is a Teacher fent from God: for upon this affurance, whatever it is, the force of Nicodemus's reasoning here in the Text is grounded. And upon this must be grounded all the testimony that miracles can give to any do&trine. Now allowing that fuch miracles, as are wrought by any perfon, proceed from a Divine Power, the Question is, How far they fecure us of the veracity of that person who appears to be the instrument in working them? Or what connection there is between the truth of the miracle, and the truth of his doctrine? And the answer to this in short is, That our affurance in this case depends upon our natural notions of the Truth and Goodnefs of God, which we believe to be as effential and neceffary Attributes of an infinitely perfect Being, as Power and Wisdom. He cannot deceive any more than he can be deceived: And therefore, as we cannot conceive it to be a thing becoming, or worthy of the Divine Majefty, to work a miracle for no end or purpose at all, fo much less can we conceive it to be confiftent with the perfection of his Nature, to work one on purpose to deceive an innocent and fincere feeker of truth. It cannot be thought confiftent with infinite Goodness and Veracity to give fuch counte

nance

nance to an impoftor. This would be like fealing him a Commiffion to deceive in his Name, who is particularly called A God of Truth. Now that all men naturally have this notion of God, that he neither can be deceived himself, nor intend to deceive others in what he declares to them, is evident, not only from the confeffion of the wisest Heathen Moralifts, a who had nothing but natural light to guide them, who conftantly argue upon this fuppofition, as an allowed principle among fuch as had a true fenfe of natural Religion: But likewife because those who go about to difprove or unfettle any part of Revealed, or pretended Revealed Religion, asfume the same principle; when they attempt to destroy its credit, by affigning fomething in it which they imagine not reconcileable to the truth of things. So that the principle is allowed, both by thofe who affert and those who deny Revelation. And which is yet more, unless Truth and Veracity be a perfection fo neceffary to the Divine Nature, that

we

* Κομιδῇ ὥρᾳ ὁ Θεὸς ἁπλῶν καὶ ἀληθὲς ἔν τε ἔργῳ καὶ ἀ λόγῳ ; ἔτι αὐτὸς μεθίσας, ὅτε ἄλλος ἐξαπαλά, ὅτε καὶ φαντασίας, ὅτε καὶ λόγες, ὅτε καὶ σημείων πομπάς, ὅπ ̓ ὕπας ἐδ ̓ ἕνας Plato de Repub. lib. 2. pag. 382.

we may entirely rely upon it in all cafes, we can have no affurance even of the truth and certainty of our own Faculties; but may, for ought we know, be under a perpetual delufion, in those things where we think we have the clearest and most distinct perception; and confequently can never be able to judge aright of truth or falfhood in any cafe. For if the author of our Being be not absolutely a God of Truth, the very frame of our Understanding may be fuch as to be always de

ceived.

But fince our fundamental notion of God is, That he is a Being of all poffible perfection; and fince Truth and Fidelity are allowed to be Moral perfections necessary to an Intelligent Being, we cannot fuppofe him deficient in these, without derogating from the allowed perfection of his Nature; much less can we ascribe the contrary to him; which yet we muft neceffarily do, when we imagine, that he really employs his power to give credit to a falfhood, or authorizes any man to work a miracle in his Name, to confirm any declaration contrary to truth; or that he suffers any man to use fuch a power, as cannot be distinguish'd from Divine, in confirmation of an error, or human fiction, without giv

E e

ing

1

ing some sufficient means to an honest mind to disprove him if he attempts it. And therefore the man in the Gofpel, who had been born blind, and was miraculously cured by our bleffed Saviour, b went upon a natural ground when he argued thus with the Jews. Why berein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine Eyes. Now we know that God heareth not finners; but if any man be a worshipper of God and doth his will, him be beareth, and if this man were not of God he could do nothing. The Jews had just before declared, that they knew, or were fully perfuaded, that God fpake unto Mofes; And therefore they profefs'd themselves his Difciples. But now how did they know this, but by the evidence of those miracles which Mofes wrought in the Name of God? At this therefore the man man justly wonders, that they should be fo unreasonably partial, and should not upon the fame evidence believe, that Jefus was from God, as well as Moses. This is certainly a good argument, in particular against those who profefs'd fo great a reverence for Mofes, and whose whole re

vealed

b Joh. ix. 30.

vealed Religion was owned to be established upon the truth of his Miracles, and who were taught by that Religion to expect, that the Meffias, when he came, fhould work Miracles alfo; not only because that was the ufual way, by which God had given attestation to his former Prophets among them; but because the Meffias in particular was to be a Prophet like unto Moses; and their own former Prophets had foretold, that he should work many Miracles. This made those that were moft unprejudiced among them, when they faw the Miracles which Jefus did, enquire whether this were not indeed the Chrift, and fay, When Chrift cometh, fhall be do more Miracles than thefe which this man hath done? But though this argument has a more immediate force in it against the Jews, who lived under the profeffion of a belief of miracles, yet it is not without a natural foundation in Reason, even in refpect of all that have any juft fenfe of the Perfection of Divine Providence,

2

C

I have before d fhewn, that Miracles cannot be look'd upon as things impoffible, unless it be by those who exclude an intelligent and free Provi

E e 2

© Job. vii. 31.

See the foregoing Sermon.