Education for Life. George Turnbull

change. And hardly can a talk so difficult, be performed by a teacher with no more than ordinary skill or authority.

      Such was the condition of mankind in general, of the Jews particularly,

      [print edition page 107]

      when our divine Reformer appeared in the world. And even his extraordinary, marvellous, works, scarcely were sufficient to create attention to the moral doctrines and precepts he taught; which however are evidently in themselves of the most excellent kind: in every respect wholsome, true, just, perfect. He did not work his miracles to prove the moral fitness; the reasonableness and excellency of these; these prove themselves sufficiently: whoever will but attend to them must <7> necessarily discover their natural, immutable, eternal truth, and fitness.

      SECTION III

      Doctrines that can be demonstrated to be worthy of GOD and the divine perfections; and their opposites, or contraries, inconsistent with our natural and just conceptions of GOD and his moral qualities, are necessarily true. Thus, for instance, could it be proved that the immortality of human souls is worthy of GOD; and their mortality inconsistent with the true idea of GOD and the divine perfections; it would follow necessarily, that our souls are immortal; and no works, of whatever kind, could prove that they are mortal. Nor would there be upon that supposition, any need of works to shew that they are immortal. All that any works could do in that case would be, to excite attention to the necessary connexion of that doctrine, with the true notion of GOD and his moral attributes.

      The argument holds equally good with regard to the reunion of our souls with bodies, or any other doctrine; supposing that the doctrine could be proved, by necessary consequences, to be worthy of GOD, and its contrary utterly repugnant to the divine nature and perfections. But however probable and likely these doctrines, of immortality and the reunion of our souls with bodies, may be in themselves, upon several considerations; yet hardly will any one say, that their truth is demonstrable. How these therefore may be proved to be true by works, is to be enquired. <8>

      SECTION IV

      But it must also be observed, before we go further; that no works of whatever kind, however surprising or extraordinary, can prove reasonings to be

      [print edition page 108]

      just and conclusive which are evidently false; and solid, accurate reasonings stand firmly upon their own bottom; there is no need of any works to prove that they are so. There are indeed certain reasonings from facts or works; as from experiments, for instance, in physical philosophy. But in that case the facts, works, or experiments are the principles; the premisses, as the schools speak, from which the conclusions are inferred. And therefore with regard to such reasonings, the works may be said to prove the conclusion. But any other kind of reasoning which is offered as compleat 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