mise? Should we admit that this promise was confined to his immediate disciples, such only as were conversant with him here on earth; and should we suppose that both Mark and Luke were not of that number; (though the contrary be asserted by some of the ancients;) yet, since they wrote their Gospels from the preachings of the apostles Peter and Paul, and both were approved by the apostle John, we are very secure they contain nothing but what is true.

The author indeed in some parts of his work boldly asserts, that there was a wide difference between the doctrine taught by St. Paul and that taught by the other apostles; but the difference assigned by him is entirely the fiction of his own fruitful brain, without any the least foundation either in scripture or history. He acknowledges that when St. Paul went up to Jerusalem by revelation, and communicated to the apostles there the gospel he had preached to the Gentiles, they approved it, and gave him the right hand of fellowship; yet affirms, in express contradiction to history f and this apostle's own writings, that afterwards he preached against the decree of the council at Jerusalem, and would not have the Gentile converts to comply with it". That the apostle Peter approved the doctrine taught by St. Paul, is sufficiently evident from the commendation he gives of his Epistles, as you may see, 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16. Even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speak

с

Epiphan. et Dial. contra Marcion. quoted in Basnage, Annal. Vid. Marc. et Luc. in Ind.

d Moral Phil. p. 74-80. 363. 364.

e Ibid. p. 362. Mor. Phil. p. 79. 363.

ing in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Although the apostle Peter was guilty of dissimulation at Antiochi through fear of the Jews which came down from Jerusalem, this is no evidence that he did not approve of the apostle Paul's doctrine; on the contrary, his former practice sufficiently demonstrates that he did approve it; and indeed it was no other than what himself had publicly defended before the Christians at Jerusalem, when he was accused by them of going in to men uncircumcised, and eating with them. This indeed fully proves that the apostles were not impeccable; nor did our Saviour promise that they should be. The servants of God have sometimes failed even in those graces for the exercise of which they have been most eminent. Job betrayed impatience: and Peter, notwithstanding his natural courage and undaunted spirit, and his great zeal, boldness, and forwardness to profess Christ, twice fell through mere cowardice : he denied his Master, and dissembled with the Jewish Christians at Antioch. Our Saviour did not promise that his disciples should not fall into sin, but that in teaching his doctrine he would lead them into all truth. And accordingly in this very point Peter boldly maintained and defended the truth against the Jerusalem Christians, who accused him for what he had done at Cæsarea1.

I shall add a brief and plain answer to each of the assertions I have quoted from this author, and

k Acts xi. 31.

1 Ver. 17.

i Gal. ii. 11, &c.

conclude this discourse. He says, "that false pro

66

phets, and the most wicked seducers, might and "did work miracles, which they could not have "done, had miracles been an evidence or proof of "truth and sound doctrine." In answer to this, I would ask, of what sort were the miracles wrought by false prophets and seducers? Were they for the manifest benefit of mankind, or were they prejudicial? Were they not always to be distinguished from those wrought by true prophets? It is certain there is come down to us but a very slender account of any particular miracles wrought by false prophets and seducers. If the Egyptian magicians be reckoned of that number, how few things were they able to perform! and those rather noxious than of any advantage. They turned rods into serpents, water into blood, and produced frogs, but could proceed no further. When the dust of the land became lice, they acknowledged this was the finger of God. And when the ashes of the furnace were sprinkled up towards heaven, and became a boil, breaking forth with blains, the magicians were no longer able to stand before Moses, because the boil was upon them as well as the other Egyptians. And although they produced frogs, we find not that they could remove them, any more than any other of the plagues inflicted by Moses m. We read that Simon Magus had of a long time bewitched the Samaritans with his sorceries. There is no account of any particular wonder wrought by him; but, in the general, that he had by his practices so worked himself into the esteem of the people, that they looked upon him as

m Exod. viii. 8.

the great power of God. Nevertheless, no sooner did Philip the deacon appear in Samaria, and perform miracles of real and acknowledged benefit to mankind, than Simon is forsaken, is equally astonished with the rest of the people, and professes himself a convert. Now whatever were the signs and miracles wrought by false prophets and seducers, if they were clearly distinguishable from those performed by true prophets, the latter might be a proof of the truth of doctrines taught, when the former were not.

66

But, says the same author, "the power of working miracles has no connection with the truth of "doctrines taught by such miracle-workers." That it has no physical connection is readily granted; but that it may have a moral one is without difficulty proved, so that a Providence be allowed. Moses went to the Israelites, and told them, that the God of their fathers had appeared to him, and would deliver them from that heavy bondage they groaned under. And although at first he shewed few other signs than what Pharaoh's magicians also performed, yet afterwards he inflicted a great variety of plagues on the Egyptians, of which the Israelites, who dwelt among them, felt nothing. Now when they saw their enemies thus annoyed, while at the same time themselves were free, was not this sufficient to convince them that God had really appeared to him, and sent him to be their deliverer, and that it was the will of God they should put themselves under his conduct? And were they not abundantly justified herein, when by killing the passover, according to his direction, their firstborn were saved alive, though all the firstborn of the Egyptians were slain?

Could any reasonable man think that God would bring these plagues upon the Egyptians at the word of Moses, and at the same time secure the Israelites from them, unless he designed their deliverance, and employed Moses to that end? When Korah, Dathan, and Abiram rebelled against Moses in the wilderness, was not the immediate miraculous punishment of these men, together with all who adhered to them, a sufficient indication of the mind of God? Would he have caused the earth to open her mouth and swallow them alive, would he have sent forth fire from his presence, and have consumed them, had they not knowingly and wilfully transgressed his will?

66

66

He further says, "Whatever certainty God may convey to a man's mind by inspiration, or imme"diate revelation, the knowledge of any such truth "can go no further upon divine authority. He "could not convince any other man not thus in"spired that he had any such revelation from God. But whoever should receive it from him must "take his own word for it, and depend properly upon his authority, and not upon the authority of "God; unless he could make it appear that he was "both infallible and impeccable in the case, and that "he could neither be deceived himself nor deceive "others; and this is so much the prerogative of "God alone, that I doubt it will never be proved "of any other." Moses comes to the Israelites, and tells them God had appeared to him, and would deliver them. If they believed him upon his bare asserting this, it is very certain they depended on his authority, and so far it was a human faith only. But when it pleased God afterwards to afflict the