2

been fatisfactory. For nothing else could
have prepared the minds of men for the
eafy reception of the fubfequent ones.
Thus the credulity of Chriftians after the
age of the Apostles, and the many pre-
tended miracles of a later period, which
were received without fufficient examina-
tion, prove
that the minds of men had been
predifpofed for their eafy reception; and
this could not have been done without fa-
tisfactory evidence of preceding miracles of
a fimilar nature.

In this view the ready reception of Ma-
hometanism itself proves that the minds of
men in that part of the world had been
prepared for it, by having had satisfactory
evidence of fome preceding revelations.
Otherwise they would have rejected his
pretenfions, as most prepofterous and ab-
furd. The credulity of mankind with re-
spect to him, and other impoftors, Chrif-
tians or others, is no proof of the truth of
their pretenfions, but a ftrong prefump-
tion that those of fome others, who had
preceded them, had been better founded.
In order, therefore, to examine the foun-

dation of any fyftem of religion, we should attend principally to the original miracles, from which the credibility of all those that followed was derived, and in this view thofe of Mofes have the preference of thofe of Chrift; fince the miracles of Chrift must have appeared more credible in proportion to the credibility of those of a fimilar preceding difpenfation, which he himself received. For a Jew, who, as fuch, believed the divine miffion of Mofes, would much more easily admit that of Chrift, than a heathen, who had no previous faith in the divine miffion of any perfon whatever. And for this reason, no doubt, it was provided, in the course of Divine Providence, that the Christian religion fhould be promulgated by means of a series of miracles wholly unaided by those by which the Jewish religion was establifhed, and more open to the examination. of the whole world, which it refpected. And, as I propofe to fhew in fome future Difcourfe, the miracles of Chrift, being exhibited in a more inquifitive age, and having been subjected to a peculiarly rigorous

teft, which would enfure it the examination of both friends and enemies, Christianity has advantages with refpect to its credibility peculiar to itself, and even superior, in some respects, to that of the miracles of Mofes. Let us, however, give the closest attention to both, whether we confider them as connected with each other, or not.

I cannot proceed any farther without noticing the extreme abfurdity of maintaining what fome have done, viz. that the miracles of Chrift may be admitted, and those of Mofes rejected, as if Judaism and Christianity had no neceffary connection; whereas they are, in fact, parts of the fame scheme, and imply the truth of each other; or, though the former may not diftinctly point to the latter, the latter is evidently built upon the former.

Chrift and the Apostles were Jews, and entertained no doubt whatever of the truth of the religion in which they were educated. And can it be fuppofed that they fhould have a divine miffion themfelves, and at the fame time be believers in what was a mere impofture, and imagine that

what they received from God was built upon that impofture? Such an alliance between truth and falfhood is abfolutely incredible. Those who have entertained this strange idea must have given much lefs attention to the evidence of the divine miffion of Mofes than to that of those miracles which prove that of Chrift's, or they would not have thought fo meanly of it.

If Chriftianity has advantages peculiar to itself, with refpect to the evidence of its truth, Judaism has others peculiar to itself, and no less striking, especially those of an internal nature. For if we confider the state of the world in the time of Mofes, it muft appear in the highest degree incredible, that he fhould have attained ideas concerning God, and a Providence, fo infinitely fuperior to thofe that were to be found in any of the neighbouring nations, even the most learned and polifhed. Where could he have learned the truly fublime and rational idea of one God, and the purity of his worship, when all other nations. were addicted to idolatry, and the most K 2 horrid

horrid vices in the worship of their several deities? How came the Jewish religion to have nothing in it of omens, auguries, charms, and numberlefs fuch fuperftitious obfervances as thofe of which the whole of the religion of the Heathens (not excepting that of the Greeks and Romans) confifted? How came the Jewish religion to come in aid of the pureft morality, when that of all their neighbours encouraged alike the groffeft fenfuality and cruelty? Among them we find the most shocking indecencies committed in the very temples, and among all of them we find human facrifices. And thefe were things of which the Jewish lawgiver expreffed the greatest abhorrence; and in all other refpects the Jews were certainly not more enlightened, or more civilized, than their neighbours. This great difference cannot be accounted for but by fuppofing that the Jews were taught of God, while other nations had been left to their vain imaginations; fancying that their affairs were fubject to the influence of the fun, moon, and stars, and other imaginary caufes of good and evil,

and