PART II.

The Miracles on which the belief of Christianity
is founded sufficiently attested.

SECT. I. There is no presumption arising from human
nature against the miracles said to have been
wrought in proof of Christianity,.

Page 84

SECT. II. There is no presumption arising from the
history of mankind, against the miracles said to

have been wrought in proof of Christianity, . 97
SECT. III. No miracles recorded by historians of other
religions are subversive of the evidence arising
from the miracles wrought in proof of Christiani-
ty, or can be considered as contrary testimony,. 132

SECT. IV. Examination of the PAGAN miracles mention-
ed by Mr. Hume,

SECT. V. Examination of the POPISH miracles mention-
ed by Mr. Hume,

SECT. VI. Abstracting from the evidence for particular
facts, we have irrefragable evidence that there
have been miracles in former times; or such events
as, when compared with the present coustitution
of the world, would by Mr. Hume be deno-
minated miraculous,

SECT. VII. Revisal of Mr. Hume's examination of
the Pentateuch,.

Conclusion,

147

170

203

214

INTRODUCTION.

"CHRISTIANITY," it hath been said, " is not "founded in argument." If it were only meant by these words, that the religion of Jesus could not, by the single aid of reasoning, produce its full effect upon the heart, every true Christian would cheerfully subscribe to them. No arguments unaccompanied by the influences of the Holy Spirit, can convert the soul from sin to God; though even to such conversion, arguments are, by the agency of the Spirit, rendered subservient. Again, if we were to understand, by this aphorism, that the principles of our religion could never have been discovered, by the natural and unassisted faculties of man; this position, I presume, would be as little disputed as the former. But if, on the contrary, under the cover of an ambiguous expression, it is intend

ed to insinuate, that those principles, from their very nature, can admit no rational evidence of their truth, (and this, by the way, is the only meaning which can avail our antagonists), the gospel, as well as common sense, loudly reclaims against it.

+ The Lord Jesus Christ, the author of our religion, often argued, both with his disciples and with his adversaries, as with reasonable men, on the principles of reason. Without this faculty, he well knew, they could not be susceptible either of religion or of law. He argued from prophecy, and the conformity of the event to the prediction.

He

argued from the testimony of John the Baptist, who was generally acknowledged to be a prophet. † He argued from the miracles which he himself performed, as uncontrovertible evidences, that God Almighty operated by him, and had sent him. He expostulates with his enemies that they did not use their reason on this subject. Why, says

Luke xxiv, 25, &c. John v, 39 & 46.

, 32, 33.

† John

John v, 36, x, 25, 37, 38, xiv, 10, 11.

he, even of yourselves, judge ye not what is right? || In like manner, we are called upon by the apostles of our Lord, to act the part of wise men, and judge impartially of what they say. Those who do so, are highly commended, for the candour and prudence they discover, in an affair of so great consequence. We are even commanded to be always ready to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason of our hope; † in meekness to instruct them that oppose themselves; and earnestly to contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. || God has neither in natural nor revealed religion, left himself without a witness; but has in both given moral and external evidence, sufficient to convince the impartial, to silence the gainsayer, and to render inexcusable the atheist and the unbeliever. This evidence it is our duty to attend to, and candidly to examine. We must prove all things, as we are expressly enjoined

|| Luke xii, 57. † 1 Peter iii, 15.

§ 1 Cor. x, 15. * A&s xvii, 11. Jude 3

t2 Tim. ii, 25.

in holy writ, if we would ever hope to hold fast that which is good. §

Thus much I thought proper to premise, not to serve as an apology for the design of this tract (the design surely needs no apology, whatever the world may judge of the execution), but to expose the shallowness of that pretext, under which the advocates for infidelity in this age commonly take shelter. Whilst, therefore, we enforce an argument, which, in support of our religion, was so frequently insisted on by its divine founder, we will not dread the reproachful titles of dangerous friends, or disguised enemies of revelation. Such are the titles, which the writer, whose sentiments we propose in these papers to canvass, hath bestowed on his antagonists; * not, I believe, through malice against them, but as a sort of excuse for himself, or at least a handle for introducing a very strange and unmeaning compliment to the religion of his country, after a very bold attempt to undermine it. We will, however, do I Thess. v. 21.

• P. 204.