about him, and faid unto him, How long doeft thou make us to doubt? if thou be the Chrift? tell us plainly. Jefus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. Verfe 37, 38. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, tho' ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him. Chap. xv. 24. If I had not done among them the works, which none other man did, they had not had fin, &c. Matth. xi. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Now when John had heard in the priJon the works of Chrift, he fent two of his difciples, and faid unto him, Art thou he that fhould come? or do we look for another? Jefus anfwered and faid unto them, Go and shew John again those things, that ye do hear and fee: the blind receive their fight, and the lame walk, the leapers are cleanfed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached unto them: and bleffed is he whofoever fhall not be offended in me. Here we fee, that Chrift makes the many works, which he had done before his death, (confidered abftractedly from his refurrection) the grand argument for the truth and divinity of his miffion. And tho' he does make the time * of his lying in the grave, which fuppofes his refurrection, a fign to the Jews; yet he was far from making it the principal evidence, and much lefs of risking the divinity of his

miffion upon the truth and certainty of that one fact only. And as Christ appealed to his miracles, as the grand evidence of the truth of his miffion; fo his immediate fucceffors did the fame. Thus, Acts ii. 22. Ye men of Ifrael, hear these words: Jefus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles, wonders, and figns, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know. And tho' the immediate followers of Chrift did urge and infift upon it, that the refurrection of Chrift was a proper evidence of the divinity of his miffion; yet they were far from laying that weight and burthen upon it, as Britannicus's argument fuppofes. Indeed St. Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, expreffes himself thus, viz. that if Christ be not rifen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is vain alfo, chap. xv. 15. But then it ought to be confidered, that the apoftle is there endeavouring to convince the Corinthians of the poffibility and certainty of their own refurrection, and he grounds his argument upon their belief of the refurrection of Chrift; which upon a fuppofition that it was not true, then he allows his argument to be of no force, with respect to the point he was then upon. But admitting that St. Paul did, what Britannicus fuppofes, viz. risk the divinity of the christian revelation upon the truth and certainty of the fingle fact of Chrift's refurrection, all that will follow from it, is only this, viz. that

A

the

the apoftle advanced a point, which in rea fon and argument cannot be defended, as I have fhewn above. And as he never pretended to infallibility in point of argument, fo he may very fairly be supposed to press an argument beyond its natural ftrength, without any injury to his apoftolick character.

Britannicus, in the courfe of his argument, supposes and infists upon it very strenuously,

that our Lord did make his own refurrection the principal, and, as it were, the decifive mark of his divine character; fo as that, if he had not risen from the dead, the Jews would have been justified in their unbelief: and from thence he infers the juftness of his own proceedings, in risking the divinity of the chriftian revelation upon that one fact only. But as the forementioned fuppofition is not fufficiently supported in the history of Chrift's life; fo I think, that it, and what Britannicus builds upon it, are not to be admitted. He likewife fuppofes, that the raifing a perfon from the dead is a fact of that exalted fort, and fo peculiarly belonging to God*, confidered as the maker and governour of the world, or as the difpofer of the life and death of intelligent agents, (which is one of the highest acts of government) that it cannot be supposed to be a matter, put in the power of any other being; or fo put in the power of any other, as ever to be exercised, without the express will of the fupreme governour. He *Letter 2, Paragraph the first.

likewife

likewife fuppofes, that our natural notions of the Deity afford a moral certainty, that God will never fet this his feal to the confirmation of a lye. Now admitting this to be the truth of the cafe, and fuppofing that Chrift had wrought all thofe miracles before his death, which are recorded of him, and likewife that he had failed of rifing from the dead, when he had foretold it; then the question will be, what, in ftrict reafoning, will follow from it? Not furely that he was an impoftor; because then God must have fet his feal to the confirmation of a lye, in the refurrection of Lazarus, and the young man of Nain. And the admitting this fuppofition, deftroys the grounds upon which Britannicus builds his argument for the divinity of Christ's miffion, fuppofing he is rifen from the dead. But then the queftion will return, how shall we extricate ourselves out of the present difficulty? For admitting it to be certain on the one fide, that Chrift did raise two perfons from the dead, and confequently that God did hereby confirm, or fet his feal to the truth of Chrift's teftimony; and fuppofing it equally certain on the other fide, that Chrift failed of rifing from the dead, when he had foretold it will it not equally follow, that he was an impoftor? To which I answer, that when certainty and uncertainty come in competition, then, in reafon and argument, uncertainty ought to give place to certainty, and not this latter' to the former; and this, I

think, is the prefent cafe, when all circumstances are taken in, which belong to it. On the one fide it is certain, that Chrift raised two perfons from the dead, and confequently God did confirm, or fet his feal to the truth of Christ's teftimony; and on the other fide it is likewise certain, that Chrift failed of rifing from the dead, when he had foretold it (fuppofing that to have been the cafe). But then here is another point, which is a part of the prefent queftion, of which there was not, nor could there be any certainty, viz. that Chrift was authorized by God to predict his own refurrection. And feeing it is poffible (at leaft it is for any thing we know to the contrary) for a prophet to go beyond his commiffion, and predict, what he has no authority for; if he fails in any cafe, all that naturally and neceffarily follows from fuch a failure, is only, that in that particular he acted without a commiffion, (as I obferved above); but it will by no means prove him an impoftor, provided his divine character be otherwife proved, and fecured by fuch other facts and arguments, as are proper for that purpose. This, I fay, must be the ftate of the cafe upon the prefent fuppofition, viz. that Chrift did perform all those mighty works before his death, which are recorded of him, and alfo, that the raifing a perfon from the dead was a proper evidence of his divine character; and likewife, that he failed of rifing from the dead, when he had

fore