in itself, distinctly from the works that are produced by the teacher, or in which the conclusion is deduced, not from the works but other principles, must not be judged by the works, but by comparing the conclusion with the principles from which it is drawn, examining first the truth of the principles, and next the connexion betwixt these and the conclusion inferred from them. In short, it is only when the works are the principles, the foundation, upon which the doctrine is built, that works can be taken into the consideration, when the question is about the justness of a reasoning or conclusion. <9>
Thus when our SAVIOUR reasons with the Jewish doctors concerning the Resurrection, for instance, from this argument that GOD calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and that GOD is not the God of the dead but of the living:* here is a conclusion drawn from a certain topic, which his works can neither prove to follow, nor not to follow. This and such like reasonings must be judged of by themselves without any regard to his works.†
And now, my friend, you will understand, why t’other day, when I had not leisure to explain my self fully, I said, that in proving the truth of the Christian Religion, “it was necessary to distinguish betwixt the reasonings of our SAVIOUR and his apostles; and their pure simple, positive, doctrines,
[print edition page 109]
for the proof of which miracles were wrought.”* Nothing can be more out of the way, than to say in the general, all the reasonings of our SAVIOUR and his apostles must be good, and all his fables and allegories must be perfectly just and well chosen, because he wrought such and such miracles. The reasonings and the parables sufficiently justify and prove themselves.† And the miracles only can be compared with these simple positive assertions, or doctrines, to prove the truth of which they were wrought; and which can be inferred from the <10> works, as any other conclusion from its principles.
What should we think of a Mathematician, who pretended to give demonstrations of his propositions; and after all argued thus; That his demonstrations must be just, because he could perform certain extraordinary feats in chymistry or medicine: Or of a moral philosopher, that appealed to such like marvellous productions to prove his moral scheme firmly built, every conclusion just, and the whole system well connected. Whatever was thought of the works to be sure, we would judge of the pretended reasonings and demonstrations by themselves, without regard to the works.
“One general use however, of the works of our SAVIOUR, with regard to the whole of his lessons and instructions, is obvious from what has been said. They serve to shew he was a teacher that deserved to be noticed; they were fit to rouse and excite his hearers to give due attention to what he taught.” <11>
[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
