once fhewn, this would certainly mafter the most inveterate prejudices that have been taken up against those people, and baffle all the oppofition which the prefent clergy can poffibly make to them, who, perhaps, are as well qualified, and as much difpofed, violently to oppose whatever may affect their grandeur, wealth and power, as any Jewish priesthood ever were. And if the curing all manner of ficknefs, and all manner of dif eases, among the people, would produce the forementioned effect, as, I think, it may fairly be presumed it would, as well formerly as now; then, from hence arifes a high degree of probability that the aforefaid numerous cures afcribed to the apoftles were not really wrought by them; because, notwithstanding, the apoftles (according to the hiftory) became greatly exposed to the rage and fury of the people thereby. This account, therefore, when taken together,appears to me to be incredible. If an historian introduces fuch relations into his hiftory, the truth of which may fairly and justly be doubted of; then this fo far affects the whole hiftory, as to weaken it's credit; because if it may justly be fufpected that he either impofed, or was impofed upon, in one inftance, then that may have been

the

A

the cafe in any other inftance; and confequently, the hiftorian's bare relation will not be fufficient to fupport the credit of any part of his history, so as to render it indifputable. Befides, the history itself, in which those facts are recorded, may have been greatly corrupted and depraved, as it is allowed to have paffed through very bad hands, which is a confideration that ought to be taken into the cafe. There may many circumstances take place which weaken the credit of facts and records, and yet do not wholly deftroy that credit; and that I take to be the cafe here; and therefore, admitting Christ's miffion to be divine, yet the argument drawn from miracles, as thofe facts are related in the hiftories of the ministry of Christ and his Apoftles, is far from clearly proving that it was fo; the subject not being without it's difficulties as I have before fhewn.

THIRDLY and laftly, the other miracles that come into the prefent queftion, that is, which may be supposed to be evidences of the truth and divinity of the Chriftian revelation, are those that were wrought, or fupposed to be wrought, fince the founding of christianity by the immediate fucceffors of Jefus Chrift; but then, thefe are out of the

reach

reach of my enquiry, as they are contained in records that have not come within the compafs of my reading; and therefore, all that I can observe upon the cafe is this, viz. that, according to the accounts I have met with, at the beginning of those times, or in the second century, miracles were wrought in great abundance, of which fome accounts are so extravagant as to be fufpected even by those who readily go into the belief of miracles in general, and this weakens the credit of the reft. For if the Christian writers of that time, in order to ferve the cause of christianity, would venture to exceed the bounds of truth in fome inftances; then this renders their other relations the less credible, or the more justly to be suspected. According to the learned, the fecond century abounded with religious frauds, many gofpels and other writings appeared that must have been fictitious, and were deemed fpurious; which plainly fhews that the writings of those times cannot with certainty and safety be relied upon, because those who made the feparation betwixt them had no certain infallible rule whereby to distinguish the genuine from the fpurious. And tho' it may be pretended thofe bishops who fettled

the

the canon of the New Teftament acted upon, or according to evidence, at least with regard to all thofe epiftolary parts of it which were directed to particular persons and churches; that is, the judgments of those men were guided in making the feparation betwixt books that were genuine and those that were spurious, by thofe letters they had received from the feveral persons and churches to whom the epiftles of the apostles had been fent; yet, perhaps, those vouchers may as justly be fufpected as what they were brought to vouch for. And fuppofing the canon of the New Teftament to have been fettled fo early as the fecond century; yet that does not contribute greatly to it's reputation; because at that time fraud and impofition abounded, as is most obvious from the many historical and epiftolary writings that then took place, which were confeffedly Spurious. And if such spurious writings were put upon the world at that time; then it is not unnatural to suppose that letters of credence might be forged, or greatly corrupted, in order to stamp the character of genuine upon them. Besides, councils that have been convened on a religious account have feldom acted with that fairness, freedom and

impartiality that they ought; nor have those councils been principally made fubfervient to truth and right, but rather to serve the purposes of interest, of party and faction, as experience has, and the hiftories of those councils do plainly fhew. Nor was a council held in the second century, (the very time in which religious frauds and lying for religious purposes abounded) likely to have been more fair and ingenuous, or to act with more honesty and integrity than councils at all other times. The Diotrephefes who loved to have the pre-eminence, no doubt, in the fecond century, as well as at other times, carried things with an high hand their own way; and tho' merit and evidence might then, as usual, be pretended to be the ground of their determinations; yet it is too well known that interest and party-zeal generally, if not always, have bore the greater sway. St. Paul, (no doubt, very juftly) obferved of the Chriftians of the first century, Philippians ii. 21. All feek their own, not the things which are Jefus Chrift's. Now, if the generality of Chriftians in the apoftolic age were governed by their intereft, and not by the laws of their master, or by the defign and intention of Christianity; then what must