Were they of old time as lions in their houses? They are the same still. Were they (in low life) slothful or intemperate? Were they tricking or dishonest? Over-reaching or oppressive? Or did they use to borrow and not pay ? The Ethiopian hath not changed his skin. Were they (in high life) delicate, tender, self-indulgent? Were they nice in furniture or apparel? Were they fond of trifles, or of their own dear persons? The Leopard hath not changed her spots. Yet their being with us for a time proves no more, than that we have not the miraculous discernment of spirits.

Others you may find in whom there was a real change. But it was only for a season. They are now turned back, and are two-fold more the children of hell than before. Yet neither is this any manner of proof, that the former work was not of God. No, not though these apostates should, with the utmost confidence, say all manner of evil against us. I expect they should. For every other injury hath been forgiven, and will be to the end of the world. But hardly shall any one forgive the intolerable injury, of almost persuading him to be a Christian. When these men therefore who were with us, but went out from among us, assert things that may cause your ears to tingle, if you consider either the Scripture, or the nature of man, it will not stagger you at all. Much less will it excuse you, for not acknowledging the work in general to be of God.

28. But to all this it may possibly be replied, "When you bring your credentials with you, when you prove by miracles what you assert, then we will acknowledge that God hath sent you."

What is it you would have us prove by miracles? That the Doctrines we preach are true? This is not the way to prove that: (as our first Reformers replied to those of the Church of Rome, who, you may probably remember, were continually urging them with this very demand.) We prove the Doctrines we preach, by Scripture and Reason; and if need be, by Antiquity.

What else is it then we are to prove by Miracles? Is it,

1. That A. B. was for many years without God in the world, a common swearer, a drunkard, a sabbath-breaker ? Or, 2. That he is not so now? Or, S. That he continued so till he heard us preach, and from that time was another man?

Not so. The proper way to prove these facts, is by the testimony of competent witnesses: and these witnesses are ready, whenever required, to give full evidence of them,

Or would you have us prove by miracles, 4. That this was not done by our own power or holiness? That God only is able to raise the dead, those who are dead in trespasses and sins? Nay, if you hear not Moses, and the Prophets, and Apostles on this head, neither would you believe though one rose from the dead. It is therefore utterly unreasonable and absurd, to require or expect the proof of miracles, in questions of such a kind, as are always decided by proofs of quite a contrary nature.

29. "But you relate them yourself." I relate just what I saw, from time to time: and this is true, that some of those circumstances seem to go beyond the ordinary course of nature. But I do not peremptorily determine, whether they were supernatural, or not. Much less do I rest upon them, either the proof of other facts, or of those doctrines which I preach. I prove these in the ordinary way; the one by Testimony, the other by Scripture and Reason..

"But if you can work miracles when you please, is not this the surest way of proving them? This would put the matter out of dispute at once, and supersede all other proof."

You seem to lie under an entire mistake, both as to the nature and use of miracles. It may reasonably be questioned, whether there ever was that man living upon earth, except the man Christ Jesus, that could work miracles when he pleased. God only, when he pleased, exerted that power, and by whomsoever it pleased him. But if a man could work miracles when he pleased, yet is there no Scripture-authority, nor even example for doing it in order

to satisfy such a demand as this. I do not read, that either our Lord or any of his Apostles, wrought any miracle on such an occasion. Nay, how sharply does our Lord rebuke those who made a demand of this kind? When "certain of the Scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee;" (observe, this was their method of answering the strong reasons whereby he had just proved the works in question to be of God!)" He answered and said to them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign. But there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas,” Matt. xii. 38, 39. "An evil and adulterous generation!" Else they would not have needed such a kind of proof. Had they been willing to do his will, they would, without this, have known that the doctrine was of God.

Miracles, therefore, are quite needless in such a case. Nor are they so conclusive a proof as you imagine. If a man could and did work them, in defence of any doctrine, yet this would not supersede other proof. For there may be rɛgara Fɛudɛa, lying Wonders, miracles wrought in support of falsehood. Still therefore this Doctrine would remain to be proved, from the proper topics of Scripture and Reason. And these even without Miracles are sufficient. But Miracles without these are not. Accordingly our Saviour and all his Apostles, in the midst of their greatest miracles, never failed to prove every Doctrine they taught, by clear Scripture and cogent Reason.

30. I presume, by this time you may perceive the gross absurdity, of demanding Miracles in the present case: seeing one of the propositions in question, (over and above our general Doctrines) viz. "That sinners are reformed," can only be proved by Testimony: and the other, “This cannot be done but by the power of God," needs no proof, being self-evident.

"Why, I did once myself rejoice to hear, (says a grave citizen, with an air of great importance) that so many sinners were reformed, till I found, they were only turned from one wickedness to another; that they were turned

from cursing or swearing, or drunkenness, into the no less damnable sin of Schism." Do you know what you say? You have, I am afraid, a confused huddle of ideas in your head. And I doubt, you have not capacity to clear them up yourself; nor coolness enough to receive help from others. However, I will try. What is Schism? Have you any determinate idea of it? I ask the rather because I have found, by repeated experiments, that a common English tradesman receives no more light, when he hears or reads, "This is Schism," than if heard or read,

Bombalio, stridor, clangor, taratantara, murmur. Honest neighbour do not be angry. Lay down your hammer, and let us talk a little on this head. You say, "We are in the damnable sin of Schism, and therefore in as bad a state as Adulterers and Murderers."

I ask once more, What do you mean by Schism? "Schism! Schism! Why, it is separating from the Church.” Aye, so it is. And yet every separation from the Church to which we once belonged, is not Schism. Else you will make all the English to be Schismatics, in separating from the Church of Rome. "But we had just cause." So doubtless we had: whereas Schism is a causeless separation from the Church of Christ. So far so good. But you have many steps to take before you can make good that conclusion, that a separation from a particular National Church, such as the Church of England is, whether with sufficient cause or without, comes under the scriptural notion of Schism.

However, taking this for granted, will you aver in cool blood, That every one who dies a Quaker, a Baptist, an Independant, or a Presbyterian, is as infallibly damned as if he died in the act of murder or adultery? Surely you start at the thought! It makes even nature recoil. How then can you reconcile it to the Love that hopeth all things?

31. But whatever state they are in, who causelessly separate from the Church of England, it affects not those of whom we are speaking; for they do not separate from it at

all. You may easily be convinced of this, if you will only weigh the particulars following.

1. A great part of these went to no Church at all, before they heard us preach. They no more pretended to belong to the Church of England, than to the Church of Muscovy. If therefore they went to no Church now, they would be no farther from the Church than they were before.

2. Those who did sometimes go to Church before, go three times as often now. These therefore do not separate from the Church. Nay, they are united to it more closely

than before.

3. Those who never went to Church at all before, do go now at all opportunities. Will common sense allow any one to say, that these are separated from the Church?

4. The main question is, Are they turned from doing the works of the devil, to do the works of God? Do they now live soberly, righteously, and godly, in the present world? If they do, if they live according to the Directions of the Church, believe her Doctrines, and join in her Ordinances: with what face can you say, that these men separate from the Church of England?

32. But in what state are they whom the Clergy and Gentry (and perhaps you for one) have successfully laboured to preserve from this damnable sin of Schism? Whom you have kept from hearing these men, and separating from the Church? Is not the drunkard that was, a drunkard still? Inquire of his poor wife and family. Is not the common swearer still horribly crying to God for damnation upon his own soul? Is not the sinner in every other kind, exactly the same man still? Not better at least, if he be not worse than he was ten years ago.

Now consider, 1. Does the Church of England gain either honour, or strength, or blessing, by such wretches as these calling themselves her Members? By ten thousand Drunkards, or Whoremongers, or Common Swearers? Nay, ought she not immediately to spew them out? To renounce all fellowship with them? Would she not be far better