law of sin and death, the walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, these being such as we receive from the Spirit of God, are evidences of the Spirit for our regeneration: where then must we look for the evidence of our own spirit? This difficulty put the Greek commentators on a very forced interpretation of the passage: for observing that all the signs of adoption proceeded from the power and working of the Holy Spirit, in effect they made the two witnesses of the text but one. Thus Chrysostom by the Spirit itself understands the Holy Spirit; and by our spirit, the gift of the Holy Spirit within us. This interpretation refuted. Keeping, then, to the sense already laid down, we must consider what St. Paul had in view when he penned the place in question. In this Apostle's writings we must often search for the connexion at a considerable distance from the passage: with respect to the one before us, in the latter part of chapter vii. he describes the state of an unregenerate Jew, or heathen, in order to show to his converts the necessity of redemption through Christ, as neither the law of Moses nor of nature could free them from the power of sin, nor from death which follows it then in this 8th chapter he sets forth the power of redemption, showing how it supplies the infirmities both of the Law and of Nature: to clear the matter still more, what he says of the unregenerate man's condition in chap. vii. is more particularly examined : he is described as under the most wretched slavery to sin, though with the greatest reluctance to his own mind and reason; as loving God and his Law, but obeying the tyrant sin: so that the evidence of reason even in a state of nature, shows that we are the servants and sons of God; but power constrains us, lust rules over us, and experience shows that we are the slaves of sin: to complete this evidence of our minds, nothing more is wanting than to destroy the power of sin, which will enable us to follow the dictates of reason, and obey the laws of God: for this is complete evidence that a man is a son and servant of God, that he loves and obeys him. In the 8th chapter, then, St. Paul tells us, that the redemption by Christ has put an end to our wretched captivity: the power of the Spirit has destroyed the power of sin: but the power of the Spirit is on reason's side and works with it; so that to be under this power is a state of freedom; and therefore it is justly said, that the law of the Spirit of life hath made us free: the consequence is, that we walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit-that we mind the things of the Spirit-mortify the deeds of the body—are the sons of God-cry Abba, Father: now this is to walk according to our own mind acted on by reason; and to cry Abba, Father, proceeds from a filial duty and reverence this we owe to the Spirit; for before, though our minds consented to his laws, we were still sinners, and conscience kept us back from our Father: but now, like children, we run to his embrace with words of affection: and thus (says the Apostle) the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.

In the last place it is considered, what the result of this evidence is, and with what certainty we may know that we are children of God. First, it must be observed, that these two evidences strengthen

each other, and must both meet to give us the assurance we expect: we must have the evidence of our own spirit that we love and approve God's laws, and that of the Spirit of God working in us by obedience. Two ways of judging ourselves; inward and outward signs of grace: inward purity and love, with acts of obedience and conformity thereto; hence it appears that the evidence of the Spirit is not any secret inspiration, or any assurance conveyed to the mind, but the evidence of works, such as by the Spirit we perform: hence also, it appears that some go too far on the other side, by denying that any man may know himself to be in a state of grace: for all the children of God are in that state; and the evidence of the Spirit of God and our own spirit may make us certain, when they concur, that we are the children of God: if our hearts condemn us not, then have we confidence towards God. But lastly, this certainty does not extend to future and final salvation; for to be in a state of grace, is to be an heir of salvation; but an heir may be defeated, if by any after-act he incapacitate himself to inherit: our certainty reaches to our present condition, which is enough to keep our minds easy: other certainty than this might make us remiss: this may encourage us to run with patience the race that is set before us.

DISCOURSE IX.

JOHN, CHAP. XX. VERSES 30, 31.

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

THIS account given by St. John to prevent the suspicions which some might entertain of their preachers, when they found the great. evidences insisted on by them not mentioned by him, who, as the latest Evangelist, might be supposed to be the most accurate. But why, speaking of the miracles of Jesus, does he notice only that they were done in the presence of the disciples? whereas they were done in the most open and public manner; by which much credibility is added to them, as the Apostle well knew. The reason of this is, that it was not to St. John's purpose on their publicity: he is speaking of the authoritative promulgation of the gospel, and this led him no further than to observe that its publishers were eye-witnesses of what they attested, and therefore unexceptionable witnesses. Reason also assigned in the text, which moved St. John to publish his gospel, and which extends to all the other writings of the New Testament. The gospels were published to be a standing evidence to all ages of God's purpose to redeem the world by his Son, who might die for our sins, and rise again for our justification: and it was absolutely necessary to convey this knowlege to the world by a proper authority impossible to obey any law before we know what the law is this equally

:

applicable to revelation; and an insufficient promulgation is no promulgation all the necessary qualifications to constitute a proper witness to revelation need not be stated: sufficient to observe that no man is naturally qualified for it, because all natural qualifications may be counterfeited. Things in common life are readily believed on the report of honest men, but the moral probability of such things goes far in rendering them credible: it requires another kind of evidence to make the mind submit to the belief of things out of the course of nature: hence men must be extraordinarily qualified to promulgate a revelation we rely not, in such case, merely on their moral honesty, but on their authority proved by miracles, and on their integrity established by what they did and suffered in the cause. But, it may be asked, how shall we distinguish between the many and various pretences to revelation? is it not the more sure way to take up with natural religion, which is every where the same, and in which there is no danger of our being misled by imposture! To form a true judgment on this case it is necessary to state the question rightly on the footing of this objection. First then, the question must relate to revelation considered only as the rule and measure of religion it is absurd to bring instances of any revelations which do not pretend to this property, and were never pretended to be given as a rule of religion, such as the oracles recorded in the Greek and Roman histories, or even the particular messages which God sent by different prophets to the Jews: for these revelations, being confined to particular occasions, have no relation to our inquiry concerning a rule of religion: this in great measure overthrows the truth of the fact on which the objection is built for though in the heathen world there were sundry pretences to revelation, yet not any one was set up as a common standard for the religion of mankind: that none claimed such privilege, is evident from the answer of the oracle to the inquiry, which religion was best? This was, that every man should worship according to the custom of the country where he was so that all religions were esteemed equally good, and the most that each pretended to was a local authority.

:

But it may be said, that though these religions do not oblige us; yet if any of them were true, they effectually overthrow all others; for God cannot contradict himself; and on this ground these several pretences come within our inquiry. This reasoning may be good; but then it goes effectually to exclude all these pretences; for the voice of nature is the voice of God, and therefore cannot be contradicted by God: no revelation therefore can be considered which contradicts any one plain principle of natural religion; and there is not one form of those alluded to, that does not split on this rock but farther, which of them all so much as pretends to the essentials necessary to constitute a law, human or divine? Take the instance of Rome: what was Numa? a king, and therefore submitted to in religious innovations: but what mark of a divine commission can be produced? Still it may be urged, that the many pretences to inspiration which have been admitted, are so many instances of the inability of men to distinguish between true and false in the present case: how can we trust our judgment, when so many,

who thought they acted rationally, have been mistaken! Why, then, should we expose ourselves to almost certain error by following the same steps? Whatever force there is in this argument, it must recoil on natural religion; on many points of which men in all ages have grossly and universally erred: what security have we that we shall not commit the same mistakes? Even the errors of the heathen are chargeable on this blindness and ignorance of nature; had she done her part, men could not have been imposed on by such gross superstitions.

What is it now that discovers to us these impostures, which were not seen before? What, but that true sense of reason and nature which is newly kindled and lighted up in the mind by the gospel? the want of which darkened the old world: it is therefore absurd to suppose that we are in the same danger of being deceived by pretended revelations for ask any one, who makes this objection, if he thinks one of the heathen forms of worship could be imposed on himself.

From these pretences, then, let us turn to the true revelations of the same period, and see how far they relate to the present case: those given to particular men on particular occasions are of course omitted the law of Moses considered: this must be viewed on different principles by the Jews and by us: to them it was given and declared; they are under its obligations; and they are concerned to inquire, not only about the truth of a subsequent revelation, but whether it abrogates their law, or is to subsist with it; as also whether their law has precluded them from receiving any farther revelations. With us the question is, how we are concerned with the law; for it is plain that no revelation can oblige those to whom it is not addressed: and in the very promulgation of the law of Moses we find it confined to the people of Israel-Hear, O Israel: and this was known to be the case under the law: Deut. iv. 8. Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20. The law of Moses then has no claim to our obedience, farther than the moral part of it, when understood, will oblige every rational being: this however is not the obligation we are now considering. But the law affords to us abundant evidence

for the truth of the gospel.

But what alteration happened after the coming of Christ to unsettle our judgments in this important matter? Many instances of pretenders to revelations in history; but all vanished and were forgotten the want of general promulgation shows that God had no hand in them, and therefore absurd to instance them.

So the case stood, and the gospel had no competitor till the successful impostor Mahomet arose he pretended a commission to all the world, found means to publish his pretences, and asserted his authority on the strength of revelation. With respect to this instance, it is not very likely to bias our choice. Go to natural religion lay before her Mahomet and his disciples arrayed in armor and blood, Show them to her in their retirement, the slaves of lust, &c., which they justify by a divine commission-then show her the blessed Jesus, humble, and meek, and doing good to all men; injured, but

&c.

not provoked; and praying for his very enemies in the agony of death when she has viewed both, ask, which is the prophet of God? But we have already had her answer from the lips of the centurion at the cross- -Truly this man was the Son of God.

DISCOURSE X.

ACTS, CHAP. II. VERSE 22.

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

THE great evidence of Christianity lies in the miracles done to confirm the authority and commission of Jesus. This the only reasonable evidence of his coming from God; see John xv. 24.: without this undeniable proof, men would have been acquitted for not believing him; see John x. 37. Christ refers the messengers, whom John sent, to the works which he did.

The truth of Christianity, therefore, resting on miracles, it is shown

I. Wherein the true force of this argument from miracles consists, and what it is they prove.

II. What sort of works are to be admitted for miracles, in proving the truth of any religion.

First: Miracles are not intended to prove the being of a God, nor the doctrines of morality; inasmuch as natural religion has for its evidence the works of nature; and in the most degenerate times God did not leave himself without witness, &c. No revelation can bring greater works to prove its authority, than those by which the clear dictates of natural religion are proved; nor is there any other distinction between miracles and the works of nature than this, that the latter are works of great power constantly produced, the former are such wrought in an unusual way. Hence, no revelation can contradict or make void any clear dictate of natural religion; and therefore the principles of natural religion must be supposed from the foundation of revealed, as in Heb. ii. 6.

But to ascertain the use of miracles we must consider when and why they were introduced. In early times we meet with none; for there was no occasion for them while men preserved a right notion of God; were acquainted, as it were, with him; and knew his voice when he spoke. But when idolatry prevailed, and every nation had its deity, to whom it gave the name of god, then it was necessary, for the preservation of true religion, to distinguish between the true God and pretended ones. Then God thought proper to show his superiority over the heathen deities, and to assume a character of distinction by his mighty works. The first miracles of which we