Origines sacræ, or, A rational account of the grounds of Christian faith, as to the truth and divine authority of the Scriptures and the matters therein contained by Edward Stillingfleet ...

BOOK II. (Book 2)

CHAP. I. The certainty of the Writings of Moses.

In order to the proving the truth of Scripture-history, several Hypotheses laid down. The first concerns the reasonable∣ness of preserving the ancient History of the world in some certain Records, from the importance of the things, and the inconveniences of meer tradition or constant Revelation. The second concerns the certainty that the Records under Moses his name, were undoubtedly his. The certainty of a matter of fact enquired into in general, and proved as to this particular by universal consent, and settling a Com∣mon-wealth upon his Laws. The impossibility of an Impo∣sture as to the writings of Moses demonstrated. The plea's to the contrary largely answered.

HAving sufficiently demonstrated the want of credibility in the account of ancient * 1.1 times, given by those Nations who have made the greatest pretence to Learning and Antiquity in the world, we now pro∣ceed to evince the credibility and certain∣ty of that account which is given us in sa∣cred Screptures: In order to which I shall premise these fol∣lowing Hypotheses.

It stands to the greatest reason, that an account of things so concerning and remarkable, should not be always left to the * 1.2 uncertainty of an oral tradition; but should be timely entred

into certain Records, to be preserved to the memory of poste∣rity. For it being of concernment to the world, in order to the establishment of belief as to future things, to be ful∣ly setled in the belief that all things past were managed by Divine providence, there must be some certain Records of former ages, or else the mind of man will be perpetually hovering in the greatest uncertainties: Especially where there is such a mutual dependence and concatenation of one thing with another, as there is in all the Scripture-history. For take away but any one of the main foundations of the Mosaical history, all the superstructure will be exceedingly weakened, if it doth not fall quite to the ground. For mans obligation to obedience unto God, doth necessarily suppose his original to be from him; his hearkening to any proposals of favour from God, doth suppose his Apo∣stacy and fall; Gods designing to shew mercy and favour to fallen man, doth suppose that there must be some way whereby the Great Creator must reveal himself as to the conditions on which fallen man may expect a recovery; the revealing of these conditions in such a way whereon a sus∣picious (because guilty) creature may firmly rely, doth suppose so certain a recording of them, as may be least lia∣ble to any suspicion of imposture or deceit. For although nothing else be in its self necessary from God to man, in or∣der to his salvation, but the bare revealing in a certain way the terms on which he must expect it; yet consi∣dering the unbounded nature of Divine goodness, re∣specting not only the good of some particular persons, but of the whole society of mankind, it stands to the greatest reason that such a revelation should be so pro∣pounded, as might be with equal certainty conveyed to the community of mankind. Which could not with any such evidence of credibility be done by private and particular revelations (which give satisfaction only to the inward sen∣ses of the partakers of them) as by a publick recording of the matters of Divine revelation by such a person who is enabled to give the world all reasonable satisfaction, that what he did was not of any private design of his own head, but that he was deputed to it by no less then

Divine authority. And therefore it stands to the highest reason, that where Divine revelation is necessary for the certain requiring of assent, the matter to be believed should have a certain uniform conveyance to mens minds, rather then that perpetually New revelations should be required for the making known of those things; which being once recorded are not lyable to so many impostures as the other way might have been under pretended Revelations. For then men are not put to a continual tryal of every person pretending Divine revelation, as to the evidences which he brings of Divine authority, but the great matters of concernment be∣ing already recorded and attested by all rational evidence as to the truth of the things, their minds therein rest satisfied without being under a continual hesitancy, lest the Revelation of one should contradict another.

For supposing that God had left the matters of Divine * 1.3 revelation unrecorded at all, but left them to be discovered in every age by a spirit of prophecy, by such a multitude as might be sufficient to inform the world of the truth of the things; We cannot but conceive that an innumerable com∣pany of croaking Enthusiasts would be continually pretend∣ing commissions from heaven, by which the minds of men would be left in continual distraction, because they would have no certain infallible rules given them, whereby to difference the good and evil spirit from each other. But now supposing God to inspire some particular persons, not only to reveal, but to record Divine truths, then what ever evi∣dences can be brought attesting a Divine revelation in them, will likewise prove the undoubted certainty and infallibility of those writings, it being impossible that persons employed by a God of truth should make it their design to impose upon the world; which gives us a rational account, why the wise God did not suffer the History of the world to lye still un∣recorded, but made choice of such a person to record it, who gave abundant evidence to the world that he acted no pri∣vate design, but was peculiarly employed by God himself for the doing of it, as will appear afterwards. Besides, we finde by our former discourse, how lyable the most certain tradition is to be corrupted in progress of time, where there

are no standing records, though it were at first delivered by persons of undoubted credit. For we have no reason to doubt, but that the tradition of the old world, the flood and the consequences of it, with the nature and worship of the true God, were at first spread over the greatest part of the world in its first plantations, yet we see how soon for want of certain conveyance, all the antient tradition was corrupted and abused into the greatest Idolatry. Which might be less wondered at, had it been only in those parts which were furthest remote from the seat of those grand transactions; but thus we finde it was even among those families, who had the nearest residence to the place of them, and among those persons who were not far off in a lineal descent from the persons mainly concerned in them; as is most evident in the family out of which Abraham came (who was himself the tenth from Noah) yet of them it is said, that they served other Gods. How unlikely then was it, that this tradition * 1.4 should be afterwards preserved entire, when the people God had peculiarly chosen to himself, were so mixed among the Aegyptians, and so prone to the Idolatries of the Nations round about them, and that even after God had given them a written Law attested with the greatest miracles? what would they have done then, had they never been brought forth of Aegypt by such signs and wonders, and had no cer∣tain records left to preserve the memory of former ages? Thus we see how much it stands to the greatest reason, that so memorable things should be digested into sacred re∣cords.

We have as great certainty that Moses was the author of the records going under his name, as we can have of any matter of * 1.5 fact done at so great a distance of time from us. We are to consider that there are two very distinct questions to be thought of concerning a Divine revelation to any person at a considerable distance of time from us; and those are what evidences can be given that the matters recorded are of a true divine revelation; and what evidence we have of the truth of the matter of fact, that such things were recorded by such persons. They who do not carefully distinguish between these two questions, will soon run themselves into an inex∣tricable

labyrinth, when they either seek to understand themselves, or explain to others the grounds on which they believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God. The first step in order to which must be the proving the undoubted certain∣ty of the matter of fact, or the truth of the History, that such persons were really existent, and did either do or record the things we speak of: After this, succeeds the other to prove, not only the real existence of the things, but that the persons who recorded the things were assisted by an infallible spirit; then there can be no reason at all to doubt, but those re∣cords are the Word of God. The first of these, is, that which at present we enquire after, the certainty of the matter of fact, that the records under the name of Moses were undoubtedly his. And here it will be most unreason∣able for any to seek for further evidence and demonstration of it, then the matter to be proved is capable of. But if they should, I suppose we have sufficient reason to demonstrate the folly of such a demand, and that on these accounts.

1. Whoever yet undertook to bring matters of fact into Mathematical demonstrations, or thought he had ground to * 1.6 question the certainty of any thing that was not proved in a Mathematical way to him? Who would ever undertake to prove that Archimedes was kild at Syracuse by any of the demonstrations he was then about? or that Euclide was the undoubted Author of the Geometry under his name? or do men question these things for want of such demonstra∣tions? Yet this is all we at present desire, but the same liberty here which is used in any thing of a like na∣ture.

2. I demand of the person who denyes this moral cer∣tainty to be sufficient for an assent, whether he doth question * 1.7 every thing in the world, which he was not present at the doing of himself? If he be peremptorily resolved to believe nothing but what he sees, he is fit for nothing but a voyage to Anticyrae, or to be soundly purged with Hellebore to free him from those cloudy humours that make him suspect the whole world to be an imposture. But we cannot suppose any man so destitute of reason, as ••o question the truth of every matter of fact which he doth not see himself; if he

doth then firmly believe any thing, there must be supposed sufficient grounds to induce him to such a belief. And then what ground can there be to question the certainty of such things which have as great evidence as any of those things have which he most firmly believes? and this is all we desire from him.

3. Do we not see that the most concerning and weighty * 1.8 actions of mens lives, are built on no other foundation then this moral certainty? yet men do not in the least question the truth of the thing they rely upon: As is most evident in all titles to estates derived from Ancestors, either by donation or purchase: In all trading which goes upon the moral cer∣tainty, that there are such places as the Indyes, or France, or Spain, &c. In all journyings, that there is such a place, as that I am going to, and this is the way thither; for these we have but this moral certainty; for the contrary to both these are possible, and the affirmatives are indemonstrable. In eating and drinking there is a possibility of being poisoned by every bit of meat or drop of drink; do we therefore continually doubt, whether we shall be so or no? Chiefly this is seen in all natural affection and piety in Children to∣wards Parents, which undoubtedly suppose the truth of that, which it was impossible they could be witnesses of them∣selves; viz. their coming out of their Mothers wombs. And doth any one think this sufficient ground to question his mother, because the contrary is impossible to be de∣monstrated to him? In short, then, either we must destroy all Historical faith out of the world, and believe nothing (though never so much attested) but what we see our selves, or else we must acknowledge, that a moral certainty is a sufficient foundation for an undoubted assent, not such a one cui non potest subesse falsum, but such a one cui non subest dubium, i. e. an assent undoubted, though not infallible. By which we see what little reason the A••heist on one side can have to question the truth of the Scriptures, to the History of it; and what little ground the Papists on the other side have to make a pretence of the necessity of infalli∣bility, as to the proposal of such things where moral certainty is sufficient, that is, to the matter of f••ct.

Which I now come to prove, as to the subject in hand; * 1.9 viz. that the writings of Moses are undoubtedly his, which I prove by a twofold argument: 1. An universal consent of persons, who were best able to know the truth of the things in question. 2. The setling of a Commonwealth upon the Laws delivered by Moses. 1. The universal Consent of persons most capable of judging in the Case in hand. I know nothing the most scrupulous and inquisitive mind can possibly desire in order to satisfaction, concerning any matter of fact be∣yond an universal Consent of such persons who have a greater capacity of knowing the truth of it then we can have. And those are all such persons who have lived nearest those times when the things were done, and have best understood the affairs of the times when the things were pretended to be done. Can we possibly conceive, that among the people of the Iews, who were so exceedingly prone to transgress the Law of Moses, and to fall into Idolatry, but if there had been any the least suspition of any falsity or imposture in the writing of Moses, the ringleaders of their revolts would have sufficiently promulged it among them, as the most plausible plea to draw them off from the worship of the true God? Can we think that a Nation and religion so maligned as the Iewish were, could have escaped discovery, if there had been any deceit in it, when so many lay in wait continually to expose them to all Contumelies imaginable? Nay, among themselves in their frequent Apostacies, and occasions given for such a pretence, how comes this to be never heard of, nor in the least questioned, whether the Law was undoubtedly of Moses his writing or no? What an excellent plea would this have been for Ieroboams Calves in Dan and Bethel; for the Samaritans Temple on Mount Gerizim, could any the least suspition have been raised among them, concerning the aut bentickness of the fundamen∣tal records of the Iewish Commonwealth? And which is most observable, the Iews who were a people strangely suspitious and incredulous, while they were fed and clothed with mira∣cles, yet could never find ground to question this. Nay, and Moses himself, we plainly see, was hugely envied by many of the Israelites even in the wilderness, as is evident

in the Conspiracy of Corah and his complices, and that on this very ground, that he took too much upon him; how un∣likely then is it, that amidst so many enemies he should dare to venture any thing into publick records, which was not most undoubtedly true, or undertake to prescribe a Law to oblige the people to posterity? Or that after his own age any thing should come out under his name, which would not be presently detected by the emulato••rs of his glory? What then, is the thing it self incredible? surely not, that Moses should write the records we speak of. Were not they able to understand the truth of it? What? not those, who were in the same age, and conveyed it down by a cer∣tain tradition to posterity? Or did not the Israelites all constantly believe it? What? not they, who would sooner part with their lives and fortunes, then admit any variation or alteration as to their Law?

Well, but if we should suppose the whole Iewish Nation * 1.10 partial to themselves, and that out of honour to the memory of so great a person as Moses, they should attribute their ancient Laws and records to him: Which is all that Infidelity its self can imagine in this Case: Yet this cannot be with any sha∣dow of reason pretended. For,

1. Who were those persons, who did give out this Law to the Iews under Moses his name? Certainly they, who * 1.11 undertake to contradict that which is received by common consent, must bring stronger and clearer evidence then that on which that consent is grounded; or else their ex∣ceptions deserve to be rejected with the highest indignation. What proof can be then brought, that not only the Iewish Nation, but the whole Christian world hath been so lament∣ably befooled to believe those things with an undoubted assent, which are only the contrivances of some cunning men?

2. At what time could these things be contrived? Either while the memory of Moses and his actions were remaining, * 1.12 or afterwards. First, how could it possibly be, when his memory was remaining? for then all things were so fresh in their memories, that it was impossible a thing of this universal

nature could be forged of him. If after, then I demand, whether the people had observed the Law of Moses before or no? if not, then they must certainly know it at the time of its promulgation to be counterfeit, for had it been from Moses, it would have been observed before their times; if it was observed before, then either continually down from the time of Moses, or not? If continually down, then it was of Moses his doing, if we suppose him to have had that authori∣ty among the people which the objection supposeth; if not, then still the nearer Moses his time, the more difficult such a counterfeiting could be; because the Constitutions which Moses had left among them, would have remained in their memories, whereby they would easily reject all pretences and counterfeits.

3. How can we conceive the Nation of the Iews would have ever embraced such a Law, had it not been of Moses * 1.13 his enacting among them in that state of time when he did? For then the people were in fittest capacity to receive a Law, being grown a great people, and therefore necessary to have Laws; newly delivered from bondage, and therefore wanting Laws of their own; and entring into a setled state of Com∣monwealth, which was the most proper season of giving Laws.

These considerations make it so clear, that it is almost impossible to conceive the Nation of the Iews could have * 1.14 their Laws given to them but at the time of their being in the wilderness, before they were setled in Canaan. For suppose we at present, to gratifie so far the objection, that these Laws were brought forth long after the constitution of the government and the national settlement, under Moses his name; how improbable, nay how impossible is it to alter the fundamental Laws of a Nation after long settlement? what confusion of interests doth this bring? what disturbance among all sorts of people, who must be disseised of their rights, and brought to such strange unwonted customs so seemingly against their interests, as many of the Constitutions among the Iews were? For can we imagine, that a people alwayes devoted to their own interest, would after it had been quietly setled in their land, by Constitutions after the custom of

other Nations, presently under a pretence of a coppy of Laws found (that were pretended to be given by one in former ages of great esteem, called Moses) throw open all their former inclosures, and part with their former Laws for these of which they have no evidence, but the words of those that told it them? We have a clear instance for this among the Romans; although there were great evidence given of the undoubted certainty, that the books found in Numa's grave by Petilius were his, yet because they were adjudged by the Senate to be against the present Laws, they were without further enquiry adjudged to be burnt. Was not here the greatest likelyhood that might be, that these should have taken place among the Romans, for the great veneration for wisdom which Numa was in among them, and the great evidence that these were certain remainders of his, wherein he gave a true account of the superstitions in use among them? yet lest the state should be unsetled by it, they were prohibited so much as a publick view, when the Praetor had sworn they were against the established Laws. Can we then conceive the Iewish Nation would have em∣braced so burdensome and ceremonious a Law as Moses's was, had it been brought among them in such a way as the books of Numa, though with all imaginable evidence, that it was undoubtedly his, especially when they were engaged to the observation of some Laws or customs already, by which their Commonwealth had been established? And with all these Laws of Moses seeming so much against the interest and good husbandry of a Nation, as all the neighbour Nations thought, who for that accused them to be an i••le and slothful people, as they judged by their resting wholly one day in seven, the great and many solemn feasts they had, the repairing of all the males to Jerusalem thrice a year; the Sab∣batical years, years of Iubilee, &c. These things were ap∣parently against the interest of such a Nation, whose great subsistence was upon pasturage and agriculture. So that it is evident these Laws respected not the outward interest of the Nation, and so could not be the contrivance of any Politi∣cians among them, but did immediately aim at the honour of the God whom they served, for whom they were to part even

with their civil interests: The doing of which by a people generally taken notice of for a particular Love of their own concernments, is an impregnable argument these Laws could not take place among them, had they not been given by Moses at the time of their unsettlement, and that their fu∣ture settlement did depend upon their present observation of them; which is an evidence too that they could be of no less then divine original? Which was more then I was to prove at present.

4. Were not these writings undoubtedly Moses's; * 1.15 whence should the neighbour Nations about the Iews not∣withstanding the hatred of the Iewish religion, retain so venerable an opinion of the Wisdom of Moses? The Aegyp∣tians accounted him one of their Priests (which notes the esteem they had of his learning) as appears by the testimo∣nies produced out of Chaeremon and Man••tho by Iosephus. * 1.16 Diodorus Siculus speaks of him with great respect among the famous Legislatours, and so doth Strabo, who speaks in commendation of the Religion established by him. The testimony of Longinus is sufficiently known, that Moses was no man of any vulgar wit (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) Chalcidius calls him sapientissimus Moses (although I must not dissemble that Chalcidius hath been, I think, undeservedly reckoned among heathen writers, though he comments on Plato's Ti∣maeus, * 1.17 it being most probable that he was a Christian Pla∣tonist, which might more probably make Vaninus call him circumforaneum blateronem) but though we exempt Chal∣cidius out of the number of those Heathens, who have born testimony to the wisdom of Moses, yet there are number enough besides him produced by Iustin Martyr, Cyrill, and * 1.18 others, whose evidence is clear and full to make us undoubt∣edly believe, that there could never have been so universal and uninterrupted a tradition concerning the writings and Laws of Moses, had they not been certainly his, and con∣veyed down in a continual succession from his time to our present age. Which will be yet more clear, if we consider in the second place, that the national Constitution and setle∣ment of the Iews, did depend on the truth of the Laws and writings of Moses. Can we have more undoubted evidence,

that there were such persons as Solon, Ly••urgus, and Nu∣ma, and that the Laws bearing their names were theirs, then the History of the several Commonwealths of Ath••ns, Sparta, and Rome, who were governed by those Laws? When writings are not of general concernment, they may be more easily counterfeited; but when they concern the rights, priviledges, and government of a Nation, there will be enough whose interest will lead them to prevent impostures. It is no easie matter to forge a Magna Charta and to invent Laws; mens caution and prudence is never so quick sighted as in matters which concern their estates and freeholds. The general interest lyes contrary to such impostures, and there∣fore they will prevent their obtaining among them. Now the Laws of Moses are incorporated into the very Republick of the Iews, and their subsistence and Government depends upon them, their Religion and Laws are so interwoven one with the other, that one cannot be broken off from the other. Their right to their temporal possessions in the land of Canaan depends on their owning the Soveraignty of God who gave them to them; and on the truth of the History recorded by Moses concerning the promises made to the Patriarchs. So that on that account it was impossible those Laws should be counterfeit on which the welfare of a Nation depended, and according to which they were governed ever since they were a Nation. So that I shall now take it to be sufficiently proved, that the writings under the name of Moses were undoubtedly his; for none, who ac∣knowledge the Laws to have been his, can have the face to deny the History, there being so necessary a connexion be∣tween them; and the book of Genesis being nothing else but a general and very necessary introduction to that which sol∣lows.

CHAP. II. Moses his certain knowledge of what he writ.

The third Hypothesis concerns the certainty of the matter of Moses his History; that gradually proved: First, Moses his knowledge cleared, by his education, and experience, and certain information. His education in the wisdom of Aegypt; what that was. The old Egyptian learning en∣quired into; the conveniences for it of the Egyptian Priests. Moses reckoned among them for his knowledge. The Ma∣thematical, Natural, Divine, and Moral learning of Egypt: their Political wisdom most considerable. The advantage of Moses above the Greek Philosophers, as to wisdom and reason. Moses himself an eye-witness of most of his history: the certain uninterrupted tradition of the other part among the Iews, manifested by rational evi∣dence.

HAving thus far cleared our way, we come to the third * 1.19 Hypothesis, which is, There are as manifest proofs of the undoubted truth and certainty of the History recorded by Moses, as any can be given concerning any thing which we yeild the firmest assent unto: Here it must be considered, that we proceed in a way of rational evidence to prove the truth of the thing in hand, as to which, if in the judgement of im∣partial persons the arguments produced be strong enough to convince an unbiassed mind; It is not material, whether every rangling Atheist will sit down contented with them. For usually persons of that inclination rather then judge∣ment, are more resolved against light, then inquisitive after it, and rather seek to stop the chinks at which any light might come in, then open the windows for the free and chearfull entertainment of it. It will certainly be sufficient to make it appear, that no man can deny the truth of that part of Scripture which we are now speaking of, without offering manifest violence to his own faculties, and making it

appear to the world, that he is one wholly forsaken of his own reason: which will be satisfactorily done, if we can clear these things: First, that it was morally impossible Moses should be ignorant of the things he undertook to write of, and so be deceived himself. Secondly, That it was utterly im∣possible he should have any design in deceiving others in report∣ing it. Thirdly, That it is certain from all rational evidence, that he hath not d••ceived the world, but that his History is undoubtedly true. First, That it was morally impossible Moses should be deceived hims••lf, or be ignorant of the things which he writ of. Two things are requisite to prevent a mans being deceived himself. First, That he be a person of more then ordinary judgement, wisdom, and knowledge. Secondly, That we have sufficient information concerning the things he undertakes to write of. If either of these two be wanting, it is possible for a man of integrity to be deceived; for an honest heart hath not alwayes an Urim and Thummim upon it; nor is fide••••ty alwayes furnished with the acutest in∣tellectuals. The simplicity of the Dove is as lyable to be deceived its self, as the subtilty of the serpent is to deceive others; but where the wisdom of the serpent is, to prevent being deceived, and the Doves innocency in not deceiving others, there are all the qualifications can be desired in any one who undertakes only to tell the Truth. First, Then that Moses was a person of a great understanding, and suffici∣ently qualified to put a difference between truth and falshood, will appear; first, from the ingenuity of his education; secondly, from the ripeness of his judgement and greatness of his experience when he penned these things.

First, We begin with his education. And here we require at present no further assent to be given to what is reported concerning Moses in Scripture, then what we give to Plu∣tarchs lives, or any other relations concerning the actions of persons who lived in former ages. Two things then we find recorded in Scripture concerning Moses his education; * 1.20 that he was brought up in the Court of Aegypt, and that he was skild in all the learning of the Aegyptians; and these two will abundantly prove the ingenuity of hi•• education, viz. That he was a person both conversant in civil affairs,

and acquainted with the abstruser parts of all the Aegyptian wisdom.

And I confess there is nothing to me which doth advance * 1.21 so much the repute of the antient Aegyptian Learning, as that the Spirit of God in Scripture should take so much no∣tice of it, as to set forth a person (otherwise renowned for greater accomplishments) by his skill in this. For if it be below the wisdom of any ordinary person, to set forth a person by that which in its self is no matter of commendation, how much less can we imagine it of that infinite wisdom which inspired Stephen in that Apology which he makes for himself against the Libertines, who charged him with con∣tempt of Moses and the Law? And therefore certainly this was some very observable thing, which was brought in as a singular commendation of Moses, by that person whose design was to make it appear how high an esteem he had of him. And hence it appears that Learning is not only in its self a great accomplishment of humane nature, but that it ought to be looked upon with veneration, even in those who have excellencies of a higher nature to commend them. If a Pearl retains its excellency when it lyes upon a dunghill, it can certainly lose nothing of its lustre by being set in a crown of gold; if Learning be commendable in an Aegyptian, it is no less in Moses, where it is enameled with more noble per∣fections, then of it self it can reach unto. All the question is, Whither the antient learning of the Aegyptians was such as might be supposed to improve the reason and understand∣ing of men to such an height, as thereby to make them more capable of putting a difference between truth and falshood? Whether it were such an overflowing Nilus as would enrich the understandings of all those who were in a capacity to re∣ceive its streams? The truth is, there want not grounds of suspicion, that the old Aegyptian Learning was not of that elevation which the present distance of our age makes us apt to think it was. And a learned man hath in a set discourse endeavoured to shew the great defects that there were in it; * 1.22 Neither can it, I think, be denyed, but according to the re∣ports we have now concerning it, some parts of their Learn∣ing were frivilous, others obscure, a great deal Magical,

and the rest short of that improvement, which the accession of the parts and industry of after ages gave unto it. But yet it is again as evident, that some parts of learning were invented by the Aegyptians, others much improved, and that the Greeks did at first set up with the stock they borrowed out of Aegypt, and that learning chiefly flourished there, when there was (I had almost said) an Aegyptian darkness of Ignorance overspreading the face of Greece as well as other Nations.

Which will appear by these considerations, the great an∣tiquity * 1.23 of their repute for Learning, the great advantages they had for promoting it, and the parts of Learning most in use among them. This, though it may seem a digression here, will yet tend to promote our design, by shewing thereby how qualified and accomplished Moses was to deliver to the world an history of antient times. If we believe Macrobius, there was no people in the world could ••ye for Learning with the Aegyptians, who makes Aegypt in one place, the mother * 1.24 of all Arts, and in another the Aegyptians omnium Philoso∣phiae disciplinarum parentes, the Fathers of the Philosophick Sciences; he derives elsewhere the original of all Astronomy from them, quos constat primos omnium coelum metiri, & scrutari ausos: though it be more probable that the Nativity even of Astronomy it self, was first calculated by the Chald••∣ans, from whom it was conveyed to the Aegyptians. He * 1.25 likewise appropriates all divine knowledge to them, where he saith they were Soli rerum divinarum conscii, and after calls Aegypt, divinarum omnium disciplinarum compotem. It is * 1.26 sufficiently notorious what great repute the Aegyptian Learning hath been in, with some in our latter times, in that our Chymists look upon it as the greatest honour to their profession, that they think they can claim kindred of the old Aegyptian Learning, and derive the pedigree of their Chymistry from the old Aegyptian Hermes. But that vain pretence is sufficiently refuted by the fore-mentioned learn∣ed man Conringius, in his Tract on this subject, de Hermeticâ Medicinâ. Franciscus Patricius professeth himself so great an admirer of the old Aegyptian Learning, that he thought it would be no bad exchange, if the Peripatetick Philosophy

were extruded, and the old Aegyptian received instead of it. But the world is now grown wiser, then to receive his Her∣mes Trismegistus for the Author of the old Aegyptian Philosophy, the credit of his Author being for ever blasted, and the doctrine contained in the books under his name, manifested to be a meer C••nto, a confused mixture of the Christian, Platonick, and Aegyptian doctrine together. So that we could hardly maintain the justness of the repute of the antient Aegyptian Learning from any thing now ex∣tant of it; but yet we see no reason to question it, especially since it is so honourably spoken of in Sacred Writ, and seems in it to have been made the standard and measure of humane wisdom. For which we have this observable testimony, that when the wisdom of Solomon is spoken of with the greatest advantage and commendation, it is set forth with this cha∣racter, that it exceeded the wisdom of all the children of the * 1.27 East Countrey, and all the wisdom of Aegypt. Whence it is most natural and easie to argue, that certainly their learning must be accounted the greatest at that time in the world, or else it could not have been inferred, that Solomon was wiser then all men, because his wisdom excelled theirs, unless we suppose their wisdom to have been the greatest in that age of the world, when the wisdom of the Graecians (al∣though in that time Homer is supposed to flourish) was not thought worthy the taking notice of. We see from hence then, as from an irrefragable testimony, that the wisdom of the Aegyptians antiently was no trivial Pedantry, nor meer superstitious and Magical rites, but that there was some thing in it solid and substantial, or it had not been worth triumphing over by the wisdom of Solomon: It being true of that, what Lipsius faith of the Roman Empire, Quicquid dignum vinci videbatur; vicit, caetera non tam non potuit quam * 1.28 contempsit; it was an argument of some great worth, that it was over-top'd and conquered by it.

Thus we see how just the repute of the antient Aegyptian * 1.29 Learning is from Testimony, and we shall find as great reason for it, when we con••ider the great advantages the Aegypti∣ans had for promoting of Learning among them. Two waies men come to knowledge, either by tradition from others,

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

or by observation of their own; what the Aegyptians had the first way, will be spoken to afterwards; we now con∣sider the latter of these. All knowledge arising from obser∣vation, must be either of those Sciences which immediately conduce to the benefit of mens lives, or such whose end is to improve mens rational faculties in the knowledge of things. The former necessity will put men upon the finding * 1.30 out, the latter require secessum & otia, freedom from other imployments, a mind addicted to them, and industry in the study of them, and a care to preserve their inventions in them. The study of Geometry among the Aegyptians, owed its original to necessity; for the river Nile being swelled with the showers falling in Aethiopia, and thence annually over-flowing the Countrey of Aegypt, and by its violence overturning all the marks they had to distinguish their lands, made it necessary for them upon every abatement of the flood to survey their lands, to find out every one his own by the quantity of the ground upon the survey. The ne∣cessity of which put them upon a more diligent enquiry into that study, that thereby they might attain to some exactness in that, which was to be of such necessary, constant and perpetual use: Thence we find the invention of Geometry particularly attributed by Herodotus, Diodorus, Strabo and * 1.31 others, to the Aegyptians. This skill of theirs they after improved into a greater benefit, viz the conveying the water of Nile into those places where it had not overflown to so great a height, as to give them hopes of an ensuing plenty; which they did by the artificial cutting of several Channels for that end, wherein, saith Strabo, the Aegyptians Art and Industry out-went Nature its self. By this likewise they observed the height of the over-flowing of the river, whereby they knew what harvest to expect the following year; which they did by a well near Memphis (from the use of it called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) upon the walls of which were the marks of several cubits, which they observe and publish it to all, that they might provide themselves accordingly. We see what grounds there are, even from profit and advantage, to make us believe that the Aegyptians were skilled in Geo∣metry, and the knowledge relating thereto.

And for the promoting of all other knowledge whose * 1.32 end is Contemplation, the very constitution of their Com∣monwealth did much conduce thereto: For thereby it was proved that they should always be a sufficient number of persons freed srom all other employments, who might de∣vote themselves to a sedulous enquiry into the natures of things. Such were the Aegyptian Priests, who by the pe∣culiar nature of the Aegyptian Superstitions were freed from that burdensome service of sacrificing beasts, which the Priests of other Nations were continually employed about, and so they enjoyed not only an easie but a very honourable employment; for they were the persons of the greatest ho∣nour, esteem, and authority among the Aegyptians, of which rank, as far as I can find, all were accounted, who were not Souldiers, Husbandmen, or Artificers. For Stra∣bo * 1.33 mentions no Nobility at all in Aegypt distinct from the Priests; for he divides the whole Commonwealth into Soul∣diers, Husbandmen, and Priests. And telling us that the other two were employed about matters of war, and the Kings revenues in peace, he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Priests minded the study of Philosophy and Astronomy, and conversed most with their Kings: And after, speaking of their Kings be∣ing studied in their arts as well as others of the Priests, he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with whom they spent most of their lives. Agreeably to this Plutarch tells us, that the Kings themselves were often Priests; and adds out * 1.34 of Hecataeus, that the Kings used to drink wine by mea∣sure, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because they were Priests; for as he saith, the Kings of Aegypt were always chosen either out of the rank of Priests or Souldiers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; those two orders being of the greatest honour, the one for valour, and the other for wisdom; and if the King were chosen out of the Souldiers, he was presently entred among the Priests, to learn their mystical Sciences. Diodorus indeed seems to * 1.35 reckon some great persons after the Priests, and distinct from the Souldiery; but if he means by these any other then some of the chief of the other two professions, I must

say as Causabon doth in another case of Diodorus, Sanè Stra∣bonis * 1.36 anctoritas mult is Siculis apud me praevalet. Diodorus his testimony is not to be weighed with Strabo's. From hence we may understand the reason why that Potiphera, whose daughter Ioseph married, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which some render * 1.37 the Priest, others the Prince of On; but these two we see are very consistent, their Priests being their great Princes; and Heliopolis, or On, of which Potipherah was Prince or Priest, being the chief Seat and University of the Priests of Aegypt. Now it is evident from Clemens Alexandrinus, that the Aegyptians did not communicate their mysteries promiscuously to all, but only to such as were in succession * 1.38 to the Crown, or else to those of the Priest and their Chil∣dren, who were most apt and fit for them, both by their dyet, instruction, and family. For this was unalterably ob∣served among them, that there was a continued succession of a profession in their several families, both of Priests, Souldiers, and Husbandmen, whereby they kept their seve∣ral orders without any mixture or confusion, which is con∣fessed both by Herodotus and Diodorus: So that by this constitution Learning was among them confined to the * 1.39 Priests, which highly advanceth the probability of that tra∣dition, preserved among the Aegyptians concerning Mo∣ses (which likewise strongly proves our present design) viz. Manetho's Records, as Iosephus tells us, that Moses was one of the Priests at Heliopolis, and that his name among them * 1.40 was Osarsiphus, who changing his name, was called Moses; and in the time of Amenophis conducted the leprous people out of Aegypt (so the Aegyptians out of their hatred of the Israelites call them.) And Chaeremon, another Aegy∣ptian Priest in the same Author, calls Moses a Scribe, and Ioseph (by whom probably he means Ioshua) a sacred Scribe, and saith, that the Aegyptian name of Moses was Tisithen, and of Ioseph Peteleph. Now this tradition did in all pro∣bability arise from the repute of Moses his learning and wisdom; which being among them proper to their Priests, they thence ascribed that name to him, although proba∣bly he might come to the knowledge of all their Myste∣ries, from the relation he had to Pharaohs daughter.

We come now to consider the parts of the Aegyptian * 1.41 learning, in which the Scripture tells us Moses was skill'd: This by Philo Iudaeus is branched into Arithmetick, Geometry, Musick, and Hicroglyphical Philosophy: But Sixtus Senen∣sis more comprehensively from Diodorus, Diogenes Laerti∣us, * 1.42 and others, divides it into four parts, Mathematical, Natural, Divine, and Moral. Their skill in the Mathema∣tical parts of learning hath been partly shewed already, and might be more largely from that skill in them, which the Graecians gained from the Aegyptians, as both Iamblichus and Porphyrie speak of Pythagoras, that he gained his skill * 1.43 in Geometry chiefly from the Aegyptians: For these, as Porphyrie saith, of a long time had been very studious of Geometry, as the Phoenicians of Arithmetick, and the Chaldaeans of Astronomy. But Iamblicus (and I think de∣servedly) takes notice of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the difficult access of the Aegyptian Priests, especially as to acquaint∣ance with their mysteries; and so Strabo calls them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such who concealed their learning under * 1.44 many symbols, and were not easily drawn to unfold it. And yet we might think the 22 years time which Pythayoras is thought to have spent among them, had been enough to have insinuated himself into their utmost acquaintance, and to have drawn from them the knowledge of their greatest mysteries; but yet we have no great reason to think he did, if if we believe the story in Diogenes Laertius of his sacrificing an Hecatomb for the finding out of that demon∣stration, which is now contained in the 47 proposition of the first of Euclide. Yet this did not abate the Graecians esteem of the Aegyptians Mathematical Learning; for in Plato's time Eudoxus Cnidius went into Aegypt on pur∣pose to acquire it there; and Democritus his boast, that none of the Arsepedonaptae in Aegypt (so their Priests were called, as Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius tell us, who * 1.45 relate the story) exceeded him in the Mathematicks, by which it may be at least inferred, that they were then in greatest esteem for them. Their great skill in Astronomy is attested by Diodorus, Strabo, Herodotus, and others, and by their finding out the course of the year by the motion of

the Sun, which was the invention of the Heliopolitan Priests. * 1.46 How much they valued Geography, appears from Clemens his description of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or sacred Scribe in the * 1.47 solemn procession; for he was required to be skilled in Hie∣roglyphicks, Cosmography, Geography, the motions of the Pla∣nets, the Choragraphy of Aegypt, and description of the Nile. Eustathius in his notes on Dionysius, attributes the inventi∣on of Geographical Tables to Sesostris, who caused the Lands he had conquered to be described in Tables, and so com∣municated to the Aegyptians, and from them to others. Their skill in natural Philosophy could not be very great, because of their Magick and Superstition, whereby they were hindred from all experiments in those natural things which they attributed a Divinity to; but they seem to have been more exact and curious in natural history; for, any prodigies, or any thing that was Anomalous in nature, they did, saith Strabo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with a great deal of curiosity insert it in their sacred re∣cords; and Herodotus adds, that more things of that nature are observed by them then by any other Nation; which, saith he, they not only diligently preserve, but frequently com∣pare together, and from a similitude of prodigies gather a si∣militude of events. But that which gained the Aegyptians the greatest repute abroad, seems to have been their early skill in Physick, which is so much spoken of by Homer, Pla∣to, Herodotus, Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius, and others, that it were impertinent troubling a Readers patience with the proof of that which is so generally confessed. A great evi∣dence of the antiquity of this study among them is (if Ma∣netho may be so far credited) that Athothis the second King of the first Dynasty of the Thimites was a Physician himself, and writ some books of Anatomy; and the second King of the third Dynasty of the Memphites, was for his skill in Physick honoured among them by the name of Aesculapi∣us. Pliny affirms it to have been the custom of their Kings to cause dead bodies to be dissected, to find out the nature of * 1.48 diseases; and elsewhere tells us, that the original of Phy∣sick among them was from the relations of those who by any remedy were cured of any disease, which for a memo∣rial

to posterity were recorded in their Temples. Their Hieroglyphical and mystical Learning hath made the great∣est noise in the world, and hath the least of substance in it; which whover will not be convinced of without perusal of Kirchers Oedipus Aegyptiacus, will at last find it fully done to his hand by the successess endeavours of that other∣wise learned man. I cannot think any rational man could think that study worth his pains, which at the highest can amount but to a conjecture; and when it is come to that with a great deal of pains, it is nothing but some ordinary and trivial observation. As in that famous Hieroglyphick of Diospolis, so much spoken of by the Ancients, where was a Child to express coming into the world, an old man for go∣ing out of it, an Hawk for God, an Hippotamus for hatred, and a Crocodile for impudence, and all to express this vene∣rable Apothegm, O ye that come into the world, and that go out of it, God hates impudence. And therefore certainly this kind of Learning deserves the highest form among the diffi∣ciles Nugae, and all these Hieroglyphicks put together, will make but one good one, and that should be for Labour lost.

There is yet one part of Learning more among them, * 1.49 which the Aegyptians are esteemed for, which is the Po∣litical and civil part of it, which may better be called wis∣dom then most of the fore-going; two things speak much the wisdom of a Nation; good Laws, and a prudent manage∣ment of them; their Laws are highly commended by Stra∣bo and Diodorus; and it is none of the least commendations of them, that Solon and Lycurgus borrowed so many of their constitutions from them; and for the prudent manage∣ment of their government, as the continuance of their state so long in peace and quietness, is an invincible demonstrati∣on of it; so the report given of them in Scripture adds a further testimony to it; for therein the King of Aegypt is called the Son of the wise, as well as the son of ancient Kings; and his counsellors are called wise counsellors of Pharaoh, and * 1.50 the wise men; whereby a more then ordinary prudence and policy must be understood. Can we now imagine such a person as Moses was bred up in all the ingenucus literature

of Aegypt, conversant among their wisest persons in Pha∣raohs Court, having thereby all advantages to improve him∣self, and to understand the utmost of all that they knew, should not be able to pass a judgement between a meer pr••∣tence and imposture, and real and important T••uths? Can we think that one who had interest in so great a Court, all advantages of raising himself therein, should willingly for∣sake all the pleasures and delights at present, all his hopes and advantages for the future, were he not fully perswaded of the certain and undoubted truth of all those things which are recorded in his books? Is it possible a man of ordinary wisdom should venture himself upon so hazardous, unlike∣ly, and dangerous employment, ••s that was Moses under∣took, which could have no probability of success, but only upon the belief that that God who appeared unto him, was greater then all the Gods of Aegypt, and could carry on his own design by his own power, maugre all the opposition which the Princes of the world could make against it? And what possible ground can we have to think that such a per∣son who did verily believe the truth of what God revealed unto him, should dare to write any otherwise then as it was revealed unto him? If there had been any thing repugnant to common reason in the history of the Creation, the fall of man, the universal deluge, the propagation of the world by the sons of Noah, the history of the Patriarchs, had not Moses rational faculties as well as we? nay, had he them not far better improved then any of ours are? and was not he then able to judge what was suitable to reason, and what not? and can we think he would then deliver any thing inconsistent with reason or undoubted tradition then, when the Aegypti∣an Priests might so readily and plainly have triumphed over him, by discovering the falshood of what he wrote? Thus we see that Moses was as highly qualified as any of the acu∣test Heathen Philosophers could be, for discerning truth from falshood; nay, in all probability he far excelled the most re∣nowned of the Graecian Philosophers in that very kind of learning wherewith they made so great noise in the world, which was originally Aegyptian, as is evident in the whole series of the Graecian Philosphers, who went age after age

to Aegypt to get some scraps of that learning there, which Moses could not have but full meals of, because of his high place, great interest, and power in Aegypt. And must those hungry Philosophers then become the only Masters of our reason, and their dictates be received as the s••nse and voice of nature, which they either received from uncertain tradition, or else delivered in opposition to it, that they might be more taken notice of in the world? Must an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be confronted with Thus saith the Lord? and a few pitiful symbols vye authority with divine commands? and Ex nihilo nihil fit be sooner believed then In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth? What irrefragable evidence of reason is that so confident a presumption built upon, when it can signifie nothing without this hypothesis, that there is nothing but matter in the world; and let this first be proved, and we will never stick to grant the other. I may confi∣dently say the great gullery of the world hath been, taking philosophical dictates for the standard of reason, and unproved hypotheses for certain foundations for our discourse to rely upon. And the seeking to reconcile the mysteries of our faith to these, hath been that whith hath almost destroyed it, and turned our Religion into a meer philosophical speculati∣on. But of this elsewhere. We see then that insisting meer∣ly on the accomplishments and rational perfections of the per∣sons who speak, we have more reason to yield credit to Moses in his history, then to any Philosophers in their spe∣culations.

And that which in the next place speaks Moses to be a person of wisdom, and judgement, and ability to finde out * 1.51 truth, was his age and experience when he delivered these things to the world. He vented no crude and indigested conceptions, no sudden and temerarious fancies, the usual issues of teeming and juvenile wits; he lived long enough to have experience to try, and judgement to distinguish a meer out∣side and varnish, from what was solid and substantial. We cannot then have the least ground of suspition, that Moses was any wayes unfit to discern truth from fals∣hood, and therefore was capable of judging the one from the other.

But though persons be never so highly accomplisht for parts, learning, and experience, yet if they want due infor∣mation of the certainty of the things they deliver, they may be still dec••iving themselves; and if they preserve it for po∣sterity, be guilty of deceiving others. Let us now therefore see whether Moses had not as great advantages for under∣standing the truth of his History, as he had judgement to discern it. And concerning all those things contained in the four last books of his, to his own death, it was impossible any should have greater then himself, writing nothing but what he was pars magna himself, of what he saw, and heard, and did; and can any testimony be desired greater then his whose actions they were, or who was present at the doing of them, and that not in any private way, but in the most publick capacity? For although private persons may be present at great actions, yet they may be guilty of misre∣presenting them, for want of understanding all circum∣stances precedent, and subsequent, or for want of understand∣ing the designs of the chief instruments of action: but when the person himself, who was the chief in all, shall undertake to write an exact History of it, what evidence can be de∣sired more certain then that is, that there could be no defect as to information concerning what was done? The only seruple then that can be made, must be concerning the passages of former times which Moses relates. And here I doubt not but to make it appear, that insisting only on all that can be desired in a bare Historian (setting aside Divine revelation) he had as true and certain information of the History of those former ages, as any one can have of things at that distance from themselves; and that is by a certain ••••interrupted tradition of them, which will appear more clear and evident in that Nation of which Moses was, then in any other Nation in the world: And that on these two accounts: first, the undoubted lin••al deseent from Father to Son in the I••wish Nation. Secondly, Their int••rest lying so much in the preserving this tradition entire.

First, That there was a certain unmixed lin••al descent from Father to Son in the Iewish Nation: the great ••ause of most * 1.52 of the confusion in the tradition of other Nations, was the

frequent mixing of several families one with another; now that God might as it were on purpose satisfie the world of the Israelites capacity to preserve the tradition entire, he prohibited their mixture by marriages with the people of other Nations and families. So that in Moses his time it was a very easie matter to run up their lineal descent as far as the flood, nay up to Adam; for Adam conversed sometime with Noah; Sem his Son was probably living in some part of Iacobs time, or Isaac's at least; and how easily and unin∣terruptedly might the general tradition of the ancient History be continued thence to the time of Moses, when the number of families agreeing in this tradition was in∣creased, and withall incorporated by a common ligament of Religion? I demand then, where can we suppose any igno∣rance or cutting off this general tradition in so continued a succession as here was? Can we imagine that the Grand∣children of Iacob could be ignorant of their own pedigree, and whence they came into Egypt? can we think a thing so late and so remarkable as the account of their coming thither, should be forgotten, which was attended with so many memorable circumstances, especially the selling and advancement of Ioseph, whose memory it was impossible should be obliterated in so short a time? Could Iacob be ignorant of the Country whence his Grand-father Abraham came? especially when he lived so long in it himself, and married into that branch of the family that was remaining there, when he had served his Uncle Laban? Could Abra∣ham, when he was cotemporary with Sem, be ignorant of the truth of the flood, when Sem from whom he derived himself, was one of the persons who escaped it in the Ark? Could Sem be ignorant of the actions before the flood, when Adam the first man, lived some part of his time with Noah? and could Noah then be ignorant of the Creation, and the fall of man? Thus we see it almost impossible, that any age among them then could be ignorant of the passages of the prece∣dent, which they were so few Generations removed from, that they could with ease derive themselves from the first man. What then can we say? that any of these had a de∣sign of deceiving their posterity, and so corrupted the tra∣dition?

but besides, that it could be hardly possible at that time, when there were so many remaining testimonies of former times; what end can we imagine that any Parents should have in thus deceiving their Children, or what ad∣vantage should come to them by such a deceit? Nay, I shall now manifest in the sicond place, that the whole interest of their children lay in preserving this tradition certain and en∣tire. For their hopes of possessing Canaan and title to it, depended upon the promise made to Abraham 400 years before; which would not only keep awake their sense of Divine Providence, but would make them careful during their bondage to preserve their Genealogies, because all the right they could plead to their p••ssessions in Canaan, was from their being of Abrahams seed. And besides this, on purpose to be a memorial to them of pass••ges between God and Abraham, they had in their flesh a badge of circumcision, which would serve to call to mind those transactions which had been between God and their for••-fathers. These things then do fully demonstrate, that insisting only on rational evidence, the Israelites were the most certain conservatours of the ancient History of the world; and can we then think, that Moses who was the Ruler among them, should not fully understand those things which every Israelite could scarce be ignorant of, and might correct the mistakes of Moses in his History, if he had been guilty of any such? These things I suppose have made the first proposition evi∣dent, that it was morally impossible Moses should be deceived himself, or be ignorant of the things which he reports to others, both because he had abilities sufficient to discover truth from falshood, and sufficient information of the passages of former times.

CHAP. III. Moses his fidelity and integrity proved.

Moses considered as an Historian, and as a Lawgiver; his fidelity in both proved: clear evidences that he had no in∣tent to deceive in his History, freedom from private interest, impartiality in his relations, plainness and perspicuity of stile. As a Lawgiver, he came armed with Divine au∣thority, which being the main thing, is fixed on to be fully proved from his actions and writings. The power of mi∣racles the great evidence of Divine revelation. Two grand questions propounded. In what cases miracles may be ex∣pected, and how known to be true. No necessity of a constant power of miracles in a Church: Two Cases alone wherein they may be expected. When any thing comes as a Law from God, and when a Divine Law is to be repealed The necessity of miracles in those cases as an evidence of Divine revelation asserted. Objections answered. No use of mira∣cles when the doctrine is setled and owned by miracles in the first revelation. No need of miracles in reformation of a Church.

THE second proposition contains the proof of Moses his fidelity, that he was as far from having any intent to * 1.53 deceive others, as he was being deceived himself. Two wayes Moses must be considered, as an Historian, and as a Law∣giver; the only inducement for him to deceive as an Histo∣rian, must be some particular interest which must draw him aside from an impartial delivery of the truth; as a Law∣giver he might deceive, if he pretended Divine revelation for those Laws which were only the issues of his own brain, that they might be received with a greater veneration among the people, as Numa Pompilius and others did. Now if we prove that Moses had no interest to deceive in his History, and had all rational evidence of Divine revela∣tion in his Laws, we shall abundantly evince the undoubted

fidelity of Moses in every thing recorded by him. We begin then with his fidelity as an Historian; and it being contrary to the common interest of the world to deceive and be deceiv∣ed, we have no reason to entertain any suspitions of the veracity of any person where we cannot discern some pec••∣liar interest that might have a stronger biass upon him then the common interest of the world. For it is otherwise in mo∣rals then in naturals; for in naturals, we see that every thing will leave its proper interest to preserve the common interest of nature; but in morals, there is nothing more common then deserting the common interest of mankind, to set up a pecu∣liar interest against it: It being the truest description of a Politician, that he is one who makes himself the centre, and the whole world his circumference; that he regards not how much the whole world is abused, if any advantage doth accrue to himself by it. Where we see it then the design of any person to advance himself or his posterity, or to set up the credit of the Nation whose History he writes, we may have just cause to suspect his partiality, because we then finde a sufficient inducement for such a one to leave the common road of truth, and to fall into the paths of deceit. But we have not the least ground to suspect any such par∣tiality in the History of Moses; for nothing is more clear then that he was free from the ambitious design of advancing himself and his posterity. who notwithstanding the great honour he enjoyed himself, was content to leave his posterity in the meanest sort of attendance upon the Tabernacle. And as little have we ground to think he intended to flatter that Nation, which he so lively describes, that one would think he had rather an interest to set forth the frowardness, unbe∣lief, unthankfulness, and disobedience of a Nation towards a Gracious God, then any wayes to inhance their reputation in the world, or to ingratiate himself with them by writing this History of them. Nay, and he sets forth so exactly the lesser failings and grosser enormities of all the Ancestours of this Nation whose acts he records, that any impartial reader will soon acquit him of a design of flattery, when after he hath recorded those faults, he seeks not to extenuate them, or bring any excuse or pretence to palliate them. So that

any observing reader may easily take notice, that he was carried on by a higher design then the common people of Historians are, and that his drift and scope was to exalt the goodness and favour of God, towards a rebellious and obstinate people. Of which there can be no greater nor more lively demonstration, then the History of all the transactions of the Iewish Nation, from their coming forth of Aegypt to their utter ruine and desolation. And Moses tells them as from God himself, it was neither for their number, nor their good∣ness, that God set his Love upon them, but he loved them, be∣cause he loved them; i. e. no other account was to be given * 1.54 of his gracious dealing with them, but the freeness of his own bonnty, and the exuberancy of his goodness towards them. Nay, have we not cause to admire the ingenuity as well as veracity of this excellent personage, who not only layes so notorious a blot upon the stock of his own family Levi, recording so punctually the inhumanity and cruelty of him and Simeon in their dealings with the Shechemites; * 1.55 but likewise inserts that curse which was left upon their memory for it by their own Father at his decease. And that he might not leave the least suspition of partiality behind him, he hath not done as the statuary did, (who engraved his own name so artificially in the statue of Iupiter, that one should continue as long as the other,) but what the other intended for the praise of his skill, Moses hath done for his ingenuity, that he hath so interwoven the History of his own failings and disobedience with those of the Nation, that his spots are like to continue as long as the whole web of his History is like to do. Had it been the least part of his design to have his memory preserved with a superstitious veneration among the Iews, how easie had it been for him to have left out any thing that might in the least entrench upon his repu∣tation? but we finde him very secure and careless in that particular; nay, on the other side, very studious and indu∣strious in depressing the honour and deserts of men, and advancing the power and goodness of God. And all this he doth, not in an affected strain of Rhetorick, whose proper work is impetrare fidem mendacio, and as Tully somewhere confesseth, to make things seem otherwise then they are, but

with that innate simplicity and plainness, and yet withall with that Imperatoria brevit as, that Majesty and authority, that it is thereby evident he sought not to court acceptance, but to demand belief: Nor had any such pittiful design of pleasing his Readers with some affected phrases, but thought that Truth it self had presence enough with it, to command the submission of our understandings to it.

Especially when all these were delivered by such a one * 1.56 who came sufficiently armed with all motives of credibility and inducements to assent, by that evidence which he gave, that he was no pretender to divine revelation, but was really imployed as a peculiar instrument of State under the God and Ruler of the whole world. Which if it be made clear, then all our further doubts must presently cease, and all im∣pertinent disputes be silenced, when the supream Majesty appears impowring any person to dictate to the world the Laws they must be governed by. For if any thing be repug∣nant to our rational faculties, that is, that God should dictate any thing but what is most certainly true, or that the Gover∣nor of the world should prescribe any Laws, but such as were most just and reasonable. If we suppose a God, we cannot question veracity to be one of his chiefest Attributes, and that it is impossible the God of truth should imploy any, to reveal any thing as from him, but what was undoubtedly true. So that it were an argument of the most gross and un∣reasonable incredulity, to distrust the certainty of any thing which comes to us with sufficient evidence of divine revela∣tion; because thereby we shew our distrust of the veracity of God himself. All that we can desire then, is only reason∣able satisfactisn concerning the evidence of Divine revela∣tion in the person whose words we are to credit, and this our Gracious God hath been so far from denying men, that he hath given all rational evidence of the truth of it. For it implying no incongruity at all, to any notions of God or our selves, that God should, when it pleases him, single out some instrument to manifest his will to the world; our enquiry then leads us to those things which may be proper notes and cha∣racters of such a person who is imployed on so high an Embassy. And those are chiefly these two, if his actions be

such as could not flow from the power of meer natural causes, and if the things he reveals be such as could not proceed from any created understanding. First then, for his actions, these striking most upon our outward senses when they are any thing extraordinary, do transmit along with the impressions of them to the understanding, an high opinion of the person that does them: Whereas the meer height of knowledge, or profoundness of things discovered, can have no such pre∣sent power and influence upon any, but such as are of more raised and inquisitive minds. And the world is generally more apt to suspect its self deceived with words, then it can be with actions; and hence Miracles, or the doing of things above the reach of nature, hath been alwayes embraced as the greatest testimony of Divine authority and revelation. For which there is this evident reason, that the course of nature being setled by divine power, and every thing acting there by the force of that power it received at first, it seems impossible that any thing should really alter the series of things, without the same power which at first produced them. This then we take for granted, that where ever such a power appears, there is a certain evidence of a Divine presence going along with such a person who enjoyes it. And this is that which is most evident in the actions of Moses, both as to the Miracles he wrought, both in Aegypt and the Wilderness, and his miraculous deliverance of the Israelites out of Aegypt, this latter being as much above the reach of any meerly civil power, as the other above natural.

We therefore come to the rational evidence of that divine authority whereby Moses acted, which may be gathered * 1.57 from that divine power which appeared in his actions; which being a matter of so great weight and importance (it being one of the main bases whereon the evidence of divine reve∣lation, as to us, doth stand) and withall of so great diffi∣culty and obscurity, (caused through the preferring some parties in Religion, above the common interest of it) it will require more care and diligence to search what influence the power of miracles hath upon the proving the Divine Commis∣sion of those who do them. Whether they are such undoubted credentials, that where ever they are produced, we are pre∣sently

to receive the persons who bring them, as extraordina∣ry Embassadors from heaven, imployed on some peculiar message to the sons of men? For the full stating of this im∣portant question, two things must be cleared: First, In what cases miracles may be expected as credentials to confirm an immediate commission from heaven? Secondly, What ratio∣nal evidence do attend those miracles, to assure us they are such as they pretend to be?

First, For the cases wherein these miracles are to be expected as inducements to, or confirmations of our faith, concerning the * 1.58 Divine imployment of any persons in the world. And here I lay down this as a certain foundation, that a power of mi∣racles is not constantly and perpetually necessary in all those who mannage the affairs of Heaven here on earth, or that act in the name of God in the world. When the doctrine of faith is once setled in sacred records, and the divine revelation of that doctrine sufficiently attested, by a power of miracles in the revealers of it, What imaginable necessity or pretext can there be for a contrived power of miracles, especially among such as already own the Divine revelation of the Scriptures? To make then a power of working miracles to be constantly resident in the Church of God, as one of the necessary notes and characters of it, is to put God upon that necessity which common nature is freed from, viz. of mul∣tiplying things without sufficient cause to be given for them; and to leave mens faith at a stand, when God hath given sufficient testimony for it to rely upon. It is a thing too common and easie to be observed, that some persons out of their eagerness to uphold the interest of their own party, have been fain to establish it upon such grounds, which when they are sufficiently searched to the bottom, do apparently undermine the common and sure foundations whereon the belief of our common Christianity doth mainly stand. It were easie to make a large discourse on this subject, where∣by we may rip open the wounds that Christianity hath re∣ceived, through the contentions of the several parties of it; but this imputation cannot with so much reason be fastened on any party, as that which is nailed to a pretended infal∣lible chair; for which we need no other instance, then this

before us. For while the leaders of that party make a power of miracles to be a necessary note of the true Church, they unavoidably run men upon this dangerous precipice, not to believe any thing as a matter of faith, where they find not sufficient miracles to convince them that is the true Church which propounds it to them. Which necessarily follows from their acknowledged principles, for it being impossible ac∣cording to them, to believe any thing with a divine faith, but what is propounded by the Church as an infallible guide, and it being impossible to know which is this infallible guide, but by the notes and characters of it, and one of those notes being a power of miracles, I cannot find out my guide but by this power; and this power must be present in the Church, (for nothing of former ages concerning faith, as the Mi∣racles of Christ, his resurrection, &c. is to be believed, but on the Churches account) and therefore where men do not find sufficient conviction from present miracles, to believe the Church to be an infallible guide, they must throw off all faith concerning the Gospel; for as good never a whit, as never the better. And therefore it is no wonder At••eism should be so thriving a plant in Italy, nay under, if not within the walls of Rome it self, where inquisitive persons do daily see the juglings and impostures of Priests in their pretended miracles, and from thence are brought to look upon Religion its self as a meer imposture, and to think no Pope so infallible as he that said, Quantum nobis profuit haec de Christo fabula? Such horrid consequences do men drive others, if not bring themselves to, when they imploy their parts and industry rather to uphold a corrupt interest, then to promote the belief of the acknowledged principles of Chri∣stian faith. But as long as we assert no necessity of such a power of miracles to be the note of any true Church, nor any such necessity of an infallible guide, but that the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles, were sufficient eviden∣ces of a divine spirit in them; and that the Scriptures were recorded by them to be an infallible rule of faith, here we have more clear reason as to the primary motives and grounds of faith, and withall the infallible veracity of God in the Scriptures, as the last resolution of faith. And while we

assert such an infallible rule of faith, delivered to us by such an unanimous consent from the first delivery of it, and then so fully attested by such uncontroulable miracles, we cannot in the least understand to what end a power of miracles should now serve in the Church, especially among those who all believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God. Indeed be∣fore the great harvest of Converts in the primitive times were brought in, both of Iews and Gentiles, and the Church sully setled in receiving the Canon of the Scriptures uni∣versally, we find God did continue this power among them; but after the books of the New Testament were generally imbraced as the rule of faith among Christians, we find them so far from pretending to any such power, that they reject the pretenders to it, such as the Donatists were, and plead upon the same accounts as we do now against the necessity of it. We see then no reason in the world for miracles to be continued where the doctrine of faith is setled, as being confirmed by miracles in the first preachers of it.

There are only these two cases then, wherein miracles may justly and with reason be expected. First, when any person * 1.59 comes as by an extraordinary commission from God to the world, either to deliver some peculiar message, or to do some more then ordinary service. Secondly, When something that hath been before established by Divine Law, is to be repealed, and some other way of worship established in stead of it. First, When any comes upon an extraordinary message to the world, in the name of, and by commission from God, then it is but reason to require some more then ordinary evidence of such authority. Because of the main importance of the du∣ty of giving credit to such a person, and the great sin of be∣ing guilty of rejecting that divine authority which appears in him. And in this case we cannot think that God would re∣quire it as a duty to believe, where he doth not give suffici∣ent arguments for faith, nor that he will punish persons for such a fault, which an invincible ignorance was the cause of. Indeed God doth not use to necessitate faith, as to the act of it, but he doth so clearly propound the object of it, with all arguments inducing to it, as may sufficiently justifie a Belie∣vers choice in point of reason and prudence, and may leave all

unbelievers without excuse. I cannot see what account a man can give to himself of his faith, much less what Apology he can make to others for it, unless he be sufficiently con∣vinced, in point of the highest reason, that it was his duty to believe; and in order to that conviction, there must be some clear evidence given, that what is spoken hath the impress of Divine authority upon it. Now what convictions there can be to any sober mind concerning Divine authority in any person without such a power of miracles going along with him, when he is to deliver some new doctrine to the world to be believed, I confess I cannot understand. For although I doubt not but where ever God doth reveal any thing to any person immediately, he gives demonstrable evidence to the inward senses of the soul, that it comes from himself, yet this inward sense can be no ground to another person to be∣lieve his doctrine divine, because no man can be a competent judge of the actings of anothers senses; and it is impossible to another person to distinguish the actings of the divine Spirit from strong impressions of fancy by the force and energy of them. If it be said, that we are bound to believe those, who say they are fully satisfied of their Divine Commis∣sion. * 1.60 I answer, First, this will expose us to all delusions imagi∣nable; * 1.61 for if we are bound to believe them because they say so, * 1.62 we are bound to believe all which say so; and none are more confident pretenders to this then the greatest deceivers, as the experience of our age will sufficiently witness. Secondly, Men must necessarly be bound to believe contradictions; for nothing more ordinary, then for such confident pretend∣ers * 1.63 to a Divine Spirit, to contradict one another, and it may be, the same person in a little time contradict himself: and must we still be bound to believe all they say? If so, no Philosophers would be so much in request, as those Aristotle disputes against in his Metaphysicks, who thought a thing might be, and not be, at the same time. Thirdly, The ground of faith at last will be but a meer humane testimony, as far as * 1.64 the person who is to believe is capable of judging of it. For the Question being, Whether the person I am to believe hath divine authority for what he saith, What ground can I have to believe that he hath so? Must I take his bare affirmation

for it? If so, then a meer humane testimony must be the ground of divine faith, and that which it is last resolved into; if it be said that I am to believe the divine authority by which he speaks, when he speaks in the name of God: I an∣swer, the question will again return, how I shall know he speaks this from divine authority? and so there must be a progress in infinitum, or founding divine faith on a meer humane testimony, if I am to believe divine revelation meer∣ly on the account of the persons affirmation who pretends unto it. For in this case it holds good, non apparentis & non existentis eadem est ratio, if he be divinely inspired, and there be no ground inducing me to believe that he is so, I shall be excused, if I believe him not, if my wilfulness and laziness be not the cause of my unbelief.

If it be said that God will satisfie the minds of good men * 1.65 concerning the truth of divine revelation. I grant it to be wonderfully true, but all the question is de modo, how God will satisfie them? whether meerly by inspiration of his own spirit in them, assuring them that it is God that speaks in such persons; or by giving them rational evidence, convincing them of sufficient grounds to believe it. If we assert the former way, we run into these inconveniences; First we make as immediate a revelation in all those who believe, as in * 1.66 those who are to reveal divine truths to us, for there is a new revelation of an object immediately to the mind; viz. that such a person is inspired of God; and so is not after the com∣mon way of the Spirits illumination in Believers, which is by inlightning the faculty, without the proposition of any new object, as it is in the work of Grace: So that according to this opinion, there must be immediate inspiration as to that act of faith, whereby we believe any one to have been di∣vinely inspired, and consequently to that whereby we be∣lieve the Scriptures to be the Word of God. Secondly, Doth * 1.67 not this make the fairest plea for mens unbelief? For I de∣mand, Is it the duty of those who want that immediate il∣lumination to believe or no? If it be not their duty, unbelief can be no sin to them; if it be a duty, it must be made known to be a duty; and how can that be made known to them to be a duty, when they want the only and necessary means of

instruction in order to it? Will God condemn them for that, which it was impossible they should have, unless God gave it them? And how can they be left inexcuseable, who want so much as rational inducements to faith? for of these I now speak, and not of efficacious perswasions of the mind, when there are rational arguments for faith propounded. But last∣ly, * 1.68 I suppose the case will be cleared, when we take notice what course God hath alwayes taken to give all rational satis∣faction to the minds of men, concerning the persons whom he hath imployed in either of the fore-mentioned cases. First, for those who have been imployed upon some special mes∣sage and service for God, he hath sent them forth sufficiently provided with manifestations of the Divine power whereby they acted: As is most clear and evident in the present case of Moses, Exodus 4. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. where Moses puts the case to God which we are now debating of. Supposing, saith he, that I should go to the Israelites and tell them, God had appeared to me, and sent me to deliver them, and they should say God had not appeared unto me, how should I satisfie them? God doth not reject this objection of Moses as favouring of unbelief, but presently shews him how he should satisfie them, by causing a miracle before his face, turning his rod into a Serpent; and God gives this as the rea∣son of it, vers. 5. That they may believe that the Lord God of their Fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee. It seems God himself thought this would be the most pregnant evidence of Gods appearing to him, if he wrought miracles before their faces. Nay, lest they should think one single miracle was not suffi∣cient, God in the immediate following verses adjoyns two more, which he should do in order to their satisfaction; and further, verse 21. God gave him a charge to do all those wonders before Pharoah, which he had put into his hand. And accordingly we find Pharoah presently demanding a miracle of Moses, Exodus 7. 9. which accordingly Moses did in his presence, though he might suppose Pharoahs de∣mand not to proceed from desire of satisfaction, but from some hopes that for want of it, he might have rendred his credit suspected among the Israelites.

Indeed after God had delivered his people, and had setled them in a way of serving him according to the Laws deli∣vered * 1.69 by Moses, which he had confirmed by unquestionable miracles among them, we find a caution laid in by Moses himself, against those which should pretend signs and won∣ders to draw them off from the Religion established by the Law of Moses. And so likewise under the Gospel, after * 1.70 that was established by the unparallel'd miracles of our Saviour and his Apostles, we find frequent cautions against being deceived by those who came with pretences of doing great miracles. But this is so far from infringing the credi∣bility of such a Testimony which is confirmed by miracles, that it yields a strong confirmation to the truth of what I now assert. For the doctrine is supposed to be already esta∣blished by miracles, according to which we are to judge of the spirits of such pretenders. Now it stands to the greatest reason, that when a Religion is once established by uncon∣trouled miracles, we should not hearken to every whiffling Conjurer that will pretend to do great feats, to draw us off from the truth established. In which case, the surest way to discover the imposture, is to compare his pretended miracles with those true and real ones which were done by Moses and Christ; and the ground of it is, because every person is no competent judge of the truth of a miracle; for the Devil by his power and subtilty, may easily deceive all such as will be led by the nose by him, in expectation of some wonders to be done by him. And therefore as long as we have no ground to question the oertainty of those mi∣racles which were wrought by Christ or Moses, I am bound to adhere to the doctrine established by those miracles, and to make them my rule of judging all persons who shall pre∣tend to work miracles: Because, 1. I do not know how far God may give men over to be deceived by lying wonders, * 1.71 who will not receive the truth in the love of it; i. e. those that think not the Christian Religion sufficiently confirmed by the miracles wrought at the first promulgation of it. God in justice may permit the Devil to go further then other∣wise he could, and leave such persons to their own credulity, to believe every imposture and illusion of their senses for

true miracles. 2. That doctrine which was confirmed by undoubted miracles, hath assured us of the coming of lying * 1.72 wonders, whereby many should be deceived. Now this part of the doctrine of the Gospel is as certainly true as any of the rest; for it was confirmed by the same miracles that the other was; and besides that, the very coming of such mi∣racles is an evidence of the truth of it, it falling out so ex∣actly according to what was foretold so many hundred years since. Now if this doctrine be true, then am I certain the intent of these miracles is to deceive, and that those are deceived who hearken to them; and what reason then have I to believe them? 3. To what end do these miracles serve? Are they to confirm the truths contained in Scripture? * 1.73 But what need they any confirmation now, when we are assured by the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles, that the doctrine by them preached came from God? and so hath been received upon the credit of those miracles ever since. Were these truths sufficiently proved to be from God before or no? If not, then all former ages have believed without sufficient ground for faith; if they were, then what ground can there be to confirm us in them now? cer∣tainly God, who never doth anything but for very great purposes, will never alter the course of nature, meerly for satisfaction of mens vain curiosities.

But it may be it will be said, It was something not fully re∣vealed in Scripture which is thus confirmed by miracles: but * 1.74 where hath the Scripture told us, that anything not fully revealed therein, should be afterwards confirmed? Was the Scripture an infallible rule of faith while this was wanting in it? Did Christ and his Apostles discharge their places, when they left something unr••vealed to us? Was this a duty before these miracles, or no? if it was, what need miracles to con∣firm it? if not, Christ hath not told us all nec••ssary condi∣tions of salvation. For whatever is required as a duty, is such as the neglect of it runs men upon damnation. Lastly, mens faith will be left at continual uncertainties; for we know not according to this principle, when we have all that is necessary to be beli••ved, or do all that is necessary to be practised in order to salvation. For if God may still

make new articles of saith, or constitute new duties by fresh miracles, I must go and enquire what miracles are wrought in every place, to see that I miss nothing that may be necessary for me, in order to my happiness in another world.

If men pretend to deliver any doctrine contrary to the Scripture; then it is not only necessary that they confirm it by miracles, but they must manifest the falsity of those miracles on which that doctrine is believed, or else they must use another miracle to prove that God will set his seal to confirm both parts of a contradiction to be true. Which being the hardest task of all, had need be proved by very sufficient and undoubted miracles, such as may be able to make us be∣lieve those are miracles, and are not, at the same time, and so the strength of the argument is utterly destroyed by the m••∣dium produced to prove it by.

By this discour••e these two things are clear; First, that no pretences of miracles are to be hearkened to, when the doctrine we are to believe is already established by them, if those miracles tend in the least to the derogation of the truth of what was established by those former miracles. Secondly, that when the full doctrine we are to believe is established by miracles, there is no necessity at all of new miracles, for confirmation of any of the truths therein delivered. And therefore it is a most unrea∣sonable thing to demand miracles of those to prove the truth of the doctrine they deliver, who do first solemnly profess to deliver nothing but what was confirmed by miracles in the first delivery of it, and is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; and secondly do not pretend to any immediate Commission from heaven, but do nothing but what in their consciences they think every true Christian is bound to do; much more all Magistrates and Ministers who believe the truth of what they profess, which is in their places to reform all errours and abuses which are crept into the doctrine or practice of Christianity, through the corrupti∣on of men or times. And therefore it is a most unjust and un∣reasonable demand of the Papists, when they require mira∣cles from our first reformers, to prove the truth of their do∣ctrine with. Had they pretended to have come with an

immediate commission from heaven to have added to the Do∣ctrine of the Gospel, there had been some plea for such a de∣mand; but it was quite otherwise with them: Their only design was to whip the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, to purge the Church from its abuses: And although that by Ierome was thought to be one of our Saviours greatest mi∣racles, yet this by us is conceived to be no other then the duty of all Magistrates, Ministers, and private Christians; these by their prayers, Ministers, by their doctrine, and Ma∣gistrates by their just authority.

CHAP. IV. The fidelity of the Prophets succeeding Moses.

In order of Prophets to succeed Moses, by Gods own appoint∣ment in the Law of Moses. The Schools of the Prophets, the original and institution of them. The Cities of the Le∣vites. The occasion of their first institution. The places of the Schools of the Prophets, and the tendency of the institu∣tion there to a prophetical office. Of the Musick used in the Schools of the Prophets. The Roman Assamenta, and the Greek Hymns in their solemn worship. The two sorts of Prophets among the Jews, Lieger and extraordinary. Or∣dinary Prophets taken out of the Schools, proved by Amos and Saul.

BUt although now under the Gospel (the revelation of Gods will being compleated by Christ and his Apostles) * 1.75 we have no reason either to expect new Revelations, or new miracles for confirming the old; yet under the Law, God training up his people by degrees till the comming of Christ, there was a necessity of a new supply of Divine Messengers (called Prophets) to prepare the people, and make way for the comming of Christ. As to whom these two things are considerable.

First, Those Prophets whose work was to inform the people of their duties, or to reprove them for their sins, or to prepare

them for the comming of the Messias (which were their chief tasks) had no need to confirm the truth of their doctrine or com∣mission from heaven by the working of miracles among them. And that on these two accounts.

First, Because God did not consummate the revelation of his mind and will to the Jews by the Ministry of Moses, but appointed a succession of Prophets to be among them, to make known his mind unto them. Now in this case, when the prophetical ••ffice was established among them, what necessity was there tha•• every one that came to them upon an errand from God, should prove his testimony to be true by mira∣cles, when in the discharge of his office he delivered no∣thing dissonant from the Law of Moses? It is one argu∣ment God intended a succession of Prophets, when he laid down such rules in his Law for t••e judging of them, and to know whether they were truly inspired or no, Deut. 15. 21, 22. And in that same place God doth promise a succession of Prophets, Deut. 18. 15, 18. A Prophet will the Lord God raise up unto thee like unto me; to him shall ye hearken. Which words, though in their full and compleat sense they do relate to Christ (who is the great Prophet of the Church) yet whoever attends to the full scope of the words, will easily perceive that the immediate sense of them doth relate to an order of Prophets which should succeed Moses among the Iewes; between whom and Moses there would be a great similitude as to their Birth, Calling, and Doctrine, though not a just equality, which is excluded, Deut. 34. 10, 11. and the chief reason why it is said there that the other Pro∣phets fell so much short of Moses, is, in regard of the signs and wonders which he wrought, as is there largely expres∣sed. Nor may it seem strange, that by a Prophet should be understood an order or succession of Prophets, when it is acknowledged by most Protestants, that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Antichrist, is understood a rank and succession of several per∣sons in the same name & function: And that it is to be under∣stood in those words concerning a succession of Prophets, will appear by the occasion of their being brought in; for verse 14. God prohibits them to hearken after the manner of their neighbour-nations, to observers of times and Divi∣ners,

and then brings in the following words, v. 15. as to the reason of that prohibiteon, that God would raise up a Prophet among themselves like unto Moses, and to him should they hearken. Now let any rational man judge whether * 1.76 it were so probable an argument to keep them from hear∣kening to Diviners of other Nations, that there should a Prophet arise 2000 years after like unto Moses, as that he would raise up a continued succession of Prophets among themselves, to whom they should hearken. Thus Origen in his excellent books against Celsus, shews the necessity of the prophetical office among the Iews from hence; for, saith he, it being written in their Law that the Gentiles hear∣kend unto Oracles and Divinations; but God would not suffer * 1.77 it to be so among them, it presently follows, A Prophet will the Lord God raise up in the midst of thee, &c. Therefore, saith he, when the Nations round about them had ther Ora∣cles, and several wayes of divination, all which were strictly prohibited among the Iews, if the Iews had no way of fore∣knowing things to come, it had been almost impossible, consider∣ing the great curiosity of humane nature, to have kept them from despising the Law of Moses, or apostatizing to the hea∣then Oracles, or setting up something like them among them∣selves. Which interpretation of his seems to have a great deal of reason, not only from the coherence of the words here, but from the Analogy of many other precepts of the Law of Moses, which it is most certain have a respect to the customs of the Idolatrous Nations round about them. Another reason why it is most probable, that by this is un∣derstood a succession of Prophets, is the change which fol∣lows against false Prophets, and the rules to discover them, v. 20, 21, 22. which had not been so pertinent and coherent if the opposition did not lie between the order of true Prophets among the Iewes, and the false Prophets which should rise up in the midst of them. And that which yet further justi∣fies this interpretation, is, that there is no other place in the whole Pentateuch which doth expresly speak of a su••cession of Prophets, if this be not understood of it; and is it any ways probabe a matter of so great moment and consequence should be wholly pretermitted? Especially when we find it

so exactly performed in the succeeding ages of the Iewish Commonwealth; their immediate Rulers like Dictators at Rome, after Moses death, being most raised up by immediate incitation and impulse from God, and many of them inspired with a spirit of prophecie. How should the Iews have ex∣pected these, or obeyed them when they appeared, had not God foretold it to them, and provided them for it by the Law of Moses?

Neither did these Prophets arise singly among them, like blazing Stars, one in an age to portend future events, but whole Constellations of them sometimes appeared together; yea, so many smaller Prophets were sometimes united together, as made up a perfect Galaxy, when they were entred into Societies, and became Schools of the Prophets; for such we frequently read of in Scripture. The original and instituti∣on of which may cast a further light into our present design, and shew us the little reason the Iews could have to expect miracles from them to confirm their doctrine, who were brought up in the knowledge of their Law, and were cal∣led out from their several societies into the prophetical of∣fice by the immediate incitation of God himself. Which be∣ing so commonly known among them, there needed no such extraordinary proofs to manifest the Divine authority by which they were employed. Two things then we shall en∣deavour to clear; First, the original and institution of these Schools of the Prophets; and secondly, that it was the erdi∣nary course for the Prophets by employment to be taken forth of these societies wherein they were educated. First, for the ori∣ginal and institution of these Schools of the Prophets. The first Seminaries, or places of institution among the Iews, were the Cities of the Levites, which were dispersed up and down in the several Tribes of Israel; God thereby turning that into a blessing, which was pronounced as a curse upon Le∣vi by his Father Iacob, viz. that he should be divided in Ia∣cob, and scattered in Israel. But though the fulfilling of that * 1.78 prophecie might be the primary ground o•• that scattering, yet it is evident that God aimed at some further good in it, both in reference to the Levites and the Israelites. Lyra undertakes to assign four reasons of this distribution of the

Cities of the Levites among the Tribes. (1) because if they * 1.79 had lived but in one Tribe, the worship of God would have seemed to have been confined to that Tribe. (2) because they would have been a burden to that Tribe they had their habitations in. (3) from the equity of being maintained by all, who served for all. (4) because it was their office to teach the people, and therefore it was necessary they should live among them. These reasons are most of them opposed by * 1.80 Abulensis, but defended by others. The last is that which most insist on, it being the peculiar office of the Levites to teach the people; so 2 Chron. 35. 4. And said unto the Le∣vites, qui erudiebant omnem Israelem, as Vatablus renders it, who taught all Israel; and Masius insists on that as the great reason of their dispersion, to be ready to teach the Law among the Israelites. But yet all those who are agreed that teaching the Law was the duty of the Levites, are not yet agreed of the manner of that teaching; for there being two parts of their Law, the one ceremonial and judicial, and the other moral and spiritual, the question is, whether of these two did belong to, or was performed by the Priests and Levites. There are many who understand all that Of∣fice of teaching which belonged to the Priests and Levites, to be meerly concerning the ceremonial part of the Law, i. e. deciding all cases of controversie which should arise con∣cerning their ceremonial worship, which in Levit. 10. 10. is called putting a difference between holy and unholy, and between clean and unclean. But it seems somewhat strange that God should take so great care about the shell and outside of his worship, and none at all for the moral and spiritual part of it, especially when he had set apart a whole Tribe meerly for his own service, and freed them from all other employments, that they might have a greater liberty to attend upon the things relating to his service; especially when it is mentioned as the duty of the Priests and Levites * 1.81 to teach all the statutes which the Lord had spoken to them by the hand of Moses, and that they shall teach Iacob thy statutes, and Israel thy Law. Which notwithstanding what Abarbi∣nel and others say, must certainly comprehend as well the moral as the ceremonial part of Moses his Law. And the

Priests lips are said to preserve knowledge; and God saith they should seek the Law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the * 1.82 Lord of Hosts. Do these things import no more then meer deciding the cases of the ceremonial Law? But whatever Gods intention in the institution of the Levites was, we find not much in Scripture of what they did for the promoting the moral and spiritual part of divine worship; but it is no news to hear that Societies instituted for good and pious ends, should degenerate from the first intention of the Foun∣ders of them; and thus it is probable it was with the Le∣vites, who finding the most of their benefit and advantage to come in by the ceremonial cases, might grow more negli∣gent of the moral part of divine service, which brought no se∣cular emolument to them.

And thence we read not of these Schools of the Prophets, which were Societies in order to spiritual in struction, till * 1.83 about the time of Samuel; and many think him to have been the first Author of them. For it is evident, that about his time the Priesthood was grown to a great degeneracy, and men thereby estranged from the worship of God, so that there seemed almost a necessity then of restoring some So∣cieties, * 1.84 who might have a special eye to the spiritual part of Gods worship and service. The occasion of the in••titution of them, seems to have been from the resort which the people had to the high places for sacrificing, during the captivity or uncertain abode of the Ark of God, after the desolation of Shiloh: now the people resorting to these places to per∣form their solemnities, it was so ordered, that a company of Prophets should be there resident to bless the sacrifices, and * 1.85 instruct the people. Two of these places with these Societies in them we finde mentioned in the time of Samuel. The first mentioned, 1 Sam. 10. 5, 10, which cannot be the same with Ramah, although the Syriack and Arabick ver∣sions so render it. For Samuel had his own residence in Ramah whither Saul went to him, 1 Sam. 9. 18, 19. but in this chapter we finde Samuel sending Saul on a journey from him beyond Bethel and the plain of Tabor, and there tells him he should meet with the company of Prophets upon. the hill of God, ver. 5; Some think it was called the Hill of

God, because of its height, as the Cedars of God, and the moun∣tains of God for the highest; so Tirinus understands it, but Menochius far more probably, quia in ea erat caetus & veluti schola prophetarum. The Chaldee Paraphrast renders it, ad collem in quo arca Domini: R. Solomon makes this hill to be * 1.86 Kirjath-jearim, and therefore called the hill of God, because the Ark was there in the house of Abinadab in the hill. But Lyra thinks he hath proved, that before this time the Ark was removed from Kirjath-jearim to Mizpah; but Abulensis more probably conceives it was never removed thither, and withal thinks this hill of God to be no other then Gibea of Benjamin, where Saul inhabited; and thence the * 1.87 wonder was the greater, to see him Prophecy among those who had known his former life and education. The other place is Naioth in Ramah, where was a high place whither * 1.88 the people came to sacrifice; this Ramah seems to have been the place of Samuels nativity, called Ramathaim Sophim, * 1.89 which the Syriack version renders collis specularum (some who would be ready to improve every thing for their pur∣pose, would think it was so called in allusion to the imploy∣ment of the young Students there. So Heinsius conceives 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be understood, Numb. 23. 14. the place of * 1.90 watchmen, from which word saith he, without doubt the Greeks derived their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who were wont in such high places to observe the course and motions of the heavens; But to pass by such frivolous conjectures.) It seems a great deal more probable, that this Ramah which the Septuagint by a light mutation of the initial letters calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was the same with Arimathaea, the Town of Ioseph mentioned in the Gospel. But the place where the school of the Prophets was, seems to have been, with greatest conveniency, for a place of education, at some distance from the Town. Vatablus conceives it was built in the fields of Ramah, and the word Naioth, saith Pet. Martyr properly signifies pastures, and some remote places; quae fere sunt studiis aptissima. The Chaldee Paraphrast renders Naioth by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Col∣ledge or School of prophetical education: over this Colledge Samuel himself was President, as most understand that place, 1 Sam. 19. 20. And when they saw the company of Prophets

prophecying, and Samuel standing as appointed over them; Ionathan renders it, & Semuelem stantem docentem super eos. To which we may well apply the words of Philo, speaking of the Iewish manner of instruction, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. * 1.91 The President going before and teaching, the rest increasing in goodness, and improving in life and man∣ners.

Neither can we think so good and useful an institution should presently degenerate or be turned into another chan∣nel; * 1.92 and therefore some conceive that the most noted Prophets to the time of David were the Presidents of these Colledges; such as besides Samuel were H••lcana, Gad, Na∣than, Heman, and Ieduthun; and that they selected out the choycest and most hopeful of the young Levites, and here educated them, together with the Nazarites which came out of other tribes. And it seems very probable, that in all the most noted high places whether they went to sacrifice, there were such Schools erected after the first institution of them. Thence we read of such multitudes of the Prophets together in the time of Ahab, 1 Kings 18. 4. for when Iezabel cut off the Prophets of the Lord, Obadia•• took an hundred and hid them in caves; certainly their number was very great, when an hundred might be saved without missing. The chief places where they resided, seem to have been Bethel, 2 Kings 2. 3. and Iericho, which was a large Colledge; for therein we read of fifty sons of the Prophets standing together out of their number, 2 Kings 2. 5, 7, 15. and Gilgal, which had been a place of Religion from the first entrance into Canaan, there we finde the sons of the Prophets sitting before Elisha, 2 Kings 4. 38. It seems most probable, that the purity of Gods worship among the ten tribes after the defection in the time of Ieroboam was preserved by the Pro∣phets in their several Schools and places of habitation, which hath sufficient foundation in that place, 2 Kings 4. 23. where the Shunamites husband asks her wherefore she would go to the man of God that day, seeing it was neither new-moon nor Sabbath. Whereby it is both evident, that the Prophets did undertake the office of instructing the people on their

solemn Festivals, and that it was their custom to resort to them for that end. Thus we see what care God took for * 1.93 the instruction of his people in a time of so general an Apostacy as that of the ten tribes was, when the Church of God could not be known by that constant visibility and o••tward glory which some speak so much of, but was then clouded in obscurity, and shrouded it self under the mantl••s of some Prophets which God continued among them, and that not by any lineal succession neither, though the Iews would fain make the gift of Prophecy to be a kind of Cabala too, and conveyed in a constant succession from one Prophet to another. Neither were these Schools of the Prophets only in Israel, but in Iudah likewise was God known, and his Name was great among these Schools there. In Ierusalem it self there was a Colledge where Huldah the Prophetess lived, 2 Kings 22. 14. some render Mishna in secunda urbis parte; for Ierusalem was divided into the upper and nether part of the City. Abulensis and Lyra will have it refer to the three walls of the City in which the three chief parts of it were comprized; in the first, the Temple and the Kings P••lace; in the second, the Nobles and the Prophets houses; and in the third, the common people. Iosephus seems to favour the devision of the City into three parts, but Pineda * 1.94 thinks the second part of the City was most inhabited by Artificers, and that the Prophets, and the wise men, and such as frequented the Temple, most dwelt in the City of David within the first wall; and therefore he conjectures that the Colledge was upon Mount Sion, (and so properly called Sion Colledge) and he explains that house which wisdom is said to have built and hewn out her seven pillars, Prov. 9. 1. by this Colledge which he supposeth was built by Solomon in Mount Sion, and thence ver. 3. she is said to cry upon the highest places of the City. Thus much may serve concerning the original and institution of these Schools of the Prophets.

I now come to the second thing promised concerning the Schools of the Prophets, which is, that it was Gods ordinary * 1.95 method to call those persons out of these Schools, whom he did employ in the discharge of the prophetical office. Two things will be necessary for the clearing of this: First, what ten∣dency

their education in those Schools had towards the fitting them for their prophetical office. Secondly, what evidence the Scripture gives us that God called the Prophets out from these Colledges. The first of these is very requisite to be clear∣ed, because the prophetical office depending upon immediate inspiration, it is hard to conceive what influence any ante∣cedent and preparatory dispositions can have upon receiving the prophetical spirit. It is commonly known how much the generality of Iewish Writers do insist on the necessity of these qualifications antecedent to a spirit of prophecie. 1. An excellent natural temper. 2. Good accomplishments both of with and fortunes. 3. Separation from the world. 4. Congru∣ity of place (which they make proper to Iudaea) 5. Opportuni∣ty of time. 6. And divine inspiration. These are so largely dis∣coursed of by many learned men from Iewish Writers, that * 1.96 it will be both tedious and impertinent to recite much of their opinions concerning them; who, since they have lost the gift of prophecie, seem to have lost too that wisdom and natural understanding, which they make one of the most ne∣cessary qualifications of a Prophet. It is not easie to imagine what subserviency riches could have to a prophetical spirit, unless the Iews be of Simon Magus his opinion, that these gifts of the Holy Ghost may be purchased with money; and if so, they think themselves in as likely a way to bid fair for a prophetical spirit as any people in the world. Or is it that they thi••k it impossible any without them should have that f••ee, cheerful, and generous spirit, which they make so necessary to a prophetick spirit, that it is an axiome of great authority with them, Spiritus sanctus non residet su∣per hominem moestum; and they think Elisha his fit of passi∣on did excuss his prophetick spirit from him, which he was fain to retrive again with a fit of Musick. There are only two sorts of those antecedent dispositions which seem to bear any affinity with the prophetick spirit: And those are such as tended to the improvement of their natural faculties, and such as tended to their advancement in piety, and consequent∣ly to the subduing all irregular motions in their souls: Not that either of these did concur by way of efficiency to the production of a spirit of prophecie (which is an opinion

Maimonides seems very favourable to) but that God might * 1.97 make choise particularly of such persons, to remove all pre∣judices against them in those they were sent unto. For no∣thing could possibly dissatisfie them more concerning divine inspiration, then if the person who pretended to it were of very weak and shallow intellectuals, or known to be of an irregular conversation. In order therefore to the fuller sa∣tisfaction of men concerning these two qualisications, this Institution of them in the Schools of the Prophets was of great subserviency, because therein their only imployment was to improve in knowledge, and especially in true piety. This latter being the most necessary disposition, since the Apo∣stle hath told us that the Prophets were Holy men, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. And in order to this, the greatest part we can find of the exercises of those who * 1.98 were educated in these Schools of the Prophets, were instru∣ctions in the Law, and the solemn celebration of the praises of God: Which appears in Scripture to have been their chief employment as Prophets, and by which they are said to pro∣phecie: So at Gibeah at the Oratory there, we find a compa∣ny of Prophets coming down from the high place with a Psal∣tery, * 1.99 a Tabret and pipe, and a Harp before them, and pro∣phecying.

It may seem somewhat strange to consider what relati∣on these Musical instruments had to the prophecying here * 1.100 mentioned. Are Musical notes like some seeds Naturalists speak of, which will help to excite a prophetick spirit? Or do they tend to elevate the spirits of men, and so put them in∣to a greater capacity of Enthusiasm? Or is it because Mu∣sick is so excellent for allaying the tumults of inward passi∣ons, and so fitting the soul for the better entertainment of the Divine Spirit? Or was all this prophecying here spo∣ken of nothing else but vocal and instrumental Musick? So some indeed understand it, that it was only the praising God with spiritual songs and melody; wherein one as the Praecen∣tor began a hymn, which the rest took from him and carried on. I confess it carries the fairest probability with it, that this prophecying with Musical instruments was at their pla∣ces and times of sacrifice, an adjnuct, if not a part of the so∣lemn

service of God: which was managed chiefly by the Quire of the Sons of the Prophets which were resident there, and were trained up in all exercises of piety and devotion. But yet I cannot see any reason to think that all this pro∣phecying was meerly singing of Hymns, and playing upon their Musical instruments to them, as some imagine, because there seems to be implyed some immediate impulses of a pro∣phetick spirit, by what Samuel said to Saul, that when he came among the Prophets, the spirit of the Lord would come upon him, and he should prophecy with them, and he should be∣come * 1.101 another man, What strange impulse and wonderful transformation was this meerly for Saul to joyn with the Prophets in their praises of God? And this needed not so much admiration as followed there upon this action of Sauls, that it should become a Proverb, Is Saul also among the Pro∣phets? Certainly Saul was a very great hater of all spiri∣tual * 1.102 Musick before, if it became a Proverb meerly for his being present at, or joyning with this company in singing their Hymns. Therefore others think that those who are said particularly to prophecie at these Musick-meetings, were some persons as chief among the rest, who having their spi∣rits elevated by the Musick, did compose Hymns upon the place by a Divine Energy inwardly moving their minds. So that there were properly divine raptures in some of them, which transported them beyond the ordinary power of fan∣cy or imagination, in dictating such Hymns as might be suit∣able for the design of celebrating the honour of God.

Neither may it seem strange that such an Enthusiastick Spirit should seize on them only at such selemn times, since * 1.103 we read in the New Testament of a like exercise of such gifts in the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 14. 26. where we see in coming together every one had a Psalm, a Doctrine, a Tongue, a Revelation, &c. Whereby it appears that they were in∣spired upon the place; etiam extemporales Hymni saepe ab af∣flatuerant, as Grotius there observes; as we see it in frequent instances in Scripture of Simeon and Anna, Moses and Miriam, Deborah, and Isaiah; and in the Christian Church after that Landslood of inspired gifts was much abated in the Church, they kept up a custome much like to these ex∣temporal

hymns, as appears evidently by Tertullian, post * 1.104 aquam manualem & lumina ut quis{que} de Scripturis sanctis vel de proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium Deo ca∣nere; After they had ended their Love-feasts, they begun their Hymns, which were either taken from the Scriptures, or of their own composition. Which Pliny takes notice of as a great part of the Christians worship, that they did secum * 1.105 invicem carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere, they joyned in sing∣ing hymns to Christ as God. Nay, we find something very parallel to this preserved among the ruins of the Heathen worship; such were the Assamenta among the old Romans, which were peculiarly sung to the honour of some particular God; thence the Assamenta Ianualia, Iunonia, Minervia, which were priva poemata & carmina in singulos eos Deos * 1.106 conscripta, as the learned Ioseph Scaliger observes. So like∣wise the old Greeks had their solemn hymns to their Gods, some to the propitious Gods, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Latins properly Indigitamenta, and carmen calatori∣um; others they had to their Vejoves, or laeva numina, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; the Latins Carmen Averruncale; but besides these, they had some peculiar to the several Deities, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Diana, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Apollo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Ceres, Dithyrambus to Bacchus, Adonidia to Ado∣nis, as Proclus tells us in his Chresto••••athia. And it is withall evident, that the Heathens thought some of their Priest•• in∣spired * 1.107 while they were performing these solemn devotions to the Gods (which probably was by Satan, as many other things in Heathen worship taken up in imitation of these in∣spired hymns, and Musick used by the sons of the Prophets) but their hymns were so composed, as to be fit rather to trans∣port men beyond the power of their reason, then to compose and sweeeten it, which was suitable to the fanatick Enthusi∣asm, which was so common among them. So Proclus tells us that the Io-Bacche was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, full of noise and din; and the Dithyrambus was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a kind of extatick Morice∣dance, and their Priests were apprehended by them to be under a real Enthusiasm at these Solemnities. So the Co∣rybantes are described rather like mad men then meer Enthu∣siasts

by Strabo; they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as he describes them, dancing about with their cymbals and drums, and arms and pipes (as though a Bedlam had been broke loose among them) yet this was in high esteem among them; for as Strabo after saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this Enthusi∣asm * 1.108 seemed to have a divine touch with it, and to come very near to a prophetick spirit.

But though the prophecying with Musick among the sons of the Prophets, might be by some extemporary hymns im∣mediately dictated by the praecentor of the Chorus; yet we are not to imagine any such frantick actions among them as were among the Curetes and Corybantes, it being always the Devils temper to overdo, when he strives to imitate, and in stead of solemn and set devotions to carry men beyond all sense and reason. The Spirit of God did never dictate any Io-Bacche's or Dithyrambs to transport and amuse the spi∣rits of men; but those sweet airs which might both compose and elevate the spirits of all that heard them. For in proba∣bility the spirits of all these Prophets were as Lutes tuned to the same height, that when the Spirit of God did strike upon one of them, the rest presently answered to it, and so made up an entire Consort among them. So Menochius thinks the Spirit of God not only moved the spirit of him who was the praecentor, but the rest likewise who joyned with him; and they are said to prophecy, saith Torniellus, * 1.109 fortè quod non quascun{que} sed Propheticas duntaxat cantiones praecinerent; but from hence we clearly see what the great employment was in these Schools of the Prophets, which, as the same Author expresseth, it was statis horis de rebus di∣vinis disserere & divinis laudibus vacare; and thereby we understand what reference this institution had in order to the prophetical office, because the Spirit of God did much appear among them, and all their exercises tended to piety, and so did remove all prejudices from their persons, when God did send them abroad afterwards.

And so it is evident he frequently did, not to say always, for that were to put too great a restraint upon the boundless * 1.110 spirit of God: For sometimes, as will appear afterwards,

God sent the Prophets upon extraordinary messages, and then furnished them with sufficient evidence of their Divine com∣mission without being beholding to the Testimonials of the Schools of the Prophets. But besides these, God had a kind of Leiger-Prophets among his people; such were the most of those whom we read of in Scripture, which were no pen-men of the sacred Scripture; such in Davids time we may con∣ceive Gad and Nathan, and afterwards we read of many other Prophets and Seers among them, to whom the people made their resort: Now these in probability were such as had been trained up in the Prophetick Schools, wherein the spirit of God did appear, but in a more fixed and setled way then in the extraordinary Prophets whom God did call out on some more signal occasions, such as Isaiah and Ieremiah were. We have a clear foundation for such a distinction of Prophets in those words of Amos to Amaziah, Amos 7. 14, 15. I was no Prophet, neither was I a Prophets son; but I was a herdman, and a gatherer of Sycamore fruits: And the Lord took me as I followed the stock; and the Lord said unto me, Go prophecie to my people Israel. Some understand the first words. I was not a Prophet, that he was not born a Prophet as Ieremiah was, not designed and set apart to it from his mothers womb; but I rather think by his not being a Prophet, he means he was none of those resident Prophets in the Colledges or Schools of them, not any of those who had led a prophetick life, and withdrawn themselves from converse with the world; nor was I (saith he) the son of a Prophet, i. e. not brought up in discipleship under those Pro∣phets, and thereby trained up in order to the prophetick fun∣ction. Non didici inter discipulos Prophetarum, as Pellican renders it; nec institutione qua filii Prophetarum quasi ad donum Pr••phetiae à parentibus praeparabantur, saith Estius. Non à puero educatus in Schol is Propheticis; so Calvin and most other modern Interpreters understand it as well as Abarbinel and the Jewish Writers: Whereby it is evident that Gods ordinary way for the Prophets, was to take such as had been trained up and educated in order to that end, although God did not tye up hmself to this method, but some∣times called one from the Court, as he did Isaiah; some∣times

one from the herds, as here he did Amos, and bid them go prophecie to the house of Israel. There was then a kind of a standing Colledge of Prophets among the Israelites, who shined as fixed Stars in the Firmament; and there were others who had a more planetary motion, and withall a more lively and resplendent illumination from the fountain of pro∣phetick light. And further it seems that the spirit of pro∣phecie did not ordinarily seize on any, but such whose institu∣tion was in order to that end, by the great admiration which was caused among the people at Sauls so sudden prophecying, * 1.111 that it became a proverb, Is Saul also among the Prophets? which had not given the least foundation for an adage for a strange and unwonted thing, unless the most common ap∣pearances of the spirit of Prophecie had been among those who were trained up in order to it. Thus I suppose we have fully cleared the first reason why there was no necessi∣ty for the ordinary Prophets, whose chief office was instruction of the people, to prove their commission by miracles, be∣cause God had promised a succession of Prophets by Moses, and these were brought up ordinarily to that end among them; so that all prejudices were sufficiently removed from their persons without any such extraordinary power as that of mi∣racles.

CHAP. V. The tryal of Prophetical Doctrine.

Rules of trying Prophets established in the Law of Moses. The punishment of pretenders. The several sorts of false Pro∣phets. The case of the Prophet at Bethel discussed. The try••l of false Prophets belonging to the great Sanhedrin. The particular rules whereby the Doctrine of Prophets was judged. The proper notion of a Prophet, not for••telling fu∣ture contingencies, but having immediate Divine revelati∣on. Several principles laid down for clearing the doctrine of the Prophets. 1. That immediate dictates of natural light are not to be the measure of Divine revelation. Several grounds for Divine revelation from natural light. 2. What ever is directly repugnant to the dictates of nature, cannot be of Divine revelation. 3. No Divine revelation doth con∣tradict a Divine positive Law without sufficient evidence of Gods intention to repeal that Law. 4. Divine revelation in the Prophets was not to be measured by the words of the Law, but by the intention and reason of it. The Prophetical office a kind of Chancery to the Law of Moses.

THE second reason why those Prophets whose main office was instruction of the people, or meerly foretelling fu∣ture * 1.112 events, needed not to confirm their doctrine by mirales, is, because they had certain rules of tryal by their Law whereby to discern the false Prophets from the true. So that if they were deceived by them, it was their own oscitancy and in∣advertency which was the cause of it. God in that Law which was confirmed by miracles undoubtedly Divine, had esta∣blished a Court of tryal for Prophetick Spirits, and given such certain rules of procedure in it, that no men needed to be deceived unless they would themselves. And there was a greater necessity of such a certain way of tryal among them, because it could not otherwise be expected but in a Nation where a Prophetick Spirit was so common, there would be very many pretenders to it, who might much

endanger the faith of the people unless there were some cer∣tain way to find them out. And the more effectually to deterre men either from counterfeiting a Prophetick Spirit, or from heark••ning to such as did, God appointed a severe punishment for every such pretender, viz. upon legal con∣viction that he be punished with death. Deut. 18. 20. But the Prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other Gods, shall surely dye. The Iews generally understand this of strangling, as they do alwayes in the Law, when the particular manner of death is not expressed. And therein a salse Prophet and a seducer were distinguished each from other, that a meer seducer was to be stoned to death under sufficient testimony, Deut. 13. 6, 10. But the false Prophet is there said in general only to be put to death, * 1.113 Deut. 13. 1, 5. The main difference between the seducer and false Prophet was, that the seducer sought by cunning per∣swasions and plausible arguments to draw them off from the worship of the true God; but the false Prophet alwayes pre∣tended Divine revelation for what he perswaded them to, whether he gave out that he had that revelation from the true God, or from Idols and false Gods. So that the meer pretence to Divine revelation was that which God would have punished with so great severity.

The Iews tell us of three sorts of Prophets who were to be punished with death by men, and three other sorts who * 1.114 were reserved to divine punishment: Of the first rank were these. 1. He that prophecyed that which he had not heard, * 1.115 and for this they instance in Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah, who made him horns of iron and said, Thus saith the Lord, this was the lying Prophet. 2. He that speaks that which was revealed not to him but to another, and for this they * 1.116 instance in Hananiah the son of Azur, (but how truly I shall not determine) this was the Plagiary Prophet. 3. He that prophesied in the name of an Idol, as the Prophets of Baal did, this was the Idol Prophet. These three when once fully convicted, were to be put to death. The other rank of those which were left to Gods hand consisted of these. 1. He that stisles and smothers his own prophecy as; Jonas did, by which

it may seem that when the Divine Spirit did overshadow the understanding of the Prophets, yet it offered no violence to their faculties, but left them to the free determination of their own wills in the execution of their office; but this must be understood of a lower degree of prophecy; for at some∣times their prophecyes were as fire in their bones, that they * 1.117 were never at any rest till they had discharged their office. But withall by the example of Ionas, we see, that though the Spirit of prophecy like the fire on the Altar could only be kindled from heaven, yet it might be destroyed when it was not maintained with something to feed upon; or when it met not with suitable entertainment from the spirits of those it fell upon, it might retreat back again to heaven, or at least lie hid in the embers till a new blast from the Spirit of God doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, retrieve it into its former heat and activity. Thus it was with Ionas. 2. The other was, he that despised the words of a true Prophet; of such God saith Deut. 18. 19. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not hearken to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. Which Maimonides explains by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 death by the hands of God, which he thus distinguisheth from the Cereth, that he makes the death per * 1.118 manus coeli to be less then the Cereth, because this latter continued in the soul after death, but the other was expiated by death; but generally they interpret it of a sudden death which falls upon the person. 3. The last is, he who hearkens not to the words of his own Prophecy; of which we have a most remarkable instance in Scripture, concerning the Pro∣phet whom God sent to Bethel (whom Tertullian calls Same∣as, the Iews Hedua) whom God destroyed in an unusual man∣ner for not observing the command which God had given him, not to eat bread nor drink water at Bethel, nor turn again by the way he came. Neither was it any excuse to this Pro∣phet that the old Prophet at Bethel told him that an Angel spake unto him by the word of the Lord that he should turn back. For, 1. Those whom God reveals his will unto, he gives them full assurance of it, in that they have a clear and distinct perception of God upon their own minds; and so they have no doubt but it is the word of the Lord which comes

unto them; but this Prophet could have no such certainty of the Divine revelation which was made to another, especially when it came immediately to contradict that which was so specially enjoyned him. 2. Where God commands a Prophet to do any thing in the pursuit of his message, there he can have no ground to question whether God should counter∣mand it or no by another Prophet; because that was in effect to thwart the whole design of his message. So it was in this action of the Prophets; for God intended his not eat∣ing and drinking in Bethel to testifie how much he loathed and abominated that place since its being polluted with Ido∣latry. 3. He might have just cause to question the integrity of the old Prophet, both because of his living in Bethel, and not openly, according to his office, reproving their Idolatry, and that God should send him out of Iudea upon that very errand, which would not have seemed so probable, if there had been true Prophets resident upon the place. 4. The thing he desired him to do was not an act of that weight and importance on which God useth to send his Word to any Pro∣phets, much less by one Prophet to contradict what he had said by another, and therefore Tertullian saith of him, poenam deserti jejunii luit, God punished him for breaking his * 1.119 fast at Bethel; and therefore that message of this Prophet seemed to gratifie more mans carnal appetite, then usually the actions of Prophets did, which were most times matters of hardship and uneasiness to the flesh. 5. However all these were, yet he yeilded too soon, especially having so much reason on his side as he had, being well assured that God had commanded him, he had reason to see some clear evidence of a countermand, before he altered his mind: if he had seen any thing upon tryal which might have staggerd his faith, he ought to have made his immediate recourse to God by prayer for the settlement of his mind and removal of this great temptation. But so easily to hearken to the words of a lying Prophet, which contradicted his own message, argued either great unbelief as to his own commission, or too great easiness and inadvertency in being drawn aside by the old Prophet. And therefore God made that old Prophet himself in the midst of his entertainment, as with a hand writing

against the wall to tell him he was weighed in the ballance and found too light, and therefore his life should be taken from him. Thus we see how dangerous a thing it was either to counterfeit a Spirit of Prophecy, or to hearken to those who did.

It is the generally received opinion among the Iewish * 1.120 Doctors, that the cognizance and tryal of false Prophets did peculiarly belong to the great Sanhedrin. And that this was one end of its institution. So Maimonides after he hath * 1.121 largely discoursed of the punishment of a seducer, and speak∣ing of that of a false Prophet, he layes this down as a standing rule among them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 No false Prophet was to be judged but in the Court of seventy one; which was the number of the great Sanhedrin. And there is some thing looks very like this in the proceedings of the people of Israel against the Prophet Ieremiah; for the people, the Priests and the Prophets, they laid hold on him; * 1.122 and immediately after we read that the Princes of Iudah (by whom Grotius understands the Senators of the great Sanhedrin) they come up from the Kings house to the house of * 1.123 the Lord, and sat down in the entry of the new gate of the Lords house: (which probably was the place where the great San∣hedrin * 1.124 sat) where after a particular examination of Ieremiah, they acquit him as a person not worthy to dye upon a counter∣feiting Prophecy, but declare that he spake unto them in the name of the Lord. And in this sense Grotius likewise un∣derstands what is said of Zedekiah concerning Ieremiah to the Princes of Iudah afterwards, behold he is in your hand; for the King is not he that can do ought against you, i. e. saith Grotius, in manibus Synedrii, cujus est judicare de Propheta vero aut falso. And to this many make those words of our Saviour, refer, that it is impossible a Prophet should perish out of Jerusalem, because the seat of the great Sanhedrin was in * 1.125 Ierusalem; and so elsewhere our Saviour saith, O Ierusalem, Ierusalem, thou that killest the Prophets and stonest them * 1.126 which are sent unto thee; because there it was the true Pro∣phets were destroyed as though they had been false ones, and Gods own messengers punished with the death of seducers, which was l••pidation. And on this very account many are

of opinion that our Saviour was condemned by the Sanhe∣drin at Ierusalem; which is supposed to have been assembled in the house of Caiaphas the High Priest, when Christ was carried thither for examination; which some think to have been at his lodgings in the Temple, others at his Palace in the City. For we read that the chief Priests, and the Elders, and all the Council were met together at the High Priests Palace in order to our Saviours tryal. The next morning * 1.127 they were met early together again in order to the further scanning of this business; but they seem not to examine Christ concerning a true spirit of Prophecy, but concerning his being the Messias, and calling himself the Son of God, and so they would seem rather to proceed upon the Law against blas∣phemy, * 1.128 then that against false Prophets.

But that which was the greatest security of the people * 1.129 against the imposture of false Prophets, was the certain rules of judging them which were laid down in the Law of Moses. Which may be comprehended under these two heads, such as concern their doctrine, or such as concern their predictions. First, such as concerned the Prophets doctrine, which should especially be looked after because the main office of a Prophet was to be interpres & internuncius divinae voluntatis, to be a revealer of Gods will to men. For the primary notion of a Prophet doth not lie in foretelling future events, but in de∣claring and interpreting to the world the mind of God which he receives by immediate revelation from himself. So that the receiving what he makes known by immediate revelation, is that which formally constitutes a Prophet, but it is wholly extrinsecal and accidental what time his Prophecy respects, whether past, present, or to come; but because future con∣tingencies are the furthest out of the reach of humane under∣standing, therefore the predictions of such have been chiefly looked on as the chief note and character of a Prophet, as being apprehended to be the strongest evidence of Divine revelation. And from hence it is in Scripture that the Patri∣archs as Abraham and others are called Prophets, not because of any predictions uttered by them, but because of the fre∣quency * 1.130 of immediate Divine revelation; among them. And hence likewise those in the New Testament who expounded

the Scriptures, by immediate inspiration, are called Prophets, and this was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 spoken of by the Apostle, the * 1.131 exposition of the hidden mysteries of the Old Testament by an immediate inspiration. And there is no word in the Hebrew for a Prophet, which may not equally respect all differences of time, but every one doth import immediate inspiration, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly is one qui revelat abscondita 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Seer chiefly respects the clear representation of the intellectual species, by the lumen propheticum to the understanding, * 1.132 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 carries an equal indifferency to all circumstances of times.

This being then the chief notion of a Prophet, whatever he * 1.133 declared as the mind and will of God, must be searched and examined to see what consonancy it hath thereto. For the question which Moses supposeth, is founded upon clear and evident reason, And if thou shalt say in thine heart, How shall * 1.134 we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? For it be∣ing plain that there may be false Prophets as well as true, we had need of some certain rules to judge of what is delivered for divine revelation. For the clearing of which important question, I lay down these principles.

The immediate dictates of natural light, are no sufficient standard to judge of divine revelation by. I mean not in re∣ference * 1.135 to consonancy or repugnancy to natural light, but in reference to the extent and latitude of divine revelation, i. e. that natural light doth not contain in it whatever may be known of God or of his will; and that upon these reasons. 1. It implyes no repugnancy to any dictate of nature, that God should reveal any thing more of his mind and will, then is contained in the light of nature. 2. Nature reacheth, as to matters concerning religion, no further then the obligati∣on to duty, but leaves the particular determination of the manner of obedience to divine positive Laws, as is clear in re∣ference to the time, place, and particular duties of worship. 3. Nature owning an universal obligation to the will of God in whatever he shall command, doth suppose a power in God to command what he pleaseth. 4. Nature is sensible of its own decayes, and the imperfection of its own light, and there∣fore seems rather to require further illumination, then to put

any bar against it. 5. Mans happiness being a free gift of God, it stands to the highest reason that he should have the prescribing of the conditions which are in order to it; now these conditions being the results, not of Gods naeture, but of his arbitrarious will, it is impossible that natural light could ever reach to the full discovery of them. 6. It hath been the general sense of all Nations in the world, that God may reveal more of his will then nature can reach unto; which sense discovers its self in two things. 1. Praying to their several gods for direction. 2. Heark••ing after pretended Oracles, which the Devil could never have had that advan∣tage of deceiving the world by, had it not been for this ge∣neral sense of mankind, that there wanted some particular revelation from God to make men happy. So then this may be assumed as a principle, that God may reveal more of his mind and will to mankind, then he hath done by the dictates of meer natural light and reason.

Whatever speaks a direct repugnancy to any of the funda∣mental dictates of nature, cannot be of divine revelation. * 1.136 For those being sounded, not upon any positive or arbitrary will, but upon those inward impressions which are derived from the divine nature its self, it cannot in reason be supposed that God should commission any to enervate his own funda∣mental Law; and so by one will to contradict another. Placitum Regis must never stand against the Placita Coronae; Those things which depend upon fundamental and established Laws, hold good against any positive sentence or declaration of a Princes will; Because he is supposed to have bound up himself by the established Laws; and therefore any thing else which comes from him, contrary to them, is supposed not to be the Will of the Prince, but of the persons per∣swading him to it. But this now cannot be supposed in God, that he should be any wayes drawn to cassate the obligation of what is imprinted upon the souls of men as his own Law. But yet we must distinguish between nulling the general obli∣gation, and altering the particular nature of any thing which depends upon that general Law; the first in any case is im∣possible, that any divine revelation should make it not to be mans duty to obey his maker, or not to be a sin to commit

murder, to lye, or to steal from another; but there may come a particular revelation from God to alter the respects and na∣ture of such things as do immediately depend upon his own dominion; as the lives of persons and the properties of things are, and thus God did reveal to Abraham that he should go and sacrifice his son, which had been no murder when done upon Gods immediate command, and for a sacrifice to him∣self; and therefore would have been acceptable as a testimony of entire obedience (which God did accept without the act) and so the Israelites taking the Aegyptians Iewels, and dispossessing the Canaanites, did depend upon Gods immediate disposal of these things to them; which otherwise had been a sin in them; and no doubt was so to any that were un∣satisfied whether God had immediately commanded it or no. Or from hence to infer any general rule, is no doubt a breach of divine commands, and contrary to his nature and will.

Where God hath established a positive Law, prescribing a form and manner wherein he will be worshipped, it is sufficient * 1.137 evidence of a false Prophet, to go about to null the obligation of that Law; unless there be as great evidences given, that God did intend the establishing a new Law by that person, as he did at first the institution of the old by the hand of Moses. This latter clause is inserted, to shew that the succeeding of the doctrine of Christ into the place of the Law of Moses, doth not bear any repugnancy to the Hypothesis laid down, there being greater evidences of Gods intending the abolishing the ceremonial Law by the Gospel of Christ, then there were of the establishment of it by Moses. But of those after∣wards. I now only speak of such as upon the meer pretence of divine revelation, should destroy any precept of an establi∣shed positive Law; and this, as far as we can find, was the great rule the Iews went by, if any thing were spoken by any Prophet, contrary to the Law of Moses, or tending to the alteration of the worship of God established thereby, he was accounted a false Prophet. The modern Iews to justifie themselves in their own unbelief, as to the doctrine of Christ, extends this further then the Law doth; for they inlarge it to all the precepts of the ceremonial Law; whereas God in the

Law seems to limit it to the Moral Law, and chiefly insists on the three first precepts of the Decalogue; and therefore condemns such a one as spake in the name of the Lord, when he had not commanded them, Deut. 18. 20. and such as endea∣voured to bring in idolatry, Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3. where though the false Prophet should offer to do signs and wonders before them, yet if his intention were to draw them to worship false gods, they were not to hearken unto him. And therefore Maimonides, where he largely disputes about the truth of prophesies, layes this down as a certain rule: Si Propheta sur∣rexerit, * 1.138 at que magna miracula aut prodigiafecerit & ad labo∣raverit falsitatis convincere Proph••tiam Mosis M. N. istum non audimus, quia certo novimus prodigium praestigiis aut in∣cant ationibus productum esse, as Vorstius renders him. If a Prophet do never so great miracles, and seeks to convince Moses of falshood, we are not to hearken to him, for we know that they are not done by the power of God, but by the illusions of the Devil. And elsewhere he tells us, that if any one pretends * 1.139 to prophecy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the name of Idols they must not so much as dispute with him, nor answer him, nor desire any signs or miracles from him; and if of himself he shews any, we are not to regard or mind them; for, saith he, whoever doth but doubt in his mind concerning them, he breaks that command, and thou shalt not hearken to the words of that Prophet. So * 1.140 that the doctrine once established, ought to be our most cer∣tain rule, according to which we must judge of all pretenders to miracles; if their design be to draw men off from Gods Word, we are not to hearken to what they either say or do.

The doctrine of those Prophets who seek not to introduce Ido∣latry, must not be measured by a strict conformity to the words * 1.141 of Moses his Law, but to the main reason and intention of it. The great reason of this is, because God did not intend the Iews should alwayes rest in the Paedagogy of the Ceremonial Law, but sent them Prophets to train them up by degrees, and to fit them for a state of greater perfection; and there∣fore it would be very unreasonable to judge whether they were true Prophets or no exactly by that, which they came gradually to wean them from; which were all one, as to try

one whether he were grown a man or no, by the swadling clouts he wore when he was a child. God tempered the Cere∣monial Law much according to the condition and capacity of the persons it was prescribed to, and therefore the sancti∣ons of it did immediately respect their temporary concerns; but we are not to think the end of that dispensation was to be meerly a Covenant for the Land of Promise, but as the Che∣rubims in the Temple did alwayes look towards the Mercy∣seat, so did this whole Oeconomy look towards the coming of the Messias. But it was with the generality of the Iews, as it is with Ignorant people, who looking up to the heavens, cannot fancy the stars to be any bigger then they seem to them; but Astronomers by the help of their Optick tubes and Telescopes, do easily discern the just magnitude of them; so the Iews ordinarily thought there was no more in those types and shadows, then was visibly represented to them, but such as had the help of the Divine Spirit (the best Telescope to discern the day-star from on high with) could easily look through those prospectives, into the most glorious mysteries of the Gospel of Iesus Christ. These types being like triang••lar Prismes, that must be set in a due light and posture, before they can represent that great variety of spiritual mysteries which was contained in them. Now the great office of the Prophets was to administer this light to the people, and to direct them in those excellent pieces of Perspective, wherein by the help of a Prophetick glass they might see the Son of God fully represented to their view. Besides this, the Pro∣phetical office was a kind of Chancery to the Mosaick Law, wherein the Prophets did interpret the Pandects of the Law ex aequo & bono, and frequently shewed in what cases God did dispence with the outward letter of it, to exalt the more the inward sense and reason of it. Hence the Prophets seem many times to speak contemptibly of the outward prescribed * 1.142 Cer••monies, when their intent is not to condemn the observa∣tion of them, but to tell the people there were greater things which God looked at, then the outward observation of some Ceremonial precepts, and that God would never accept of that by way of commutation, for real and internal goodness. Hence the Prophets by their own practice, did frequently shew

that the Law of Moses did not so indispensably oblige men, but that God would accept of those actions, which were per∣formed without the regularity required by the Law of Moses; and thus he did of sacrificing upon high places, not only before the building of the Temple, but sometimes after, as he accepted of the sacrifice of Elijah on Mount Carmel, * 1.143 even when high places were for bidden. Which the Iews are become so sensible of, that they grant that a true Prophet may sometimes command something to be done in violation of the Law of Moses, so he doth not draw people to Idolatry, * 1.144 nor destroy the obligation of Moses his Law. But this they restrain to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 something done in case of necessity, and that it should not pass into a precedent or a perpetual Law; and therefore their rule is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Prophet was to be hearkened to in every thing he commanded in a case of necessity. But by this it is clear that the Prophets were not to be tryed by the letter of the Law of Moses, but by the end and the reason of it. Thus much I suppose will make it clear what rules the people had to try the Prophets doctrine by, without miracles.

CHAP. VI. The tryal of Prophetical Predictions and Miracles.

The great difficulty of the trying the truth of Prophetical pre∣dictions from Jerem. 18. 7, 8, &c. Some general Hypo∣••heses premised for the clearing of it. The first concerns the grounds why predictions are accounted an evidence of divine revelation. Three Consectaries drawn thence. The second, the manner of Gods revelation of his will to the minds of the Prophets. Of the several degrees of prophecy. The third is, that God did not alwayes reveal the internal purposes of his will unto the true Prophets. The grand question propounded ••ow it may be known when predictions express Gods decrees, and when only the series of causes. For the first, several rules laid down. 1. When the prediction is confirmed by •• present miracle. 2. When the things foretold exceed the probability of second causes. 3. When confirmed by Gods oath. 4. When the blessings fore-told are purely spiritual. Three rules for interpreting the prophecyes which respect the state of things under the Gospel. 5. When all circumstances are foretold. 6. When many Prophets in several ages agree in the same predictions. Predictions do not express Gods un∣alterable purposes, when they only contain comminations of judgements, or are predictions of temporal blessings. The case of the Ninivites, Hezekiah and others opened. Of repentance in God, what it implyes. The Iewish objections about predi∣ctions of temporal blessings answered. In what cases miracles were expected from the Prophets, when they were to confirm the truth of their religion. Instanced in the Prophet at Be∣thel, Elijah, Elishah, and of Moses himself; Whose divine authority that it was proved by miracles, is demonstrated against the modern Iews, and their pretences answered.

THe next thing which the rules of tryal concerned, was * 1.145 the predictions of the Prophets. Concerning which God himself hath laid down this general rule, Deut. 18. 22.

When a Prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the Prophet hath spoken it presumptuously; thou shalt not be afraid of him. Grotius understands this place of the Prophets telling the people he would do some miracles to confirm his doctrine, but, saith he, if those mi∣racles were not done as he said, it was an evident demonstra∣tion of a false Prophet. It is certain it was so; for then his own mouth told him he was a lying Prophet; but these words seem to referr rather to something future then present, and are therefore generally understood concerning the truth of predictions; which was a matter of very difficult tryal, in re∣gard of the goodness or the justice of God so frequently in∣terposing between the prediction and the event. That place which makes it so difficult to discern the truth of a prediction by the event, is Ierem. 18. 7, 8, 9, 10. At what instant I shall speak concerning a Nation, and concerning a Kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and destroy it: If that Nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from evil, I will repent of the evil I had thought to do unto them; And at what instant I shall speak concerning a Nation, and concerning a Kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then will I repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them. By which place it seems clear, that even after the predictions of Prophets, God doth reserve a liberty to himself, either to repent of the evil or the good that was foretold concerning any people; how then can the fidelity of a Prophet be discovered by the event, when God may alter the event, and yet the Prophet be a true Prophet? This being a case very intricate and obscure, will call for the more dili∣gence in the unfolding of it: In order to which, we shall first premise some general Hypotheses, and then come to the particular resolution of it. The general Hypotheses will be concerning the way and method of Gods revealing future con∣tingencies to the Prophets, without which it will be impossible to resolve the particular emergent cases concerning pre∣dictions.

The prediction of future events is no further an argument of Prophetick spirit, then as the fore-knowledge of those things * 1.146

is supposed to be out of the reach of any created understanding. And therefore God challengeth this to himself in Scripture, as a peculiar prerogative of his own, to declare the things that are to come, and thereby manifests the Idols of the Gentiles to be no Gods, because they could not shew to their worshippers the things to come, Isaiah. 44. 6, 7. From this hypothesis these two Consectaries follow.

1. That the events which are foretold, must be such as do exceed the reach of any created intellect; for otherwise it could be no evidence of a Spirit of true Prophecy; so that the foretelling of such events as depend upon a series of natural causes, or such as though they are out of the reach of humane understanding, yet are not of the Diabolical, or such things as fall out casually true, but by no certain grounds of prediction, can none of them be any argument of a Spirit of Prophecy.

2. That where there were any other evidences, that the Prophet spake by Divine Revelation, there was no reason to wait the fulfilling of every particular Prophecy before he was believed as a Prophet. If so, then many of Gods chiefest Prophets could not have been believed in their own Genera∣tions; because their Prophecies did reach so far beyond them, as Isaiahs concerning Cyrus, the Prophet at Bethel concerning Iosias; and all the Prophecies concerning the captivity and deliverance from it, must not have been be∣lieved till fulfilled, that is, not believed at all; for when Prophecies are accomplished, they are no longer the objects of faith, but of sense. Where then God gives other evidences of Divine inspiration, the credit of the Prophet is not suspend∣ed upon the minute accomplishment of every event foretold by him. Now it is evident there may be particular Divine revelation of other things besides future contingencies, so that if a reason may be given why events once foretold may not come to pass, there can be no reason why the credit of any Prophecy should be invalidated on that account; because every event is not exactly correspondent to the prediction. It is most certain that what ever comes under Divine know∣ledge, may be Divinely revealed; for the manifestation which is caused by any light, may extend its self to all things to

which that light is extended; but that light which the Pro∣phets saw by was a Divine light, and therefore might equal∣ly extend it self to all kind of objects; but because future con∣tingencies are the most remote from humane knowledge, there∣fore the foretelling of these hath been accounted the great evidence of a true Prophet; but yet there may be a knowledge of other things in a lower degree then future contingencies which may immediately depend upon Divine revelation; and these are,

1. Such things which cannot be known by one particular man, but yet is certainly known by other men; as the present knowledge of things done by persons at a remote distance from them: thus Elisha knew what Gehezi did, when he * 1.147 followed N••aman; and thus the knowledge of the thoughts of anothers heart depends upon immediate Divine revelation, whereas every one may certainly know the thoughts of his own heart; and therefore to some those things may be * 1.148 matters of sense or evident demenstration, which to another may be a matter of immediate revelation.

2. Such things as relate not to future contingencies, but are matters of faith exceeding the reach of humane apprehensi∣on; such things as may be known when revealed, but could never have been found out without immediate revelation; such all the mysteries of our religion are, the mystery of the Trinity, Incarnation, Hypostatical union, the death of the Son of God for the pardon of the sins of mankind. Now the immediate revelation of either of these two sorts of objects speaks as much a truly Prophetical spirit as the prediction of future contingencies. So that this must not be looked on as the just and adequate rule to measure a spirit of Prophecy by; because the ground of judging a Prophetical spirit by that, is common with other things without that, seeing other objects are out of the reach of humane understanding as well as future events, and therefore the discovery of them must immediately flow from Divine revelation.

3. The revelation of future events to the understanding of a Prophet, is never the less immediate, although the event may not be correspondent to the prediction. So that if it be mani∣fest that God immediately reveal such future contingencies to

a Prophet, he would be nevertheless a true Prophet whether those predictions took effect or no. For a true Prophet is known by the truth of Divine revelation to the person of the Prophet, and not by the success of the thing, which as is laid down in the hypothesis, is no further an evidence of a true Prophet then as it is an argument a posteriori to prove Divine revelation by. If then the alteration of events after predicti∣ons be reconcileable with the truth and faithfulness of God, there is no question but it is with the truth of a Prophe∣tical spirit, the formality of which lies in immediate revela∣tion.

The Prophets could not declare any thing more to the people * 1.149 then was immediately revealed unto themselves; What was presently revealed, so much they knew and no more, because the spirit of Prophecy came upon them per modum im∣pressionis transeuntis, as the Schools speak, and not per modum habitus; the lumen propheticum was in them not as lumen in corpore lucido, but as lumen in aëre, and therefore the light of revelation in their spirits depended upon the immediate irradiations of the Divine Spirit. The Prophets had not alwayes a power to Prophecy when they would themselves; and thence it is said when they Prophesied that the Word of the Lord came unto them. And therefore the Schools determine that a Prophet upon an immediate revelation did not know omnia prophetabilia (as they speak in their barbarous lan∣guage) all things which God might reveal; the reason where∣of Aquinas thus gives; the ground saith he, of the connexion of diverse objects together is some common tie or principle which * 1.150 joynes them together; as charity or prudence is in moral ver∣tues, and the right understanding of the principles of a science, is the ground why all things belonging to that science are un∣derstood; but now in Divine revelation, that which connects the objects of Divine revelation is God himself; now because he cannot be fully apprehended by any humane intellect, therefore the understanding of a Prophet cannot comprehend all matters capable of being revealed, but only such as it pleaseth God himself freely to communicate to the Prophets understanding by immediate revelation. This is further evident by all those different degrees of illumination and Prophecy which the

Iews and other writers speak so much of, viz. of dreams and visions, the inspirations of the Holy Spirit, the gradus Mosaicus, the external voyce, &c. Now in every one of these degrees the Prophet could go no further then his pre∣sent revelation extended; and therefore Aquinas determines that the understandings of the Prophets were instrumenta deficientia respectu principalis agentis, i. e. that in propheti∣cal * 1.151 illumination the mind of the Prophet was so moved by the Spirit of God, as an instrument in the hand of an Arti∣ficer, which bears no proportion with the skill of the work∣man: And therefore the mind of a Prophet is moved, some∣times only to apprehend the thing represented (which they call instinctus divinus, of which they say a Prophet may have no certainty whether it comes from God or no) sometimes it is moved so far as to know certainly that this revelation is from God (this they call lumen Propheticum) sometimes a Prophet may be moved to speak those things which he fully understands; so it was with most of the true Psophets; but sometimes men may be moved to speak that which they un∣derstand not, as is plain in Caiaphas, and probable in Ba∣laam. Sometimes a thing was represented to the fancy of one without any possibility of understanding the meaning of those imaginary species, as in Pharaohs and Nebnchadnez∣zars dreams; and to another may be given the true judge∣ment of those motions of fancy without the representation of the things to them, as in Ioseph and Daniel. Now in these and many other different impressions of this prophetical spirit, the Prophets to whom the things were revealed, could go no further then the degree of the revelation made to them did extend.

God did not always reveal to the Prophets the internal coun∣sels and decrees of his own will, but often only the method and * 1.152 series of his providence in the administration of things in the world. Which is the ground of that three-fold distinction of Prophecy in the Schools into prophetia praedestinationis, prophetia praescientiae, and prophetia comminationis; which is taken from the ordinary gloss upon Matth. 1. where they are thus explained; the Prophecie of Predestination is when the event depends wholly upon Gods will without any re∣spect

to ours, as the Prophecie of the Incarnation of Christ; the Prophecie of Praescience is of such things as depend upon the liberty of mans will; and the Prophecie of Commination only denotes Gods denunciations of heavy judgements against a people. But Aquinas doth better reduce the two former to one, and so the ground of the difference is to be fetched from the different ways whereby God knows things in the world; which is either as they are in their causes, and so they note the order and series of things in the world, with the mutual respects and dependencies they have one upon ano∣ther, and this refers to Gods administration of things in the world; or else God looks upon them as they are in them∣selves, or according to his own positive determinations of them; and now in this sense they are unalterable; but in the other they are not; but God may alter those respects of things when he pleaseth. Now though this different manner of knowledge can never be conceived separate from one ano∣ther in the Divine understanding, yet in the revelation made to the mind of a Prophet, they may be disjoyned from each other, because God doth not always reveal things in the high∣est degree to the Prophets; for no free agent doth always act as far as he can. And therefore prophetical revelation is sometimes a representation of Gods internal decrees, and then they always take effect, and sometimes only the order of cau∣ses and effects, and they may admit of an alteration, and the prophecie nevertheless be true, because then it referred only to the series of causes in the world according to which the events would follow if God himself did not interpose. These things being thus premised, we come to particular resoluti∣ons, which must arise from the evidences that may be given when prophetical predictions did express Gods internal purpose and decree, and when only the order of causes in the world; for in these latter it is apparent that events might not an∣swer predictions, and yet the Prophet be a true Prophet: which is a matter of greater difficulty, viz. to find out the exact differences of these two, till the event hath made it apparent which came from Gods unalterable purpose, and which not. But though it be a subject little spoken to either by Iewish or Christian Writers, yet we are in hopes there may be some

such clear notes of distinction discovered between them, even à priori, which may sufficiently clear Gods faithfulnes, and the Prophets truth, though the event be not always corre∣spondent to the words of a prediction.

I begin then with the evidences that may be given when * 1.153 predictions do flow from internal purpose and decree.

Every prediction confirmed by a present miracle, doth not ex∣press meerly the order of causes, but the determinations of * 1.154 Gods will, because there can be no sufficient reason given why the order of causes in nature should be altered to express the dependences of things on each other; for herein a miracle would rather ten d to weaken then strengthen faith, because the end of the miracle would be to confirm their faith as to events following upon their causes; but now the medium used for that end seems to prove the contrary, viz. that God can alter the series of causes when he pleases himself by work∣ing miracles, and therein going contrary to the course of nature; and therefore a miracle seems to be a very incon∣gruous argument in this, because its self is an evidence that may be, which it comes to prove shall not be. But when Pro∣phets come to declare the internal purposes of the will of God concerning future contingencies, no argument can be more suitable to demonstrate the truth of what is spoken then the working of a present miracle; for this demonstrates to the senses of men, that however unlikely the event may be to them which is foretold, yet with God all things are possible, and that it is very unlikely God would send such a messenger to declare a falshood, whom he entrusted so great a power with as that of working miracles. Thus it was in that re∣markable prophecie concerning Iosias by the man of God at Bethel, 260 years before his birth, which though it were to come to pass so long after, God confirmed it by a sign, which * 1.155 was the renting of the altar, and the pouring out of the ashes upon it, and the withering of Jeroboams hand. We cannot therefore in reason think that God would set so clear a seal, to any deed which he did intend himself to cancel afterward.

Praedictions express Gods inward purpose when the things foretold do exceed all probabilities of second causes; in which * 1.156 case, those words of Tertullian seem very harsh, credo quia

impossibile; yet taking that impossibility as relating to second causes, and the ground of faith to be some divine prediction, we see what reason there may be for them: For the more unlikely the thing is to be effected by second causes, the great∣er evidence is it that the Prophets in foretelling it did not respect the meer order of things in the world, but the unal∣terable counsels of the will of God, which therefore would certainly have their timely accomplishments. When there∣fore any Prophets did foretell things above the reach of na∣tural causes, and those things did not come to pass, it was a certain evidence of a false Prophet, as the contrary was of a true one; for none could know so long before-hand such things as were above all humane power, but such to whom God himself, who alone was able to effect them, did reveal and communicate the knowledge of them. And hence we see in Scripture those predictions which have seemed to carry the greatest improbabilities with them, have had the most punctual accomplishments, as the Israelites returning out of Aegypt at the end of the 430 years; their deliverance by * 1.157 Cyrus after the captivity in Babylon, which seemed so im∣probable a thing, that when God speaks of it, he ushers it in * 1.158 with this preface, that he frustrateth the tokens of the lyars, and maketh the diviners mad, but confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers, that saith to Ie∣rusalem, Thou shalt be inhabited, &c. The more unlikely then the thing was to come to pass, the greater evidence there was in so clear a prophecie of it so long before (above 100 years) and so exact a fulfilling of it afterwards precisely at the expiring of the L X X years from the first Capti∣vity.

Predictions concerning future events, which are confirmed by an oath from God himself, do express the immutable deter∣minations * 1.159 of Gods will. For which we have the greatest as∣surance we can desire from that remarkable expression of the Apostle to the Hebrews, Heb. 6. 17, 18. Wherein God wil∣ling more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the im∣mutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lye, we might have a strong consolation, &c. Wherein the Apostle

obviates and removes all doubts and misprisions, lest God af∣ter the declaring of his will, should alter the event foretold in it, and that he doth, both by shewing that God had made an absolute promise, and withall to prevent all doubts, lest some tacite condition might hinder performance, he tels us that God had annexed his oath to it, which two things were the most undoubted evidences of the immutability of Gods counsel. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here used, doth in Scripture often note the frustrating of mens hopes and expectations; so it is used Habak. 3. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we render it the labour of the Olive shall fail. So Osea 9. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the new wine shall fail in her. Thus the meaning here is, that by two immutable things in which it is impossible that God should frustrate the expectations of men, or alter the events of things after he had declared them. For Gods oath is an evident demonstration of the immutability of his will in all predictions to which this is annexed, and doth fully ex∣clude that which the Scripture calls repenting in God, that is, doing otherwise then the words did seem to express, because of some tacite conditions understood in them. So we find Psal. 89. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36. If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandements, then will I visit their trans∣gression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes; never∣theless my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail; my Covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness, that I will not lye unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the Sun before me. Wherein we see what way God takes to assure us of the immutability of his Covenant with his people, by the oath which he adjoyns to his promises; whereby God doth most fully express the unalterable determinations of his own will, in that he swears by his own holiness that he would not lye unto David, i. e. that he would faithfully perform what he had promised to him. And therefore Tertullian well saith, Be∣ati sumus quorum causa Deus jurat, sed miseri & detestabiles si ne juranti quidem credimus. It is happy for us unbelieving creatures, that God stoops so low as to confirm his Covenant with an oath; but it will be sad and miserable for such as

dare not venture their faith upon it, when God hath annexed his oath unto it. It is thought by expositors, that there is a peculiar emphasis in those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Once have I sworn, thereby noteing the irrevocable nature of Gods oath, that there is no need of repetition of it as among men, because when once God swears by himself, it is the highest demonstrati∣on that no conditions whatever shall alter his declared pur∣pose. And therefore the Council of Toledo well explains the different nature of Gods Oath and his repentance in Scri∣ptures; * 1.160 Iurare namque Dei est à se ordinata nullatenus con∣vellere; poenitere vero eadem ordinata cum voluerit immu∣tare; God is said to swear when he binds himself absolutely to performance; and to repent, when things fall out contrary to the declaration of Gods will concerning them; for so it must be understood to be only mutatio sententiae, and not consilii, that the alteration may be only in the things, and not in the eternal purpose of God. But since it is evident in Scripture, that many predictions do imply some tacite conditi∣ons, and many declarations of Gods will do not express his internal purposes, it seemed necessary in those things which God did declare to be the irrevocable purposes of his will, there should be some peculiar mark and character set upon them for the confirmation of his peoples faith; and this we find to be the annexing an oath to his promises. Thus it is in that grand Instrument of Peace between God and his people, the Covenant of Grace, wherein God was pleased so far to strengthen the faith of his people in it, that he ratifies the articles of peace therein contained, but especially the Act of Grace on his own part with an oath, thereby to assure them it was never his purpose to repeal it, nor to fail of perform∣ance in it. For we are not to think that an Oath layes any greater obligation upon God for performance, then the meer declaration of his will; it being a part of immutable justice, and consequently necessarily implyed in the Divine nature to perform promises when once made; but Gods Oath respects us and not himself, viz. that it might be a testimony unto us that Gods will thereby declared, is his eternal and unchangeable will, and so the mercies thereby promised are sure mercies; such as are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without any repentance on Gods part. * 1.161

Predictions made by the Prophets concerning blessings meerly spiritual, do express Gods internal purpose, and therefore must * 1.162 have their certain accomplishment in the time prefixed by the Prophets. The grand reason of this Proposition, is, that the be stowing of blessings meerly spiritual, doth immediately flow from the grace and favour of God, and depend not upon conditions on our part, as procuring causes of them; and therefore there can be no account given why God should suspend the performance of such promises, which would not more strongly have held why he should not have made any such promises at all. And therefore when we see that not∣withstanding the highest demerits, God made such free pro∣mises, we can have no reason to think that any other demerits interposing between the promises and performance, should hinder the accomplishment of them; unless it be inserted in the promises themselves, which is contrary to the nature of free promises: Upon this ground all the promises relating to the Gospel state, and to the Covenant of grace therein con∣tained, must have their due accomplishment in the time and manner prefixed by the Prophets; and therefore the Iews are miserably blind when they suppose the reason why the promise of the Messias is yet deferred after so long expectation of him, is, the sins of their people; for this seems to suppose that Gods promise of the Messias did depend upon their own righteousness and worthiness above all other people, which if it doth, they are like to be the most miserable and desperate people the world hath; and besides, if Gods intuition of sin makes him deferr the coming of the Messias, his foresight of sin would have hindred him from ever promising a Messias to come; but this was so far from being a hinderance of Gods promise, that the main end of the coming of the Messias was to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to make an end of sin, and to bring in everlasting righteousness. And we see where∣ever * 1.163 the Prophets insist on the Covenant of grace, the great promise contained in it is the blotting out of transgressions, and remembring sins no more, and that meerly on the account of Gods free love and for his own names sake: This can be no reason then why predictions concerning spiritual blessings should not have their exact accomplishment, because there

can be no bar against free Love, and the bestowing of such mercies which do suppose the greatest unworthiness of them, as Gospel blessings do.

The great difficulty lyes in explaining the Prophetical phra∣ses concerning the Gospel state, which seem to intimate a * 1.164 greater advancement and flourishing of peace and holiness therein, then hath as yet been seen in the Christian world; which gives the Iews the greater occasion to imagine that the state so much spoken of by the Prophets, is not yet established in the world. But all the difficulty herein ariseth from the want of consideration of the Idiotisms of the Prophetical lan∣guage, especially where it respects the state of things under the Gospel, concerning which, we may observe these follow∣ing rules.

The Prophets under the old Testament, when they speak of things to come to pass in the New, do set them forth by the re∣presentation * 1.165 of such things as were then in use among them∣selves; thus the spiritual worship of the Gospel is prophecyed of, under the notion of the legal worship among the Iews; the conversion of Aegypt to the Gospel, is foretold Isaiah 19. 19, 21. by the setting up of an Altar, and offering sacrifice to the Lord; and the Conversion of the Gentiles in general, by the offering up of incense, Malach. 1. 11. and the service of God under the Gospel, is set forth by going up to Jerusalem, and keeping the feast of Tabernacles there, Zach. 14. 16. and the plentiful effusion of the spirit of God in the miraculous gifts which attended the preaching of the Gospel, is set forth by the Prophet, Ioel 2. 28 by prophecying, and dreaming dreams, and seeing visions; not that these things should really be under Gospel times; but that the Prophets meaning might be the better understood by those he spake unto, he sets forth the great measure of gifts and Gospel light under those things which were accounted as the highest attainments among themselves. So the great measure and degree of holiness which was to be under Gospel times, is set forth by the Pro∣phet Zachary, Zach. 14. 20. by the placing of the motto which was among the Iews only upon the High Priests fore-head, that this should be so common under the Gospel, that even the bells of the horses should bear it, i. e. those things which

seem most remote from a spiritual use, should be devoted to it, as the bells were, which were commonly hanged upon their war-horses in those mountainous Countries; and in the latter part of that verse, the height and progress of Gospel holiness is described under that phrase, that the pots in the Lorás house should be as bowls before the Altar, i. e. should be advanced from a lower and more ignoble service, to a higher and more spiritual degree of holiness. Now the Iews when they observe these and many other Prophetical passages relating to the time of the Messias to run in the old strain of the Law, they presently conclude that the Messias must not innovate any thing concerning their way of worship, but only be some great Prince to give them temporal deliveran∣ces, and so expound all these texts in a litteral sense, which were only expressed in such a strain, the better to help the capacities of those they spake them to.

Things absolutely foretold to come to pass in Gospel times in * 1.166 a general manner, are to be understood comparatively in refe∣rence to what was before. For when the measure of either grace or knowledge was so far above what was then among the Iews, that there was scarce any proportion between them, the Prophets made use of such expressions to set it forth by, which might raise up the dull apprehension of the Iews to conceive the just measure and fullness of it. Thus when the Prophets fore-tell the grand increase of spiritual knowledge in Gospel times, they do it in this phrase, th••y shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for all shall know me from the least to the greatest, Ierem. 31. 33, Where it was far from the Prophets meaning to exclude all use of teaching under the Gospel, (which is contrary to the end of all the Ordinances of the Gospel) but because teaching doth commonly suppose great Ignorance, he sets forth the abundance of knowledge which should be then, by the exclusion of that which doth imply it. So when it is said that they shall all be taught of God, the meaning is not, that every one that lives in the Gospel state, should be thus effectually taught by the Spirit of God; but that the number of such under the Gospel, should so far ex∣ceed those under the Law, that they could hardly apprehend

the disproportion between them, unless it had been set forth in so large an expression. Which leads me to the next rule.

Things fore-told as universally or indefinitely to come to * 1.167 pass under the Gospel, are to be understood as to the duty of all, but as to the event only of Gods chosen people. Thus when there is so great peace prophecyed to be in Gospel times, that then men should beat their swords into plow-shears, and spears * 1.168 into pruning-hooks; that the Woolf should lie down with the Lamb, and Leopard with the Kid; that Nation should not lift * 1.169 up sword against Nation, nor learn war any more; with many others to the same purpose; all these speeches are to be un∣derstood of what the nature and design of the Gospel tends to, and what is the duty of all that profess it, and what would effectually be in the Christian world, did all that profess the Christian doctrine, heartily obey the dictates of it; and so far as the Gospel doth prevail upon any, it so far cicurates their wild and unruly natures, that of furious Wolves they become innocent Lambs, and of raging Lyons, tender Kids; so far from hurting and injuring others, that they dare not entertain any thoughts of ill will or revenge towards their greatest enemies. And thus we may see, that notwithstanding the seeming repugnancies of the prophecyes of the Old Testament concerning the state of the New, with the events which have been observed in it, yet that all those predictions which con∣cerned the bestowing of the spiritual blessings which con∣cerned the Gospel state, have had their punctual accomplish∣ment in the sense they were intended.

Predictions concerning future events where not only the thing its self is foretold but the several circumstances of persons, * 1.170 time, and place enumerated, are to have their due accomplish∣ment, and consequently express Gods inward purposes. For those promises or comminations which are capable of altera∣tion by some tacite conditions implyed in them, do most com∣monly run in general terms; or else are spoken by way of immediate address to the persons concerned in order to the stirring them up the more to the duty God aims at by those comminations; as when Ionas limited the Ninivites d••∣struction to forty dayes. But when Prophecies are recorded,

not by way of commination but meer prediction, and parti∣cular circumstances set down, it stands to reason that such Prophecies must have their certain accomplishment; and that first, because God by setting down the circumstances would give them greater evidences that the predictions came from himself; as when the Prophet at Bethel not only foretold the destruction of the Altar there, but particularly named the man that should do it, viz. Iosias. So when God by Isaiah called Cyrus by name, it was doubtless a great confirmation to them, that the deliv••rance of the Iews should be by that person. Secondly, because these circumstances are intended for Landmarks to know the certainty of the accomplishment of the Prophecy. For when they finde the circumstances fall out exactly according to prediction, they have no ground to question the accomplishment of the substance of the Pro∣phecy. And hence it was that in the grand Prophecy of the com∣ing of the Messias all particular circumstances were so long before foretold. The first dawning of his day being to Adam after his fall, when the nature he should be born of was fore∣told, viz. not Angelical but humane, of the seed of the wo∣man. To Abraham it was further revealed of what Nation of mankind, viz. from his posterity; to Iacob at what time, when the Scepter should be departed from Judah; and from what tribe, viz. Iudah; to David of what Family in that tribe, viz. his own; to Isaiah of what Person in that Family, a Virgin; to Micah in what place, viz. Bethlehem; and to Daniel, at what precise time, toward the expiring of his se∣venty weeks; which according to to the most probable com∣putation of them did comm••nce from the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and so the 490. years expired near upon our Saviours passion. Now certainly the particular enumeration of all these circumstances spoken of so long before, and falling out so exactly, they could not but give the greatest conviction and evidence, that our blessed Saviour was that person so much spoken of by the Prophets, in whom all these several lines did meet as in their center.

Lastly, Predictions then express divine purposes when many * 1.171 Proph••ts in several ages concur in the same predictions; because it is hardly seen but all those tacite conditions which are sup∣posed

in general promises or comminations may be altered in different ages; but when the conditions alter and the pre∣dictions continue ••he same, it is a stronger evidence it is some immutable counsel of God which is expressed in those predi∣ctions. And in this case one prediction confirms the fore∣going, as the Iews say of Prophets; One Prophet that hath the testimony of another Prophet, is supposed to be true; but it must be with this supposition, that the other Prophet was before approved to be a true Prophet. Now both these meet in the Prophecyes concerning our Saviour; for to him bear all the Prophets witness; and in their several ages they had several things revealed to them concerning him; and the uniformity and perfect harmony of all these several Prophecyes by persons at so great distance from each other, and being of several interests and imployments, and in several places, yet all giving light to each other, and exactly meeting at last in the accom∣plishment, do give us yet a further and clearer evidence that all those several beams came from the same Sun, when all those scattered rayes were at last gath••red into one body again at the appearance of the Sun of righteousness in the world.

Thus have we now cleared when predictions are expressive * 1.172 of Gods internal purposes, by observation of which rules we may easily resolve the other part of the disficulty when they only express the series and dependencies of things which would have their issue and accomplishment if God by his immediate hand of providence did not cut off the entail of effects upon their natural causes. Now as to these Pro∣phecyes which concern things considered in themselves, and not precisely as they are in the counsel of God, we are to ob∣serve these rules.

1. Comminations of judgements to come do not in them∣selves speak the absolute futurity of the event, but do only de∣clare what the persons to whom they are made are to expect, and what shall certainly come to pass, unless God by his mercy interpose between the threatning and the event. So that com∣minations do speak only the debitum poenae and the necessary obligation to punishment; but therein God doth not bind up himself as he doth in absolute promises; the reason is because

comminations confer no right to any, which absolute promises do; and therefore God is not bound to necessary performance of what he threatens. Indeed the guilt, or obligation to punishment is necessary, where the offence h•••• been commit∣ted to which the threatning was annexed; but the execution of that punishment doth still depend upon Gods arbitrarious will, and therefore he may suspend or remove it upon serious addresses made to himself in order to it. For since God was pleased not to take the present forfeiture of the first grand transgression, but made such a relaxation of that penall Law, that conditions of pardon were admittable, notwithstanding sentence passed upon the malefactors, there is a strong ground of presumption in humane nature that Gods forbearance of mankind notwithstanding sin, doth suppose his readiness to pardon offenders upon their repentance, and therefore that all particular threatnings of judgements to come do suppose incorrigibleness in those they are pronounced against: Upon which the foundation of hope is built, that if timely repentance do intervene, God will remove those judgements which are threatned against them.

And this was certainly the case of the Ninivites upon Ionas his preaching among them. For when the threatning * 1.173 was so peremptory, Yet forty dayes and Ninive shall be de∣stroyed, all the hope they could have of pardon must be from * 1.174 the general perswasions of mens souls of Gods readiness to remove judgements upon repentance. For otherwise there had been no place for any thing but despair, and not the least encouragement to supplicate the mercy of God, which we see they did in a most solemn manner after they were con∣vinced these comminations came from God himself by the mouth of his Prophet. Some think that Ionas together with the threatning of judgement did intermix exhortations to repentance; but we can finde no probability at all for that on these two accounts; first, Ionas then would not have been so unwilling to have undertaken this message; for as far as we can see, the harshness of it was the main reason he sought to have avoided it by flying to Tarshish. Secondly, Ionas would have had no pretence at all for his anger and displeasure at Gods pardoning Ninive; which is most

probably conceived to have been, because the Ninivites might now suspect him to be no true Prophet, because the event answered not his prediction. Now there had been no reason at all for this, if he had mixed promises together with his threatnings; for then nothing would have falln out contrary to his own predictions. And therefore it seems evident that the message Ionas was sent with, was only the commination of their speedy ruine, which God did on purpose to awaken them the sooner and with the greater earnestness to repentance, when the judgement was denounced in so peremptory a manner; although it seems Ionas had before such apprehensions of the merciful nature of God and his readi∣ness to pardon, that he might suppose Gods intention by this * 1.175 severe denunciation of judgement, might be only to take occasion upon their repentance to shew his goodness and bounty to them. But this was no part of his instructions, which he durst not go beyond in his Preaching, what ever his private opinion might be: for the Prophets were to utter no more in their Preaching or particular messages then was in their commission, and were not to mix their own words with the Word of the Lord.

And by this we may further understand the denunciation of death to Hezekiah by the Prophet Isaiah, Set thy house in * 1.176 order, for thou shalt dye and not live. I question not but the Prophet revealed to Hezekiah as much as God had revealed to him (for to say as Molinaeus doth, that the Prophet spake * 1.177 these words of his own head before he fully understood Gods mind, is very harsh and incongruous) but God might at first discover to Isaiah not his internal purpose, but what the nature of the disease would bring him to (unless his own immediate hand of providence interposed) which message he would have Isaiah carry to Hezekiah for the tryal of his faith, and exciting him to the more lively acts of grace, and for a further demonstration of Gods goodness to him in pro∣longing his life beyond humane probability and the course of second causes. Now what repugnancy is there to the truth and faithfulness of God, that God should conceal from his Prophets in their messages the internal purposes of his will, and in order to the doing good to men should only reveal

what would certainly have come to pass unless himself had otherwise determind it. And thus the repentance which is attributed to God in reference to these denunciations of judgements, is far from importing any real mutation in the internal purposes of God (a rock some have split themselves upon) but it only signifies the outward changing of the Scene towards men, and acting otherwise then the words of the Prophets did seem to import; and all the alteration is in the outward discovery of his will, which is certainly far from being any collusion in God: Unless we must suppose God so bound up that he hath no liberty of using his own methods for bringing men to repentance, or for tryal of his peoples graces, but must in every instance of his Word declare nothing but his own internal purposes, which is contrary to the general method of Gods dealing with the world, which is to govern men by his own Laws, and thereby to awaken them to duty, and deterre from sin by his annexed threatnings, without revealing any thing of his internal purposes con∣cerning the state and condition of any particular persons at all: which threatnings of his though pronounced with the greatest severity, do not speak Gods inward resolutions as to any particular person, but what all must expect if they con∣tinue impenitent and incorrigible. For the only condition implyed in these threatnings being repentance, it necessarily follows that where that is wanting, these hypothetical com∣minations are absolute predictions of what shall certainly come to pass on all those who are destitute of the condition sup∣posed in them.

So that where any comminations are pronounced by any in a prophetical way concerning any person or people, and no * 1.178 alteration happen at all in them, but they continue impeni∣tent and incorrigible, there the not coming of them to pass may be a token of a false Prophet. For in this case the on∣ly tacite condition implyed in these threatening Prophecies is supposed to be wanting, and so the comminations must be understood as absolute predictions: Now in those comminati∣ons in Scripture, which are absolutely expressed, but conditi∣onally understood, we find something interposing, which we may rationally suppose was the very condition understood. As

Abimelechs restoring of Sarah was the ground why the sentence of death after it was denounced, was not executed upon him: So Ahabs humiliation, Hezekiah his earnest prayer, the Nini∣vites * 1.179 repentance, all interposed between sentence and execu∣tion, whereby we may be fully satisfied of the reason why these denunciations did not take effect: But where the per∣sons continue the same after threatnings that they were be∣fore, there is no reason why the sentence should be suspended, unless we should suppose it to be a meer effect of the pati∣ence and long-suffering of God, leading men to repentance and amendment of life: Which is the ground the Iews give, why the not fulfilling of denunciations of judgement was never accounted sufficient to prove a man a false Prophet; to which purpose these words of Maimonides are observable in his Iesude Th••rah, where he treats particularly on the subject of prophecies. If a Prophet foretel sad things, as the death of any * 1.180 one, or famine, or War, or the like, if these things come not to pass, he shall not be accounted a false Prophet; neither let them say, hehold he hath foretold, and it comes not to pass; for eur∣blessed God is slow to anger, and rich in mercy. and repenteth of the evil; and it may be that they repent, and God may spare them, as he did the Ninivites, or defer the punishment, as he did Hezekiah's. Thus we see that Prophetical comminati∣ons do not express Gods internal purposes, and therefore the event may not come to pass, and yet the Prophet be a true Prophet.

2. Predictions concerning temporal blessings, do not always * 1.181 absolutely speak the certainty of the event, but what God is ready to do if they to whom they are made continue faithful to him: For which we have sufficient ground from that place of Ieremiah, 18. 9, 10. At what instant I shall speak con∣cerning a Kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then will I repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them. So Isaiah 1. 19, 20. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the Land; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. Where∣by we see it evident, that all promises of temporal blessings are not to be taken absolutely, but with the condition of obedi∣ence.

But this the Iews can by no means digest, whose rule is, that all prophecies of good things to come must necessarily come to pass, or he was no true Prophet who spake them: For saith Maimon. Whatever good thing God hath promised, although * 1.182 it be promised under a condition, he never revokes it; and we never find that God repented him of any good thing promised, but in the destruction of the first Temple, when God had pro∣mised to the right••ous they should not die with the wicked; but it repented him of his words. But it is very plain to any one that considers the Iewish Interpretations of Scripture, that in them they have always an eye to themselves, and will be sure not to understand those Scriptures which seem to thwart their own interest, as is most apparent in the present case; for the grand reason why the Iews insist so much on the pun∣ctual accomplishment of all promises of good to be the sign of a true Prophet, is to uphold their own interest in those tem∣poral blessings which are prophecyed of concerning them in the old Testament; although one would think the want of correspondency in the event in reference to themselves, might make them a little more tender of the honour of those Pro∣phecies which they acknowledge to be divine; and have ap∣peared to be so in nothing more then the full accompllshmen•• of all those threatnings which are denounced against them for their disobedience, even by the mouth of Moses himself, Deut. 28. from the 15. to the end. Can any thing be more plain and evident, then that the enjoyment of all the priviledges conferred upon them, did depend upon the condition of their continuing faithful to Gods Covenant? The only place of Scripture produced by them with any plausibility, is that, Ierem. 28. 9. The Prophet which prophecieth of peace, when the word of the Prophet shall come to pass, then shall the Pro∣phet be known that the Lord hath truly sent him. For recon∣ciling of which place with those already mentioned, we are to understand that here was a particular contest between two Prophets, Hananiah and Ieremiah; Ieremiah he foretold evil to come, though unwillingly, v 6. Hananiah he pro∣phecied peace. Now Ieremiah, according to Gods peculiar directions and inspiration, appeals to the event to determine whose Prophecie was the truest: Now saith Jeremiah, if the

Prophecy of Hananiah concerning peace be fulfilled, then he is the true Prophet and I the false. And in this case when two Prophets Prophecy contrary things, it stands to reason that God will not reveal any thing by the mouth of his own Prophet which shall not infallibly come to pass, that thereby the truth of his own Prophet may be fully manifested. Besides Ieremiah refers not meerly to the event foretold, but gives a sudden specimon of his own truth in another Prophecy con∣cerning the death of Hananiah, which was punctually ac∣complished the same year, ver. 17. And which is most con∣siderable to our purpose, both these Prophets considered the same people under the same circumstances, and with the same conditions; and so Ieremiah because of their incorrigibleness foretells desolation certainly to come; notwithstanding this, Hananiah foretells peace and safety, which was contrary directly to Gods method of proceeding, and so the falsity of his Prophecy would infallibly be discovered by the event. So that notwithstanding this instance it appears evident that predictions of temporal blessings do suppose conditions, and so have not alwayes the event fulfilled, when the people do not perform their condition of obedience. And thus we have now laid down the rules whereby the truth of Prophecyes was to be judged; by which it appears what little need the constant Prophets had to appeal to miracles to manifest the certainty of Divine revelation in them. So we have finished our first proposition concerning the manner of trying Divine revela∣tion in the Prophets God sent among his people.

We now come to the second general proposition con∣cerning * 1.183 the Prophets. Those Prophets whom God did imploy upon some extraordinary message for confirming the truth of the religion established by him, had a power of miracles conferd upon them in order to that end. So that we must distinguish the ordinary imployment of Prophets which was either in∣struction or prediction of future events among Gods own people, from their peculiar messages when they were sent to give evidence to the truth of that way of religion which was then setled by Gods own appointment. Now the Prophets generally did suppose the truth of their religion as owned by those they were sent to, and therefore it had been very

needless imploying a power of miracles among them to con∣vince them of that which they believed already. For we never read among all the revolts of the people of the Iews that they were lapsed so far as totally to reject the Law of Moses, (which had been to alter the constitution of their Commonwealth) although they did enormously offend against the Precepts of it, and that in those things wherein the ho∣nour of God was mainly concernd, as is most plain in their frequent and gross Idolatry: Which we are not so to under∣stand as though they wholly cast off the worship of the true God, but they superinduced (as the Samaritans did) the worship of Heathen Idols with that of the God of Israel. But when the revolt grew so great and dangerous that it was ready to swallow up the true worship of God, unless some ap∣parent evidence were given of the falsity of those Heathen mixtures, and further confirmation of the truth of the established religion, it pleased God sometimes to send his Prophets on this peculiar message to the main instruments of this revolt: As is most conspicuous in that dangerous de∣sign of Ieroboam, when he out of a Politick end set up his two calves in opposition to the Temple at Ierusalem; and therein it was the more dangerous in that in all probability he designed not the alteration of the worship it self, but the establishment of it in Dan and Bethel. For his interest lay not in drawing of the people from the worship of God, but from his worship at Ierusalem, which was contrary to his * 1.184 design of Cantonizing the Kingdom, and taking the greatest share to himself. Now that God might confirm his peoples faith in this dangerous juncture of time he sends a Prophet to Bethel, who by the working of present miracles there, viz. the renting the Altar and withering of Jeroboams hand, did manifest to them that these Altars were displeasing to God, * 1.185 and that the true place of worship was at Ierusalem. So in that famous fire-Ordeal for trying the truth of religion be∣tween * 1.186 God and Baal upon mount Carmel by Elijah, God was pleased in a miraculous way to give the most pr••gnant testimony to the truth of his own worship, by causing a fire to come down from heaven and consume the sacrifice, by which the Priests of Baal were confounded and the people con∣firmed

in the belief of the only true God; for presently upon the sight of this miracle the people fall on their faces and say the Lord he is God, the Lord he is God. Whereby we plainly * 1.187 see what clear evidence is given to the truth of that religion which is attested with a power of miracles. Thus the widdow of Sarepta which was in the Country of Zidon, was brought to believe Elijah to be a true Prophet by his raising up her son to life. And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the Word of the Lord by * 1.188 thy mouth is truth. So we see how Naaman was convinced of the true God by his miraculous cure in Iordan by the ap∣pointment of Elisha, Behold now I know that there is no God in * 1.189 all the earth but in Israel; by which instances it is demon∣strable that either the faith of all these persons was built upon weak and insufficient grounds, or that a power of miracles is an evident confirmation of the truth of that religion which is established by them. For this we see was the great end for which God did improve any of his Prophets to work mira∣cles, viz. to be as an evident demonstration of the truth of what was revealed by him. So that this power of miracles is not meerly a motive of credibility, or a probable inducement to remove prejudice from the person, as many of our Divines speak, but it doth contain an evident demonstration to com∣mon sense of the truth of that religion which is confirmed by them.

And thus we assert it to have been in the case of Moses, the truth of whose message was attested both among the * 1.190 Aegyptians and the Israelites by that power of miracles which he had. But herein we have the great Patrons of Moses our greatest enemies, viz the present Iews; who by reason of their emnity to the doctrine of Christ which was attested by unparalleld miracles, are grown very shy of the argument drawn from thence: In so much that their great Dr. Maimonides layes down this for a confident maxime * 1.191 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Is∣raelites did not believe in Moses our Master for the sake of the miracles which he wrought. Did they not? the more shame for them: and if they did, the more shame for this great Rabbi thus to bely them. But the reason he gives for

it is, because there may remain some suspition in ones mind, that all miracles may be wrought by a power of Magick or Incantation: Say you so? what when Moses confounded all the Magicians in Aegypt, and made themselves who were the most cunning in these things confess it was the finger of God, and at last give out as not able to stand before Moses? might one still suspect all this to be done by a Magical power? Credat Iudaeus Apella, non ego. This is much like what another of their Doctors sayes, whom they call the Divine Philosopher, that Elisha his raising the child * 1.192 to life, and curing Naamans leprosie; and Daniels escaping the Lions, and Ionas out of the Whales belly, might all come to pass by the influence of the stars, or by Pythonisme. Very probable! but it is most true which Vortius there observes of the Iews, nibil non nugacissimi mortalium fingunt ne cogantur agnoscere virtute ac digito quasi ipsius Dei Iesum nostrum effecisse miracula sua. All their design in this, is only to elevate the miracles of our blessed Saviour, and to derogate all they can from the belief of them. Hence they tell us that nothing is so easie to be done as miracles; the meer recital of the tetragrammaton will work wonders, & that by this Ieremiah and our Saviour did all their miracles: It is well yet that he did more then one of their own Pro∣phets had done before him; but where I wonder do we read that ever the pronouncing of four letters raised one from the dead who had lain four dayes in the grave? or by what power did Christ raise himself from the dead, (which was the greatest miracle of all) could his dead body pronounce the tetragrammaton to awaken its self with? But Maimonides further tells us that the miracles which Moses wrought among the Israelites were meerly for necessity, and not to prove the truth of his Divine commission, for which he in∣stanceth in dividing the red sea, the raining of Manna, and the destruction of Corah and his complices. But setting aside that these two latter were the immediate hand of God and not miracles done by Moses, yet it is evidence that the intent of them was to manifest a Divine presence among them; and in the tryal of Corah Moses appeals to Gods immediate Provi∣d••nce to manifest whether God had immediately imployed

him or no. For it is evident by the text that the main charge they laid against Moses was ambition and usurpation; Is it a small thing, say they, that thou hast brought us up out * 1.193 of a Land that floweth with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, except thou make thy self altogether a Prince over us? Whereby it is evident they thought that Moses acted out of a private design, and aimed at his own honour and authority; which was an imputation of the highest nature that could be alledged against him. Now see how Moses proceeds to clear himself, (which is sufficient to stop the mouths of these incredulous Iews) for he layes the greatest evidence of his Divine commission upon a present miracle. And Moses said, Hereby shall ye know that the Lord hath * 1.194 sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind, If these men dye the common death of all men, then the Lord hath not sent me, &c. Can any thing be more plain then that the only intent of this miracle was to make it ap∣pear that Moses took not his office upon him, but was imme∣diately sent and imployed by God in what he did. But that which will put an end to this controversie is Gods giving Moses a power to work miracles for that very end that the Israelites should believe him, Exodus 8. 8, 9. And can we think they would have ever left Aegypt as they did and followed Moses into the wilderness, unless they had been fully convinced he was a deliverer sent from God? It is true (that which the Iews speak so much of) the statio in monte Sina was a great consirmation both to their own faith and to Moses his according to what God had told him, Exod. 3. 12. but yet it follows not hence they had no firm bottom for their faith to stand on before (for then they might have been drowned in the red sea as well as the Aegyptians) but God knowing their incredulity and readiness to disobey his Law, did at the promulgation of it testifie to their eyes and * 1.195 ears his own presence in the midst of them. And this cer∣tainly was one of the greatest miracles of all; and therefore to oppose this to the evidence that is produced by miracles, is only to oppose a power of working miracles to a power of doing them. So vain and empty then, so false and fallacious, yea so directly contrary to holy Scripture is that Axiome of

the Iews, Prophetiae verit as non confirmatur miraculis: for miracles are sufficient evidences of Divine revelation in any whom God imployes to all but such as are resolved not to be∣lieve them; and as one well saith, Pertinaciae nullum re∣medium posuit Deus; God never works miracles to convince obstinate Atheists and wilfull Infidels. This now is the first case wherein miracles are to be expected, which is, when God imployes any upon an extraordinary message, to be as Credenti∣als to confirm their Divine commission.

CHAP. VII. The eternity of the Law of Moses discussed.

The second case wherein miracles may be expected, when a Divine positive Law is to be repealed, and another way of worship established in stead of it. The possibility in general of a repeal of a Divine Law asserted; the particular case of the Law of Moses disputed against the Iews: the matter of that Law proved not to be immutably obligatory; because the ceremonial precepts were required not for themselves, but for some further end; that proved from Maimonides his confession: the precepts of the Ceremonial Law frequently dispensed with while the Law was in force. Of the Passe∣over of Hezekiah, and several other instances. It is not inconsistent with the wisdom of God to repeal such an esta∣blished Law. Abravanels arguments answered. Of the perfection of the Law of Moses, compared with the Gospel. Whether God hath ever declared he would never repeal the Law of Moses. Of adding to the precepts. Of the ex∣pressions seeming to imply the perpetuity of the Law of Moses. Reasons assigned why those expressions are used, though perpetuity be not implyed. The Law of Moses not built upon immutable reason, because many particular pre∣cepts were founded upon particular occasions, as the customs of the Zabii; many ceremonial precepts thence deduced out of Maimonides; and because such a state of things was fore∣told, with which the observation of the Ceremonial Law would be inconsistent. That largely discovered from the Prophecyes of the old Testament.

I Now come to the second case wherein miracles may be * 1.196 justly expected, which is, when something which hath been before established by Divine Law, is to be repealed, and some other way of worship to be set up in stead of it. Two things are very necessary to be spoken to for the clearing of this proposition; first, whether a Law once established by God him∣self be capable of a repeal; Secondly, What necessity there is

of miracles to manifest Gods intention of repealing a former Law. These two contain the main foundation of the dispute between the Iews and us, viz. whether the Law of Moses was ever to be laid aside, and whether the miracles of our blessed Saviour were sufficient evidences of Gods intention by him to repeal the former Law established by Moses? I be∣gin with the first, whether a Divine Law in general, or the Law of Moses in particular may be abrogated or repealed, after God himself hath made it evident that the promulgation of it was from himself. This must be confessed the strongest and most plausible plea the present Iews have for their Infi∣delity, and therefore the eternity of the Law of Moses, is made by them one of the fundamental articles of their pre∣sent Creed, and is pleaded for with the greatest subtilty by their great R. Abravan••l, who spends his whole 13. Chapter de capite fidei upon it, but with what success, will be seen in our clearing of it. There are but three things can be suppo∣sed as the grounds why a Law once promulged by God him∣self, should not be capable of repeal; and those are either first, because the things themselves commanded in that Law are of such a nature, that they are not capable of being dis∣pensed with: Or secondly, that it is not consistent with the wisdom of God to repeal a Law once established: Or thirdly, that the reason of the Law continuing always the same, it would argue mutability in God to revoke that Law, and establish another instead of it: If we can therefore demonstrate, that the matter of the Law of Moses is of a positive and mutable nature, that it is suitable to the wisdom of God to alter it, and that sufficient account in reason may be given for the alteration of it, then there can be no imaginable necessity that a Law once having God for his Author, must therefore derive from him an eternal and immutable obligation.

First then as to the matter of the Law; and here it must be * 1.197 supposed, that in the matter of controversie between us and the Iews, the question is not of any of those things which are therefore commanded, because they are intrinsecally good, as the precepts of the natural or moral Law, but of those things which are therefore only good, because God commands them, i. e. things meerly positive, whose worth and value ariseth not

from the intrinsick weight of the things, but from the exter∣nal impress of divine authority upon them. Now it is no que∣stion on either hand whether God may require these things or no, nor whether these things will be acceptable unto God, so long as he requires them; but whether, when once re∣quired, the obligation to them can never cease. Such kind of things among the Iews we suppose all the rites and cere∣monies of the Law to be; viz. circumcision, distinction of meats and days, customes of sacrificing, and such like, and whatever other Laws respected them as a distinct and pecu∣liar Common-wealth. All these we say are such as do not carry an immutable obligation along with them; and that on these accounts.

First, because these things are not primarily required for * 1.198 themselves, but in order to some further end. Things that are required upon their own account, carry an indispensable obligation in them to their performance; but where things are commanded not for themselves, but the Legislator doth ex∣press some particular grounds of requiring them, there the end and intention of the Legislator is the measure of their obligation. To which purpose Maimonides excellently speaks when he saith, That the particular manner of worship among * 1.199 the Jews, as sacrifices and oblations, were secundum intentio∣nem secundam Dei, Gods secondary intention and design; but prayer, invocation, and the like, were nearer Gods primary in∣tention: Now, saith he, for the first, they are no further ac∣ceptable to God, then as all the circumstances of time, place, and persons are observed, which are prescribed by God himself; but the latter are acceptable in any person, time, or place. And for this cause, saith he, it is that we find the Prophets often re∣proving men for their too great sedulity in bringing oblations, and inculcating this to them, that God did not intend these as the principal instances of his worship, and that God did not need any of these things. So 1 Sam. 15. 22. Behold to obey is better then sacrifice, and to hearken, then the fat of rams: Isa. 1. 11. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord. And especially Ierem. 7. 22, 23. For I spake not to your Fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them forth out of the Land of Aegypt, concerning

burnt-offerings; but this thing I commanded them, saying. Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people. Of which words Maimonides saith, Scrupulum moverunt omnibus, quos mihi videre aut audire contigit; For say they, how can it be that God did not commandthem concern∣ing sacrifices, when great part of the Law is about them? But Maimonides well resolves the doubt thus, That Gods prima∣ry intention, and that which he chiefly looked at was obedience; but Gods intention in sacrifices and oblations, was only to teach them the chief thing, which was obedience. This then is of the number of those things which are spoken absolutely, but to be understood comparatively, as, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. It is not you that speak, but the holy Ghost, &c. So that we see all the goodness which is in these things, is conveyed into them by that which is morally good, which is obedience; and God did never regard the performance of those Laws any further then as it was an expression of obedience; and it was conjoyned with those other moral duties which were most agreeable to the Divine nature. And in this sense many un∣derstood that difficult place, Ezek. 20. 25. And I gave them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 statutes that were not good, i. e. say they, comparatively with these things which were simply and in themselves good; to which purpose they give this rule, ali∣quid negatur inesse alicui, quod alterius comparatione existi∣matur exiguum. But I rather think that which the Chaldee Pa∣raphrast suggests, and others explain further, to be the meaning of that place, viz. that by the precepts that were not good, is meant the cruel and tyrannical impositions of those enemies God for their sins did deliver them over to, which were far from being acceptable to them, which is frequent∣ly the sense of good in Scripture. Thus we see one reason why the ceremonial precepts do not in themselves imply an immutable obligation, because they are not commanded for themselves, but in order to a further end.

Because God hath frequently dispensed with the ceremonial precepts when they were in greatest force, if the end of them * 1.200 could be attained without them. Thus the precept of circum∣cision slept during the Israelites travels in the wilderness.

Thus David eat of the shew-bread, which is expresly forbid∣den in the Law; the Iews think to evade this by distin∣guishing * 1.201 between the bread of confession in the Eucharisti∣cal offering mentioned Levit. 7. 13. and the proper shew∣bread: Now they say David eat only of the first, and not of the second; but this is glossa Aurelianensis, which over∣throws the Text; for it is expresly said, that the ground why the Priest gave him holy bread, was because there was none there but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the shew-bread, 1 Sam. 21. 6. A like violation of the Law without reproof, is commonly supposed by the Iews to have been in the siege of Iericho, viz. in the case of the Sabbath. But it is more plain in that Anomalous Passeover observed by Hezekiah, which many of the Iews themselves acknowledge was not observed as the second Passeover provided by the Law to be celebrated on the 14 day of the second moneth by those who were debarred of the first for their legal uncleanness; but they suppose it to have been intended for the legal Passeover; only because the four∣teenth * 1.202 of Nisan was passed before the sanctification of the Temple was finished, lest they should celebrate none at all that year, they tell us that Hezekiah with the consent of * 1.203 the Rulers, did make an Intercalation that year of a whole moneth, and so Nisan was reckoned for the second Adar. and Iiar for Nisan, from whence they say that Hezekiah did intercalate Nisan in Nisan, that is, added another Ni∣san * 1.204 to the first. But where do we read any such thing per∣mitted in the Law as the celebrating the first Passeover the 14 of the second moneth? But granting that it was obser∣ved as a second Passeover, because of the want of legal san∣ctification both in Priests and people; yet we find great irre∣gularities in the observation of it; for it is expresly said, That a multitude of the people had not cleansed themselves, yet they did eat the Passeover otherwise then it was written. * 1.205 And yet it is said upon Hezekiah's prayer, that the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed every one. So that we see God himself did dispense with the strict ceremonial precepts * 1.206 of the Law, where men did look after the main and substan∣tial parts of the worship God required from them. Nay God himself hath expresly declared his own will to dispense with

the ritual and ceremonial Law, where it comees to stand in competition with such things as have an internal goodness in them, when he saith he desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more then burnt-offerings. Thus * 1.207 we plainly see that the ceremonial Law, however positive it was, did yield as to its obligation, when any thing that was moral, stood in competition with it. And so the Iews them∣selves suppose an open violation of the judicial Law to have been in the hanging up of Sauls sons a long time toge∣ther, directly contrary to Deut. 21. 23. which they con∣ceive * 1.208 to have been from the 16. of Nisan to the 17. of Marchesvan, which is as much as from our March to Sep∣tember, whereas the Law saith expresly that the body of one that is hanged shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day. One of the Iewish Rab∣bies, as G. Vorstius tells us, is so troubled at this, that he * 1.209 wisheth that place in Samuel expunged out of Scripture, that the name of God might be sanctified. But whether this were done 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the command of the Oracle or no, or whether only by a general permission, we see it was accepta∣ble unto God; for upon that the Gibeonites famine was remo∣ved, and God was intreated for the Land. Thus we have now proved that there is no immutable and indispensable obligation which ariseth from the things themselves.

Secondly, it is no ways inconsistent with the wisdom of * 1.210 God to repeal such a Law when once established. The main argument of that learned R. Abravanel, whereby he would establish the eternity of the Law of Moses, is fetched from * 1.211 hence, That this Law was the result of the wisdom of God, who knows the suitableness of things he appoints to the ends he appoints them for, as God hath appointed bread to be the food of mans body: Now we are not to enquire why God hath ap∣pointed bread and no other thing to be the food of man; no more, saith he, are we to enquire why God hath appointed this Law rather then another for the food of our souls; but we are to rest contented with the counsels of God, though we understand not tht reasons of them. This is the substance of that argument, which he more largely deduceth. To which we answer, that his argument holds good for obedience to all Gods positive pre∣cepts

of what kind or nature soever they be, so long as we know their obligation to continue; but all the question is, whether every positive precept must always continue to oblige. And thus far his similitude will hold good, that whatever God doth command, we are to look upon it to be as necessary to our souls, as bread to our bodies; but hence it follows not that our souls must be always held to the same positive pre∣cepts, any more then our bodies to the same kind of food. Nay, as in our bodies we find some kind of food always neces∣sary, but the kind of it to alter according to age, health, and constitutions; so we say some kind of Divine revelation is al∣ways necessary; but God is graciously pleased to temper it according to the age and growth of his people; so he fed them as with milk in their nonage, with a ritual and ceremo∣nial Law, and trained them up by degrees under the Nur∣sery of the Prophets, till the Church was grown to age, and then God fed it with the strong meat which is contained in Gods revelation of his will by the Gospel of his Son. And therein was abundantly seen Gods 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his va∣riegated wisdom, that he made choise of such excellent and proportionable wayes to his peoples capacity to prepare them gradually for that full and compleat revelation which was re∣served for the time of the appearance of the true Messias in the world. For can any thing be more plain then the gradual progress of Divine revelation from the beginning of the world? That fair resemblance and portraicture of God him∣self, and his will upon his word (if I may so express it) had its ground work laid upon mans first Apostacy, in the promise made Gen. 3. 15. whereon some further lines were drawn in the times of the Patriarchs; but it had its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it was shadowed out the most in the typical and ceremonial Law, but was never filled up to the life, nor had its perfect 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, till the Son of God himself appeared unto the world. If then it be inconsistent with the wisdom of God to add any thing to the Law of Moses, why not to the revelation made to Adam or the Patriarchs? or especially to the seven pre∣cepts of Noah, which they suppose to have been given to all mankind after the flood? If it were not repugnant to the wisdom of God to superadd rituals and ceremonials to mo∣rals

and naturals, why shall it be to take down the Scaf∣folds of Ceremonies, when Gods spiritual Temple the Church of God is come to its full height? Is there not more reason that rituals should give place to substantials, then that such should be superinduced to morals?

There are only two things can be pleaded by the Iewes why it should be more repugnant to the wisdom of God to * 1.212 add to the Law of Moses, then to any former revelation, which are the greater perfection they suppose to be in this re∣velation above others, and that God in the promulgation of it did express that he would never alter it. But both these are manifestly defective and insufficient in order to the end for which they are produced. For first, what evidence is there that the Law of Moses contained so great perfection in it, as that it was not capable of having any additions made to it by God himself? We speak not now of the perfection of the Moral Law, which it is granted contained in it the foundation of all positive precepts; for this we never contend * 1.213 for the abrogation of, but the ritual Law is that we meddle with; and is it possible any men should be so little befriended by reason as to think this to be the utmost pitch of what God could reveal to the world as to the way of his own worship? Let any indifferent rational person take the precepts of the Gospel, and lay them in the ballance with those of the Ceremo∣nial Law, and if he makes any scruple of deciding on which side the over-weight lies, we may have cause to suspect him forsaken of that little reason which gave him the name of man. Let but the fifth of Matthew be laid against the whole book of Leviticus, and then see whether contains the more excellent precepts, and more suitable to the Divine nature? I speak not this to disparage any thing which had once God for the Author of it, but to let us see how far God was from the necessity of natural agents to act to the height of his strength in that discovery of his Will. God is wise as well as righteous in all his wayes; as he can command nothing but what was just; so he will command nothing but what is good, nay excellent in its kind. But though all the Starr•• be in the same firmament, yet one star differs from another in glory; though they may be all pearls, yet some may be more

orient then others are; every place of holy Scripture may have its crown, but some may have their aureolae, a greater excellency, a fuller and larger capacity then the other hath; every parcel of Divine revelation may have some perfection in its kind, yet there may be some monstra perfectionis in Scaligers expression, that may far outvy the glory and excel∣lency of the rest. Can we think the mists and umbrages of the Law could ever cast so glorious a light as the Sun of righ∣teousness himself in his Meridian elevation? As well may we think a dark shady passage more magnificent and glorious then the most Princely Pallace, a picture drawn in Charcoale more exquisite and curious then the lines of Apelles, some imperfect rudiments more exact and accurate then the most elabarate work, as go about to compare the Law of Moses with the Gospel of Iesus Christ in point of excellency and perfection. Let the Iews then boast never so much of their gradus Mosaicus, and how much it exceeded the degree of re∣velation in other Prophets, we know if his light be compared with what the Gospel communicates, Moses himself saw but as in a glass darkly, and not in speculo lucido, as the Iews are wont to speak. We honour Moses much, but we have learnt to honour him at whose transfiguration he was present more; neither can that be thought any disparagement to him who accounted the reproach of Christ greater riches then the treasures of Aegypt.

But it may be, though the Law in its self be not so absolutely perfect, yet God may have declared he will never alter it, and * 1.214 then it is not consistent with Divine wisdom to repeal it. Very true: God will never alter what he hath said he will not; but where is it that he hath thus bound up himself? Is it in that noted place to this purpose, Thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it. So indeed Maimonides argues; but * 1.215 therein more like a Iew then himself; and yet one of his own Nation therein far more ingenuous then he, gives a most sufficient answer to it, which is R. Ios. Albo whose words are thus produced by Vorstius and others; the Scripture only admonisheth us, that we should not add to nor diminish from Gods commands according to our own wills; but what hinders saith he, but God himself may according to his own wisdom add

or diminish what he pleaseth? But are they in good earnest when they say God bound up himself by this speech? whence came then all the Prophetical revelations among the Iews? did these add nothing to the Law of Moses, which was as much the will of God when revealed by them; as any thing was revealed by Moses himself? or will they say that all those things were contained for the substance in the Law of Moses, as to what concerned practice? very true; but not in the Ceremonial, but the Moral Law; and so we shall not stick to grant that the whole duty of man may be re∣duced to that. But if adding to the precepts be the doing of Gods commands in another way then he hath prescribed, and diminishing from them be meerly not to do what God hath com∣manded, as some conceive, then these words are still more remote from the sense affixed on them by the incredulous Iews. For why may not God himself add to his own Laws or alter the form of them, although we are alwayes bound directly to follow Gods declared will? May not God enlarge his own will, and bring his Schollars from the rudiments of their nonage to the higher knowledge of those who are full grown? or must the world of necessity do that which the old Roman so much abhorred, senescere in elementis, wax gray in learning this A, B, C? or was the Ceremonial Law like the China Characters, that the world r••ight spend its age in conning of them? But it appears that there was no other meaning in that strict prohibition, then that men should not of their own heads offer to finde out new ways of worship as Ieroboam did, but that Gods revelation of his own will in all its different degrees was to be the adaequate rule of the way and parts of his own worship. And I would fain know of the Iews whether their own severe and strict prohibitions of things not at all forbidden in the Law of God, and that on a religious account, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a boundary to the Law, come not nearer the adding to Gods Law, then Gods own fur∣ther declaration of his will doth? All the dispute then must be, not whether God may add to his own Law, but whether the Gospel be a prohibited addition to the Law of Moses, that is, whether it be only the invention of men, or it be the express declaration of the will of God? As to which contro∣versie,

he is no true Christian who dare not readily joyn issue with them, and undertake to prove by all the arguments by which they believe the Law of Moses to have been of Divine revelation, that the Gospel of Christ is a clear mani∣festation of the Will of God. But of that afterwards.

From hence it is evident that God hath not by this place * 1.216 tyed up himself from any surther manifestation of his mind beyond the Law of Moses; but it may be they may put greater confidence in those expressions which seem necessarily to imply a perpetual and unalterable obligation in the Law of Moses: For, saith the late learned Rabbi Manasse Ben Israel, If by such expressions as those are used in Scripture * 1.217 which seem to import the perpetuity of the Law of Moses, somewhat ••lse should be meant then they seem to express; what did Moses and the Prophets in using them but lay a stumbling block in the wayes of men, whereas they might have spoken clearly and told us there should a time come when the Ceremo∣nial Law should oblige no longer? This being a charge of so high a nature, must not be dismissed without a particular en∣quiry into the expressions which are the ground and reason of it. The places most insisted on by the Iews, are Deut. 29. 29. Things which are revealed belong to us and to our children 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for ever. So Levit. 23. 14. the precept of offering the first fruits is there called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a statute for ever; and that of the Passover, Exodus 12. 17. where the same expression is used. From hence they infer that no alteration can happen as to the Ceremonial Law since God himself hath declared that it shall continue for ever. To this common argument of the Iews, it is in general replyed that the word in which the main force of the argument lyes, doth not carry with it an absolute perpetuity, but it signifies according to the subject it is joyned with. So when it is applyed to God, it signifies oternity, not so much from the meer importance of the word, as from the necessary existence of the Divine nature. Thence Maimonides himself can say, Proinde sciendumest quod Olam non necessario significet aeternitatem, * 1.218 nisi ei conjungatur Ed (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) idque vel post illud ut Olam vaed vel ante Ad Olam. Although this rule of his hath no certainty at all in it, as appears from his collection

of it, which is because it is said, Psal. 10. 16. The Lord he is King Olam vaed, for ever•• and ever: but as I said already, that is not from the signification of the word, but the nature of the thing. And it is most plain in Scripture that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is so far from implying a necessary p••rpetuity, that it is applyed to such things as can have no long duration, as Exodus 21. 6. and he shall serve him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is (as the Iews themselves expound it) to the next Iubil••e though it were near or far off. So 1 Samuel 1. 22. Where Samuel is said to abide before the Lord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for ever, where we finde Maimonides his Ad Olam in a sense very far short of eternity; this is so plain that the formerly cited R Ioseph Albo doth in terms confess it, and produceth a multitude of other places to the same purpose. ••or which though he be sufficiently censured by his Brethren, yet we may see there may be some ingenuity left in a Iewish Rabbi, even in the grand dispute concerning the eternity of the Law of Moses.

All the difficulty now is to assign some rational accounts why such precepts which God did not intend should be al∣wayes * 1.219 obligatory, yet should be enforced upon them in such expressions which may seem at least to imply a perpetuity. Of which these may be given. First, That these precepts to which these expressions are annexed, should not be looked on as meer ambulatory Laws that did only concern them in their travels through the wilderness, and not continue obligatory when they were setled in Canaan. For which purpose we are to observe, that though all the Laws were given in one body in the wilderness, yet the obligation to all of them did not commence at the same time, neither were they to con∣tinue for the same duration; these three sorts of precepts may be observed among them; first such as concerned them only in their present condition, as that about the Tabernacle, which was then a moveable Temple among them, suitable to their condition; but when they were setled, God was to have a setled house too. So that precept of going without the camp, Deut. 23. 12. had an immediate respect to their pe∣regrination. Secondly, such precepts as were given them, but they were not bound to perform them till their setlement in Canaan, as driving out the Canaanites, Numb. 33. 52.

building the Temple in the place which God should choose, erecting judicatories in their several Cities, choosing a King, &c. Thirdly, there were such precepts as concern them where ever they were, whether in the wilderness or in Cana∣an; now these are the precepts which are said to be perpetual. This is the account given of it by H. Grotius; but because * 1.220 this may be lyable to some exceptions, I therefore add, Secondly, That the reason of those expressions being an∣nexed to the precepts of the Ceremonial Law, is, because they were to continue obligatory till such a remarkable period of time came which should alter the state of things among them. And such a period of time the coming of the Messias is by themselves supposed to be, when in their famous computa∣tion they make three Epocha's, before the Law, un••er the Law, and the coming of the Messias. And it is evident yet by them, that they do still expect a wonderful alteration of the State of things when the Messias comes; doth it not therefore stand to reason that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be added to such things which were to continue till so great an alteration as should be on the coming of the Messias, especially if the coming of the Messias had been deferd so long as they falsly suppose it to be? But however, granting that a new series of times or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to commence from the Messias, there is very great reason why that expression should be added to those things which were to continue as long as the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did, i. e. till M••ssias came, which we freely acknowledge. And in this sense is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 often taken for such a duration of things which had some remarkable period to conclude it, as in the case of the Iubilee in the servant mentioned, and the special employment which God called Samuel to in his case, as to the event, or the end of his life in Hannahs designati∣on, when she said he should attend upon the Lord for ever. Thirdly, These precepts are said to endure for ever, which would still have continued obligatory, unless God himself had altered the obligation of them, by a new revelation of his will. For in this case it is most certain that all positive precepts coming immediately from God, do carry with them an unal∣terable obligation, unless the Legislator himself do in as evident a way repeal them as he did once establish them; that

is, in such Laws which depend meerly upon Gods positive and arbitrary will. For in this case God allows none to alter any thing concerning his Laws; but indispensable obedi∣ence is our duty till God himself repeal his former Laws. And this we assert to be the case in the Gospel. So that it appears plainly that it implyes nothing inconsistent with the wisdom of God to repeal an established positive Law, though some expressions to prejudiced minds seem to imply a perpetuity in it.

We come therefore to the third thing which may make a positive Law unalterable, which is, when the reason of it is * 1.221 immutable; for then, say they, it would argue mutability in God to repeal it. If we can therefore make it evident that the ceremonial Law was not established on an immu∣table reason, and that the reason on which it was establish∣ed doth suppose a state of things to come, in which it should expire, then there cannot be the least pretence of mutabili∣ty in God on the repeal of such a Law. First, that it was not established upon an immutable reason: The immutable reason of a Law must either be fetched from the nature of the things commanded, or the grounds of the establishing of it; we have already proved that the nature of the positive precepts of the ceremonial Law do not carry in them an in∣trinsecal goodness. And here the Sophistry of the Jew•• is apparently discovered, that when they are pressed with this, they take sanctuary in the Decalogue, or some spiritual pre∣cepts, which comprehend in them the general foundation of the Law, as Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c. whereas these are very remote from the matter in controversie, which concerns not what precepts were mo∣ral in their Law, but what were purely ceremonial; which were so far from being founded on an immutable reason that the particular occasions of the giving of many of them, is particularly assigned by their own Writers; especially in the main parts of the ceremonial worship of God among them, the reasons of which Maimonides saith may be deduced from the customs of the Zabaists, the knowledge of whose opinions and customs, he tells us, is porta magna ad reddendas praecep∣torum * 1.222 causas, gives much light to the Law of Moses; and

particularly of himself he saith, quòd multarum legum rati∣ones & causae mihi innotuerint ex cegnitione fidei, rituum & ••ultus Zabiorum; that he came to the right understand∣ing of many of the Laws of Moses by his knowledge in the rites and customs of these Zabaists. Granting therefore the hypothesis of this learned Rabbi, that the precepts of the Law had most of them a particular respect to the Idolatrous cu∣stoms of these people; what will hence follow but only this, that the reason of the ceremonial precepts did respect the cu∣stoms in use when they were given, and so are not founded upon an immutable reason? And the more the precepts are whose reason is to be fetched from hence, the more plain and evident is the thing we intend by it, viz. that the cere∣monial Law is not founded upon an unalterable reason.

Now from this one head of the Idolatrous customs of those * 1.223 Nations about them hath that learned Author deduced the reasons of very many of the most obscure commands of the ceremonial Law: As that concerning rounding the corners * 1.224 of their heads, which Herodotus tells us was the custom of the Arabians, and others of the Babylonian Priests; by both * 1.225 which the Zabii may be meant, the superstition of the Za∣bii being Chaldean, as I have shewed already, and their name, as some conceive, from Saba the son of Chus, whose posterity were seated in Arabia, near to the red Sea; and that which confirms this opinion, is, that the Sabeans did as Philostorgius saith, worship the Sun and Moon, as the Zaba∣ists did in Maimonides; and withall Bochart us makes it evi∣dent from Strabo, that some of the Babylonians called Ger∣rhaei, * 1.226 possessed themselves of the Country of the Sabaeans, whereby this originally Chaldaick superstition might spread its self in these parts near the confines of Iudea, which might be the cause why all those rites which were used by these Idolatrous people, are so severely forbidden to the Iewes: God thereby setting up a wall of separation between his peo∣ple and the Nations round about them, by making the cu∣stoms of the Iewes almost Antipodes to theirs; as those of Iapan are to them of China. Upon the same ground it is sup∣posed that other precept was made against wearing a garment * 1.227 of linnen and woollen, because the Idolatrous Pri••sts used to go

so cloathed, as Maimonides tells us out of their books, and likewise that prohibition of a womans wearing the gar••ns of a * 1.228 man, and a mans wearing the garments of a woman, is very pro∣bably supposed to have had its original from that Idolatrous custome mentioned by the same Author, ut vir gestet V••sti∣mentum muliebre coloratum quando stat coram stella Veneris; simili••er ut muli••r induat loricam & arma bellica quando stat * 1.229 coram stella Martis; but that Author doth not deny a fur∣ther reason to be couched in it for the preservation of publick honesty. Many other precepts are drawn from the same fountain by that same Author, as the sowing of divers seeds in the same ground; the forbidding the eating of the fruit of * 1.230 their trees for the first three years after they came to Canaan; that being the furthest time wherein the trees of their own * 1.231 plantation would begin to bear in that Country. Now it was the custome of all those Idolatrous people, that the first time an•• tree did bear, part of the fruit was to be burnt up in an offering to the Idol, and the other part eaten in the Idol-temple; or else they supposed their trees would never prosper: Now in opposition to this, God bids them bring the fruit of the fourth year to him, a••d eat of the fifth themselves, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof. So the Idola∣ters threatned all parents that their children would never * 1.232 live, unless they caused them to pass thorough the fire; from which custome Main-onides sa••••h, some even in his time would take the children that were new born, and move them up and down over a fire wherein odoriferous smels were cast: Thence comes that strict prohibition of giving the children to Mo∣loch, which was by that custome of passing thorough the fire. To this same Head, the sa••e Author refers that of not eat∣ing * 1.233 the member of a living creature, which we render flesh with the life thereof; which was forbidden, as he elsewhere tells us, not only for avoiding cruelty but because the Hea∣then Nations were wont in their Idolatrous Feasts to take a * 1.234 member off from a living creature, and eat it afterw••rds; and in them likewise he supposeth they used the boyling the flesh and the milk together, which, saith he, besides that it affords a most gross nourishment savours of their Idolatrous practices too, and therefore, saith he, it is observable that twice where this pre∣cept

is mentioned, it follows that of the solemn appearance of * 1.235 the Males at Jerusalem thrice a year, whereby it seems to be implyed, that this action had relation to some great so∣lemnity. These and several other precepts of the Law of Moses are deduced by that very learned Rabbi from Ido∣latrous customs, as the occasions of them; which seem to have the more reason in them, because that God did in the general so strictly forbid the Iews to walk after the * 1.236 custom of the Nations about them. Thence Origen takes no∣tice of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; for which he saith, they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, re∣proached by the Heathens, because their Laws and Polity were so different from the custom of other Nations. Thus we see then that many precepts of the Ceremonial Law were founded, neither on the goodness of the things themselves, nor on any unalterable reason, but were enforced on a pe∣culiar reason on the people of the Iews at that time, as they were a people separated from the rest of the world for the worship of the true God. And for the other great offices wherein their Religion did so much consist, viz. Sacrifices, distinction of meats, observation of Festivals, circumcision, and such like, The particular account and reason of them is either evident in the Law its self, or fully acknowledged by their own Writers, that it is here superfluous to insist on them: Especially since so many have done that so largely * 1.237 already (particularly Grotius) whose Labours I intend not to transcribe.

I come therefore to the second thing, which is, that the * 1.238 Ceremonial Law was so far from being founded on an im∣mutable reason, that while it was in its greatest force such a state of things was plainly foretold, with which the obser∣vation of that Law would be inconsistent. For which we are to consider, that though the Law of Moses seemed out∣wardly to respect the temporal advantages of the people embracing it in the Land of Canaan; yet there was a S••ring of Spiritual Promises whose head was higher then Iordan was, that ran down from the Patriarchs, was more and fully opened to some of them, which ••••ough it seemed to run under ground in the midst of the Ceremonial observa∣tions

of the Law; yet it frequently brake forth and open∣ed its self in the midst of them, and by degrees in the Pro∣phetical Age did make its self a larger Channel, till in the time of the Messias by its force and violence it overthrew those banks which stood in the way of it, and overspread the face of the whole earth. It is evident by the whole series of the Scripture of the Old Testament, that Gods ultimate in∣tention was not to confine the saving knowledge of his will only to the Iews; for the great promise to Abraham was, That in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed; And as Abraham rejoyced to see that day afar off; so good Iacob when he leaned on his Iacobs staff, took the height of that day-star from on high, which though like some of the fixed stars, he might not for some time be visible to the inferiour world; yet he foretold the time when he should descend into a lower orb, and become conspicuous in our Ho∣rizon. And consequently to his appearance in the world, would be the drawing not so much the eyes as the hearts of the world to him; for no sooner is it mentioned that Shi∣luh comes when the Scepter departs from Iudah; but it im∣mediatly follows, and to him shall the gathering of the * 1.239 people be. Thus we see before ever the Law of Moses came to inclose the people of the Iews as Gods peculiar people, there was a design on foot, for inlarging the bounds of Gods inheritance, and making the uttermost parts of the earth his Sons possession. Can we then think that the Law which came afterwards, could disanull the Covenant made 430. years be∣fore, as the Apostle excellently reasons? Can we believe the * 1.240 Mosaical dispensation was the utmost of what God did in∣tend, when God had before promised that the blessing of A∣braham should come upon us Gentiles also? to which purpose it is very observable that Abraham was justified not in cir∣cumcision, but in uncircumcision; for he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, being un∣circumcised, * 1.241 that he might be the Father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also. Whereby it is evident that the great blessin••s promised to Abraham, did not respect him meerly as Progenitor of the Israelites, but in a higher capa∣city,

as Father of the faithfull; and that the ground of his acceptance with God did not depend on any Ceremonial Rite, such as circumcision was, God imputing his faith for righ∣teousness before his being circumcised. But because the time was not yet come wherein that grand mysterie of mans salvation by the death of the Son of God was to be revealed; therefore when God called the Nation of the Iews from their bondage, he made choice of a more obscure way of re∣presenting this mysterie to them through all the umbrages of the Law: And withall inforced his precepts with such ter∣rible sanctions of curses to all that continued not in all that was written in that Law to do it, to make them the more ap∣prehensive that the ground of their acceptance with God, could not be the performance of the precepts of that Law, but they ought to breath after that higher dispensation where∣in the way and method of mans salvation should be fully re∣vealed when the fulness of time was come. Now therefore God left them under the Tutorage and Paedagogy of the Law, which spake so severely to them, that they might not think this was all God intended in order to the happiness of men, but that he did reserve some greater thing in store to be enjoyed by his people when they were come to age.

So that though the ceremonies of the Law had not a * 1.242 mouth to speak out Christ; yet tbey had a hand to point to him; for they were the shadow or dark representation of that which was to be drawn afterwards to the greatest life. And this was understood by all those whose hearts were car∣ried beyond the outward, sapless Letter of the Law, to the more inward and spiritual meaning of it (there being an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Law as well as Philosophy) and these mysteries were not so vailed and hidden, but all that were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fully initiated, might fully understand them; which made up that true spiritual Cabala, which was con∣stantly preserved among the true Israelites, which was more largely commented on by the Prophets of succeeding Ages; whose care it was to unlock this Cabala, and to raise up the hearts of the people in a higher expectation of the great things which were to come. Thence we not only read of the solemn prayer of the Church of the Iews, that the know∣ledge

of God might be dispersed over all the Nations of the earth, but we have many prophecies that when the moun∣tain * 1.243 of the Lords house should be exalted, all nations should flow unto it: that from the rising of the Sun to the going * 1.244 down thereof, Gods name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every ••lace incense should be offered to his name, and a * 1.245 pure offering; for his name shall be great among the Hea∣then. That the Inscription on the High Priests forehead, Ho∣liness to the Lord, should by reason of the large diffusion of a Spirit of Holiness in the days of the Gospel, be set upon the bells of Horses, and that the pots in the Lords house should * 1.246 be as bowls before the altar, i. e. that when the Levitical ser∣vice should be laid aside, and that Holiness which was that appropriated to the Priests and Instruments of the Temple, should be discerned in those things which seemed most re∣mote from it. That a Priesthood after another order then that of Aaron should be established, viz. after the order of Mel∣chisedek; * 1.247 and that he that was the Priest after this order, should judge among the Heathen, and wound the heads over many Countries; that in the day of his power the people should (not be frighted to obedience with thunderclaps, and earth∣quakes, * 1.248 as at Mount Sinai) but should come and yield them∣selves as a free-will offering unto him, and yet their number be as great as the drops of the dew which distill in the morn∣ing. That God out of other nations would take unto himself for Priests and for Levites; that the desire of all Nations * 1.249 should speedily come; that the Messenger of the Covenant should come into his Temple; nay that seventy weeks are de∣termined upon thy people, and upon thy holy City; that then the vision and prophecie should be sealed up; that the Sacri∣fice * 1.250 and oblation should be caused to cease; that the City and the sanctuary should be destroyed, and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the War desolations are de∣termined; that after three score and two weeks Messias should be cut off, but not for himself; that by him transgression should be finished, and reconciliation for iniquity should be made, and everlasting righteousness should be brought in. And least all these things should be apprehended to be only a higher advancing of the Levitical worship, and the way

of external Ceremonies, God expresly saith, that he would make a New Covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the Covenant that I made * 1.251 with their Fathers, in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the Land of Egypt, which my Covenant they brake, although I was an husband to them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Can any one that now considers seriously the state of things thus described as it should come to pass, ever imagine that the Levitical service was ever calculated for this State? Was Gods Worship to be confined to his Temple at Ierusalem, when all the Nations of the earth should come to serve him? Was the High Priest to make an attonement there, when an order of Priesthood different from the Aaronical should be set up? Must the Tribe of Levi only attend at the Temple when God would take Priests and Levites out of all Nations that serve him? What would become of the Mag∣nificence and glory of the Temple when both City and Sanctuary shall be destroyed, and that must be within few prophetical weeks after the Messias is cut off? And must the Covenant God made with the Israelites continue for ever, when God expresly saith, he would make a New one, and that not according to the Covenant which he made with them then? It is so evident then, as nothing can well be more, that under the Old Testament, such a state of Reli∣gion was described and promised, with which the Levi∣tical worship would be inconsistent; and so that the Cere∣monial Law was not at first established upon an immutable reason, which was the thing to be proved.

CHAP. VIII. General Hypotheses concerning the Truth of the Doctrine of Christ.

The great prejudice against our Saviour among Iews and Heathens, was the means of his appearance. The difference of the miracles at the delivery of the Law and Gospel. Some general Hypotheses to clear the subserviency of mi∣racles to the Doctrine of Christ. 1. That where the truth of a doctrine depends not on evidence, but authority, the only way to prove the truth of the Doctrine, is to prove the Testimo∣ny of the revealer to be infallible. Things may be true which depend not on evidence of the things. What that is, and on what it depends. The uncertainty of natural knowledge. The existence of God, the foundation of all certainty. The cer∣tainty of matters of faith proved from the same principle. Our knowladge of any thing supposeth something incompre∣hensible. The certainty of faith as great as that of know∣ledge; the grounds of it stronger. The consistency of rati∣onal evidence with faith. Yet objects of faith exceed reason; the absurdities following the contrary opinion. The uncer∣tainty of that which is called reason. Philosophical dictates no standard of reason. Of transubstantiation and ubiquity &c. why rejected as contrary to reason. The foundation of faith in matters above reason. Which is infallible Testimony that there are ways to know which is infallible, proved: 2. Hypoth. A Divine Testimony the most infallible. The resolution of faith into Gods veracity as its formal object. 3. Hypoth. A Divine Testimony may be known, though God speak not immediatly. Of Inspiration among the Iews and Divination among the Heathens. 4. Hyp. The eviden∣ces of a Divine Testimony must be clear and certain. Of the common motives of faith, and the obligation to faith ari∣sing from them. The original of Infidelity.

HAving now cleared that the Law of Moses was capable of a repeal, I come to the second enquiry, whether the * 1.252

miracles of our Saviour did give a sufficient evidence of his power and authority to repeal it. I shall not (to prevent too large an excursion) insist on any other evidences of our Saviours being the promised M••ssias, but keep close to the matter of our present debate concerning the evidence which ariseth from such a power of Miracles as our Saviour had in order to his establishing that doctrine which he came to pub∣lish to the world. The great stumbling-block in reference to our blessed Saviour among both the Iews and learned Hea∣thens, was the meanness of his appearance in the world, not coming attended with that state and magnificence, which they thought to be inseparable from so great a person. The Iews had their senses so poss••ssed with the thundrings and lightnings on mount Sinai, that they could not imagine the structure of their Ceremonial worship could be taken down with less noise and terror then it was er••cted with. And withall collecting all those passages of the Old Testament which seemed to fore∣tell such glorious things of the dayes of the Messias, (which ••ither refer to his second coming, or must be understood in a spiritual sense) they having their minds oppressed with the sense of their present calamities, applyed them wholly to an external greatness, whereby they might be delivered from the Tyranny of the Roman Power. The Heathens as appears by Celsus and others, thought it very strange that the Son of God should appear in the world with so little grandeur, and have no greater Train then twelve such obscure persons as the Apostles were. For saith Celsus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. As the Sun which inlightens all other things, d••th * 1.253 first discover himself, so it was fitting the Son of God should do when he appeared to the world. And so we say he did to all such whose minds were not blinded through obstinacy and willfull ignorance. For although this Sun of righteousness was pleased for the better carrying on his design in the world to wrap up himself in a cloud, yet his glory could not be confined within it, but did break through that dark vail of his humane nature, and did discover its self in a most clear and convincing manner. His appearances indeed were not like those upon Mount Sinai, because his design was not to

amuse men with the glory of his Majesty, and to terrifie them from Idolatry, (which was a great reason of those dreadful phaenomena at the delivery of the Law) but he came to draw all men to him by the power and energy of his Grace, and therefore afforded them all rational convictions in order to it. And therefore the quality of our Saviours miracles was considerable as well as the greatness of them; The intent of them all was to do good, and thereby to bring the world off from its sin and folly, to the embracing of that holy doctrine which he came to publish to the world. * 1.254

Now that such a power of miracles in our Saviour had the greatest subserviency to the giving full and convincing evi∣dence that he was the person he declared himself to be, and that his doctrine was thereby so clearly attested, that it was nothing but obstinacy, which could withhold assent, will ap∣pear by these following Hypotheses which I lay down in or∣der to the proving it.

Where the truth of a doctrine depends not on the evidence of * 1.255 the things themselves, but on the authority of him that reveals it, there the only way to prove the doctrine to be true, is to prove the Testimony of him that revealed it to be infallible. Several things are necessary to be proved for the clearing this pro∣position.

1. That it is not repugnant to reason that a doctrine should be true which depends not upon the evidence of the thing its self. By evidence of the thing I understand so clear and distinct a perception of it, that every one who hath the use of his ratio∣nal faculties, cannot but upon the first apprehension of the terms yeild a certain assent to it; as that the whole is greater then a part; that if we take away equal things from equal, the remainder must be equal. Now we are to observe, that as to all these common notices of humane nature which carry such evidence with them, the certainty of them lyes in the propo∣sition as it is an act of the mind abstracted from the things themselves; for these do not suppose the existence of the things; but whether there be any such things in the world or no as whole or parts, the understanding is assured that the Idea of the whole carryes more in its representation then that of a part does. This is the great reason of the certainty and evi∣dence

of Mathematical truths, not as some imagine, because men have no interest, or design in those things, and therefore they never question them, but because they proceed not upon sensible but abstracted matter; which is not lyable to so many doubts as the other is; for that a Triangle hath three Angles no man questions, but whether such sensible parts of matter make a Triangle, may be very questionable. Now that the truth of beings, or the certainty of existence of things cannot be so certain as Mathematical demonstrations, appears from hence: because the manner of conveyance of these things to my mind cannot be so clear and certain as in purely intelle∣ctual operations, abstracted from existent matter. For the highest evidences of the existence of things must be either the judgement of sense, or clear and distinct perception of the mind; now proceeding in a meer natural way, there can be no infallible certainty in either of these; For the perception of the mind in reference to the existence of things being caused so much through those Idea's or Phantasmes which are conveyed to the understanding through the impressions of sense, if these may be demonstrated to be fallacious, I may well question the certainty of that, which I am certain I have been deceived by; supposing then I should question the truth of every thing which is conveyed in an uncertain way to my mind, I may soon out-go even Pyrrho himself in real Scepti∣cism. Neither can I conceive how clear and distinct per∣ception of any thing though not coming through the senses, doth necessarily infer the existence of the thing; for it only implyes a non-repugnancy of it to our natural faculties, and consequently the bare possibility of it. For otherwise it were impossible for us to have a clear perception of any thing any longer then it exists, nay then we know it to exist; for ex∣istence or non-existence is all one to the understanding, while it is not assured of either. And it is withall evident that things imaginary may clearly affect the mind as well as real; for I may have as real and distinct perception of a Phoenix in my mind, as of a Partridge; doth it therefore follow that the one is really existent as well as the other? and it will be a very hard matter to assign a certain difference between ima∣gination and pure intellection in such things, which though,

not actually existent, yet imply no repugnancy at all to the fa∣culties of mens minds. It is evident then that there cannot be so great certainty of the existence of things as there may be of Mathematical demonstrations.

And if that principle be supposed as the foundation of all Physical certainty as to the being of things, viz. that there * 1.256 is a God who being infinitely good will not suffer the minds of men to be deceived in those things which they have a clear and distinct perception of (without which supposition we can∣not be assured of the certainty of any operations of the mind, because we cannot know but we were so made that we might be then most deceived, when we thought our selves most sure) If this principle, I say, be supposed as the foundation of all certain knowledge, then from it I infer many things which are very much advantagious to our certainty in matters of faith.

That the foundation of all certainty lies in the necessary ex∣istence * 1.257 of a being absolutely perfect. So that unless I know that there is a God, I cannot be assured that I know any thing in a certain manner; and if I know there is a God, I must necessarily apprehend him to be absolutely perfect; because the grounds of my knowledge that there is a God, are from those absolute perfections which there are in him; and if I could suppose him not absolutely perfect, I must suppose him not to be God; for that is necessarily implyed in his definition. Now then if all certainty doth suppose the existence of a be∣ing so absolutely perfect; I must before I can know any thing certainly, conclude that there is an infinity of knowledge, wis∣dom, power and goodness in this God; for those are things which all who understand them, will grant to be perfections; and if they be in God, they must be absolute, i. e. infinite. And if they be infinite, it necessarily follows that they must transcend our apprehensions; so that now we have gained this principle in order to faith; that we must grant some∣thing to be unconceivable before we can come certainly to know any thing. From whence it follows that those who will not believe any thing to be true because it is above their apprehensions, must deny the foundation of all certainty, which (as we have proved) doth suppose something to be infinite, or above our capacity to comprehend.

That we have as great certainty of what-ever is revealed to * 1.258 us from God, as we can have of the truth of any thing which we most clearly understand. For the truth of knowledge de∣pending on this supposition, that there is a God whose goodness will not suffer us to be deceived in the things we clearly un∣derstand; there is the same foundation for the act of faith as for that of knowledge, viz. That God will not suffer us to be deceived in matters which himself hath revealed to us. Nay there seems to be far greater on these accounts. First, That there is not so great danger to be deceived in reference to ob∣jects of sense, as there is in reference to objects of Divine re∣velation: because objects of sense make a continual impression upon the Organs of sense; and as to these things we see the whole world agrees in them so far as they are necessary to life, and withall they bear a greater correspondency to the present state of imperfection which the soul is now in: but now matters of Divine revelation are of a more sublime and spiritual nature, which mens minds on that account are more apt to doubt of, then of things obvious to sense; and withall they call the mind so much off from sense that on these ac∣counts the proneness to doubt is greater, and therefore the foundation of certainty from Gods not suffering us to be deceived must be stronger. Secondly, There is not so great danger in being deceived as to matters of sense or knowledge, as there is in things of Divine revelation. For we see grant∣ing sense to be deceived, and that we have no certainty at all in natural things, yet affairs of life are managed still; mens outward welfare depends not on the judgement of sense; the merchant hath never the less gold in his Ship because his sense deceives him in judging that the earth moves from him, when the Ship moves from it. The Sun doth never the less inlighten the world, though our senses be a••l of Epicurus his mind, that the Sun is no bigger then he seems to be; but now as to matters of Divine revelation, they are things of the most unspeakable weight and importance, which depend upon our believing or disbelieving them. And therefore if the good∣ness of God be such as it will not suffer us to be deceived in our judgement of material and sensible beings, how much less in reference to the foundation of our certainty as to things

Divinely revealed? We see then what rational evidence there is not only consistent with, but necessarily implyed in the foundation of faith, even as great as in any thing which we do most perfectly know; so that the in-evidence which is so much spoken of as an ingredient of the nature of faith, must not be understood of the foundation whereon the act of faith doth stand, but of the condition of the object, which being a matter of divine revelation, is a thing not obvious to our senses: In which sense the Apostle speaks that faith is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the firm * 1.259 expectation of things hoped for, and strong conviction of things which are not seen: In which words, as Erasmus well ob∣serves, is contained only an high Encomium of faith, and no Dialectical definition of it; viz. that faith soars above things of sense or present enjoyment; yea, though the objects of it be never so remote from either, yet where there is suffi∣cient evidence of Divine Revelation, faith boggles at no diffi∣culties, but is firmly resolved that that God, who hath revealed these things, can and will bring them to pass in his own time. There is not then any such contrariety between the founda∣tion of faith and knowledge, as the Schoolmen have perswa∣ded the world, we see both of them proceed on the same foundation of certainty; all the difference is, faith fixeth on the veracity of God immediately in reference to a Divine Te∣stimony; knowledge proceeds upon it, supposing no Divine revelation, as to the things it doth discover.

We hence infer, that if the certainty of our knowledge * 1.260 depends on this principle, that God will not suffer us to be deceived, then we are bound to believe whatever God doth re∣veal to us, though we may not be able to comprehend the nature of the things revealed. For as to these things, we have the same ground of certainty, which we have as to any natural causes; for as to them, we now suppose from the former principle, that setting aside the existence of God, we could have no certainty of them, but that the formal reason of our certainty is resolved into this, that Gods goodness will not suf∣fer the understanding to be deceived as to these things; the same I say as to spiritual mysteries revealed by God; the ground of our certainty lies not in the evidence of the things,

but in the undoubted veracity of God, who hath revealed them. All that I can imagine possible to be replyed to this, is, that Gods veracity assures us in natural causes that we are not deceived only where we have a clear and distinct percepti∣on of the things; but now in matters above our reason to com∣prehend, there can be no clear and distinct perception. To this I answer.

First, it is evident in the foundation of all certainty of knowledge, that there may be a clear and distinct perception * 1.261 of that which we cannot comprehend, viz. of a being abso∣lutely perfect; for if we have not a clear and distinct per∣ception of God, the foundation of all certainty is destroyed, which is the necessary existence of such a being; and he that shall say he cannot have a clear perception of God without comprehending him, doth contradict himself; for if he be a being infinite, he must be incomprehensible; therefore there may be clear perception, where the object its self is above our capacity. Now whatever foundation there is in nature for such a perception without comprehension; that and much more is there in such things as are revealed by God, though above our apprehension: For the Idea of God upon the soul of man cannot be so strong an evidence of the existence of a being above our apprehension, as the revelation of matters of faith is, that we should believe the things so revealed, though our understandings lose themselves in striving to reach the natures of them, and the manner of their existence.

Secondly, that which is the only foundation of a scruple in this case, is a principle most unreasonable in its self, that we are * 1.262 to imbrace nothing for truth, though divinely revealed, but what our reason is able to comprehend, as to the nature of the thing, and the manner of its existence; on which account the doctrine of the Trinity, Incarnation, Satisfaction, and consequently the whole mysterie of the Gospel of Christ must be rejected as incredible, and that on this bare pretence, because although many expressions in Scripture seem to import all these things, yet we are bound to interpret them to another sense, because this is incongruous to our reason. But although Christianity be a Religion which comes in the highest way of credibility to the minds of men, although we are not bound to believe any thing but what we have sufficient reason to make it

appear that it is revealed by God, yet that any thing should be questioned whether it be of divine revelation, meerly because our reason is to seek, as to the full and adaequate conception of it, is a most absurd and unreasonable pretence: And the Assertors of it must run themselves on these unavoidable absurdities.

First, of believing nothing either in nature or Religion to * 1.263 be true, but what they can give a full and satisfactory account of, as to every mode and circumstance of it. Therefore let such persons first try themselves in all the appearances of na∣ture; and then we may suppose they will not believe that the Sun shines, till they have by demonstrative arguments proved the undoubted truth of the Ptolomaick or Coperni∣can hypothesis, that they will never give credit to the flux and reflux of the Sea, till they clearly resolve the doubts which attend the several opinions of it. That there is no such thing as matter in the world, till they can satisfactorily tell us how the parts of it are united; nor that there are any material beings, till they have resolved all the perplexing difficulties about the several affections of them; and that themselves have not so much as a rational soul, till they are bound to satisfie us of the manner of the union of the soul and body together. And if they can expedite all these, and many more difficulties about the most obvious things (about which it is another thing to frame handsome and consistent hypotheses, then to give a certain account of them) then let them be let loose to the matters of divine revelation; as to which yet (if they could perform the other) were there no reason for such an undertaking; for that were

Secondly, to commensurate the perfections of God with the narrow capacity of the humane intellect; which is contrary to * 1.264 the natural Idea of God, and to the manner whereby we take up our conceptions of God; for the Idea of God doth suppose incomprehensibility to belong to his nature; and the manner whereby we form our conceptions of God, is by ta∣king away all the imperfections we find in our selves, from the conception we form of a being absolutely perfect, and by adding infinity to all the perfections we find in our own na∣tures. Now this method of proceeding doth necessarily imply a vast distance and disproportion between a finite and infi∣nite

understanding. And if the understanding of God be in∣finite, why may not he discover such things to us, which our shallow apprehensions cannot reach unto? what ground or evidence of reason can we have that an infinite wisdom and understanding, when it undertakes to discover matters of the highest nature and concernment to the world, should be able to deliver nothing but what comes within the compass of our imperfect and narrow intellects? And that it should not be sufficient that the matters revealed do none of them con∣tradict the prime results or common notions of mankind (which none of them do) but that every particular mode and circumstance, as to the manner of existence in God, or the extent of his omnipotent power, must pass the scrutiny of our faculties, before it obtains a Placet for a Divine reve∣lation?

Thirdly, it must follow from this principle, that the pre∣tenders to it must affirm the rules or maxims which they go by * 1.265 in the judgment of things, are the infallible standard of reason: Else they are as far to seek in the judgement of the truth of things as any others are. They must then, to be consi∣stent with their principle, affirm themselves to be the absolute Masters of reason: Now reason consisting of observations made concerning the natures of all beings (for so it must be considered, as it is a rule of judging, viz. as a Systeme of in∣fallible rules collected from the natures of things) they who pretend to it, must demonstrate these general maxims accord∣ing to which they judge, to be ••ollected from an universal un∣doubted history of nature, which lies yet too dark and obscure for any to pretend to the full knowledge of, and would be only a demonstration of the highest arrogance after so many suc∣cesless endeavours of the most searching wits in any society of persons to usurp it to themselves; especially if such persons are so far from searching into the depths of nature, that they suffer themselves very fairly to be led by the nose by the most dogmatical of all Philosophers; and that in such principles which the more inquisitive world hath now found to be very short, uncertain, and fallacious. And upon severe enquiry we shall find the grand principles which have been taken by these adorers of reason, for almost the standard of it, have been

some Theories which have been taken up meerly from obser∣vation of the course of nature by such persons, who scarce own∣ed any hand of providence in the world. Now it cannot otherwise be conceived but that these Theories, or princi∣ples formed from such a narrow inspection into the natures of things, must make strange work when we come to apply those things to them, which were never looked at in the form∣ing of them: Whence came those two received principles, that nothing can be produced out of nothing; that there is no possible return from a privation to a habit, but from those Philosophers who believed there was nothing but matter in the world; or if they did assert the existence of a God, yet supposed him unconcerned in the Government of the world. Whence come our Masters of reason to tell us that the soul cannot subsist after death without the boay; from what Philosophy was this derived? certainly from that which was very loth to acknowledge the immortality of the soul of man: And any one who strictly observes the close coherence of the prin∣ciples of the Peripatetick Philosophy, will find very little room left for an eternal being to interpose its self in the world; and therefore some have shrewdly observed that Aristotle speaks more favourably of the being of God in his Exote∣ricks, then in his Acroamaticks, which all that know the reason of the names, will guess at the reason of. I demand then, must the received principles of Philosophy, and those short imperfect Theories, which were formed more from tra∣dition then experience, by the ancient Greeks, be taken for the standard of reason or no? If they must, we may soon for∣sake not only the sublimer mysteries of the Trinity, Divini∣ty of Christ, Resurrection, &c. but we shall soon shake hands with Creation, Providence, if not immortality of souls, and the Being of God himself. If these things be disowned as the standard of reason, let us know what will be substituted in the room of them? and what Laws our faith must be try∣ed by? Are they only Mathematical demonstrations, or the undoubted common notions of humane nature, which whosoe∣ver understands assents to them, let any of the forementi∣oned mysteries be made appear to contradict these, and we will readily yield up our selves captives to reason: But in

the mean time, let no jejune unproved hypotheses in Philo∣sophy, be set as Iudges over matters of faith, whose only warrant for that office must be Stat pro ratione voluntas. Let the principles we proceed by, be first manifested to be collected from a most certain and universal inspection into the nature of all beings, let the manner of process be shewed how they were collected (lest they labour with the common fault of the Chymists, of establishing hypostatical principles from the experiments of some particular bodies, which others do as evidently refute) and lastly, let it be made appear that these principles, thus collected, will serve indifferently for all beings, spiritual as well as material, infinite as well as finite, and when this Task is exactly performed, we will make room for Reason to sit upon the Bench, and bring the Scriptures as the Prisoner to its Bar.

Fourthly, According to this principle, what certainty can * 1.266 we have at all of anything we are to believe? who hath fixed the bounds of that which men call reason? how shall we know that thus far it will come, and no further? If no banks be rai∣sed against it to keep it in its due channel, we may have cause to fear it may in time overthrow not only the Trinity, In∣carnation, Resurrection of the dead, but all other articles of the creed too? What prescription can be pleaded by one sort of men for reason more then for another? One will not be∣lieve this article of his faith, because against his reason, and why not another reject another article on the same pretence? for whatever the ground of unbelief be, if it be but baptized by the name of reason, it must by this principle pass uncon∣trouled; if a sullen Philosopher shall tell us, that the noti∣on of an immaterial substance contradicts his reason as much as the Trinity doth theirs, and that the Universe is nothing else but a Systeme of bodies, by what Artifice will our Ma∣sters of reason purge away all that black choler that so clouds his mind, that he cannot see the notion of a spirit through it? And such one will make a hard shift, but he will recon∣cile his opinion with Scripture too; and therefore why should he be bound up to mens explications of Scripture, when there is no necessity, that he can see, of understanding it in any other way then his own? If another should come

and tell us, that we must be all Anthropomorphites, and that otherwise the Scripture were not intelligible; shall not this man put in for reason too? Nay lastly, if another shall come and speak out, and tell us Religion is but a device of subtle men, that all things come to pass through chance, that the world was made by a fortuitous concourse of Atoms, and that all are fools which are not Atheists, and that it is im∣possible to apprehend the Being of a God, and therefore by the same reason that they reject some mysteries of Religion, he rejects the foundation of all; because an infinite being is incomprehensible: whither now hath our Reason carried us? while we p••etend to reject any thing as divinely revealed, meerly on that account, that it is above our reason? But it may be replied, On what account then do we reject the Do∣ctrine of Transubstantiation, and the ubiquity of the body of Christ, as repugnant to reason, if we do not make reason judge in matters of faith? I answer, 1. We reject these opinions not only as repugnant to reason, but as insufficiently proved from Scripture, whereas we here suppose (it not being our present business to prove it) that the several doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, Resurrection of bodies, &c. are on∣ly rejected on that account, that though Scripture seems to speak fair for them, yet it is otherwise to be interpreted, be∣cause supposed to be repugnant to reason. 2. Those doctrines before mentioned are eminently serviceable to promote the great end of the Gospel, and are inlaid in the very founda∣tion o•• it, as that of the Trinity, and Divinity of Christ; but these we now mention are no ways conduceable to that end; but seem to thwart and overthrow it, and transub∣stantiation establisheth a way of worship contrary to the Go∣spel. 3. All the foundation of transubstantiation is laid upon ambiguous places of Scripture, which must of necessity have some Tropes and Figures in them; but the doctrine of the Trinity is not only contained in plain Scripture, but is ••videnced by visible appearance, as particularly at the baptism of our Saviour. 4. There is far greater ground why we should reject Transubstantiation and ubiquity, as inconsistent with reason, then that they should the Trinity, on this ac∣count, because the grounds of reason on which we reject

those opinions, are fet••hed from those essential and insepa∣rable properties of bodies, which are inconsistent with those opinions; now these are things within the reach of our un∣derstandings (in which case God himself sometimes appeals to reason) but it is quite another. case, when we search into the incomprehensible nature of God, and pronounce with confidence that such things cannot be in God, because we cannot comprehend them; which gives a sufficient answer to this objection. The substance then of this discourse is, that whatever d••ctrine is sufficiently manifested to be of divine revelation, is to be embraced and believed, as undoubtedly true, though our reason cannot reach to the full apprehension of all the Modes and circumstances of it. So that as to these sublime mysteries our faith stands upon this twofold bot∣tom. First, that the being, understanding, and power of God doth infinitely transcend ours, and therefore he may re∣veal to us matters above our reach and capacity. Secondly, that whatever God doth reveal is undoubtedly true, though we may not fully understand it; for this is a most undoubted principle, that God cannot and will not deceive any in those things which he reveals to men. Thus our first supposition is cleared, that it is not repugnant to reason, that a doctrine may be true, which depends not on the evidence of the thing it self.

The second is, That in matters whose truth depends not on * 1.267 the evidence of the things themselves, infallible testimony is the fullest demonstration of them. For these things, not be∣ing of Mathematical evidence, there must be some other way found out for demonstrating the truth of them. And in all those things whose truth depends on Testimony, the more creditable the Testimony is, the higher evidence is gi∣ven to them; but that testimony which may deceive, cannot give so pregnant an evidence as that which cannot; for then all imaginable objections are taken off. This is so clear, that it needs no further proof; and therefore the third fol∣lows.

That there are certain ways whereby to know that a Te∣stimony delivered is infallible; and that is fully proved by * 1.268 these two Arguments. 1. That it is the duty of all those to

whom it is propounded to believe it; now how could that be a duty in them to believe, which they had no ways to know whether it were a Testimony to be believed, or no. 2. Be∣cause God will condemn the world for unbelief: In which the Justice of Gods proceedings doth necessarily suppose that there were sufficient arguments to induce them to believe, which could not be, unless there were some certain way sup∣posed whereby a Testimony may be known to be infallible. These three things now being supposed, viz. that a doctrine may be true which depends not on evidonce of reason, that the greatest demonstration of the truth of such a doctrine, is its being delivered by infallible Testimony, and that there are certain ways whereby a Testimony may be known to be infal∣lible: Our first principle is fully confirmed, which was, that where the truth of a doctrine depends not on evidence of reason, but on the authority of him that reveals it, the only way to prove the doctrine to be true, is to prove the Testimony of him that reveals it to be infallible.

The next principle or Hypothesis which I lay down, is, That there can be no greater evidence that a Testimony is in∣fallible, * 1.269 then that it is the Testimony of God himself. The truth of this depends upon a common notion of humane na∣ture, which is the veracity of God in whatever way he dis∣covers himself to men; and therefore the ultimate resolu∣tion of our faith, as to its formal object, must be alone in∣to the veracity of God revealing things unto us; for the principium certitudinis, or foundation of all certain assent can be fetched no higher, neither will it stand any lower then the infallible verity of God himself; and the principium patefactionis, or the ground of discovery of spiritual truth to our minds, must be resolved into Divine Testimony, or re∣velation. These two then not taken asunder, but joyntly, God, who cannot lye, hath revealed these things, is the only certain foundation for a divine faith to rest its self upon. But now the particular exercise of a Divine faith lies in a firm assent to such a particular thing as Divinely revealed, and herein lyes not so much the Testimony, as the peculiar energy of the Spirit of God in inclining the soul to believe peculiar objects of faith, as of Divine revelation. But the

general ground of faith, which they call the formal object, or the ratio propter quam credimus is the general infallibili∣ty of a Divine Testimony. For in a matter concerning divine revelation, there are two great questions to be resolved; The first is, Why I believe a Divine Testimony with a firm assent? The answer to that is, because I am assured, that what ever God speaks is true: the other is, upon what grounds do I believe this to be a Divine Testimony? the resolution of which, as far as I can understand, must be fetched from those rational evidences whereby a Divine Testimony must be di∣stinguished from one meerly humane and fallible. For the Spirit of God in its workings upon the mind, doth not carry it on by a brutish impulse, but draws it by a spiritual dis∣covery of such strong and perswasive grounds to assent to what is revealed, that the mind doth readily give a firm as∣sent to that which it sees such convincing reason to believe. Now the strongest reason to believe, is the manifestation of a divine Testimony; which the Spirit of God so clearly dis∣covers to a true believer, that he not only firmly assents to the general foundation of faith, the veracity of God, but to the particular object propounded, as a matter of Divine Re∣velation. But this latter question is not here the matter of our discourse; our proposition only concerns the general founda∣tion of faith; which appears to be so rational and evident, as no principle in nature can be more. For if the Testimony on which I am to rely be only Gods, and I be assured from natural reason, that his Testimony can be no other then in∣fallible, wherein doth the certainty of the foundation of faith fall short of that in any Mathematical demonstration? Upon which account a Divine Testimony hath been regarded with so much veneration among all who have owned a Deity, although they have been unacquainted with any certain way of Divine revelation. And the reason why any rejected such a Testimony among the Heathens, was either because they believed not a Deity, or else that the particular Testimonies produced were meer frauds and impostures, and therefore no Divine Testimony as it was given out to be. But the principle still remained indisputable, that on supposition the Testimony were what it pretended to be, there was the grea∣test

reason to believe it, although it came not in such a way of probation, as their sciences proceeded in. From which principle arose that speech of Tully which he hath translated * 1.270 out of Plato's Timaeus, Ac difficillimum factu à Diis ortis sidem non haber••, quanquam nec argumentis nec rationibus certis eorum oratio confirmetur. By which we see what a presumption there was of Truth, where there was any evi∣dence of a Divine Testimony. And no doubt upon the advantage of this principle it was the Devil gained so great credit to his oracles, for therein he did the most imitate Divine revelation. From hence then we see what a firm bottom faith in the general stands upon, which is nothing short of an Infallible Divine Testimony: other things may conduce by way of subserviency for the discovery of this; but nothing else can be a sure foundation for a Divine faith, but what is a Testimony of God himself.

A Testimony may be known to be Divine and infallible, though God himself do not speak in an immediate way. By * 1.271 being known, I do not mean the firm perswasion of a mind inlightned by the Spirit of God, but that there are sufficient evidences ex parte rei to convince men of it, which are not wilfully blind and obstinate, i. e. that the ground of unbelief in any cannot be imputed to the defect of sufficient motives to faith, but to their own perversness and prejudice in not discerning them. Now that God may reveal and declare his mind to the world, not in an immediate way, but by some instruments he may make use of to that end, is not only evident from the great suitableness of such a way to the conditions of the persons he speaks to, but from the general perswasion of the world concerning the possibility of Inspira∣tion. The Iews are so far from denying this, that it is the very foundation of their religion as well as ours, God discover∣ing the most of his will to them by the Prophets or by persons Divinely inspired. And the general consent of all other Nations, that there is such a principle as Divination in the world, doth make it evident, that it carryes no repugnancy at all to natural light, supposing that there is a God, that he should reveal his mind by some particular persons unto the world. For which purpose the Testimony of Tully in the

entrance of his books de Divinatione, is very considerable. Vetus opinio est jam usque ab Heroicis ducta temporibus, eáque * 1.272 & populi Romani & omnium gentium firmata consensu, ver∣sari quandam inter homines divinationem, quam Graeci 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 appellant, i. e. praesensionem & scientiam rerum futurarum, and soon after adds, gentem quidem nullam video, neque tam humanam at que doctam, neque tam immanem atque barbaram, quae non significari futura, et à quibusdam intelligi, praedicique posse censeat. He makes it appear to be an universal sentiment of all Nations in the world, and in∣stanceth particularly in the Assyrians, Aegyptians, Cilicians, Pisidians, Pamphilians, Grecians, Romans, Etrurians, and others. It is true indeed he after mentions some Philoso∣phers who denyed it; but they were most part the followers of Epicurus, who denyed any providence, and therefore might well take away divination; but if Xenophanes Colo∣phonius had any followers who asserted the one, and denyed the other (as Tully seems to intimate that he was alone in that perswasion) yet we may probably suppose the reason of their rejecting it might be the impostures which went under the name of Divination among them; which are excellent∣ly discovered by that Prince of Roman Philosophers as well as Orators, in his second book of Divination; but it is appa∣rent by the same Author, that the generality of Philosophers consented with the people in this perswasion, as the followers of those three great sects of Socrates, Pythagoras, and Aristotle were all approvers of it; but of all persons the Stoicks were the most zealous contenders for it, especially Chrysippus, Diogenes Babylonius, Antipater and Possidonius; some indeed rejected some wayes of Divination, yet em∣braced others, as Dicaearchus and Cratippus, who rejected all but dreams and extasies; but in the general we find these two principles went together among them, the existence of a Deity, and the certainty of Divination; so that from Divi∣nation they proved a Deity, and from a Deity Divination. Si sunt genera divinandi vera, esse Deos; vicissimque si Dii sint, esse qui divinent, as Quintus Cicero there speaks: and at last thus triumphs in the multitude of his witnesses, An dum bestiae loquantur expectamus, hominum consenti••nte auctoritate contenti non simus? It may not be amiss to produce the chief

argument on which the Stoicks insisted to prove the necessi∣ty of Divination, supposing the existence of a Deity. If there be Gods, say they, and they do not reveal to men things to come, it either is because they do not love them, or because they do not know themselves what shall come to pass, or they think it is of no concernment to men to know future things, or that it doth not become their Majesty to reveal them, or that they cannot re∣veal them to men if they would; but neither is it true that they do not love men; for the Gods are of a bountiful nature and friends to mankind; neither can they be ignorant of future things, because they are appointed and decreed by them, neither is it of no concernment to men to know future things; for that makes them more cautious if they know them; neither is it repugnant to their Majesty to reveal them, for nothing is more noble then bounty and doing good; and they must needs know these things; therefore they may make them known to others; and if they do make them known, there must be some way whereby to know that they do so; or else they signifie them to no purpose. If now instead of the knowledge of future con∣tingencies, and the multitude of their Gods, they had insisted on the discovery and revelation by the true God of those wayes which may lead men to eternal happiness, that argu∣ment had been strong and convincing, which as it stands, is Sophistical and fallacious. So that it is very plain, that not only a possibility of Divination was acknowledged by those who wanted Divine revelation, but that this divination did not arise from meer natural causes, but from an afflatus Divinus, and a concitatio quaedam animi, as they there speak, which imports nothing short of Divine inspiration. Nay the opinion of this was so common among them, that they thought any extraordinary persons had something of Divine Enthusiasm in them, as Tully elsewhere tells us, Nemo vir * 1.273 magnus sine aliquo afflatu Divino unquam fuit. Although then these Heathens were greatly mistaken as to those things they took for a Divine afflatus and Divination, yet we cannot conceive so general a sense should be imprinted on the minds of men of such a thing as that was, were it not a thing highly consonant to principles of reason, that God should communicate his mind to the world by the inspiration of some persons. And therefore I conceive that Cicero and his bro∣ther

Quintus, who manage that excellent dispute of Divina∣tion between them, have divided the truth between them too. For on the one side Quintus evidently proves the possibility of the thing, the consequence of it upon the ac∣knowledgement of a Deity, and the general consent of man∣kind in the owning of it; and on the other side Tully himself excellently layes open the vanity, folly, and uncertainty, not only of the common wayes of Divination, but of the oracles which were in such great esteem among the Heathens. And although Tully doth so sharply and sarcastically answer the argument from the common consent of men; quasi verò quid∣quam sit, tam valdè, quam nihil sapere, vulgare; as though nothing men did more generally agree in, then in being fools; yet as it is evident that the ground of that scoffe was from the several manners of Divination then in use, so it cannot be thought to be a general impeachment of humane nature in a thing so consequent upon the being of a God, which as him∣self elsewhere proves, is as clear from reason as from that Testimonium gentium in hac una re non dissidentium, as the Christian Cicero, Lactantius speaks, the consent of Nations, * 1.274 which scarce agree in any thing else, but that there is a God. That which we now infer from hence is, that God may make known his mind in a way infallible, though not immediate; for in case of Inspiration of meer men, it is not they so much which speak, as God by them; and in case that God himself should speak through the vail of humane nature, the Testi∣mony must needs be infallible though the appearance of the Divinity be not visible.

Those evidences whereby a Divine Testimony may be known, must be such as may not leave mens minds in suspense, but are * 1.275 of their own nature convincing proofs of it. For although as to the event some may doubt, and others disbelieve the Testi∣mony so proved, yet it is sufficient for our purpose, that in the nature of the things (supposing them to be such as we speak of) they are sufficient for the eviction that the testimony attested by them is divine and infallible. I know it is a great dispute among many, whether those things which are usually called the common motives of faith, do of their own nature only induce a probable perswasion of the truth of the

doctrine as probable which they are joyned with, or else are they sufficient for the producing a firm assent to the doctrine as True? I grant they are not demonstrative so as to inforce assent; for we see the contrary by the experience of all ages; but that they are not sufficient foundation for an unpreju∣diced mind to establish a firm assent upon, is a thing not easie to be granted; chiefly upon this account, that an obligati∣on to believe doth lie upon every one to whom these evi∣dences of a Divine Testimony are sufficiently discovered. And otherwise of all sins the sin of unbelief as to God re∣vealing his mind, were the most excusable and pardonable sin; nay, it would be little less then a part of prudence; be∣cause what can it be accounted but temerity and imprudence in any to believe a doctrine as true only upon probable in∣ducements? and what can it be but wisdom to withhold assent upon a meer verisimilitude? considering what the Lyrick Poet hath long since truly told us,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 1.276 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

That a falshood may frequently seem truer to common under∣standings then truth its self: and as Menander speaks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that a meer verisimilitude may have more force on vulgar minds then truth hath. If therefore there be no evidences given sufficient to carry the minds of men beyond meer probability, what sin can it be in those to disbelieve who cannot be obliged to believe as true what is only discovered as probable: I can∣not therefore see how an obligation to believe a Divine Testimony is consistent with their opinion, who make the utmost which any outward evidences can extend to, to be only the bare credibility of the doctrine attested by them. I can very well satisfie my self with the ground and reason why the more subtle wits of the Church of Rome do essert this; for if nothing else can be produced by all motives of faith but only a probable perswasion of the truth of Christian

doctrine, then here comes in the fairest pretence for the In∣fallibility of their Church; for otherwise they tell us we can have no foundation for a Divine faith; for how can that be a foundation for Divine faith, which can reach no higher then a moral inducement, and beget only a probable perswa∣sion of the credibility of the doctrine of Christ? But on what account those who disown the Infallibility of the Church of Rome in the proposal of matters of faith, should yet consent with those of it in an hypothesis taken up in probability, meer∣ly out of subserviency to that most advantagious piece of the mysterie of iniquity, is not easie to resolve. Unless the over-fondness of some upon the doctrine of the Schools, more then of the Gospel, hath been the occasion of it. For how agreeable can that opinion be to the Gospel which so evident∣ly puts the most defensive weapons into the hands of unbelief? For doubtless in the judgement of any rational person, a meer probable perswasion of the credibility of the doctrine of Christ, where an assent to it as true is required, can never be looked on as an act of faith; for if my assent to the truth of the thing be according to the strength of the arguments inducing me to believe, and these arguments do only prove a probability of Divine Testimony, my assent can be no stronger then to a thing meerly probable; which is, that it may be or not be true; which is not properly assent, but a suspending our judgements till some convincing argument be produced on either side. And therefore according to this opinion those who saw all the miracles which Christ did, could not be bound to believe in Christ, but only to have a favourable opinion of his person and doctrine, as a thing which though not evidenced to be true by what he did, yet it was very piously credible; but they must have a care withall of venturing their belief too far, only on such moral inducements as mira∣cels were, for fear they should go farther then the force of the arguments would carry them. Had not this opinion now, think we, been a very probable way to have converted the world upon the Preaching of Christ and his Apostles; when Christ saith, though ye believe not me, believe the works, * 1.277 that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him; Nay saith this opinion, that is more then we are bound

to do, though we see thy works, we are not bound to believe thy Testimony to be Divine and certainly true; but we will do all we are bound to do; we will entertain a favourable opinion of thy person and doctrine, and wait for somewhat else, but we do not well know what, to perswade us to believe. When the Apostles Preach the danger of unbelief, because the doctrine of the Gospel was confirmed by signs and wonders, * 1.278 and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost; what a fair answer doth this opinion put into the mouths of Infidels, that notwithstanding all these signs and wonders, they were never bound to believe the Gospel as a certain Truth, and therefore they hope the danger is not so great in neglecting the salvati∣on promised by the Gospel.

I cannot conceive that men otherwise learned and sober, * 1.279 should with so much confidence assert that the rational evi∣dences of a Divine Testimony are insufficient to prove a doctrine true, unless it be from hence, that they find that notwith∣standing the strongest evidences many persons continue in un∣belief. For, say they, if these arguments were scientifical and demonstrative, (as they speak) of the truth of the do∣ctrine attested by them, then all persons to whom they are pro∣pounded, must certainly believe. But this is very easily an∣swered; for we speak not of internal, but outward evidence, not of that in the subject, but of the object, or more fully of the reason of the thing, and not the event in us; for doubt∣less there may be undoubted truth and evidence in many things which some persons either cannot or will not under∣stand. If Epicurus should contend still that the Sun and stars are no bigger then they seem to be, will it hence follow that there can be no rational demonstration of the contrary? Nay if the way of demonstration be offered him, and Telescopes put into his hands, yet if he be resolved to maintain his credit, and therefore his opinion, and will not use the Tele∣scopes, or suspect still they are intended only to deceive his sight, what possible way will there be of convincing such a person, though the thing be in its self demonstrable? Now if the strength of prejudice or maintaining of credit can prevail so much in matters of Mathematical evidence to withhold assent, what power may we think a corrupt interest may have

upon the understanding, as to the arguments which tend to prove the truth of that doctrine, which is so repugnant to that carnal interest which the heart is already devoted to. Our Blessed Saviour hath himself given us so full an ac∣count of the original and causes of unbelief in the persons he conversed with, that that may yield us a sufficient answer to this objection. He tels us the ground of it was not want of light, nay, there was light sufficient to convince any, but that those to whom the light came loved darkness ra∣ther then it, because their deeds were evil. That they could * 1.280 not believe while they received honour one of another, and sought not the honour which was of God only, i. e. That they * 1.281 were so greedy of applause from each other, that they would not impartially search into the truth of that doctrine, which did touch their sores so to the quick, that they had rather have them fester upon them, then go to the trouble of so sharp a cure. That the reason so few followed him was be∣cause the way was narrow and the gate straight which men must go in at; and therefore no wonder so few of the rich * 1.282 and proud pharisees could get in at it; they were partly so sweld with a high opinion of themselves, and partly so loa∣den with their riches, that they thought it was to no pur∣pose for them to think of going in at so straight a gate, while they were resolved to part with neither.

That the final ground of the rejection of any, was not want of evidence to bring them to believe, nor want of readiness in Christ to receive them if they did, but it was a peevish, wilful, obstinate, malicious spirit, that they would not come * 1.283 to Christ, nor believe his Doctrine (for those import the same) but when the most convincing miracles were used, they would rather attribute them to the Prince of De∣vils, * 1.284 then to the power of God. And though our Saviour pre∣sently by rational and demonstrative arguments did prove the contrary to their faces; yet we see thereby it was a re∣solution not to be convinced, or yield to the Truth, which was the cause why they did not believe. Now from this ve∣ry instance of our Saviours proceedings with the Pharisees by rational arguments, I demand, whether these arguments of our Saviour were sufficient foundations for a divine assent

to that truth that our Saviour did not his miracles by any Di∣abolical, but by Divine power or no? If they were, then it is evident that rational evidence may be a foundation for Di∣vine faith; or that some motives to believe may be so strong, as to be sufficient evidence of the truth and certainty of the Doctrine: If these arguments were not sufficient proofs of what our Saviour spake, then well fare the Pharisees; it seems they said nothing but what might be thus far justified, that the contrary to it, could not be demonstrated. And if the evidence of our S••viours miracles were so great, as some suppose, that the Pharisees could not but be convinced that they were divine; but out of their malice and envy they ut∣tered this blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, to keep the peo∣ple from following Christ; then we hence infer two things: First, how strong an evidence there was in the miracles of Christ, when it convinced his most resolute enemies that they were divine. Secondly, what power a corrupt will may have over a convinced understanding: For although the will may not hinder conviction, yet it may soon stifle it, by sug∣gesting those things to the mind which may divert it from those convictions of Truth, and seek to find out any ways to disgrace it. It would be no difficult task to discover in all those instances wherein the unbelief of men is discovered in the New T••stament, that the persons guilty of it did not proceed like rational men, or such as desired Truth, but were wholly carried away through passion, interest, prejudice, disaffecti∣on, or some other cause of that nature, which may give us a sufficient account why those persons did not believe, al∣though there might be clear and undoubted evidence to per∣sw••de them to it. But although I assert that these rational evidences are sufficient arguments of the truth of the doctrine they come to manifest, yet I would not be so understood, that I thereby resolve all Religion into a meer act of reason and knowledge, and that no more power is required in the understanding to believe the Gospel, then to believe a Ma∣thematical demonstration; which is another objection some lay in the way of this opinion; but it is•• ot difficult getting over it. For the sufficiency which I attribute to rational evi∣dence, is not absolute and simple, but in suo genere, as an obje∣ctive

evidence. Notwithstanding this, the whole work of the Spirit of God in its peculiar energy and way of operation upon the soul, is left entire to its self: But then when the spirit works as to the planting of a truly divine faith, I do not think that it only perswades the soul of the Truth of a Di∣vine Testimony, but withall represents the Truths revealed by that Testimony, with all that excellency and suitableness that there is in them, that by the most agreeable, yet effe∣ctual influence of the spirit upon the soul, it cheerfully em∣braceth that Truth which is revealed, and cordially yields up its self in obedience to it. This is the Divine faith which the Scripture acquaints us with, and not such a one as meerly believes the truth of a Divine Testimony; and as to the pro∣duction of this faith, I acknowledge meer rational evidence to be insufficient, because they proceed in 2•• very different ways; the one is to satisfie mens minds of the truth of the doctrine, the other is to bring them effectually to adhere unto it. The asserting of the one therefore doth no more tend to destroy the other, then the saying that a Telescope will help us to discover very much of the heavenly bodies, doth imply that a blind man may see them, if he makes but use of them. Although therefore the natural man cannot savingly appre∣hend the things of God, yet there may be so much rational evidence going along with Divine revelation, that supposing reason to be pure, and not corrupted and steeped in sense as now it is, it would discover spiritual evidence to be the most real and convincing evidence. Thus far we have proved, that where there is any infallible Testimony, there is sufficient rational evidence going along with it, to make it appear that it is from God.

CHAP. IX. The rational evidence of the truth of Christian Religi∣on from Miracles.

The possibility of miracles appears from God and providence; the evidence of a Divine Testimony by them. God alone can really alter the course of nature. The Devils power of work∣ing miracles considered. Of Simon Magus, Apollonius. The cures in the Temple of Aesculapius at Rome, &c. God ne∣ver works miracles, but for some particular end. The particular reasons of the miracles of Christ. The repealing the Law of Moses, which had been setled by miracles. Why Christ checked the Pharisees for demanding a sign, when himself appeals to his miracles. The power of Christs mi∣racles on many who did not throughly believe. Christs mi∣racles made it evident that he was the Messias, because the predictions were fulfilled in him. Why John Baptist wrought no miracles. Christs miracles necessary for the overthrow of the Devils Kingdom. Of the Daemoniacks and Lunaticks in the Gospel, and in the Primitiv•• Church. The power of the name of Christ over them largely proved by several Testimonies. The evidence thence of a Divine power in Christ. Of counterfeit dispossessions. Of miracles wrought among Infidels. Of the future state of the Church. The necessity of the miracles of Christ, as to the propaga∣tion of Christian Religion: that proved from the conditi∣on of the publishers, and the success of the Doctrine. The Apostles knew the hazard of their imployment, before they entred on it. The boldness and resolution of the Apostles not∣withstanding this, compared with heathen Philosophers. No motive could carry the Apostles through their imployment, but the truth of their Doctrine; not seeking the honour, profit or pleasure of the world. The Apostles evidence of the truth of their doctrine lay in being eye-witnesses of our Saviours miracles and resurrection. That attested by them∣selves; their sufficiency thence for preaching the Gospel. Of the nature of the doctrine of the Gospel; contrariety of

it to natural inclinations. Strange success of it, notwith∣standing it came not with humane power: No Christian Em∣perour, till the Gospel universally preached. The weak∣ness and simplicity of the instruments which preached the Gospel. From all which the great evidence of the power of miracles is proved.

OF all rational evidences which tend to confirm the truth of a Divine Testimony, there can be none greater then * 1.285 a power of working miracles for confirmation that the Testi∣mony which is revealed is infallible. The possibility of a pow∣er of miracles cannot be questiond by any who assert a Deity and a Providence; for by the same power that things were ei∣ther at first produced, or are still conserved (which is equiva∣lent to the other) the course of nature may be altered, and things caused which are beyond the power of inferiour cau∣ses: For though that be an immutable Law of nature as to Physical beings, that every thing remains in the course and order wherein it was set at the Creation; yet that only holds till the same power which set it in that order shall otherwise dispose of it; granting then the possibility of miracles, the subject of this Hypothesis is, that a power of miracles is the clearest evidence of a Divine Testimony, which will appear from these following considerations.

God alone can really alter the course of nature. I speak * 1.286 not of such things which are apt only to raise admiration in us because of our unacquaintedness with the causes of them, or manner of their production, which are thence called won∣ders, much less of meer juggles and impostures, whereby the eyes of men are deceived; but I speak of such things as are in themselves either contrary to, or above the course of nature, i. e. that order which is established in the universe. The Devil no question may, and doth often deceive the world, and may by the subtilty and agility of his nature, perform such things as may amuse the minds of men, and sometimes put them to it, to find a difference between them and real miracles, if they only make their s••nses judges of them. And such kind of wonders, though they are but spa∣••ingly done, and with a kind of secrecy (as though they

were consulting with Catiline about the burning Rome) yet the Devil would have some (especially when Ignorance and Superstition are Ascendents) to keep up his interest in the world. Or else when he is like to be dispossessed and thrown out of all, he then tryes his utmost to keep as many to him as may be; thus when the Spirit of God appeared in the mi∣racles of our Saviour and his Apostles and the Primitive Church he then conjured up all the infernal powers to do something parallel, to keep possession of his Idolatrous Temples, as long as he could. Thus we find Simon Magus dogging the Apostles (as it were) at the heels, that by his Magick he might stagger the faith of people concerning the miracles wrought by the Apostles: after him Apolloni∣us appeared upon the Stage; but his wonders are such pit∣tifull things, compared with those wrought by Christ or his Apostles, that it could be nothing but malice in Hie∣rocles to mention him in competition with Christ. But those things which seem a great deal more considerable then either of these, were the cure of a blind man by Vespasian in Egypt, * 1.287 mentioned by Tacitus and Suetonius, wherein there was a palpable imitation of our Saviours curing the blind man in the Gospel; for the man told Vespasian, restituturum ocu∣los si inspuisset, that he should receive his sight by his spittle; so Spartianus tells us of a woman that was cured of her blind∣ness by kissing the knees of the Emperour Adrian; and Box∣hornius hath produced an old Fable in the Temple of Aes∣culapius at Rome of several diseased persons that were cured there. A Blind man in the time of Antoninus was cured by this oracle; he must come to the Altar, and kneel there; from the right side he must turn to the left, and put five fingers upon the Altar, and then lift up his hands and touch his eyes, and so was cured. Another called Lucius cured of the pain of his side, by mixing the ashes of the altar with the wine, and applying it to his side; another cured of spitting of blood by the kernel of a pine apple, and honey used three days; a fourth cured of * 1.288 blindness by the blood of a white Cock and honey, used three days upon his eyes. These are the most considerable of all the pretended mir••••les done about that time, when the noise of the Christian miracles were spread so far and done so fre∣quently,

that they challenged the Heathens again and again to bring forth any person possessed with a Devil, if he did not confess to them that he was a Devil, though he made the Heathens believe that he was a God, they were contented to leave their blood in the place.

For thus Tertullian speaks in his Apology to them. E∣dat * 1.289 ur hic aliquis sub tribunalibus vestris, quem Daemone agi constet: jussus à quolibet Christiano loqui spiritus ille, tam se Daemonem confitebitur de vero, quam alibi Deum de falso: aeque producatur aliquis ex iis qui de Deo pati ex stimantur, qui aris inhalantes numen de nidore concipiunt, qui ructando curantur, qui anhelando praefantur. Ista ipsa virgo coelest is pluviarum pollicitatrix, iste ipse Aesculapius Medicinarum demonstrator, aliàs de morituris scordii & denatii & Ascle∣piadoti subministrator, nisi se Daemones confessi fuerint, Chri∣stiano mentiri non audentes, ibidem illius Christiani proca∣cissimi sanguinem fundite. Quid isto opere manifestius, quid hâc probatione fidelius? simplicit as veritat is in medio est; vir∣tus illi sua assistit, nihil suspicari licebit, magia aut aliqua fallacia fieri. Dictis non stetis, si oculi vestri & aures per∣miserint vobis. In these very daring words, we see how the Christians appealed to their senses, even with the hazard of their own lives, that they would make even Aesculapi∣us himself confess what he was, and by whose power all the cures were wrought upon the dreamers in his Temples. And for the manner of the Devils cures, the same Author ex∣plains it thus, Laedunt primò, dehinc remedia praecipiunt ad miraculum nova, sive contraria, post quae definunt laedere & * 1.290 curassecreduntur. They first possess the bodies themselves (as Daemoniacks were common in those times) and affect it with various distempers, afterwards upon using the strange reme∣dies prescribed by Aesculapius, they forsake their station, and the person is cured. And for the cures performed by the Emperours, those who consider what various artifices were about that time used to procure an opinion of Divinity in the Emperours, will not much wonder that such reports should be spread of them, or that any persons should fain these distempers to give themselves out to be cured by them•• But granting somewhat wonderfull in these, what are they,

compared with those done by Christians? and whoever would lay down his life to attest any of them? So that though the Devil by his subtilty may easily impose upon Spectators eyes, yet it was impossible for him by any power of his own to al∣ter the course o•• nature or produce any real miracle. For every true miracle is a production of something out of no∣thing (which cannot be done by less then an omnipotent arm) and that either in the thing it self, or the manner of produ∣cing it. In the thing it self when it is of that nature that it cannot be produced by any s••cond causes as the raising of the dead; in the manner of doing it, when though the thing lyes within the possibility of second causes, yet it is perfor∣med without the help of any of them, as in the cure of dis∣eases without any use of means, by a word speaking, the touch of a garment, &c. Now that all those miracles which were wrought in confirmation of the Christian doctrine were such true and proper miracles, will be discovered after∣wards.

God never alters the course of nature, but for some very * 1.291 considerable end. For otherwise when he did it, it would not be taken notice of, nor thought to be an alteration of the order of nature, but only some rare contingencies which lye hid in the order of causes, but only break out at some times: of which sort are all those things which the igno∣rant World is apt to account as Prodigies. Of all which rare contingencies in nature, I say, as the Roman Orator doth, Si quod raro fit, id portentum putandum est, sapientem esse * 1.292 portentum est; saepius enim mulum peperisse arbitror, quam sapientem fuisse. If all rare contingencies be accounted pro∣digies, a Wise man is certainly the greatest prodigy. But these are quite of another nature from true miracles, which are immediatly produced by a Divine power, and intended for a confirmation of some Divine Testimony. There are now several weighty reasons which might make miracles ne∣cessary in the time of our Saviour, as an evidence of his Di∣vine Authority and power.

That he came to take down that way of worship which had * 1.293 been at first setled by a power of miracles in Moses. God would not be so much wanting to the faith of that people

which had received their Law by signs and wonders from heaven, but that there should be as strong an evidence gi∣ven to them, that the fulness of time was come when that dispensation was to have an end, and to give place to one more perfect, which was to be established instead of it. Up∣on which account the Iews might rationally enquire after a sign where any new revelation was discovered, which might null the obligation of any former Law: And when they en∣quire so much after a sign, our Saviour doth not reject the enquiry as in its self unreasonable, but as made in an unrea∣sonable manner; for they would not be contented with the miracles which our Saviour wrought, which sufficiently manifested a Divine power; but all that they desired was a sign from heaven, i. e. such as were done at the giving of the * 1.294 Law, the thundring and lightenings there, or as the raign∣ing of Manna in the wilderness; now our Saviour justly checks this demand as importune and impudent; partly as knowing upon what account they asked it, meerly to tempt him, and not out of any real desire of satisfaction; and partly because of that abundant evidence which was given in the miraculous cures which were wrought by him, which were more suitable to that design of doing good in the world, then all the Thunderclaps on Mount Sinai were; neither were the people in a condition to be fed by Manna as they were in the wilderness, God graciously suiting the discove∣ries of his power to the peculiar advantages of the people which they were made to, and the dispensation they ushered in. Those terrible signs at Mount Sinai being very suitable to the severity and rigour of the Law; and the gracious miracles of our Saviour, to the sweetness and grace of the Gospel. And on this account our Saviour charged the Iews with hypocrisie in requiring a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as something above 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a prodigy rather then a miracle; An evil and adul∣terous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign * 1.295 be given it but that of the prophet Ionas, i. e. this people which are so far from the faith of Abraham, (and therefore are supposititious Children) that no miracles which I do, will convince them, but they seek only to have their humours gratified more then their faith confirmed by some prodigy

from heaven, shall not by me be thus gratified; but having done enough already to perswade them, if they had any heart to believe, instead of a sign from heaven they shall have only one from the earth, and that not so much intended for the conversion of such wilfull unbelievers, as for the testi∣fying my Innocency to the world, viz. his resurrection from the dead. And so elsewhere when the Iews demand a sign, it was upon the doing of that, which if they had attended to, had been a sufficient sign to them, viz. his driving the buy∣ers and sellers out of the Temple. Which being a thing per∣mitted * 1.296 by the Sanbedrim and the Priests, how could they think so mean a person, in appearance, as our Saviour was, could ever have effected it, had it not been for a Divine Ma∣jesty and power which appeared in him. It was not then the expectation of miracles which our Saviour rebuked in the Iews, but being unsatisfied with the kind and nature of our Saviours miracles. It was their hypocrisie and unbelief which Christ condemned, notwithstanding the frequent mi∣racles which he wrought among them: For we plainly find our Saviour very often appealing to his miracles as the evi∣dences of his Divine Commission: If I had not done the * 1.297 works among them, which no man else did, they had not sin, i. e. in not believing me. Whereby Christ both sets forth the necessity of his working miracles in order to the c••nviction of the wo••ld, and the greatness of the miracles which he wrought; he did those no man else had done, no not Moses and Elias, in curing all manner of diseases by the word of his mouth; and those miracles which they had done, he ex∣ceeded them in the manner of doing them. Moses fed them with bread from heaven, but Christ multiplied on earth some few loaves and fishes, to the feeding of many thousands: E∣lias indeed raised one from the dead; but Christ raised more, and one after he had been four days in the grave. And upon this very evidence of our Saviours miracles we find many believing on him. And even of those who were not so far wrought upon as to become followers of Christ, as * 1.298 the only Messias, yet we find them so far perswaded by the power of his miracles, that they looked upon him as a great Prophet, or one that was sent from God: So Nicodemus,

who came first to Christ more as a rational enquirer then a believer, yet we see he was perswaded that he was a teacher come from God, because no man could do * 1.299 the miracles which Christ did, unless God were with him. And before him many of the Iews at Ierusalem believed in his * 1.300 name when they saw the miracles which he did; yet these per∣sons Christ would not trust himself with, because he knew their hearts were not subdued to his doctrine, though their understandings were convinced by his miracles. And after this others of the Iews that looked not on him as the Mes∣sias, yet it is said they believed on him on the account of his miracles. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles then these which this man hath done? Although herein they were most unrea∣sonable in believing the evidence, and not the truth attested by it, in believing Christ to be one sent from God by his mi∣racles, * 1.301 and yet not believing him to be the Messias, which was the thing attested by them. Not that meer miracles would prove the person to be the Messias who did them, but the miracles proved the testimony to be Divine; now that which Christ delivered to them as a Divine Testimony, was his being the Messias, and therefore by the same reason they believed him to be one sent from God, they ought to have believed him to be the Messias; for one sent from God could never falsifie in the main of his message, as this was of our Saviours preaching. And thence it is observable, our Sa∣viour did not shew forth his Divine power till he entred up∣on his office of preaching, thereby making it appear he in∣tended this as the great evidence of the truth of the doctrine which he preached to them. And herein the blind man in the Gospel saw more truth and reason then the whole Court of Sanhedrin, before which in probability he was convented about his cure by Christ; for when they sought to get something out of him in disparagement of our Saviours person and miracle, he sharply and roundly tells them, when they said they knew God spake to Moses, but for this fel∣low, we know not from whence he is. Why herein, saith he, is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and

yet he hath opened mine eyes. If this man were not of God he * 1.302 could do nothing (as though he had said) is it not plain that this man is imployed by God in the world by the miracles which he doth? for otherwise God would not so readily as∣sist him in doing such great works; for we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, * 1.303 and doth his will, him he heareth; i. e. If this man pretend∣ed a Commission from heaven falsly (whereby he would be the greatest of sinners) can we think God would so miracu∣lously assist him? but we know by our Law, if one comes with a Commission from God, and draw men not to Idola∣try, which is meant by a worshipper of God, such a one God is present with, and we are bound to believe him. And for this very miracle, of curing one born blind, was the like ever heard of before? did ever Moses or the Prophets do it? Thus we see what strong rational evidence there was in this miracle of Christ in the judgement of this blind man, which he uttered with so much reason before the Court of Sanhedrin, when he knew how like he was to be excommu∣nicated for it; and yet this very person was as yet ignorant that Christ was the true Messias, as appears by the sequel of the chapter; but upon Christs revelation of himself to * 1.304 him, he presently believed on him. How strangely irratio∣nal were the Iews then in rejecting our Saviour when his * 1.305 miracles not only exceeded those of Moses both in number and quality; but which was more, they saw themselves the miracles which Christ did, but they received those of Moses only upon the credit of their Fathers. And from the strength of the evidence arising from the power of miracles it is that St. Peter tells the promiscuous Assembly, Acts 2. 22. That Iesus of Nazareth was a man approved of God among them, by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of them, as they themselves also knew. He appeals to their own knowledge, which he would not certainly have done, had it not been in a case beyond all dispute among them. Which was a thing so notorious among them, that we find the Pharisees themselves confessing it, What do we? For this man doth many miracles: Now then in a Nation * 1.306

whose religion had been established by miracles, and the certainty of the truth of it, among those who then professed it, did depend so much upon the constant credit which the report of the miracles done at the setling of their Law had among them; what could be a more rational convincing way of proceeding, then for our Saviour to manifest by a greater power of miracles in himself the undoubted cre∣dentials of his commission from heaven; and that he was the true Messias, which was foretold by their own most sacred and authentical records? Which will appear more,

Because the power of miracles did evidently declare that he was the very person promised. For if the exact correspon∣dency * 1.307 of the event to the predictions in a Nation owning them as Divine, be an undoubted evidence that they are exactly fulfilled, our Saviour was most certainly the person so often spoken of in the Old Testament. For many of the Prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the Messias, if they were not fulfilled in Christ, in the conditions the Iews have been in since their dispersion, (which fell out ex∣actly according to the prediction of Christ) it is impossible they should be fulfilled at all. So that either the predictions must lose their Divine authority, or they must be accom∣plished in our Blessed Saviour. For as Tertullian sharply sayes to the Iew, Redde statum Iudaeae quem Christus inve∣niat, * 1.308 & alium contende venire; let the people of the Iews be in their former condition, and then plead for a Messias to come. For can any thing be more plain then that the Messias was to be born in Bethlehem of Iudea? but where is that now, and how long since the Iews enjoyed any civil Polity there? what is become of the second Temple in the time of which the desire of all Nations should come? Is not Ierusalem alrea∣dy destroyed, and the oblation there long since ceased, which was to come to pass so soon after the Messias, and did ac∣cordingly? Is not the Scepter yet departed from Judah, and the Lawgiver from between his feet, and is not Shiloh yet come? What strange unintelligible weeks were those of Daniel, if they were extended to so indefinite a space of time as the Iews pretend? and if indefinite, what certain ground could from thence be gathered of any time wherein their

accomplishment was to be expected? but not to expatiate on those things which are already so largely proved beyond all possibility of contradiction, by the antient and modern learned writers against the Iews: To insist therefore on our present business; are not the Prophecies concerning the miracles which the Messias should work exactly fulfilled in Christ? Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the * 1.309 deaf shall be unstopped; then shall the lame man leap as an Hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing. He must be a great stranger in the history of the New Testament that is to seek for an exact fulfilling of this Prophecy. Nay, and the Iewish Midrasch upon Psal. 146. 8. saith that when Messias comes, * 1.310 he should open the eyes of the blind; and the Iews themselves often speak of the great miracles which the Messias should do when he appears; and therefore out of their own mouths will they be condemned, when the miracles of Christ make it so evident that he was the true Messias. Hence when Iohn Baptist sent his Disciples to Christ for them to be fully sa∣tisfied concerning him, Christ gives this answer to them; he bids them tell him the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, and the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the * 1.311 dead raised up, &c. as though the mentioning of these mira∣cles was sufficient to make it appear to them who he was whom they came to enquire after. And therefore it is ob∣servable that Iohn Baptist himself, though greater then the Prophets, nay then whom there was not a greater born of wo∣men * 1.312 by our Saviours own Testimony; yet of him it is said, that he wrought no miracle: of which no account can be * 1.313 given so probable and rational, as that God in his infinite wisdom was pleased so to order it, that the evidence of our Saviours being the Messias might be made more clear by the miracles which he wrought; that the minds of people might not be distracted between Iohn and Christ; he therefore reserved the glory of miracles wholly to the name of Christ, that there might be no pretence of a competition between iohn and him.

Another reason of the necessity of miracles in our Savi∣our by way of rational evidence, is, the overthrowing the * 1.314 power and Kingdom of the Devil in the world. For which

purpose it is observable that the Devil had scarce ever greater power over the bodies of men as well as their souls, then at that time; thence we read of such a multitude of Daemoniacks in the Gospel. For it seems very harsh to in∣terpret those meerly of Epilepticall and Lunatick persons, both because the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 1.315 are mentioned distinctly, and that it appears by the primi∣tive Church afterwards how frequent it was to eject the Devil out of possessed persons. Nay so far am I from think∣ing that the Daemoniacks were meer Lunaticks, that I rather think with Vossius that the Lunaticks were truly Daemo∣niacks, only they were not constantly under the power of * 1.316 the Devil, but as their paroxysmes returned upon them, the Devil loving to fifh in such troubled waters. And thence * 1.317 the same person is called a Lunatick in one place, who is called a Daemoniack in another; because he did ruere in prin∣cipiis lunationum, as the Arabick version expresseth it; or as Rusticus Elpidius more fully explains it,

Repserat in medium rabies horrenda furoris * 1.318 Daemonis afflatu, propria qui peste nocivus Allidit captas foedo discrimine mentes, Menstrua deciduos cum Luna recolligit ignes.

Theophylact is of opinion, that the Iews in the time of our Saviour supposed, that the souls of dead men became Daemons, and thence we read in Scripture of the Daemoniacks * 1.319 among the Tombs: but it is far more probable which Grotius conceives, that the Iews were of opinion, that the souls of dead men did hover up and down about their bodies, and that these were so long under the Devils power, which many of the Iews to this day believe and make use of the instance of the Pythonisse raising Samuel; on which account the Devils to favour an opinion so advantagious to their interest, might appear with greater terror and fury about their burying places, as we see they did in those possessed persons. But on whatever account it was, we finde it evident that about the time of our Saviours appearance, and some time after, the truly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were very frequent; whether it were that

the Devil by such frequent possessions of persons, and making them do such strange things, might thereby endeavour to invalidate the evidence of our Saviours miracles (from whence it is probable the Pharisees raised their calumny, that Christ did miracles by Belzebub, because they saw so many strange appearances caused by possessed persons) or whether it were through the admirable providence of God, which might give Satan the greater liberty at that time, on purpose to heighten the glory of our Saviour in dispossessing of him, and thereby to give the highest rational evidence, that his power was of God, which tended so much to the destruction of the Kingdom of Satan.

And hence the Primitive Christians did so much triumph, and as it were insult over the Devil where ever they found * 1.320 him, making him to remove his lodgings from possessed persons, by a writ of ejection from the name of Christ. Thence Origen rationally concludes that Christ had his power given him from above, because at his very name the Devils forsook the bodies which they had possessed. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. * 1.321 And he else∣where tells us, that even the meanest sort of Christians with∣out any ceremony, but meerly by their prayers, did ordinarily eject the Devil out of mens bodies: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. * 1.322 Ordinary Christians, saith he, most commonly do this, the grace of Christ by its word thereby discovering the contemptibleness and infirmity of the Devils, that in order to their ejection they did not so much as want any learned or experienced Christian. And for this they appeal to the Heathens themselves, as appears not only by the challenge of Tertullian already mentioned, but by the Testi∣mony of almost all of them who have writ against the Hea∣thens in vindication of the Christian religion. Thence Mi∣nutius Felix, Haec omnia sciunt plerique, Pars vestrum, ipsos * 1.323 daemonas de semetipsis confiteri, quoties à nobis torment is ver∣borum, & orationis incendiis de co••poribus exiguntur. Ipse

Saturnus & Serapis, et Iupiter, et quiequid daemonum colitis, victi dolore quod sunt eloquuntur, nec utique in turpitudinem sui, nonnullis praesertim vestrum assistentib••s, mentiuntur. Ipsis testibus eos esse Daemonas, de se verum confitentibus credite; adjuratienim per Deum verum et solum, inviti, miseri cor∣poribus inhorrescunt; et vel exiliunt statim, vel evanesount gradatim, prout fides patientis adjuvat, aut gratia curantis aspirat. Can we now think the Devil should not only forsake his Tyranny over the bodyes of men, but let go so ad∣vantagious a pillar of his tyranny over the consciences of men in Idolatroius worship, as the concealing himself was, had he not been forced to it by a power far greater then his own? So Cyprian ad Demetrianum, appeals to him being the Proconsul of Africa, about the same thing (who had written sharply against the Christians) for speaking of the Devils whom they worshipped in their Idols. O si audire eos velles et * 1.324 videre, quando à nobis adjurantur et torquentur Spiritualibus flagris et verborum tormentis de obsessis corporibus ejiciuntur, quando ejulantes et gementes voce humana, et potestate divina flagella et verbera sentientes, venturum judicium confitentur; veni et cognosce vera esse quae dicimus: and a little after, vide∣bis sub manu nostra stare vinctos, et tremere captivos, quos tu suspicis et veneraris ut Dominos. Did ever any of the Hea∣then Magicians (of which there were good store) extort such things from the Devils as the Christians did meerly by their prayers, and invocations of the name of God and Christ? did they ever make them confess to be what they were, not only in possessed bodyes but in their Temples too? that was beyond the power of their Ephesian letters, or any of their Magical incantations. Did the Devils ever dread so much the name of Socrates or Aristides as they did that of God and of Christ? Of which Lactantius thus speaks, Quo audito * 1.325 tremunt, exclamant, et urise verberarique testantur, et in∣terrogati qui sint, quando venerint, quando in hominem irrep∣serint, confitentur sic extorti, et excruciati virtate divininu∣minis exulant; propter haec verbera et minas, sanctos et justos viros semper oderunt. And even Apollo himself at the name of Christ trembled as much as ever the Pythian Prophetess did in her greatest furies; so Prudentius tells us,

Torquetur Apollo Nomine percussus Christi, nec fulmina verbi * 1.326 Ferre potest; agitant miserum tot verbera linguae, Quot laudata Dei resonant miracula Christi.

To these we may add what Firmicus saith to the same pur∣pose, Ecce Daemon est quem colis; cum Dei et Christi ejus nomen audierit, contremiseit, et ut interrogantibus nob is re∣spondeat * 1.327 trepidantia verba, vix se colligit; adhaerens homini laceratur, uritur, vapulat, et statim de commissis sceleribus confitetur. By which Testimonies it appears what power over Satan, when he was in his Kingdom, the Christians by the power of Christ had; not as though the bare name of Christ had so great an efficacy in the ejection of Devils, as Origen seem•• to be of opinion (in a discourse about the efficacy of names, unworthy of so great a Philosopher) but that God * 1.328 might manifest to the world the truth that was contained in that name, he did give a power to such as made use of it, of working miracles by it. And thence we read in Scripture, that some who were not throughly Christians, but yet pro∣fessed the truth of the Gospel, and that what they did was for the honour of Christ, had a power of casting out Devils and do∣ing many wonderful things through his name.

By these and many other testimonies which might be * 1.329 produced out of the Primitive Church, we finde an exact accomplishment of our Saviours promise to his Disciples when he took his leave of them: And these signs shall follow * 1.330 them that believe, In my name shall they cast out Devils, &c. This power then in the Primitive Church had a twofold argu∣ment in it, both as it was a manifestation of the truth of the predictions of our Saviour, and as it was an evidence of the Divine power of Christ, when his name so long after his ascension had so great a command over all the infernal spirits; and that so evidently that at that time when the Christians did as it were Tyrannize over Satan so in his own territo∣ries, yet then the greatest of his Magicians had no power to hurt the bodyes of the Christians, which is a thing Origen takes much notice of. For when Celsus saith from Diogenes

Aegyptius that Magick could only hurt ignorant and wicked men, and had no power over Philosophers, Origen replies, first, that Philosophy was no such charm against the power of Magick, as appears by Maeragenes who writ the story of Apollonius Tyaneus, the famous Magician and Philosopher, who therein mentions how Euphrates and an Epicurean (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 no vulgar Philosophers) were catched by the Magick of Apollonius (and although Philostratus dis∣owns this History of Maeragenes as fabulous, yet he that thinks Philostratus for that, to be of any greater credit, is much deceived, of whom Lud. Vives gives this true character, that he doth magna Homeri mendacia majoribus mendaciis * 1.331 corrigere, mend one hole and make three) but saith Origen as to the Christians, this is undoubtedly true: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. * 1.332 This, saith he, we are most certain of and have found it by experience true, that those who according to the principles of Christianity do worship God over all, through Iesus, and do live according to the Gospel, being constant in their solemn prayers night and day, are not obnoxious to the power of any Magick or Devils whatsoever. Now then if the Devil who had then so much power over others, had none upon the true followers of Christ; and if in stead of that they had so great a commanding power over the Devil even in things which tended most to his disadvan∣tage, not only dislodging him out of bodies, ••••t out of his Idolatrous Temples; what can be more evident, then that this power which was so efficacious for the overthrowing the Kingdom of Satan, must needs be far greater then the power of Satan is? For it is an undoubted Maxime in natural rea∣son, that whatever is put out of its former place by force and violence, is extruded by something stronger then its self; for if the force on either side were equal, there could be no disposses sing of either; if any thing then be cast out of its former possession unwillingly, it is an undenyable proof there was some power greater then his who was dispossessed. Now we cannot conceive, if there be such malignant spirits as by

many undeniable proofs it is evident there are, that they should willingly quit their possessions to such a doctrine which tends to the unavoydable ruine of their interest in the world; if then the power of this doctrine hath overthrown the Devils Kingdom in the world, whereever it hath been truly enter∣tained, it must necessarily follow, that this power is far above the power of any damned spirits. Now what folly and mad∣ness was it in the Heathens to worship those for Gods, which they could not but see, if they would open their eyes, were under so great slavery to a power above them, which could make them confess what was most to their disadvantage in the presence of their great adorers?

Neither ought the many counterfeits and impostures which have been in the world in this kind since the establishment of * 1.333 Christian Religion (among the advancers of particular inte∣rests and designs) make us suspect the truth of those things which were done in the first Ages of the Church of Christ. For first it stands to the greatest reason, that the strongest arguments for the truth of a Religion ought to be fetched from the ages of its first appearance in the world; if then the evidence be undoubted as to those first times, we ought to embrace our Religion as true, whatever the impostures have been among those who have apparently gone aside from that purity and simplicity of the Gospel, which had so great pow∣er. Then secondly, if all that hath been done in this kind of ejecting Devils, where Christianity is owned, be ac∣knowledged for impostures; one of these two things must be supposed as the ground of it; either that there was no such thing as a real possession by the Devil, or else there was no such thing as a dispossessing him: If the first, then hereby will be seen a confirmation of our former argument, that where Christia∣nity is owned, by the power of that, the Devil is more curbed and restrained, then where it is not, or else is much over∣run with ignorance and superstition. Of the latter, the ages of the Christian Church, from the 10. Century to the be∣ginning of the 16. current, are a clear evidence: Of the first, all those who have been conversant in the places where Pa∣ganism or gross Idolatry do yet reign, will bring in their cre∣ditable testimonies, how tyrannical the power of the Devil

is yet among them. If it be not so then, where careful endea∣vours have been used for retriving the ancient p••rity of Chri∣stian doctrine and worship, we ought to impute it to the pow∣er of him who is stronger then Satan, who whereever he comes to dwell, doth dispossess him of his former habitati∣ons. If the second then be entertained as the ground of con∣cluding all things as impostures, which are accounted dispos∣sessions of Satan, viz. that he never is really dispossessed, then it must either be said, that where he is once seized, there is no possibility of ejecting him; which is to say, that the De∣vil hath an absolute and infinite power, and that there is no power greater then his, which is to own him for God; or else that God suffers him to tyrannize where and how he will, which is contrary to divine providence, and the care God takes of the world, and of the good of mankind; or else lastly, that those persons who pretend to do it, are not such persons who are armed so much with the power of Christ, nor possessed with such a due spirit of the Gospel, which hath command over these infernal spirits. And this in the cases pretended by the great Iuglers and Impostors of the Chri∣stian world, the Popish Priests have been so notorious, that none of their own party of any great faith or credit would stand to vouch them. And we have this impregnable argu∣ment against all such Impostures, that the matters which they by such actions would give an evidence to, being so vast∣ly different from, if not in some things diametrically opposite to the first delivery and design of the Christian faith, it is inconsistent with the way used for the confirmation of Christi∣an Religion in the first publishing of it, to attest the truth of such things by any real miracles: For so it would invali∣date the great force of the evidences of the truth of Christi∣anity, if the same argument should be used for the proving of that which in the judgement of any impartial person was not delivered, when the truth of the doctri••e of Christ was confirmed by so many and uncontrouled miracles. But here∣by we see what unconceivable prejudice hath been done to the true primitive doctrine of the Gospel; and what stum∣bling-blocks have been laid in the way of considerative per∣sons, to keep them from embracing the truly Christian faith,

by those who would be thought the infallible directors of men in it, by making use of the broad-seal of Heaven (set on∣ly to the truth of the Scriptures) to confirm their unwrit∣ten and superstitious ways of worship. For if I once see that which I looked on as an undoubted evidence of divine power, brought to attest any thing directly contrary to divine reve∣lation; I must either conclude that God may contradict him∣self by sealing both parts of a contradiction, which is both blasphemous and impossible; or that that society of men which own such things, is not at all tender of the honour of Chri∣stain doctrine, but seeks to set up an interest contrary to it, and matters not what disadvantage is done to the grounds of R••ligion by such unworthy pretences; and which of these two is more rational and true, let every ones conscience judge. And therefore it is much the interest of the Christi∣an world to have all such frauds and impostures discovered, which do so much disservice to the Christian faith, and are such secret fomenters of Atheism and Infidelity. But how far that promise of our Saviour, that they which believe in his name, shall cast out Devils, and do many miracles, may extend * 1.334 even in these last ages of the world to such generous and pri∣mitive-spirited Christians, who out of a great and deep sense of the truth of Christianity and tenderness to the souls of men, should go among Heathens and Infidels to convert them only to Christ (and not to a secular interest, under pre∣tence of an infallible head) is not here a place fully to en∣quire. I confess I cannot see any reason why God may not yet for the conviction of Infidels, employ such a power of miracles, although there be not such necessity of it, as there was in the first propagation of the Gospel, there being some evidences of the power of Christianity now, which were not so clear then (as the overthrowing the Kingdom of Satan in the world, the prevailing of Christianity notwithstanding force used against it; the recov••ry of it from amidst all the corru∣ptions which were mixed with it; the consent of those parties in the common foundations of Christianity, which yet disagre•• fro•• each other with great bittern••ss of spirit) though I say it be not of that necessity now, when the Scriptures are con∣v••yed to us in a certain uninterrupted manner; yet God may

please out of his abundant provision for the satisfaction of the minds of men, concerning the truth of Christian doctrine, to employ good men to do something which may manifest the power of Christ to be above the D••vils, whom they worship. And therefore I should far sooner believe the relation of the miracles of Xaverius and his Brethren, employed in the con∣version of Infidels, then Lipsius his Virgo Hallensis and Aspre∣collis, could it but be made evident to me that the design of those persons had more of Christianity then Popery in it; that is, that they went more upon a design to bring the souls of the Infidels to heaven, then to enlarge the authority and jurisdiction of the Roman Church.

But whatever the truth of those miracles, or the design of those persons were, we have certain and undoubted evi∣dence * 1.335 of the truth of those miracles, whereby Christianity was first propagated, and the Kingdom of Satan overthrown in the world; Christ thereby making it appear that his pow∣er was greater then the Devils, who had possession, because he overcame him, took from him all his armour wherein he tru∣sted, * 1.336 and divided his spoils; i. e. disposs••ssed him of mens bo∣dies, and his Idolatrous Temples, silenced his Oracles, nonplust his Magicians, and at last, when Christianity had overcome by suffering, wrested the worldly power and Empire out of the Devils hands, and employed it against himself. Neither may we think, because since that time the Devil hath got some ground in the world again by the large spread of Mahometism, & the general corruptions in the Christian world, that therefore the other was no argument of divine power; because the truth of Christianity is not tyed to any particular places; because such a falling away hath been foretold in Scripture; and there∣fore the truth of them is proved by it, and because God him∣self hath threatned that those who will not receive the truth in the love of it, shall be given up to strong de'usions. Doth not this then in stead of abating the strength of the argument, confirm it more, and that nothing is fallen out in the Chri∣stian world, but what was foretold by those whom God em∣ployed in the converting of it? But we are neither without some fair hopes even from that divine revelation which was sealed by uncontrouled evidence, that there may be yet a

time to come when Christ will recover his Churches to their pristine purity and simplicity; but withall I think we are not to measure the future felicity of the Church by outward splendor and greatness (which too many so strongly fancy) but by a recovery of that true spirit of Christianity which breathed in the first ages of the Church, whatever the out∣ward condition of the Church may be: For if worldly great∣ness, and ease, and riches, were the first impairers of the purity of Christian Religion, it is hard to conceive how the restoring of the Church of Christ to its true glory, can be by the advancing of that, which gives so great an occasion to pride and sensuality, which are so contrary to the design of Christian Religion; unless we suppose men free from those corruptions, which continual experience still tells the world the Rulers as well as members of the Christian society are subject to. Neither may that be wonderd at, when such un∣eveness of parts is now discovered in the great Luminaries of the world, and the Sun himself is found to have his ma∣culae, as though the Sun had a purple feaver, or as Kiroher expresseth it, Ipse Phoebus, qui rerum omnium in universo naturae Theatro aspectabilium longè pulcherrimus omnium opi∣nione * 1.337 est habitus, hoc seculo tandem fumosa facie, ac infecto vultu maculis prodiit; diceres eum variolis laborare senes∣centem: I speak not this as though an outward flourishing condition of the Church were inconsistent with its purity; for then the way to refine it, were to throw it into the flames of persecution; but that the advancement of the flou∣rishing condition of the Church, is not meerly by outward pomp and grandeur, and that the purity of the Church is not inconsistent with a state of outward difficulties, which the ex∣perience o•• the Primitive Church gives an irrefragable de∣monstration of. Thus much may serve to shew the necessity of a power of miracles, conjoyned with the Christian Do∣ctrine, to manifest the truth of it by overthrowing the Kingdom of that great Antichrist the Devil, who had usurped so much Tyranny over the world.

The last reason why a power of miracles was so necessary * 1.338 for confirming the truth of the Gospel, is, because the Gospel was to be propagated over the world without any other ratio∣nal

evidence then was contained in the miracles wrought for the confirmation of it. Now the admirable success which this do∣ctrine found in the world, considering all the circumstan∣ces of it, doth make it clear what certainty there was that the miracles which were wrought were true, and they were cer∣tain evidences that the doctrine attested by them was from God. Now this will appear from these two things.

That no rational account can be given why the Apostles should undertake to publish such a doctrine, unless they had * 1.339 been undoubtedly certain that the Doctrine was true, and they had sufficient evidence to perswade others to beleeve it.

That no satisfactory account can be given, considering the na∣ture of the doctrine of Christ, and the manner of its propaga∣tion, why it should meet with so great acceptance in the world, had there not been such convincing evidence as might fully per∣swade men of the truth of it.

I begin with the first, from the publishers of this doctrine * 1.340 in the world: All that I here require by way of a Postula∣tum or supposition, are onlythese two things, which no man right in his wits I suppose will deny: 1. That men are so far rational agents, that they will not set upon any work of moment and difficulty, without sufficient grounds inducing them to it; and by so much the greater the work is, the more sure and stedfast had the grounds need to be which they proceed up∣on. 2. That the Apostles or first Publishers of the Christi∣an doctrine were not men distracted, or bereft of their wits, but acted by principles of common sense, reason, and under∣standing, as other men in the world do: Which if any one should be so far beside his wits as to question, if he have but patience and understanding enough to read and consider those admirable writings of theirs which are conveyed to us by as certain uninterrupted a Tradition as any thing in the world hath been; and by that time he will see cause to al∣ter his judgement, and to say that they are not mad, but speak the words of the greatest truth and soberness. These things supposed, I now proceed to the proving of the thing in hand, which will be done by these three things: First, That the Apostles could not but know how h••zardous an employment the preaching of the Gospel would be to

them. Secondly, that no motive can be conceived sufficient for them to undertake such an employment, but the infallible truth of the doctrine which they preached. Thirdly, that the greatest assurance they had themselves of the truth of their Doctrine, was by being eye-witnesses of the miracles of Christ.

First, That the Apostles could not but understand the hazard of their employment, notwithstanding which they cheerfully un∣dertook it. That men armed with no external power, nor cried up for their wit and learning, and carrying a doctrine with them so contra••y to the general inclinations of the world, having nothing in it to recommend it to mankind but the Truth of it, should go about to perswade the world to part with the Religion they owned, and was setled by their laws, and to embrace such a religion as called them off from all the things they loved in this world, and to prepare themselves by mortification & self-denial for another world, is a thing to humane reason incredible, unless we suppose them acted by a higher spirit then mankind is ordinarily acted by. For what is there so desirable in continual reproaches & contumelies? what delight is there in racks and prisons? what agreeableness in flames and martyrdoms to make men undergo some, nay all of these rather then disown that doctrine which they came to publish? Yet these did the Apostles cheerfully undergo in order to the conversion of the world, to the truth of that do∣ctrine which they delivered to it. And not only so, but though they did foresee them, they were not discouraged from this undertaking by it. I confess, when men are upon hopes of profit and interest in the world, engaged upon a de∣sign which they promise themselves impunity in, having pow∣er on their side, though afterwards things should fall out contrary to their expectation, such persons may die in such a cause, because they must, and some may carry it out with more resolution, partly through an innate fortitude of spirit, heightened with the advantages of Religion, or an Enthusi∣astick temper. But it is hard to conceive that such persons would have undertaken so hazardous an employment, if be∣forehand they had foreseen what they must have undergone for it. But now the Apostles did foreknow that bonds and im∣prisonment, nay death its self must be undergone in a violent

manner, for the sake of the doctrine which they preached; yet not withstanding all this, they go boldly and with resolution on with their work, and give not over because of any hard∣ships and persecutions they met withall. One of the chiesest of them, S. Peter, and as forward as any in Preaching the Gospel, had the very manner of his death foretold him by Christ him∣self, * 1.341 before his Ascension; yet soon after we find him preaching Christ in the midst of those who had crucified him, and tel∣ling them to their faces the greatness of their sin in it, and appealing to the miracles which Christ had done among them, and bidding them repent and believe in him whom they had crucified, if ever they would be saved: And this he did, * 1.342 not only among the people who gave their consent to the crucifying of Christ, but soon after, being convented ••oge∣ther with Iohn, before the Court of Sanbedrin (probably the very same which not long before had sentenced Christ to death) for a miracle wrought by them, with what incre∣dible boldness doth he to their faces tell them of their mur∣dering * 1.343 Christ; and withall, that there was no other way to salvation but by him whom they had crucified! Be it known unto you all (saith Peter to the Sanhedrin) and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Iesus Christ whom ye have crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. Neither is there salvati∣on in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. What an heroickfree∣dom of spirit appears in these words! what magnanimity and courage was there now in that person, who durst in the face of this Court tell them of their murder, and that there was no salvation but by him whom they had crucified! Well might they wonder at the boldness of the men, who feared not the same death which they had so lately brought their Lord and Master to.

Neither was this singly the case of Peter and Iohn, but all * 1.344 the rest of the Apostles undertook their work with the same resolution and preparation of Spirit to under go the greatest hardship in the world sor the sake of the truths they Preach∣ed. And accordingly as far as Ecclesiastical history can ascer∣tain us of it, they did all but Iohn (and that to make good * 1.345

the prediction of Christ) suffer violent deaths by the hands of those who persecuted them meerly for their doctrine. And which is most observable, when Christ designed them first of all for this work, he told them before hand of reproaches, persecutions, all manner of hardships, nay of death its self which they must undergo for his sake. All that he gave them * 1.346 by way of encouragement, was, that they could only kill the body and not the soul, and therefore that they should fear him only who could destroy both body and soul in hell; all the sup∣port they had, was, an expectation in another world, and that animated them to go through all the hardships of this. Where do we ever read of any such boldness and courage in the most knowing Philos••phers of the Heathens? with what saintness and misgiving of mind doth Socrates speak in his famous dis∣course suppo••ed to be made by him before his death? how * 1.347 uncertainly doth he speak of a state of immortality? and yet in all probability Plato set it forth with all advantages ima∣ginable. Where do we finde that ever any of the great friends of Socrates, who were present at his death, as Phaedo, Cebes, Crito, and Simmias, durst enter the Areopagus, and condemn them there for the murther of Socrates, though this would be far short of what the Apostles did? why were they not so charitable as to inform the world better of those grand truths of the being of God and immortality of souls, if at least they were fully convinced of them them∣selves? Why did not Plato at least speak out, and tell the world the truth, and not disguise his ••iscourses under feigned names, the better to avoid accusation and the fate of Socra∣tes? how doth he mince his excellent matter, and playes as it were at Bo-peep with his readers, sometimes appearing and then pulling in his horns again? It may not be an improbable conjecture that the death of Socrates was the foundation of the Academy; I mean of that cautelous doctrine of withholding assent, and being both pro and con, sometimes of this side, and sometimes of that: for Socrates his death had made all his friends very fearful of being too dogmatical. And Plato himself had too much riches and withall too much of a Courtier in him to hazard the dear prison of his soul, viz. his body, meerly for an aethereall vehicle. He had rather let his

soul flutter up and down in a terrestrial matter, or the cage it was p••nt up in, then hazard too violent an opening of it by the hands of the Areopagus. And the great Roman Orator among the rest of Plato's sentiments had learnt this too; for although in his discourses he hath many times sufficiently laid open the folly of the Heathen worship and Theology, yet he knows how to bring himself off safe enough with the people; and will be sure to be dogmatical only in this, that nothing is to be innovated in the religion of a Common-wealth, and that the customs of our Ancestors are inviolably to be ob∣served. Which principles had they been true as they were safe for the persons who spake them, the Christian religion had never gained any entertainment in the world; for where ever it came, it met with this potent prejudice that it was looked on as an innovation, and therefore was shrewdly suspected by the Governours of Common-wealths, and the Preachers of it punished as factious and seditious persons; which was all the pretext the wise Politicians of the world had for their cruel and inhumane persecutions of such multi∣tudes of peaceable and innocent Christians. Now when these things were foretold by the Apostles themselves before their going abroad so plainly, that with the same saith they did believe the doctrine they Preached to be true, they must be∣lieve that all these things should come to pass, what courage and magnanimity of spirit was it in them thus to encounter dangers and as it were court the slames? Nay and before the time was come that they must dye, to seal the truth of their doctrine, their whole life was a continual peregrination, wherein they were as so many Iobs in pilgrimage, encounterd with perills and dangers on every side; of which one of the most painful and succesful, S. Paul hath given in such a large inventory of his perils, that the very reading of them were * 1.348 enough to undo a poor Epicurean Philosopher, and at once to spoil him of the two pillars of his happiness, the quietness of his mind and ease of his body. Thus we see what a hazar∣dous imployment that was which the Apostles went upon, and that it was such as they very well understood the di••••i∣culty of before they set upon it.

Secondly, We cannot find out any rational motive which * 1.349

could carry them through so hazardous an employment, but the full convictions of their minds of the undoubted truth and cer∣tainty of the doctrine which they delivered. We find before that no vulgar motives in the world could carry them upon that design which they went upon; Could they be led by ambition and vain glory who met with such reproaches where ever they went; and not only persecutions of the tongue, but the sharper ones of the hands too? we never read of any but the Primitive Christians who were ambitious of be∣ing Martyrs, and thought long till they were in the flames: which made Arrius Antoninus being Proconsul of Asia when Christians in multitudes beset his tribunal and thronged in to be condemned, say to them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. O miserable people, had not ye wayes enough to * 1.350 end your lives at h••me, but ye must croud for an execution! This was a higher ambition by far then any of those mancipia gloriae, those Chamaeleons that lived on the breath of applause, the Heathen Philosophers ever reached to, who were as Ter∣tullian expresseth it, homines gloriae & eloquentiae solius libi∣dinosi, unsatiable thirsters after the honour and eloquence of * 1.351 the world; but the Spirit of a Christian did soare too high to quarry on so mean a pr••y. When the more sober heathens had taken a stricter notice of the carriages and lives of the Preachers of the Gospel and all their genuine followers, they instead of the common and rude name of impostors, gave them a more civil title of Philosophers, and looked upon their doctrine as a sublimer kind of Philosophy, non utique divinum negotium existimant sed mag is Philosophiae genus, as Tertulli∣an * 1.352 tells us, because the Philosophers pretended so much to moral vertues which they saw the Christians so excellent in; but as Tertullian there replies, nomen hoc Philosophorum Dae∣monia non fugat, The Devil was never afraid of a Philoso∣phers beard, nor were diseases cured by the touch of a Philo∣sophick pallium. There was something more Divine in Chri∣stians then in the grave Philosophers; and that not only in reference to their lives, and the Divine power which was seen in them, but in reference to the truth and certainty of their doctrine, it being a true character given of both, by that same excellent writer in behalf of the Christians of his time:

Veritatem Philosophi quidem aff••ctant, possident autem Chri∣stiani; what the Philosophers desired only, the Christians enjoy, * 1.353 which was Truth: and as he elsewhere more fully speaks, mimicè Philosophi affectant veritatem, & affectando corrum. punt, ut qui gloriam captant; Christianieam necessariò ap∣petunt * 1.354 & integri praestant, ut qui saluti suae curant. Truth is the Philosophers mistress which by courting he vitiates and corrupts, looking at nothing but his own glory: but truth is the Christians Matron whose directions he observes and follows, because he regards no glory but that to come. And to let them further see what a difference there was between a Christian and a Philosopher, he concludes that discourse with these words, Quid adeo simile Philosophus & Christianus? Graeciae Discipulus et coeli? famae negotiator et vitae? verborum et factorum operator? rerum aedificator et destructor? amicus et inimicus erroris? veritatis interpolator et integrator? furator ejus et custos? As much distance (saith he) as there is between Greece and Heaven, between applause and eternal glory, be∣tween words and things, between building and destroying, be∣tween truth and error, between a plagiary and corrupter of truth, and a preserver and advancer of it; so much is there between a Philosopher and a Christian. The Heathens might suspect indeed some kind of affinity between the first Preachers of the Gospel and the antient Sophists of Greece, because of their frequent going from place to place, and pre∣tending a kind of Enthusiasm as they did: but as much difference as there is between a Knight Errant and Hercules, between a Mountebank and Hippocrates, that and much greater there is between a Greek Sophist and an Apostle. Socrates in Plato's Euthydemus hath excellently discovered the vanity and futility of those persons under the persons of Euthydemus and Dionysodorus, and so likewise in his Prota∣goras; their intent was only like the retiaries in the Roman Spectacles to catch their adversaries in a net; to intangle them with some captious question or other; but how vastly different from this was the design of the Apostles who ab∣hord those endless contentions which then were in the Hea∣then world; and came to shew them that Truth which was revealed with an intent of making them better men!

We see the Apostles were not carried forth by any mean * 1.355 and vulgar motives, neither did they drive on any private ends of their own; all that they minded was the promoting of the doctrine which they preached. Nay they accounted no hazards comparable with the advantage which the world enjoyed through the propagation of the Christian Religion. This shewed a truly noble and generous spirit in them which would not be hindred from doing the world good, though they found so bad entertainment from it; yea they rejoyced in their greatest sufferings which they underwent in so good a cause; wherein those Primitive Christians who were the genuine followers of the Apostles, did so far imitate them, that, etiam damnati gratias agunt, they gave the Iudges * 1.356 thanks that they thought them worthy to lose their lives in a cause which they had reason to triumph in, though they died for it. And when any of them were apprehended, they discovered so little fear of punishment, ut unum solummodo quod non ante suerint paeniteret, that nothing troubled them so much as that they had been Christians no sooner, as one of * 1.357 their number speaks. And when the Heathens usually scoffed at them and called them Sarmentitii and Semaxii because they were burned upon the Cross, one of them in the name of the rest answers, hic est habitus victoriae nostrae, haec palmata vestis, tali curru triumphamus; the Cross was only * 1.358 their triumphant chariot which carried them sooner to Heaven. Now this courage and resolution of spirit which was seen in the first planters of Christianity in the world made all serious and inquisitive persons look more narrowly into those things. which made men slight so much the com∣mon bug-bears of humane nature, sufferings and death.

Quis enim non contemplatione ejus concutitur, adrequirendum * 1.359 quid intus in re sit? quis non ubi requisivit accedit? ubi accessit patiexoptat? These sufferings made men enquire; this enquiry made them believe; that belief made them as willing to suffer themselves as they had seen others do it before them. Thus it appeared to be true in them, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 q••••que cru∣delitas, illecebra magis est sectae; plures ••fficimur qu••••ties me∣timur a vobis; semen est sanguis Christianorum; The cruelty of their ••nemies did but increase their number; the harvest of

their pretended justice was but the seed-time of Christianity, and no seed was so fruitful as that which was steeped in the blood of Martyrs. Thence Iustin Martyr ingenuously saith of himself, that while he was a Platonick Philosopher, he de∣rided and scoffed at the Christians; but when he considered their great courage and constancy in dying for their profession, he could not think those could possibly be men wicked and voluptuous, who when offers of life were made them, would rather choose death then deny Christ. By which he found plainly that there was a higher spirit in Christianity then could be obtained by the sublime notions and speculations of Plato, and that a poor ignorant Christian would do and suffer more for the sake of Christ then any of the Academy in defence of their master Plato. Now since all men natu∣rally abhor sufferings, what is it which should so powerfully alter the nature and disposition of Christians above all other persons, that they alone should seem in that to have forgot humanity, that not only with patience, but with joy they endured torments and abode the flames? What! were they all p••ssessed with a far more then Stoical Apathy, that no sense o•• pain could work at all upon them? or were they all besotted and infatuated persons that did not know what it was they underwent? ••t is true some of the more blind and wilfull Heathens derided them as such; but who were the more infatuated, let any sober person judge; they who slighted and rejected a doctrine of so great concernment, which came attested with so much resolution and courage in the professors of it; or they who were so far perswaded of the truth of it, that they would rather die than deny it? dicimus & palam dicimus, et vobis torquentibus lacerati et cruenti * 1.360 vociferamur, Deum colimus per Christum. They were not ashamed to believe in the blood of Christ even when their own blood ran down besore their eyes, and confess Christ with their mouths when their bodies were upon the rack. Certain∣ly then there were some very powerfull and convincing ar∣guments which buoyed up the spirits of true Christians in that deluge of sufferings which they were to swim through; it must be a strong and well grounded faith which would hold out under so great tryals, and they could not be to seek for

the most perswasive motives to faith, who were so ready to give an account to others of the hope that was in them, and to perswade all other persons to the embracing of it. With what face and confidence otherwise could they perswade men to embrace a doctrine so dangerous as that was, had there not been motives sufficient to bear up against the weight of susferings, and arguments perswasive to convince them of the undoubted certainty of that doctrine which they encouraged them to believe?

Now that which appears to have been the main ground of satisfaction to the Primitive Christians as to the truth and * 1.361 certainty of the doctrine of Christ, was this, that the doctrine of the Gospel was at first delivered to the world, by those persons who were themselves eye-witnesses of all the miracles which our Saviour wrought in confirmation of the truth of what he spake. They were such persons who had been them∣selves present, not only to hear most of our Saviours admira∣ble discourses when he was in the world, but to see all those glorious things which were done by him, to make it appear that he was immediately sent from God. Let us now appeal to our own faculties, and examine a little what rational evi∣dence could possibly be desired, that the doctrine of the Gospel was true, which God did not afford to the world? What could the persons who were the auditors of our Saviour desire more as an evidence that he came from God, then his doing such things which were certainly above any created power either humane or Diabolical, and therefore must needs be Divine? What could other persons desire more who were not present at the doing of these miracles, but that the report of them should be conveyed to them in an undoubted manner by those persons who were eye-witnesses of them, and made it appear to the world they were far from any intention of deceiving it? Now this makes the Apostles themselves in their own writings (though they were divinely inspired) appeal to the rational evidence of the truth of the things in that they were delivered by them who were eye-witnesses of them. There St. Peter speaks thus to the dispersed Iews, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 1.362

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For we have not followed cunningly devised fa∣bles, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his Ma∣jesty. The power and coming of Christ which the Apostle speaks of, was not as some improbably conceive, either his general coming to judgement upon the world, or his particu∣lar coming upon the Nation of the Iews; but by an Hendy∣ades, by his power and coming is meant his powerful appear∣ance in the world, whereby he mightily discovered himself to be the Son of God. Now this saith the Apostle, was no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not like the Heathen Mythology concern∣ing the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of their Gods among them (which were so frequently believed among them that Dionysins * 1.363 Halycarnassaeus condemns the Epicureans, because they did deride 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the appearances of their Gods in the world) now saith the Apostle, assure your selves this is no such appearance of a God on earth as that among the Heathens was; for saith he we our selves who declare these things were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we fully understood this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this great my∣stery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh, for we saw his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that great majesty which attended him in all which he spake or did; we saw all those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the great * 1.364 things of God, which were manifest in him, all those mir••∣culous operations which were wrought by him. Therefore as this was a great confirmation of the faith of the Apostles themselves that they saw all these things, so we see it was of great concernment to the world in order to their belief that the Gospel was no cunningly devised fable, in that it was delivered by such who were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eye-witnesses of what they declared. To the same purpose St. Iohn speaks ad concilian∣dam fidem, to make it appear how true what they delivered was, in the entrance of his Epistle; That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with * 1.365 our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the word of life (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us) That which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you. We see what great force and weight the Apostle layes upon

this, that they delivered nothing but what they had seen and heard; as they heard the doctrine of Christ, so they saw the miracles which he wrought in confirmation of it. St. Luke likewise in the beginning of his Gospel declares that he in∣tended to write nothing but what he had perfect understand∣ing of from such persons who had been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eye-witnesses, * 1.366 and instruments themselves in part of what was written, for that is meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and those things which were written, he saith were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, things which are abundantly proved to be true; for being matters of ••act, there could be no stronger proof of them, then by such who were eye-witnesses of what they spake. And this we find the Apostles themselves very cautious about, in the choice of a new Apostle in the room of Iudas. Wherefore of these * 1.367 men which have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Iesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day, that he was taken from us, must one be ordained to be a witness of his resurrection: For, because Christ was mightily declared to be the Son of God by his resur∣rection from the dead, (as that which was the great Seal of our Saviours being the Son of God) therefore we find the Apostles so frequently attesting the truth of the resurrection of Christ, and that themselves were eye-witnesses of it. This Iesus, saith Peter, hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. And again, And killed the Prince of life, whom * 1.368 God hath raised up from the dead, whereof we are witnesses; and both Peter and Iohn to the Sanhedrin; For we cannot * 1.369 but speak the things which we have seen and heard. And the * 1.370 whole Colledge of Apostles afterwards, And we are his wit∣nesses of these things, and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God * 1.371 hath given to them that obey him. In which words they give them that twofold rational evidence which did manifest the undoubted truth of what they spake; for they delivered no∣thing but what themselves were witnesses of, and withall was declared to be true by the power of the Holy Ghost in the miracles which were wrought by and upon believers. After∣wards we read the sum o•• the Apostles Preaching, and the manner used by them to perswade men of the truth of it, in the words of Peter to Cern••lius and his company, How God

annointed Iesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were * 1.372 oppressed of the Devil, for God was with him: And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Iews and in Hierusalem, whom they stew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly, not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he com••anded us to ••reach unto the people, that it is be which was ordained of God to be the Iudge of quick and dead. By all which we see what care God was pleased to take for the satisfaction of the world in point of rational evidence, as to the truth of the matters which were discovered concerning our Saviour Christ, because he made choice of such persons to be the preachers and writers of these things who were the best ab••e to satisfie the world about them, viz. such as had been eye witnesses of them.

Now in order to the making it more fully evident what * 1.373 strength there was in this Testimony given by the Apostles to the miracles of Christ, we shall more fully manifest the ra∣tional evidence which attended it in these following proposi∣tions. Where the truth of a doctrine depends upon a matter of fact, the truth of the doctrine is sufficiently manifested, if the matter of fact be evidently proved in the highest way it is capa∣ble * 1.374 of. Thus it is in reference to the doctrine of Christ; for the truth of that is so interwoven with the truth of the story of Christ, that if the relations concerning Christ be true, his doctrine must needs be Divine and infallible. For if it be undoubtedly true, that there was such a person as Christ born at Bethlehem, who did so many miracles, and at last suffered the death of the Cross, and after he had lain three dayes in the grave rose again from the dead, what reason imaginable can I have to question, but that the Testimony of this person was certainly Divine, and consequently what ever he preached to the world was most certain and undoubted truth: So that if we have clear evidence as to the truth of these passages concerning our Saviour, we must likewise believe his doctrine, which came attested with such pregnant evidences of a Divine commission which he had from God to the world:

No Prince can think he hath any reason to refuse audience to an Embassador, when he finds his Credentials such as he may rely upon; although himself doth not see the sealing of them; much less reason have we to question the truth of the doctrine of the Gospel, if we have sufficient evidence of the truth of the matters of fact concerning Christ, in such a way as those things are capable of being proved.

The greatest evidence which can be given to a matter of fact, * 1.375 is the attesting of it by those persons who were eye-witnesses of it. This is the Foundation whereon the firmest assent is built, as to any matter of fact; for although we conceive we have reason to suspect the truth of a story, as long as it is conveyed only in a general way, by an uncertain fame and tradition, yet when it comes to be attested by a sufficient number of credible persons who profess themselves the cye-witnesses of it, it is accounted an unreasonable thing to distrust any longer the truth of it; especially in these two cases. 1. When the matter they bear witness to is a thing which they might easily and clearly perceive. 2. When many witnesses exactly agree in the same Testimony.

1. When the matter it self is of that nature that it may be fully perceived by those who saw it: i. e. if it be a common object of sense. And thus it certainly was as to the person and actions of Iesus Christ. For he was of the same nature with mankind; and they had as great evidence that they conversed with Iesus Christ in the flesh, as we can have that we con∣verse one with another. The miracles of Christ were real and visible miracles, they could be no illusions of senses, nor deceits of their eyes; the man who was born blind and cured by our Saviour, was known to have been born blind through all the Countrey, and his cure was after as publike as his blind∣ness before, and acknowledged by the greatest enemies of * 1.376 Christ at the time of its being done. When Christ raised up the dead man at Naim, it was before much people, and such * 1.377 persons in probability who were many of them present at his death. But least there might be any suspition as to him, that he was not really dead, the case is plain and beyond all dispute in Lazarus, who had been to the knowledge of all persons thereabouts dead four dayes; here could be no deceit at all * 1.378

when the stone was rowled away, and Lazarus came forth in the presence of them all. And yet further the death and pas∣sion of our Saviour was a plain object of sense done in pre∣sence of his greatest adversaries. The souldiers themselves were sufficient witnesses of his being really dead when they came to break his bones, and spared him because they saw he was dead already. At his resurrection the stone was rowled away from the Sepulchre and no body found therein, al∣though the Sepulchre was guarded by souldiers, and the Dis∣ciples of Christ all so fearful, that they were dispersed up and down in several places. And that it was the same real body which he rose withall, and no aëreall vehicle, appears by Thomas his serupulosity and unbelief, who would not believe unless ••e might put his hands into the hole of his sides, and see * 1.379 in his hands the ••rint of the nails; now our Saviour conde∣seending so far as to satisfie the incredulity of Thomas, hath made it thereby evident that the body which our Saviour rose from the grave with, was the same individual body which be∣fore was crucified and buried in the Sepulchre. And we sind all the Apostles together upon our Saviours appearance to them after his resurrection, so far from being credulous in embracing a phantasm instead of Christ, that they susp••cted that it was either a meer phantasm, or an evil spirit which appeared among them; upon which it is said, they were ter∣rified * 1.380 and affrighted, and supposed they had seen a spirit. Which our Saviour could not beat them off from, but by appealing to the judgement of their senses, Handle me and see, for a spirit * 1.381 hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have, and afterwards more fully to convince them, he did eat in the midst of them. Now the more suspitious and inc••edulous the Apostles themselves * 1.382 at first were, the greater evidence is it how far they were from any design of abusing the world in what they after preached unto it, and what strong conviction there was in the thing its self, which was able to satisfie such scrupulous and su∣spicious persons.

2. When many witnesses concurr in the same Testimony. Nothing can disparage more the truth of a testimony, then the counter witness of such who were present at the same actions, but when all the witnesses fully agree not only in the

substance, but in all material circumstances of the story, what ground or reason can there be to suspect a forgery or design in it; especially when the persons cannot by any fears or threat∣nings be brought to vary from each other in it! Thus it is in our present case, we find no real dissent at all mentioned ei∣ther as to the birth, miracles, life, death, or resurrection of Iesus Christ, all the witnesses attest the same things, though writing in different places, and upon different occasions; no alteration in any circumstance of the story, out of any de∣sign of pleasing or gratifying any persons by it. Most of our Saviours miracles, not only his Apostles but the people and his very enemies were witnesses of, whose posterity to this day dare not deny the truth of such strange works which were wrought by him. And for his resurrection, it would be very strange that five hundred persons should all agree in the same thing, and that no torments or death could bring any of them to de∣ny the truth of it, had there not been the greatest certainty in it.

There can be no reason to suspect such a testimony which is given by eye-witnesses, but either from questi••ning their know∣ledge * 1.383 of the things they speak of, or their fi••elity in reporting them. Now there is not the least ground to doubt either of these, in reference to those persons who gave testimony to the world concerning the person and actions of our blessed Sa∣viour.

For first, They were such as were intimately conversant both with the person and actions of Iesus Christ; whom he had * 1.384 chosen and trained up for that very end, that they might be sufficiently qualified to acquaint the world with the truth of things concerning himself after his resurrection from the dead. And accordingly they followed him up and down wheresoever he went, they were with him in his solitudes and retirements, and had thereby occasion to observe all his actions, and to take notice of the unspotted innocency of his life. Some of his Disciples were with him in his transfiguration, others in his agony and bloody sweat, they heard the expressions which came from his mouth; in all which he discovered a wonderful sub∣mission to the will of God, and a great readiness of mind to suffer for the good of the world. Now therefore the first

thing cannot at all be questioned, their means of knowing the truth of what they spake.

Neither secondly is there any reas••n to suspect their fidelity * 1.385 in reporting what they knew: For, 1. The truth of this do∣ctrine wrought so far upon them, that they parted with all their worldly subsistence for the sake of it: Although their riches were not great, yet their way of subsistence in the world was necessary; they left their houses, their wives and children, and all for Christ, and that not to gain any higher preferments in this world (which had they done, it would have rendred their design suspicious to the curious and inquisitive world) but they let go at least a quiet and easie life, for one most troublesom and dangerous. So that it is not, how much they parted withall, but how freely they did it, and with what chearfulness they underwent disgraces, persecutions, nay death its self for the sake of the Gospel. Now can it be ima∣gined, that ever men were so prodigal of their ease and lives, as to throw both of them away upon a thing which themselves were not fully assured of the truth of? It had been the high∣est folly imaginable, to have deceived themselves in a thing of so great moment to them, as the truth of the doctrine which they preached was; because all their hopes and happi∣ness depended upon the truth of that doctrine which they preached. And as Tertullian observes, non fas est ulli de suâ religione mentiri; for, saith he, he that sayes he worships any thing be sides what he doth, he denyes what he doth worship, and transfers his worship upon another, and thereby doth not worship that which he thus denyes: Besides, what probability is there men should lye for the sake of that Religion which tells them that those which do so shall not receive the reward which is promised to those who cordially adhere unto it. Nay, they declared themselves to be the most miserable of all persons if their hopes were only in this present life. Can we now * 1.386 think that any who had the common reason of men, would part with all the contentments of this world, and expose them∣selves to continual hazards, and at last undergo death its self for the sake of something which was meerly the fiction of their own brains? What should make them so sedulous and indu∣strious in preaching such things that they could say necessity

was laid upon them, yea wo was unto them if they preached not the * 1.387 Gospel, when yet they saw so many woes attending them in the preaching of it, had there not been some more powerful attractive in the beauty and excellency of the doctrine which they preached, then any could be in the ease and tranquillity of this present world? Thus we see the fid••lity of the Apostles manifested in such a way as no other witnesses were ever yet willing to hazard theirs. And therefore Origen deservedly * 1.388 condemns Celsus of a ridiculous impertinency, when he would parallel the relations of Herodotus and Pindarus concerning Aristeus Proconnesius with those of the Apostles concerning Christ: For, faith he, did either of those two venture their lives upon the truth of what they writ concerning him, as the Apostles did to attest the truth of what they preached concern∣ing our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ?

2. The fidelity of the Apostles is evident in their manner of * 1.389 reporting the things which they deliver. For if ever there may be any thing gathered from the manner of expression, or the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 concerning the particular temper and dispo∣sition of the person from whom it comes, we may certainly read the greatest fidelity in the Apostles from the peculiar manner of their expressing themselves to the world. Which they do,

1. With the greatest impartiality: not declaring only what was glorious and admirable to the world, but what they knew would be accounted foolishness by it. They who had sought only to have been admired for the rare discoveries which they brought to the world, would be sure to conceal any thing which might be accounted ridiculous; but the Apostles fixed themselves most on what was most contemptible in the eyes of the world, and what they were most mocked and de∣rided for, that they delighted most in the preaching of, which was the Cross of Christ. Paul was so much in Love with this, which was a stumbling block to the Iews and foolishness to the Greeks, that he valued the knowledge of nothing else in comparison of the knowledge of Christ and him crucified. Nay * 1.390 he elsewhere saith, God forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of Christ. What now should be the reason that they should rejoyce in that most which was most despicable to the

world, had not they seen far ••reater truth and excellency in it, then in the most sublime speculations concerning God or the souls of men in the School of Plato or any other heathen Philosophers? That all men should be bound in order to their salvation, to believe in one who was crucified at Hierusalem, was a strange doctrine to the unbelieving world: but if the Apostles had but endeavoured to have suited their doctrine to the School of Plato, what rare persons might they have been accounted among the Heathen Philosophers! Had they only in general terms discoursed of the Benignity of the Divine nature, and the manifestations of Divine goodness in the world, and that, in order to the bringing of the souls of men to a nearer participation of the Divine nature, the per∣fect Idea of true goodness, and the express image of the per∣son of God, and the resplendency of his glory had vailed him∣self in humane nature, and had everywhere scattered such beams of light and goodness, as warmed and invigorated the frozen spirits of men with higher sentiments of God and them∣selves, and raised them up above the faeculency of this ter∣restrial matter to breath in a freer air, and converse with more noble objects, and by degrees to fit the souls of men for those more pure illapses of real goodness, which might alwayes sa∣tisfie the souls desires, and yet alwayes keep them up till the soul should be sunning its self to all eternity under the im∣mediate beams of Light and Love: And that after this In∣carnate Deity had spread abroad the wings of his Love for a while upon this lower world, till by his gentle heat and incu∣bation he had quickned the more plyable world to some degree of a Divine life, he then retreated himself back again into the superiour world, and put off that vail by which he made himself known to those who are here confined to the prisons of their bodies: Thus, I say, had the Apostles minded ap∣plause among the admired Philosophers of the Heathens, how easie had it been for them to have made some considerable additions to their highest speculations, and have left out any thing which might seem so mean and contemptible as the death of the Son of God! But this they were so far from, that the main thing which they preached to the world, was, the vanity of humane wisdom without Christ, and the

necessity of all mens believing in that Iesus who was crucified at Hierusalem.

The Apostles indeed discover very much, infinitely more then ever the most lofty Pl—tonist could do, concerning the goodness and Love of God to mankind; but that wherein they manifested the Love of God to the world, was that he gave his * 1.391 only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. And that herein was the Love * 1.392 of God manifested, that while we were yet sinners, Christ dyed for us. And that this was the greatest truth and worthy of all * 1.393 acceptation, that Iesus Christ came into the world to save sin∣ners. They never dreamt of any divine goodness which should make men happy without Christ: No, it was their design to perswade the world that all the communications of Gods goodness to the world were wholly in and through Iesus Christ, and it is impossible that any should think otherwise, unless Plato knew more of the mind of God then our blessed Saviour, and Plotinus then Saint Paul. Can we think now that the Apostles should hazard the reputation of their own wits so much as they did to the world, and be accounted bablers, and fools, and madmen, for preaching the way of sal∣vation to be only by a person crucified between two thieves at Hierusalem, had they not been convinced not only of the truth but importance of it, and that it concerned men as much to believe it, as it did to avoid eternal misery? Did Saint Paul preach ever the less the words of truth and soberness, because he was told to his face that his Learning had made him mad? But if he was besides himself, it was for Christ; and what wonder was it if the Love of Christ in the Apostle should make him willing to lose his reputation for him, seeing Christ made himself of no reputation, that he might be in a capacity to do us good? We see the Apostles were not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, because they knew it was the power of God to salvation, and therefore neither in their preaching or their writings would they omit any of those passages con∣cerning our Saviours death, which might be accounted the most dishonourable to his person. Which is certainly as great an evidence of their sidelity as can be expected; which makes Origen say that the Disciples of Christ writ all

things 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with a great deal of candour and * 1.394 love of truth. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; not concealing from the world those passages of the life of Christ, which would be accounted most foolish and ridiculous.

2. With the greatest plainness and simplicity of speech. Such whose design is to impose upon the minds of men with some cunningly devised fables, love as much ambiguity as ever Apollo did in his most winding oracles, of whom it is said,

Ambage nexâ Delphico mos est Dco Arcana tegere.

Servius tells us, that Iupiter Ammon was therefore pictured * 1.395 with Rams-horns, because his answers had as many turnings and windings as they had. But the horns which Moses was wont to be pictured with, did only note light and perspicuity (from the ambiguity of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which notes the sending forth of rayes of light like a horn) and yet Moses himself was vailed, in comparison of the openness and plainness of speech which was in the Apostles. Impostors cast a mist of many dark and cloudy words before them, but when they are once brought into the open light, their vizard falls off, and their deformity appears. Such persons delight in soaring quite out of the apprehensions of those who follow them, and never think themselves better recompenced for their pains, then when they are most admired and least understood. But never was Christianity more dishonoured, then when men brought it from its native simplicity and plainness, into a company of cloudy and insignificant expressions, which are so far from making men better understand the truth of it, that it was certainly the Devils design by such obscure terms to make way for a mysterie to be advanced (but it was of iniquity) and soon after, we see the effect of it in another oracle set up at Rome instead of Delphos, and all the pretence of it, was the obscurity supposed in Scripture. What! darkness come by the rising of the Sun! Or is the Sun at last grown so beggarly, that he is fain to borrow light of the earth? Must

the S••ripture be beholding to the Church for its clearness, and Christ himsel•• not speak intelligibly, unless the Pop•• be his Interpreter? Did Christ reveal to the world the Way to salvation, and yet leave men to se••k which was it, till a Guide never heard of in the Scripture come to direct them in the Way to it? What strange witnesses were the Apostles, if they did no•• speak the truth with plainness? How had men been to s••••k as ••o the truth of Christianity, if the Apostles had not declared the d••ctrine of the Gospel with all evidence and perspicuity? Whom must we believe in this case, the Apostles or the Roman oracle? The Apostles they tell us they speak * 1.396 with all plainness of speech and for that end purposely lay aside all exc••llency of words and humane wisdom, that men might not be to seek for their m••aning in a matter of so great moment; that the Gospel was hid to none but such as are lost, and whose eyes are blinded by the god of this world; that the doctrin•• revealed by them is a light to direct us in our way to heaven, and a rule to walk by; and it is a strange property of light to be obscure, and of a rule to be crooked. But it is not only evident from the Apostles own affirmations, that they laid aside all affected obscurity, ambiguous expressions, and Philosophical terms, whereby the world might have been to seek for what they were to believe, but it is likewise clear from the very nature of the doctrine they preached, and the design of their preaching of it. What need Rhetorick in plain truths? or affected phrases in giving evidence? How incon∣gruous would obscure expressions have been to the design of saving souls by the foolishness of preaching? For if they had industriously spoken in their preaching, above the capacities of those they spake to, they could never have converted a soul without a miracle; for the ordinary way of conversion must be by the understanding; and how could that work upon the understanding, which was so much above it? But saith the Apostle, we preach not our selves, but Christ Iesus the Lord, and our selves your servants for Iesus sake. If they had sought themselves or their own credit and reputation, there might * 1.397 have been some reason that they should have used the way of the Sophists among the Greeks, and by declamatory speeches to have inhanceed their esteem among the v••lgar. But

the Apostles disowned and rejected all these vulgar artifices of mean and low-spirited men; they laid aside all those enticing words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the way of the Heathen Sophists, and declared the T••stimony of God with spiritual evidence; * 1.398 they handled not the word of God deceitfully, but by ma∣nifestation of the truth, commended themselves to every mans * 1.399 cons••ience in the sight of God: Now what could be so suite∣able to such a design, as the greatest plainness and faithfulness in what they spake? We find in the testimony of the Apo∣stles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Ori∣gen * 1.400 speaks, nothing that is spurious or counterfeit, nothing sa∣vouring of the cunning craftiness of such as lie in wait to de∣ceive; and saith he, it is impossible to think that men never bred up in the Sophistry of the Gre••ks, nor experienced in the Rhetorical insinuations used among them, could ever be able so suddenly to perswade the world to embrace that which had been a figment of their own brains. The truth is, the Apostles speak like men very confident of the truth of what they speak, and not like such who were fain to fetch in the help of all their Topicks, to find out some probable arguments to make men believe that which it is probable they did not believe them∣selves, which was most commonly the case of the great Ora∣tors among the Heathens. We find no pedantick flourishes, no slattering insinuations, no affected cadencyes, no such great care of the rising and falling of words in the several senten∣ces, which make up so great a part of that which was ac∣counted eloquence in the Apostles times. These things were too mean a prey for the spirits of the Apostles to quarry up∣on; every thing in them was grave and serious, every word had its due weight, every sentence brim-full of spiritual mat∣ter, their whole discourse most becoming the Majesty and Authority of that spirit which they spake by. And therein was seen a great part of the infinite wisdom of God in the choice he made of the persons who were to propagate the Doctrine of Christ in the world, that they were not such who by reason of their great repute and fame in the world, might easily draw whole multitudes to imbrace their dictates, but (that there might not be the least foundation for an implicit faith) they were of so mean rank and condition in the world, that in all

probability their names had never been hard of, had not their doctrine made them famous. To this purpose Origen excel∣lently speaks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I am of opinion, saith he, that Iesus did purposely make use of such preachers of his doctrine, that there might be no place for suspicion that they came instructed with the arts of Sophistry; but that it be clearly manifest to all that would consider it, that there was no∣thing of design in those who discovered so much simplicity in their writings, and that they had a more divine power which was more efficacious then the greatest volubility of expressions, or ornaments of speech, or the artifices which were used in the Grecian compositions.

3. The Apostles delivered their doctrine with the greatest openness and freedom of spirit; they did not give out one thing to the world, and another to their private Disciples; but with great freedom and boldness declared their doctrine in the most publick places, and before their greatest enemies. They knew they were looked on as deceivers by the world, but yet they knew themselves to be true, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This is * 1.401 the usual requital good men have from the world, that they are looked on as the greatest deceivers of it; if it be so with others, they have much less cause to wonder at it, when even he, who by one Prophet is stiled the desire of Nations, is * 1.402 by another said to be despised and rejected of men; and when Christ was in the world he was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the deceiver; no wonder, then if his Disciples were accounted such, although they manifested their veracity by their open carriage and free speaking to the faces of their greatest adversaries. The Apostles neither feared the Iews skill in their Law, nor the wisdom and subtilty of the Greeks: Saint Paul preacheth Christ openly among the Iews in their Synagogues, and among the Athenians he encounters the Epicureans and Stoicks, and preacheth to them Iesus and the resurrection. * 1.403

If the Apostles had any thing of deceivers in them, as to the things they related concerning Christ, they would not cer∣tainly have spoken with so much confidence concerning Christ in the presence of those who had been his murderers, but we see they appealed to themselves, as to the miracles which he had wrought among them, and for his resurrection they were ready to lay down their lives in giving testimony to the truth of it. That his body was gone, was evident; that the Apostles should take it away was impossible, considering what a guard of souldiers they had set upon it, and how timerous and fearful the Apostles were, that they fled upon Christs being apprehended. Now what could it be, could make such fearful persons afterwards so couragious and resolute as they were, had there not been some more then ordinary power to con∣vince and encourage them?

4. The Apostles deliver their Testimony with the greatest particularity as to all circumstances. They do not change or alter any of them upon different examinations before several persons; they all agree in the greatest constancy to themselves and uniformity with each other. As to matters of indiffe∣rency, we find the Apostles very yielding and condescending, but as to any thing which concerned their testimony, most constant and resolved. Had the Gospel been some cunningly contrived fancy, it had been impossible but so many different persons, in such different places, and under such different con∣ditions, would have varyed as to some material circumstance of it: Or else they would have been so wise as to have de∣livered it in general terms, without insisting much on such particular circumstances, which if they had been false, might have been very easily disproved: but with what par∣ticular enumeration of circumstances do the Apostles preach Christ to the world? Peter tells the Iews that it was Iesus * 1.404 of Nazareth whom he preached; and lest they should think it was not the same person who rose again, with great boldness and freedom of spirit he saith to them, Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same * 1.405 Iesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Yea that same individual person who was conversant in the world, and dyed upon the Cross, is now become a Prince and Saviour to * 1.406

give repentance to Israel and remission of sins. If there had been any ground of suspition as to these things, who had been so able to disprove them, or so ready to do it, as those persons who had crucified him? For we cannot conceive but those who had a hand in his death, would endeavour by all possible means to disprove his resurrection from the dead. For what a case were they like to be in, if those things which the Apostles so confidently preached were true? If Christ had all power now in his hands, and there were salvation in no other name, but only in his whom they had crucified, they were like to be in a most desperate condition; therefore if any men can be supposed inquisitive after the truth of these circum∣stances, no doubt these were; and if they could have found the least flaw in their testimony, the world would soon have ringed of it; and the Iews who were then so much dispersed abroad, would have divulged it into all parts, the Apostles would have been told of it as they preached Christ in the Synagogues. And can we in any reason think, but those Iews who persecuted Paul as he preached in the Synagogues of Asia, and afterwards impeached him so openly at Ierusa∣lem, would there enquire into all the circumstances concern∣ing Christ, and all the other Iews would write to their Friends at Ierusalem to be fully informed of those strange things which were told them openly in all places in their Syna∣gogues by men of their own Nation and language, concern∣ing one Iesus who was crucified and rose again from the dead. Had there been now any so much as plausible pretext that any of these circumstances were not true, can we think but that a people so unmeasureably given to their own wayes and traditions, would in all places have vented any thing that might have tended to the disparagement of Christ and his Apostles? But we see malice its self could not find any flaw in the Apostles testimony; for if it had, we should certainly have heard of it, either from the Iews, or from the great op∣posers of Christianity among the Heathens, who pretended to be curious and inquisitive persons, such as Celsus, Iulian, Hierocles, and Porphyrie were. What reason can we have then in the least to suspect such a Testimony which passed so uncontrouled in that time when it was alone capable of being

disproved, and mens interest and design would put them so much upon it? The strength of which will appear from the next proposition, which is,

No Testimony ought to be taken against a matter of fact thus * 1.407 attested, but from such persons who had greater knowledge of the things attested, and manifest greater fidelity in report∣ing them. It is easie to make it appear, that supposing any persons at that time had contradicted the Testimony of the Apostles concerning our Saviour, yet there had been no reason in the world to have hearkned to their Testimony in opposition to that of the Apostles; and that on these accounts. 1. The Apostles witnessed the Affirmative, which is more capable of being attested then any negative can be. 2. The Apostles were more conversant with Christ then any other persons were, because they were chosen for that very end by him to be constantly with him; could any therefore be more capable of knowing the truth of all particulars concerning Christ then these were? Had there been any ground of suspicion concerning the design of Christ, why could not the Iews prevail with Iudas to discover it as well as to betray his person? Iudas had done but a good work if Christ had been such an impostor as the Iews blasphemously said he was; what made Iudas then so little satisfied with his work, that he grew weary of his life upon it, and threw himself away in the most horrid despair? No person certainly had been so fit to have been produced as a witness against Christ, as Iudas who had been so long with him, and had heard his speeches and observed his miracles; but he had not patience enough to stay after that horrid fact to be a witness against him; nay he was the greatest witness at that time for him, when he who had betrayed him came to the Sanhedrim when consulting about his death, and told them that he had sinned in betraying innocent blood. What possible evidence * 1.408 could have been given more in behalf of our Saviour then that was? when a person so covetous as to betray his Master for thirty pieces of silver, was so weary of his bargain that he comes and throws back the money, and declares the person innocent whom he had betrayed? And this person too was such a one as knew our Saviour far better then any of the

witnesses whom afterwards they suborned against him, who yet contradicted each other, and at last could produce nothing which in the judgement of the Heathen Governour could make him judge Christ worthy of death. 3. The Apostles were freer from design then any counter-witness at that time could be; we have already proved the Apostles could not possibly have any other motive to affirm what they did but full con∣viction of the truth of what they spake; but now if any among the Iews at that time had asserted any thing contrary to the Apostles, we have a clear account of it, and what mo∣tive might induce them to it; viz. the preserving of their honour and reputation with the people, the upholding their traditions, besides their open and declared enmity against Christ without any sufficient reason at all for it: now who would believe the testimony of the Scribes and Pharisees who had so great authority among the people, which they were like to lose, if Christs doctrine were true, before that of the Apostles who parted with all for the sake of Christ, and ventured themselves wholly upon the truth of our Saviours doctrine? 4. None ever did so much to attest the negative, as the Apostles did to prove their fidelity as to the affirma∣tive. Had sufficient counter-witness been timely produced, we cannot think the Apostles would have run so many con∣tinual hazards in Preaching the things which related to the person and actions of Christ. Did ever any lay down their lives to undeceive the world if the Apostles were guilty of abusing it? 5. The number of such persons had been in∣considerable in comparison of those who were so fully perswad∣ed of the truth of those things which concern our Saviour; who were all ready (as most of them did) to seal the truth of them with their lives. Whence should so many men grow so suddenly confident of the truth of such things which were contrary to their former perswasions, interest; education, had they not been delivered in such a way, that they were assured of the undoubted truth of them? which brings me to the last proposition, which is,

Matters of fact being first believed on the account of eye∣witnesses, and received with an universal and uncontrouled * 1.409 assent by all such persons who have thought themselves concern∣ed

in knowing the truth of them, do yeild a sufficient foundation for a firm assent to be built upon. I take it for granted that there is sufficient foundation for a firm assent, where there can be no reason given to question the evidence; which that there is not in this present case will appear from these fol∣lowing considerations.

1. That the multitudes of those persons who did believe these things, had liberty and opportunity to be satisfied of the truth of them before they believed them. Therefore no reason or motive can be assigned, on which they should be induced to believe these things, but the undoubted evidence of truth which went along with them. I confess in Mahumetisme a very great number of persons have for some centuries of years continued in the belief of the doctrine of Mahomet; but then withall there is a sufficient account to be given of that, viz. the power of the sword which keeps them in aw, and strictly forbids all the followers of Mahomet to dispute their religion at all, or compare it with any other. Therefore I can no more wonder at this, then I do to see so great a part of the world under the Tyranny of the gre••t Turk: Neither on the other side do I wonder that such a multitude of those professing Christianity should together with it, believe a great number of erroneous doctrines, and live in the practice of many gross superstitions, because I consider what a strange prevalency education hath upon softer spirits and more easie intellectuals, and what an aw an Inquisition bears upon timerous and irresolved persons. But now when a great multitude of persons sober and inquisitive shall contrary to the principles of their education, and without fear of any humane force, (which they beforehand see will persecute them) and after diligent enquiry made into the grounds on which they believe, for sake all their former perswasions, and resolvedly adhere to the truth of the doctrine propounded to them, though it cost them their lives; if this give us not reason to think this doctrine true, we must believe mankind to be the most miserable unhappy creatures in the world; that will with so much resolution part with all advantages of this life for the sake of one to come, if that be not undoubtedly certain, and the doctrine proposing it infallibly true. It is an

observable circumstance in the propagation of Christian Re∣ligion, that though God made choice at first of persons generally of mean rank and condition in the world to be Preachers of the Gospel, God thereby making it appear that our faith did not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God, and therefore chose the weak things of the world to con∣found * 1.410 the strong; yet soon af••er the Gospel was preached abroad in the world, we finde persons of great place and repu∣tation, of great parts and abilities engaged in the profession of the Christian faith. In the History of the Acts we read of Sergius a Proconsul, of Dionysius the Areopagite converted to the faith, and in the following ages of the Church many persons of great esteem for their excellent learning and abili∣ties; such was Iustin Martyr, one who before he became a Christian, was conversant with all sects of Philosophers, Stoicks, Peripateticks, Pythagoreans, and at last was a pro∣fessed Platonist till he was converted from Plato to Christ, and then found that true which he speaks of in his Dialogue with Trypho, that after all his enquiries into Philosophy, speaking of the doctrine of Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I found this at last to be the only sure * 1.411 and profitable Philosophy. And when Trypho after derides him as a man of very easie faith, who would leave the doctrine of Plato for that of Christ, (for it seems by him the Iews then had a more favourable opinion of the state of Platonists then Christians) Iustin is so far from being moved with such reproaches, that he tells him he would undertake to demon∣strate to him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that the Christians did not give credit to empty fables, and un∣provable assertions, but to such a doctrine as was full of a Divine spirit and power, and flourished with grace: The proving of which is the subject of that discourse. At Alex∣andria we meet with a succession of excellent persons, all which were not only embracers themselves, but defenders of the Christian faith; for setting aside there Abilius, Iustus, Cerdo, Eumenes, Marcus, Celadion, Agrippinus, Iulianus, Demetrius and others who flourished about the second Century, I shall only fix on those persons who were famous

enquirers after truth and noted for excellency in Heathen learning; yet these persons after all their inquiries found no∣thing to fix on but the Christian faith, and valued no other discovery of truth in comparison with that. Such was Pan∣taenus, who as Eusebius tells us, was an excellent Stoick before he became a Christian, and was after so eminent a one, that in imitation of the Apostles he wen•• into India to convert the inhabitants to the Christian faith, and at his return was made Rector of the School at Alexandria; which as the same author tells us, was much frequented by such who were * 1.412 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, well skild in humane as well as Divine learning. How excellent Pantaenus was in * 1.413 humane learning may appear in that Origen and Hierome both make his example their plea for the studying of it. After him succeeded Clemens Alexandrinus, Pantaenus his Schollar, a person of great depth of learning and exquisitly skild in all Heathen Antiquities, as appears by his remaining writings. The Learning of Origen is sufficiently known, which was in such great reputation in his own time, that not only Christi¦ans * 1.414 but Philosophers flocked to his Lectures at Alexandria as Eusebius tells us, wherein he read the Mathematicks, and other parts of Philosophy as well as the Scriptures; and the same author informs us that the Philosophers did dedicate their books to him, and sometimes chose him as arbitrator between them in matters of dispute; and Porphyrie himself in his books against the Christians vouchsafed a high encomium of Origen for his excellent learning. In Origens time Heraclas a Presbyter of Alexandria for five years together frequented the Schools of the Philosophers, and put on the Philosophick pallium, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and * 1.415 was very conversant in the books of the Grecian Learning. Besides these we read of Pierius and Achillas two Presbyters of Alexandria who were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 1.416 as Nicephorus Callistus speaks, persons well skild in the Grecian learning and Philosophy. If from Alex∣andria we go to Caesarea, there we not only meet with a School of learning among the Christians, but with persons very eminent in all kinds of learning; such were the famous Pamphilus and Eusebius so great an admirer of him, that

ever since he is called Eusebius Pamphili. At Antioch was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Nicephorus * 1.417 speaks, a person versed in all kind of ingenuous literature. Anatclius Bishop of Laodicea one versed in Geometry, Astro∣nomy, and all kind of Philosophy as well as in the doctrine of * 1.418 Christ. Thus we see how in those early dayes of the Greek Church what excellent persons many of those were who were zealous Professors of Christianity; and concerning those of the Latin Church, I shall only mention that speech of St. Austin who was himself an instance of the same nature and a star of the first magnitude among them. Nonne aspicimus quanto auro & argento & v••ste s••ffarcinatus exierit de * 1.419 Aegypto Cyprian••s Doctor suavissimus & Martyr beatissi∣mus? quanto Lactantius? quanto Victorinus, Optatus, Hilarius? ut de vivis taceam: quanto innumerabiles Graeci? quod prior ipse fidelissimus Dei servus Moses fecerat, de quo Scriptum est, quod eruditus fuerit omni sapientia Aegyptio∣rum. To whose catalogue of learned persons, among the Latin Christians Tertullian, Arnobius and several others may be deservedly added. But as St. Austin there well observes, though the Israclites went rich out of Aegypt, yet it was their eating the Passover which saved them from destru∣ction; so though these were accomplished with those perfe∣ctions and riches of the soul, the ornaments of learning, yet it was their eating the true Passover which was Christ, by their adhering to his doctrine, was that which would be of more advantage to them, then all their accomplishments would be. Now then since in the first ages of the Christian Church, we find not only innumerable multitudes of persons of great integrity and sobriety in their lives embracing the doctrine of Christ, but so many persons that were curious enquirers after the truth of things, we can certainly have no reason to distrust such a Testimony which was received in so unanimous a manner by persons as able to judge of the truth of things, and as fearful of being deceived in reference to them as any now in the world can be.

2. As this testimony was received by persons in••uisitive after the truth of things, so the doctrine conveyed by it was a * 1.420 matter of the highest moment in the world: and therefore we

cannot conceive but persons ordinarily inquisitive about other things would be more then ordinarily so about this, because their eternal welfare and happiness did depend upon it. All persons that are truly religious, must at least be allowed to be persons very inquisitive after the state and condition of their souls when they shall be dislodged from their bodyes. And if we do but grant this, can we in any reason think that such a multitude of persons in so many ages should continue venturing their souls upon a Testimony which they had no assurance of the truth of? And that none of all these persons though men otherwise rational and judicious, should be able to discover the falsity of that doctrine they went upon, if at least any upon consideration of it can imagine it to be so? It is not reconcileable with the general presumption of humane nature concerning Divine providence and the care God takes of the welfare of men, to suffer so many persons who sincerely desire to serve God in the way which is most pleasing to him, to go on in such a continual delusion, and never have it at all discovered to them. If all then who have believed the doctrine of Christ to be the only way to salvation have been deceived, either we must deny altogether a Divine Providence, or say the Devil hath more power to deceive men then God to direct them, which is worse then the former, or else assert that there are no such things at all as either God or Devils, but that all things come to pass by chance and fortune; and if so, it is still more inexplicable why such multitudes of rational and serious men, and the most inquisitive part of the world as to such things should all be so possessed with the truth and certainty of these things; and the more profane, wicked, and ignorant any persons are, the more prone they are to mock and deride them. If such men then see more into truth and reason then the sober and judicious part of mankind, let us bid adieu to humanity and adore the brutes, since we admire their judgement most who come the nearest to them.

3. The multitude of these persons thus consenting in this Testimony, could have no other engagement to this consent, but only their firm perswasion of the truth of the doctrine conveyed by it; because those who unanimously agree in this thing are such persons whose other designs and interests in this world,

differ as much as any mens do. If it had been only a consent of Iews, there might have been some probable pretence to have suspected a matter of interest in it; but as to this thing, we find the Iews divided among themselves about it; and the stiffest denyers of the truth of it, do yet inviolably preserve those sacred records among them, from which the truth of the doctrine of Christ may be undoubtedly proved. Had the Christian Religion been enforced upon the world by the Roman Emperours at the time of its first promulgation, there would have been some suspicion of particular design in it; but it came with no other strength but the evidence of its own truth; yet it found sudden and strange entertainment among persons of all Nations and degrees of men. In a short time it had eaten into the heart of the Roman Empire, and made so large a spread therein, that it made Tertullian say, Hesterni sumus, & vestra omnia implevimus, urbes, insulas, castella, municipia, conciliabula, castraipsa, tribus, decurias, * 1.421 palatium, senatum, forum; sola vobis relinquimus Templa. We have but newly appeared, saith he, & yet we have filled all places with our company but only your Temples; and before speak∣ing of the Heathens, Obsessam vociferantur civitatem, in agris, in castellis, in insulis Christianos, omnem sexum, aeta∣tem, conditionem, etiam dignitatem transgredi ad hoc nomen * 1.422 quasi detrimento moerent. All sorts and conditions of men in all places, were suddenly become Christians. What common tye could there be now to unite all these persons together, if we set aside the undoubted truth and certainty of the do∣ctrine of Christ which was first preached to them by such who were eye-witnesses of Christs actions, and had left sacred records behind them, containing the substance of the doctrine of Christ and those admirable instructions which were their only certain guides in the way to heaven?

4. Because many persons do joyn in this consent with true Christians, who yet could heartily with that the doctrine of Chri∣stianity were not true. Such are all those persons who are sensual in their lives, and walk not according to the rules of the Gospel, yet dare not question or deny the truth of it. Such who could heartily wish there were no future state, nor judgement to come, that they might indulge themselves in

this world without fear of another; yet their consciences are so far convinced of, and awed by the truth of these things, that they raise many perplexities and anxieties in their minds which they would most willingly be rid of; which they can never throughly be, till instead of having the name of Chri∣stians, they come to live the life of Christians, and become experimentally acquainted with the truth and power of Reli∣gion. And withall we find that the more men have been ac∣quainted with the practice of Christianity, the greater evi∣dence they have had of the truth of it, and been more fully and rationally perswaded of it. To such I grant there are such powerful evidences of the truth of the doctrine of Christ by the effectual workings of the Spirit of God upon their souls, that all other arguments, as to their own satisfaction, may fall short of these. As to which, those verses of the Poet Dantes, rendred into Latine by F. S. are very pertinent and significant; for when he had introduced the Apostle Peter asking him what it was which his faith was founded on, he answers,

Deinde exivit ex luce profundâ Quae illic splendebat pretiosa gemma Super quam omnis virtus fundatur.

i. e. That God was pleased by immediate revelation of himself, to discover that divine truth to the world whereon our faith doth stand as on its sure foundation; but when the Apostle goes on to enquire how he knew this came at first from God, his answer to that is,

larga pluvia Spiritûs Sancti, quae est diffusa Super veteres & super novas membranas, Est syllogismus ille qui eam mihi conclusit Ad••ò acutè, ut prae illâ demonstratione Omnis demonstratio alia mihi videatur obtusa.

i. e. That the Spirit of God doth so fully discover its self both in the Old and New Testament, that all other arguments are

but dull and heavy if compared with this. It is true they are so to a truly inlightened conscience which discovers so much beauty and glory in the Scriptures, that they ravish the soul, although it be unable to give so full an account of this unto others who want the eyes to see that beauty with, which a heart truly gracious hath. We see ordinarily in the world, that the attraction of beauty is an unaccountable thing; and one may discern that which ravisheth him, which another looks on as mean and ordinary; and why may it not be much more thus in divine objects which want spiritual eyes to discover them? Therefore I grant that good men enjoy that satisfa∣ction to their own Consciences, as to the truth of the Doctrine of Christ, which others cannot attain to; but yet I say, that such do likewise see the most strong, rational, and convincing evidence which doth induce them to believe; which evidence is then most convincing, when it is seconded by the peculiar energy of the Spirit of God upon the souls of true Believers. But yet we see that the power and force of the truth of these things may be so great, even upon such minds which are not yet moulded into the fashion of true goodness, that it may awe with its light and clearness, where it doth not soften and alter by its heat and influence. Now whence can it be that such convictions should stick so fast in the minds of those who would fain pull out those pier••ing arrows, but that there is a greater power in them then they are mnsters of, and they cannot stand against the force whereby they come upon them; nor find any salve to cure the wounds which are made within them, but by those weapons which were the causes of them? And therefore when wicked persons under conflicts of consci∣ence, cannot ease themselves by direct Atheism, or finding reasons to cast off such convictions by discerning any invalidi∣ty in the Testimony whereon the truth of these things de∣pends, it is a certain argument that there is abundant truth in that Testimony, when men would fain perswade themselves to believe the contrary, and yet cannot.

5. The truth of this consent appears, from the unanimity of it among those persons who have yet strangely differed from each other in many controversies in Religion. We see thereby this unanimity is no forced or designed thing, because we see

the persons agreeing in this, do very much disagree from each other in other things. And the same grounds and reasons whereon they disagree as to other things, would have held as to these too, were there not greater evidence of the cer∣tainty of these things then of those they fall out about. It hath not yet become a question among those who differ so much about the sense of Scripture, whether the Scripture its self be the Word of God, although the very accounts on which we are to believe it to be so, hath been the subject of no mean Controversies. All the divided parts of the Christi∣an world do yet fully agree in the matters of fact, viz. that there was such a person as Iesus Christ, and that he did many great miracles, that he dyed on the Cross at Jerusalem, and rose again from the dead; now these contain the great foun∣dations of Christian faith; and therefore the multitude of other controversies in the world ought to be so far from weak∣ning our faith, as to the truth of the doctrine of Christ (which men of weak judgements and Atheistical spirits pre••end) that it ought to be a strong confirmation of it, when we see persons which so peevishly quarrel with each other about some inferiour and less weighty parts of Religion, do yet unanimously consent in the principal foundations of Christian faith, and such whereon the necessity of faith and obedience, as the way to salvation, doth more immediately depend. And this may be one great reason why the infinitely wise God may suffer such lamentable contentions and divisions to be in the Christian world, that thereby inquisitive persons may see that if Religion had been a meer design of some few politick persons, the quarrelsom world (where it is not held in by force) would never have consented so long in the owning such common principles which all the other controversies are built upon. And although it be continually seen that in divided parties, one is apt to run from any thing which is received by the other, and men generally think they can never run far enough from them whose errours they have discovered, that yet this principle hath not carryed any considerable party of the Christian world (out of their indignation against those great corruptions which have crept into the world under a pretence of Religion) to the disowning the foundation of

Christian Faith, must be ••artly imputed to the signal hand of divine providence, and partly to those strong ••vidences which there are of the truth of that Testimony which conveyes to u•• the foundations of Christian Faith. Thus we see now, how great and uncontrouled this consent is, as to the matters of fact delivered down from the eye-witnesses of them, con∣cerning the actions and miracles of our blessed Saviour (which are contained in the Scriptures as authentical re∣cords of them) and what a sure foundation there is for a firm assent to the truth of the things from so universal and uninterrupted a tradition.

Thus far we have now manifested the necessity of the mi∣racles * 1.423 of Christ, in order to the propagation of Christianity in the world, from the consideration of the persons who were to propagate it in the world; the next thing we are to con∣sid••r, is, the admirable success which the Gospel met with in the world upon its being preached to it: Of wh••ch no rational ac∣count can be given, unless the actions and miracles of our Saviour were most undoubtedly true. That the Gospel of Christ had very strange and wonderful success upon its first preaching, hath been partly discovered already, and is withall so plain from the long continuance of it in these Eu∣ropean parts, that none any wayes conversant in the history of former ages, can have any ground to question it. But that this strange and admirable success of the doctrine of Christ should be an evidence of the Truth of it, and the miracles wrought in confirmation of it, will appear from these two considerations. 1. That the doctrine its self was so directly contrary to the general inclinations of the world. 2. That the propagation of it was so much opposed by all world∣ly power.

1. That the doctrine its self was so opposite to the general inclinations of the world. The doctrine may be considered either as to its credenda, or matters of faith, or as to its agenda, or matters of life and practice; both these were con∣trary to the inclinations of the world; the former seemed hard and incredible, the latter harsh and impossible.

1. The matters of faith which were to be believed by the world, were not such things which we may imagine the

vulgar sort of men would be very forward to run after, nor very greedy to imbrace. 1. Because contrary to the principles of their education, and the Religion they were brought up in * 1.424 the generality of mankind is very tenacious of those principles and prejudices which are sucked in in the time of Infancy. There are some Religions one would think it were impossible that any rational men should believe them, but only on this account because they are bred up under them. It is a very great advantage any Religion hath against another, that it comes to speak first, and thereby insinuates such an appre∣hension of its self to the mind, that it is very hard removing it afterwards. The understanding seems to be of the nature of those things which are communis juris, and therefore primi sunt possidentis; when an opinion hath once got pos∣session of the mind, it usually keeps out whatever comes to disturb it. Now we cannot otherwise conceive but all those persons who had been bred up under Paganism and the most gross Idolatry, must needs have a very potent prejudice against such a doctrine which was wholly irreconcileable with that Religion which they had been devoted to. Now the stronger the prejudice is which is conveyed into mens minds by the force of education, the greater strength and power must there needs be in the Gospel of Christ, which did so ea∣sily demolish these strong holds, and captivate the understand∣ings of men to the obedience of Christ. To which purpose Arnobius excellently speaks in these words to the Heathens; Sed non creditis gesta haec. Sed qui ea conspicati sunt fieri & sub oculis suis viderunt agi, testes optimi certissimique aucto∣res, * 1.425 & crediderunt haec ipsi, & credenda posteris nobis haud exi∣libus cum approbationibus tradiderunt. Quinam isti fortasse quaeritis? gentes, populi, nationes, & incredulum illud genus humanum. Quod nisi aperta res esset, & luce ipsa quemad∣modum dicitur clarior, nunquam rebus hujusmodi credulitatis suae commodarent assensum. An nunquid dicemus illius tem∣poris homines usque adeò fuisse vanos, mendaces, stolidos, bru∣tos, ut quae nunquam viderant vidisse se fingerent? & quae facta omninò non erant falsis proderent testimoniis aut puerili assertione sirmarent? Cumque possent vobiscum & unanimiter vivere, & inoffensas ducere conjunctiones, gratuita susciperent

odia & execrabili haberentur in nomine? Quod si falsa ut dicit is historia illa rerum est, unde tam brevi tempore totus mundus ista religione complet us est? Aut in unam coire qui potuërunt mentem gentes regionibus dissi••••ae, ventis coelique con∣vexionibus dimotae? Asseverationibus illectae sunt nudis, in∣ductae in spes cassas, & in pericula capitis immittere se sponte temeraria desperatione voluërunt, cum nihil tale vidissent quod eas in hos cult us novitatis suae possit excitare miraculo. Imo quia haec omnia ab ipso cernebant geri & ab ejus praeconi∣bus qui per orbem totum missi beneficia patris & munera sa∣nandis animis hominibusque portabant, veritatis ipsius vi victae, & dedërunt se Deo, nec in magnis posuëre despendiis membra vobis projicere, & viscera sua lanianda praebere. The sub∣stance of whose discourse is, that it is impossible to suppose so many persons of so many Nations to be so far besotted and infatuated, as not only to believe a Religion to be true which was contrary to that they were educated in, but to venture their lives as well as estates upon it, had it not been discover∣ed to them in a most certain and infallible way by such who had been eye-witnesses of the actions and miracles of Christ and his Apostles. And as he elsewhere speaks, Vel haec saltem * 1.426 fidem vobis faciant argumenta credendi quod jam peromnes terras in tam brevi tempore & parvo immensi nominis hujus sacramenta diffusa sunt; quod nulla jam natio est tam barbari moris, & mansuetudinem nesciens, quae non ejus amore versa molliverit asperitatem suam, & in placidos sensus assumpt â tranquillitate migraverit; quod tam magnis ingeniis praediti Oratores, Grammatici, Rhetores, Consulti juris ac Medici, Philosophiae etiam secreta rimantes, magisteria haec expetunt, spretis quibus paulò ante sidebant, &c. Will not this perswade the world what firm foundations the faith of Christans stands on, when in so short a time it is spread over all parts of the world? that by it the most inhumane and barbarous Nations are softned into more then civility? That men of the great∣est wits and parts, Orators, Grammarians, Rhetoricians, Law∣yers, Physitians, Philosophers, who not? have for saken then former sentiments, and adhered to the doctrine of Christ. Now, I say, if the power of education be so strong upon the minds of men to perswade them of the truth of the Religion

they are bred up under (which Atheistically disposed per∣sons make so much advantage of) this is so far from weak∣ning the truth of Christianity, that it proves a great con∣firmation of it, because it obtained so much upon its first Preaching in the world, notwithstanding the highest pre∣judices from education were against it. If then men be so prone to believe that to be most true which they have been educated under, it must argue a more then ordinary evidence and power in that religion which unsettles so much the prin∣ciples of education, as to make men not only question the truth of them but to renounce them, and embrace a religion contrary to them.

Especially when we withall consider what strong-holds these principles of education were backed with among the * 1.427 Heathens, when the doctrine of Christ was first divulged among them, i. e. what plausible pretences they had of con∣tinuing in the religion which they were brought up in, and why they should not exchange it for Christianity; and those were.

1. The pretended antiquity of their religion above the Chri∣stian; the main thing pleaded against the Christians was * 1.428 divortium ab institutis majorum, that they thought them∣selves wiser then their fore-fathers; and Symmachus, Liba∣nius and others plead this most in behalf of Paganisme; ser∣vanda est tot seculis fides, & sequendi sunt nobis parentes qui secuti sunt feliciter suos; their religion pleaded prescription against any other, and they were resolved to sollow the steps of their ancestors wherein they thought themselves happy and secure. Caecilius in Minutius Felix first argues much against dogmatizing in religion, but withall sayes it * 1.429 most becomes a lover of truth, majorum excipere disciplinam, religiones tradit as colere, Deos quos à parentibus ante imbutus es timere; nec de numinibus ferre sententiam sed prioribus credere. So Arnobius tells us the main thing objected against * 1.430 the Christians was novellam esse religionem nostram, & ante dies natam propemodum paucos, n••que vos potuisse antiquam & patriam linquere, & in barbaros ritus peregrinosque tra∣duci. And Cotta in Tully long before, laid this down as the main principle of Pagan religion, majoribus nostris etiam nulla * 1.431

ratione reddita credere, to believe the tradition of our Fathers although there be no evidence in reason for it: And after he hath discovered the vanity of the Stoical arguments about religion, concludes with this as the only thing he resolved his religion into, mihi unum satis erit, majores nostros it a tra∣didisse, It is enough for me that it comes by tradition from our fore-fathers. Lactantius fully sets forth the manner of * 1.432 pleading used by the Heathens against the Christians in the point of antiquity. Hae sunt religiones, quas sibi à majoribus suis traditas, pertinacissime tueri ac defendere persiverant; nec considerant quales sint, sed ex hoc probat as atque veras esse confidunt, quod eas veteres tradider••nt; tantaque est auctoritas vetustatis, ut inquircre in eam scelus esse dicatur. The English is, they accounted tradition infallible, and knew no other way whereby to find the truth of religion but by its conveyance from their fore-fathers. How like herein do they speak to those who contend for the corruptions crept in∣to the Christian Church? who make use of the same pre∣tences for them; viz. that they were delivered down from the Fathers; tantaque est auctoritas vetustatis, ut inquirere in eam scelus esse dicatur; who are we who will see further then Antiquity? But it is no wonder if Antiquity be accom∣panied with dimness of sight; and so it was undoubtedly as to the Pagan world, and as to the Christian too, when such a mixture of Heathenism came into it. And the very same arguments by which the pleaders for Christianity did justifie the truth of their religion, notwithstanding this pretended antiquity, will with equal force hold for a reformation of such inveterate abuses which under a pretence of antiquity have crept into the Christian Church. Nullus pudor est ad * 1.433 meliora transire, saith Ambrose in his answer to Symmachus, what shame is it to grow better? Quid facies? saith Lactan∣tius, majores ne potius an rationem sequeris? Sirationem ma∣vis, * 1.434 discedere te necesse est ab institutis & auctoritate ma∣jorum: quoniam id solum rectum est, quod ratio praescribit. Sin autem ••ietas majores sequi suadet: sateris igitur & stul∣tos illos esse qui excogitatis contra rationem religionibus ser∣vierint; & te ineptum qui id colas quod falsum esse conviceris. Where reason and meer authority of forefathers stand in

competition, he is more a child then a man that knows not on which side to give his suffrage. But with the greatest strength and clearest reason Arnobius speaks in this case. * 1.435 Itaque cum nobis intenditis aversionem à religione priorum, causam convenit ut inspiciat is, non sactum, nec quid relique∣rimus opponere, sed secuti quid simus potissimum contueri. When you charge us, saith he, that we are revolted from the religion of our forefathers, you ought not presently to condemn the fact but to examine the reasons of it; neither ought you so much to look at what we have left, as what it is we have em∣braced. Nam simutare sententiam culpa est ulla vel crimen, & i veteribus institutis in alias res novas voluntatesque migrare, criminatio ista & vos spectat, qui totics vitam con∣suetudinem que mutastis; qui in mores alios, atque alios ritus priorum condemnatione transistis. If meer departing from the religion of our ancestors be the great sault, all those who own themselves to be Christians, were themselves guilty of it when they revolted from Heathenism. If it be here said that the case is different, because there was sufficient reason for it, which there is not as to the corruptions of the Christi∣an Church; if so, then all the dispute is taken off from the matter of fact, or the revolt, to the causes inducing to it; and if the Protestant be not able as to the causes of our separation from Rome to manifest that they were sufficient, let him then be triumphed over by the Romanist, and not before. I affert then and that with much assurance of mind, that the principles of the Reformation are justifiable upon the same grounds of reason, which the embracing Christianity was, when men of Heathens became Christians; and that the arguments made use of by the Romanists against our separa∣tion from them, are such as would have justified a Pagan Philosopher in not embracing Christianity. For if it be un∣lawful for any party of men to divide from others in a matter of religion which pretends antiquity and universality, it had been unlawful for a Philosopher to have deserted Paganism, as well as for a Protest••nt to depart from Rome. For accord∣ing to the principles of the Romanists, the judgement in the cause of the separation and of the truth of religion lies in that party from which we depart; if we do now but apply this to

the old Roman Senate or Emperors in the case of Christian religion and dividing from Heathen worship, we shall quickly see how easie a matter it will be to make Christianity its self a Schism, and the doctrine of Christ the greatest here sie. But as strong as those pretences were then, or have been since, the power of the doctrine of Christ hath been so great, as to conquer them, and thereby to manifest that it was of God, when such potent prejudices were not able to withstand it. Of which Antiquity is the first.

2. The large and universal spread of Pagan religion, when Christianity came into the world; there was never so great Catholicism as in Heathen worship, when the Apostles first appeared in the Gentile world. Inde adeo per universa im∣peria, provincias, oppida, videmus singulos sacrorum ritus * 1.436 gentiles babere, & Dcos colere municipes, saith Caecilius in Minutius Felix. The great charge against the Christians was Novellism, that they brought in a strange and unheard of religion. The common Question was, Where was your religion before Iesus of Nazareth, as it hath been since, Where was your religion before Luther? and the same answer which served then, will stand unmovable now, there where no other religion is, in the Word of God. For this was the weapon whereby the Primitive Christians defended themselves against the assaults of Paganism, and the evidences they brought that the doctrine preached by them and contained in the Scriptures was originally from God, were the only means of overthrowing Paganism, notwithstanding its pre∣tended universality.

3. Settlement by Laws of Heathen worship. This was so much pretended and pleaded for, that as far as we can finde by the history of the Primitive Church, the pretence on which the Christians suffered, was sedition and opposing the established Laws. The Christians were reckoned inter illicitas factiones, as appears by Tertullian, among unlawful corporations; the * 1.437 Politicians and Statesmen were all for preserving the Laws; they troubled not themselves much about any religion; but only that which was settled by Law, they sought to uphold, because the acting contrary to it might bring some disturbance to the civil state. There were several Laws

which the Christians were then brought under, and con∣demned for the breach of. 1. The Law against hetaeriae, or conventicles as they were pleased frequently to stile the meeting of Christians together; thence the places where the Christians assembled for worship, were commonly called Con∣venticula; * 1.438 it a appellabant loca, saith Heraldus, ubi congre∣gabantur Christiani oraturi, & verbi divini interpretationem accepturi, ac sacras Synaxes habituri: but Elmenhorstius more shortly; Conventicula loca sunt ubi Christiani Con∣gregati orare consucverunt. The places where the Christians did meet and pray together, were called Conventicles: in Basi∣••ica Siciunini ubi ritus Christiani est conventiculum, saith * 1.439 Ammianus Marccllinus; cur immaniter conventicula dirui? saith Arnobius; qui universum populum cum ipso pariter conventiculo concremavit, as Lactantius likewise speaks. Now * 1.440 the reason of the name was, because the Heathens judged these assemblies of Christians to be Illegal Societies. For which we are to understand that in the time of the Roman Emperours when they grew suspicious of their own safety, they severely prohibited ail those Sodalitia, or Societies and Colledges, which were very much in use in the Roman Commonwealth, in imitation of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Cities of Greece. These were such societies of persons, which volun∣tarily confederated together either for some particular design, or for preserving Love and Friendship among each other, and thence had their frequent meetings in common together. Now the more numerous these were, and the more ••losely they confederated, the more jealous eye the Roman Emperors had upon them, because of some clandestine designs, which they suspected might be carried on for disturbance of the publike peace in such suspitious meetings. Thence came out many particular edicts of the Emperours against all such kinds of societies.

Now when the Christians began to be somewhat nume∣rous, and had according to the principles of their Religion frequent Assemblies for Divine worship, and did confederate together by such Symbols, of being washed with water, and eating and drinking together (which was all the Heath••ns apprehended by their use of baptism, and the Lords Supper)

the Proconsuls and other Magistrates in their several Pro∣vinces bring the Christians under these Edicts, and so puni∣shed them for the breach of the Laws. Which as appears by Pliny his Epistle to Trajan, was the only account on which * 1.441 the wiser Heathens did proceed against the Christians; for we see he troubled not himself much about the truth and evidence of Christian Religion, but such persons were brought before him, and after he had interrogated them whether they were Christians, or no, several times, if they persisted, he then punished them not so much for their Religion, as for their obstinacy and contempt of authority. For so much is im••lyed in those words of his, Neque enim dubitabam, qual••∣cunque esset quod faterentur, pervicaciam certè, & inflexi∣bilem obstin••tionem debere puniri: that whatever their Reli∣gion was, their obstinacy and disobedience deserved punishment. That which the Christians now pleaded for themselves, why they should not be reckoned among the factions of the people, was that which they gave in answer to Pliny, that all their fault was, Quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem; seque sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, nelatrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fal∣lerent, ne depositum appellati abnegarent. That they were wont upon their solemn days to meet together for divine wor∣ship, and to Covenant with each other only for the practice of those things which were as much for the good of mankinde as their own, viz. that they would not wrong and defraud others, as to their bodies or estates. And Tertullian approves of the Law against factions, as de providentia & modestia publica, nè civitas in partes seinderetur, as wisely intended to pre∣vent * 1.442 Seditions; but withall pleads, that the society of Chri∣stians could not be reckoned inter illicitas factiones; for, saith he, haec coitio Christianorum merito sane illicita si illi∣citis par; merito damnanda si quis de ea queritur eo titulo quo de factionibus querela est. In cujus perniciem aliquando convenimus? Hoc sumus congregati quod & dispersi; hoc universi quod & singuli; neminem laedentes, neminem contri∣stantes; quum probi, quum boni coëunt, quum pii quum casti congregantur, non est factio dicenda sed curia. If, saith he,

the societies of Christians were like others, there might be some reason to condemn them, under the head of factions: but as long as we meet together for no mans injury, that whether divi∣ded, or assembled, we are still the same, that we grieve and injure no body; when such a company of good men meet together, it is rather a Council then a faction.

2. Another Law the Christians were brought under, was, that against Innovations in Religion; thence it was laid so much to the charge of the Christians, that they did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, go contrary to the established Laws; as Porphyrie said of Origen, because he was a Christian, he did, * 1.443 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and when he speaks of Ammo∣nius revolting from Christianity to Paganism, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he turned to the way of life, which was agreeable to the established Laws. Now Christia∣nity was every where looked on as a great Innovation, inso∣much that the Christians were accused to be legum, morum, * 1.444 naturae inimici, as enemies to mankinde as well as the Laws, because they drew men off from that way of Religion which mankinde had generally agreed in. Thence Aemilianus the * 1.445 Praefect of Aegypt, when he bids the Christians return to Paganism, he useth these expressions, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. to return to the common sense of mankinde, and to forget what was so much against it, as he supposed Christianity to be. When Paul preach∣ed at Athens, his first accusation was, that he was a prea••her of strange Deities, because he preached to them Iesus, and the resurrection. And Demctrius at Ephesus knew no such po∣tent * 1.446 argument against Paul, as that his Religion destroyed the worship of Diana, whom all Asia and the world worship. * 1.447 So that the primitive Christians were then accounted the Antipodes to the whole world, on which account they were so severely dealt with; most Commonwealths observing the counsell of Mecaenas to Augustus, in Dio, to be sure to have a watchfull eye upon all Innovations in Religion, be∣cause they tend so much to the disturbance of the Civil State.

3. The Law of Sacriledge. Thence Lactantius calls their Laws, Constitutiones Sacrilegae, Quin etiam sceleratissimi

homicidae contra pios jura impia condiderunt; nam & consti∣tutiones * 1.448 Sacrilegae, & disputationes Iurisperitorum leguntur injustae; and as he tels us, Domitius Ulpianus had collected all those Rescripta nefaria together, which concerned the Christians; from hence it was, Christianity by Pliny, is cal∣led amentia, by Tacitus exitiabilis superstitio, by Suet••nius * 1.449 Superstitio nova & exitiabilis; so much did these three great men agree, in condemning the best Religion in the world for madness, and new, and detestable Superstition; the ground of the great pique was, the emnity declared by Christians against the Idolatrous Temples, and worship of the Hea∣thens.

4. The Law against Treason; for sometimes they pro∣ceeded so high, as to accuse the Christians laesae Majestatis, and thence they are commonly called publici hostes, enemies to all civil Government. Which they infer'd from hence: * 1.450 1. Because they would not sacrifice for the Emperors safety; Ideo committimus, saith Tertullian, in Majestatem Impera∣torum, * 1.451 quia illos non subjicimus rebus suis; Quia non ludi∣mus de officio salutis eorum, qui eam non putamus in manibus esse plumbatis. The accusation for treason lay in their refu∣sing to supplicate the Idols for the Emperors welfare. 2. Be∣cause they would not swear by the Emperors Genius. Thence * 1.452 Saturnius said to the Martyr, Tantum jura per genium Cae∣saris nostri, if he would but swear by the Genius of Caesar, he should be saved. Yet though they refused to swear by the Emperours genius, they did not refuse to testifie their Allegiance, and to swear by the Emperors safety. Sed & ju∣ramus, saith Tertullian, Sicut non per genios Caesarum, it ae * 1.453 per salutem corum quae est augustior omnibus geniis. 3. Be∣cause they would not worship the Emperours as Gods; which was then grown a common custom. Non enim Deum Impe∣ratorem dicam, vel quia mentirinescio, vel quia illum deri∣dere non audeo, vel quia necipse se Deum volet dici si homo sit, as the same Author speaks. Nay the primitive Christians * 1.454 were very scrupulous of calling the Emperours Dominus, hoc enim Dei est cognomen, because the name Lord was an attribute of Gods, and applied as his name to him in Scri∣pture. The reason of this Scrupulosity was not, from any

question they made of the Soveraignty of Princes, or their obligation to obedience to them (which they are very free in the acknowledgement of) but from a jealousie and just su∣spicion that something of Divine honour might be implyed in it, when the adoration of Princes was grown a custom. Therefore Tertullian to prevent misunderstandings, saith, Dicam plane Imperatorem Dominum, sed more Communi, sed * 1.455 quando non cogor ut Dominum Dei vice dicam. They refused not the name in a common sense, but as it implyed Divine honour.

4. Because they would not observe the publick festivals of the Emperors in the way that others did, which it seems were observed with abundance of looseness and debauchery by all sorts of persons; and as Tertullian smartly sayes, malorum * 1.456 morum licentia piet as erit; & occasio luxuriae religio deputa∣bitur? Debauchery is accounted a piece of loyalty, and in∣temperance a part of religion. Which made the Christians rather hazard the reputation of their loyalty, then bear a part in so much rudeness as was then used, and thence they abhorred all the solemn spectacles of the Romans; nihil est nobis, saith the same author, dictu, visu, auditu, cum insania Circi, cum impudicitia Theatri, cum atrocitate arenae, cum * 1.457 Xysti vanitate. They had nothing to do either with the mad∣ness of the Cirque, or the immodesty of the Theatre, or the cruelty of the Amphitheatre, or the vanity of the publick wrestlings. We see then what a hard Province the Christi∣ans had, when so many Laws were laid as birdlime in their way to catch them, that it was impossible for them to profess themselves Christians and not run into a Praemunire by their Laws. And therefore it cannot be conceived that ma∣ny out of affectation of novelty should then declare them∣selves Christians, when so great hazards were run upon the professing of it. Few soft-spirited men, and lovers of their own ease, but would have found some fine distinctions and nice evasions to have reconciled themselves to the publick Laws by such things which the Primitive Christians so unaenimously refused, when tending to prophaness or Idola∣try. And from this discourse we cannot but conclude with the Apostle Paul, that the weapons whereby the Ap••stles and

Primitive Christians encountered the Heathen world, were not * 1.458 fleshly or weak, but exceeding strong and powerfull, in that they obtained so great a conquest over the imaginations and carnal reasonings of men (which were their strong holds they secured themselves in) as to make them readily to forsake their Heathen worship, and become chearful servants to Christ. Thus we see the power of the doctrine of Christ which prevailed over the principles of education, though backt with pretended antiquity, universality, and establish∣ment by civil Laws.

But this will further appear if we consider that not only the matters of faith were contrary to the principles of edu∣cation, * 1.459 but because many of them seemed incredible to mens natural reason; that we cannot think persons would be over forward to believe such things. Every one being so ready to take any advantage against a religion which did so little flatter corrupt nature either as to its power or capacity; in so much that those who preached this doctrine, declared openly to the world, that such persons who would judge of the Christian doctrine, by such principles which meer natural reason did proceed upon (such one I suppose it is whom the Apostle calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one that owned nothing but * 1.460 natural reason whereby to judge of Divine truths) could not entertain matters of faith or of Divine revelation, because such things would seem but folly to him that owned no higher principle then Philosophy, or that did not believe any Divine inspiration; neither can such a one know them, because a Divine revelation is the only way to come to a through understanding of them: and a person who doth not believe such a Divine revelation, it is impossible he should be a com∣petent judge of the truth of the doctrine of Christ. So that the only ground of receiving the doctrine of the Gospel is upon a Divine revelation, that God himself by his Son and his Apostles hath revealed these deep mysteries to the world, on which account it is we are bound to receive them, although they go beyond our reach and comprehension. But we see generally in the Heathen world how few of those did believe the doctrine of Christ in comparison, who were the great admirers of the Philosophy and way of learning which

was then cryed up: the reason was, because Christianity not only contained far deeper mysteries then any they were ac∣quainted with, but delivered them in such a way of authority, commanding them to believe the doctrine they preached on the account of the Divine authority of the revealers of it. Such a way of proposal of doctrines to the world the Philoso∣phy of the Greeks was unacquainted with, which on that account they derided as not being suited to the exact method which their sciences proceeded in. No doubt had the Apo∣stles come among the Greeks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with a great deal of pomp and ostentation, and had fed mens curiositi••s with vain and unnecessary speculations, they might have had as many followers among the Greeks for their sakes, as Christ had among the Iews for the sake of the loaves. But the matters of the Gospel being more of inward worth and mo∣ment, then of outward pomp and shew, the vain and empty Greeks presently finde a quarrel with the manner of proposing them; that they came not in a way of clear demonstr••tion, but stood so much upon faith as soon as it were delivered. Thence Celsus and Galen think they have reason enough to reject the Laws of Moses and Christ, because Celsus calls them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Galen Christianity 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, * 1.461 that they were such doctrines which require faith and obedi∣ence without giving mens reason an account of the things commanded. As though the authority of a Legislator suffi∣ciently manifested, were not enough to enforce a Law, unless a sufficient account were given of the thing required to the purblind reason of every individual person acted by passions and private interests, as to the justice and equity of it. And so the primary obligation on mans part to faith and obedience, must arise not from the evidence of Divine authority, but of the thing it self which is revealed, to the most partial judge∣ment of every one to whom it is proposed. Which those who know how short the stock of reason is at the best in men, and how easily that which is, is fashioned and moulded according to pr••judices and interests already entertained, will look upon only as a design to comply with the carnal desires of men, in that thereby none shall be bound to go any further, then this blind and corrupted guide shall lead them. Now these

being the terms on which the Gospel of Christ must have expected entertainment in the Gentile world, how impossible l••ad it been ever to have sound any success among men, had there not been sufficient evidence given by a power of mira∣cles, that however strange and incredible the doctrine might seem, yet it was to be believed because there was sufficient means to convince men that it was of Divine revelation.

Neither were the matters of saith only contrary to the * 1.462 inclinations of the world, but so were the precepts of life or those things in Christianity which concerned practice. There are two things which are the main scope and design of Chri∣stianity in reference to mens lives, to take them off from their sins, and from the world; and of all things these are they which mens hearts are so bewitched with. Now the precepts of the Gospel are such which require the greatest * 1.463 purity of heart and life, which call upon men to deny them∣selves, and all ungodliness, and worldly lusts, and to live sober∣ly, and righteously, and godly in this present world; that, all that name the name of Christ must depart from iniquity; that, * 1.464 all true Christians must be cleansed from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, and must perfect holiness in the fear of God. And the Gospel enforceth these precepts of holiness with the most terrible denunciations of the wrath of God on those who disobey them; that, the Lord Iesus Christ shall be revealed from * 1.465 heaven with his mighty Angels in flaming fire taking venge∣ance on them that know not God and that obey not the Gospel of Iesus Christ. That, the wrath of God is revealed from hea∣ven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who * 1.466 hold the truth in unrighteousness. That, no persons who live in the habitual practice of any known sin, shall inherit the * 1.467 Kingdom of God. That, no man should deceive them with vain words, for because of these things comes the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience; that men do but vainly flatter themselves when they seek to reconcile unholy lives with the hopes of future happiness; for without holiness, no man shall see the Lord. And then in reference to the things * 1.468 of this present life which men busie themselves so much about, the Gospel declares that, they who love this world, the love of the Father is not in them; that, the friendship of this world * 1.469

is enmity with God; and whosoever will be a friend of the * 1.470 world, is an enemy to God: That, Christians must not set their affections on earth, but on things in heaven; That, the conver∣sation of true Christians is in heaven. That, we ought not to lay up our treasure on earth, but in heaven; That, we must not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. Now the whole design of the doctrine of Christ being to perswade men to lead a holy and heavenly life while they are in this world, and thereby to be made meet to be partakers of the inheritance with the Saints in * 1.471 light, can we think so many men whose hearts were wedded to sin and the world, could so suddenly be brought off from both without a divine power accompanying that doctrine which was preached to them? And therefore the Apostle saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I am not ashamed * 1.472 of the Gospel of Christ; i. e. though the Gospel of Christ be the only true mysterie, yet I do not by it as the Heathens are wont to do with their famous Eleusinian mysteries which were kept so secret by all the mystae and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but, saith he, I know no reason I have to be ashamed of any thing in the Gospel, that I should labour its concealment to advance its ve∣neration; but the more publike the Gospel is, the more it manifests its power; for through it God is pleased mightily to work in order to the salvation both of Iew and Gentile. And of all the success of the Gospel, that upon the hearts and lives of men deserves the greatest consideration.

The great efficacy and power of the Gospel was abundantly seen in that great alteration which it wrought in all those who were the hearty imbracers of it. The Philosophers did very frequently and deservedly complain of the great ineffi∣cacy of all their moral precepts upon the minds of men, and that by all their instructions, politiora non meliora, ingenia fiunt, men improved more in knowledge then goodness; but now Christianity not only enforced duties on men with great∣er power and authority: For the Scriptures do, as Saint Austin speaks, Non tanquam ex Philosophorum concertationi∣bus strepere, sed tanquam ex oraculis & Dei nubibus intonare, * 1.473 not make some obstreperous clamours, like those tinkling

Cymbals the Philosophers, but awe the souls of men with the majesty of that God from whom they came. Neither was it only a great and empty sound which was heard in the preach∣ing of the Gospel, but when God thundred therein, he broke down the stately Cedars, and shook the Wilderness, and made the Hinds to Calve, (as it is said of Thunder, called the voice * 1.474 of the Lord in Scripture) he humbled the pride of men, unsettled the Gentile world from its former foundations, and wrought great alterations on all those who hearkened to it. The whose design of the Gospel is couched in those words which Saint Paul tells us were spoken to him by Christ him∣self, when he appointed him to be an Apostle, to open mens * 1.475 eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which were sanctified by faith in Christ. And the efficacy of this doctrine in order to these great ••nds, was abundantly seen in the preaching of that Apostle, who was so instrumental in converting the world to piety and sobriety, as well as to the doctrine of Christ. What strange persons were the Corinthians before they became Christians! for when the Apostle had enumerated many of the vilest persons of the world, he presently adds, And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but * 1.476 ye are justified in the name of the Lord Iesus, and by the spirit of our God. The more dangerous the distemper is, the more malignant its nature, the more inveterate its continuance, the greater the efficacy of the remedy which works a cure of it. The power of grace is the more seen in conversion, the greater the sins have been before it. It is an easie matter in comparison, to remove a disease at its first onset, of what it is to cure it when it becomes Chronical. The power of the Go∣spel wrought upon all sorts and kinds of persons, to manifest to the world there was no distemper of mens souls so great, but there was a possibility of a remedy for it; and not only so, but pregnant and visible instances were given of the power and efficacy of it. For they themselves shew of us, saith the Apostle, what manner of entring in we had among you, and how ye turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true * 1.477 God, and to wait for his son from heaven, whom he raised

from the dead, even Iesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come. Now that which manifests the exceeding great power and excellency of the Gospel, was, that it not only turned men from one way of worship to another, which is a matter of no great difficulty, but that it turned men together with that, from their lusts and sensuality, to a holy and unblame∣able life. For being more in love with their sins then with their opinions, it must needs be a greater power which draws men from the practice of habitual sins, then that which only makes them change their opinions, or alter the way of worship they were brought up in. This is that which Origen through∣out his books against Celsus triumphs in as the most signal evidence of a divine power in the doctrine of Christ, that it wrought so great an alteration on all that truly embraced it, that of vitious, debauched, and dissolute, it made them temperate, sober and religious. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. * 1.478 The doctrine of Christ did convert the most wicked persons who imbraced it, from all their debauche∣ries, to a life most suitable to nature and reason, and to the practise of all vertues. Therefore certainly the Gospel could not want that commendation among all ingenuous Moralists, that it was the most excellent instrument in the world to re∣form the lives of men, and to promote real goodness in it. When they could not but take notice of so many persons con∣tinually so brought off from their follies and vain conversati∣ons, to a life serious, sober, and unblameable; nay and some of the Christians were of so much integrity and goodness, that their greatest enemies were forced to say that their only fault was that they were Christians. Bonus vir Cajus Sejus, tantum quod Christianus. A very good man, only a Christian. But one would think this should have made them have a higher opinion of Christianity, when it did so suddenly make so many good men in the world. Especially when this power was so manifest on such persons who were supposed uncapable of being reformed by Philosophy, young, illiterate, and mean-spirited persons; therefore it may be justly supposed that it was not by the strength of their own reason that this alte∣ration was wrought within them, but by that Divine power

which was able to tame the most unruly, to instruct the most ignorant, to raise up the most sordid persons to such a gener∣ous temper as to slight the good things of this life, in compa∣rison with those to come. And so remarkable was the diffe∣rence of life then between those who were Christians, and those who were not, (as there is still between true Christi∣ans and meer pretenders) that Origen dares Celsus to com∣pare them in point of morality with any other Societies in the world. * 1.479 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; For the Churches of God, which are discipled to Christ, being compared with other Societies, shine among them like lights in the world. For who can but confess, that even the worser part of the Christian Churches exceeds the best of the popular Assemblies? For, as he goes on, the Church of God which is at Athens, that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, very quiet and peaceable, because it seeks to approve its sels to God; but the popular Assemby at Athens that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, seditious and quarrelsom, and in nothing com∣parable to the Church of God there. So it is, if we compare the Churches of Corinth and Alexandria with the Assemblies of the people there. So that any candid enquirer after truth will exceedingly wonder (how such fair Islands should appear nantes in gurgite vasto, in the midst of such a Sea of wicked∣ness as was in those Cities) how these Churches of God should be planted in such rude and prophane places. So the same Au∣thor goes on, to compare the Churches Senate with that of the Cities, the Churches Officers with theirs, and appeals to themselves, that even those among them who were most luke-warm in their office, did yet far exceed all the City Ma∣gistrates in all manner of vertues. From whence he rational∣ly concludes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; If these things be so, how can it but be most rational to adore the Divinity of Iesus, who was able to accom∣plish such great things. And that not upon one or two, but upon such great multitudes as were then converted to the

Christian faith. We read of one Phoedon, and one Polemon brought from their debaucheries by Socrates and Xenocrates; but what are these compared with those who were turned from their sins to God by the Gospel of Christ! 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, * 1.480 &c. The twelve Apostles were but the first fruits of that plen∣tiful harvest of converts which followed afterwards. And al∣though Celsus (like an Epicurean) seems to deny the pos∣sibility * 1.481 of any such thing as conversion, because customary sins become a second nature, that no punishments can reform them; Yet, saith Origen, herein he not only contradicts us Christians, but all such as were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who owned any ge∣nerous principles of Philosophy, and did not despair of reco∣vering vertue, as a thing feasible by humane nature; and gives instances ad hominem, to prove the possibility of the thing from the antient Heroes, Hercules and Ulysses, from the two Philosophers, Socrates and Musonius, and the two famous converts to Philosophy, Phoedon and Polemon. But yet, saith he, these are not so much to be wondered at, that the eloquence and reason of the Philosophers should prevail on some very few persons, but that the mean and contemptible language of the Apostles, should convert such multitudes from intemperance to sobriety, from injustice to fair dealing, from cowardise to the highest constancy, yea so great as to lay down their lives for the sake of vertue; how can we but admire so divine a power as was seen in it? And therefore, saith he, we conclude, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That it is so far from being im∣possible, that it is not at all difficult for corrupt nature to be changed by the Word of God. Lactantius excellently manifests that Philosophy could never do so much good in the world as * 1.482 Christianity did, because that was not suited at all to common capacities, and did require so much skill in the Arts to pre∣pare men for it, which it is impossible all should be well skilled in, which yet are as capable of being happy, as any others are. And how inefficacious the precepts of Philosophy were, appears by the Philosophers themselves, who were far from

having command by them over their masterless passions, and were fain sometimes to confess that nature was too head∣strong to be kept in by such weak reins as the Precepts of Phi∣losophy were: But, saith he, what great command divine pre∣cepts have upon the souls of men, daily experience shews. Da mihi virum qui sit iracundus, maledicus, effrenatus; * 1.483 paucissimis Dei verbis, tam placidum quam ovem reddam. Da cupidum, avarum, tenacem; jam tibi eum liberalem dabo, & pecuniam suam plenis manibus largientem. Da timidum doloris ac mortis; jam cruces, & ignes, taurum contemnet. Da libidinosum, adulterum; ganeonem; jam sobrium castum ••ontinentem videbis. Da crudelem, & sanguinis appetentem, jam in veram clementiam furor ille mutabitur. Da injustum, insipientem, peccatorem, continuo & aequus & prudens, & innocens crit. In which words that elegant writer doth by a Rhetorical Scheme set out the remarkable alteration which was in any who became true Christians, that although they were passionate, covetous, fearful, lustful, cruel, unjust, vitious, yet upon their being Christians, they became mild, liberal, couragious, temperate, merciful, just and unblame∣able; which never any were brought to by meer Philosophy, which rather teacheth the art of concealing vices, then of healing them. But now when Christianity was so effectual in the cure of those distempers which Philosophy gave over as beyond its skill and power, when it cured them with so great success, and that not in a Paracelsian way, for them to relapse afterwards with greater violence, but it did so throughly un∣settle the fomes morbi, that it should never gather to so great a head again; doth not this argue a power more then Philo∣sophical, and that could be no less then divine power which tended so much to reform the world, and to promote true goodness in it?

Thus we have considered the contrariety of the doctrine * 1.484 of Christ to mens natural inclinations, and yet the strange success it had in the world, which in the last place will appear yet more strange, when we add the almost continual opposi∣tion it met with from worldly power and policy. Had it been possible for a cunningly devised fable, or any meer contrivance of impostors to have prevailed in the world, when the most

potent and subtile persons bent their whole wits and designs for suppressing it? Whatever it were in others, we are sure of some of the Roman Emperours, as Iulian and Dioclesian, that it was their master-design to root out and abolish Christi∣anity; and was it only the subtilty of the Christians which made these persons give over their work in despair of accom∣plishing it? If the Christians were such subtile men, whence came all their enemies to agree in one common calumny, that they were a company of poor, weak, ignorant, inconsiderable men! and if they were so, how came it to pass that by all their power and wisdom they could never exterminate these persons, but as they cut them down, they grew up the faster, and multiplyed by their substraction of them! There was something then certainly peculiar in Christianity, from all other doctrines, that it not only was not advanced by any civil power, but it got ground by the opposition it met with in the world. And therefore it is an observable circumstance, that the first Christian Emperour (who acted as Emperour for Christianity) viz. Constantine (for otherwise I know what may be said for Philippus) did not appear in the world till Christianity had spread its self over most parts of the habitable world. God thereby letting us see, that though the civil power, when become Christian, might be very useful for protecting Christianity, yet that he stood in no need at all of it as to the propagation of it abroad in the world. But we see it was quite otherwise in that Religion which had Mars its ascendant, viz. Mahometism; For like Paracelsus his Daemon, it alwayes sat upon the pummel of the sword, and made its way in the world meerly by force and violence; and as its first constitution had much of blood in it, so by it hath it been fed and nourished ever since. But it was quite other∣wise with the Christian Religion; it never thrived better then in the most barren places, nor triumphed more, then when it suffered most; nor spread its self further then when it en∣countered the greatest opposition. Because therein was seen the great force and efficacy of the doctrine of Christ, that it bore up mens spirits under the greatest miseries of life, and made them with chearfulness to undergo the most exquisite torments which the cruelty of Tyrants could invent. The

Stoicks and Epicureans boasts that their wise man would be happy in the Bull of Phalaris, were but empty and Thra∣sonical words which none would venture the truth of by an experiment upon themselves. It was the Christian alone, and not the Epicurean, that could truly say in the midst of torments, Suave est & nihil curo, and might justly alter a little of that common saying of the Christians, and say, Non magna l••quimur, sed patimur, as well as vivimus; the Christians did not speak great things, but do and suffer them. And this gained not only great r••putation of integrity to themselves, but much advanced the honour of their Religion in the world, when it was so apparently seen that no force or power was able to withstand it. Will not this at least per∣swade you that our Religion is true, and srom God, saith Ar∣••••bius? Quod cum genera poenarum tanta sint à vobis propo∣sita * 1.485 Religionis hujus sequentibus leges, augeatur res magis, & contra omnes minas, atque interdicta formidinum animosius populus obnitatur, & ad credendi studium prohibitionis ipsius stimulis ••xcitetur?—Itane istud non divi∣num & sacrum est, aut sine Deo, corum tantas animorum ficri conversiones ut cum carnisices unci, aliique innumeri cruciatus, quemadmodum diximus, impendeant credituris, v••luti quadam dulcedine, atque omnium virtutum amore cor∣repti, cognitas accipiant rationes, atque mundi omnibus rebus praeponant amicitias Christi? That no fears, penalties, or torments, were able to m••ke a Christian alter his profession, but he would rather bid adi••u to his life then to his Saviour. This Origen likewise frequently takes notice of, when Celsus * 1.486 had objected the novelty of Christianity; the more wonderful it is (saith Origen) that in so short a time it should so largely spread its self in the world; for if the cure of mens bodies be not wrought without Divine Providence, how much less the cure of so many thousands of souls which have been converted at once to humanity and Christianity, especially when all the pow••rs of the world were from the first engaged to hinder the progress of this doctrine, and yet notwithstanding all this opposition, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Word of God pr••vail∣ed, as not being able to be stopt by men, and became master over all its enemies, and not only spread its self quite through Greece, but through a great part of the world besides, and converted an innumerable company of souls to the true worship and service of God. Thus we have now manifested from all the circumstances of the propagation of the doctrine of Christ, what evidence there was of a divine power accompanying of it; and how useful the first miracles were in order to it.

CHAP. X. The difference of true miracles from false.

The unreasonableness of rejecting the evidence from miracles, because of impostures. That there are certain rules of di∣stinguishing true miracles from false, and Divine from dia∣bolical, proved from Gods intention in giving a power of mi∣racles, and the providence of God in the world. The incon∣venience of taking away the rational grounds of faith and placing it on self-evidence. Of the self-evidence of the Scriptures, and the insufficiency of that for resolving the question about the authority of the Scriptures. Of the pre∣tended miracles of Impostors and false Christs, as Barcho∣chelas David el-David and others. The rules whereby to judge true miracles from false. 1. True Divine miracles are wrought to confirm a Divine testimony. No miracles necessary for the certain conveyance of a Divine testimony: proved from the evidences that the Scriptures could not be corrupted. 2. No miracles Divine which contradict Di∣vine revelation. Of Popish miracles. 3. Divine miracles leave Divine effects on those who believe them. Of the mi∣racles of Simon Magus. 4. Divine miracles tend to the overthrow of the devils power in the world: the antipathy of the doctrine of Christ to the devils designs in the world. 5. The distinction of true miracles from others, from the circumstances and manner of their operation. The miracles of Christ compared with those of the Heathen Gods. 6. God makes it evident to all impartial judgements that Divine miracles exceed created power. This manifested from the unparalleld miracles of Moses and our Saviour. From all which the rational evidence of Divine revelation is mani∣fested, as to the persons whom God imployes to teach the world.

HAving thus far stated the cases wherein miracles may * 1.487 justly be expected as a rational evidence of Divine au∣thority in the persons whom God imployes by way of peculiar

message to the world, and in the prosecution of this discourse manifested the evidences of Divine authority in Moses and the Prophets, and in our Saviour and his Apostles; the only remaining question concerning this subject is, how we may certainly distinguish true and real miracles from such as are only pretended and counterfeit. For it being as evident that there have been impostures and delusions in the world as real miracles, the minds of men will be wholly to seek when to rely upon the evidence of miracles as an argument of Divine authority in those persons who do them, unless a way be found out to distinguish them from each other. But if we can make it appear, that, unless men through weakness of judgement or incogitancy deceive themselves, they may have certain evidence of the truth of miracles, then there can be nothing wanting as to the establishment of their minds in the truth of that doctrine which is confirmed by them. There hath been nothing which hath made men of better affections then understandings, so ready to suspect the strength of the evidence from miracles concerning Divine testimony, as the multitude of impostures in the world under the name of mira∣cles, and that the Scripture its self tells us we must not hear∣ken to such as come with lying wonders. But may we not therefore safely rely on such miracles which we have certain evidence could not be wrought but by Divine power, because forsooth the Devil may sometimes abuse the ignorance and credulity of unwary men? or is it because the Scripture for∣bids us to believe such as should come with a pretence of miracles, therefore we cannot rely on the miracles of Christ himself? which is as much as to say, because the Scripture tells us that we must not believe every spirit, therefore we must believe none at all; or because we must not entertain any other doctrine besides the Gospel, therefore we have no reason to believe that. For the ground whereby we are assured by the Scriptures that the testimony of Christ was Divine, and therefore his doctrine true, is, because it was confirmed by such miracles as he did; now if that argument were insufficient which the Scriptures tell us was the great evidence of Christs being sent from God, we cannot give our selves a sufficient account in point of evidence on which we believe the doctrine

of the Gospel to be true and Divine. But the only rational pretence of any scruple in this case must be a supposed uncer∣tainty in our rules of judging concerning the nature of mi∣racles; for if there be no certain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or notes of difference, whereby to know Divine miracles from delusions of senses and the impostures of the Devil, I must confess that there is an apparent insufficiency in the evidence from miracles; but if there be any certain rules of proceeding in this case, we are to blame nothing but our incredulity if we be not satis∣fied by them. For the full clearing of this, I shall first make it appear that there may be certain evidence found out, whereby we may know true miracles from false, and Divine from diabo∣lical. And, Secondly, Enquire into those things which are the main notes of difference between them. First, That there may be certain evidence whereby to know the truth of miracles. I speak not of the difference ex parte r••i between miracles and those called wonders, as that the one exceed the power of created agents, and the other doth not; for this leaves the enquirer as far to seek for satisfaction as ever; for granting that a Divine power is seen in one and not in the other, he must needs be still dissatisfied, unless it can be made evident to him that such things are from Divine power, and others cannot be. Now the main distinction being placed here in the natures of the things abstractly considered, and not as they bear any evidence to our understandings, in stead of resolving doubts it increaseth more; for, as for instance, in the case of the Magicians rods turning into scrpents, as well as Moses his; what satisfaction could this yeild to any spe∣ctator to tell him, that in the one there was a Divine power and not in the other, unless it were made appear by some evidence from the thing, that the one was a meer imposture, and the other a real alteration in the thing it self? I take it then for granted, that no general discourses concerning the formal difference of miracles and wonders considered in them∣selves can afford any rational satisfaction to an inquisitive mind; that which alone is able to give it, must be something which may be discerned by any judicious and considerative person. And that God never gives to any a power of mira∣cles, but he gives some such ground of satisfaction con∣cerning

them, will appear upon these two considera∣tions.

1. From Gods intention in giving to any this power of doing miracles. We have largely made it manifest that the end of true miracles is to be a confirmation to the world of the Di∣vine commission of the persons who have it, and that the testimony is Divine which is confirmed by it. Now if there be no way to know when miracles are true or false, this power is to no purpose at all; for men are as much to seek for satisfaction, as if there had been no such things at all. There∣fore if men are bound to believe a Divine testimony, and to rely on the miracles wrought by the persons bringing it, as an evidence of it, they must have some assurance that these miracles could not come from any but a Divine power.

2. From the providence of God in the world; which if we own, we cannot imagine that God should permit the Devil, whose only design is to ruine mankind, to abuse the credulity of the world so far, as to have his lying wonders pass uncon∣trouled, which they must do, if nothing can be found out as a certain difference between such things as are only of Dia∣bolical and such as are of Divine power. If then it may be discovered that there is a malignant spirit which acts in the world, and doth produce strange things, either we must im∣pute all strange things to him, which must be to attribute to him an infinite power, or else that there is a being infinitely perfect which crosseth this malignant spirit in his designs; and if so, we cannot imagine he should suffer him to usurpe so much tyranny over the minds of men, as to make those things pass in the more sober and inquisitive part of the world for Divine miracles which were only counterfeits and impostures. If then the providence of God be so deeply engaged in the discovering the designs of Satan, there must be some means of this discovery, and that means can be supposed to be no other in this case, but some rational and satisfactory evidence, whereby we may know when strange and miraculous things are done by Satan to deceive men, and when by a Divine power to confirm a Divine testimony.

But how is it possible, say some, that miracles should be * 1.488

any ground on which to believe a testimony Divine, when Christ himself hath told us, that there shall arise false Christs and false Prophets and shall shew great signs and wonders; in * 1.489 so much that if it were possible they should deceive the very elect? and the Apostle tells us, that the coming of Antichrist will be with all power and signs and lying wonders. How then can * 1.490 we fix on miracles as an evidence of Divine testimony when we see they are common to good and bad men, and may seal indifferently either truth or falshood? To this I reply;

1. Men are guilty of doing no small disservice to the do∣ctrine of Christ, when upon such weak and frivolous pretences they give so great an advantage to infidelity, as to call in question the validity of that which yeilded so ample a testi∣mony to the truth of Christian religion. For if once the rational grounds on which we believe the doctrine of Christ to be true and Divine, be taken away, and the whole evidence of the truth of it be laid on things not only derided by men of Atheistical spirits, but in themselves such as cannot be discerned or judged of by any but themselves, upon what grounds can we proceed to convince an unbeliever that the doctrine which we believe is true! If they tell him, that as light and fire manifest themselves, so doth the doctrine of the Scri••ture to those who believe it; It will be soon replyed, that self-evidence in a matter of faith can imply nothing but either a firm perswasion of the mind concerning the thing propounded; or else that there are such clear evidences in the thing it self, that none who freely use their reason can deny it; the first can be no argument to any other person any further then the authority of the person who declares it to have such self-evidence to him, doth extend its self over the mind of the other; and to ones self it seems a strange way of arguing, I believe the Scriptures because they are true, and they are true because I believe them; for self-evidence implyes so much, if by it be meant the perswasion of the mind that the thing is true; but if by self-evidence be further meant such clear evidence in the matter propounded that all who do con∣sider it, must believe it; I then further enquire whether this evidence doth lie in the n••ked proposal of the things to the understanding; and if so, then every one who assents to this

proposition that the whole is greater then the part, must likewise assent to this, that the Scripture is the Word of God; or whe∣ther doth the evidence lie, not in the naked proposal, but in the efficacy of the Spirit of God on the minds of those to whom it is propounded. Then, 1. The self-evidence is taken off from the written Word which was the object, and removed to a quite different thing which is the efficient cause. 2. Whether then any persons who want this efficacious opera∣tion of the Spirit of God, are or can be bound to believe the Scripture to be Gods Word? If they are bound, the duty must be propounded in such a way as may be sufficient to convince them that it is their duty; but if all the evidence of the truth of the Scripture lie on this testimony of the Spirit, then such as want this, can have none at all. But if ••astly, by this self-evidence be meant such an impress of Gods authority on the Scriptures that any who consider them as they ought, cannot but discern, I still further enquire, whether this impress lies in the positive assertions in Scripture that they are from God, and that cannot be unless it be made appear to be impossible that any writing should pretend to be from God when it is not; or else in the written books of Scripture, and then let it be made appear that any one meerly by the evi∣dence of the writings themselves without any further argu∣ments can pronounce the Proverbs to be the Word of God, and not the book of Wisdom; and Ecclesiastes to be Divinely inspired and not Ecclesiasticus: or else the self-evidence must be in the excellency of the matters which are revealed in Scripture; but this still falls very short of resolving wholly the question whether the Scripture be the Word of God; for the utmost that this can reach to is, that the things contained in Scripture are of so high and excellent a nature, that we cannot conceive that any other should be the author of them, but God himself; all which being granted, I am as far to seek as ever what grounds I have to believe that those particular writings which we call the Scripture are the Word of God, or that God did immediately imploy such and such persons to write such and such books; for I may believe the substance of the doctrine to be of God, and yet not believe the books where∣in it is contained, to be a Divine and infallible testimony; as

is evident in the many excellent devotional books which are in the world.

But yet further, if the only ground on which we are to believe a doctrine Divine, be the self-evidencing light and power of it, then I suppose there was the same ground of beli••ving a Divine testimony when the doctrine was declared without writing by the first Preachers of it. So that by this method of proceeding, the ground of believing Christ to be sent as the M••ssias sent from God, must be wholly and solely resolved into this, that there was so much self-evidence in this proposition uttered by Christ, I am the light of the world, that all the Iews had been bound to have believed him sent from God (for light manifests its self) although our Saviour had never done any one miracle to make it appear that he came from God. And we cannot but charge our Saviour on this account with being at a very unnecessary expence upon the world in doing so many miracles, when the bare naked affirmation that he was the Messias, had been sufficient to have convinced the whole world. But is it conceivable then upon what account our Saviour should lay so much force on the miracles done by himself in order to the proving his testimony to be Divine, that he saith himself, that he had a greater witness then that of John (who yet doubtless had * 1.491 self-evidencing light going along with his doctrine too) for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me. Can any thing be more plain, or have greater self∣evidence in it, then that our Saviour in these words doth lay the evidence of his Divine testimony upon the miracles which he wrought, which on that account he so often appeals to, on this very reason because they bear witness of him; and if * 1.492 they would not believe him on his own testimony, yet they ought to believe him for his works sake. Doth all this now amount only to a removing of prejudices from the person of Christ? which yet according to the tenour of the objection we are considering of, it is impossible the power of miracles should do, if these miracles may be so far done or counterfeited by false Christs, that we can have no certain evidence to distin∣guish the one from the other,

Which the objection pretends; and was the great thing * 1.493 wherein Celsus the Epicurean triumphed so much, that Christ should foretell that others should come and do miracles * 1.494 which they must not hearken to, and thence would infer as from Christs own confession that miracles have in them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, no∣thing divine, but what may be done by wicked men: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Is it not a wretched thing, saith he, that from the same works one should be accounted a God, and others deceivers? Whereby those who would invalidate the argument from miracles, may take notice how finely they fall in with one of the most bitter enemies of Christian religion, and make use of the same arguments which he did; and therefore Origens reply to him, will reach them too. For, saith he, our Saviour in those words of his doth not bid men beware in general of such as did miracles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but bids them beware of that when men gave themselves out to be the true Christ the Son of God, and endeavour to draw Christs Disciples from him, by some meer appearances in stead of miracles. Therefore Christ being evidently made appear to be the Son of God, by the powerful and uncontrouled mi∣racles which he wrought, what pretence of reason could there be to hearken to any who gave themselves out to be Christs, meerly from some strange wonders which they wrought? And from hence, as he further observes, may be justly inferd contrary to what Celsus imagined, that there was certainly an evidence of Divine power in miracles, when these false Christs gave themselves out to be Christs, meerly from the supposal that they had this power of doing miracles. And so it is evident in all the false Christs which have ap∣peared, they have made this their great pretence that they did many signs and wonders; which God might justly permit them to do, to punish the great infidelity of the Iews who would not believe in Christ notwithstanding those frequent and apparent miracles which he did, which did infinitely transcend those of any such pretenders. Such among the Iews were Ionathas, who after the d••struction of Jerusalem,

as Iosephus tells us, drew many of the people into the Wilder∣ness of Cyrene, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, pro∣mising to shew them many prodigies and strange appearances. Not long after in the times of Adrian, appeared that famous blazing-star Barchochebas, who not only portended but brought so much mischief upon the Iews; his pretence was that he vomited flames, and so he did, such as consumed himself and his followers; after him many other Impostors arose in Aegypt, Cyprus and Crete, who all went upon the same pretence of doing Miracles. In latter times the famous impostor was David el-David, whose story is thus briefly reported by David Ganz. David el-David pretended to be the true Messias, and rebelled against * 1.495 the King of Persia, and did many signs and prodigies before the Iews and the King of Persia: at last his head was cut off, and the Iews fined an hundred talents of Gold; in the Epistle of Rambam or R. Moses Maimon. It is said, that the King of Persia desired of him a sign, and he told him, that he should cut off his head and he would rise again; (which he cunningly desired to avoid, being tormented) which the King was re∣solved to try, and accordingly executed him; but I suppose his resurrection and Mahomets will be both in a day, although Maimonides tells us, some of the Iews are yet such fools as to expect his resurrection. Several other Impostors Maimonides * 1.496 mentions in his Epistle de Australi regione. One who pre∣tended to be the Messias because he cured himself of the leprosie in a night; several others he mentions in Spain, France, and other parts, and the issue of them all was only a further aggravation of the miseries and captivities of the poor Iews, who were so credulous in following Impostors, and yet such strange Infidels where there were plain and undoubted miracles to perswade them to believe in our bles∣sed Saviour as the true Messias. We freely grant then that many pretended miracles may be done in the world to de∣ceive men with; but doth it hence follow that either there are no true miracles done in the world, or that there are no certain rules to distinguish the one from the other? But as Origen yet further replyes to Celsus, as a Woolf doth very much resemble a dog, yet they are not of the same kind; nor

a turtle Dove and a Pigeon; so that which is produced by a divine power, is not of the same nature with that which is produced by Magick; but as he argues, Is it possible that there should be only deceits in the world, and magical operations; and can there be no true miracles at all wrought? Is humane nature only capable of Impostures, or can none work miracles but Devils? Where there is a worse, there may be a better; and so from the impostures & counterfeits, we may inferr that there are true miracles, wrought by a divine power; otherwise it were all one as to say, there are counterfeits, but no Iewels; or there are Sophisms and Paralogisms, but no l••gitimate demonstrations; if then there be such deceits, there are true miracl••s too; all the business is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, strictly and severely to examine the pret••nders to do them, and that from the life and manners of those that do them, and from the eff••cts and consequents of them, wheth••r they do good or hurt in the world, wh••ther th••y correct mens manners, or bring men to goodness, holin••ss and truth; and on this account we are neither to reject all miracles, nor embrace all pret••nces, but carefully and prudently examine the rational evidences whereby those which are true and divine, may be known from such which are counterfeit and Diabolical.

And this now leads us to the main subj••ct of this Chapter, * 1.497 viz. What rules we have to ••roceed by, in judging miracles to be true or false; which may be these following.

True Divine miracles are wrought in confirmation of some * 1.498 Divine T••stimony. Because we have manifested by all the precedent discourse, that the intention of miracles is to seal some divine revelation. Therefore if God should work miracles when no divine T••stimony is to be confirmed, God would set the broad Seal of heaven to a blank. If it be said no, because it will witness to us now the truth of that Testimo∣ny which was delivered so many ages since. I answer, 1. The truth of that Testimony was sufficiently sealed at the time of the delivery of it, and is conveyed down in a certain way to us. Is it not sufficient that the Chart••r of a Corporation had the Princes broad Seal in the time of the giving of it, but that every succ••ssion of men in that Corporation must have a new broad Seal, or else they ought to question their Patent?

What ground can there be for that, when the original Seal and Patent is preserved, and is certainly conveyed down from age to age? So I say it is as to us, Gods Grand Charter of Grace and Mercy to the world through Iesus Christ, was sealed by divine miracles at the delivery of it to the world; the original Patent, viz. the Scriptures, wherein this Charter is contained, is conveyed in a most certain manner to us; to this Patent the Seal is annexed, and in it are contained those undoubted miracles which were wrought in confirmation of it, so that a new sealing of this Patent is wholly needless, unless we had some cause of suspicion that the original Pa∣tent it self were lost, or the first sealing was not true. If the latt••r, then Christian Religion is not true, if the miracles wrought for confirmation of it were false, because the truth of it depends so much on the verity and Divinity of the miracles which were then wrought. If the first be suspected, viz. the certain conveyance of the Patent, viz. the Scri∣ptures, some certain grounds of such a suspicion must be dis∣covered in a matter of so great moment, especially when the great and many Societies of the Christian world do all con∣sent unanimously in the contrary. Nay it is impossible that any rational man can conc••ive that the Patent which we now rely upon, is supposititious or corrupted in any of those things which are of concernment to the Christian world; and that on these accounts.

1. From the watchfulness of Divine provid••nce for the good of mankind. Can we conceive that there is a God who rules and takes care of the world, and who to manifest his signal Love to mankind, should not only grant a Patent of Mercy to the world by his son Christ, and then sealed it by divine miracles, and in order to the certain conveyance of it to the world, caused it by persons imployed by himself to be record∣••d in a language fittest for its dispersing up and down the world (all which I here suppose) Can we I say conceive that this God should so far have cast off his care of the world and the good of mankind, which was the original ground of the Grant it self, as to suffer any wicked men, or malignant spi∣rits to corrupt or alter any of those Terms in it, on which mens eternal salvation depends; much less wholly to suppress

and destroy it, and to send forth one that is counterfeit and supposititious instead of it, and which should not be disco∣vered by the Christians of that age wherein that corrupt Copy was set forth, nor by any of the most learned and in∣quisitive Christians ever since. They who can give any the least entertainment to so wild, absurd, and irrational an ima∣gination, are so far from reason, that they are in good dispo∣sition to Atheism; and next to the suspecting the Scriptures to be corrupted, they may rationally susp••ct there is no such thing as a God and providence in the world; or that the world is governed by a spirit most malignant and envious of the good of mankind. Which is a suspicion only becoming those Hea∣thens (among whom it was very frequent) who worshipped the devils instead of Gods.

2. Because of the general dispersion of Copies in the world upon the first publishing of them. We cannot otherwise co••∣ceive, but that records containing so weighty and important things, would be transcribed by all those Churches which be∣lieved the truth of the things contained in them. We see how far curiosity will carry men as to the care of transcribing antient MSS. of old Authors, which contain only some history of things past that are of no great concernment to us: Can we then imagine those who ventured estates and lives upon the truth of the things revealed in Scripture, would not be very careful to preserve the authentick instrument where∣by they are revealed in a certain way to the whole world? And besides this, for a long time the originals themselves of the Apostolical writings were preserved in the Church; which makes Tertullian in his time appeal to them. Age jam qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuae; * 1.499 percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quasipsae adhuc cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur, apud quas ipsae au∣thenticae corum literae recitantur, sonantes vocem, & represen∣tantes faciem uniuscujusque. Now how was it possible that in that time the Scriptures could be corrupted, when in some of the Churches the original writings of the Apostles were preserved in a continual succession of persons from the Apostles themselves; and from these originals so many Copies were transcribed, as were conveyed almost all the world over,

through the large spread of the Christian Churches at that time? and therefore it is impossible to conceive that a Copy should be corrupted in one Church, when it would so speedily be discovered by another; especially considering these three circumstances. 1. The innumerable multitude of Copies wh ch would speedily be taken, both considering the moment of the thing, and the easiness of doing it; God, probably for that very end, not loading the world with Pand••cts and Codes of his Laws, but contriving the whole instrument of mans salvation in so narrow a compass, that it might be easily pre∣served and transcribed by such who were passionate admirers of the Scriptures. 2. The great number of learned and in∣quisitive men who soon sprung up in the Christian Church; whose great care was to explain and vindicate the sacred Scriptures; can we then think that all these Watch-men should be asleep together when the ••vil one came to sow his Tares, which it is most unreasonable to imagine, when in the writings of all these learned men, which were very many and voluminous, so much of the Scripture was inserted, that had there been corruption in the Copies themselves, yet com∣paring them with those writings, the corruptions would be soon discovered? 3. The great ven••ration which all Christi∣ans had of the Scripture; that they placed the hopes of their eternal happiness, upon the truth of the things contained in the Scriptures: Can we then think these would suffer any material alteration to creep into these records without their observing and discovering it? Can we now think when all persons are so exceeding careful of their Deeds, and the Re∣cords whereon their estates depend, that the Christians who valued not this world in comparison of that to come, should suffer the Magna Charta of that to be lost, corrupted, or imbezzeled away? Especially considering what care and in∣dustry was used by many primitive Christians to compare Copies together, as is evident in Pantaenus, who brought the Hebrew Copy of Matthew out of the Indies to Alexan∣dria, as Eusebius tells us in Pamphilus, and the Li∣brary he errected at Caesar••a, but especially in Ori∣gens admirable Hexapla, which were mainly intended for this end.

3. It is impossible to conceive a corruption of the copy of the Scriptures; because of the great differences which were all along the several ages of the Church, between those who acknowledged the Scriptures to be Divine. So that if one party of them had foisted in or taken out any thing, another party was ready to take notice of it, and would be sure to tell the world of it. And this might be one great reason, why God in his wise providence might permit such an increase of heresies in the Infancy of the Church, viz. that thereby Christians might be forced to stand upon their guard, and to have a special eye to the Scriptures, which were alwayes the great eye-sores of hereticks. And from this great wari∣ness of the Church it was that some of the Epistles were so long abroad before they found general entertainment in all the Churches of Christ, because in those Epistles which were doubted for some t••me, there were some passages which seem∣ed to favour some of the heresies then abroad; but when upon severe enquiry they are found to be what they pretend∣ed, they were received in all the Christian Churches.

4. Because of the agreement between the Old T••stament and the New: the Prophesies of the Old Testament appear with their full accomplishment in the New which we have; so that it is impossible to think the New should be corrupted unless the old were too, which is most unreasonable to ima∣gine, when the Iews who have been the great conservators of the Old Testament, have been all along the most inveterate enemies of the Christians: So that we cannot at all conceive it possible that any material corruptions or alterations should creep into the Scriptures, much less that the true copy should be lost and a new one forged.

Supposing then that we have the same authentick records preserved and handed down to us by the care of all Chri∣stian * 1.500 Churches, which were written in the first ages of the Church of Christ: what necessity can we imagine that God should work new miracles to confirm that d••ctrine which is conveyed down in a certain uninterrupted way to us, as being se••led by miracles undoubtedly Divine in the first promulga∣tion and penning of it? And this is the first reason, why the truth of the Scriptures need not now be sealed by new

miracles. 2. Another, may be because God in the Scripture hath appointed other things to continue in his Church to be as seals to his people of the truth of the things contained in Scriptures. Such are outwardly, the Sacraments of the Gospel, baptism and the Lords Supper, which are set apart to be as seals to confirm the truth of the Covenant on Gods part towards us in reference to the great promises contained in it, in reference to pardon of sin, and the ground of our accep∣tance with God by Iesus Christ: and inwardly God hath pro∣mised his Spirit to be as a witness within them, that by its working and strengthning grace in the hearts of believers, it may confirm to them the truth of the records of Scripture when they finde the counter part of them written in their hearts by the singer of the Spirit of God. It cannot then be with any reason at all supposed, that when a Divine testimony is already confirmed by miracles undoubtedly Divine, that new miracles should be wrought in the Church to assure us of the truth of it. So Chrysostome fully expresseth himself con∣cerning miracles, speaking of the first ages of the Christian * 1.501 Church: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Miracles were very useful then and not at all useful now; for now we manifest the truth of what we speak from the Sacred Scriptures, and the miracles wrought in confirmation of them. Which that excellent author there fully manifests in a dis∣course on this subject, why miracles were necessary in the be∣ginning of the Christian Church, and are not now. To the same purpose St. Austin speaks where he discourseth of the truth of religion. Accepimus majores nostros visibilia mira∣cula secutos esse; * 1.502 per quos id actum est ut necessaria non essent posteris; because the world believed by the miracles which were wrought at the first preaching of the Gospel, therefore miracles are no longer necessary. For we cannot conceive how the world should be at first induced to believe without manifest and uncontrouled miracles. For as Chrysostome speaks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It was the greatest miracle of all, if the world should believe without miracles. Which the Poet Dantes hath well ex∣pressed in the twenty fourth Canto of Paradise. For when

the Apostle is there brought in, asking the Poet upon what account he took the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God; his answer is,

Probatio quae verum hoc mihi recludit, Sunt opera, quae secuta sunt, ad quae Natura Non candefecit ferrum unquam aut percussit incudem.

i. e. the evidence of that is the Divine power of miracles which was in those who delivered these things to the world. And when the Apostle catechiseth him further, how he knew those miracles were such as they pretend to be, viz. that they were true and Divine; his answer is,

Si orbis terrae sese convertit ad Christianismum, Inquiebam ego, sine miraculis: hoc unum Est tale, ut reliqua non sint ejus cente sima pars.

i. e. If the world should be converted to the Christian faith without miracles, this would be so great a miracle, that others were not to be compared with it. I conclude this then, with that known saying of St. Austin; Quisquis adhuc prodigia, ut credat, inquirit, magnum est ipse prodigium qui mundo cre∣dente * 1.503 non credit. He that seeks for miracles still to induce him to faith, when the world is converted to the Christian faith, he needs not seek for prodigies abroad; he wants only a looking glass to discover one. For as he goes on, unde temporibus erudit is & omne quod fieri non potest respuentibus, sine ullis miraculis nimium mirabiliter incredibiliter credidit mundus? whence came it to pass that in so learned and wary an age as that was which the Apostles preached in, the world without miracles should be brought to believe things so strangely in∣credible as those were which Christ and his Apostles preached? So that by this it appears that the intention of miracles was to confirm a Divine testimony to the world, and to make that appear credible which otherwise would have seemed incredi∣ble; but to what end now, when this Divine testimony is believed in the world, should miracles be continued among those who believe the doctrine to be Divine, the miracles

wrought for the confirmation of it to have been true, and the Scriptures which contain both, to be the undoubted Word of God? To what purpose then the huge outery of miracles in the Roman Church is, hard to conceive, unless it be to make it appear how ambitions that Church is of being called by the name of him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all de∣ceivableness * 1.504 of unrighteousness in them that perish, because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved. For had they received the Love of the Truth of the Gospel, they would have believed it on the account of those miracles and signs and wonders which were wrought for the confirma∣tion of it, by Christ and his Apostles; and not have gone about by their juglings and impostures in stead of bringing men to believe the Gospel, to make them question the truth of the first miracles when they see so many counterfeits; had we not great assurance the Apostles were men of other designs and interests then Popish Priests are, and that there is not now any such necessity of miracles, as there was then when a Divine testimony revealing the truth of Christian religion was confirmed by them?

Those miracles cannot be Divine, which are done now for * 1.505 the confirmation of any thing contrary to that Divine testimony, which is confirmed by uncontrouled Divine miracles. The case is not the same now which was before the coming of Christ; for then though the Law of Moses was confirmed by miracles; yet though the doctrine of Christ did null the obli∣gation of that Law, the miracles of Christ were to be looked on as Divine, because God did not intend the Ceremonial Law to be perpetual; and there were many Prophesies which could not have their accomplishment but under a new state: But now under the Gospel, God hath declared this to be the last revelation of his mind and will to the world by his Son, that now the Prophesies of the old Testament are accomplish∣ed, and the Prophesies of the New respect only the various conditions of the Christian Church, without any the least intimation of any further revelation of Gods mind and will to the world: So that now the Scriptures are our adaequate rule of faith, and that according to which we are to judge all

pretenders to inspiration or miracles. And according to this rule we are to proceed in any thing which is propounded to us to believe by any persons, upon any pretences whatsoever. Under the Law after the establishment of the Law its self by the miracles of Moses, the rule of judging all pretenders to miracles was by the worship of the true God. If there arise * 1.506 among you a Prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign, or a wonder, and the sign or the Wonder come to pass, whereof he spake to thee, saying, Let us go after other Gods (which thou hast not known) and let us serve them: thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that Prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul. Whereby it is plain that after the true doctrine is confirmed by Divine miracles, God may give the Devil or false Prophets power to work if not real miracles, yet such as men cannot judge by the things themselves whether they be real or no; and this God may do for the tryal of means faith, whether they will forsake the true doctrine confirmed by greater miracles for the sake of such doctrines which are con∣trary thereto, and are confirmed by false Prophets by signs and wonders. Now in this case our rule of tryal must not be so much the wonders considered in themselves, whether real or no, as the comparing them with the miracles which were wrought in confirmation of that doctrine, which is contrary to this which these wonders tend to the proving of. Therefore Gods people under the Law were to examine the scope and drift of the miracles; if they were intended to bring them to Idolatry, whatever they were, they were not to hearken to those who did them. So now under the Gospel, as the wor∣ship of the true God was then the standard whereby to judge of miracles by the Law of Moses, so the worship of the true God through Iesus Christ, and by the doctrine revealed by him, is the standard whereby we ought to judge of all pretenders to work miracles. So that let the miracles be what they will, if they contradict that doctrine which Christ revealed to the world, we are to look upon them as only tryals of our faith in Christ, to see whether we Love him with our whole hearts or no. And therefore I think it needless to examine all the

particulars of Lipsius his relations of miracles wrought by his Diva Virgo Hallensis and Asprecollis; for if I see, that their intention and scope is to set up the worship of Daemons, or a middle sort of Deities between God and us, which the Scripture is ignorant of, on that very account I am bound to reject them all. Although I think it very possible to find out the difference between true miracles and them in the manner and circumstances of their operation; but this, as it is of more curiosity, so of less necessity; for if the doctrine of the Scriptures was confirmed by miracles infinitely above these, I am bound to adhere to that, and not to believe any other doctrine though an Angel from heaven should preach it, much less, although some Popish Priests may boast much of mira∣cles to confirm a doctrine opposite to the Gospel: which I know not how far God may in judgement give those images power to work, or others faith to believe, because they would not receive the truth in the love of it: and these are now those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lying wonders which the Scripture fore∣warns * 1.507 us that we should not believe, viz. such as lead men to the belief of lyes, or of doctrines contrary to that of the Gospel of Iesus Christ.

Where miracles are true and Divine, there the effects which * 1.508 follow them upon the minds of those who believe them, are true and Divine, i. e. the effect of believing of them is, the draw∣ing of men from sin unto God. This the Primitive Christi∣ans insisted much upon, as an undoubted evidence that the miracles of Christ were wrought by a Divine power, because the effect which followed them, was the work of conversion of souls from sin and Idols to God and Christ, and all true piety and vertue. As the effect of the miracles of Moses was the drawing a people off from Superstition and Idolatry to the worship of the true God; so the effect which followed the belief of the miracles of Christ in the world was the purging mens souls from all sin and wickedness to make them new creatures, and to live in all exactness and holiness of conversation. And * 1.509 thereby Origen discovers the great difference between the miracles of Christ and Antichrist, that the intent of all Anti∣christs wonders was to bring men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the deceivableness of unrighteousness whereby to destroy them; but

the intent of the miracles of Christ was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not the deceiving but the saving of the souls. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; who can with any probability say that reforma∣tion of life and dayly progress from evil to good should be the effect of meer deceit? And therefore he saith, Christ told his Disciples that they should do greater works then he had done; because by their Preaching and miracles, the eyes of blind souls are opened, and the ears of such as were deaf to all goodness are opened so far as to hearken to the Precepts and Promises of the Gospel: and the feet of those who were lame in their inward man, are so healed as to delight to run in the way of Gods Com∣mandments. Now is it possible that these should be the effects of any evil spirit? But on the contrary we see the effects of all impostures and pretended miracles wrought by Diabolical power was to bring men off from God to sin, and to dissolve that strict obligation to duty which was laid upon men by the Gospel of Christ. Thus it was in that early ape of the Apostles, Simon Magus, who far out-went Apollonius Tyaneus or any other Heathen in his pretended miracles, ac∣cording to the report which is given of him by the Primitive Christians; but we see the intent of his miracles was to raise * 1.510 an admiration of himself, and to bring men off from all holi∣ness of conversation, by afferting among other damnable heresies, that God did not at all regard what men did, but only what they believed: wherein the Gnosticks were his followers. Now when miracles are wrought to be Patrons of sin, we may easily know from whom they come.

Those miracles are wrought by a Divine power which tend to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Satan in the world. This * 1.511 is evident from hence, because all such things as are out of mans power to effect, must either be done by a power Divine or Diabolical: For as our Saviour argues, Every Kingdom * 1.512 divided against its self is brought to desolation, and every City or house divided against its self cannot stand; and if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself: how shall then his Kingdom stand? Now Christ by his miracles did not only dispossess Satan out of mens bodyes, but out of his Temples too, as hath been shewn already. And besides the doctrine

of Christ which was confirmed by those miracles, was in every thing directly contrary to the Devils design in the world. For, 1. The Devils design was to conceal himself among those who worshipped him; the design of the Gospel was to discover him whom the Gentiles worshipped, to be an evil and malignant spirit, that designed nothing but their ruine. Now it appears in the whole history of Gentilism, the grand mystery of State which the Devil used among the Heathens, was to make himself to be ••••en and worshipp••d for God, and to make them believ•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••ns were very good and benigne spirits; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉••••••onists and other Philosopher•• ••o much 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against the Primiti•••• Christi∣ans, when th•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their Daemons to be nothing ••he but in••••••al and wicked spirits which sought the destruction of souls.

2. The Devils great design was to draw men to the practice of the greatest wickedness under a pretence of religion; as is very observable in all the Heathen mysteries, which the more recondite and hidden they were, the greater wickedness lay at the bottom of them, and so were to purpose mysteries of ini∣quity; but now the design of the Gospel was to promote the greatest purity both of heart and life; There being in no other religion in the world, either such incomparable Precepts of holiness, or such incouraging Promises to the practice of it (from eternal life hereafter as the reward, and the assistance of Gods spirit to help men here) or such prevailing motives to perswade men to it, from the love of God in Christ to the world, the undertakings of Christ for us in his death and sufferings, the excellent pattern we have to follow in our Sa∣viours own example; now these things make it plain that the design of Christ and the Devil are diametrically opposite to each other. 3. The design of the Devil is to set God and mankind at the greatest distance from each other; the design of Christ in the Gospel is to bring them nearer together. The Devil first tempts to sin, and then for sin; he makes men pre∣sume to sin, and to despair because they have sinned. Christ first keeps men from sin by his Precepts and threatnings, and then supposing sin encourageth them to repent with hopes of pardon procured by himself for all truly penitent and be∣lieving

sinners. Thus in every thing the design of Christ and the Devil are contrary, which makes it evident that the miracles wrought in confirmation of the doctrine of Christ could be from no evil spirit, and therefore must be from a truly Divine power.

True and Divine miracles may be known and distinguished from false and diabolical, from the circumstances, or the man∣ner * 1.513 of their operation. There were some peculiar signatures on the miracles of Christ which are not to be found in any wrought by a power less then Divine. Which Arnobius * 1.514 well expresseth in these words to the Heathens; Potestis aliquem nobis designare, monstrare ex omnibus illis Magis qui unquam fuere per secula, consimile aliquid Christo millesima ex parte qui fecerit? qui sine ulla vi car••••inum, sine herbarum aut graminum succis, sine ulla aliqua observatione sollicita sacrorum, libaminum, temporum?—Atqui constitit Chri∣stum sine ullis adminiculis rerum, sine ullius ritus observatione, vel lege, omnia illa quae fecit, nominis sui possibilitate fecisse, & quod proprium, consentaneum, Deo dignum fuerat vero, nihil nocens aut noxium, sed opiferum, sed salutare, sed auxiliari∣bus plenum bonis potestatis munificae liberalitate donasse? He challengeth the Heathens to produce any one of all their Magicians who did the thousand part of what our Saviour did: who made use of none of their Magical rites and observations in what ever he did; and what ever he did was meerly by his own power, and was withall most becoming God; and most beneficial to the world. And thence he pro∣ceeds to answer the Heathens about the miracles wrought by their Gods, which fell short of those of Christ in three main particulars, the manner of their working, and the number of them, and the quality of the things done.

1. The manner of their working; what they did was with a great deal of pomp and ceremony; what Christ did, was with a word speaking, and sometimes without it by the touch of his garment: non inquiro, non exigo, saith he, quis Deus, aut quo tempore, cui fuerit auxiliatus, aut quem fractum re∣stituerit sanitati; illud solum audire desidero, an sine ullius adjunctione materiae, i. e. medicaminis alicujus ad tactum morbos jusserit abhominibus evolare, imperaverit, fecerit, &

emori valetudinum causam, & debilium corpora ad suas remeare naturas. Omitting all other circumstances, name me, saith he, but which of your Gods ever cured a disease without any ad∣joyned matter, some prescriptions or other; or which of them ever commanded diseases out of bodies by their meer touch, and quite removed the cause of the distempers. Aesculapius, he sayes, cured diseases, but in the way that ordinary Physitians do by prescribing something, or other to be done by the pa∣tients. Nulla autem virtus est medicaminibus amovere quae noceant; beneficia ista rerum, non sunt curantium potestates. To cure diseases by prescriptions argues no power at all in the prescriber, but vertue in the Medicine.

2. In the number of the persons cured: they were very few which were cured in the Heathen Temples; Christ cured whole multitudes, and that not in the revestryes of the Temples where fraud and imposture might be easily suspect∣ed, but in the presence of the people who brought to him all manner of persons sick of all sorts of diseases which were cured by him; and these so numerous, that the Evangelist who records many of Christs miracles which had been omit∣ted by the others, yet tells us at last, the miracles of Christ were so many that the whole world would not contain them. But now Arnobius tells the Heathens, Quid prodest ostendere * 1.515 tinum aut alterum fortasse curatos, cum tot millibus sub∣venerit nemo, & plena sint omnia miserorum infeliciumque delubra? what matter is it to shew one or two cured, when thousands lie continually in the Temples perishing for want of cure? yea such as did Aesculapium ipsum precibus fatigare, & invitare miserrimis votis, that could not beg a cure of Aesculapius with all their earnestness and importunity.

3. In the quality of the diseases cured; the cures among the Heathens were some slight things in comparison of those performed by Christ; the most acute, the most Chronical, the most malignant of diseases cured by a touch, a word, a * 1.516 thought. A learned Physition hath undertaken to make it evident from the circumstances of the story, and from the received principles among the most authentick Physitians, that the diseases cured by our Saviour were all incurable by the rules of Physick; if so, the greater the power of our Saviour,

who cured them with so much facility as he did. And he not only cured all diseases himself, but gave a power to others, who were not at all versed in matters of art and subtilty, that they should do miracles likewise, sine fucis & adminiculis, without any fraud or assistance: quid dicitis ô mentes incredulae, difficiles, durae! alicuine mortalium Iupiter ille Capitolinus hujusmodi potestatem dedit? when did ever the great Iupiter Capitolinus ever give a power of working miracles to any; I do not say, saith he, of raising the dead, or curing the blind, or healing the lame, sed ut pustulam, re∣duviam, pupulam, aut vocis imperio aut manus contrectatione comprimeret: but to cure a wart, a pimple, any the most tri∣vial thing, with a word speaking or the touch of the hand. Upon this Arnobius challengeth the most famous of all the Heathen Magicians, Zoroastres, Armenius, Pamphilus, Apollonius, Damigero, Dardanus, Velus, Iulianus and Baebulus, or any other renowned Magician to give power to any one to make the dumb to speak, the deaf to hear, the blind to see; or bring life into a dead body. Or if this be too hard, with all their Magical rites and incantations but to do that, quod à rusticis Christianis jussienibus factitatum est nudis, which ordinary Christians do by their meer words: So great a difference was there between the highest that could be done by Magick, and the least that was done by the Name and Power of Christ.

Where miracles are truly Divine, God makes it evident to * 1.517 all impartial judgements that the things do exceed all created power. For which purpose we are to observe, that though impostures and delusions may go far, the power of Magicians further when God permits them; yet when God works mi∣racles to confirm a Divine Testimony he makes it evident that his power doth infinitely exceed them all. This is most con∣spicuous in the case of Moses and our blessed Saviour. First Moses, he began to do some-miracles in the presence of Pha∣raoh and the Aegyptians, turning his rod into a Serpent; but we do not finde Pharaoh at all amazed at it, but sends pre∣sently for the Magicians to do the same, who did it (whe∣ther really or only in appearance, is not material to our pur∣pose), but Aarons rod swallowed up theirs. The next time * 1.518

the waters are turned into blood by Moses, the Magicians they do so too. After this Moses brings up Frogs upon the Land, * 1.519 so do the Magicians. So that here now, is a plain and open contest in the presence of Pharaoh and his people, between * 1.520 Moses and the Magicians, and they try for victory over each other; so that if Moses do no more then they, they would look upon him but as a Magician; but if Moses do that which by the acknowledgement of these Magicians them∣selves could be only by Divine Power, then it is demonstrably evident that his power was as far above the power of Ma∣gick as God is above the Devil. Accordingly we finde it in the very next miracle in turning the dust into Ciniphes, (which we render) lice, the Magicians are non-plust, and give * 1.521 out saying in plain terms, This is the finger of God. And what greater acknowledgement can there be of Divine Power then the confession of those who seemed to contest with it, and to imitate it as much as possible? After this we finde not the Magicians offering to contest with Moses, and in the plague of boyles we particularly read that they could not stand before * 1.522 Moses. Thus we see in the case of Moses how evident it was that there was a power above all power of Magick which did appear in Moses. And so likewise in the case of our blessed Saviour; for although Simon Magus, Apollonius or others might do some small things, or make some great shew and noise by what they did; yet none of them ever came near the doing things of the same kind which our Savi∣our did, curing the born blind, restoring the dead to life after four dayes, and so as to live a considerable time after; or in the manner he did them, with a word, a touch, with that fre∣quency and openness before his greatest enemies as well as followers, and in such an uncontrouled manner, that neither Iews or Heathens ever questioned the truth of them. And after all these, when he was laid in the grave after his cru∣cifixion, exactly according to his own prediction, he rose again the third day, appeared frequently among his Disciples for forty dayes together. After which, in their presence, he ascended up to heaven, and soon after, made good his promise to them, by sending his holy Spirit upon them, by which they spake with tongues, wrought miracles, went up and down

Preaching the Gospel of Christ with great boldness, chear∣fulness, and constancy, and after undergoing a great deal of hardship in it, they sealed the truth of all they spake with their blood, laying down their lives to give witness to it. Thus abundantly to the satisfaction of the minds of all good men hath God given the highest rational evidence of the truth of the doctrine which he hath revealed to the world. And thus I have finished the second part of my task, which con∣cerned the rational evidence of the truth of Divine Revela∣tion from the persons who were imployed to deliver Gods mind to the world: And therein have, I hope, made it evi∣dent that both Moses and the Prophets, our Saviour and his Apostles did come with sufficient rational evidence to con∣vince the world that they were persons immediately sent from God.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Sect. 1.
• * 1.2

  Hyp. 1.
• * 1.3

  Sect. 2.
• * 1.4

  Josh. 24. 2.
• * 1.5

  Sect. 3. Hyp. 2.
• * 1.6

  1.
• * 1.7

  2.
• * 1.8

  3.
• * 1.9

  Sect. 4.
• * 1.10

  Sect. 5.
• * 1.11

  1.
• * 1.12

  2.
• * 1.13

  3.
• * 1.14

  Sect. 6.
• * 1.15

  Sect. 7.
• * 1.16

  C. App. l. 1. Bib. l. 1. Geog. 16. De sublim.
• * 1.17

  V. Vos. de Idol. l. 2. cap. 45.
• * 1.18

  V. Grot. An. deverit. rel. Christ. l. 2.
• * 1.19

  Sect. 1. Hyp. 3.
• * 1.20

  Heb. 11. 25 Act. 7. 22.
• * 1.21

  Sect. 2.
• * 1.22

  Conringius de Hermet. Medic. c. 10, 11, 12.
• * 1.23

  Sect. 3.
• * 1.24

  Saturn. l. 1. cap. 15. in Somn. Scip. l. 1. c. 19.
• * 1.25

  cap. 21.
• * 1.26

  Saturn. l. 1. cap. 14. l. ••. c. 13.
• * 1.27

  1 King. 4. 29, 30, 31.
• * 1.28

  De Magni∣tud. Rom. l. 1. c. 3.
• * 1.29

  Sect. 4.
• * 1.30

  Vid. Arist. Metaph. 1. l. c. 1.
• * 1.31

  Herod. l. 2.

  Diod. l. 1.

  Strab. l. 17.

  Coel. Rhodi. l. 18. c. 34.
• * 1.32

  Sect. 5.
• * 1.33

  Geogr. ••. 17.
• * 1.34

  De Isid. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Osir.
• * 1.35

  Lib. 1. ••
• * 1.36

  Not. ia Strab. l. 17.
• * 1.37

  Gen. •• 1. 45.
• * 1.38

  Strom. l. 5.
• * 1.39

  Herod. l. 2. Diod. l. 1. c. 71.
• * 1.40

  L. 1. c. App
• * 1.41

  Sect. 6. De vita Mosis.
• * 1.42

  Bibliothec. l. 2. p. 39.
• * 1.43

  Iambl. de vit. Pyth. l. 1. 29.

  De vit. Pyth. p. 182.
• * 1.44

  Geogr. l. 17.
• * 1.45

  Clem, Strom. l. 1 Euseb Prae∣par. l. 10. c. 2.

  ••iod. l. 1. c. 49, 50. Strab. l. 17.
• * 1.46

  Herod. l. 2.
• * 1.47

  Strom. l. 6. p. 631. Ed. Par
• * 1.48

  Natur. hist. lib. 19. c. 5. L. 29. c. 1.
• * 1.49

  Sect. 7.
• * 1.50

  Isa. 19. 11, 12.
• * 1.51

  Sect. 8.
• * 1.52

  Sect. 9.
• * 1.53

  Sect. 1.
• * 1.54

  Deut. 7. 7, 8.
• * 1.55

  Gen. 34. 25.

  Gen. 49. 5, 6, 7.
• * 1.56

  Sect. 2.
• * 1.57

  Sect. 3.
• * 1.58

  1.
• * 1.59

  Sect. 4.
• * 1.60

  Object.
• * 1.61

  Answ.
• * 1.62

  1.
• * 1.63

  2.
• * 1.64

  3
• * 1.65

  Sect. 5.
• * 1.66

  1.
• * 1.67

  2.
• * 1.68

  3.
• * 1.69

  Sect. 6.
• * 1.70

  Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3.
• * 1.71

  1.
• * 1.72

  2.
• * 1.73

  3.
• * 1.74

  Sect. 7.
• * 1.75

  Sect. 1.
• * 1.76

  V. Arabic. vers. & Calv. in loc. P. Fagium, P. Martyr. Loc. Com. Class. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 12. C. Celsum l. 1.
• * 1.77

  Deu. 18. 14.
• * 1.78

  Gen. 49. 7.
• * 1.79

  Josh. 21.
• * 1.80

  Abul. in Josh. 21. c. 7, & 8.

  V. Sherlog. Antiq. Hebr. l. 2. c. 3. s. 4.

  Masius in Josh. c. 14.
• * 1.81

  Lev. 10. 10. Deut. 3••. 10.
• * 1.82

  Mal. 2. 7.
• * 1.83

  Sect. 3.
• * 1.84

  1 Sam. 3. 1.
• * 1.85

  1 Sam. 9. 12, 13.
• * 1.86

  1 Sam. 7. 1.
• * 1.87

  V. J••••. in l.
• * 1.88

  1 Sam. 19. 18, 20.
• * 1.89

  1 Sam. 1. 1.
• * 1.90

  Exercit. Sacrae l. x. c. 2.
• * 1.91

  Philo de v. Mos. l. 3.
• * 1.92

  Sect. 4.
• * 1.93

  V. Manass. Ben. Israel. Concil. in Exod. 9. 35.
• * 1.94

  Jos. de b••ll. Jud. l. 6. c. 6.

  Pineda de rebus Sol. l. 3. c. 28.
• * 1.95

  Sect ••
• * 1.96

  V. G. ••or. in M••im fun∣dam. leg. c. 7. Sect. 1.

  Mr. Smith of Prophecy ch. 8.
• * 1.97

  More Ne∣voch. l. 2. c. 36.
• * 1.98

  2 Pet. 1. 21.
• * 1.99

  1 Sam. 10. 5.
• * 1.100

  Sect. 6.
• * 1.101

  1 Sam. 10. 6.
• * 1.102

  1 Sam 10. 12.
• * 1.103

  Sect. 7.
• * 1.104

  Apol. c. 39
• * 1.105

  Ep. l. 10. Ep. 97.
• * 1.106

  Conject. in Varr. p. 121
• * 1.107

  Ap••d Phot. bibl. Cod. 239.
• * 1.108

  Geogr. l. 10.
• * 1.109

  Annal. ad A. M. 2945. Sect. 14.
• * 1.110

  Sect. 9.
• * 1.111

  1 Sau••. 10. 12, 19, 24.
• * 1.112

  Sect. 1.
• * 1.113

  V. Maimon. de Idol. c. 5. s. 1. et ibi V••ssium.
• * 1.114

  Sect. 2.
• * 1.115

  V. Except. Gem. San∣bed. c. 10. s. 3.
• * 1.116

  1 K••ng. 22. 11. Ie••. 28. 11.
• * 1.117

  Jer. 20. 9.
• * 1.118

  Maim. de∣sundam, le∣gis c. 9. s 4. V. Abarbi∣nel, de Cereth. apud Bux∣torf. de spons. & divort. p. 182. 1 Kings 13. 9. Ver. 18.
• * 1.119

  De jejuniis, cap. 16.
• * 1.120

  Sect. 3.
• * 1.121

  De Idololat. c. 5. s. 11.
• * 1.122

  Ier. 26. ••.
• * 1.123

  Ver. 10.
• * 1.124

  V. Grol. in l. ••t Selden. de Syn. l. 2. c. 15. s. 4. et l. 3. c. 6. s. 4 Ier. 26. 16. Ier. 38. 5.
• * 1.125

  Luk 13. 33.
• * 1.126

  Matth. 23. 37.
• * 1.127

  Matth. 26. 59.
• * 1.128

  Matth. 26. 63.
• * 1.129

  Sect 4.
• * 1.130

  Psal. 105. 15. Gen. 20. 7.
• * 1.131

  1 Cor. 14. 26.
• * 1.132

  Vid. Alste∣dii Trisol. proph. p. 53.
• * 1.133

  Sect. 5.
• * 1.134

  Deut. 18. 21.
• * 1.135

  1.
• * 1.136

  2. Sect. 6.
• * 1.137

  3. Sect. 7.
• * 1.138

  De fandam. leg. cap. 8. sect. 7.
• * 1.139

  De Idolo∣lat. cap 5. sect. 9.
• * 1.140

  Deut. 13. 3
• * 1.141

  4. Sect. 8.
• * 1.142

  Psa. 50. 8. 51. 16.

  Isa. 1. 11, 13. 66. 3.

  Ierem. 7. 21, 22, 23.
• * 1.143

  1 Kings 18. 38.
• * 1.144

  Vid. Jarchi in Deut. 18. 21. Et Vorst. ad Maim. de sund. cap. 9. sect. 5, 6, 7.
• * 1.145

  Sect. 1.
• * 1.146

  Sect. 2. 3. Hypoth.
• * 1.147

  2 King. 5. 26.
• * 1.148

  1 Cor. 14. 25.
• * 1.149

  Sect. 3. Hyp. 2.
• * 1.150

  2. 2. 9. 171. A••t. 2.—4.
• * 1.151

  2. 2. 9 173. art. 3.
• * 1.152

  Sect. 4. 3 Hyp. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.153

  Sect. 5.
• * 1.154

  1.
• * 1.155

  1 Kings 13. 3.
• * 1.156

  2.
• * 1.157

  Gal. 3. 17.
• * 1.158

  Isa. 44. 25, 26, 28.
• * 1.159

  Sect. 6. 3.
• * 1.160

  Conc. Tol••t. 8. c. 3.
• * 1.161

  Isa. 55. 3,
• * 1.162

  Sect. 7. 4.
• * 1.163

  Dan. 9. 24.
• * 1.164

  Sect. 8.
• * 1.165

  1.
• * 1.166

  2.
• * 1.167

  3.
• * 1.168

  Isa. 2. 4.
• * 1.169

  11. 6, 7.
• * 1.170

  Sect. 9. 5.
• * 1.171

  6.
• * 1.172

  Sect. 10.
• * 1.173

  Sect. 11.
• * 1.174

  Jonah 3. 4.
• * 1.175

  Ionah 4. 2.
• * 1.176

  Sect. 12. Isa. 38. 1.
• * 1.177

  Vates l. 1. c. 6.
• * 1.178

  Sect. 13.
• * 1.179

  Gen. 20. 7. 1 Kings 21. 19.
• * 1.180

  De sund. le∣gis cap. 10. s. 6.
• * 1.181

  Sect. 14.
• * 1.182

  Ibid••. 7, 8.
• * 1.183

  Sect. 15. 2. Prop.
• * 1.184

  1 King. 12. 27.
• * 1.185

  1 Kin. 13. 2.
• * 1.186

  1 King 18. 38.
• * 1.187

  1 King. 18. 39.
• * 1.188

  1 King. 17. 24.
• * 1.189

  2 Kings 5. 15.
• * 1.190

  Sect. 16.
• * 1.191

  De sund. leg••s c. 8. s. 1.
• * 1.192

  Albo. l. 1. cap. 18.
• * 1.193

  Numb. 16. 13.
• * 1.194

  V. 28, 29.
• * 1.195

  Ex. 19. 9.
• * 1.196

  Sect. 1.
• * 1.197

  Sect. 2.
• * 1.198

  1.
• * 1.199

  More Ne∣voch. p. 3. c. 32.
• * 1.200

  Sect. 3. 2.
• * 1.201

  Exod. 29. 33.
• * 1.202

  Numb. 9. 11.
• * 1.203

  2 Chron. 29. 17.
• * 1.204

  V. Selden. de Amo ci∣vili Jud. cap. 9.
• * 1.205

  2 Chron. 30. 18.
• * 1.206

  v. 20.
• * 1.207

  Hos. 6. 6.
• * 1.208

  2 Sam. 21. 9, 10.
• * 1.209

  Not. in A∣boav. c. 13.
• * 1.210

  Sèct. 4.
• * 1.211

  Rosh Ama∣nana ••. 13.
• * 1.212

  Sect. 5.
• * 1.213

  Ps. 19. 10.
• * 1.214

  Sect. 6.
• * 1.215

  Deut. 12. 32.

  De sund. leg. c. 9. s. 1.

  Ikkarim. l. 3. c. 14.
• * 1.216

  Sect. 7.
• * 1.217

  Concil. in Levil. 9. 7.
• * 1.218

  More Ne∣voch. p. 2. c. 28.
• * 1.219

  Sect. 8.
• * 1.220

  De Verit. Rel. Christ. l. 5. s. 7.
• * 1.221

  Sect. 9.
• * 1.222

  More Ne∣voch. l. 3. cap. 29.
• * 1.223

  Sect. 10.
• * 1.224

  Lev. 19. 27.
• * 1.225

  V. Voss. in Maim. de Idol. c. 12.
• * 1.226

  Phaleg. l. 4. cap. 8.
• * 1.227

  Lev. 19. ••. 19.
• * 1.228

  More Ne∣v••ch l. 3. c. 37.

  Deu 22. 5.
• * 1.229

  V. Seld••n de Das y∣ris, sy••••. 2. c••p 4.
• * 1.230

  Lev. 19. 19.
• * 1.231

  Lev. 19. 23.
• * 1.232

  Lev. 19. 24, 25.
• * 1.233

  Lev. 20. 2, 3.

  Gen. 9. 4.
• * 1.234

  More Ne∣voch. p. 3. cap. 48.
• * 1.235

  Exod. 23. 17, 19. 34. 26.
• * 1.236

  Lev. 20. 23. c. Celsum. l. 4.
• * 1.237

  De verit. Rel. Chri∣stianae l. 5.
• * 1.238

  Sect. 11.
• * 1.239

  Gen. 49. 10.
• * 1.240

  Gal. 4. 17.
• * 1.241

  Rom. 4. 10, 11.
• * 1.242

  Sect. 12.
• * 1.243

  Psal. 67. 2.
• * 1.244

  Isa. 2. 2.
• * 1.245

  Mal. 1. 11.
• * 1.246

  Zach. 14. 20.
• * 1.247

  Psal. 110. 4, 5. 6.
• * 1.248

  Ver. 3.
• * 1.249

  ••sa. 66. 21. Hag. 2. 7. Mal. 3. 1.
• * 1.250

  Dan. 9. 24. 26, 27.
• * 1.251

  Jer. 31. 31, 32.
• * 1.252

  Sect. 1.
• * 1.253

  A••ud Orig. l. 2.
• * 1.254

  Sect. 2.
• * 1.255

  Hyp. 1.
• * 1.256

  Sect. 3.
• * 1.257

  1.
• * 1.258

  Sèct. 4. 2.
• * 1.259

  Heb. 11. 1.
• * 1.260

  Sect. 5. 3.
• * 1.261

  1.
• * 1.262

  2.
• * 1.263

  1.
• * 1.264

  2.
• * 1.265

  Sect. 6. 3.
• * 1.266

  Sect. 7. 4.
• * 1.267

  2.
• * 1.268

  3.
• * 1.269

  Sect. 8. Hyp. 2.
• * 1.270

  I•• frag∣ment. Cicer.
• * 1.271

  Sect. 9. Hyp. 3.
• * 1.272

  L. 1. de Div.
• * 1.273

  ••. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Nat. Deorum.
• * 1.274

  De fals. re∣lig. cap. 2.
• * 1.275

  Sect. 10. Hyp. 4.
• * 1.276

  Piadtr. Od. 1.
• * 1.277

  Ioh 10. 38.
• * 1.278

  Heb. 2. 3, 4.
• * 1.279

  Sect. 11.
• * 1.280

  Joh. 3. 19.
• * 1.281

  Joh. 5. 44.
• * 1.282

  Matth. 7. 14.
• * 1.283

  Ioh. 5. 40.
• * 1.284

  Matth. 1••. 24.
• * 1.285

  Sect. 1. Hyp. 5.
• * 1.286

  1.
• * 1.287

  Sucton. Vesp. c. 7.
• * 1.288

  Qu••st. Rom. q. 7.
• * 1.289

  Apol. cap. 23.
• * 1.290

  Apql. c. 23••
• * 1.291

  Sect. 2. 2.
• * 1.292

  Ciccro de Div. l. 2.
• * 1.293

  1.
• * 1.294

  Matth. 12. 38. 16. 1.
• * 1.295

  Matth. 12. 3. 9.
• * 1.296

  Joh. 2. 18.
• * 1.297

  Joh. 5. 36. 10. 25.

  Ioh. 15. 24.
• * 1.298

  Ioh. 1. 49. 3. 11.
• * 1.299

  Ioh. 3. 2.
• * 1.300

  Ioh. 2. 23.
• * 1.301

  Joh. 7. 31.
• * 1.302

  Ioh. 9. 29, 30. ver. 33.
• * 1.303

  ver. 31.
• * 1.304

  ver. 36.
• * 1.305

  ver. 38.
• * 1.306

  John 11. 47.
• * 1.307

  Sect. 3. 2.
• * 1.308

  C. Judaeos c. 13.
• * 1.309

  Isa. 35. 5, 6
• * 1.310

  V. Grot. in Joh. 9. 32.
• * 1.311

  Mat. 11. 5.
• * 1.312

  Mat. 11. 9, 11.
• * 1.313

  ••oh. 10. 41.
• * 1.314

  Sect. 4. 3.
• * 1.315

  Mat. 4. 24.
• * 1.316

  De Idolatr. l. 2. c. 19.
• * 1.317

  Mat. 17. 14 Luk. 9. 39.
• * 1.318

  Lib. 5.
• * 1.319

  Mat. 8. 28
• * 1.320

  Sect. 5.
• * 1.321

  Orig. c. Cels. l. 3.
• * 1.322

  Lib. 7.
• * 1.323

  Pl 31. cd. Ouz.
• * 1.324

  AdDemetr: s. 12.
• * 1.325

  De justitia lib. 5. c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.326

  Apoth••os.
• * 1.327

  De errore pro••. relig.
• * 1.328

  I.. 1. c. C••ls.
• * 1.329

  Mat 7. 22. Sect. 6.
• * 1.330

  Mark. 16. 17.
• * 1.331

  De trad. disc. l. 5.
• * 1.332

  Cont. Cels. l. 6. p. 302.
• * 1.333

  Sect. 7.
• * 1.334

  Mat. 16. 17.
• * 1.335

  Sect. 8.
• * 1.336

  Luke 11. 21, 22.
• * 1.337

  Propyl. A∣gonist. ad Oedipum. cap. 2.
• * 1.338

  Sect. 9.
• * 1.339

  1.
• * 1.340

  2.
• * 1.341

  Joh. 21. 19
• * 1.342

  Acts 2. 22, 23, 38.

  Acts 3. 14, 15, 16, 19.

  Acts 4. 5.
• * 1.343

  Acts 4. 10, 12.
• * 1.344

  Sect. 10.
• * 1.345

  Joh. 2••. 22.
• * 1.346

  Matth. 10. 17, 18, 21, 22, 28.
• * 1.347

  Pl. u. Phaed.
• * 1.348

  2 Cor 6. ••. 5, 8, 9.
• * 1.349

  Sect. 11.
• * 1.350

  Tertul. ad Scapul. c. 5.
• * 1.351

  Apolog. c. 47.
• * 1.352

  Apolog. c. 46.
• * 1.353

  Ad. Natio∣nes. l. 1. c. 4.
• * 1.354

  Apol. c. 46.
• * 1.355

  Sect. 12.
• * 1.356

  Tertul. Apol. c. 46.
• * 1.357

  Miautius Felix.
• * 1.358

  Tertul. Ap. cap. 50.
• * 1.359

  •• 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 ••
• * 1.360

  Tertul. A•• cap. 2••
• * 1.361

  Sect. 13.
• * 1.362

  2 Pet. 1. 16.
• * 1.363

  Antiq. l. 2. pag. 128.
• * 1.364

  Acts 2. 11.
• * 1.365

  1 Joh. 1, 2, 3.
• * 1.366

  Luke 1. 1, 2, 3.
• * 1.367

  Acts 1. 21, 22.
• * 1.368

  Acts 2. 32.
• * 1.369

  3. 15.
• * 1.370

  ••. 20.
• * 1.371

  ••. 32.
• * 1.372

  10. 39, 40, 41, 42.
• * 1.373

  Sect. 14.
• * 1.374

  Prop. 1.
• * 1.375

  Prop. 2.
• * 1.376

  John 9. 26.
• * 1.377

  Luke 7. 12.
• * 1.378

  Joh. 11. 39.
• * 1.379

  John 20. 25, 27.
• * 1.380

  Luke 24. 37.
• * 1.381

  39.
• * 1.382

  43.
• * 1.383

  Sect. 15. Prop. 3.
• * 1.384

  1.
• * 1.385

  2. 1
• * 1.386

  1 Cor. 15. 19.
• * 1.387

  1 Cor. 9. 16.
• * 1.388

  1. 3. C••••∣sam. p. 127
• * 1.389

  Sect. 16.
• * 1.390

  1 Cor. 2. 2. Phil. 3. 8. Gal. 6. 14.
• * 1.391

  Joh. 3. 16.
• * 1.392

  Rom. 5. 8.
• * 1.393

  1. Tim. 1. 15.
• * 1.394

  L. 3. c. Cels.
• * 1.395

  In 4. Ae∣n. id.
• * 1.396

  •• Cor. 3. 12. 1

  Cor. 2. 1, 4. 1

  Cor. 4. 3, 4.
• * 1.397

  2 Cor. 4. 5.
• * 1.398

  1 Co••. 2. 4.
• * 1.399

  2 Cor. 4. 2.
• * 1.400

  Orig. c. Cels. l. 3. p. 135.
• * 1.401

  2 Cor. 6. 8.
• * 1.402

  Hag. 2. 7.

  Isa. 53. 3.

  Mat. 27. 63.
• * 1.403

  Act. 17. 18.
• * 1.404

  Acts 2. 22.
• * 1.405

  2. 36.
• * 1.406

  5. 31, 32.
• * 1.407

  Sect. 17. Prop. 4.
• * 1.408

  Mat. 27. 5.
• * 1.409

  Sect. 18. Prop. 5.
• * 1.410

  1 Cor. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 1. 27.
• * 1.411

  Dialog. cum Tryph. p. 125. ed. Par.
• * 1.412

  Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 10.
• * 1.413

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 20.
• * 1.414

  Hist. l. 6. cap. 18.
• * 1.415

  E••seb. l. 6. cap. 20.
• * 1.416

  Hist. Eccles. l. 6. c. 35.
• * 1.417

  Lib. 6. c. 35.
• * 1.418

  Lib. 6 c. 36.
• * 1.419

  A••g. de doctr. Chri∣stiana. l. 2. cap. 40.
• * 1.420

  Sect. 19.
• * 1.421

  ••polog. ••p. 36.
• * 1.422

  ••pol. c. 3.
• * 1.423

  Sect. 20.
• * 1.424

  1.
• * 1.425

  Arnob. ••. gentes l. ••.
• * 1.426

  C. gentes lib. 2 p. 44.
• * 1.427

  Sect. 21.
• * 1.428

  Tertul. ad Nat. l. 1. cap. 10.

  Symmach. cp. l. 10. ep. 61.

  Liban. oral. de Templis.
• * 1.429

  Minul. F•• lix. p. 6.
• * 1.430

  Arnob. ••. gent. l. 2. pag. 90.
• * 1.431

  De nat. De∣orum l. 3.
• * 1.432

  Lactant. de orig. error. l. 2. c. 6.
• * 1.433

  Ambros. ep. c. Symmach.
• * 1.434

  De orig. err. l. 2. c. 6.
• * 1.435

  C. gent. l. 2.
• * 1.436

  Minut. i•• Octavio. pag. 6.
• * 1.437

  Apolo. c. 38.
• * 1.438

  Observat. in Arnob. l. 4.
• * 1.439

  Histor. l. 27 Arnob. l. 4.
• * 1.440

  Lact. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. l. 5. c. 11.
• * 1.441

  L••b. 10. ••p. 97.
• * 1.442

  Apolog. cap. 38.
• * 1.443

  Apud Eu∣seb. l. 6. Eccl. hist. cap. 19.
• * 1.444

  Tertul. A∣pol. c. 4.
• * 1.445

  Apud Eu∣seb. Eccl. hist. l. 7. cap. 11.
• * 1.446

  Acts 17. 18.
• * 1.447

  19. 27.
• * 1.448

  Lactant. l. 5. cap. 11.
• * 1.449

  Plia ep. l. 10. cp. 97.

  Tac••. An. l. 15.

  Sucton. in N••. one.
• * 1.450

  Tertal. Ap. c. 27. c. 35.
• * 1.451

  Apol. c. 29.
• * 1.452

  Herold. in Tertul. Apol. cap. 29.
• * 1.453

  Apol. c. 32.
• * 1.454

  cap. 33.
• * 1.455

  Cap. 34.
• * 1.456

  Cap. 35.
• * 1.457

  Cap. 38.
• * 1.458

  2 Cor. 10. 4, 5.
• * 1.459

  Sect. 22. 2.
• * 1.460

  3 Cor. 2. 14.
• * 1.461

  Orig. l. 1. c. Cels. Gal. de d ffer. puls. lib. 2. c. 4.
• * 1.462

  Sect. 23.
• * 1.463

  Matt••. 58. 16. 24.

  Tit. 2. 12.
• * 1.464

  2 Tim. 2. 19.

  2 Cor. 7. 1.
• * 1.465

  2 Thes. 1. 7, 8.
• * 1.466

  Rom. 1. 18.
• * 1.467

  1 Cor. 6. 9, 10.

  Gal. 420.

  Eph. 5. 5, 6.
• * 1.468

  Heb. 12. 34.
• * 1.469

  •• Joh. 2. 14.
• * 1.470

  James 4. 4.

  Col. 3. 1, 2.

  Phil. 3. 20.

  Mat. 6. 20.

  2 Cor. 4. 18.
• * 1.471

  Col. 1. 12.
• * 1.472

  Rom. 1. 16.
• * 1.473

  August. de Civit. Dei, l. 2. c. 19.
• * 1.474

  Psalm 29. 5, 8, 9.
• * 1.475

  Act. 26. 18.
• * 1.476

  1 Cor. 6. ••. 10, 11.
• * 1.477

  1 Thes. 1. 9, 10.
• * 1.478

  C. Celsum l. 2. p. 78, 85. lib. 1. p. 21.
• * 1.479

  Orig. c. Cels. l. 3. p. 128.
• * 1.480

  Orig. l. 1. p. 50.
• * 1.481

  Orig. l. 3. p. 150.
• * 1.482

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. ac salf. sap. l. 3. c. 25.
• * 1.483

  ••ap. 26.
• * 1.484

  Sect. 24.
• * 1.485

  ••〈1 line〉〈1 line〉••.
• * 1.486

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. c. Celsam ••. 21. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••. 110.
• * 1.487

  Sect. 1.
• * 1.488

  Sect. 2.
• * 1.489

  Matth. 24. 24.
• * 1.490

  ••. Thes. 2. 9
• * 1.491

  John 5. 36.
• * 1.492

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 10. 25, 38. 14. 11. 15. 24.
• * 1.493

  Sect. 3.
• * 1.494

  O••ig. lib. 2. c Cels.
• * 1.495

  Tzemach David n. 895.
• * 1.496

  V. ep. Mai∣mon. in not. Vorstii ad Tzem. Dav.
• * 1.497

  Sect. 4.
• * 1.498

  1.
• * 1.499

  De s••e∣script. adv. haeret. cap. 36.
• * 1.500

  Sect. 5••
• * 1.501

  Chrysosl. in 1 Cor. 2. ••om. 6. p. 276. To. 3. ed. Eton.
• * 1.502

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. Re∣••g. cap. 25.
• * 1.503

  De Civit. Dei l. 22. cap. 8.
• * 1.504

  2 Thes. 2. 9, 10.
• * 1.505

  Sect. 6. 2.
• * 1.506

  Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3.
• * 1.507

  2 Thes. 2. 9.
• * 1.508

  Sect. 7. 3.
• * 1.509

  Lib. 2. c. Cels.
• * 1.510

  V. Grot. in 2 Thes. 29. in opusc.
• * 1.511

  Sect. 8 4.
• * 1.512

  Matth. 12▪ 25, 26.
• * 1.513

  Sect. 9. 5.
• * 1.514

  Arnob. c. gentes l. 1. pag. 25, 26, &c.
• * 1.515

  Joh. 21. 25.
• * 1.516

  Gui. Ader de morbis Evangel.
• * 1.517

  Sect. 10. 6,
• * 1.518

  Exod. 8. 10, 12,
• * 1.519

  8. 19, 22.
• * 1.520

  8. 6, 7.
• * 1.521

  8. 19.
• * 1.522

  9. 11.