the CAPTAIN-GENERAL and PROPHET of Islamism acted the more prudent part.

Shall we then say, that it was a more obscure theatre on which JESUS CHRIST apppeared? Were his spectators more ignorant, or less adverse? The contrary of both is manifest. It may indeed be affirmed with truth, that the religion of the wild Arabs was more repugnant to the doctrine of Mahomet, than the religious dogmas of the Jews were to those of Jesus. But we shall err egregiously, if we conclude thence, that to this repugnancy the repugnancy of disposition in the professors of these religions must be proportionate. It is a fine observation of the most piercing and comprehensive genius, which hath appeared in this age, That "though men have a very "strong tendency to idolatry, they are never"theless but little attached to idolatrous re"ligions; that though they have no great "tendency to spiritual ideas, they are never"theless strongly attached to religions which c enjoin the adoration of a spiritual being." Hence an attachment in JEWS, CHRISTIANS, and MAHOMETANS, to their respective religions, which was never displayed by POLYTHEISTS of any denomination. But its spi

*De l'Esprit des Loix, liv. 25, chap. 2.

Trituality was not the only cause of adherence which the Jews had to their religion. Every physical, every moral motive concurred in that people to rivet their attachment, and make them oppose with violence, whatever bore the face of innovation. Their religion and polity were so blended as scarce to be distinguishable: this engaged their patriotism. They were selected of God preferably to other nations; this inflamed their pride. * They were all under one spiritual head, the highpriest, and had their solemn festivals celebrated in one temple: this strengthened their union. The ceremonies of their public worship were magnificent: this flattered their senses. These ceremonies also were numerous, and occupied a great part of their time: this, to all the other grounds of attachment, superadded the force of habit. On the On the contrary, the simplicity of the gospel, as well as the spirit of humility, and moderation, and charity, and universality (if I may be allowed that term), which it breathed, could not fail to alarm a people of such a cast, and awaken, as in fact it did, the most furious opposition. Accordingly, Christianity had fifty times more

I

TE

How great influence this motive had, appears from

success amongst idolaters, than it had among the Jews. I am therefore warranted to assert, that if the miracles of our Lord and his apostles had been an imposture, there could not, on the face of the earth, have been chosen for exhibiting them, a more unfavourable theatre than Judea. On the other hand, had it been anywhere practicable, by a display of false wonders, to make converts to a new religion, nowhere could a project of this nature have been conducted with greater probability of success than in Arabia. So much for the contrast there is betwixt the Christian MESSIAH and the ORPHAN CHARGE of Abu Taleb. So plain it is, that the mosque yields entirely the plea of miracles to the sy nagogue and the church."

BUT from HEATHENS and MAHOMETANS, let us turn our eyes to the CHRISTIAN World. The only object here, which merits our attention, as coming under the denomination of miracles ascribed to a new system, and as what may be thought to rival in credibility the miracles of the gospel, are those said to have been performed, in the primitive church, after the times of the apostles, and after the finishing of the sacred canon. These will

probably be ascribed to a new system, since Christianity, for some centuries, was not (as the phrase is) established, or (to speak more properly) corrupted by human authority; and since even after such establishment, there remained long in the empire a considerable mixture of idolaters. We have the greater reason here to consider this topic, as it hath of late been the subject of very warm dispute, and as the cause of Christianity itself (which I conceive is totally distinct) seems to have been strangely confounded with it. From the manner in which the argument hath been conducted, who is there that would not conclude, that both must stand or fall together? Nothing however can be more groundless, nothing more injurious to the religion of Jesus, than such a conclusion..

The learned writer who hath given rise to this controversy, not only acknowledges, that the falsity of the miracles, mentioned by the Fathers, is no evidence of the falsity of the miracles recorded in Scripture, but that there is even a presumption in favour of these, aris ing from those forgeries, which he pretends to have detected. The justness of the re

*

* Dr. Middleton's Prefatory Discourse to his Letter

mark contained in this acknowledgment, will appear more clearly from the following ob

servations.

Let it be observed, first, that, supposing numbers of people are ascertained of the truth of some miracles, whether their conviction arise from sense or from testimony, it will surely be admitted as a consequence, that in all such persons, the presumption against miracles from uncommonness must be greatly diminished, in several perhaps totally extinguished.

Let it be observed, secondly, that if true miracles have been employed successfully in support of certain religious tenets, this success will naturally suggest to those, who are zealous of propagating favourite opinions in religion, to recur to the plea of miracles, as the most effectual expedient for accomplishing their end. This they will be encouraged to do on a double account: first, they know, that people, from recent experience, are made to expect such a confirmation; secondly, they know, that in consequence of this experience, the incredibility, which is the principal obstruction to such an undertaking, is in a manner removed; and there is, on the contrary, as in such circumstances