Page images
PDF
EPUB

the truth of his doctrine is involved in the decifion, that he comes from GoD. In that decifion reafon decides that the doctrine is true, and therefore any decifion afterwards from the nature of the doctrine, that it is falfe, is all directly contrary to reafon; and if it is to be attended to, then what is contrary to the decifions of reason is to be attended to, and then of what use is reafon to us?

I leave this to the confideration of thofe who reject the doctrine of our LORD's Divinity, together with other doctrines of the New Teftament.

But it may be faid, in oppofition to what has been already urged, if the doctrine communicated is no teft of the revelation, what are we to do in these last ages of the world, when no miracles are wrought for our conviction? and when we have nothing elfe but the doctrine communicated to direct us in forming our judgement whether the New Teftament really is, or is not, a revelation from GOD?

The answer to this is, Firft, that we have fomething else to affure us of the reality of the revelation befide the doctrine communicated; and, Secondly, that, if we had nothing else, the doctrine communicated would not affure us of the reality of the revelation. For,

First.

[ocr errors]

First. The New Teftament comes to us as a revelation written by perfons under the inspiration of the GOD of Truth; and therefore the matter communicated becomes not a confideration till it is eftablished, that it really was not written by the perfons to whom it is afcribed, and that these perfons really were not under the inspiration of the GoD of Truth. That the New Teftament was written by the perfons to whom it is afcribed, we have juft the fame kind of evidence as we have that the commentaries of Cæfar, or the writings of Livy or Tacitus, or any other antient authors, were written by them whose names they bear; and therefore as the evidence is valid and received in the one cafe, fo is it valid likewife, and ought to be received, in the other. Ad mitting, therefore, the writers of the New Teftament to have been thofe to whom it is attributed, the queftion is, were these perfons under the infpiration of the GoD of Truth, or were they not? That they themselves write and exprefs themfelves as if they were is undeniable; but, this evidence not being fufficient to answer the question, and being fuch as will not be admitted as proof, recourfe muft be had to fome other mode of enquiry, whereby the queftion will be answered fatisfactorily.

Here, then, as we know, with pretty fufficient accuracy, the time in which the writers of the New Teftament lived, and in which their facred writings were fubmitted to the world, the enquiry muft be,

how

"

.

how were they received then? what evidence, what credentials, did they then exhibit of their being under the inspiration of the GoD of Truth? The anfwer muft be, They wrought publicly a great variety of most astonishing miracles; and, being endowed in a very extraordinary manner with the gift of tongues, they were enabled, and actually did speak to every man in his own language. But this is not all: they not only did thefe things, but affirmed, and published openly, in writing, to the then world, that they had done them. They affirmed, and published openly, that in the name of JESUS of Nazareth they had restored the impotent man to his strength. They affirmed, and published openly, that, by the laying on of the apoftles' hands, the HOLY GHOST was given, and the gift of tongues conferred upon others. This was fuch an appeal in behalf of their own veracity, as none could have made who was not confcious of truth. It was an appeal to the people of their own time; an appeal to those who had it in their power, if they were falfe, to have confuted and expofed their falfehood; to perfons who could not but know, whether the impotent man was restored to his ftrength or not; and who could not but know whether there was any truth in the fact which they afferted concerning the gift of tongues; but where, when, or by whom of the people of their own times, was this affertion of theirs ever denied? Who ever denied that they performed the miracles which they told the then world in wri

ting that they had performed? The writing was public and open to the infpection of every one; and therefore, if it had contained falfehoods, the Jews, who were his moft inveterate enemies, would never have fuffered it to have paffed upon the world without bearing their strongest teftimony against it: but no fuch testimony ever yet has been heard of, and the feveral facts recorded in the New Teftament have defcended from that time to the prefent hour, without any thing to oppofe against them. If the reader will turn to Acts iv. he will there fee a very artless narrative, but delivered with all the confidence of truth of what followed in confequence of the miracle wrought upon the impotent man by the two apoftles Peter and John. They were fummoned, the writer inforins us, to appear, and to give an account of what they had done, before the chiefs and rulers of the Jews. There were prefent upon the occafion Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, together with as many as were of the high prieft's kindred. These men having examined them, and finding no fufficient cause for punishing them, and moreover being unable to deny the miracle, (for, the man who had been restored was there prefent before them,) they dismissed the two apoftles, with fevere threats and ftrict injunctions, that they should not teach any more in the name of JESUS. Now, if this narrative hath any truth in it, the evidence thence is moft plain and convincing, that the two apostles, Peter and

John,

John, were empowered by, and under, the infpiration of the GOD of Truth, and, confequently, that the doctrines which they have communicated to the world are true, (and true the narrative most certainly appears to be,) neither has any thing, at any time, been produced to contradict it. Annas and Caiaphas, and John and Alexander, were perfons whom the writer has particularly pointed out by name as concerned in the examination of the apoftles and others: he hath no less accurately described who were concerned with them, namely, as many as were of the kindred of the high prieft. Was there none of thefe to be found who would rife up to vindicate themselves from fuch an afperfion as was thrown upon their characters by this narrative of the Sacred Writer? Suppose them, against every degree of probability, to have been all dead when the narrative was published; what became of all the rulers, and elders, and fcribes, who are faid to have been affembled with them? Were thefe all dead likewife? There must have been then a very fad mortality at Jerufalem, that could have fwept away fuch numbers in the short space of about eight and twenty or thirty years! But neither is this all. The Sacred Writer tells us, that the miracle was notorious, and generally known to all the inhabitants of Jerufalem. Were thefe alfo all deceased? Was there not one furviving perfon to be found who could give his teftimony, and put a stop to the progrefs of a religion which they were all fo zealous to extirpate? This,

M 2

« PreviousContinue »