Читать книгу Education for Life - George Turnbull - Страница 31
Оглавление[print edition page 110]
PART II
SECTION I
But now it is time to enter into the main question; the connexion betwixt the Works and the Doctrines of JESUS CHRIST.
And in order to conceive distinctly; how, or in what case, works can prove a doctrine to be true; let us attend a little more particularly to the nature of those reasonings just now mentioned, which are deduced from facts, or experiments.
It is by experiment, that the natural philosopher shews the properties of the air, for example, or of any other body. That is, the philosopher shews certain effects which infer certain qualities: or in other words, he shews certain proper samples of the qualities he pretends the air, or any other body that he is reasoning about, hath. Thus is it we know bodies gravitate, attract, that the air is ponderous and elastic. Thus it is, in one word, we come to the knowledge of the properties of any body, and of the general laws of matter and motion. The same way, if a philosopher, a physician, an architect, a painter, or any artist, pretends to a certain <12> degree of skill or power; he must prove his claim by giving proper samples of that very degree of skill or power he professes. ’Tis by proper samples or experiments only of power and knowledge, that we can be assured, one actually possesses a certain power or knowledge.
Just so it is only by samples or experiments, that we can judge of one’s honesty, benevolence, or good intention. We conclude a man honest and worthy of trust and credit, because he has given proof and evidence of his integrity and merit. It is from the works of the Supreme Being, that we infer his infinite wisdom, power, and goodness; as from so many samples and experiments, by which we may safely judge of the whole. ’Tis thus we are satisfied about our own faculties and abilities natural or acquired. ’Tis thus we reason in a thousand instances every day about ourselves and others.
[print edition page 111]
It is in one word, from one’s works only that we can infer his ability, skill, or power, of any kind or degree, as from proper samples or experiments of that power or quality; in the same way that it is from effects, that we conclude in natural philosophy, that the air, or any body, possesses a certain quality; as from so many proper and analogous samples or experiments of that quality. And it is the same what the power claimed be, of what kind, sort or degree; provided the power claimed be exemplified by proper analogous proportional samples or experiments.
If therefore certain doctrines of JESUS CHRIST evidently are, or can be, reduced to assertions of his having a certain degree of power or <13> knowledge: his works may be a proper proof of these Doctrines; because they may be proper samples or experiments of the power, or knowledge claimed by these assertions. For with regard to such doctrines or assertions, all that can be required by way of proof is, samples analogous in kind, and proportioned in quantity or moment, to the power or knowledge claimed: just as in natural philosophy, or the common reasonings in life every day about the properties and qualities of things, or agents.
SECTION II
It remains therefore to be considered, what doctrines of our SAVIOUR can be taken in this light; or compared in this manner with his works.
And there are three doctrines of Christianity that are evidently of this kind.
“The doctrine of future rewards and punishments.”
“The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.”
“The doctrine of the forgiveness of sins.”
But before we advance farther it is proper to take notice, that it is evident from what was said before, of the proper proof of any claim to a certain degree of power or knowledge, that <14> it must be the same, whether these three doctrines are reduced to a claim of knowledge or a claim of power. The works will have the same relation to these doctrines, whether they are considered in the one way or the other. For a pretension to knowledge of
[print edition page 112]
a certain kind must be proved by samples of that kind; and a pretension to power of a certain kind must be proved by samples of that kind. The same samples therefore will prove the one, that prove the other, if the power and knowledge are of the same kind.
Either these three doctrines must be considered as a claim to knowledge in this way;
“I know certainly that the dead shall be raised.”
“I know certainly that there is a future immortal State of rewards and punishments.”
“I know certainly that sins will be forgiven upon a certain condition.”
Or these doctrines must be considered as a claim to power in this way:
“I have power to raise the dead.”
“I have power to forgive sins.”
“I have power to make happy or miserable in the life to come.”
And which ever way they are taken, the question about the works must come to the same <15> thing. For in the one case it will be, whether they are samples of the knowledge pretended to; and in the other, whether they are samples of the power pretended to. But the power and knowledge being evidently of the same kind; their objects the same; the works that are of kind with the one, must be of kind with the other.
In which way then are these doctrines to be considered? As a claim to power certainly. For thus our SAVIOUR himself is represented in his history as always declaring these doctrines. “I will raise the dead; that all men may know I have power to forgive sins,” &c.
But these three doctrines must be examined severally, and compared with their samples.
SECTION III
Let us first consider the “Doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.”
If our SAVIOUR had said: “I certainly know that the dead shall be
[print edition page 113]
raised”: What would have been the proper proof of his having that knowledge? He behoved certainly to have given instances of the possibility of a resurrection from the dead; and of his having that knowledge, by actually raising from the dead. But observe how the doctrine runs; it is not an assertion of knowledge but of power: He does not say; “I know certainly the dead shall be raised.” But he asserts his power to <16> raise the dead: and always teaches that doctrine in these terms; “I will raise the dead; I will give eternal life.”
And what is the proper evidence when the claim runs in this strain? The same as in the other case. It was necessary to give samples, or experiments, of this power he claimed. And accordingly he raised from the dead;a and gave power to his Apostles to raise from the dead.b And to put his pretensions beyond all doubt, he himself submitted to death, that he might give an incontestible proof of his being actually possessed of that power, by rising himself from the dead the third day,c according to his own prediction.d
To ask then whether JESUS CHRIST gave a sufficient or proper proof of his having power to raise the dead; is to ask, whether raising the dead is a sample of power to raise the dead.
All the Objections of certain Sceptics against the doctrine of a resurrection from the dead, have been examined and sufficiently answered by Dr Samuel Clarke,e Mr Locke,f and others; to whom I refer you. To say the
[print edition page 114]
truth, the difficulties moved against a resurrection from the dead, do not touch that doctrine as it is de-<17>livered by our SAVIOUR and his Apostles; but the chimerical additions to it of some Divines; who imagine the same particles of matter, which were united with the soul when it acted the bad or the good part, must likewise be sharers in the rewards or the punishments; forgetting their own principle, the immateriality of our thinking part, and that matter is utterly insensible; nay incapable of being made, even by the Deity himself, to think, feel, or perceive.5
SECTION IV
But our SAVIOUR not only asserted his power to raise from the dead:* but to give us immortal, incorruptible† bodies and to make perfectly happy, or compleatly miserable in the life to come.
And who are to be happy, and who are to be miserable, according to his doctrine? The virtuous and regular are to be rewarded; the vitious and immoral are to be punished. Every one is to be judged by his works, by his conduct, and approved or condemned accordingly.
Instinct, Reason, and the universal consent of all nations and ages of the world, conjoin to render this doctrine probable, which our SAVIOUR has set beyond all doubt, by the samples he gave of his power to bestow blessings, or inflict miseries of every sort. Consider but his works in this light; and were they not all so many experiments or instances of this power? he made the <18> ignorant and simple wise in a moment: changed the tempers and dispositions of men almost instantaneously: cured the most malign, inveterate, diseases by a word of his mouth: delivered in the same instantaneous, wonderful, manner, from infirmities of every kind: and bestowed upon whom he pleased, the most marvellous and surprizing gifts
[print edition page 115]
and talents.* His transfiguration was a plain specimen and example of the glory and lustre he could give to our bodies after the resurrection. And all his works, in one word, were one continued series of proper and analogous experiments, to prove his power to curse or bless; banish diseases and infirmities; bestow blessings of every kind, moral or corporeal: make happy; compleatly happy, or compleatly wretched.
SECTION V
Our SAVIOUR also taught the forgiveness of sins.† And how did he prove his pretension to this power? By these very experiments and samples that he gave of his power to deliver from miseries, and render happy. For what is it to forgive sins? is it not to deliver from those miseries sin justly merits; or to which it renders the sinner obnoxious?
And accordingly he asserted his power to forgive sins: but that all men might know he had <19> indeed that power; he ordered the lame, whose sins he pronounced remitted and forgiven, to arise take up the couch and walk. The dumb spoke; the deaf heard; the lame walked strait and firmly: he cured all diseases; and bestowed health, strength, and all sorts of blessings: at his command also the dead arose; to prove that he could forgive sins, or deliver the penitent from all the pains and miseries his sinful life had righteously deserved.‡
Let us take notice however, how cautious he was of giving any encouragement to the wicked, by his doctrine of the forgiveness of sins.§ It was only to those who seriously repented and reformed, that he gave the agreeable hopes of finding pardon. It was not to such as continued in their sins, in spight of frequent Remorses and professions of repentance: but to such
[print edition page 116]
as really turned to the love and practice of virtue; and sincerely forsook their wicked ways, in the habitual course of their lives and practice.
And therefore we find that where there was no Faith, he refused to work cures. Where there was no Faith: that is, where he found not that sincere, unprejudiced; that pliable, docile temper, that is necessary in order to reformation, or receiving wholesome instruction: but on the contrary, obstinacy, stubbornness, malignity of disposition, and every bad quality. That this is the meaning is plain, because he upbraids them for their malice and blind obstinacy; the hardness of their hearts; and calls them children of <20> the Devil sometimes; a phrase that sounds harsh in our tongue; but is well known by those who are skill’d in the original languages, to mean no more, but that they hated the light and loved darkness, because their works were evil, as he himself speaks at other times.
Thus in the whole of his conduct, he carefully shunned, by a promiscuous bestowal of his favours and blessings, to give any handle to the most terrible, pernicious abuse of his doctrine concerning the forgiveness of sins; as if in consequence of it, men might sin that grace might the more abound.* And at the same time gave full assurance of his power to deliver sincere reformers, from the just demerits of their former evil practices; if an infinity of instances of power to deliver from all sorts of pains and miseries, and to confer all kinds of blessings, are proper and adequate samples of a power to curse and bless, make happy or miserable.
SECTION VI
Add to these three, the promise of assistance to all those who being convinced of the truth of our SAVIOUR’s doctrine and pretension; seriously set themselves to reform every evil habit; and to improve daily in virtue and goodness.
It was necessary that the Apostles, who were, after our SAVIOUR’s ascension, to preach and promulgate his doctrine, should have an extra-<21>ordinary assistance;† the gift of tongues; the power of healing diseases;
[print edition page 117]
and of raising from the dead. And accordingly we have already seen that all necessary power and assistance was actually given to them. So that the effusion of gifts upon them at Pentecoste; their bold and undaunted perseverance in spight of all opposition; their heroic sufferings; and all the extraordinary works they performed; were an infringible proof and confirmation of our SAVIOUR’s ability to bestow every virtue, every quality, every degree of power: and at the same time of his veracity and faithfulness, that he would not fail to fulfil all that he had promised. And consequently were an indisputable argument of the truth of all his doctrines; of his whole claim. A proper proof in particular of his being able to give the assistance he hath promised to Christians.
He proffers his spirit to them who ask it.* He hath said that if Christians are not remiss and slothful, but give all due pains on their part; that their endeavours shall be successful; that they should feel their irregular appetites and passions weaken apace; and the good ones gain new life and vigour every day. And more especially that they should find proper aid in time of trial; an extraordinary assistance to counterbalance the extraordinary attacks their virtue might suffer in certain circumstances from the side of pleasure and its enchantments; or distress and its terrors. And seeing he accom-<22>plished to the full, what he promised to his Apostles; why should we doubt of his ability, or good-will to do all he undertook? He who did the greater, can he not, will he not, do the less? In short, all the courage, wisdom, sincerity, and steadiness of the Apostles; all their gifts, talents, and works, are, in the nature of things, the fittest Specimens that can possibly be imagined, of our SAVIOUR’s capacity to make good all he promised. And that no distance of time or place could make any difference, or alteration, with regard to his will or power. Samples of power to bestow a certain quality, or blessing, are certainly a proof of power to bestow it.
SECTION VII
I have not time to give you an exact history or detail of the works of our SAVIOUR recorded in the gospels; nor is it necessary: after these hints it
[print edition page 118]
will be easy, in reading over the gospels, to refer the works narrated there, to these doctrines.
But, says a noble author,* “Signs of power may prove power, but cannot prove honesty, or create trust.”
And to say the Truth, it was this way of speaking about miracles, that first gave me the hint of considering the miracles of our SAVIOUR as samples of his pretended power. But in answer <23> to this, let us consider how honesty and good intention can only be ascertained. To be sure it must shew itself by an uniform untainted conduct and behaviour; by a continued course of honest and benevolent deeds; by a series uninterrupted of samples of goodness and sincerity. And was not the whole of our SAVIOUR’s conduct the fittest that can be imagined to gain him credit in this way? what ground did he ever give to suspect his fidelity, or call his truth and honesty in question? Were not these very works,† that proved his power at the same time, so many irrefragable evidences of his goodness, sincerity, and benevolent honest intention? It was necessary to give some examples of his power to curse as well as to bless. For such is the nature of the common herd of mankind, that one instance of suffering makes more impression upon their weak and fearful minds, than a thousand examples of happiness. But he chose to shew his power to inflict pains and miseries to blast and curse by such examples as might serve the purpose sufficiently, and yet do very little mischief: as in cursing the fig-tree,‡ and sending the Devils into the swine.§ He delighted not in cursing, but in blessing; he rejoiced in works of mercy and benevolence; and went about continually doing good. But there is the less reason to insist upon this article, that even those who have called him an impostor never adventured to <24> charge him with malice, or any bad mischievous design: but on the contrary, have been obliged to acknowledge,
[print edition page 119]
that he gave all the possible marks of a good, generous, and well-disposed Teacher of the soundest morals.6
In judging however of our SAVIOUR’s pretension; his conduct, and the evidences that he gave of his honesty, and sincere good disposition, must certainly be taken into the account. He himself tells his disciples, that they were not to trust to miracles only; because not only might false teachers work miracles, but there should actually come after him false Christs,* false prophets, working miracles; but that, together with the miracles they were to consider the doctrine and the conduct of pretended extraordinary Teachers: to judge of the tree by its fruit.†
SECTION VIII
But having considered the samples JESUS CHRIST gave of the power he claimed by his doctrines: it must be observed next, that he pretended to a divine commission to teach these doctrines: and by them to encourage and excite to the practice of virtue, and to discourage sin and vice.
And with regard to his pretended mission: it is evident, that if the particular doctrines, that is, the particular assertions of power, are sufficiently justified and proved by proper samples; the truth of the mission follows in course. <25> For what reason can there possibly be to doubt of the mission, when the particular power the missionary claims, as missionary, is sufficiently ascertained by proper samples?
But besides, the whole series of the miracles of JESUS CHRIST may be
[print edition page 120]
justly considered as one continued proof of the general pretension to a mission: as one continued proof that, as he asserted, all power was given unto him of GOD who sent him.* For by his works he shewed, that he had an universal command of nature: a power that nothing could controul.† The seas, the winds, all the elements, every thing above or below obeyed his all-commanding voice. His works therefore in this case are still proper adequate samples.
In fine, a divine mission can be nothing else, but a certain degree of power or knowledge given of GOD; or ordered by GOD to be exerted for a certain end: such as the “ascertaining the truth of certain doctrines.” And therefore samples or experiments of power and knowledge analogous to the doctrines preached: or to the power and knowledge claimed; and proportioned likewise in quantity or number; are a proper proof of a divine mission; if power or knowledge can in any case be evidenced by samples, or experiments. And sure, as has been said, there can be no other way of shewing power, or knowledge, but by giving certain specimens of it.
But to leave no room for doubt or scepticism, let us enquire yet more particularly what is necessary to prove a mission. <26>
And when one pretends to a mission, there are three things requisite to compleat his credentials. “The doctrines he teaches must be of importance; such as it concerns mankind much to be assured of; and have an evident connexion with our peace and happiness, and tendency to promote virtue and piety.”
And such certainly are the doctrines which JESUS CHRIST taught: they are such as the wise in all ages have earnestly wished to be assured of by a proper evidence. They are, in one word, the only doctrines that have any connexion with virtue and piety;‡ or the happiness of mankind, which natural reason is in the dark about, and cannot ascertain beyond all doubt.
“Next the missionary must behave himself in such a manner, as that we may have sufficient reason, from his conduct, to trust and put full confidence in him.”
[print edition page 121]
And such certainly was the whole of our SAVIOUR’s conduct and behaviour; that either we may safely rely upon his word, and believe in his honesty; or no marks, no samples of goodness, sincerity, and faithfulness, are sufficient to create trust.
“Last of all, the pretended missionary must give a proper and full evidence, that he really is possessed of any degree of power he claims; and of the knowledge that is necessa-<27>ry to render him capable of ascertaining these doctrines to us which he asserts and teaches.”
And have we not already found that he gave proper and adequate samples of the power he claimed by his doctrines? and do not all his works shew that universal knowledge of nature, and the government of the world; which is sufficient to put his capacity to teach us the doctrines he taught beyond all controversy? Who is sufficient to instruct us, if he who gave samples of such extraordinary knowledge was not? What greater degree of knowledge can we require in an instructor; or what other samples of the knowledge requisite to instruct us? consider him as pretending to come from GOD, to tell us that he had power given unto him of GOD to raise the dead, to forgive sins,* and to make the virtuous happy, and the wicked miserable, in the life to come. And as this was indeed his pretension; so we have already seen that his works were proper and proportioned samples of his right to claim such power. Consider him as pretending to come from GOD, to teach mankind that there will be a future state, and a resurrection of the dead; and that those who repent and reform their lives, will be forgiven and made happy in a future life; but that the impenitent, and such as continue to lead vitious and disorderly lives, will be punished in that after-life. And still his works are proper and adequate experiments, that he had the knowledge requisite to give us this information. For he shewed that the dead could be raised; that he knew how to raise the dead; and could <28> actually raise them; that he could make happy or miserable in any degree; that he could forgive sins; or give full and compleat evidence when sins were forgiven; because he could deliver those whose sins he pronounced forgiven, from any sorts of pains or miseries, to which sin renders obnoxious. In like manner he proffers assistance to the virtuous; and at the same
[print edition page 122]
time shewed his ability to confer every good quality when at a distance, as well as when present.
To conclude, if we abstract from the history of our SAVIOUR, and inquire with our selves what would be a full and compleat evidence of a mission from GOD to teach; it is not difficult to find out what the evidence must be. For we know what doctrines of importance, with regard to GOD and ourselves, natural reason is not able to satisfy us fully about.
We have so much knowledge of GOD, as to be able to determine what doctrines he would instruct us in, by an extraordinary missionary; if he should ever condescend to teach us in that manner. These very doctrines to be sure, which have a connexion with virtue and piety, that natural reason is not able to deduce certainly from any principles; and such are the doctrines which JESUS CHRIST taught. And as for what regards testimony, we all know the evidence that is requisite to render it credible and worthy of our reception. All, to be sure, that can be demanded is, that there be good ground to trust our informer as to his honesty; and next, that he give sufficient samples of the kind of knowledge he pretends to, or that is necessary in order to his giving us such and such information: <29> samples analogous in kind, and proportioned to the degree of knowledge he claims, by pretending to inform us of certain truths. We must reason concerning the proper credentials, or evidence of testimony, in every case the same way: in this just as in any other.
Having therefore shewed that our SAVIOUR gave samples of his sincerity and honest design; and at the same time adequate samples of the power and knowledge he pretended to; it follows necessarily, that there is all the reason in the world to believe in him, and give him full credit.
SECTION IX
And is this then, perhaps you’ll say, the whole of Christianity? Yes it is; and a noble and perfect system indeed it is, containing all the encouragements that can be thought of, or desired, to virtue, piety, and goodness, the love of GOD and our fellow-creatures; which common reason sufficiently tells us, if we would but hearken to its dictates, is the whole duty of man.
These doctrines above explained are clearly insisted upon by our SAVIOUR
[print edition page 123]
and his Apostles.* These doctrines are ever and ever insisted upon by them, as the chief; as the only doctrines of consequence they had to instruct us in.† These doctrines <30> are ever inculcated by them, as motives to the practice of virtue. These are the doctrines the best of the ancient philosophers, would have rejoiced to have found sufficient evidence to believe. And these doctrines being ascertained, we are fully instructed in every thing that relates to virtue, or this life, or the life to come, that it concerns us to know. Had I not then good reason to say in the beginning of this letter, my friend, “That the doctrine of a future state is the sum of Christianity.” For the doctrines abovementioned are easily reducible to this one proposition, “That the vitious are to be punished in the life to come; and the virtuous to be assisted in their serious endeavours here; and made perfect in virtue and happiness hereafter.” With this single additional circumstance, “That after our souls have been for some time separated from their bodies, they are to be again embodied.” There is nothing in the christian doctrine that has not a relation to a future state, as its main end and scope.‡ And consequently to fight against Christianity, is to fight against a belief the most chearing and comfortable; the most strong and powerful persuasive to a virtuous and good conversation.
There are several obscure places, especially in the epistles of the Apostles, about the interpretation of which the learned Criticks and Divines have been much divided in all the after-ages of Christianity. But that is argument enough, <31> that Christians are not obliged to know their meaning. That can never be said to be revealed, which is not made plain; or which remains liable to various and uncertain interpretation. Our salvation cannot possibly depend upon that which it is difficult, not to say impossible, even for much learning to determine. Not to mention that common sense and reason tells plainly and indisputably, that it is only virtue and goodness that can recommend, or make acceptable to GOD, who is all virtue, all reason,
[print edition page 124]
all goodness. And indeed to imagine otherwise, is to suppose that the most useful quality is not the most valuable: or that GOD, who is infinite wisdom, doth not delight most in that which is of all other qualities the most excellent and deserving.*
We are called by JESUS CHRIST to believe in him: that is, to believe he really had a mission to inculcate virtue by these doctrines he taught; and really had the power he claimed by these doctrines: that thus believing in him we might fall in love with virtue, and seek earnestly for glory, honour, and immortality, by a sincere and firm adherence to virtue, in spite of all temptations and seducements. To believe in him is nothing else than to believe the authority he had to excite to virtue and piety by his doctrines; his power to forgive sins and raise the dead; and to assist and prosper our earnest aims in the pursuit and study of virtue. And this faith can be of no value or merit, unless it <32> produces good fruits; unless the end of his teaching is gained, which is to perswade to live a natural, manly, and virtuous life; in every circumstance to behave as becometh a thinking, reasonable being; to love GOD; and, like him, to delight in doing good. Without such works faith is dead.†
A great many questions are asked and disputed, about the state of those who have not heard of CHRIST. But the answer to them all is obvious. Those who have not heard of CHRIST, cannot believe: but those have yet a law within themselves, teaching them their duty; the duty CHRIST taught; the whole duty of man.‡
That the doctrine of CHRIST however is not more generally known throughout the world, is the fault of Christians, who take not the right method to propagate it; but have, the greater part, ever done their utmost, either foolishly or wickedly, to marr its progress. The Christian Religion can only be propagated in the rational way of argument and persuasion; and it is the integrity and purity of the lives of professing christians; and their moderation and humanity towards unbelievers, that ever will have the
[print edition page 125]
greatest influence to recommend Christianity, and promote the belief and love of it. The temper and spirit which true and genuine Christianity inspires, is a spirit of meekness and gentleness, charity and compassion; slow to wrath; ready to forgive; prompt to good works.* And <33> where this temper is not found, there is not the same spirit that was in CHRIST and his Apostles; nor the disposition that only can render agreeable to GOD who sent him into the world to teach humility, and benevolence, and to reprove every vitious affection; to exemplify all the moral virtues in his life and conduct; as well as to give the strongest inducements to the practice of them by his doctrines.
SECTION X
But by this time, my friend, I am afraid you begin to dread a sermon. And therefore to return to the argument:
If it is allowed, as it must certainly be, that the doctrines so often repeated are the chief doctrines of Christianity; Christianity carries the same evidence along with it, that any doctrine does, which is confirmed by the plainest, the most proper, or analogous experiments.
“The works of JESUS CHRIST considered as samples of the power he claimed, are not Disperates, with regard to his doctrines, as Spinosa alledges miracles must be with regard to doctrines.”7
It is true, miracles, when considered in a general abstract view, do not appear to have any relation to doctrines: nothing at first sight can seem more distinct or remote the one from the other. And therefore it is commonly objected against the proof offered from miracles: what can miracles have to do in the case; miracles <34> may prove power; but what is that to the truth of doctrines? But take the doctrines and the works of CHRIST, and compare them together; and the relation and connexion is obvious. Samples of power to raise the dead, prove the power to raise the dead: and samples
[print edition page 126]
of power to make happy, prove the power to make happy: in the same way that samples of gravity prove gravity; or samples of elasticity prove elasticity; or that samples of skill in any sort, prove skill of that sort. There is the same relation, in one word, betwixt the doctrines of JESUS CHRIST and his works, that there is betwixt any experiment, and the conclusion that naturally follows from it.
“Nor are the works of JESUS CHRIST arguments ad ignorantiam, (as the same author says) miracles must ever be.”8 For the works of JESUS CHRIST, however much above our comprehension, bear a plain relation to his doctrines; and it is only the truth of the facts or samples, and their relation to the doctrine, that we are concerned to understand. That can never be said to be a proof ad ignorantiam, the connexion of which with the thing proved, or the conclusion inferred, is clearly perceived.
The works of JESUS CHRIST are not arguments of power, we know not what: they are arguments of the very power he pretended to; because samples of that very power. Arguments of his power to raise the dead; forgive sins; make happy or miserable. Arguments of an universal knowledge of nature; and unlimited authority over all things; arguments, in short, <35> of the whole of his pretension; because samples of all he pretended to.
Tho’ we understand not the nature of that power which raises the dead; tho’ the raising the dead be a work above our ability and comprehension; yet a sample of power to raise the dead, proves that power; and the connexion betwixt the sample and the power pretended to is not above our comprehension, but is easily understood. Attraction, say all the philosophers, is above our comprehension: they cannot explain how bodies attract: but experience or samples certainly prove that there is attraction. And proper experiments or samples, must equally prove the power of raising the dead, tho’ we do not understand, or cannot explain, that power.
But because there is so much controversy about that common distinction betwixt things above our reason, and things contrary to our reason, it may not be amiss, on this occasion to say something about it.9
[print edition page 127]
And an example taken from natural philosophy will soon clear the matter: Attraction can only be known by experience, and samples abundantly prove it. But it is above our reason or comprehension? What is the meaning of that? why it is only to say, that a thousand questions may be ask’d about it, to which no answer can be given; because we know not enough about it, to answer them. We know that it is; and some of the laws according to which it produces its effects: And that is all we know of it. And our not being able to give satisfying answers to <36> other questions, that may be asked about it, only proves that there is a great deal relating to it, we do not know.
In the same manner a thousand questions may be ask’d about raising the dead, which we can’t answer. A sample however proves the possibility: and many samples as certainly prove the power to raise the dead; as samples of attraction prove attraction. Nor indeed can the power of raising the dead, be said to be above our comprehension in any sense, that attraction, and twenty other properties of bodies, may not be said to be above our comprehension. What we clearly see to be absurd, we clearly see to be so; but there is a great difference betwixt seeing a thing to be absurd, and not knowing every thing that belongs to it; or not being able to answer every question that may be asked concerning it. Some seem however to confound insolvable questions about a truth, with insolvable or invincible objections against a truth. And because there may be difficult, nay unanswerable, questions relating to a known truth; maintain there may be insolvable objections against a known truth. But an insolvable objection against a truth, is an argument ad absurdum against a truth, or a proof that a known truth cannot possibly be true.* Those who delight in sophistry and grubbing, may
[print edition page 128]
perplex the ignorant or incautious: and no science has escaped this puzzling, perplexing art. But by a fatal calamity, none has suffer’d more than Divinity. Yet when the artful terms of the schools, intro-<37>duced on purpose to darken and embroil the clearest truths, and to be an everlasting source of controversy and wrangling; when all artful, captious, equivocal terms are thrown aside; and truths are expressed in common, simple, plain language, the sophistry is easily seen thro’, and its mists evanish.*
This way of considering the works of JESUS CHRIST, as samples of his doctrines, makes the connexion betwixt his works and his doctrines obvious to every capacity. Because we all reason in this way every day, about a thousand different things: thus the meanest labourer of the ground, or poorest mechanick, must argue frequently: we judge of friends and enemies by samples; by samples and experiments, in short, almost all our affairs in life are regulated. And therefore in this way of handling the question concerning the connexion betwixt the works and the doctrines of our SAVIOUR, I can’t be blamed for having talked so much of miracles hitherto, without giving a definition of them. Because taking the miracles of JESUS CHRIST in this view, nothing more is necessary than to consider them as certain works that shewed such and such power.
It does not belong in the least, to the question, whether these works are above, or contrary to, the established laws of nature; whether superior to human power, as they plainly are; or whether above the power of all created <38> agents. But only what they were; and what power they were samples or experiments of. And of this any body may judge; the relation and connexion is so conspicuous and glaring.
The only thing I fear, my friend, is, that you think I have been too tedious;
[print edition page 129]
and have taken too much pains to make a connexion evident, that is obvious at first sight. For what can be more clear than what I have been so long insisting upon? “That he who shews by experiments and samples, that he has a certain degree of power; really shews that he has that power. And that he who shews by a long train of honesty and goodness, that he is good, and honest, and worthy of trust; really shews that he is good, and honest, and worthy of trust.”
Nor would I have dwelt so long upon this argument; had ever the works of our SAVIOUR been considered in this light, by any writer upon the subject that I have seen. <39>
