As before observed, the great doctrines of natural religion have for evidence the works of nature, and want not the support of miracles. But when any new doctrine, of which nature has given no notice, is published, such must be established by new proofs. Reason, indeed, shows that God is to be trusted and obeyed in what he promises or commands; but still a proof is required, that such promises or commands do come from him: hence miracles necessary to the introduction of a new revelation. Miracles do not prove the truth of any doctrine, but that the commission of him who does them, comes from him by whose power alone they could be performed. The law of Moses requiring submission to commands and doctrines that are not established by the light of nature, it was necessary to found them on the authority of God, to which no submission could be due till sufficient evidence was given of it, to guard men from imposition, &c.; and whoever considers of what consequence it was to mankind to have a standing evidence of the unity and supremacy of God manifested in his government of the Jews, and how the Mosaic Dispensation prepared the way for the salvation of the world by the gospel, will see reason to think that the end proposed was worthy of God, and that his acts herein were not only those of power, but of great benevolence.

The miracles of the gospel had the same, or a greater end in view. As Moses overcame the magicians of Egypt, and their false gods, our Saviour destroyed the power of Satan and wicked spirits, and idolatrous rites. If Moses had a divine commission to the Jews, Jesus had a more ample one, to publish salvation to all mankind; and as the terms of it were such as human wisdom could never suggest, hence the necessity of miracles.

No miracles can alter the clear dictates of natural religion ; and such is the case also with respect to any former divine revelation: admitting therefore the Mosaic and Christian revelation to be both divine, they must be consistent, each in its pro

per place carrying on the views of Providence: this evidently was the case of Moses; and to this purpose are the words of our Saviour, Matthew v. 17. 18.: he also constantly appealed to the Law and the Prophets so also St. Paul before Agrippa, Acts xxvi. 22. Indeed one revelation admitted to be of divine authority, must be a touchstone to try all succeeding revelations; for God cannot contradict himself: the miracles of Moses and our Saviour not only prove their divine authority, but are a bar to all succeeding pretenders. The miracles reported to have been done in the heathen world are unworthy of God, who does not work miracles merely to astonish men, but to serve the great ends of Providence; and he did not rest the authority of his law on one or more single miracles, but on a long series; and if miracles are properly applied as a proof of God's will, then such as are wrought without any declaration of his will, in which we have any concern, are not to be set up in opposition to those of Moses and Christ, which involve the happiness of mankind here and hereafter. Miracles worked for the establishment of the gospel, compared with the pretended ones of the heathen.

Some miracles mentioned in the Old Testament as wrought in behalf of particular people and for particular purposes, though of divine authority, not to be set in competition with those of the gospel; they are to be considered merely as acts of God's government in his capacity of King of Israel.

Secondly, it is considered what sort of works are to be admitted for miracles, in proving the truth of a religion.

The first inquiry is, whether the miracles might not proceed from human art or cunning; but it scarcely can be necessary to prove that such miracles as raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, &c. exceed the power of man. But perhaps they were not done, and were only false appearances; as when the man born blind was restored to sight, he did not recover his

eyes, but the people lost theirs: now this would have been the greater miracle of the two.

But must they of necessity proceed from God, because they could not be wrought by men? Is there no order of beings capable of performing them? Can we safely say that no being but the All-wise and Almighty God could perform them, seeing that neither the miracles of the gospel, nor the works of nature, directly prove an infinite power or wisdom?

This matter rightly stated: the works of nature, though they may not appear works of an infinite power, do prove an allpowerful cause, or the being of a God, because they of necessity prove a first cause of all things; which cause being unlimited, nothing is or can be done which it cannot do. It must then be remembered that a revelation is not introduced to prove the being of a God; that our Saviour's miracles were not wrought for that purpose; but supposing the being of a God, to prove him the author of the revelation: if then as good arguments be brought to prove God the author of the revelation, as can be brought to prove his being, all who believe the one must believe the other. The miracles of the gospel examined in this point of view, and shown to prove-first, that God is the maker of the world: secondly, that he is the governor of it: thirdly, that he has the essential attributes of justice, righteousness, holiness, and goodness.

But it is asked, how do we know that the miracles of the gospel did not proceed from an evil power, since there are instances, as some think, of miracles so wrought? This question answered: we know it in the same way that any man knows the works of nature to proceed from a good being the love of virtue, and hatred of vice, is as inseparable from the gospel of Christ as from the reason of man; and the former more distinctly teaches us to know and acknowlege the holiness and goodness of God, than reason or the works of

nature can do. But this, it is said, is to argue in a circle, is to prove the doctrines first by miracles, and then the miracles by the doctrines the objection a mistake, which lies in this; that men do not distinguish between the doctrines proved by miracles, and the doctrines by which miracles are tried; for they are not the same. God never wrought miracles to prove the difference between good and evil : this existed and was known before the gospel; but the doctrines proved by miracles are the new revealed doctrines of Christianity, unknown to and undiscoverable by man's reason. Concluding exhortation to those who hold fast and admire the principles of natural religion, but despise or overlook the proofs of Christianity: the same reasons which oblige them to believe in God, oblige them to believe in Christ also.

DISCOURSE X.

ACTS, CHAP. II.-VERSE 22.

Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know.

THE great evidence of Christianity, to which our Saviour and his Apostles constantly appeal, are the miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did by the hand of Jesus to confirm the authority and commission he gave him to publish and declare his will to the world. This being the only reasonable evidence that he could give of his coming from God, our Saviour says expressly, 'If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin :' John xv. 24. If he had not given these undeniable proofs of his being a teacher sent from God, they would have been acquitted, not only in reason, but even out of his own mouth. If I do not the works of my Father,' says he, believe me not:' John x. 37. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true:' John v. 31. and he adds, verse 36, The works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father sent me.' Thus, when St. John sent to him to inquire expressly whether he was the Christ or no, he showed the messengers his works, and bade them relate to John what they had seen; referring it to him to judge by his works, which were the only proper evidence, whether he was the Christ or no.

6

The truth then of Christianity resting on the authority of miracles, I shall endeavor in the following discourse to show, First, Wherein the true force of this argument from miracles consists, and what it is that they prove.