This, furely, must be too much for the faith even of a modern fage, who can believe any extravagance that is urged against the Chriftian religion, and no truth that is urged in its behalf. If the facts recorded in the Gofpels and the Acts of the Apostles are true, there cannot be a doubt but that the doctrines of the New Teftament are communications to us from the God of Truth, by perfons authorized and inspired by himself. As fuch they were received by the first converts to Christianity, who had every opportunity of examining with certainty into the truth of the facts recorded. As fuch they have defcended unimpeached, to, any purpose, through a long fucceffion of ages to our own times, never denied or oppofed by thofe, who, if they had been falfe, could have denied or oppofed them with effect, but suffered to remain as they are recorded, uncontrouled by any evidence to the contrary. Had the miracles and wonders recorded in the Sacred Writings defcended to us only by oral tradition, we probably should have paid very little attention to them; we should have rejected or received them in proportion as they might have appeared to us, either probable or poffible. But here, in the prefent inftance, oral tradition hath no manner of concern. Our information comes from written records, written and published early, and at a time when they might have been contradicted, bidding defiance to all gainfaying or contradiction. St. Matthew's Gofpel was written within about eight years after our

LORD'S

LORD's afcenfion, and in the Jewish language, and, therefore in a language which the Jews in general could not but understand; and having been written fo early, it is impoffible but the Jews muft have known whether the facts recorded in it were true or otherwife; and, if any of them had not been true, is it conceivable that they would not moft triumphantly have taken the advantage of it? But nothing of the kind has ever yet appeared, nor been heard of, even by report. On the contrary, the Ebionites, who were as much Jews as they were Christians, admitted the truth of St. Matthew's Gofpel, and adopted it all except the first two or three chapters; which it is not to be imagined they would have done if the facts recorded in it were notoriously falfe, and fuch as no one at Jerufalem knew any thing of. St. Mark's Gospel was written within about ten years after the afcenfion, and the Acts of the Apoftles about twenty-eight or thirty years after the fame event. Now then, if we confider thefe early publications as appeals for the truth of what is recorded in them, which in fact they are; and, if we farther confider, that nothing has ever appeared in confequence of these appeals, either denying or difproving the facts recorded; the refult is, and neceffarily muft be, Therefore the facts recorded in the publications are real truths; and therefore the writers of the New Teftament were what all Chriftians acknowledge them to have been, perfons under the infpiration of the GoD of Truth; and if they were, then M 3

the

the doctrines which they have communicated to us, muft be true likewife: whence it follows, that we, in these last ages of the world, have the fame evidence as the primitive Chriftians themselves had of the New Testament's being a revelation from GOD, the facts being as affuredly afcertained to us as if we had been eye-witnesses of them; in which latter circumftance confifts the only difference between us and them. Hence may it, without hefitation, be affirmed, that we have other evidence befide the doctrine communicated, to direct us in forming our judgement, whether the New Teftament is really a revelation from GoD or not, even the very first and original evidence, the uncontrouled evidence of wonders and miracles, ftrengthened by the teftimony of all antiquity.

But, if we had not this evidence, the doctrine communicated would not help us, or be any proof of the reality of the revelation. For, confider, the doctrines of the New Teftament are either fuch as relate to what we call morality, or else they relate to matters of a much higher nature, and that lie far beyond the fphere of our determinate knowledge. Now then, what affurance do the moral doctrines of the New Teftament afford us that it is a revelation from God? Was morality unknown to the world before the promulgation of the Gofpel? Were there no writers upon moral fubjects prior to it? and, was there no truth in what they wrote upon

thefe

thefe fubjects? Who will fay there was not? But, if there was truth in what they wrote, then the very fame rule by which you would prove the New Teftament to be a revelation will prove alfo, that Tully's Offices, or any other moral writings, were revelations, which, I fuppofe, no one will contend for. For, if the truth of the moral doctrines fhould be proof in the one cafe, it will be alfo in the other.

As, then, the truth of its moral doctrines will not alone affure us, that the New Testament is a revela, tion from God; much lefs will thofe higher doctrines which lie fo much beyond our reach, and which our reafon tells us, if they are received at all, must be received by a faith grounded on the authority of thofe by whom they are communicated to us. To this, however, it is oppofed, that thefe doctrines, if they are received, can be received upon no other foundation but that of our reafon, approving and adjudging them to be worthy of God.

How long will not men cease to speak with presumption and arrogance concerning GOD! Shall a moth, an infect that flutters its few moments in the fun, and then drops, dare to say, what is, or what is not, worthy of the Almighty GoD and Creator of the univerfe, a Being who is at fuch an infinite diftance from us, that the utmoft powers of the human mind are quite unable to fearch him out! Where are the balances which human reason is poffeffed of,

If

in which to weigh the things that are worthy of GOD? What is the ftandard which is to determine that a doctrine, of the atonement for inftance, and fatisfaction made for the fins of men by the fufferings of the innocent JESUS, is unworthy of him? you can prove this, you must have some medium of comparison whereby to prove it; but, confeffedly, you have none; for, GoD is fo infinitely beyond us, that no medium can poffibly bring him into comparison. "To whom then will ye liken "GOD? or what likenefs will ye compare unto "him?" And again, as from GoD himself, the prophet afketh, "To whom will ye liken me, and "make me equal, and compare me, that we may "be like?" So that, when we talk of receiving or rejecting the doctrines of the New Testament, as our reason adjudges them to be either worthy or unworthy of GOD, we talk entirely at random, fince our reafon is deftitute of any mean whereby fuch an adjudication can be made.

It is true, and I fcruple not to acknowledge it, that fome of the doctrines of the New Teftament are extremely difficult to the human mind, and, I may add, irreconcilable by any of thofe modes of reafoning to which, as human beings, we are neceffarily confined; but they are not therefore falfe or unworthy of GoD: for, in order to pronounce them fo, we muft have comparative ideas whereby to determine us in our judgement; we must have where