they are pressed with objections, they sometimes divert men's attention from the real question as well as they can, and sometimes their haughtiness re­turns, and assuming the name of maje­sty becoming a divine messenger, for­bids them to condescend to answer. [Page 293] Jesus has not a single feature which is not the opposite of theirs: is it possible that he should nevertheless be one of them? Every part of his manner gives some evidence of the divinity of his mission, as every point of the sun e­mits a ray of light: when we take in his whole manner at one view, the in­dications of divinity resulting from it, act on the understanding with an irre­sistible force, like rays collected into a focus, against the heat of which no combustible materials can be proof.

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

THUS, in every light in which this manner can be considered, it is abso­lutely faultless: there is nothing want­ing, nothing superfluous, nothing mis­placed. It is throughout an applica­tion of evidence, the completest, the best adapted to the human understand­ing, and the most expressive of a di­vine [Page 298] original, that can be even ima­gined. The presumptions of the truth of Christianity, which arise from this topic, are very strong; they imply ve­ry plainly that the evidence which was thus proposed, must have been natural and sound: they have therefore the directest tendency to excite all who have any candour, to the diligent ex­amination of it; and the view of them must add great strength to the faith of those who already believe the gospel.

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

There is no subject on which diffi­culties may not be raised, in some of the lights in which it is possible to place it. Difficulties have been raised with re­spect [Page 300] to the truth of the gospel. There are some men who have a natural pro­pensity to fix their attention upon dif­ficulties; and there are moments in which most men are apt to conceive difficulties strongly, to be much affect­ed with them, and inclined on account of them to doubt of what is supported by the directest proof. It is sufficient for recovering men from this situation, to reflect on the weakness of human understanding, which prevents our at­taining a perfect comprehension of a­ny subject, and puts it out of our power to give a positive account of e­very difficulty. To perceive, that those difficulties which occur in the defence of Christianity, supposing them real, do not infer its falsity; or, that the difficulties which seem to press it, are not real, but capable of a direct solution; contributes still more to ba­nish uncertainty concerning its divini­ty. [Page 301] But nothing has a more powerful tendency to compose the mind, to place it in complete serenity and assu­rance, to give entire peace in believing, than to observe, how many circumstan­ces of the most various kinds, concur in proclaiming the truth of the gospel. When a person discerns, that its prin­cipal evidences, natural and strong in themselves, are supported and confirm­ed by collateral arguments, innume­rable, and derived from very dissimilar sources, he cannot entertain any sus­picion that it is not true and divine; he cannot reckon it possible that, if it were false, there could have been a concurrence of so many indications of truth. None of these arguments con­tributes more largely to the production of this effect, than that which arises from the manner in which the eviden­ces of Christianity were proposed. It adds greatly to the splendor of that [Page 302] blaze of evidence which overpowers the soul when one conceives all the proofs of the gospel together, which suffers him not to doubt that it is from God, which makes all small difficulties and trivial objections to be forgotten as unworthy of regard; just as bright sunshine causes those clouds to disap­pear, which before were clearly visi­ble, and covers the whole face of the heavens with uniform and unbroken radiance.

SECTION I.
The Subject proposed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further, from the nature of the objec­tions which ancient unbelievers urged, it appears, what were the very reasons for which they rejected Christianity. If you hold their opposition to be of any authority, you must maintain, that the declared reasons of it are solid and sufficient. If you own that their objections were insufficient, you must likewise own that they acted an unrea­sonable part in allowing these objec­tions to prevent their becoming Chri­stians; for tho' the conclusion should happen to be true, yet if it be embra­ced on false or absurd principles, this shows as great an intellectual weakness, as would appear in adopting a false conclusion: and if you allow that their infidelity was unreasonable, you can­not consistently draw any conclusion from it, against the gospel. Take the [Page 318] objections therefore which they mo­ved; weigh them fairly; can you say that they alone could justify the rejec­tion of the Christian religion? A mo­dern Infidel can scarce affirm it; for they proceed on principles directly re­pugnant to his most favourite maxims. Far from giving countenance, for in­stance, to the objections of the Deist a­gainst revelation in general, they are founded on the contrary supposition. All ancient Infidels allowed, both that a revelation is possible, and that revela­tions had been often given; they either believed the Mosaic revelation on evi­dences which had been exhibited thou­sands of years before, and transmitted through a long succession of ages, or they gave credit to the fables, the ora­cles, and the presages of Paganism; and it was on principles arising from this belief, that they reasoned against Christianity. Will any Deist adopt [Page 319] their reasonings, or affirm that the smallest deference is due to the judg­ment which, on these principles, they were pleased to form? Can it be ho­nestly affirmed, that to receive either Paganism or Judaism, and yet reject Christianity, is not partial, perverse, and inconsistent?—The Jewish scrip­tures contained many prophetical de­scriptions of the Messiah; yet the Jews would not acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah. If modern Infidels will avail themselves of their authority, it must be by maintaining that the Jews could not but understand their own scriptures best, and by concluding that they per­ceived that the prophecies were not fulfilled in Jesus. A very little atten­tion to the grounds of their opposition will make it evident that there is no room for supposing this. They appli­ed the very same predictions to the Mes­siah, which Christians understand of [Page 320] him; the proofs that they did so, are numerous and irrefragable: they un­derstood the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, for instance, to refer to the Messiah; one of their objections recorded in the gospel ^*, is most probably founded on a part of that chapter ^†: yet they reck­oned it incredible, that the Messiah should suffer and die before he entered into his kingdom. It is in a passage of Daniel that the Redeemer of the world is foretold under the name, MESSIAH, which the Jews used very frequently; there it is expressly said, that he shall be cut off ^‡: yet they expected not that he should be put to death. To believe these to be inspired predictions of the Messiah, and yet to reckon a mean con­dition, sufferings, and death, incon­sistent with the character of the Mes­siah, is a degree of absurdity hardly credible. It makes it plain that they were warped by prejudices, which ren­dered [Page 321] them totally blind to the obvi­ous meaning of their own prophecies. Their judgment is so grossly perverse, that it can possess no authority, nor merit the least regard.—The sentiments of ancient Infidels concerning the Chri­stian miracles, can serve as little to bring them into discredit, or to lessen their force, at least in the opinion of modern Deists. Can we conclude, that, if so many miracles had been wrought in confirmation of Christianity as are said to have been wrought, none of those who saw them, could have resist­ed their force? Can it be insinuated, that the opposition of early Infidels gives any reason to suspect that the Christian miracles were fictions? No­thing can be more remote from the truth: they who rejected Christianity, owned notwithstanding the reality of all the miraculous facts to which it ap­pealed. On occasion of the resurrection [Page 322] of Lazarus. the Jewish rulers assembled in council, gave a remarkable testimo­ny to the miracles of Christ: Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him: but some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Je­sus had done. Then gathered the chief Priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? For THIS MAN DOTH MANY MIRACLES; if we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him ^*. In the same public and authentic manner, and af­ter the minutest examination of it, they afterwards gave testimony to a great miracle wrought by Peter and John: Beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it: but, when they had commanded them to go a­side out of the council, they conferred among themselves, saying, What shall we do to these men? For that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that [Page 323] dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it ^*. Not only on the authority of the New Testament and of the writings of Chri­stians, but also by the confession of Jews and Pagans, even in their professed at­tacks upon Christianity, it is indispu­table, that for several ages the reality of the gospel miracles was not denied, but in the most explicit manner acknow­ledged, by all sorts of unbelievers. You must either allow, therefore, that it was perfectly reasonable to believe, that all the miracles recorded in the gospel, were really wrought in the manner there described, and yet that the gospel is absolutely false; or you must grant, that the judgment of these men was altogether wrong and incon­sistent, and consequently unfit for sup­porting any conclusion against Christi­anity. But no modern Infidel will chuse to avail himself of the authority of ancient unbelievers, on the condi­tion [Page 324] of approving and adopting their judgment. It would suit the genius of modern infidelity much better, to re­ceive the Christian doctrine without the miracles, than to believe the mira­cles and yet reject the doctrine.

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

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

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

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

THE advantages which Christianity derives from the opposition of ancient Infidels, extend still farther; their at­tacks do not merely confirm some of its principal evidences: the manner in which they were carried on, has [Page 333] been improved into a distinct argu­ment for the truth of Christianity. Its truth may be directly inferred from the testimonies and concessions of its an­cient adversaries. I intend not to enu­merate these, or to urge the proof a­rising from them, minutely or at large; for this has been done already ^*: but to give a short representation of the force of the argument, will be necessa­ry for our present purpose. That the Jews believed the time of the Messiah's appearance to be at hand when Jesus arose; that he lived in the period in which the writers of the New Testa­ment place him; that he was put to death at Jerusalem; that his followers constantly affirmed that he had risen from the dead and ascended into hea­ven, [Page 334] and produced several evidences of it; that he claimed a divine mission, and the character of the Messiah, and delivered his doctrine in the name of God; that he taught those doctrines which the New Testament ascribes to him; that he and his apostles perform­ed many wonderful works in support of these doctrines, and communicated to others the power of performing si­milar works; that his disciples, after his death, published his religion thro' a great part of the world, resolutely encountering the greatest hardships and the cruelest persecutions; that, notwithstanding this, the gospel, un­supported by any worldly power, ob­tained a reception from multitudes: these are the principal facts of the go­spel history, and these are put beyond doubt, by the confession of the ene­mies of the gospel. Ancient Infidels give the most express testimony to the [Page 335] truth of many of them: they admit them, and reason from them in de­fending their infidelity. They often acknowledge the facts which relate to the birth, the life, and the death of Jesus, and thence draw arguments against his religion. They ascribe his miracles to his skill in magic; but, by endeavouring to account for them in this manner, they plainly acknowledge that they were really performed by him. They either directly quote, or professedly hint at, many doctrines, sentiments, and expressions contained in the New Testament; they endea­vour to turn them to the disadvantage of Christianity: but by this they ren­der it undeniable, that the New Testa­ment contains the very religion which Christ and his apostles taught. They sometimes pervert facts, they torture them into a shape unfavourable to the gospel; by this they show, that they [Page 336] could do no more, that it was not in their power to deny them. Sometimes, when they cannot, by any plausible misrepresentation, wrest them to the disadvantage of Christianity, they inti­mate suspicions of their truth, or they affect to deny them: but they deny them in such a way as indeed confirms them. Instead of detecting their false­hood by legitimate means, they show that they could produce no evidence against them. They give us their rea­sons for denying them: but these are such as cannot invalidate direct testi­mony for any matter of fact; they are sometimes built on false principles, at other times deduced by manifest sophi­stry, always precarious conclusions from general topics. To the affirma­tions of eye-witnesses, contradicted by no other witnesses, corroborated by a long train of connected events, they oppose abstract reasonings and arbitra­ry [Page 337] conjectures. Such attempts to dis­prove any matter of fact, made by those who must have had in their pow­er, the proper means of confuting it, if any such there were, establish the rea­lity of the fact even more strongly than admitting it in silence. The enemies of the gospel would not have combated its facts with objections of this kind, if they could have found any of another kind. Such efforts demonstrate their inclination to overturn these facts; yet they are employed only against some of them: the facts, therefore, which they do not once attempt to deny, must be accounted so indisputable, that, a­gainst them, all their ingenuity could not invent any exception. There are some facts, perhaps, related in the go­spel history, of which they take no no­tice: but even these are confirmed by the testimony which they give to other facts, for they are connected with [Page 338] them, and in a manner implied in them. It is only in matters of fact, that either the acknowledgment or the denial of contemporary persons is of importance; and in these, all ancient Infidels bear witness to the gospel. Their conclusions from the facts, and their conjectures concerning the causes of them, are unfavourable to the go­spel: but they have no authority, they are only matters of judgment or opi­nion, which may be freely canvassed and rejected; and they give weight to their testimony for facts, they render it a testimony in opposition to their prejudices and their principles; such a testimony, nothing but the force of notorious and incontestible truth could have extorted from them. The con­cessions, then, of ancient Infidels show that the history of the New Testament is true. The New Testament is no forgery of later ages; it is the original [Page 339] history of Christ and his apostles; it was extant from the beginning of Chri­stianity: it contains the very facts which the earliest Infidels mention, the very doctrines which they ascribe to Christians, the very expressions which they quote, or to which they allude. That it is the genuine record of the re­ligion which Jesus taught, all those un­believers who had opportunities of judging concerning that point, amply and explicitly bear witness. The facts related in it, are such as really happen­ed: as long as they were recent, they were so notoriously true, that even those persons who would not admit their most obvious consequences, sel­dom attempted to deny any of the facts themselves, and only exposed their own prejudice in the few instances in which they attempted it. Having been once so notorious, they must remain for ever indisputably certain: all mo­dern [Page 340] objections against them must be frivolous: distance of time may render the absurdity of calling them in que­stion, less palpable and striking than at first, but the absurdity itself it can­not lessen. On the authority of anci­ent Infidels, the facts of the gospel hi­story ought to be held absolutely incon­testible: but, if they be true, Christi­anity must be likewise true. Ancient Infidels perceived not this consequence; it is surprising how they could over­look what is so obvious: there were, however, principles deeply imbibed by them, which may account for their blindness; but it is not necessary for our present purpose to point out these. Modern Infidels too urge some objec­tions which seem to go on the suppo­sition, that this consequence is dispu­table; but that they really are not in­sensible of its force, is plain from the pains they take, and the various topics [Page 341] they employ for overturning the gospel history. In truth, no man who firmly believes the whole gospel history, can find any difficulty in concluding, that the Christian religion came from God. If the history be true, the whole of this religion must be equally true: the prin­cipal doctrines of Christianity, are im­plied in the history itself: they are but parts of it: the whole system of Chri­stianity, claims a reception on the au­thority of the teacher; the evidence of his authority, arises from the very facts recorded in the history, which, if they indeed happened, render it certain that he came from God.

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

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

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

INFIDELS have always urged their objections in a way which strongly im­plies the goodness of the cause opposed by them, and which heightens the ef­fect [Page 346] produced on the mind, by the di­rect evidences of the truth of the go­spel. It is universally allowed, that dis­honest methods of defence are preju­dicial to any cause: they infuse a su­spicion that it is a bad cause; and when they are adopted by all without exception, who patronize that cause, the suspicion is rarely groundless. Such conduct proceeds from the impossibili­ty of defending the cause by better means. If, then, dishonest arts have been employed by the whole tribe of infidel writers, this will yield a gene­ral presumption, that infidelity is in­defensible, and consequently that Chri­stianity is true; a presumption which will operate powerfully on the princi­ples of human nature. But that this has been the conduct of Infidels, is e­vident from their writings. Partial and unfair quotations from the scrip­tures; gross misrepresentations of the [Page 347] nature of Christianity; exaggerations of whatever can be wrested to the dis­advantage of it; overlooking or ex­plaining away what tends to support it; confident assertions or arbitrary suppositions of what it is incumbent on them to prove; demands that Chri­stians should produce evidence which the nature of the thing admits not, or prove what ought to be taken for granted till it be disproved: these and many such as these, are arts of contro­versy made use of by all infidel wri­ters ^*. They have been occasionally [Page 348] pointed out by the defenders of Chri­stianity, and fully ascertained. Many species of such artifices might be enu­merated, and many instances collected under each head. But we decline en­tering [Page 349] on the detail. Merely to men­tion the various arts of sophistry em­ployed, would not produce conviction of the justice of the charge; and to col­lect multitudes of particulars in sup­port of it, would be tedious and un­pleasant. We shall, therefore, enlarge only on a few observations so obvious from the whole tenor of the infidel writings, that there will be no need to quote examples for supporting them.

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

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

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

[Page 359] The various objections which have been raised against the evidences of Christianity, have always produced si­milar effects. By the publication of them, every exception that can, with any show of reason, be taken against these evidences, is gradually brought forth; every doubt concerning them, is proposed; every difficulty attending any of them, is stated: An opportuni­ty is thus given of removing every thing which seems to weaken their force, or can hinder the mind from yielding its assent to them. Christians have never declined embracing this op­portunity: they have readily taken no­tice of the arguments of Infidels, and examined them; they have pointed out the false principles from which they are deduced, and the sophistical reasonings by which they are carried on; they have evinced, that, notwith­standing them, the evidence of Christi­anity [Page 360] remains entire. The natural tendency of all this is, that every thing of importance to the proof of Christia­nity shall be accurately canvassed; e­very possible objection moved, and ei­ther directly answered, or obviated so far as the weakness of the human facul­ties permits, and so far as similar ob­jections on other subjects can be obvi­ated: and this has been, in a great measure, the actual effect. In what pre­cise degree this effect has already taken place, they are best qualified to judge, who have deliberately considered all that has been said for and against Chri­stianity, and impartially compared the reasonings on one side with those on the other. If a person has attended on­ly to objections against the truth of Christianity, but has been at no pains to learn what answers have been re­turned to them, or has not weighed the answers with the same candour as [Page 361] the objections; and should neverthe­less determine, that all the arguments of Infidels have not been solidly con­futed, that the several evidences of Christianity have not been fully vindi­cated, after allowing every difficulty and objection its real weight, and that these evidences together do not consti­tute a proof of the truth of Christiani­ty, perfectly suited to the nature of the subject, the highest that the case can possibly admit, fully satisfying to the understanding, and superior, by many circumstances of advan­tage, to the proofs of numberless conclusions which are adopted with unreserved assurance; such a person is undeniably an incompetent judge; for he is ignorant of many things ne­cessary for deciding the question with understanding. Whether any Infidels have gone through all the examination requisite for their giving a just deci­sion, [Page 362] it must be left to their conscien­ces to judge: their writings bear ma­ny marks of their having neglected it, of some of which we have already ta­ken notice. It is certain that many Christians have made a full examina­tion; their writings show that they have; and yet they have continued Christi­ans. This is some presumption, that the evidences of Christianity are alrea­dy brought wholly or nearly to the state into which opposition to truth tends to bring its evidence; every ma­terial objection urged, and fully an­swered. If any person doubts of this, let him examine without prejudice. Whether, on a full examination, every person will perceive this to be the state of the controversy, and find reason to become a Christian, I will not take it upon me to pronounce: men are in­fluenced in their judgments by so va­rious principles, that it is impossible [Page 363] to say, what will be the issue of their application to any subject. But we may assert, that there is no contradic­tory instance: those Infidels who have boasted most confidently of fair exami­nation and deep investigation, have notwithstanding betrayed either gross ignorance or wilful inattention, with respect to many things most essential to the evidence of Christianity, and to the vindication of it from objections. But it is by the general principles of reasoning, that a comparison ought to be stated between the attacks upon Christianity, and the defences of it: and, judging by these, nothing can be clearer than that the evidences of Christianity have not, in the course of a long and eager controversy, been confuted; that, on the contrary, all the exceptions against them have been obviated by just argument, and that consequently the force of these eviden­ces [Page 364] has been farther ascertained and justified, than it was at first, and new light thrown upon the truth of our re­ligion. No argument employed by Christ or his apostles, in support of their mission, has been overthrown by Infi­dels. Many of their objections have been proved to be frivolous, all of them to be inconclusive. Arguments have been advanced for Christianity, which Infidels have not so much as attempted to answer, and which must therefore be held solid and legitimate. In con­sequence of the exceptions of unbelie­vers, many arguments have been shown to advantage, have received new illu­strations, and have been prosecuted with greater precision and depth. No­where can there be found greater con­fusion of thought or weaker reasoning, than in the writings of Infidels; no­where more accurate and unexception­able argumentation, than in the an­swers [Page 365] of Christians. For the truth of all this, we appeal to the works of both. If it be an advantage to Chri­stianity, to have its evidence clearly explained, fully illustrated, carefully vindicated, and traced up to the gene­ral principles of human nature, there can be no doubt that it has derived advantage from the opposition of un­believers.

THEIR opposition has not only pro­duced a full defence of the evidences of Christianity, but likewise occasioned their being set in a great variety of lights. Men differ so much in the turn of their understandings, that truth must be placed in many different atti­tudes, in order to its being either con­ceived or embraced by all. An argu­ment, by being turned into a particu­lar form, will often instantly strike a person on whom it had no influence [Page 366] when it was prosecuted under a diffe­rent form. When a man proposes an argument, in which he has no suspi­cion of obscurity or uncertainty, and against which he has no particular ex­ceptions in view, he satisfies himself with expressing it in the manner which appears most natural to himself, or which happens first to occur. But when he finds that its force is not per­ceived, especially when particular ex­ceptions are taken against it, he endea­vours to set it in different lights, and to turn it into every possible shape, that, in some one of them, its force and the futility of the exceptions against it, may come to be acknowledged. If an­other person adopts the argument, he may be able to give it a turn which the former never thought of, and which may render it peculiarly fit for con­vincing some who would have other­wise withstood it. At first, the evi­dences [Page 367] of the gospel were proposed in a very simple manner: but the objec­tions raised against them, led Christians to turn them into various shapes. E­very new objection, and even every old objection urged in a different man­ner, gave occasion to some new illu­stration of the proof of Christianity af­fected by it. In how many striking lights, for instance, is Origen alone led by the several objections of Celsus, to exhibit the argument for Christiani­ty, deduced from its quick and exten­sive propagation? The reality of the Christian miracles was originally assert­ed by a naked rehearsal of the miracles themselves, and of the circumstances in which they were wrought: but, when objections against this evidence were multiplied, they led men to many new methods of representing it. In consequence of one objection, the weight of the several real circumstances [Page 368] attending these miracles, was estimated, and shown to be sufficient to exclude all suspicion of deceit. Another ob­jection led men to examine the precise force of that testimony by which we are assured that these miracles were wrought. Other objections have been the occasions of pointing out the diffe­rence between the Christian miracles and those false wonders, by compari­son with which, attempts have been made to depreciate them; of ascertain­ing the nature and degree of that as­sent which is due to testimony; of at­tending to all the principles and pro­pensities of the human mind, which can be supposed in any way to affect our belief of extraordinary or miracu­lous facts. The objections which have been successively raised against the con­nexion between miracles and doctrines, and the several hypotheses which have been contrived for accounting for the [Page 369] wonderful works ascribed to Christ and his apostles, without allowing them to be proofs of a divine mission, have gi­ven occasion to represent that connex­ion in almost as great a variety of lights, in some one or other of which it can scarce fail to appear undeniable to eve­ry person who takes the pains to under­stand it, and gives scope to his natural principles of belief. The excellence of the Christian religion has been called in question; objections of all possible kinds, have been formed against its doc­trines and its laws: the consequence has been, a display of its excellence in every possible point of view. It has been shown that it contains no tenet which reason can evince to be false, no precept which conscience can disap­prove. It has been shown that it re­publishes a system of natural religion, perfectly conformable to the soundest deductions of reason, and teaches it [Page 370] with singular purity, perspicuity, and authority; that its peculiar doctrines not only are consistent with all that reason teaches us, but form a well connected scheme of principles; agree­able to the analogy of nature; for con­firmation of which, after they are re­vealed, we can discover many argu­ments; which account for facts, and clear up difficulties in the actual state of things, otherwise inexplicable; which convert many dubious conjectures of reason into certainty; which fall in with, and support the wavering expec­tations of nature; which suit the hopes and the fears of mankind; which ex­tend our prospect and brighten our views where the light of nature fails us; which discover to us a scheme of things, the exact counterpart of that with which reason and experience bring us acquainted, and, together with it, ma­king up one plan of providence. It [Page 371] has been evinced, that all its doctrines are useful and important in the highest degree, calculated for the noblest end, for promoting the present improvement and joy, and the eternal perfection and felicity of mankind, directly subservient to this end, affording motives to vir­tue, the strongest in themselves, the best adapted both to our constitution and to our state, and of the most various kinds, fit to lay hold on every princi­ple of action, and to influence the most opposite tempers. It has been proved, that its moral precepts are absolutely proper, pure, and complete, and its positive precepts immediately condu­cive to real goodness; that its laws as­certain our duty with the greatest pre­cision, and impress a sense of its obli­gation with the greatest force, while its doctrines give us the most powerful inducements to fulfil it, and provide us with the most natural means of ful­filling [Page 372] it. Christianity has been compa­red with other religions, and with the noblest discoveries of the best philoso­phers, and demonstrated to be vastly superior to them all. In a word, it has been shown to have all the excellence which can be derived from subservi­ence to the most important end, and to have every sort of excellence consi­stent with its being immediately sub­servient to that end, every sort of ex­cellence which can satisfy the under­standing, strike the imagination, or en­gage the heart. It is sufficient, and all which can be reasonably desired, that real evidence be displayed in one proper light; but when it is set in va­rious lights, it becomes much fitter for convincing all, and for heightening the assurance of each. That the evidence of Christianity has been proposed in this advantageous manner, the op­position of Infidels has been the prin­cipal [Page 373] occasion: it has led many diffe­rent persons to state that evidence, e­very one in the way which was most suitable to his own turn of thinking; and different representations of it have been naturally suggested by the variety of objections urged against it.

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

It has been often asserted, that most of the ancient Christian writers use se­veral weak arguments in their apolo­gies. Infidels triumph in the observa­tion, and represent these instances of false reasoning as even subversive of the gospel. That there are such in­stances, believers readily acknowledge; and, on account of them, some enter­tain a much lower opinion of these an­cients, than can be fairly justified from their writings. Suppose that many of their sentiments and reasonings are so weak, that a modern of very mode­rate abilities would avoid them; yet [Page 376] an excuse may be pleaded for this: it is common to them with almost all the philosophers of antiquity. There is not perhaps any difference between ancient and modern writers, more characteristical than this; the moderns, when possessed of any considerable de­gree of excellence, preserve an uni­formity and equality, in matter, senti­ment, and reasoning, which is want­ing in the ancients. In these latter, there is a surprising mixture of the fi­nest sentiments with the meanest or the falsest, of the justest reasonings with the silliest cavils. In the writings of Plato, of Cicero, of almost any one of the most admired philosophers, innu­merable instances may be pointed out. If few moderns rise to their excellence in some parts of their works, it is cer­tain however that defects and absurdi­ties, so gross as may be found in other parts, are not chargeable on any mo­dern [Page 377] author, who has, in the judgment of the world, even reached mediocrity. Whatever defects are observable in the Christian fathers, I know few of their apologies for their religion, in which the just reasonings do not bear as great a proportion to the puerile cavils, as in almost any work of the same length, of any the most celebrated ancient. It may be added, that very many of their false sentiments and inconclusive rea­sonings, were derived from the pre­vailing opinions of the times, were common to them with the most emi­nent of their contemporaries, and be­long to subjects which are foreign to Christianity, and on which it was not its business to give them light. This is in reason sufficient for their vindication: and what has happened to their puerilities and cavils, exempli­fies the topic on which we are now in­sisting. Christians have concurred with [Page 378] Infidels in detecting them; they are ge­nerally exploded. They would per­haps have been abandoned, tho' Infi­dels had given no occasion: but they would not probably have been so ex­pressly disclaimed, or so professedly confuted. It often happens, that ve­ry exceptionable positions are not so quickly banished as they ought to be; there will always be some persons inju­dicious enough to adopt the weakest things that have been advanced by o­thers: but this happens on all subjects, and can on no subject be justly ascri­bed to any other cause, but the folly of these individuals. It is no wonder that it sometimes happens likewise with respect to the evidences of Christianity. But the opposition of Infidels has a ve­ry strong tendency to make all sensible Christians extremely cautious in chu­sing their weapons, wary in examining the propriety of every principle on [Page 379] which they build, attentive to the sound­ness and strength of every argument which they urge, scrupulous about the truth of every deduction which they make; in a word, careful that the de­fences which they offer for their religi­on, be in all respects beyond reasonable exception. A siege not only proves the strength of some parts of a fortification, but also discovers the weak parts, and shows what eminences command, or give advantage against any part of it; and thus suggests the necessity and the means of improving what is insuffici­ent, and removing what is dangerous, so that the whole may become stronger than before. In like manner, while the attacks of Infidels give fuller convic­tion of the solidity of the proof of Chri­stianity in general, and of the force of many of the particular arguments used in support of it, they at the same time expose the frivolous arguments which [Page 380] the weakness of individuals has intro­duced, lead to the substitution of better in their place, and to the removal of all the rubbish by which the defence of Christianity was obstructed. False prin­ciples, which have been injudiciously adopted, are laid aside; lame reason­ings from true principles, are abandon­ed. When the opposition of Infidels is continued for a considerable time in enlightened ages, the natural result is, a display of the several evidences of Christianity, and a vindication of it from all objections, more pure and un­mixt, more consistent, and more uni­formly solid, than could have otherwise been expected. By the weakness of hu­man nature, and the partial and dis­cordant views of men, this effect will be hindered from taking place all at once. An entire defence of Christi­anity against all kinds of objections, and in respect of all its evidences, e­qually [Page 381] unexceptionable in every part, is a work too large and multifarious for the abilities of most men. But there are separate defences of its several dif­ferent evidences, each of which is ab­solutely unexceptionable, and all of which put together may form a com­plete and faultless apology for our re­ligion. Nay, there are general defen­ces of it, considered in every point of view, as uniformly solid as any work on any subject of the same compass and variety. When we look back, and observe how great progress has been made in this argument within a short period past, a much purer and com­pleter defence of the truth of our reli­gion, than yet exists, will not appear too much to be expected from the con­tinuance of the efforts of unbelievers, in an age affording all advantages for every branch of learning, and encou­raging freedom of inquiry. But even [Page 382] before the tendency of opposition to make all weak reasonings be universal­ly abandoned, have time to take entire effect, the censures of them which it produces, give men of abilities the means of selecting for themselves such proofs as are valid, without a mixture of any others. A man who has not ge­nius enough to invent the strongest ar­guments on a subject, yet has often judgment enough to prefer them to the weaker, when both are set before him. It is a great advantage to have a large collection of arguments, and of exceptions against them, in our view at once: the comparison assists our choice, and enables us to reject many things with which we would have been satisfied, if we had not seen all.

THE rejection of which we have been treating, is not confined to things absolutely weak and frivolous; it ex­tends [Page 383] to all such principles and argu­ments, however plausible or ingenious, as are in any the least degree excep­tionable. A man is not always aware of every difficulty affecting either the principles on which he founds his ar­guments, or his reasonings from these principles: And different men exami­ning a subject without any knowledge of each others sentiments, seldom fail to view it in different lights. From these causes it proceeds, that Christi­ans, even of the greatest abilities, have explained the several evidences of their religion, on different principles, and in different ways. The opposition of Infidels gives occasion to a communica­tion of sentiments among Christians. One enjoys the labours of his predeces­sors: he can observe to what difficul­ties any of their principles have been liable, and guard against them; what fallacies have been chargeable on any [Page 384] of their reasonings; and either, by set­ting the argument in a more striking light, show them to be imaginary; or, if they be real, correct them. Infidels will canvass the defects at least, of all the different hypotheses adopted. In con­sequence of their eagerness to take all advantages, Christians likewise will be ready to observe them. The blemishes of each will be gradually discovered, and at length acknowledged; and the argument will be stated in such a way as to stand clear of them all. This may be exemplified in the two principal e­vidences of our religion. Tho' all Chri­stians agree that the wonderful works ascribed to our Saviour, are properly miracles, yet they have given different definitions of a miracle. Some have a­dopted definitions, which, once admit­ted, render the argument from mira­cles very short and obvious: others have preferred such definitions as in­deed [Page 385] leave the deduction from them somewhat more intricate, but will be more readily admitted. The ar­gument from miracles, so far as Chri­stianity is concerned, may perhaps be rendered conclusive on any definition of a miracle, that has the smallest de­gree of propriety. It would be an ad­vantage, however, that some one un­exceptionable definition were univer­sally received. The opposition of Infi­dels leads to a scrupulous examination of every one that is offered, and has thus a strong tendency to suggest a de­finition in all respects blameless, and to obtain it so universal a reception, that only men of a very peculiar cast of mind shall refuse to adopt it. The writings of Christians show, indeed, that they are already brought to agree very generally in every material part of the description of a miracle, that they differ only in some circumstances [Page 386] of small importance. They have so far given up all extremes, that, taking that in which they agree for the notion of a miracle, there is no difficulty in pro­ving, either that our Saviour's works were truly miracles, or that such mira­cles as his, prove a divine mission. In like manner, Christians have differed very considerably in their explications of the prophecies of the Old Testament, and in the principles on which they show the application of many of them to Jesus. Some, conceiving nothing peculiar to the prophetic stile, have thought it necessary to maintain, that the several prophecies were intended of him in their sole literal sense; and, in their eagerness to maintain this, they have stretched particulars, and in­troduced arbitrary suppositions, and rules of interpretation scarce defensi­ble. Others, ascribing peculiar quali­ties to the stile of prophecy, have al­lowed [Page 387] that some of the prophecies re­lating to the age of the Messiah, predict it in an indirect and allegorical man­ner, prefiguring it by other analogous events, speaking of it along with these, or representing it by various types; but they too have sometimes been un­able to build their doctrine on such principles as might give it entire soli­dity and firmness. The former have been led to suppose corruptions with­out evidence, and instances of incohe­rence without necessity: the latter have considered predictions as applicable, in some degree, to other events, which were intended of the Messiah alone. Infidels have not failed to triumph in the diversity of such opinions, and to accumulate against each of them, all the difficulties to which it was liable. Christians too have, without reserve, ex­amined both hypotheses, and endea­voured to find out the truth. In the [Page 388] course of the examination, the difficul­ty has been in a great measure remo­ved. It has appeared that, when men seemed to espouse the most opposite principles, they often differed only in words; and that, so far as their differ­ence was real, it proceeded chiefly from their explaining principles just in them­selves, in an improper manner, or from their extending them too far. It has been fairly proved, not only that Christians apply the ancient prophecies to the same events, and in the same way as the Jews applied them before their fulfilment; but also, that this ap­plication is perfectly agreeable to the natural genius of prophetic writing; that it is reducible to as fix'd general rules as any species of criticism whate­ver; that these rules arise from princi­ples founded in the nature and design of the Mosaic dispensation, in the un­questionable manners and usages of the [Page 389] times when the prophecies were pro­nounced, nay in the very nature of language, and justified both by the hi­story and by the philosophy of its rise, progress, and gradual improvements. In a word, it has been shown, that the interpretation of prophecy is, as much as any thing else, reducible to a regu­lar and consistent system, built on the most rational and solid principles; and that the difficulties with which it seem­ed to be pressed, arose only from mens having conceived that system imper­fectly, and are therefore chargeable only on the weakness of individuals, but do not in the least diminish the real force of this evidence of our reli­gion.

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

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

THE opposition of Infidels not only produces a full display of the leading evidences of the gospel, and a thorough investigation of the principles from which they derive their force; but also leads Christians to discover additional presumptions and collateral proofs of the truth of their religion. Our Sa­viour and his apostles professedly urged only the most direct evidences of the gospel. There are many particulars in its structure, and many circumstan­ces attending it, which truly indicate its divinity, but which are not applied to the confirmation of it, in the New Testament. It only supplies the ma­terials from which such arguments may be collected by reflection; it only sug­gests the topics from which such pre­sumptions may be deduced. The op­position [Page 402] of Infidels has contributed greatly to make Christians attentive to every thing of this kind, and has led them to prosecute many collateral proofs of Christianity, with great di­stinctness and energy. It forces Chri­stians to study every part of their reli­gion carefully, that they may defend it against the objections of its enemies: and when they survey it on every side, and view it in every light, they disco­ver many strong indications of its divi­nity, which undeniably belong indeed to Christianity, but might for ever have escaped their notice, if they had not been roused by opposition, to extraor­dinary accuracy in examining it. Be­sides, there are many things which have at first sight the appearance of ob­jections against Christianity, but which, when they are thoroughly examined, turn out very strong presumptions of its truth. Infidels, taking these in the [Page 403] most obvious point of view, have often urged them as formidable objections: this has excited Christians to search deeper into them, and, by pursuing them through their remoter conse­quences, to show that they are real confirmations of the gospel. Further, when one presumptive argument for Christianity, is discovered, the prose­cution of it often naturally suggests o­thers; as one improvement in any sci­ence generally opens a way for new improvements. Should the opposition of Infidels cease for ever, the additions which they have long ago been the oc­casions of making to the proofs of Chri­stianity, will gradually lead forward to the view of many other confirmations of its truth. Very early apologies for the Christian religion, afford instances of collateral arguments for its truth, suggested by such means. Later wri­ters have pointed out several evidences [Page 404] of the same sort, which arise from cir­cumstances essential to the Christian re­ligion, or implied in the scripture hi­story, and which greatly corroborate the direct and principal evidences of the gospel. These had not appeared at all, or had appeared but faintly to the ancient apologists, on the slighter attention which the feebler efforts of the old unbelievers awakened in them: but the repeated and invigorated at­tacks of modern Infidels have excited attention sufficient for the discovery of them, and have even in many instances suggested them ^*. There are, no doubt, many circumstances of this sort, which have not even yet been profes­sedly urged; the longer and the more [Page 405] minutely Christianity is canvassed, the more indications of divinity, it will be found to contain. But, as the matter stands already, there is not one of its principal evidences which has not been shown to be supported and confirmed by collateral presumptions. This is of very considerable moment. The e­vidence of Christianity is of the proba­ble kind; and in every probable argu­ment, the strength of the evidence de­pends not only on the strength of each separate probability, but also on the number of probabilities. Any new presumption makes an addition to the evidence, often a greater addition than in proportion to its own force, by fal­ling in with the others, and compleat­ing a connected train of circumstances. Nay, there are instances in which the want of a single circumstance, seeming­ly of no great importance by itself, would destroy the whole evidence, by [Page 406] breaking one link in the chain. But presumptions, each of which alone is very weak, may, by being numerous and by tallying exactly with one an­other, compose a proof whose force is irresistible, and which begets the high­est possible degree of conviction, the firmest and the most indubitable assu­rance. Let the several direct eviden­ces of the truth of Christianity, together with all the additional presumptions by which it has been shown that each of them is corroborated, be attentively considered in their natural order and dependence; and then let impartiality pronounce, whether the proof of Chri­stianity is not indubitable and irresisti­ble.

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

THE brightness with which the evi­dence of the Christian religion shines, will always bear a proportion to the [Page 411] purity in which that religion is pre­served. It may be so much corrupted, that the compounded, adulterated form which assumes the name of Christiani­ty, cannot be defended. Christians have in many instances loaded their religion with absurdities to which rea­son cannot be reconciled, and which, by being confounded with the gospel, obscure its evidence. Corruptions of Christianity stain its evidence, as it were, with a dim varnish, which is of the more dangerous consequence, be­cause it is not suspected to be a var­nish, but mistaken for the genuine co­lour, and even reckoned by some the most beautiful part of the Christian sy­stem. The opposition of Infidels has a tendency to prevent the corruption of Christianity, and to lead Christians to reject by degrees all such adulterations as have already been admitted. It was after Christianity had been pretty much [Page 412] established, it was when the professors of it were little exposed to the observa­tion of Pagans, or to opposition from them, that the corruptions of Popery invaded the church: it was in ages of darkness and ignorance, when every thing passed without examination, when the greatest absurdities met with no opposition, that these corruptions grew to a height. Opposition from Infidels would have naturally checked their progress, or even prevented their ap­pearance altogether. Had Christians continued, for instance, as they were at first, to be intermixed with Pagans, had they continued to have frequent occasions of representing to them the absurdity of making images of their gods, or of worshipping those who had once, by their own confession, been mortal men; this must have preserved so constant a sense of the truth in their minds, as could not have failed to re­strain [Page 413] them from ever thinking of in­troducing the worship of images and of saints; or, if they could have been so inconsistent as to attempt it, the Pa­gans would have retorted their own ar­guments upon them, and made them to perceive very quickly the absurdity of the attempt. Every person who is at all acquainted with the subject, knows that Infidels have derived their most plausible objections against the excel­lence and utility of the gospel, from the corruptions with which Christiani­ty is blended in the Popish religion, and from the remains of the tenets and spirit thence arising, which still adhere to many Protestants. These have given them an occasion to repre­sent the gospel, as a disputatious sy­stem of dry, speculative, intricate, ab­struse opinions; as promoting a spirit of superstition as irrational and abject as any that was ever cherished by any [Page 414] species of Paganism; as giving coun­tenance to priest-craft and usurpation over the consciences of men: in a word, have given them an occasion to affirm, that the gospel has been productive of no advantages to mankind, that, on the contrary, it has been on the whole per­nicious. Taking it for granted, that every thing belongs to Christianity, which has been at any time maintain­ed by any number of Christians, Infi­dels have represented its internal evi­dence as nothing, nay have represented it as containing many things which it requires great pains to justify, and which it would need very strong argu­ments for proving to have been reveal­ed by God. By means of this, and likewise by pretending evidences for the superadditions to Christianity, si­milar to those which were exhibited for Christianity itself, the corrupters of the gospel have given unbelievers a pre­tence [Page 415] for making large deductions from the force even of its external evidences. When Infidels lay hold of these advan­tages in their opposition to the gospel, this has a strong tendency to push Christians forward in reforming their religion from all corruptions. When we find plausible or strong objections raised against what has been at any time reckoned a part of Christianity, when we can scarce give a rational and satisfying defence of it, it is natural to examine carefully, whether this be tru­ly a part of the original gospel, or only an addition to it. Many of those arti­cles against which Infidels have erected their strongest batteries, and which they have attacked with the fairest pro­spect of success, have appeared, on exa­mination, to be of the latter kind, and have been very generally abandoned. By many causes, the complete refor­mation of our religion from all corrup­tions, [Page 416] may be retarded for a consider­able time: but nothing can counteract the influence of those causes more strong­ly, than continued opposition from un­believers. This has a tendency to u­nite all true Christians in the desire of putting their religion in the best state of defence against the common enemy, to make them concur in giving up all opinions and practices which do not undeniably belong to the gospel. By these means, Christianity will be gra­dually brought back to its original pu­rity and simplicity: in some periods, the advances may be slow; in some, they may be interrupted; but as long as Infidels are eager to turn the private sentiments of individuals, and the over­strained tenets of parties, to the discre­dit of the gospel, there will be some tendency to return by degrees to the unadulterated religion of Jesus. Pure notions of Christianity, once introdu­ced, [Page 417] will naturally diffuse themselves. They will by degrees recommend themselves so generally, that all Chri­stians must in time imbibe somewhat of the spirit which they raise. Even Popery has become considerably dif­ferent from what it once was, and it would have been still more reformed, if artificial and political restraints had not opposed the tendency of examina­tion and inquiry. Since Christianity began to be depraved by adventitious mixtures, there never was an age in which there has appeared so generally, as in the present, a disposition to embrace whatever fair inquiry discovered to be the real doctrine of scripture, without any regard to the authority of men, or to the established distinctions of sects: and nowhere has this liberal spirit pre­vailed so much as in those countries in which infidelity has been suffered, for the longest space of time, to propose [Page 418] all its objections freely, and without the fear of persecution or legal penalties. But the effect of its opposition has hi­therto taken place only in part. The heart of a good man triumphs in con­ceiving the period when it shall have fully taken place; in anticipating the time when Christianity shall become in the writings and in the apprehensions of Christians, as it truly is in the New Testament, not a system of nice specu­lations and contentious subleties, but a series of plain principles, evidently founded in scripture, unmixt with the arbitrary explications, and precarious conclusions of fallible men, all natural­ly touching the heart, commanding congruous affections, and, by their joint force, directly inculcating piety and vir­tue, and promoting the reformation and happiness of mankind. Let the Christian religion be universally and steadily kept in this point of view by [Page 419] Christians: then it will appear that the most formidable objections of Infi­dels have been directed, not against this religion itself, but against some­thing totally different, tho' unhappily confounded with it; then the excel­lence of Christianity will shine conspi­cuous and indisputable; then all its e­vidences will operate on the under­standing with their full force; then its truth will be strikingly perceived, like the beauty of a fine picture placed in a proper light: Then too Christianity will have its native influence on the temper and practice of mankind; it will be a vital principle of real good­ness. Virtue and joy, its amiable chil­dren, will stand up, and declare with a voice of irresistible persuasion, that it is of heavenly extraction, that it is truly the offspring of the Most High. Every man who is actuated by the gospel, will feel its truth from his own expe­rience [Page 420] of its efficacy, and will have the witness in himself ^*, that it is the word of God, the incorruptible seed ^† of holiness and felicity. All men will see with their eyes such marks of its power, as cannot suffer them to doubt of its truth and divinity. How glorious a testimo­ny would this state of things give to our religion! What splendor would it confer upon its evidences! The go­spel maintained in its purity, and vigo­rously conceived, tends to produce this state of things: And the vigilance and opposition of Infidels is one very pow­erful mean of exciting Christians to maintain the gospel in its purity.

SUCH are the advantages arising to Christianity from those objections by which Infidels intended to subvert it. The force of its evidences has been pointed out and ascertained; every exception against them has been exa­mined, [Page 421] and shown to be groundless; the proofs of its divinity have been fully illustrated, and set in a variety of striking lights; trivial or questionable arguments have been by degrees aban­doned; seemingly jarring arguments have been explained with greater pre­cision, and by such explication recon­ciled; the strongest objections have on­ly produced a deeper and more satisfy­ing investigation of the principles from which the evidences of Christianity de­rive their force; the defence of this re­ligion has been rendered in a great measure pure, consistent, and uniform­ly solid; many collateral proofs of it have been attended to and prosecuted; Christians have been led to the most ex­plicit declarations of their belief of it; and they have been excited to avoid or to remove those corruptions which would eclipse the splendor of its evi­dence. In all these ways, the trial to [Page 422] which Infidels have put the truth of Christianity, has been the occasion of its receiving new light and confirma­tion. The observations which have been made, are the result of a review of the controversy between Christians and Infidels; it is only by attention to the progress and the actual state of this controversy, that they ought to be ex­amined; and by such attention they will be fully justified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed there cannot be an higher or a more undeniable proof of the truth of any principle or system, than this, that it has not been disproved by se­vere and repeated examinations. In many cases, the evidence may be so full, and the proof so clear and deci­sive, that the very first time sufficient attention is bestowed, there remains no rational ground of doubt. If the first examination, however, should leave a suspicion of any fallacy, what [Page 438] method could we naturally take for determining, whether the suspicion be just or groundless, but to examine the proof anew? If, after reiterated exa­minations, it still appeared to be unex­ceptionable, our assurance of the truth of the conclusion would necessarily be­come much firmer. Tho' its essential evidence continues the same, yet the effect of that evidence on our under­standing, is heightened by every exa­mination. If we moreover set our­selves to find out all the difficulties which attend the evidence, and all the exceptions which can be taken against it, if we learned from those who re­ject it, all the grounds of their unbe­lief; and if, after all this, we still found the evidence satisfying and con­clusive, and could discern no real fal­lacy in any part of it, this would raise our assurance to a height which no­thing can exceed. There are many [Page 439] cases in which we have not all the op­portunities, and many more in which we take not all the pains, necessary for obtaining this high degree of assurance concerning the truth of our principles. This is the reason why men of hasty judgments, hold so many doubtful or [...]alse opinions, and why we have no­thing but opinion on subjects where we might have certainty. But the e­vidences of Christianity have stood the test of a severer examination than ever was bestowed on any other subject. Every difficulty has been represented in the strongest colouring, every ob­jection urged, all the evidences can­vassed if possibly there could be found a fallacy in any part of them; their strength has been tried by one after another, and tried in every possible way: but after all, the evidences of our religion appear to be sound, and satisfying, as high as the nature of the [Page 440] subject can admit, as high as could be expected on supposition of its truth. When they are simply proposed, they are convincing to the unprejudiced mind: when all that can be advanced against them, and all that can be ur­ged in support of them, are fairly ba­lanced, still they are convincing. This gives new assurance of their strength; no person who enquires, and finds on enquiry that this is the case, can entertain a doubt of it. There can be no more certain mark for distinguishing between truth and false­hood than this, that the former with­stands all the assaults of reasoning, but the latter, tho' it may maintain itself by specious pleas for a while, yet never fails to be plainly detected and confu­ted, if the scrutiny be long continued. By this mark, the gospel is proved to be truth. If it were not truth, is it pos­sible, that all the efforts of early unbe­lievers, [Page 441] instead of detecting any impo­sture, should have produced only fri­volous objections, added strength to its several evidences, and laid a foun­dation for new proofs of its divinity? Is it possible that Infidels, in every age, should have been driven to all the me­thods of chicane and sophistry in mana­ging their opposition to the gospel? Is it possible that they should have been able to discover only such arguments against it, as are for the most part weak or unfair, as without exception lose their plausibility, in proportion to the attention with which they are exami­ned, and have been fully answered?

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

[Page 445] In Christianity, as in every system, whether of nature or of art, there are some parts which, to a superficial obser­ver, appear more exceptionable than the rest. If this religion be false, it is reasonable to expect, that on examina­tion, those parts would be found still more exceptionable, and that by atten­tion to them we should be led most readily to a detection of the cheat. If the reverse has happened, if it has ap­peared on a full examination, that those parts of Christianity, and those circum­stances in its evidence, which are most exceptionable to a superficial observer, turn out, when they are sufficiently understood, signal indications of ex­cellence, truth, and divinity, there can be no stronger confirmation of that re­ligion. A defect in any hypothesis, or in any machine, which is so obvious as to strike at first sight, if it be real, is perceived more clearly by the atten­tive [Page 446] inquirer, but, if it be only appa­rent, recommends the skill of the in­ventor. The same conclusion ought to be adopted with respect to Christiani­ty: the defects which seemed to be­long to it, have been scrupulously can­vassed, and found to be only imagina­ry. They are therefore like those deli­cate strokes in works of art, which dis­please the uncultivated taste, but gain the highest and the most permanent ap­probation from those who have impro­ved their taste; or they are like those parts of nature, which the ignorant reckon deformed or useless, but which the researches of the curious discover to be both beautiful and beneficial: these show the highest skill; those in like manner evidence the most unque­stionable truth. For instance, the mean condition of Jesus while he lived on the earth, is a circumstance which Infi­dels have always eagerly laid hold up­on, [Page 447] and endeavoured to turn to the discredit of the gospel; but it has been proved that this circumstance not only is incapable of being fairly turned to the discredit of the gospel, but also in numberless ways promotes the design of the gospel, and renders its truth un­questionable, and that far more effec­tually than could have been accom­plished by his appearing in a more ex­alted sphere. When Infidels have cen­sured any of the evidences of the go­spel, and pointed out the objectons to which they judged them liable, they have sometimes condescended likewise to inform us, by what means these evi­dences might, in their apprehension, have been rendered convincing, and suitable to a revelation truly divine: but it has always appeared that the e­vidences proposed by them, would have been less satisfying, and exposed to much juster objections, than the most [Page 448] exceptionable of those by which our religion is actually supported Chri­stianity in some of its features bears some resemblance to false religions; In­fidels are eager to observe these fea­tures, they triumph in pointing them out, they think that these will suggest an easy proof of its being likewise false. But by no track are we led to a clear­ere discovery or a firmer conviction of the truth of Christianity. The resem­blance is precisely such as might natu­rally be expected to take place between a true religion and false religions. Sup­pose a religion really revealed by God, we may be certain that it would be a­dapted to human nature: and suppose a revelation of a new religion to be pre­tended, we may be certain that the impostor would both do his utmost to adapt it to human nature, and copy after such revelations as had proved successful. There is no greater simili­tude [Page 449] between Christianity and any false religion, than is easily accounted for by this obvious reflection. The resem­blance, however great it may seem in some particulars at first sight, grows al­ways fainter and fainter, the more close­ly it is traced; and on an exact compa­rison, Christianity is found to be in its whole spirit and evidences the very op­posite of every false religion. Thus two faces may be mistaken for each other when they are seen separately and little attended to, between which scarce a­ny resemblance can be perceived when they are deliberately viewed together. In a word, Christianity has been so much confirmed by examination, that even whatever seemed to be exception­able in it, has been converted into a new presumption of its truth.—No subject has undergone so free or so fre­quent examination, as Christianity; and no subject ever gained so much [Page 450] by examination. Every book that e­ver was written against this religion, has, in the course of the controversy to which it gave rise, occasioned some improvement in the defence of Christi­anity. Every objection that has been started, has produced answers which showed the strength of some of the e­vidences of the gospel, in a new and striking point of view. And since Chri­stianity, far from being confuted, has been so much confirmed by an opposi­tion of argument so often renewed, so long continued, and so eagerly prose­cuted, the inference is short and clear. This is peculiar to truth; it leaves no room for the least suspicion of false­hood.

If Christianity were a false religion notwithstanding all the trials which it has undergone, and the manner in which it has sustained them, it would be absolutely singular and without a [Page 451] parallel on earth. Many false tenets and false religions have subsisted for a long time; it is acknowledged: yet if Christianity were false, it would still be without a parallel. For has any of these falsehoods been examined and canvas­sed in the same manner as Christianity has, and been retained notwithstand­ing? None of them has. In number­less ways, false opinions may gain ground; and when they have been once adopted, they may be for ages transmitted from some to others, with­out being at all suspected or examined: but an opinion's subsisting ever so long while it is not examined, affords no sort of presumption of its truth. The Pto­lemaic system of the world was long the received hypothesis: but its reception was no proof of its truth. During all that time, it was taken for granted without examination: most men want­ed the means of bringing it to a pro­per [Page 452] trial; if a few had them, and used them, they disbelieved it; and as soon as it was generally examined, it was generally exploded. It did not require repeated examinations to confute it; it fell at once, upon the first scrutiny of unprejudiced reason. Many false hypotheses have reigned in every sci­ence, through long periods of time. Attend to such of them as are now a­bandoned: you will find that they were established on false principles which, du­ring their reign, were never called in question. Their prevalence, therefore, truly proceeded from men's having ne­ver examined these principles: as soon as these were examined, it appeared that they had been all along taken for granted without evidence; that, there­fore, however well the several parts of the superstructure hung together, the whole hypothesis was nevertheless a mere baseless fabric. The same has [Page 453] happened in religion, as in science. The Pagan religion was of very long duration: but every one knows that many causes prevented its being tho­roughly examined; that, as imperfect­ly as it was examined, it did not stand unconfuted all the time it continued to subsist; and that, when it came to be fully canvassed, no rational defence was offered for it. Mahometanism has subsisted for several ages: but it is be­cause its evidence has never been exa­mined by those who profess it. By all who have examined it, it has been pro­nounced destitute of evidence: many have embraced it from other motives; but it does not appear that any ever turned to it in consequence of a deli­berate inquiry into its truth. The fate of Popery is no exception against this argument. It rose in dark times, and therefore without examination. It ac­quired its present form by a gradual [Page 454] corruption of Christianity; each step prepared the way for another; and therefore it advanced imperceptibly and without suspicion. It forbids free inquiry, and therefore has never been examined by those who hold it. At least, if any of them have examined it to a certain degree, they have never­theless stopped short before they search­ed it thoroughly: they still took for granted certain first principles on which it is founded, the authority, for in­stance, of Popes, Councils, Fathers, and Doctors; principles which ought not to have been taken upon trust, but proved very clearly, for which however no solid proof has been produced. Po­pery has been examined by those who believed it not: and whether they have not attacked it in a fairer way than that in which Infidels have opposed the go­spel; whether they have not readily ta­ken notice of all the pleas of its pa­trons, [Page 455] and undertaken to confute them; or whether their objections against it, have been answered so fully, so freely, upon so unexceptionable principles, or by so strong reasonings, as the objec­tions of Infidels against Christianity, we may appeal to every impartial per­son who takes the trouble to examine both the controversies. At any rate, it will not be pretended, that Popery has gained by examination, or been confirmed by the opposition of Prote­stants: on the contrary, its votaries have been induced to alter their system, to refine upon their principles, to re­nounce or explain away tenets express­ly taught in books to which they still in words ascribe the highest authority, and which they even profess to believe infallible. ‘"But has not the same hap­pened to the Christian religion? Have not doctrines which were once reckoned a part of this religion, [Page 456] been abandoned in consequence of the inquiries occasioned by infidelity?"’ That this has happened, we readily ac­knowledge; but this is not the same that has happened to Popery; nay, tho' on a superficial view, it seemeth somewhat like, it is in reality directly contrary. Christians have never given up as indesensible, any doctrine plain­ly taught in scripture; Papists have gi­ven up doctrines most indisputably in­culcated by Popes, Councils, and Doc­tors. Christians have renounced on­ly errors which had insinuated them­selves into their religion, but really made no part of it; if they be likewise errors which inquiry has forced Papists to renounce, yet they are such errors as compose the very substance of Pope­ry, so far as it differs from the religion of other Christians. The scripture is the avowed standard of Christianity, by which whatever is asserted to be­long [Page 457] to it, may be tried; the opposi­sition of Infidels has only excited Christians to study the scripture with greater care, and to render their o­pinions more conformable to it: Po­pery owns some standards additional to the scriptures; the opposition of Protestants has reduced its professors to the necessity of deviating from these additional standards. In a word, that Christianity has been examined, there are the most unquestionable documents, the writings of unbelievers: it has not fallen before one or a few attacks: ob­jections of all kinds have been raised a­gainst it: the first principles on which its evidences rest, as well as the reason­ings by which they are supported, have been tried, and found to be the very principles of belief natural to the hu­man understanding, to which men ne­cessarily yield in innumerable cases: many have inquired into its grounds [Page 458] with the greatest freedom, and after all embraced it as divine with higher assurance than before: by opposition, none of its proofs has been invalidated, all of them have been illustrated and strengthened. There is therefore an essential difference between Christiani­ty, and all the false doctrines which e­ver obtained a durable reception. If that be false, it is the only falsehood that ever sustained so accurate an exa­mination. Its having sustained this examination, its having even derived advantage from it, sets it in direct op­position to falsehood and imposture, and proves that it is, what it claims to be, true and divine.

THE argument for the truth of Chri­stianity, which we have endeavoured to illustrate, depends on two proposi­tions; the first, That Christianity, far from being overthrown by the opposi­tion [Page 459] of argument, has been confirmed by it; the other, That not to be over­thrown, much more to be confirmed, by the opposition of argument, and by free inquiry, is a certain and un­equivocal characteristic of truth. The latter proposition is both obvious and undeniable. Were the evidence of the former equally clear and immediate, or capable of being rendered as abso­lutely incontrovertible, the argument could not fail to be perfectly satisfying to every man; the conclusion, That Christianity is true, would strike the mind with a degree of force nowise in­ferior to that of the strictest demonstra­tion. But the former proposition re­lates to a matter of fact, which, in its very nature, admits only such evidence as must appear different to different men, and can never be rendered whol­ly unexceptionable to every individual. The fact must be ascertained by a com­parison [Page 460] of the writings of Infidels, with those of Christians, and will be admit­ted or denied, and that with greater or less assurance, according to the judgment which any person forms on the comparison. The fact is not sus­ceptible of any other sort of evidence; and by this sort it has been proved, in the preceeding sections, as clearly as could be expected on supposition of its truth. But since the only possible evi­dence is of this kind, it must be owned, that the argument will appear incon­clusive to some, and will be thought by others to fall short of demonstration. This does not render the argument void either of force, or of utility; but it renders it proper to examine what pre­cise degree of force ought to be ascri­bed to it.

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

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

‘"BUT suppose this argument to have all the force which has been a­scribed [Page 471] to it, yet is Christianity,"’ it will perhaps be said, ‘"really the bet­ter on the whole, for that examina­tion to which the opposition of In­fidels has given occasion, and on the result of which the argument is founded? Does its evidence become clearer, is it not, on the contrary, rendered intricate, and involved in confusion, by so great a multitude of arguments, objections, and re­plies? Can the generality at least de­rive any advantage from them, for are not they incapable of going thro' so long and complicated trains of reasoning; and yet, if it be true that an Infidel cannot reasonably disbelieve till he has gone through them, must it not be equally true, that, in the present state of things, without going through them, no Christian can reasonably believe? And must not the assent even of [Page 472] speculative men, who can trace the whole progress of the controversy, and comprehend and balance the arguments on both sides, be never­theless weakened by their passing through so many steps before they come to the conclusion? Is not all the seeming light and confirmation, therefore, which Christianity has derived from opposition, rather de­trimental than beneficial to it? And, if it be, how can any presumption of its truth be thence deduced?"’

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

In the first place, by means of them, they are excited to attend to the grounds and evidences of their religion, and are naturally led, tho' not to enter into all the intricacies of argument concern­ing them, yet to examine them, at least, so far as to acquire a distinct concep­tion of their nature and force, as they are proposed in the New Testament: and, if these evidences proposed in this manner, be sufficient for begetting conviction, the generality, being thus led to attend to them, will come to be possessed of a truly rational faith in the gospel. Had no opposition been made by Infidels, Christians would run a risk of becoming inattentive to the evi­dences of the gospel, and negligent in their endeavours to understand them: that opposition is a continual antidote against this. In the beginning of Chri­stianity, [Page 480] many things contributed to prevent this: the evidences of the go­spel, from their very nature, excited attention in that age; in the first exhi­bition, many of them were presented to the very senses of men; they could not be overlooked; every person who yielded assent to them, was unavoid­ably conscious of the reasons on which his assent was founded; and conse­quently his faith was necessarily ratio­nal: besides, the prejudices arising from their education in other religions, and the dangers to which they were expo­sed by becoming Christians, could not fail to render them scrupulous in exa­mining the evidence proposed to them, and careful to be fully satisfied of its sufficiency, before they admitted it, or professed their faith in consequence of it. But the circumstances of the world are now so much altered, that men may be sometimes led to profess Chri­stianity, [Page 481] and even to embrace it, with­out any examination of its evidences, without so much as a tolerable appre­hension of them, as they ly in the Bi­ble. It is unnecessary to spend words in pointing out the feebleness, the in­efficacy, the disadvantages of various kinds, which must attend a faith so slen­derly, so imperfectly supported: they are extremely obvious. Now the con­tinual opposition of Infidels has a na­tural and strong tendency to hinder men from thus taking their religion al­together upon trust: and, except the existence of other religions, it is per­haps the only external cause by which Christians are prompted to examine the foundations of their religion. It leads those who have been educated in Chri­stianity, to reflect, whether this reli­gion may not nevertheless be false: If they have either seriousness or curiosi­ty, this reflection will make them solli­citous [Page 482] to examine, whether it is or not; and all who have ordinary abilities and honesty of heart, may determine this point without any very difficult or in­tricate inquiry: and when, in conse­quence of attentive inquiry, they de­termine that it is a true and divine re­ligion, when they believe it with the substance of its evidence full in their view, their faith is truly rational, it has strength and firmness, by means of which it may produce a concern to comply with the gospel, and constancy in adhering to it. There will always, no doubt, be some Christians who have not attended to the evidences of the gospel, nor can give any reason for their embracing it: but where its truth is openly attacked by Infidels, this will be the case much less generally than it would otherwise have been. There may be sensible Christians at present, who could not perhaps give a direct [Page 483] answer to every objection urged by In­fidels; but there are very few of them who are not believers in consequence of attention to the evidences of the go­spel, and real conviction of their suffi­ciency. At whatever period opposi­tion from Infidels shall cease, the re­membrance of it will continue to pro­duce this effect in some measure, to ex­cite Christians to obtain a rational faith; and at the same time, its having been defeated, will be a strong argument of the truth of Christianity, and will con­tribute to render their faith firm, in like manner as the original propaga­tion of the gospel is one ground of be­lief to us.

Again, the opposition of Infidels is of real advantage even to the generali­ty, by leading to such a manner of pro­posing the evidences of the gospel, as will most effectually produce convic­tion in them. In order to convince [Page 484] any person, the evidences of the go­spel must be properly proposed. If in the proposal they were loaded with un­essential or precarious circumstances, a man's natural sagacity might suggest difficulties, and occasion doubts, and thus weaken his belief. But an ac­quaintance with the several objections of Infidels, will naturally lead one to propose them in a precise and guarded manner, and to represent every evi­dence in that just and striking point of view, in which it will most quickly and certainly lay hold of the understand­ing. The supernatural knowledge of Christ and his apostles, enabled them, previous to all opposition, to propose the evidences of their mission in an ex­act and convincing manner, even when they proposed them most simply: but no uninspired person could even col­lect and put together the several evi­dences to which they occasionally ap­pealed, [Page 485] so as to preserve them in their greatest force, without a distinct com­prehension of their nature, of the cir­cumstances on which their strength de­pends, and of the objections to which they are most liable; and this can be acquired only by an extensive acquain­tance with the opposition which Infi­dels have actually made.—Thus even the generality derive real advantage for their establishment in Christianity, from the opposition of Infidels, and from the manner of exhibiting the evidences of the gospel, to which it naturally leads. But to some men the advantage thence resulting, is much greater and more essential.

Some are naturally captious; they have a propensity to raise objections on every subject; they have a turn of un­derstanding, which makes them apter to doubt than to believe; they have a greater capacity for raising difficulties, [Page 486] than for removing them. This is an intel­lectual distemper; but it is no uncom­mon one; and to the opposition of In­fidels it is owing, that medicine pro­per for this distemper, is continually in readiness. In consequence of that op­position, answers have been made to multitudes of objections against the go­spel: when, therefore, any of these ob­jections occur to a person, he can easily discover what has been advanced for the solution of it; and if that prove sa­tisfying to him, he is delivered from his doubts. If it prove not satisfying, he can point out the fallacy which he observes in the solution; and this con­duct will either give occasion to a bet­ter solution, or make the objection to be acknowledged in the end solid and unanswerable. An instance in which the latter effect has taken place, has not hitherto occurred; the former there­fore may most naturally be expected. [Page 487] Every objection proposed, has been so often and so fully answered, that the most exceptious person, if he has only candour, cannot entertain a doubt con­cerning the truth of Christianity, ex­cept he has either discovered an objec­tion that is new, or examined the an­swers to old objections and found them insufficient. But indeed, if no objec­tion were published but what is new, or if no objection were repeated till the answers already given were first confuted, far the greater part of the volumes of Infidels had never seen the light.

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

[Page 490] Tho' the light and confirmation which the evidences of Christianity have received from the opposition of Infidels, had not been in these ways of actual advantage to that religion; yet still its having received them, would afford the strong presumption of its truth, which I have endeavoured to state. For this presumption arises from the essential difference between truth and falsehood, and therefore cannot be destroyed by any accidental conse­quences to which the weakness or the perverseness of men may give occasion. That is undoubtedly false, however specious, which a fair examination o­verthrows: that is certainly true, which, by the most rigid examination of its e­vidences, is not confuted, but confirm­ed. This will always remain an infal­lible criterion, to whatever bad purpo­ses men may happen to abuse the exa­mination from which it arises. But [Page 491] when the opposition of Infidels has not only contributed to the illustration of the evidences of the gospel, consider­ed abstractly, but also, as has been just now shown, actually puts men of all different characters, provided they will only seriously inquire, into a better si­tuation for obtaining faith in the go­spel, or for rendering their faith firm, than they could have been in, without it; this makes the argument in favour of Christianity, to appear to still great­er advantage. It makes it indisputa­ble, that the confirmation which its e­vidences have received, is real: it shows it to be not only real, but important: it gives the mind a propensity to be­lieve the gospel, which will enable both this presumption and every other evi­dence of its truth, to operate more strongly on it, to lay faster hold of it, and to produce fuller and more steady belief.

[Page 492] To confirm us in the belief of Chri­stianity, is the purpose to which the argument of this dissertation, is most directly subservient. But it likewise naturally suggests a very strong reason for moderation and forbearance to­wards those who disbelieve the gospel, and freely propose their objections a­gainst it. Christianity is so evidently true, and so highly conducive to the most important interests of mankind, that we can scarce fail to regard those with pity, who are so unhappy as to reject it. At the same time, their op­position to evidence which we reckon so clear and convincing, and the ma­ny mischievous consequences which spring immediately from the propaga­tion of infidelity, are very apt to raise indignation in those who are warmly concerned for truth and goodness. If this sentiment be kept from exceeding due bounds, and from exerting itself [Page 493] in an improper manner, if it prompt us only to use our utmost endeavours to convince the unbelieving by argu­ment, and to fortify others against the infection of their principles, it is na­tural and worthy. But it too frequent­ly degenerates into anger, and prompts to illegitimate methods of curbing in­fidelity; it has led Christians to attack unbelievers by force, and violence, and penal laws. There are many ar­guments against this. It is unlawful in itself, and therefore absolutely to be avoided: however pernicious the im­mediate consequences of propagating infidelity are, it must always be wrong to endeavour to prevent them by means that are unlawful. Besides, this me­thod of opposing infidelity will always prove ineffectual; force may make men dissemble their unbelief, or ren­der them more cautious in avowing it; but it will never move them to aban­don [Page 494] it, and it will make them more eager to instil it into others whenever they can with safety, and more artful in the manner of instilling it: it would therefore be foolish, tho' it were not unlawful, to have recourse to violence. This would be not only ineffectual for repressing infidelity, but even really detrimental to Christianity. Zeal for this religion, is the pretended motive to the use of violence against unbelie­vers; but true and reasonable zeal for it, would be the most powerful re­straint from this conduct, because it hurts it in many ways. It seems to betray a diffidence of the truth of Chri­stianity. It gives an appearance of boldness and intrepidity to the oppo­sition of Infidels, which makes the un­thinking more prone to listen to them, and more susceptible of a deep impres­sion from their arguments. It gives them a handle for pretending, after [Page 495] they have published all the objections which they can, that they have strong­er in reserve, but that it is not safe for them to produce them: they have not failed to avail themselves of this pre­tence, tho' they have often conducted their opposition in a way that ought to take all credit from it; the greatest strength of argument could neither have so well deserved, nor so directly provoked, the use of violence, as the disingenuous arts which they have, in many instances, fearlessly employed in setting off very frivolous cavils, and the indecent scurrility which they have indulged, when there was no shadow of argument mixt with their abuse. But attempts to restrain infidelity by force, hurt Christianity in a way still more direct and essential, which I have principally in my eye. Suppose they should be effectual for hindering Infi­dels from at all proposing their objec­tions: [Page 496] this is the very utmost that could be expected from them: but would this really be of advantage to Christia­nity? If the preceeding reasonings be just, it would not; it would on the contrary be prejudicial to it. It would prevent the evidence of this religion from ever shining with that brightness which it has acquired by having stood the severest trial of reason, and which it could not possibly have acquired by any other means. Infidels, tho' they intend far otherwise, are truly instru­ments in the hand of divine provi­dence, for the confirmation of Christi­anity. If it be true, as we believe it is, all the attacks which can be made upon it, will infallibly issue in render­ing its truth the more unquestionable. No doubt they may produce very bad effects in the mean time: but these we have no authority from God, to pre­vent by methods of violence, and by [Page 497] such methods they cannot be in fact prevented. By betaking ourselves to them, we thereby obstruct the good purposes to which infidelity will be o­verruled, without redressing the tem­porary evils which immediately result from it; we destroy the wheat, with­out being able to root out the tares. That the accession of evidence which Christianity acquires by standing the test of inquiry, may appear with the greatest advantage, it is necessary that the objections against it be proposed with as great security, as the arguments for it: without this, the trial which it sustains, is not absolutely fair; and, till the opposite reasons be carefully bal­lanced, there is room left for a suspi­cion, that it has sustained the trial, not by the force of its truth alone, but partly also by the protection of human power. It is not every degree of re­straint that will justify this suspicion; [Page 498] but it is pity that, by any degree of restraint, a pretence was ever given for it. Let never Infidels be discouraged from reasoning freely against the evi­dences of Christianity, as well as on o­ther subjects; their strongest reasonings against it, will do it the greatest ser­vice; they will be like heroes, whose bravery renders the victory more diffi­cult, but whose captivity adds greatly to the splendour of the triumph. If they even betake themselves to cavils and misrepresentations, let these be on­ly pointed out with calmness; they will, in the end, not only disgrace their au­thors, but also hurt the cause which they were intended to serve. Infideli­ty allowed to do its utmost, tends ulti­mately to destroy itself, by making the truth of Christianity to appear the more evident and unquestionable. If then we really believe our religion to be of divine original, and be not under the [Page 499] power of a contracted and undiscerning spirit; concern for its success, will con­cur with many other principles, in lead­ing us to wish most earnestly, that infi­delity may never be opposed by any o­ther weapons, but that of just reason­ing. Gold is refined in the furnace; it is only the worthless dross that is con­sumed; let Christians never act as if they suspected their religion to be dross. Let penal laws be invariably appropriated to crimes, concerning which fallible men can judge with precision, which are the natural objects of human cognizance, which may be effectually restrained by punishment, and which are so immedi­ately destructive to society, as to render punishment necessary for its preserva­tion. Let never the interests of truth be obstructed, by ill-judged or unlaw­ful attempts to promote them.