duction of Christianity. Now, though this controverfy was of great importance, and each fide of the question was maintained with great heat and zeal; and though it is represented that miraculous power was then frequently exercifed; yet miracles were not appealed to, for the determination of these points, which, if miracles had been deemed a teft of truth, might easily have been done, to their general fatisfaction. Whereas the contrary to this feems to have been the cafe, as miracles feem to have been wrought by both parties, and confequently, on both fides of the question controverted; and therefore, if they proved any thing, they proved a deal too much, viz. that Chriftianity was a fupplement to Judaism and was to be grafted upon it, and likewife that Judaism was to be abolished by the introduction of Christianity. And if miracles were not proper evidences of the truth and divinity of the doctrines above-mentioned; then, how come they to be so in other cafe? And if miracles were not a test of truth when they were wrought; then. how come they to be so in after times? befides, as the fore-mentioned controversy that took place in the firft age was of the utmost confe

great

I

any

confequence, viz. whether that yoke of bondage, the ceremonial law of Mofes, was to be abolished, or whether it was to be perpetuated in the Chriftian church; fo, if miracles were a test of truth, and were then wrought to answer that purpose, it may well be expected they would have been wrought, and would have been appealed to, as the test of truth in the cafe before-mentioned, because they could not otherwise be employed to answer a better purpose. The Holy Ghost would, furely, have pointed out miracles as a proper expedient to put an end to a controverfy fo warmly disputed, and upon which fo much depended, viz. the continuation or extirpation of Mofes's law; I fay, had miracles been then confidered as the test of truth, the Holy Ghoft would certainly have directed the use of them to answer that purpose, seeing it did not otherwise interpose to put an end to the difpute; nor was apoftolical authority fufficient for that purpofe. So that either miracles are not a proper test of truth, or elfe no miracles were wrought at that time, notwithstanding all that has been writ, and said about them.

BUT farther, admitting (for argument's fake) that miracles may be proper evidences

S3

;

then

then the question is, what do they bear witnefs to, in the cafe under confideration? If it be faid, that miracles prove the truth and divinity of the Chriftian religion; then the queftion is, what is the Chriftian religion, and where is it to be found? feeing there is nothing more indeterminate, even among Chriftians themselves, than what is the Chriftian religion; except it be that the Chriftian religion is Popery to a Papift, Proteftantifm to a Proteftant, Lutheranism to a Lutheran, Calvinifm to a Calvinist, Arminianifm to an Arminian, and fo of all other parties among Chriftians. If it should be faid, that Chriftianity is contained in, and grounded upon the books of the New Teftament, the divine authority of which books is proved by miracles; and as Christians are fallible like other men, fo this has occafioned their understanding the subject-matter contained in the books of the New Teftament in very different fenfes, and from thence of grounding different and contrary religious schemes upon it, each of which, to the party that adheres to it, is deemed the Chriftian religion. If this be the cafe, it is a little ftrange, that the New Testament fhould be, as it were, the parent of different

and

and contrary schemes of christianity; seeing it is an obvious defect in any human compofition to be expreffed fo loosely, as that fair and honest enquirers may draw the most oppofite conclufions from it; and that this should be the cafe of a divine revelation is scarce fuppofable. However, the queftion at prefent is, whether this fountain of confufion and contradiction, viz. the New Testament, which is now confidered to be the Chriftian revelation, be proved to be a divine revelation by the evidence of miracles? Does each and every miracle that has been wrought, confidered separately, or do all the miracles that have ever been wrought, confidered collectively, prove that the books of the New Teftament were wrought by the perfons reSpectively whofe names are now fixed to them; that the Deity dictated to and impreffed upon their minds the subject matter contained in those books, effectually refraining each writer from mixing his own conceptions with what was thus dictated to him; that those books have been faithfully tranfmitted from their original copies down to this time, without any corruption, alteration, addition or diminution; and (to us the unlearned) that they have been justly rendered into our language?

$ 4

guage? I fay, do miracles prove thefe points? furely not. And if miracles do not prove the forementioned points, then the queftion returns, how do they prove the books of the New Teftament to be a divine revelation? which question is likely to remain, for any proper answer that can be made to it. And tho' facts are stubborn things, and there is no reafoning against them, that is, when a thing plainly appears to be fact, then no reasoning nor argumentation can poffibly prove it to be otherwife; yet every fact ought to be brought to a fair trial, and every circumftance ought to be brought into the cafe, which may give light to it, in order for us to form a proper judgment, whether the facts in question have really taken place, or not. And though uncertainty muft needs attend things of this kind; yet, I think, this does not afford a proper and fufficient reafon for us to return back to the church of Rome, and rely upon the pretended infallible judgment of that church, as fome of their fathers have infift ed that we ought; because the church of Rome has been fo far from proving her judgment to be infallible, that she has plainly proved the contrary, as the oppofite and

con